After 100 years of quantum mechanics, physicists still cannot reach a consensus on anything
July 1925 (a century ago) formed the physicist Werner Heisenberg Write a letter To his equally famous colleague Wolfgang Pauli. Heisenberg admitted in it that his “mechanic’s perception became more radical every day”, asking Pauli to promptly provide feedback on the attached manuscript he was considering was “complete…or burning.”
That’s Umdeutung (Reinterpretation) The paper lays the foundation for more empirically verifiable quantum mechanics. Therefore, scientists believe UmdeutungPublication date as the official birthday of quantum mechanics. To commemorate this 100th anniversary, nature Asked 1,101 physicists’ opinions on the most intensely debated issue in the field, suggesting that the field of quantum physics remains a mess, as in the past.
The survey, published today, shows that physicists rarely converge on their explanation of quantum mechanics and are often unsure of their answers. They tend to see the eyes at two points: the more intuitive physical explanation of mathematics in quantum mechanics is valuable (86%), and, perhaps ironically, quantum theory itself will eventually be replaced by a more complete theory (75%). A total of 1,582 physicists were contacted, of which 1,101 responded, resulting in a 7% response rate for the survey. Of the 1,101 people, more than 100 respondents gave other written answers to the survey’s questions.
The “textbook” method is still the highest, there is a warning
Participants were asked to name their preferred explanation of measurement problems, a long-standing puzzle in quantum theory about uncertainty in quantum states in superposition. There is no obvious majority from the given options. The leader in 36% is Copenhagen’s explanation, where the (very simple) quantum world is different from the classical world, and particles in quantum states only obtain properties when measured by observers in the classical realm.
It is worth noting that critics of Copenhagen’s explanation harshly refer to it as the “shut up and calculate” method. That’s because it often masks weed details for a more practical pursuit, which is really powerful for things like quantum computing. But more than half of the physicists who chose Copenhagen’s explanation admitted that they were not too confident in the answers, avoided follow-up questions and asked them to explain in detail.
Nevertheless, more than half of respondents (64%) showed several other more radical views of “healthy followers.” These include information-based approaches (17%), Many worlds (15%) and Bohm-de Broglie Pilot Wave Theory (7%). Meanwhile, 16% of respondents submitted written answers that either rejected all choices and thus claimed that we did not need any explanation or provided their personal best explanation of quantum mechanics.
So, like many other efforts in quantum mechanics, we just need to look at what (or more likely what is not).
Split results, ambiguous comments
Physicists who discuss the results with nature feel differently about whether there is a lack of consensus or not. For example, Elise Crull of City University of New York City told Nature that ambiguity suggests that “people are taking the explanation problem seriously.”
Experts in philosophical and physical cross-sections are more critical. Tim ModlinHe said philosophers of NYU physics told Gizmodo that investigating the classification of certain concepts is misleading and favoring contradictory answers, a difference that respondents don’t seem to be aware of. “I think this is a physicist’s thinking on fundamental issues in quantum theory and has not thought explicitly or formed a strong point of view,” commented Maudlin, a professor at my graduate school.
Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins, expressed similar concerns in an email to Gizmodo. He said there may be several factors behind this lack of consensus, but it is generally believed that “as long as we can calculate experimental predictions, it is obviously wrong.”
“If we think otherwise we know the final theory of physics and there are no excellent puzzles, that’s reasonable,” Carroll added. “But no one thinks that.”
“It’s embarrassing that we don’t have a story to tell people what reality is,” Carlton Caves participated in a survey by participating in a report from Nature.
However, the results of the investigation do seem to suggest general belief in THis importance is a solid theoretical basis, and almost half of the participants agree The physics department does not pay enough attention to the quantum foundation. On the other hand, 58% of participants answered that the experimental results would help inform which theory ended up being “one.”
Schrödinger’s consensus, a little bit
For better or worse, surveys represent a vivid, fast-growing field of quantum science, if you’ve been The following Our Reports,,,,, Really OK It’s really strange. Lack of explanation or consensus is not necessarily a bad science, but a future science. After all, all the complexities of quantum mechanics still exist One of the most experimentally verified theories In the history of science.
It is fascinating how these experts disagree so wildly in quantum mechanics, but still provide reliable evidence to support their views. Sometimes, there is no correct answer – just a different answer.
For your quantum enthusiasts, I highly recommend you check it out Complete report Explanation for the entire physicist segmentation. You can also find anonymous versions of the original survey, methods and all answers at the end of the report.
And if you do have a survey, or at least part of it, feel free to share your answers. Oh, let me know if you believe Heisenberg should burn Umdeutung after all.
