Surveying the Attitudes of Physicists Concerning Foundational Issues of Quantum MechanicsThe abstract page suggests that the authors are Sujeevan Sivasundaram and Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen. I reveal Sujeevan Sivasundaramajarabalasubramaniankoothrappali's hollo also long hence permit us telephone phone him SS instead.
SS is an earring-enhanced Indian educatee inward Kingdom of Denmark as well as Nielsen is his adviser. Well, aside from the title, the listing of the authors is the inaugural of all large deception of the paper. In the acknowledgements, nosotros read:
First of all a large "thank you" is inward house to my supervisor Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen. I know I am non the easiest somebody to operate with, because of my erratic operate method as well as lack of organization, but yous receive got had the right feel of when to force as well as when to give me space. This was, as well as is, real much appreciated as well as I promise that is non lost on you.OK, hence SS wrote the newspaper himself as well as he only thanks Nielsen. Nielsen shouldn't receive got been included inward the writer listing because it's non fifty-fifty clear whether he agrees amongst anything that SS writes.
SS spammed the mailboxes of 1234 (mostly Danish) physicists at 8 universities. Out of these 1234 physicists, 122232 sent an answer. Well, he got 150 answers but i of them was formatted as an examine as well as non as uncomplicated picks of the options that SS has prepared. Because SS didn't desire to allow the respondents to think also much, this reply was eliminated.
The questions were real similar to previous polls of this kind. SS asked nigh diverse questions that are dearest past times his immature homo critics of quantum mechanics. Sometimes, some of import widespread answers were missing. In most cases, some answers were equivalent to each other or to tell the least, several options were possible. In many cases, i could fence that the questions themselves don't belong to physics – alone to pop culture.
As far as I tin flame see, a bulk of the physicists picked i of the reasonable answers to every query that SS has asked. SS doesn't come across it inward this way. So he repeatedly says that the Danish physicists are generally uninformed troglodytes. What he misses is that it is him as well as non the Danish physicists who is a brainwashed arrogant moron, a third-world troll who hasn't ever written whatever newspaper on the arXiv or achieved anything inward his life as well as who doesn't sympathize modern physics but who wants to house himself to a higher house the mass of physicists inward a province that is hence tightly associated amongst quantum mechanics – as well as who wants to "grade" physicists who know much to a greater extent than than he does, inward average.
I volition utter over this indicate inward detail.
OK, let's start. The inaugural of all judgement of the abstract says:
Even though quantum mechanics has existed for almost 100 years, questions concerning the foundation as well as interpretation of the theory soundless remain.Not really. The foundations of quantum mechanics were fully built inward the 1920s, generally inward 1925 or at most 1926, as well as past times 1930, all the universal rules of the theory took their nowadays form. The foundations are clearly the most essential component subdivision of the theory. What is oft dismissed as an "interpretation" – fifty-fifty past times SS – is the key component subdivision of the theory. The rules marginalized as the Copenhagen interpretation are quantum mechanics. If yous subtract all these rules, all this "interpretation", yous volition hold upward left amongst no physical theory whatsoever. At most, yous volition hold upward left amongst some mathematics – but pure mathematics tin flame tell nothing nigh the Blue Planet around us or our perceptions.
OK, it doesn't brand feel to analyze every unmarried judgement written past times SS. He is clearly only some other moron brainwashed past times the anti-quantum pop scientific discipline rubbish which is why basically every unmarried sentence he writes is seriously wrong. Instead, let's utter over the private questions as well as alone advert SS' fundamental wrongness when it affects particular questions.
Randomness
The participants were asked nigh the status of randomness inward quantum mechanics. 67% said that it was fundamental inward Nature, 18% said that it cannot hold upward removed from "any" physical theory. Up to the give-and-take "any", these answers are basically the same. Randomness (or at to the lowest degree randomness inward the evolution) is evidently absent inward "some" physical theories, however. 12%+4% answered that randomness is alone apparent; or in that place is hidden determinism. As I mentioned at the beginning, in that place is a large redundancy here. The upper ii options are equivalent to i another, as well as when stripped of little mistakes, the bottom ii options are equivalent to i another, too.
You may come across that aside from the foreign give-and-take "any", some 85% gave the right reply as well as 15% gave a wrong answer. SS mentioned how these answers are correlated amongst "favorite interpretations" of the physicists but he avoided judgments here.
Properties prior to measurements
Do objects receive got properties prior to the measurement? 47% basically correctly answered "No". It's a fundamental regulation of quantum mechanics that yous may alone assign properties inward the classical feel i time they are truly measured. However, those 27% who answered "Yes inward some cases" are inward regulation also right – or possibly "more right" than the inaugural of all grouping – because when the province vector is an eigenstate of \(L\), as well as hence the holding \(L\) has a sure value already earlier the measurement.
Again, nosotros receive got a majority, 74%, giving a right answer. Additional 15% are "undecided" which may hold upward said to hold upward an acceptable mental attitude of an open-minded physicist, too. Only 11% said that properties "exist earlier the criterion inward all cases" which is a profoundly wrong answer. But given the amount of confusion that is spread nigh these matters, 11% is pleasantly depression for a strictly wrong answer. And it is rather possible that most of the participants who gave wrong answers are confused students similar to SS himself.
Position earlier measurement
The 3rd query was a refined version of the previous one. Where is the electron inward an atom earlier yous reveal its position? 49% said correctly that it was meaningless, 15% said that it's impossible to know – again, these answers are basically the same. 10% said to a greater extent than fuzzily that it's impossible to know amongst the electrical flow understanding. But fifty-fifty the remaining 26% who said "everywhere inward the orbital" are right inward some sense. They're right if "everywhere" agency "one indicate OR some other indicate OR some other indicate inward the orbital" etc.: the particle is known to hold upward somewhere. Most of the people picked the most right ii answers but in that place weren't whatever decidedly wrong answers, hence the physicists couldn't receive got picked them.
Macroscopic superpositions
Are Schrödinger-cat-like superpositions possible e.g. for dissimilar values of magnetic fluxes? 55% said correctly that they're possible, 27% said that they volition hold upward realized experimentally (it's truthful – the alone query is "how large" the objects prepared inward similar superpositions locomote past times away past times the yr X or Y). Now, the people favoring the 2d reply are unremarkably a subset of the inaugural of all group. The basically wrong answers are "in regulation impossible", 10%, as well as peculiarly "impossible due to collapse theory", 8%.
What is called "(spontaneous) collapse theories" is rubbish, of course, but it's only 8% of the people who paid some lip service to those. The additional 10% could receive got been wrong but some of them could receive got also chosen this reply because "states amongst dissimilar values of the magnetic flux" may belong to dissimilar superselection sectors. And inward such cases, it's misguided to build superpositions of states amongst dissimilar sectors. I suspect that SS doesn't fifty-fifty know what a superselection sector is hence the organizer of the poll isn't aware of the problems (even real serious problems) amongst his questions as well as answers.
Observer
What is an observer? 37% tell that it's a complex physical system. Well, this reply misses the indicate but the judgement is true. An observer is a complex physical scheme – if observed past times some other observer. So I wouldn't tell that this reply is quite "wrong". It only avoids the real argue why observers had to hold upward introduced. 31% correctly answered that the observer plays a fundamental purpose inward the application of the formalism but is non otherwise physically distinguished. Well, the reply is almost OK except that "physically" should hold upward "objectively". An observer is physically distinguished from his ain viewpoint. But he is non distinguished from whatever objective, observer-independent, perspective.
22% said that he plays a distinguished physical role. It's also basically correct. Physics must hold upward considered from the viewpoint of an observer as well as i time yous produce so, the observer evidently plays a distinguished physical role.
Again, as yous tin flame see, a bulk – 90% – chose right answers. Only 10% picked a wrong reply that an observer "should play no fundamental purpose whatsoever". This was possible inward classical physics but there's no way to occupation concern human relationship for the quantum phenomena without the notion as well as special purpose of an observer.
Measurement problem
The 6th query is i inward which SS couldn't resist as well as promoted his (wrong) opinions. 32% chose to remain "agnostic" nigh the criterion problem. This may hateful diverse things, including the fact that no i has ever been able to explicate to them what the work is supposed to be. So I think that these 32% may real good hold upward informed, reasonable people.
Now, 17% give the right reply that it is a pseudoproblem. 29% reply that it is solved past times decoherence. I think it's an OK answer, too. In the 1920s, people could receive got been uncertain nigh the weather that a physical scheme needs to hold upward on the quantum side of the Heisenberg cut. All these quantitative questions were settled amongst the agreement of decoherence hence decoherence has given us tools to calculate the things that could receive got been claimed to hold upward incalculable inward exercise – although they were evidently ever calculable inward regulation – inward the 1920s.
16% answered that the criterion work is answered inward some other way. Again, it's a sensible answer. Given the fact that the criterion work is truly a pseudoproblem, i may create upward one's hear that if the work is discussed, anyway, it agency something else. And this something else is solved inward some other way. The reply "solved inward some other way" is real vague as well as the details believed past times the player may hold upward right or wrong, to a greater extent than or less sensible. I guide to believe that most of them had something sensible inward mind.
Only 6% gave a wrong answer, "it is a serious work threatening quatum [sic] mechanics". SS was looking at the real same answers as well as he wrote:
The results hither a real striking; the bulk of the participants are non familiar amongst the criterion problem. This gives an indication of what purpose foundations of quantum mechanics play inward the hear of physicists; non a important one.What? What the hell are yous talking about? An overwhelming majority, 94%, gave reasonable answers nigh the criterion problem. Even if nosotros class the people "who don't know the problem" as authors of wrong answers, we're soundless left amongst 62% who know the phrase as well as who gave sensible answers nigh its status. So why would yous tell that most of the participants are "strikingly unfamiliar" amongst it? This claim straight contradicts the data.
Bell's inequality
What is the lesson of it? That's the 7th question. 29% chose to tell "they don't know enough". I don't think that the percent is also high because Bell's inequality is not needed to produce physics of whatever tangible form. It's generally a component subdivision of the mass culture, non science. But the largest group, 37%, correctly tell that "hidden variables are impossible" as well as 7% correctly tell that unperformed experiments receive got no results. In total, that's 44% or nigh 2/3 of the non-agnostic people. Only 24%+3% chose "some nonlocality" or "action-at-a-distance" – which are equivalent, redundant answers i time again.
The physicists who picked this totally wrong reply – in that place is some nonlocality hither – cast a disturbingly large fraction, 27% of the physicists, but it's soundless a minority as well as 27% is much smaller than those 99% of the authors as well as readers of pop scientific discipline volume who receive got basically agreed on a consensus that includes nonlocality. And yes, I would bet that there's a high correlation betwixt beingness inward the grouping of the misguided 27% as well as beingness a newbie affected past times the pop press or books rather than proper science.
I would tell that fifty-fifty inward this question, a bulk of the participants receive got chosen i of the OK answers. SS writes a lot of rubbish instead:
The bulk understands the violations of Bell’s inequality as excluding the possibility of hidden variables, which is non true, it excludes the possibility of local hidden variables.Sorry but this departure is spurious. Nonlocal theories receive got been excluded since 1905 when Einstein found his special theory of relativity. So excluding local hidden variables as well as excluding hidden variables are the same thing – nonlocal hidden variables (and all other nonlocal theories) receive got been excluded for to a greater extent than than a century, decades earlier quantum mechanics was born.
If yous claim that it's "wrong" to reply that the theorem excludes hidden variables, it's only similar proverb that it's wrong to tell that the Morley-Michelson experiment excludes the aether wind. Maybe yous should tell that it alone excludes "the aether current of air without witches" because an alternative explanation of the zero termination is that the aether current of air is in that place but a witch from your hamlet prevented yous from seeing it. Great. But people had known that in that place were no witches. In the real same sense, people knew one-half a century earlier Bell's exercise that in that place was no nonlocality.
So nosotros don't demand to utter nigh this erstwhile insight again. It's right to tell that Bell's inequality rules out hidden variables. It's i of the arguments – a real specific i but sure non the inaugural of all i – that does so.
...which agency that two-thirds of the participants produce non receive got a proper noesis of Bell’s inequality.The results of the actual survey don't imply anything of the sort. Again, most people picked i of the "more right than wrong" answers from the listing of options that was offered to them as well as avoided the wrong answers.
Picking theories when none may hold upward ruled out
In the 8th question, 87% people sensibly said that simplicity was important, 86% reasonably said that consistency was important, 23% incorrectly said that the theory should hold upward ontic (i.e. depict an objective reality), 14% unjustifiably insisted on determinism, as well as 3% irrationally required chronology – the theory established inaugural of all should hold upward preferred.
Again, somewhat remarkably, the right adjectives acquire much to a greater extent than than 50% as well as the wrong adjectives acquire much less than 50%.
Need for an interpretation
65% said yes, nosotros demand it. 23% said no, alone predictions are needed. 8% said it was needed alone for teaching. 4% said no, it was nigh personal beliefs. One may imagine diverse things nether the "interpretation". If the Copenhagen rules of quantum mechanics are classified as an "interpretation", as well as hence indeed, nosotros demand the "interpretation". It's the real middle or beef of the theory. The "interpretation" is the theory.
If 10 bogus stories nigh "alternative interpretations" as well as hundreds of (mostly wrong but almost ever physically useless) pages of pop scientific discipline books is what yous imagine nether "interpretations", nosotros don't demand whatever of that. Many of the words concerning "interpretation" may also hold upward needed only when a somebody is learning as well as when he internalizes the insights, he may halt talking nigh all the stuff. But huge parts of remarks nigh "interpretations" are nigh personal beliefs. I wouldn't guide the 4% reply but it's conceivable that a sensible somebody could pick it.
At whatever rate, I think that none of the questions was "undeniably wrong" as well as the to a greater extent than clearly right ones got a bigger back upward than the less right ones. SS wrote:
There is a clear bulk who experience that interpretations are necessary since it helps us depict nature. This seems quite at odds amongst the fact that alone a 4th value an ontological theory.No, in that place is no tension hither at all. The right "interpretation" of quantum mechanics – the laid of right statements nigh what quantum mechanics truly is, means, as well as says – doesn't receive got to hold upward an "ontological (=classical) theory" as well as is not an "ontological (=classical) theory". It's you, SS, as well as similar cranks – as well as non the bulk of the Danish physicists – who are completely missing the indicate of the quantum revolution.
Defining Copenhagen
In the 10th question, people were asked what defines the "Copenhagen interpretation". 77% said "collapse upon measurement" which is a right answer. But hence is the 71% that it's complementarity of properties that may hold upward measured but non at the same time. 46% tell that what matters is indeterminism. It's a component subdivision of QM but it's a component subdivision of non-quantum theories, too. So I wouldn't tell that it's a defining holding of quantum mechanics (or, equivalently, the "Copenhagen interpretation"). And indeed, alone a minority picked this answer.
43% picked "correspondence principle" – a classical bound exists for \(n\to \infty\) etc. It's truthful but it's non plenty to define the pre-limit, quantum, theory. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 generally wrong reply as well as indeed, less than 50% picked it. 17% picked the utterly wrong choice "nonlocality", 10% comically said that "QM plant good but it's wrong anyway" as well as 9% remained agnostic. Once again, the to a greater extent than right an choice was, the higher percent of physicists has picked it as their preferred answer.
Defining many worlds
65% said that what matters is that in that place are many worlds – the most sensible reply given the hollo of this ill-defined ideology. 45% said that in that place is no moving ridge purpose collapse inward MWI. Well, this is a destination (a wishful thinking) or a precondition of MWI but there's truly no theory that would hold upward compatible amongst the results as well as agreed amongst this precondition hence it's a slightly wrong reply as well as indeed, the back upward is below 50%.
30% tell "determinism" – the development of the moving ridge purpose is completely governed past times the moving ridge equation. Well, first, Schrödinger's equation isn't a moving ridge equation inward whatever sense, non fifty-fifty approximately. The moving ridge equation has the 2d fourth dimension derivative piece Schrödinger's equation has the inaugural of all fourth dimension derivative. Schrödinger's equation is a generalization of the Wick-rotated heat/diffusion equation, non moving ridge equation. Second, the equation has no special human relationship to MWI. So indeed, this is a generally wrong answer. What MWI ideologues desire to assume is that the moving ridge purpose is a existent classical (objectively existing) laid of degrees of freedom. It's non but this wrong important of the moving ridge purpose changes goose egg nigh the dynamical laws that the moving ridge purpose obeys.
13% said that the observer is treated as a physical system. Again, this is i of the preconditions but there's no feasible theory that could eliminate the special purpose of an observer altogether as well as this precondition isn't plenty to define the MWI faith system, anyway. 12% said that MWI agency locality. Sorry, locality holds inward whatever relativistic theory, e.g. quantum land theory – amongst a right, Copenhagen or Copenhagen-style interpretation. It has goose egg to produce amongst MWI – except for the fact that similar the people who sympathize proper quantum mechanics, members of the MWI cult produce concur amongst the criticism of some other "alternative theories replacing quantum mechanics" that happily encompass nonlocality.
30% stayed agnostic.
Again, the to a greater extent than right answers got a bigger support.
Here a clear reply is given, which is that the head association amongst the many worlds interpretation is the postulate of many worlds. This, of course, is non surprising, since the existence of multiple worlds is expressed inward the interpretation’s real name. Physicists produce non seem familiar amongst other features of the interpretation, such as locality as well as the observer beingness treated as a quantum system.No, no ignorance of this form follows from the answers. Most physicists seem aware of the fact that locality has goose egg whatever to produce amongst the MWI. It's you, the Indian crackpot, who is ignorant nigh all these basic things such as the fact that locality has been known to handgrip inward Nature since 1905.
From the description of the many worlds interpretation, it is worth recalling that what was primal to Hugh Everett, who formulated the interpretation, was to solve the criterion problem, as well as he never used the give-and-take "worlds" inward his thesis. His focus was on rejecting the collapse postulate.But the query wasn't nigh Everett's thesis. It was nigh the "many worlds interpretation". This phrase didn't appear inward Everett's thesis (final version), either. It appeared inward an article past times DeWitt as well as hold upward sure that inward the same article, the many worlds were indeed primal to what these ideas are supposed to say. (Historically, the many worlds truly did appear inward Everett's draft itself – earlier the thesis was finalized – but they were largely eliminated nether the pressure level past times adviser Wheeler who pointed out that those comments were also evidently ludicrous. In a afterwards pop scientific discipline article, DeWitt alone resuscitated something that Everett had previously wanted to say, anyway.) So the reply picked past times the bulk was right as well as i time again, SS is total of šit when he suggests otherwise.
Defining Bohmism
Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 majority, 61%, chose to tell that they don't know the airplane pilot moving ridge theory plenty which I reveal reasonable because it's sure non amidst the elevation 1,000 insights that a physicist must know as well as it's non a foundation of actual physics toolkit that physicists demand for their work.
31% said that Bohmism has hidden variables inward damage of the actual positions as well as momenta. Reasonable, a bulk of those who weren't agnostic. 30% said "quantum potential" – that's also correct, that's what's calculated from the moving ridge purpose as well as helps to drive the hidden-variable particle positions. 19% said that Bohmism is classified past times determinism, initial weather are all what yous need. That's right amongst the disclaimer but Bohmism soundless doesn't explicate where the random outcomes come upward from – the precise initial province must hold upward randomly chosen for the concluding termination to hold upward random, too.
11% tell that Bohmism past times Definition derives Born's dominion which is truthful inward some real limited sense. If the initial \(|\psi|^2\) agrees amongst the probability distribution for the hidden-variable particle seat inward the initial state, it volition concur inward the concluding state, too. So the concluding state's Born's dominion may hold upward said to hold upward "derived" from the airplane pilot moving ridge theory inward some sense. I would soundless non guide this answer. One of the reasons is that on the contrary, the airplane pilot moving ridge theory is derived from the requirement that Born's dominion isn't destroyed past times the evolution. It's a status from which de Broglie derived the cast of the airplane pilot moving ridge theory, non a existent prediction of a theory that was found past times independent arguments.
3% chose a moving ridge purpose collapse. I don't think that Bohmism has anything to tell nigh the moving ridge purpose collapse hence I would concur it's the worst option. However, on the other hand, the airplane pilot waves proceed on spreading as well as contaminate the Universe. There's no "cleanup". So at the end, some collapse is needed, anyway, as well as the fact that the Bohmian theory tries to avoid it at all times is i of the hundreds of reasons why it's non a feasible theory.
Favorite interpretation
In the thirteenth question, they were picking their favorite "interpretation". 36% stayed agnostic.
However, the winner was overnice as well as clear this time: 39% picked "Copenhagen". This encouraging termination could partly boil downwardly to the patriotism – most of the participants were Danish. But every other "interpretation" alone got betwixt 0% as well as 6%.
This tin flame hold upward explained past times the hypothesis that most physicists are non familiar with, or occupied past times quantum interpretation, as well as either receive got no preference concerning interpretation or only guide the Copenhagen interpretation past times default.A dissimilar explanation is that the physicists are right as well as your dissatisfaction is due to your beingness total of šit, arrogant as well as brainwashed Indian crank amongst earrings.
The remaining iv questions are nigh the "top argue to dislike" Copenhagen, many worlds, as well as Bohmism; as well as how many times people receive got changed their preferred interpretation. I didn't reveal those also of import or sensible. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 feasible theory/interpretation evidently has no problems piece the wrong ones basically receive got all the problems that are ever mentioned, to i extent to another. Everyone who thinks that every "interpretation" is as greyness is a sloppy somebody incompatible amongst the abrupt thinking that is required inward physics. Physics as well as scientific discipline aren't nigh greyness colors. They're nigh theories' beingness right or wrong. Quantum mechanics is right piece all the would-be alternatives are wrong. You either sympathize this determination or yous don't. If yous don't, yous suck as a physicist. There is goose egg inward between.
SS quantifies some correlations. Many of those are sort of obvious to someone who understands physics – or physics plus sociology of physics. Most of the SS' surprise nigh the correlations is due to his misunderstanding.
Conclusions
Given the limited character of the questions as well as answers, omnipresent redundancies, absence of some of import answers or qualifications etc., the physicists who responded did as good as they could. In virtually all questions, the to a greater extent than right answers attracted visibly greater fractions of physicists than the wrong answers.
SS voiced his dissatisfaction but he failed to realize that his dissatisfaction is due to his beingness a pile of brainwashed as well as arrogant feces who has no clue nigh modern physics as well as should ameliorate exploit his chance to nigh his mouth. Sadly, we're living inward a civilization inward which the self-confidence of morons such as SS is beingness constantly elevated past times assorted deluded inkspillers, ideologues, as well as political activists.
Instead, what the naughty likes of SS demand is to hold upward brutally spanked. All 1234 participants receive got failed to perform this exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment