Surveying the Attitudes of Physicists Concerning Foundational Issues of Quantum Mechanics - by Joseph Silk 1989 - Article review

This document contains article review "Surveying the Attitudes of Physicists Concerning Foundational Issues of Quantum Mechanics" by Joseph Silk written in 1989
To order to read the article select: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.00676
To order to read the article select: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.00676v1.pdf

Contents

Reflection

Abstract

Even though quantum mechanics has existed for almost 100 years, questions concerning the foundation and interpretation of the theory still remain. These issues have gathered more attention in recent years, but does this mean that physicists are more aware of foundational issues concerning quantum mechanics?
What this means that many physicists did not understand certain issues of quantum mechanics but did not want to discuss this with fellow physicists. It is also possible that they had questions but did not want to ask these questions. Or more simple: there exists after 100 year, no clear description of what quantum mechanics is.
A survey was sent out to 1234 physicists affiliated to 8 different universities. 149 responded to the questions, which both concerned foundational issues related to quantum mechanics, specifically, as well as questions concerning interpretations of physical theories in general. The answers to the survey revealed that foundational concepts in quantum mechanics are still a topic that only a minority of physicists are familiar with, although a clear majority of physicists find that interpretations of physical theories are important. The various questions, as well as how the respondents answered, are presented. The survey intends to give an overview of what the opinion of the physics community, in general, is concerning issues related to quantum mechanics.
The problem is that the therminology of the questions is not clear, which implies that the answer are not clear.

1 Introduction

Though quantum mechanics is arguably the most successful theory in physics, its formalism does not lend itself easily to an interpretation, that would make it possible to envision the various processes described by the theory.
This sentence is not clear. It describes two opposite facts. That is a rather poor start.
This issue has plagued quantum mechanics since its conception, but the issue is very distinct from other issues which can plague physical theories.
This sentence has the same problem.
Some would even claim that the issue has been solved long ago, while others would refute the whole notion of it being an issue at all. This issue, or this non-issue if you like, confronts physics with the question of what is required of a physical theory?
This is an important issue: each concept used should have a clear and accepted definition. For example the concepts: physical theory and quantum mechanics.
Is it enough that its formalism is able to make correct predictions or does it need to give an explicable description of what is being described by the formalism?
Most important is that any formalism is clear.
These two options represent different ends of a spectrum but are at the same time not completely distinct.
This sentence is not clear, like most sentences in this document.

Page 2

A theory that gives correct predictions must surely describe some aspect of nature in some way, though it may not be mediated through human language or through pictures we can imagine.
Any theorie requires text and describes something. That description should be clear.
Once a subject that would doom a physicist’s career, should he engage in it, quantum foundations seem to have gained popularity as a research subject, and today there are a plethora of interpretations of quantum mechanics.
That implies that quantum mechanics is not clear. You need an example.
The interpretations in this context are in reality different theories that are designed to replicate the same results as standard quantum mechanics but solve some foundational issues such as the measurement problem for example.
The measurement problem requires its own description, definition and solution. The measurement problem is not a physical problem. Measurements are required if you want to make numerical predictions. To measure the behaviour of elementary particles is difficult and influences what is measured, introducing uncertainties
These different interpretations cannot be separated by experiments, since they are designed to give the same predictions. How should physicists then choose between the different interpretations?
An example is required to explain the meaning.
And is this a question that physics should concern itself with? The survey was carried out in relation to a master thesis project carried out at Aarhus University. The full thesis can be found here: http://css.au.dk/fileadmin/reposs/reposs039.pdf.
This sentence is not clear and demonstrates why quantum mechanics is badly understood.

2. Survey: Uncovering the Attitudes of Physicistst

The answers to such questions are not easily found, and may not even exist as pure answers, where one can distinguish right from wrong, but may only exist in the form of opinions. However, these opinions may shape how physics will and can move forward in the future. To uncover the current landscape of opinions and attitudes to these questions a survey was carried out, much inspired from that of Schlosshauer et al. in 2013 [1]. Many of the same questions were used, some were altered and some new questions were added. Unlike Schlosshauer et Al. the survey was not exclusively given to experts in quantum foundations but was given to all kinds of physicists from Aarhus University, Copenhagen University, Göttingen University, Heidelberg University, Oxford University, California Institute of Technology, National University Singapore and University College London. The choice of the universities was mostly arbitrary, though certain factors did influence the choice. One factor was their connection to Aarhus University since it was thought that more people would participate in the survey if it came from a university they knew well.
What is important in any survey is the purpose of the survey. Often the background is a state of chaos. That means you have many opinions about certain activities and those activities are badly understood and described.
Another factor was whether the university had a relation to the development of quantum mechanics, which would perhaps make people more inclined to answer from a sense of heritage.
Not clear
A last factor was simply a case of logistics; how easy or difficult it was to harvest the email addresses from the various universities’ websites. A personal link to the questionnaire was sent by email to 1234 physicists, who were either graduate students, Ph.D. students, Ph..D graduates, Professors or Lector Emeriti. Out of 1234, only 150 participated in the survey, corresponding to about 12% answering the survey. One of these participants did not answer the online survey but wrote an email with his opinions and answers2, so there are results from 149 of the participants.
Not clear.
-----
1. There are exceptions to this statement, such as the GRW-collapse theory, that can be refuted through experiments, which are presently not possible, but could be in the future.
The most important trajectory to understand physics and quantum mechanics is through experiments.
If those proposed experiments succeed you make progress in positief sense. If they experiments fail you also make progress. Fail means that the results are different as expected.
A challenging experiment is to jump over the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. To do that you have to try that in a small set of experiments making the experiment every time more realistic. In the least realistic experiments (most dangerous) you can use sand dunes. Maybe the results of these experiments are that a real experiment is impossible.
2. The participant chose other options than those given, it was therefore not possible to incorporate his

Page 3

Other surveys of this nature, besides Scholsshauer et Al., have been carried out with varied results [2] [3] [4]. The survey here has significantly more participants than any of those referred to, and since it is distributed worldwide, it should give a more representative view of the opinions of physicists.

The participants consist largely of Danes with about 44% of participants having Danish nationality.

3. The Questions and What Was Answered

Questions 1,2,5 and 17 were taken from Schlosshauer et al. and used unaltered in the questionnaire, while questions 4,6,7 and were also taken from Scholsshauer et al., but were altered slightly either in their formulation or the answer-options.

What is your opinion about the randomness of individual quantum events (such as the decay of a radioactive nuclei)?


The randomness is only apparent
There is a hidden determinism
The randomness cannot be removed from any physical theory
Randomness is a fundamental concept of nature
Figure 1: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 1
18 6 28 67% 50% 104 75% 100%
The first question is intended to investigate the specific opinions regarding the randomness found in quantum mechanics. The various answers correspond to how one would answer the question from the viewpoint of different interpretations. Thus, the first option "The randomness is only apparent" corresponds to the answer one would give from the viewpoint of the many worlds interpretation, since the universal wave function evolves in a deterministic (non-random) way through the wave equation, but every observer is embedded in the universe moving along different branches giving rise to an apparent randomness from the observer’s point of view. The second option corresponds to the answer one would give from the viewpoint of bohmian mechanics, where the observed randomness of quantum systems is only due to a lack of knowledge of the exact initial conditions.

Page

Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?


Yes in all cases
Yes in some cases
No
I am undecided
Figure 2: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 2
The second question pertains to the role of measurement in defining physical properties. This question has some ambiguity to it because it might not be well-defined, what is meant by the word "physical property".
The intention of the question was to ascertain the participants’ view of wave function collapse; is it a description of nature or our knowledge of a system? A more formal version of "Is the moon there when you are not looking?"

How would you respond to the question "Where exactly in the orbital of a hydrogen atom is the electron prior to a measurement?"

It is everywhere in its orbital It is not possible to know with our current understanding It is impossible to know The question is meaningless
Figure 3: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 3
The third question can be seen as a specific case of question 2, with the physical property being the position. <-- 3Allegedly Einstein posed this question in objection to the notion of collapse upon observation [5] -->

Page 5

Superpositions of macroscopically distinct states, e.g. a current loop in a superposition of two magnetic fluxes, are


In principle possible
Will eventually be realized experimentally
Are in principle impossible
Are impossible due to collapse theory
Figure 4: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 4
The fourth question concerns quantum effects in macroscopic objects.

In your opinion the observer


should play no fundamental role whatsoever
Plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism, but plays no distinguished physical role
Plays a distinguished physical role
is a complex quantum system 55%

Figure 5: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 5
The fifth question concerns the role the observer plays in nature. 5 79 38 15 11 100% 100% 57 15 47 34How do you understand the measurement problem? It is a pseudoproblem it is solved by decoherence It is solved/will be solved in some other way It is a severe difficulty threatening quatum mechanics I don't know the problem well enough to have formed an opinion 17% 16% 6% 29% 32% 0% 25%
Figure 6: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 6
26 44 25 9 50 50% 75% 100% The sixth question concerns the measurement problem. The measurement problem is often portrayed as "the" problem of the Copenhagen interpretations. The results here a very striking; the majority of the participants are not familiar with the measurement problem. This gives an indication of what role foundations of quantum mechanics play in the mind of physicists; not a significant one. What is the message of the observed violations of Bell's inequality? Hidden variables are impossible Some notion of nonlocality Unperformed measurements have no results Action-at-a-distance in the physical world I don't know the inequality well enough to have formed an opinion 37% 24% 7% 3% 29% 0% 25% 50% 75%
Figure 7: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 7
56 37 10 5 44 100% The seventh question concerns Bell’s inequality and its implication. Once again the results show that a significant part of the participants does not know of a concept and result pertaining to the foundations of quantum mechanics. The majority understands the violations of Bell’s inequality as excluding the possibility of hidden variables, which is not true, it excludes the possibility of local hidden variables. Furthermore, 29% of the 6participants do not know the inequality, which means that two-thirds of the participants do not have a proper knowledge of Bell’s inequality. If two physical theories give the same predictions, what properties would make you support one over the other? (you can check more than one box) Simplicity - simple over complex Determinism - deteministic over indeterministic Consistency - free of paradoxes Ontic - describes nature not just our knowledge of it Chronology - The theory that was established first 87% 14% 3% 86% 23% 0% 25% 50% 75%
Figure 8: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 8
100% 132 21 131 35 5

The eighth question concerns what makes a good physical theory, specifically what makes one theory superior to another? This question does not only pertain to quantum mechanics, but to physics in general. It was allowed that the participants could pick several options in this question. The answers of the participants showed that a clear majority values the properties; simplicity and consistency. It is worth noting that so few have chosen properties as determinism and especially ontology. The answers show a divergence from the properties of classical theories. Do phycisists need an interpretation of quantum mechanics? Yes, it helps us understand how nature behaves Yes, it is important for pedagogical reasons No, it is irrelevant as long as quantum mechanics provides us with correct predictions/results No, it is entirely based on personal beliefs 65% 8% 4% 23% 0% 25% 50%
Figure 9: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 9
97 12 34 6 75% 100% The ninth question concerns the role a physical interpretation plays and whether it is something physicists need. 7 There is a clear majority who feel that interpretations are necessary since it helps us describe nature. This seems quite at odds with the fact that only a fourth value an ontological theory. What characterizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? (you can check multiple boxes) Collapse of the wavefunction upon measurement Indeterminism - Results are not completely specified by initial conditions Nonlocality, i.e. action-at-a-distance Quantum mechanics works well, but does not describe nature as it really is The correspondence principle - quantum mechanics reproduces classic physics in the limit of high quantum numbers The principle of complementarity - objects have complementary properties which cannot be observed or measured at t... 77% 46% 17% 10% 43% 71% 116 70 26 15 65 107 I don't know the interpretation well enough to have formed an opinion 9% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 10: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 10
14 The tenth question concerns the Copenhagen interpretation and intends to uncover what physicist associate with the Copenhagen interpretation. The participants were allowed to pick multiple options in this question. 8 What characterizes the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? (you can check multiple boxes) The existence of multiple parallel worlds The existence of multiple minds belonging to one person Locality, i.e no action-at-a-distance The observer is treated as a physical system No wave function collapse Determinism - Evolution of universal wavefunction is completely governed by the wave equation I don't know the interpretation well enough to have formed an opinion 65% 3% 12% 13% 45% 30% 30% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 11: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 11
98 5 18 19 68 45 45 The eleventh question concerns the many worlds interpretation and like the previous question intends to uncover what physicists associate with the interpretation. The many worlds interpretation contains several features, but not all are necessarily known by all physicists. As the previous question, the participants were allowed to pick several options. Here a clear answer is given, which is that the main association with the many worlds interpretation is the postulate of many worlds. This, of course, is not surprising, since the existence of multiple worlds is expressed in the interpretation’s very name. Physicists do not seem familiar with other features of the interpretation, such as locality and the observer being treated as a quantum system. However, almost all of the participants associated no collapse to the theory, which is readily implied by the worlds corresponding to every possible event. From the description of the many worlds interpretation, it is worth recalling that what was central to Hugh Everett, who formulated the interpretation, was to solve the measurement problem, and he never used the word "worlds" in his thesis. His focus was on rejecting the collapse postulate. 9 What characterizes De Broglie - Bohm pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics? (you can check multiple boxes) Hidden variables in form of the particles exact positions and momenta Nonlocality Determinism - Events are completely specified by initial conditions Possibility of deriving Borns Rule Wave function collapse Quantum potential - each particle has a an associated potential that guides the particle I don't know the interpretation well enough to have formed an opinion 31% 14% 19% 11% 3% 30% 0% 25% 61% 50% 75%
Figure 12: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 12
47 21 29 17 5 46 93 100% The twelfth question concerns bohmian mechanics and like the two previous questions intend to uncover the associations made with the interpretation by physicists. 10What is your favourite interpretation of quantum mechanics? Consistent Histories Copenhagen De Broglie - Bohm Everett (many worlds and/or many minds) Information-based / informationtheoretical Modal interpretation Objective collapse (e.g., GRW, Penrose) Quantum Bayesianism Statistical (ensemble) interpretation Transactional interpretation Other I have no preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics 1% 39% 2% 6% 6% 1% 2% 1% 3% 0% 3% 0% 36% 25% 50%
Figure 13: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 13
2 59 3 9 9 1 3 2 5 0 4 55 75% 100% The thirteenth question can be considered as the main question of the survey since it concerns which interpretation is the most popular today. Besides the several interpretations, a last option of having no preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics is available to incorporate those who do not feel there are any satisfactory interpretations of quantum mechanics, as well as those who have a "shut-up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics. The results here show that the Copenhagen interpretation is still by a large margin the preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics with 33 percentage points separating it from the many worlds interpretation and information theoretic approach, which has been said to be an offspring of the Copenhagen interpretation. However, almost as many, 36%, do not have a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. This can be explained by the hypothesis that most physicists are not familiar with, or occupied by quantum interpretation, and either have no preference concerning interpretation or just choose the Copenhagen interpretation by default. 11What are your reasons for NOT favoring the Copenhagen interpretation? (you can check multiple boxes) The role the observer plays in determining the physical state is too important The paradoxes that arise on the macroscopic scale, e.g. Scrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend Nonlocality Quantum mechnanics describes nature as it really is Other 44% 23% 15% 14% 32% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 14: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 14
32 17 11 10 23 The fourteenth question concerns the features of the Copenhagen interpretation that seem dissuading. The question was not displayed to every participant, but only those who had not chosen the second option in question 13, i.e. that their preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation, or the seventh option of question 10, i.e. an unfamiliarity with the Copenhagen interpretation. The participants were allowed to pick multiple options to this question. Of those who do not favor the Copenhagen interpretation, the majority states that it is because of the role the observer plays in the interpretation that they do not favor it. A significant part of the participants chose "other", which could imply that a significant reason has been omitted as an option. It is thought that more complex reasons, that are not readily formulated as a survey option, are behind the high frequency of the last option. This is indeed corroborated by some of the comments left by those who chose the last option. 12What are your reasons for NOT favoring the many worlds interpretation? (you can check multiple boxes) The notion of multiple worlds seems too farfetched The notion of multiple minds seems too farfetched The intepretation is too complex compared to others - i.e. Ockham's razor The interpretation is unable to explain the Born rule It can never be corroborated experimentally Other 50% 20% 7% 33% 57% 20% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 15: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 15
48 19 32 7 55 19 The fifteenth question concerns which features of the many worlds interpretation seem dissuading. As the previous question, this question was not displayed to the participants who had chosen the fourth option in question 13, i.e. that they favor the many worlds interpretation, or the seventh option of question 11, i.e. an unfamiliarity with the many worlds interpretation. The participants were allowed to pick multiple options to this question. What are your reasons for NOT favoring De Broglie - Bohm theory? (you can check multiple boxes) It is too complex compared to other interpretations - i.e. Ockhams razor It has hidden variables, which makes the theory untenable according to Bells inequality Nonlocality The notion of all particles posessing a quantum potential that guides them seems too farfetched Other 41% 21% 16% 38% 29% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 16: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 16 23 12 9 21 16
The sixteenth question concerns what features of bohmian mechanics seem dissuading. As the two previous questions, this question was not displayed to the participants who had chosen the third option of question 13, i.e. that they favor bohmian mechanics, or the 13seventh option of question 12, i.e. an unfamiliarity with bohmian mechanics. This filter was chosen out of the same reasons for the previous filters. The participants were allowed to pick multiple options to this question. How often have you switched to a different interpretation? Never Once Several times I have no preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics 38% 11% 12% 0% 25% 40% 50%
Figure 17: Distribution of all the participants answers to question 17
57 16 18 60 75% 100% The seventeenth and last question concern the nature of changing interpretations, whether this is frequently done or never done by physicists. The results show that preferences of interpretations are very inert. Almost 80% of the participants have never changed interpretation. Another way to regard this results is that the subject of quantum interpretations simply do not occupy the minds of physicists and not given much attention.

4. Correlations

To examine various correlations between certain answer options, i.e. if one chose option A in question X there would be a strong likelihood that one would choose option B in question Y. The same scheme was adopted as in Schlosshauer et Al. Various tables can be found in the appendix which illustrates the connections between the different answer options in different ways. Correlations between two answer options A and B were identified by imposing three criteria. • The group of those who chose answer A, who also chose B, must at least contain 21 participants. • The fraction f of those who chose answer A and also answer B to all those who chose A must be higher than a threshold value T. • The fraction f must be bigger than the fraction f of those who chose answer B out of the whole group to the whole group. There must be a gap G between these fractions. 14The correlations were grouped in two; strong correlations corresponding to T = 80%G = 30% and weak correlations corresponding to T = 80%G = 20%. These values for T and G are different from those used in Schlosshauer et al., to better suit the different sample size. They were also chosen to be "strict" so to exclude seemingly correlations that only stem from pure random choice. In general too much emphasis should not be placed on these correlations, because the validity of them are highly questionable, since they pertain to the complex nature of human opinion, however some of them seem to make good sense, such as a correlation between the favoring the Copenhagen interpretation and never having changed one’s preference of interpretation. Never changed preferred interpretation Favorite interpretation is the Copenhagen interpretation Don’t know the many worlds interpretation Don’t know bohmian mechanics Bohmian mechanics is characterized by the quantum potential The many worlds interpretation is too complicated Bohmian mechanics is deterministic The notion of worlds, in the many worlds interpretation seems too farfetched Bohmian mechanics is too complex The many worlds interpretation is characterized by the existence of multiple parallel worlds Bohmian mechanics is characterized by hidden variables in the form of the particles positions and momenta The many worlds interpretation is not viable, since it can never be corroborated Bohmian mechanics is characterized by nonlocality It is impossible to know where an electron is in its orbital The many worlds interpretation is characterized by no wave function collapse The many worlds interpretation is deterministic Randomness is a fundamental concept of nature The Copenhagen interpretation is characterized by the principle of complementarity The Copenhagen interpretation is characterized by nonlocality The Copenhagen interpretation is characterized by the correspondence principle Figure 18: The big arrows represent the strong correlations, while the small arrows represent the weak correlation 15

5 Conclusion

More and more work is done concerning quantum foundations; investigating basic properties of quantum mechanics, such as Bell’s inequality, or developing new interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as QBism. However, when one regards the results of the survey, it shows that the resurgence the topic has been undergoing in recent times still has not had an impact on the participants being familiar with foundational concepts. This is seen from the answers to the questions concerning Bell’s inequality and the measurement problem, where a minority of the participants had a proper grasp of these topics. The results of the survey, in contrast, also reveal that most of the participant feel that the question of interpretation is an important one, seen from the answers to the questions of whether quantum mechanics needs an interpretation. This seems as quite a validation of the whole research area concerning quantum foundations from the general physics community. Of course one should be very cautious in extrapolating the answers from the participants of the survey, to represent the whole of the physics community. Even though the sample size in this survey is significantly larger than other surveys conducted in relation to the same topic, the sample size is still too small4. Furthermore, the questions and the answer options in a survey, cannot capture various nuances and it is easier to hide one’s ignorance in relation to various issues when the survey is in a multiple-choice format. A better way to survey the attitudes of the physics community concerning foundational issues of quantum mechanics would be to have the participants describe various concepts. Such as having the participants describe their understanding of the measurement problem or the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation would be of particular interest, since today it is recognized by several historians that the Copenhagen interpretation is not homogeneous view of quantum mechanics, and there are indeed several Copenhagen interpretations. A survey highlighting this inconsistency in the physics community would be a remarkable achievement. The answers to such surveys are much more difficult to analyze, than those of multiple-choice format, especially if the sample size is large. Furthermore surveys of such nature would probably deter a lot of would-be participants from answering the survey since it would be more laborious, therefore limiting the sample size. Nonetheless, such a survey would be able to reveal much and substantially corroborate many of the conclusions drawn from this survey. 4This assertion is made solely on statistics, and the goal of having a 95% confidence interval. The proper sample size, of course, depends on the population size, which is not readily estimated, but when the population is everyone with a master’s degree in physics, 149 cannot give the desired confidence interval. 16 Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

First of all a big "thank you" is in place to my supervisor Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen. I know I am not the easiest person to work with, because of my erratic work method and lack of organization, but you have had the right sense of when to push and when to give me space. This was, and is, very much appreciated and I hope that is not lost on you. I would also like to thank Klaus Mølmer for the guidance and support he has provided, whether it be suggesting my supervisor or in getting me more participants for my survey. Talking to you concerning quantum foundations has been one of the most enjoyable parts of this process, this was especially highlighted by your enthusiasm, which is admirable and contagious. It is best described by the first time I came to you to talk about interpretations. I clearly recall uttering the words "interpretations of quantum mechanics" and you went off talking about the subject for half an hour, finishing with "I don’t know if that answered your question" even though I never got to ask my question. A thank you should also be given to Magnus Johan Aarslev, Daniel Østergaard Andreasen and Mehmet Serdar Yilmaz for helping me test the survey, Brian Julsgaard for helping me clarify some features of quantum mechanics and of course to all those who participated in the survey. Without your participation, none of the following would have been of much use.References [1] Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler & Anton Zeilinger, A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics, January 6th, 2013; http://arxiv.org/ pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf [2] Max Tegmark, "THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS: MANY WORLDS OR MANY WORDS?", September 15th, 1997; https://arxiv.org/pdf/ quant-ph/9709032.pdf [3] Travis Norsen & Sarah Nelson, Yet Another Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics, June 18th, 2013; https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4646v2.pdf [4] Christoph Sommer, Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics, March 11th 2013; https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2719.pdf [5] David Mermin, Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory, PHYSICS TODAY PAG. 38-47, April 1985 18

Page 3

2.

3.

4.

Reflection 1 -

If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
Created: 1 June 2022

Go Back to Article Review
Back to my home page Index