2024 Nobel Sustainability Trust Summit and the First Nobel DAO Future Technology Conference Successfully Held at UC Berkeley
The Nobel Sustainability Trust (NST) founded by members of the Nobel family and headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, has long been dedicated to addressing global challenges such as climate change, environmental pollution, and resource overconsumption. The foundation plays a vital role in promoting global sustainable development by advocating for sustainable production and consumption practices, with a particular emphasis on non-polluting and renewable technologies. NST presents annual Sustainability Awards to recognize individuals, organizations, or enterprises that have made outstanding contributions to advancing UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in areas such as scientific research, entrepreneurial innovation, and civil society. In recent years, NST has successfully held sustainability summits in Bergen, Norway (2021), Paris, France (2022), and Munich, Germany (2023). In 2024, NST moved the summit to the innovation center of the U.S. West Coast-the San Francisco Bay Area-for the first time. During this summit, NST held the 2024 Sustainability Awards ceremony. The Executive Leadership Award and Outstanding Research and Development Award were presented to three pioneering scientists: Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, Professor Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, and Professor Qu Jiuhui. Meanwhile, the Outstanding Contribution to Sustainability Medal was awarded to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum (represented by Science Minister Rosaura Ruiz) and former UN Secretary-General Dr. Ban Ki-moon (accepted via video).
As a co-organizer of this conference, Nobel DAO, established in early 2024, serves as an innovative cross-disciplinary scientific platform and startup accelerator supported by members of Nobel family. The organization is dedicated to discovering and nurturing young innovators aged 13 to 35, providing comprehensive support through establishing elite talent clubs, global geek centers, and future technology laboratory networks. Nobel DAO's vision is to become one of the top three global technology innovation ecosystems, with its core mission focused on enhancing global efficiency, conserving resources, and reducing friction costs to improve people's lives.
Keynote Addresses and Vision Sharing
UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons delivered a welcome speech via video, emphasizing that whether through Berkeley, NST, Nobel DAO, or other channels, the passion for innovation and commitment to knowledge discovery and sharing are becoming increasingly important in addressing complex global challenges and improving the world.
U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna congratulated the conference via video and expressed interest in hearing perspectives and solutions regarding AI safety challenges discussed at the event.
Christian Rockefeller, representing one of America's most influential philanthropic families, expressed heartfelt admiration for Nobel DAO's vision in his opening remarks, praising the organization's efforts to drive future development through disruptive technologies and ecosystem building.
Groundbreaking Perspectives Leading Future Development DirectionsInnovative Perspectives on Sustainable Development and Climate Change
In the "Vision 2044" session moderated by former Google VP Meagan Pi, renowned science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson presented forward-thinking views. He highlighted the sociological concept of the "Great Acceleration" - since World War II, all indicators of human society have been accelerating, with the COVID-19 pandemic serving as an "acceleration of acceleration." He emphasized that both positive and negative developments are speeding up, placing human society at a critical turning point. He believes one of humanity's biggest challenges is excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which needs to be addressed through carbon capture methods such as reforestation and regenerative agriculture.
Environmental science professor Gretchen Daily proposed innovative ideas about integrating natural capital into economic systems during a thematic discussion. She proposed new indicators like GEP (Gross Ecosystem Product) to measure development outcomes, stressing that traditional GDP metrics no longer comprehensively reflect social progress, and new assessment systems incorporating ecological values are essential. UN representative Siddharth Chatterjee called for enhanced interdisciplinary cooperation and establishment of carbon market regulations aligned with the 1.5°C target, while emphasizing the unique challenges faced by developing countries in this process.
Breakthrough Energy Solutions
Technology futurist Pablos Holman, in his keynote address, discussed the history of human energy use and asserted that solving global issues requires first addressing energy challenges. He proposed two breakthrough energy solutions:
Space Solar Power: By deploying solar panels in space, it is possible to generate eight times more energy than ground-based solar panels, transmitting the energy back to Earth via radio waves. This technology could overcome the limitations of ground-based solar power, providing continuous and stable clean energy.
Innovative Nuclear Technology: Small nuclear reactors could be buried one mile underground through manhole covers, achieving unprecedented safety and scalability. This design significantly reduces the risks of nuclear power use while improving reliability in energy supply.
Artificial Intelligence and Future Technology Outlook
Berkeley RDI Center Director Professor Dawn Song and Dean of the College of Computing, Data Science, and Society Professor Jennifer Chayes held an in-depth dialogue about AI safety. Professor Song particularly noted that as a cross-disciplinary center focused on responsible innovation, decentralization, and artificial intelligence intersection, RDI is honored to collaborate with Nobel DAO in bringing together top global talent to solve the world's most challenging problems. The two experts deeply explored the balance between technological advancement and social responsibility, discussing concrete paths to ensure AI development benefits humanity.
Innovation Ecosystem Building
During the summit, Nobel DAO CEO Erik Finman introduced the organization's innovation ecosystem vision. The organization, as a startup accelerator and community network supported by members of Nobel family, Nobel DAO is dedicated to discovering young innovators aged 13-35. Finman emphasized that Nobel DAO operates through elite talent clubs, global geek centers, and future technology laboratory networks, implementing incentive mechanisms to accelerate technological breakthroughs.
NST Chairman and Nobel DAO board director Peter Nobel emphasized in the subsequent panel discussion that Nobel DAO represents a new form of scientific development organization in the AI era, demonstrating how to foster innovative scientific development models in the age of artificial intelligence. Two distinguished Nobel DAO members-MIT AI PhD Willie McClinton and UCR Robotics Company co-founder Christopher McQuin-shared specific cases illustrating how their projects achieved accelerated development within Nobel DAO's ecosystem, effectively demonstrating the model's practicality.
Furthermore, in previous dialogues, Dean Jennifer Chayes also expressed agreement with Nobel DAO's ideas. Using her personal experience as an example-her mother couldn't perform fraction calculations, yet she received the world's highest award in applied mathematics, and her brother became a world-renowned chemist. These experiences convinced her that there are many undiscovered outstanding talents in the world, and Nobel DAO is committed to discovering and nurturing these talents. She emphasized, "To create real impact, you must have scalability. This requires the synergistic operation of software platforms and talent platforms. Nobel DAO is building such a talent platform."
Other Highlights
The conference also held multiple specialized workshops and forums. At the "Nature-based Assessment" expert workshop, Pro Natura founder Marcelo de Andrade, Goldman Sachs Global Head of Sustainable Banking John Eleoterio, and Colorado State University Professor Edward Barbie, shared their research findings in natural resource assessment and conservation. The "Companies and Capital Moving Towards a Sustainable Future" forum brought together financial and industry leaders including former French Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, AVAIO Capital's Anthony Gordon, MVP Partner Rolf Nagel, Veea founder Allen Salmasi, and Ethical Spirits CEO Chikara Ono to explore innovative paths for capital markets to drive sustainable development. The conference also specially arranged Equity Bank CEO James Mwangi's keynote speech, and the "One Amazon" special discussion hosted by Trump environmental advisor Ed Russo, which invited representatives from CAF and AECOM, the Colombian Ambassador to the U.S., and USAID's Emily Weeks to explore Amazon rainforest protection issues. In the biomedical field, Nobel laureate Professor Randy Schekman presented his latest research findings on Parkinson's disease.
Impact and Future Outlook
The summit successfully demonstrated NST's significant contribution to global sustainable development while highlighting Nobel DAO's unique value as a new-generation technology innovation platform. Many participants expressed admiration for NST's efforts in sustainable development, and numerous attendees, including students and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, showed strong interest in Nobel DAO and eagerly signed up to participate.
As a cross-disciplinary technology platform, Nobel DAO brings together top global talent through its genius club and has created a comprehensive ecosystem integrating talent cultivation, startup acceleration, and technological innovation through its innovative incubation system (including the Global Future Technology Family Association, Global Geek Centers, and Future Technology Laboratories). In the coming new era of artificial intelligence, the importance of this platform becomes even more prominent. As Nobel DAO experts state, humanity stands at a pivotal historical turning point-AI may represent the last direct major technological invention by humanity. The next 10 to 20 years will likely witness breakthrough developments in robotics, automation, and longevity technology. With this profound technological transformation, the combination of carbon-based life and silicon-based life may become the main direction of technological and social development. Nobel DAO was established to embrace this transformation, fostering collaboration among brilliant minds to address the challenges posed by AI, ensuring that the benefits of technological advancements are shared equitably.
The successful hosting of this summit marks an important step for NST and Nobel DAO in integrating global innovation resources and promoting sustainable development and technological progress. The conference showcased the integration of cutting-edge technology with sustainable development, harnessing the collective wisdom of top global talents to provide tangible solutions to humanity's common challenges.
Media ContactsNobel Sustainability Trust
Nobel Sustainability Trust, founded by members of the Nobel family and headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, has long been committed to addressing global challenges such as climate change, environmental pollution, and resource overconsumption. The foundation plays a key role in advancing global sustainable development by promoting sustainable production and consumption practices, with a particular focus on non-polluting and renewable technologies.
Contact: Tracy WangWebsite: www.nobelsustainabilitytrust.orgEmail: info@nobelsustainabilitytrust.org
Nobel DAO
Nobel DAO, supported by members of the Nobel family, is an innovation accelerator with the important mission of discovering and supporting the next generation of innovators. By establishing a unique global innovation ecosystem, it provides critical support to outstanding innovators, including access to exclusive events, a prestigious global network, and significant funding opportunities. Nobel DAO places particular emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, fostering breakthrough projects that address real-world challenges by bringing together experts from diverse fields.
Contact: Chrank ChenWebsite: www.nobeldao.comEmail: info@nobeldao.com
UC Berkeley & Berkeley RDIWebsite: https://www.berkeley.edu/https://rdi.berkeley.edu/Email: jweberphipps@berkeley.eduContact: Jocelyn Weber Phipps
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/239698
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
12 Historical Discoveries That Rewrote History
Today, we all know that an asteroid killed/started the extinction of the dinosaurs. The theory was first proposed in 1980 by Nobel prize laureate physicist Luis Alvarez and his geologist son Walter. They suggested that a massive asteroid impact about 66 million years ago caused sudden climate changes that wiped out most dinosaur species. Evidence for this came from a worldwide layer of iridium, a rare metal often found in asteroids. This theory was not widely embraced by the scientific community. However, in the early 1990s, scientists confirmed the theory when they discovered the Chicxulub crater in Mexico, which matched the timing of the extinction. Above is a photo of Luis and Walter Alvarez with a sample of the iridium layer deposit in 1985. The Terracotta Army were only discovered a little over 50 years ago! In 1974, farmers were digging a well near Xi'an, China, when they dug up fragments of human-sized clay figures. The life-sized statues had been buried for over 2,000 years, guarding the tomb of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang. Historical records mentioned the emperor's tomb, but there was no known record of the vast army itself. The discovery revealed thousands of soldiers, horses, and chariots, each with unique details. The Terracotta Warriors are just part of a much larger tomb complex that spans across a 22-square-mile area. For centuries, many scientists dismissed the idea that rocks could just fall from the sky, despite the fact that documentation of the phenomenon went back further than the Romans. That changed in 1803, when thousands of meteorite fragments fell near the town of L'Aigle in Normandy, France. The event was carefully studied by French scientist Jean-Baptiste Biot, who confirmed they were from space. His report convinced the scientific community that meteorites were real. From then on, meteorites were accepted as a natural phenomenon. For a long time, explorers and Western scientists believed gorillas were just a myth or a legend (like Bigfoot). Stories from local African tribes mentioned large, ape-like creatures with super strength, but there was no evidence. In 1847, American missionary Thomas Savage and anatomist Jeffries Wyman traveled to Africa, where they discovered a large skull that fit no other known primate. They named the discovery "gorilla." This discovery confirmed that gorillas were real animals. But it wasn't until 1902 that Captain Robert von Beringe hunted down two gorillas and brought them back as proof. Pompeii was rediscovered in the 1700s, but the discovery was linked to the nearby city of Herculaneum, which was also buried by the same eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. It started in 1709, when a worker digging a well in Herculaneum discovered the first pieces of artifacts. But it wasn't until 1738, when the Neapolitan King Charles VII sent a team to Herculaneum to unearth more artifacts for him to decorate his palace with, that a discovery of the buried city was made. This find sparked interest in the other ancient cities that might be buried under volcanic ash. A few years later, in 1748, Roque Joaquín de Alcubierre, who led the excavation of Herculaneum, began the excavation of Pompeii. Alfred Wegener first proposed the idea of a supercontinent called Pangea in 1912. He suggested that all the continents were once joined together and later drifted apart. However, many scientists didn't accept this idea at the time because Wegener couldn't explain how the continents moved. It wasn't until the 1950s and 1960s that new evidence from ocean floor studies and plate tectonics came to light. This confirmed that Pangea and continental drift were real parts of Earth's history, and the theory gained wide acceptance. In 1908, the Tunguska event happened. Which, in case you don't know, was a huge explosion that flattened about 800 square miles of forest in Siberia near the Tunguska River. It was so large that shock waves were recorded in Western Europe. At first, people only knew something had happened, but they had no idea what because it happened in such a remote area with few witnesses. Investigations finally began in the 1920s, when scientists visited the site to study the damage. They confirmed the explosion was real and likely caused by a meteor or comet exploding in the atmosphere. If you watched any movie made about the Titanic before 1985, they would get one important detail wrong! When the Titanic sank in 1912, several survivors reported seeing that the ship had broken in two before sinking, but many experts at the time and after dismissed this claim. So movies about it never portrayed that. For decades, the exact details of the disaster remained uncertain because the wreck had never been located. In 1985, a joint American-French expedition led by Robert Ballard finally discovered the Titanic's remains on the ocean floor. The wreck was found in two large sections, confirming what eyewitnesses had said more than 70 years earlier. As Ranker noted, one of the first times the ship was seen splitting in half in media was in the 1996 CBS mini-series, Titanic, starring a then-unknown Catherine Zeta-Jones. Starting in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century, there were stories and small artifacts discovered that suggested Vikings reached North America long before Columbus. Some historians believed them (based on things like how well the Vikings could navigate the seas), while others thought they were just legends or misidentified artifacts. The debate continued until the 1960s, when archaeologists discovered a Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada. The site contained Norse-style buildings, tools, and artifacts dating to around the year 1000. This confirmed that Vikings had explored and settled parts of North America centuries before Columbus's voyages. Prior to its eruption in 1980, Mount St. Helens was, as the New York Times put it, "a relatively little known volcano 50 miles north of Portland, Ore." While that was likely true of the greater US, it was, of course, known to locals who lived there, Indigenous peoples who had lived in the area for centuries, and to volcanologists. It was the latter, who in a Feb. 1975 scientific report in the Journal Science (covered by the Times), warned that Mount St. Helens would have a violent eruption, "perhaps before the end of this century." In 1978, the USGS published a hazard assessment which put a violent eruption as "likely within the next 100 years" and, again, "perhaps even before the end of the century." Before the 1980 eruption, Mount St. Helens had not erupted violently since 1857. Slightly similar to gorillas, for a long time, people in the West thought giant pandas were mythical animals described in vague reports from China. Travelers and missionaries occasionally mentioned them, but without clear proof, many dismissed the stories. Even Chinese art rarely featured them. That all changed in 1869, when French missionary Armand David obtained a panda skin in Sichuan, China. This was the first physical evidence shown to Western science, confirming that giant pandas were real. The US would get its first panda in 1936, when a cub named Su Lin became the first panda to survive a trip outside of East Asia. He became an instant sensation and drew more than 300,000 visitors to see him at Chicago's Brookfield Zoo within his first six months. And lastly, at some point in the future, we might discover a ninth planet in our solar system. For decades, scientists have suspected there might be a ninth planet far beyond Neptune, often called "Planet X" or "Planet Nine." This theory comes from observing unusual orbits of some distant objects in the Kuiper Belt, which seem to be pulled by the gravity of something large and unseen. In 2016, astronomers Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown published evidence suggesting a planet about 5 to 10 times the mass of Earth could be causing these patterns. No one has directly seen Planet Nine yet, so its existence is still unconfirmed. However, the orbital data have convinced many astronomers that something big with a highly elongated path around the sun may be out there. The hypothesis that there might be a giant planet in our solar system dates back to 1915, when astronomer Percival Lowell considered it a logical reason to explain the orbit of Uranus. The search for Planet Nine is what led to the accidental discovery of Pluto in 1930.
Business Insider
3 days ago
- Business Insider
'Shark Tank' star Kevin O'Leary says he's not stressing about an AI bubble or tariff pain
The AI boom isn't going to collapse like the dot-com bubble, Investor Kevin O'Leary told Business Insider. Many people, including Nobel economist Paul Krugman, fund manager Bill Smead, and entrepreneurship professor Erik Gordon, have compared the fervor around AI to internet buzz in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which ended with a stock-market crash. But the "Shark Tank" investor and chair of O'Leary Ventures said AI wasn't "the same hype that the internet bubble was, because today, you actually can see the productivity and measure it on a dollar-by-dollar basis." O'Leary gave the example of Fly Guys, a drone company he's invested in. Other companies can commission it to scan the tops of their buildings and deliver "AI-ready aerial imagery" to identify problems and automatically create work orders for them. "That saves millions of dollars" for companies like Walmart or Home Depot with large commercial footprints, O'Leary said. He added that such savings from AI may offset tariff costs and support high valuations for stocks. Whether that's the case should be revealed in earnings over the next 12 to 18 months, he said. O'Leary thinks tariffs aren't the threat many thought Stocks plunged after Trump unveiled his plans for tariffs on "Liberation Day" in early April, but have since rebounded to record highs. The recovery shows why investors should stay in the market during downturns "even though it's nerve-racking and nail-biting," O'Leary said. The celebrity investor and self-proclaimed "Mr. Wonderful" said it can be costly to panic and dump stocks, adding he has seen investors miss out by doing this "over and over again." He added that if an investor cashed out during April's sell-off, they missed the sort of returns they might expect over three years in just 88 trading sessions. The S&P has gained around 27% from its low on April 8, and is around 12% higher than its level before the slump, far above the market's long-term annual return of about 7%. The bounceback reflects greater "clarity" over tariffs, O'Leary said, adding some were "very manageable" at 10% to 15% for trade partners such as the EU. The latest rates range from 10% for the UK to 41% for Syria. The SoftKey founder, who sold The Learning Company to Mattel in 1999, said that he would have expected to see evidence by now if tariffs were going to reignite inflation or cause a recession. The benchmark consumer price index rose only 0.2% in April, 0.1% in May, and 0.3% in June on a seasonally adjusted basis. He said the fear that tariffs would lead to "input costs killing gross margin" hasn't been realized yet, and US consumers also look to be in good shape. He called it a "remarkable situation" as "basically, everybody got it wrong" on the impact of tariffs on the economy. O'Leary said that he and his business managers were loading up on inventory in preparation for a busy holiday season. "So that gives you some indication, we're net bullish," he said.
Scientific American
3 days ago
- Scientific American
Physicists Can't Agree on What Quantum Mechanics Says about Reality
Quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in science — and makes much of modern life possible. Technologies ranging from computer chips to medical-imaging machines rely on the application of equations, first sketched out a century ago, that describe the behaviour of objects at the microscopic scale. But researchers still disagree widely on how best to describe the physical reality that lies behind the mathematics, as a Nature survey reveals. At an event to mark the 100th anniversary of quantum mechanics last month, lauded specialists in quantum physics argued politely — but firmly — about the issue. 'There is no quantum world,' said physicist Anton Zeilinger, at the University of Vienna, outlining his view that quantum states exist only in his head and that they describe information, rather than reality. 'I disagree,' replied Alain Aspect, a physicist at the University of Paris-Saclay, who shared the 2022 Nobel prize with Zeilinger for work on quantum phenomena. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. To gain a snapshot of how the wider community interprets quantum physics in its centenary year, Nature carried out the largest ever survey on the subject. We e-mailed more than 15,000 researchers whose recent papers involved quantum mechanics, and also invited attendees of the centenary meeting, held on the German island of Heligoland, to take the survey. The responses — numbering more than 1,100, mainly from physicists — showed how widely researchers vary in their understanding of the most fundamental features of quantum experiments. As did Aspect and Zeilinger, respondents differed radically on whether the wavefunction — the mathematical description of an object's quantum state — represents something real (36%) or is simply a useful tool (47%) or something that describes subjective beliefs about experimental outcomes (8%). This suggests that there is a significant divide between researchers who hold 'realist' views, which project equations onto the real world, and those with 'epistemic' ones, which say that quantum physics is concerned only with information. The community was also split on whether there is a boundary between the quantum and classical worlds (45% of respondents said yes, 45% no and 10% were not sure). Some baulked at the set-up of our questions, and more than 100 respondents gave their own interpretations (the survey, methodology and an anonymized version of the full data are available online). 'I find it remarkable that people who are very knowledgeable about quantum theory can be convinced of completely opposite views,' says Gemma De les Coves, a theoretical physicist at the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. Nature asked researchers what they thought was the best interpretation of quantum phenomena and interactions — that is, their favourite of the various attempts scientists have made to relate the mathematics of the theory to the real world. The largest chunk of responses, 36%, favoured the Copenhagen interpretation — a practical and often-taught approach. But the survey also showed that several, more radical, viewpoints have a healthy following. Asked about their confidence in their answer, only 24% of respondents thought their favoured interpretation was correct; others considered it merely adequate or a useful tool in some circumstances. What's more, some scientists who seemed to be in the same camp didn't give the same answers to follow-up questions, suggesting inconsistent or disparate understandings of the interpretation they chose. 'That was a big surprise to me,' says Renato Renner, a theoretical physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. The implication is that many quantum researchers simply use quantum theory without engaging deeply with what it means — the 'shut up and calculate' approach, he says, using a phrase coined by US physicist David Mermin. But Renner, who works on the foundations of quantum mechanics, is quick to stress that there is nothing wrong with just doing calculations. 'We wouldn't have a quantum computer if everyone was like me,' he says. Copenhagen still reigns supreme Over the past century, researchers have proposed many ways to interpret the reality behind the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which seems to throw up jarring paradoxes. In quantum theory, an object's behaviour is characterized by its wavefunction: a mathematical expression calculated using an equation devised by German physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1926. The wavefunction describes a quantum state and how it evolves as a cloud of probabilities. As long as it remains unobserved, a particle seems to spread out like a wave; interfering with itself and other particles to be in a 'superposition' of states, as though in many places or having multiple values of an attribute at once. But an observation of a particle's properties — a measurement — shocks this hazy existence into a single state with definite values. This is sometimes referred to as the 'collapse' of the wavefunction. It gets stranger: putting two particles into a state of joint superposition can lead to entanglement, which means that their quantum states remain intertwined even when the particles are far apart. The German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who helped to craft the mathematics behind quantum mechanics in 1925, and his mentor, Danish physicist Niels Bohr, got around the alien wave–particle duality largely by accepting that classical ways of understanding the world were limited, and that people could only know what observation told them. For Bohr, it was OK that an object varied between acting like a particle and like a wave, because these were concepts borrowed from classical physics that could be revealed only one at a time, by experiment. The experimenter lived in the world of classical physics and was separate from the quantum system they were measuring. Heisenberg and Bohr not only took the view that it was impossible to talk about an object's location until it had been observed by experiment, but also argued that an unobserved particle's properties really were fundamentally unfixed until measurement — rather than being defined, but not known to experimenters. This picture famously troubled Einstein, who persisted in the view that there was a pre-existing reality that it was science's job to measure. Decades later, an amalgamation of Heisenberg's and Bohr's not-always-unified views became known as the Copenhagen interpretation, after the university at which the duo did their seminal work. Those views remain the most popular vision of quantum mechanics today, according to Nature 's survey. For Časlav Brukner, a quantum physicist at the University of Vienna, this interpretation's strong showing 'reflects its continued utility in guiding everyday quantum practice'. Almost half of the experimental physicists who responded to the survey favoured this interpretation, compared with 33% of the theorists. 'It is the simplest we have,' says Décio Krause, a philosopher at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who studies the foundations of physics, and who responded to the survey. Despite its issues, the alternatives 'present other problems which, to me, are worse', he says. But others argue that Copenhagen's emergence as the default comes from historical accident, rather than its strengths. Critics say it allows physicists to sidestep deeper questions. One concerns the 'measurement problem', asking how a measurement can trigger objects to switch from existing in quantum states that describe probabilities, to having the defined properties of the classical world. Another unclear feature is whether the wavefunction represents something real (an answer selected by 29% of those who favoured the Copenhagen interpretation) or just information about the probabilities of finding various values when measured (picked by 63% of this group). 'I'm disappointed but not surprised at the popularity of Copenhagen,' says Elise Crull, a philosopher of physics at the City University of New York. 'My feeling is that physicists haven't reflected.' The Copenhagen interpretation's philosophical underpinnings have become so normalized as to seem like no interpretation at all, adds Robert Spekkens, who studies quantum foundations at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. Many advocates are 'just drinking the Kool-Aid of the Copenhagen philosophy without examining it', he says. Survey respondents who have carried out research in philosophy or quantum foundations, studying the assumptions and principles behind quantum physics, were the least likely to favour the Copenhagen interpretation, with just 20% selecting it. 'If I use quantum mechanics in my lab every day, I don't need to go past Copenhagen,' says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at Aix-Marseille University in France. But as soon as researchers apply thought experiments that probe more deeply, 'Copenhagen is not enough', he says. What else is on the menu? In the years after the Second World War and the development of the atomic bomb, physicists began to exploit the uses of quantum mechanics, and the US government poured cash into the field. Philosophical investigation was put on the back burner. The Copenhagen interpretation came to dominate mainstream physics, but still, some physicists found it unsatisfying and came up with alternatives. In 1952, US physicist David Bohm resurfaced an idea first touted in 1927 by French physicist Louis de Broglie, namely that the strange dual nature of quantum objects made sense if they were point-like particles with paths determined by 'pilot' waves. 'Bohmian' mechanics had the advantage of explaining interference effects while restoring determinism, the idea that the properties of particles do have set values before being measured. Nature 's survey found that 7% of respondents considered this interpretation the most convincing. Then, in 1957, US physicist Hugh Everett came up with a wilder alternative, one that 15% of survey respondents favoured. Everett's interpretation, later dubbed 'many worlds', says that the wavefunction corresponds to something real. That is, a particle really is, in a sense, in multiple places at once. From their vantage point in one world, an observer measuring the particle would see only one outcome, but the wavefunction never really collapses. Instead it branches into many universes, one for each different outcome. 'It requires a dramatic readjustment of our intuitions about the world, but to me that's just what we should expect from a fundamental theory of reality,' says Sean Carroll, a physicist and philosopher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who responded to the survey. In the late 1980s, 'spontaneous collapse' theories attempted to resolve issues such as the quantum measurement problem. Versions of these tweak the Schrödinger equation, so that, rather than requiring an observer or measurement to collapse, the wavefunction occasionally does so by itself. In some of these models, putting quantum objects together amplifies the likelihood of collapse, meaning that bringing a particle into a superposition with measuring equipment makes the loss of the combined quantum state inevitable. Around 4% of respondents chose these sorts of theories. Nature 's survey suggests that 'epistemic' descriptions, which say that quantum mechanics reveals only knowledge about the world, rather than representing its physical reality, might have gained in popularity. A 2016 survey of 149 physicists found that only around 7% picked epistemic-related interpretations, compared with 17% in our survey (although the precise categories and methodology of the surveys differed). Some of these theories, which build on the original Copenhagen interpretation, emerged in the early 2000s, when applications such as quantum computing and communication began to frame experiments in terms of information. Adherents, such as Zeilinger, view the wavefunction as merely a tool to predict measurement outcomes, with no correspondence to the real world. The epistemic view is appealing because it is the most cautious, says Ladina Hausmann, a theoretical physicist at the ETH who responded to the survey. 'It doesn't require me to assume anything beyond how we use the quantum state in practice,' she says. One epistemic interpretation, known as QBism (which a handful of respondents who selected 'other' wrote down as their preferred interpretation), takes this to the extreme, stating that observations made by a specific 'agent' are entirely personal and valid only for them. The similar 'relational quantum mechanics', first outlined by Rovelli in 1996 (and selected by 4% of respondents), says that quantum states always describe only relationships between systems, not the systems themselves. When asked specific follow-up questions about how to view aspects of quantum mechanics, researchers' opinions differed sharply, as could be expected from the variety in overall interpretations they favoured. One question that elicited a mix of answers relates to one of the weirdest aspects of quantum mechanics: that the outcomes of observations on entangled particles are correlated, even if the particles are moved thousands of kilometres apart. This potential for distant connection is referred to as non-locality. The connection doesn't allow faster-than-light communication. But whether it nevertheless represents a kind of real and instantaneous influence across space-time, such that measuring one particle instantly changes its entangled partner and affects the results of future measurements, is something that respondents disagreed on. In the survey, 39% of respondents said they thought that such 'action at a distance' was real. The remainder either weren't sure or disagreed in a variety of ways. If respondents answering 'yes' meant to imply that a physical influence is travelling faster than light, this would conflict with Einstein's special theory of relativity, says Flaminia Giacomini, a theoretical physicist at the ETH. 'This should worry every serious physicist,' adds Renner. 'I'm puzzled.' However, some respondents, such as those who take epistemic views, might have answered 'yes' but have interpreted instantaneous influence to mean merely an instant change in their information, rather than a physical effect, says Giacomini. Nature also asked about the 'double slit' experiment — in which electrons are sent towards a screen with two slits. On the other side of the screen, a detector shows a pattern that tallies with wave-like particles going through both slits and interfering with themselves. (If researchers observe an electron en route, such as by putting a detector on either slit, the pattern changes to suggest that the particle passed through only one.) Asked whether an unobserved electron travels through both slits, 31% agreed, an answer that fits with the many-worlds interpretation but, the survey suggests, is also the view of reality taken by many followers of the spontaneous collapse and Copenhagen approaches. However, 14% said it didn't, which fits with the Bohmian-mechanics view of definite electron trajectories, and 48% said the question was meaningless — a response given by the majority of epistemic and Copenhagen adherents. Breaking the stalemate How is it possible to disagree so strongly about the underlying world that quantum theory describes, when everyone does the same calculations? Besides revealing the different attitudes of experimenters and theorists — and the tendency of people who study quantum foundations to avoid the Copenhagen interpretation — the views in Nature 's survey didn't seem to correlate with other factors. One such factor is gender (only 8% of respondents identified as women, which, although low, accords with a finding earlier this year that only 8% of senior authors in Nature Physics papers were women). Where in the world people have worked, and their religion, also seemed to have little effect (although too few answered the last question for the result to be conclusive). The closest that respondents got to consensus was that attempts to interpret the mathematics of quantum mechanics in a physical or an intuitive way are valuable — 86% agreed. Three-quarters of respondents also thought that quantum theory would be superseded in the future by a more complete theory, although most also thought that elements of it would survive. Although quantum mechanics is among the most experimentally verified theories in history, its mathematics cannot describe gravity, which is instead explained as a curving of space-time by the general theory of relativity. This leads many researchers to think that quantum physics might be incomplete. Researchers who work on quantum foundations say that picking an interpretation comes down to choosing between the sacrifices each entails. To adopt many worlds is to accept that there are an unfathomable number of universes we can probably never access. To be QBist means admitting that quantum theory can't describe a single reality for all observers (although without necessarily denying that a shared reality exists). What price someone is willing to pay comes down to not merely physics training, but something personal, says Renner. 'It's a very deeply emotional thing,' he says. Almost half of the respondents to Nature 's survey said that physics departments do not give enough attention to quantum foundations (with just 5% saying there was 'too much'). All interpretations, broadly, predict the same results. But that doesn't mean that ways can't be found to distinguish them. A 1960s proposal by UK physicist John Bell has already constrained quantum physics. His thought experiments, put into practice in many formats since then, use measurements on entangled particles to prove that quantum physics cannot be both realist and local. Realist means that particles have properties that exist whether they are measured or not, and local means that objects are influenced only by their immediate — rather than distant and unconnected — surroundings. New ways of probing quantum interpretations continue to emerge. Last month, for instance, physicists studying the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling, in which particles burrow through barriers that, classically, would be impossible to surmount, argued that the measured speed of the process did not fit with predictions from Bohm's pilot-wave theory. Some 58% of respondents to Nature 's survey thought that experimental results will help to decide between viable approaches. Some respondents mentioned efforts to scale up superpositions to biological systems. Others referred to probing the interface between quantum physics and gravity. Some physicists think that exploiting superposition inside quantum computers will reveal more about such phenomena. In 2024, when Hartmut Neven, founder of Google Quantum AI in Santa Barbara, California, announced the firm's Willow quantum chip, he argued that its ability to perform a calculation that would take longer than the age of the Universe on the fastest classical computer 'lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes'. He was referring to a 1997 extension to the many-worlds theory by David Deutsch, a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK. Agreeing on a single interpretation might be a case of coming up with a new approach altogether. 'Once we find the correct interpretation, it will announce itself by virtue of offering more coherence than anything before,' says Spekkens. 'I think we should aim for that.' Whether the current state of affairs is a problem or not depends on who you ask. 'It's just embarrassing that we don't have a story to tell people about what reality is,' concluded Carlton Caves, a theoretical physicist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, and moderator of the foundations panel at the Heligoland meeting. Crull disagrees. People are taking the question of interpretations seriously, she says, 'and it's not leading to chaos and it's not embarrassing. It's leading to progress, to creativity. There's a kind of joy there.'
