Physicists Still Divided About Quantum World, 100 Years On
"Shut up and calculate!" is a famous quote in quantum physics that illustrates the frustration of scientists struggling to unravel one of the world's great paradoxes.
For the last century, equations based on quantum mechanics have consistently and accurately described the behaviour of extremely small objects.
However, no one knows what is happening in the physical reality behind the mathematics.
The problem started at the turn of the 20th century, when scientists realised that the classical principles of physics did not apply to things on the level on atoms.
Bafflingly, photons and electrons appear to behave like both particles and waves. They can also be in different positions simultaneously -- and have different speeds or levels of energy.
In 1925, Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger and Germany's Werner Heisenberg developed a set of complex mathematical tools that describe quantum mechanics using probabilities.
This "wave function" made it possible to predict the results of measurements of a particle.
These equations led to the development of a huge amount of modern technology, including lasers, LED lights, MRI scanners and the transistors used in computers and phones.
But the question remained: what exactly is happening in the world beyond the maths?
To mark the 100th year of quantum mechanics, many of the world's leading physicists gathered last month on the German island of Heligoland, where Heisenberg wrote his famous equation.
More than 1,100 of them responded to a survey conducted by the leading scientific journal Nature.
The results showed there is a "striking lack of consensus among physicists about what quantum theory says about reality", Nature said in a statement.
More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation.
In the classical world, everything has defined properties -- such as position or speed -- whether we observe them or not.
But this is not the case in the quantum realm, according to the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Heisenberg and Danish physicist Niels Bohr in the 1920s.
It is only when an observer measures a quantum object that it settles on a specific state from the possible options, goes the theory. This is described as its wave function "collapsing" into a single possibility.
The most famous depiction of this idea is Schroedinger's cat, which remains simultaneously alive and dead in a box -- until someone peeks inside.
The Copenhagen interpretation "is the simplest we have", Brazilian physics philosopher Decio Krause told Nature after responding to the survey.
Despite the theory's problems -- such as not explaining why measurement has this effect -- the alternatives "present other problems which, to me, are worse," he said.
But the majority of the physicists supported other ideas.
Fifteen percent of the respondents opted for the "many worlds" interpretation, one of several theories in physics that propose we live in a multiverse.
It asserts that the wave function does not collapse, but instead branches off into as many universes as there are possible outcomes.
So when an observer measures a particle, they get the position for their world -- but it is in all other possible positions across many parallel universes.
"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," US theoretical physicist Sean Carroll said in the survey.
The quantum experts were split on other big questions facing the field.
Is there some kind of boundary between the quantum and classical worlds, where the laws of physics suddenly change?
Forty-five percent of the physicists responded yes to this question -- and the exact same percentage responded no.
Just 24 percent said they were confident the quantum interpretation they chose was correct.
And three quarters believed that it will be replaced by a more comprehensive theory one day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
5 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Major Climate-GDP Study Under Review After Facing Challenge
A blockbuster study published in top science journal Nature last year warned that unchecked climate change could slash global GDP by a staggering 62 percent by century's end, setting off alarm bells among financial institutions worldwide. But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released Wednesday, challenges that conclusion -- finding the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan. The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP it will have "further information to share soon" -- a move that would almost certainly be seized upon by climate-change skeptics. Both the original authors -- who have acknowledged errors -- and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth. It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US federal government and others. AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 percent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. "That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 percent is a very big number," scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP. When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. "When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'" Hsiang said. "We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making." The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on Wednesday uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. "We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next," Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while "there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community," the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed. She told AFP the correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are "extremely bad" regardless of the Kotz-led study, she said, and "greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over." "Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption," she also noted. Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 "as soon as we became aware of an issue" with the data and methodology. "We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon," he told AFP. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the US government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. "One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science." Researchers AFP spoke to said the effects of heat on economies of countries near the tropics is magnified, like the riverbank dwellers carrying banana produce in northern Brazil AFP
Int'l Business Times
30-07-2025
- Int'l Business Times
EU Urged To Act On Forests' Faltering Absorption Of Carbon
The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by European forests has reduced dramatically in recent years putting the EU's climate targets at risk, researchers said Wednesday, calling for urgent action to halt the decline. Forests, which cover 40 percent of the European Union's territory, are expected to play a crucial role in efforts to meet targets for overall reductions of the bloc's emissions of planet-warming gases. But human and climate pressures, from logging to extreme weather and insect attacks, means their ability to absorb CO2 is "rapidly declining", according to an article, led by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. "Reversing the decline in European forests' ability to store carbon is essential -- and still possible -- with bold, science-based action today," said co-author Giacomo Grassi, who is a member of the UN's IPCC expert task force on greenhouse gas inventories. Solutions include rapid reductions in carbon emissions, combined with efforts to improve management to make forests more resilient to climate impacts, and comprehensive monitoring. Many European countries still rely on periodic inventories, which cannot keep up with rapid changes to forest health. The authors emphasize the need to better understand forest dynamics. They call in particular for better measuring of carbon flows between the soil, vegetation, and atmosphere, as well as improving predictions of how extreme weather will affect carbon sinks in the future. The research looked at official 2024 data showing that the amount carbon absorbed by Europe's forests, ecosystems and changes to land use plummeted by around a third in the 2020 to 2022 period, compared to 2010 to 2014. The authors said 2025 figures "suggest an even steeper decline". "This trend, combined with the declining climate resilience of European forests, indicates that the EU's climate targets, which rely on an increasing carbon sink, might be at risk," the authors said. Earlier this week another study in the Nature journal Communications Earth & Environment found that land accounts for a quarter of global emissions reductions in countries' climate plans and warned that a lack of funding and conservation focus was putting these in jeopardy. Piers Forster, Director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at Leeds University, who was not involved in Wednesday's study said it underscores the urgent need to slash emissions across the board. "We can't bet our future on carbon removal -- either from planting more trees, from protecting forests, or from emerging technologies such as direct air capture and storage -- without understanding what is already happening to the land and natural systems," he said. Scientists have warned that it is still unclear how carbon sinks might behave as the planet warms in future, and exactly how much heat-trapping carbon dioxide they might soak up from the atmosphere. In April, research by Climate Analytics, a policy institute that independently assesses countries' climate plans, warned that major economies are overstating how much carbon their forests can absorb in a climate accounting fudge that could allow them to use even more fossil fuels.
Int'l Business Times
30-07-2025
- Int'l Business Times
Physicists Still Divided About Quantum World, 100 Years On
The theory of quantum mechanics has transformed daily life since being proposed a century ago, yet how it works remains a mystery -- and physicists are deeply divided about what is actually going on, a survey in the journal Nature said Wednesday. "Shut up and calculate!" is a famous quote in quantum physics that illustrates the frustration of scientists struggling to unravel one of the world's great paradoxes. For the last century, equations based on quantum mechanics have consistently and accurately described the behaviour of extremely small objects. However, no one knows what is happening in the physical reality behind the mathematics. The problem started at the turn of the 20th century, when scientists realised that the classical principles of physics did not apply to things on the level on atoms. Bafflingly, photons and electrons appear to behave like both particles and waves. They can also be in different positions simultaneously -- and have different speeds or levels of energy. In 1925, Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger and Germany's Werner Heisenberg developed a set of complex mathematical tools that describe quantum mechanics using probabilities. This "wave function" made it possible to predict the results of measurements of a particle. These equations led to the development of a huge amount of modern technology, including lasers, LED lights, MRI scanners and the transistors used in computers and phones. But the question remained: what exactly is happening in the world beyond the maths? To mark the 100th year of quantum mechanics, many of the world's leading physicists gathered last month on the German island of Heligoland, where Heisenberg wrote his famous equation. More than 1,100 of them responded to a survey conducted by the leading scientific journal Nature. The results showed there is a "striking lack of consensus among physicists about what quantum theory says about reality", Nature said in a statement. More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. In the classical world, everything has defined properties -- such as position or speed -- whether we observe them or not. But this is not the case in the quantum realm, according to the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Heisenberg and Danish physicist Niels Bohr in the 1920s. It is only when an observer measures a quantum object that it settles on a specific state from the possible options, goes the theory. This is described as its wave function "collapsing" into a single possibility. The most famous depiction of this idea is Schroedinger's cat, which remains simultaneously alive and dead in a box -- until someone peeks inside. The Copenhagen interpretation "is the simplest we have", Brazilian physics philosopher Decio Krause told Nature after responding to the survey. Despite the theory's problems -- such as not explaining why measurement has this effect -- the alternatives "present other problems which, to me, are worse," he said. But the majority of the physicists supported other ideas. Fifteen percent of the respondents opted for the "many worlds" interpretation, one of several theories in physics that propose we live in a multiverse. It asserts that the wave function does not collapse, but instead branches off into as many universes as there are possible outcomes. So when an observer measures a particle, they get the position for their world -- but it is in all other possible positions across many parallel universes. "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," US theoretical physicist Sean Carroll said in the survey. The quantum experts were split on other big questions facing the field. Is there some kind of boundary between the quantum and classical worlds, where the laws of physics suddenly change? Forty-five percent of the physicists responded yes to this question -- and the exact same percentage responded no. Just 24 percent said they were confident the quantum interpretation they chose was correct. And three quarters believed that it will be replaced by a more comprehensive theory one day.
