assembling intelligent understanding calculating definitive understanding computing accurate contingencies predicting definitive futures formulating accurate contingencies mapping the future delivering intelligent predictions calculating intelligent contingencies assembling definitive estimations predicting accurate predictions crowdsourcing definitive futures predicting critical insights calculating precise insights predicting intelligent forecasts

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will a reliable poll of physicists reveal that a majority of those polled accept the many-worlds interpretation by 2050?

The many-worlds interpretation is a theory for explaining our observations from quantum experiments. It posits that reality consists entirely of a universal wavefunction that deterministically obeys the Schrodinger equation (or some other wave equation). The apparent probabilistic nature of quantum experiments is normally explained by appealing to a non-rigorous concept of macroscopic worlds where each possible result of a quantum experiment happens in one of these worlds. However, "worlds" are merely convenient abstractions, and are not fundamental to the theory's main statement.

The other names of the many-worlds interpretation include "the relative state formulation", "the Everett interpretation", and "the theory of the universal wavefunction."

This question resolves positively if by 1/1/2050 a poll of professional physicists with at least 100 responses reveals that more than half accept the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, as I have described above. The results from the poll must be published in some reliable document or blog post, and must not be informal. If no such poll is released by 1/1/2050, then this question resolves negatively.

Here is an example of a qualifying survey uploaded to the arxiv in December of 2016. 39% said they preferred the Copenhagen interpretation, 6% the Everett interpretation, 36% had no preferrence.

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.

Embed this question

You can use the below code snippet to embed this question on your own webpage. Feel free to change the height and width to suit your needs.