There are a few on this board who will dive straight into quantum mechanics as soon as the idea of a cool object further warming a warm object is called into question.....and they speak of quantum mechanics as if it, like climate science is "settled" science. A recent survey was done and it seems that insofar as quantum mechanics goes, there is little that the "experts" agree on. This belief that any science is settled and not subject to question seems to be one of the more serious symptoms of postmodern science. This poll was given to the participants of a quantum foundations confrence. Here are some of the results... Randomness of quantum processes (e.g. decay of nuclei) is: 64%: fundamental 48%: irreducible 9%: only apparent 0%: masking a hidden determinism Do objects have well-defined properties before measurements? 52%: yes, in some cases 48%: no 9%: undecided 3%: always Einstein's view on quantum mechanics is: 64%: wrong 12%: will be shown wrong 12%: we don't know 6%: will be shown right 0%: is right Bohr's view on quantum mechanics is: 30%: we have to wait 27%: wrong 21%: correct 9%: will be shown right 3%: will be shown wrong A similar split appears when it comes to the measurement problem: 39%: solved (now or later) in a different way 27%: a pseudoproblem 27%: none of the above 24%: a severe difficulty threatening QM 15%: solved by decoherence What is the message of the violation of Bell's inequalities? 64%: local realism is untenable 52%: unperformed experiments have no results 36%: some notion of nonlocality 12%: action at a distance in the physical world 6%: let's not jump the gun, take loopholes seriously Quantum information is: 76%: fresh air in quantum foundations 27%: we need to wait 6%: useful for applications but of no relevance to foundations 6%: neither useful nor relevant When will we have a working and useful quantum computer? 9%: within 10 years 42%: 10-25 years 30%: 25-50 years 0%: 50-100 years 15%: never Right interpretation of state vectors: 27%: epistemic/informational 24%: ontic 33%: a mix of epistemic and ontic 3%: purely statistical as in ensemble interpretation 12%: other The observer is: 39%: a complex quantum system 21%: should play no fundamental role whatsoever 55%: plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role 6%: plays a distinct physical role (soul collapses wave function...) Reconstruction of quantum theory: 15%: gives useful insights and has/will supersede the interpretation program 45%: gives useful insights but we still need an interpretation 30%: cannot solve the quantum foundations 27%: will lead to a deeper theory than QM 12%: don't know Favorite interpretation: 0%: consistent histories 42%: Copenhagen 0%: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave 18%: Everett many worlds/minds 24%: information-based 0%: modal 9%: objective collapse, GRW or Penrose 6%: quantum Bayesianism 6%: relational quantum mechanics 0%: ensemble interpretation 0%: transactional interpretation 12%: other 12%: no preferred one How often have you switched interpretation? 33%: never 21%: once 21%: several times 21%: no preferred interpretation Does the choice of interpretation depend on philosophical prejudices? 58%: a lot 27%: a little 15%: not at all Superpositions of macro- different states are: 67%: possible in principle 36%: will eventually be realized 12%: in principle impossible 6%: impossible because of collapse theory In 50 years, conferences on quantum foundations: 48%: will still be organized 15%: probably no 24%: who knows 12%: I organize one no matter what So the next time you (and you know who you are) feel like making statements regarding QM as if it were settled science, remember that even the "experts" are in disagreement on damned near everything.