AMA | August 2025

If you've used Babbel, you would. Babbel's conversation based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com/wandery, spelled babbel,.com/wandery. Rules and restrictions may apply. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the August 2025 ask me anything edition of the Mindscape podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. Not a lot of news to report, since the last AMA a month ago. The life in the summertime of a college professor trying to get papers written and books written does not really create a lot of adventures to relate, but that's okay. Sometimes the adventures are in the mind. That's important also. There was a fun article that came out in Nature. They tried to figure out what physicists really think about the foundations of quantum mechanics. This is something that happens every so often that, you know, we try to take a poll of a bunch of physicists and ask them what they really think. The problem is with that kind of approach that it's going to be very, very biased depending on who exactly you are polling. You're polling your friends. You're polling the people whose emails you happen to have. You're polling people at a certain kind of conference. Those sets of people might be very different in the kinds of quantum mechanics that they like. So, I actually consulted a little bit with, the authors of the piece to try to figure out how to get the largest cross section of physicists. They went through people who had published on quantPH, which is the archive category for quantum mechanics, and a bunch of other people as well. Anyway, the results are more or less, I think, what one expects. One might not like the results but they're more or less consistent with what one hears. The Copenhagen interpretation received more than twice as many votes as any other particular interpretation, to the question, you know, what foundation what is your favorite explanation of quantum theory? And it still received only 36% of the total votes. And they asked not only, what is your favorite explanation but how confident are you in it? And it was a tiny number of people who were voting for Copenhagen that said they were confident in it. Likewise for all the other approaches to the foundations of quantum mechanics, they weren't very popular nor were people very confident in them even when they believed them. Second place was taken by epistemic slash information based approaches, third place by many worlds, and then with less than half that many votes, pilot wave theory, de Borley Bohm, and then even smaller number of votes for spontaneous collapse, relational quantum mechanics, super …