I meant "rigorous and comprehensive" to include "representative of the entire quantum community". That poll was conducted at a single conference and had 33 participants. The bias inherent in this approach can be seen when the same poll was conducted at two other conferences:
In both cases, de-Broglie Bohm interpretations ruled the day. As the abstract of the latter paper states:
> ...the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of "quantum foundations", sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues than the already-significant amount revealed in the earlier poll.
My opinion is that the Copenhagen interpretation does not contradict DeBroglie in terms of nuclear chemistry, but solely thermodynamics.
The Copenhagen interpretation makes a leap of faith with the Born Rule as it is based on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The work of t'Hooft is a more modern alternative for ensembles where the outcome is stochastic, rather than probabilistic. Photosynthesis has that property, as do many other enzymatic systems.
> The Copenhagen interpretation makes a leap of faith with the Born Rule as it is based on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.
The Born rule was introduced in Born's paper on description of a scattering experiment with help of the \psi function that is a solution of Schroedinger's equation. Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics had nothing to do with it.
Because thermodynamics at the time espoused normally distributed error as dictated by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics; Born used a normalized wave function to solve Schroedinger's equation.
Thermodynamics and Linear Algebra have gotten more advanced, since then.
Not sure what you mean by "contradict". Certainly you won't easily find experiments for which the two offer different predictions. They are very different in terms of their ontology though: DeBroglie states that particles have definite positions and momenta at all times whereas Copenhagen does not.
Most of the contradictions arise as epistemological forks in the context of molecular spectroscopy with nuclear decay events. Thusly, it is a question of whose theories to use, and the Born rule is moot when the distribution of particles is not gaussian.
DeBroglie himself states that matter waves propagate according to a defined distribution; whereas Copehagen interprets that they are probabilistically distributed. In the former case there is a stochastic process, whereas it is only a random process in the latter case.
What do you mean by "moot"? The Born rule is simply that the probability of measuring a particle to be in a certain location is given by the squared amplitude of the wavefunction. This squared amplitude will generate the same predictions whether you are using deBroglie-Bohm or "Copenhagen" to imagine your underlying ontology.
The difference in ontology being that deBroglie-Bohm is deterministic, i.e. particles have definite positions of which we are merely ignorant, whereas "Copenhagen" is (usually) non-realist, i.e. it is not meaningful to talk about the positions of particles until the moment we measure it.
In this context, the word moot is a synonym for false.
You are omitting the word "normalized wave function" from your description of the Born Rule; it is a key part of the mathematical justification. The squared amplitude does not generate the same predictions under every theory, because the probability function is different.
That is also the difference between the theories of DeBroglie and Bohm, the former is stochastic while the latter is deterministic. Copenhagen theories describe the positions of particles probabilitistically; and the word 'measure' is not being used in the precise mathematical way that it should be. A better translation from Danish would be 'convolute'.
The thing to remember is that when one writes about physics which are centuries old, one must be historiographically consistent. If there is a hyphen between two names for a theory, such that one name is being attributed posthumously; then the student should infer the most recent name is making some error in translation.
When you separate DeBroglie and Bohm, on the basis of their lack of real cooperation, then it is clear to see who was ahead of their time. Bohm is abusing statistical terms in his translations from French, and the meaning of those words is an extremely important detail in the context of Quantum Information Theory. John Von Neumann was contemporaneously working in that context, but it was classified until recent times.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2719
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4646
In both cases, de-Broglie Bohm interpretations ruled the day. As the abstract of the latter paper states:
> ...the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of "quantum foundations", sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues than the already-significant amount revealed in the earlier poll.