Editing Many-worlds interpretation (section)

=== Polls ===
A poll of 72 "leading quantum [[cosmologist]]s and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".<ref name=":1">{{cite book |pages=170–171 |title=The Physics of Immortality:Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead |first= Frank |last= Tipler| author-link=Frank J. Tipler |date=1994|quote=In the "yes" column were Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Murray Gell-Mann}}</ref>

[[Max Tegmark]] reports the result of a "highly unscientific" poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop. According to Tegmark, "The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the [[consistent histories]] and [[Bohm interpretation]]s."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/quantum.html | title = Max Tegmark on many-worlds (contains MWI poll) }}</ref>

In response to [[Sean M. Carroll]]'s statement "As crazy as it sounds, most working physicists buy into the many-worlds theory",<ref name=carrollcrazy>{{cite web |url=http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html#108087902367974365 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040908014703/http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html#108087902367974365 |first=Sean |last=Caroll |title=Preposterous Universe |date=1 April 2004 |archive-date=8 September 2004 }}</ref> [[Michael Nielsen]] counters: "at a quantum computing conference at Cambridge in 1998, a many-worlder surveyed the audience of approximately 200 people&nbsp;... Many-worlds did just fine, garnering support on a level comparable to, but somewhat below, Copenhagen and decoherence." But Nielsen notes that it seemed most attendees found it to be a waste of time: Peres "got a huge and sustained round of applause…when he got up at the end of the polling and asked 'And who here believes the laws of physics are decided by a democratic vote?{{'"}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.qinfo.org/people/nielsen/blog/archive/000060.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040520222807/http://www.qinfo.org/people/nielsen/blog/archive/000060.html |first=Michael |last=Nielsen |title=Michael Nielsen: The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics | archive-date=20 May 2004 |date=3 April 2004 }}</ref>

A 2005 poll of fewer than 40 students and researchers taken after a course on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo found "Many Worlds (and decoherence)" to be the least favored.<ref>[http://www.iqc.ca/~qipcourse/interpret/survey.html Survey Results] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101104152717/http://www.iqc.ca/~qipcourse/interpret/survey.html |date=2010-11-04 }}</ref>

A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference on [[quantum foundations]] found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;<ref name=poll2011>{{cite journal |arxiv=1301.1069 |last1=Schlosshauer |first1=Maximilian |title=A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics |journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=222–230 |last2=Kofler |first2=Johannes |last3=Zeilinger |first3=Anton |year=2013 |doi=10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004 |bibcode=2013SHPMP..44..222S |s2cid=55537196 }}</ref> the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.<ref name=poll2011/>