I haven’t seen any of these interpretation polls with a good random sample, as opposed to niche meetings.
One of the commenters below the Carroll blog post you linked suggests that poll was from a meeting organized by a Copenhagen proponent:
I think that one of the main things I learned from this poll is that if you conduct a poll at a conference organized by Zeilinger then Copenhagen will come out top, whereas if you conduct a poll at a conference organized by Tegmark then many worlds will come out top. Is this a surprise to anyone?
The Tegmark “Everett@50” (even more obvious bias there, but this one allowed a “none of the above/undecided” option which was very popular) conference results are discussed in this paper:
Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is closest to
your own?
2 Copenhagen or consistent histories (including postulate
of explicit collapse)
5 Modified dynamics (Schrdinger equation modified to
give explicit collapse)
19 Many worlds/consistent histories (no collapse)
2 Bohm
1.5 Modal
22.5 None of the above/undecided
Do you feel comfortable saying that Everettian parallel uni-
verses are as real as our universe? (14 Yes/26 No/8 Undecided)
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
And there is a strange one, for which I don’t yet have a link to the original, critiqued at Wikipedia and discussed here, that claimed majority support for MWI in a a sample of 72. The argument for it being compatible with other polls is that it includes a lot of cosmologists, who tend to support MWI (it makes it easier to explain the evolution of the universe as a whole, and perhaps they are more open to a vast universe extending beyond our vision), but something still seems fishy about it.
1) “Yes, I think MWI is true” 58%
2) “No, I don’t accept MWI” 18%
3) “Maybe it’s true but I’m not yet convinced” 13%
4) “I have no opinion one way or the other” 11%
I haven’t seen any of these interpretation polls with a good random sample, as opposed to niche meetings.
One of the commenters below the Carroll blog post you linked suggests that poll was from a meeting organized by a Copenhagen proponent:
The Tegmark “Everett@50” (even more obvious bias there, but this one allowed a “none of the above/undecided” option which was very popular) conference results are discussed in this paper:
A 1997 workshop:
More polls are cited at Wikipedia.
And there is a strange one, for which I don’t yet have a link to the original, critiqued at Wikipedia and discussed here, that claimed majority support for MWI in a a sample of 72. The argument for it being compatible with other polls is that it includes a lot of cosmologists, who tend to support MWI (it makes it easier to explain the evolution of the universe as a whole, and perhaps they are more open to a vast universe extending beyond our vision), but something still seems fishy about it.