Big Mysteries Survey: Physicists’ Views on Cosmology, Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Gravity

Multiple lines of evidence—including light-element abundances, the large-scale distribution of galaxies, and the existence and thermal properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—support a Big Bang expansion history. What remains contested is what physicists mean by the phrase “the Big Bang.” Some leading cosmologists, most famously Stephen Hawking [3], have argued that a beginning of time is now effectively established. Others have challenged this interpretation [4], emphasizing that the Big Bang describes evolution from a hot, dense state and does not by itself settle the question of whether time had an absolute beginning.

The Big Mysteries Survey responses strongly favor the latter interpretation (Figure 2). Respondents overwhelmingly prefer to treat the Big Bang as a theory of cosmic evolution from a hot, dense state rather than as a statement that time began. In that sense, it may be more accurate to say that physicists regard the universe as at least 13.8 billion years old, rather than to infer that they thereby endorse a definite beginning of time.

Notably, this is the only question in the Big Mysteries Survey for which a single option receives a large majority (more than two-thirds). In the Physics Magazine sample, 68.4% endorse the “hot, dense state” interpretation, very close to the 68% reported in the Copenhagen survey. A significant difference between the two surveys, however, is the larger share of Physics Magazine respondents who interpret the Big Bang as implying a singularity and a beginning of time: 20% in the Physics Magazine survey versus 11% in the Copenhagen survey. This does not necessarily imply belief in a physically realized singularity; it may instead reflect a difference in how respondents interpret the phrase “Big Bang.”

The free-text “Other” responses for this question were dominated by framing disputes over language rather than by a single alternative theory. Representative comments include: “This is a terminology question. Different people use the term differently.” Several other comments similarly stressed that the meaning of “Big Bang” depends on context.

A second question addresses early-universe cosmology more directly by asking what respondents regard as the most likely solution to the horizon, structure, flatness, and monopole problems. Inflation is often presented as the standard answer to these puzzles [5], but it has also faced sustained criticism and competition from alternative proposals [6].

The Big Mysteries Survey responses show no overwhelming support for any single alternative, and inflation itself only narrowly exceeds the threshold for majority support (Figure 3). This raises the question of whether inflation should be described as a strong community consensus or, more cautiously, as the leading but contested option. Compared with the Copenhagen survey, the pattern is broadly similar, though inflation did not reach majority support there (44%), and “some quantum gravity model” was more popular (16% in Copenhagen versus 7% in the Physics Magazine survey).

In the “Other” responses, the most common theme was hybrid early-universe scenarios that combine mechanisms, for example: “A combination of a bouncing/cyclic universe AND quantum effects during the bounce.” A smaller but recurrent theme questioned whether the standard formulation identifies a real paradox.

Two survey questions address key components of the standard cosmological model, $\Lambda$CDM, in which the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant ($\Lambda$) and cold dark matter not accounted for by the Standard Model of particle physics [7]. The first asks about the most likely explanation of galactic rotation and related gravitational anomalies.

No single dark-matter candidate dominates the Big Mysteries Survey responses; instead, a hybrid answer is the most common choice (Figure 4). One plausible interpretation is that the non-detection of WIMPs in direct searches [8], together with the absence of supersymmetry signals at the LHC [9], has reduced confidence in WIMP-centered scenarios relative to other possibilities such as axions.

This overall pattern is consistent with the Copenhagen survey, where a hybrid model was also the leading response. A notable difference, however, is the stronger support in the Physics Magazine survey for modifying gravity (or invoking quantum-gravity effects) to explain phenomena often attributed to dark matter. In Copenhagen, modified gravity and quantum gravity together received only 5% support (1% MOND [10], 4% quantum gravity), whereas in the Physics Magazine survey the corresponding numbers rise to 11.5% (MOND) and 10.1% (quantum gravity). This increase appears to come partly at the expense of primordial black holes, which received 17% support in Copenhagen but only 5.4% in the Physics Magazine survey. Even so, when all dark-matter-candidate options are combined (hybrid models, axions, WIMPs, and primordial black holes), they exceed a majority, totaling 53.4%.

The “Other” free-text entries most often emphasized mixed or nonexclusive explanations. Typical comments include “I suspect that Dark Matter and Dark Energy have a common explanation” and “Normal matter that we have either missed or miscounted!” This pattern is consistent with the cross-question correlations below: respondents selecting modified-gravity or quantum-gravity explanations for dark-matter anomalies are also more likely to select related responses for cosmic acceleration and the Hubble tension (Table 1).

The second $\Lambda$CDM-related question concerns dark energy. Here the Big Mysteries Survey responses are even less supportive of a canonical textbook answer than in the dark-matter question. A time-varying field is slightly more popular than a cosmological constant (25.9% versus 24.0%; Figure 5). One possible contributor to this shift is the influence of recent DESI-based analyses [11], which have been widely discussed in connection with evolving dark energy.

This represents a substantial change from the Copenhagen survey (conducted before the latest DESI release), where a cosmological constant was the most popular option (38%) and a time-varying field received only 16% support. Importantly, however, neither survey finds a majority for a cosmological constant. In that limited sense, many physicists do not appear to endorse the simplest textbook formulation of $\Lambda$CDM as strongly as public summaries sometimes imply.

The “Other” responses for this question were led by uncertainty and model incompleteness, with many respondents explicitly stating that key physics may still be missing. Examples include: “We’re missing some big piece of physics that I hope we’ll learn in my lifetime” and “With current evidence from DESI I do not feel confident selecting a constant or varying dark energy.” In the correlation analysis, this question shows some of the strongest cross-links in the survey: time-varying dark energy is tightly paired with early dark energy in the Hubble-tension question, and quantum-gravity answers here are tightly paired with quantum-gravity answers in both the dark-matter and Hubble-tension questions (Table 1).

Another challenge to the standard cosmological picture is the Hubble tension, in which two established methods of measuring the cosmic expansion rate yield inconsistent values [12, 13, 14]. Responses to this question indicate less confidence than in many of the other topics surveyed. “No opinion” is the most common response (24.4%), followed by early dark energy (22.1%) (Figure 6).

This differs sharply from the Copenhagen survey, where systematic errors in supernova data were the most popular explanation (35%), compared with only 16.7% in the Physics Magazine survey. The contrast may reflect differences in respondent composition, changes in the literature between the two surveys, or both.

The dominant “Other” theme here was not a single new mechanism but combined-systematics accounts, e.g., “Both Systematic errors in CMB/galaxy-survey data And Systematic errors in supernova data.” A second recurring theme was dissatisfaction with baseline modeling, such as “Problems with LCDM model used to model early universe.” Consistent with this, correlated-response analysis indicates that many respondents who endorse early dark energy for the Hubble tension also endorse time-varying dark energy for cosmic acceleration, while those choosing modified/quantum-gravity explanations for the Hubble tension are strongly linked to analogous choices in the dark-matter and dark-energy questions (Table 1).

It is often argued that small changes in the fundamental constants of nature would prevent the emergence of complex structure or life [15]. If so, what explains the observed life-permitting values? Popular discussions frequently frame the issue as forcing a choice between intelligent design and multiverse-based anthropic selection [16].

The Big Mysteries Survey results do not support that framing (Figure 7). The most common response is that the constants are brute facts requiring no further explanation (26%). This was also the most common response in the Copenhagen survey (33%) [1] and in the PhilPapers survey of philosophers (32%) [17]. Moreover, even when the multiverse and intelligent-design responses are combined, they still fall short of a majority (28.8%). These results suggest that many physicists do not accept the premise that fine-tuning arguments compel commitment to either of those two explanatory frameworks.

The “Other” comments most commonly challenged narrow fine-tuning framing and anthropocentric assumptions. Illustrative responses include: “the anthropic principle means little” and “To think otherwise is unforgivably anthropocentric.” Another recurring theme asked for deeper fundamental explanation rather than either design or multiverse commitment.

Turning to quantum foundations, interpretations of quantum mechanics have been the subject of several recent surveys. A widely discussed Nature survey [18], for example, found the Copenhagen interpretation to be the most favored option (36%). The Physics Magazine survey yields a very similar top-line result, with Copenhagen favored by 35.7% of respondents (Figure 8).

The ranking of alternatives differs, however. In the Physics Magazine survey, Many-Worlds is the second most selected named interpretation (11%), whereas the Nature survey reported epistemic interpretations (such as Qbism) as the second most popular category (17%). It is also notable that, in the Physics Magazine sample, both “no opinion” and “other” outpoll Many-Worlds. This underscores the extent of continuing fragmentation in views on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. For canonical formulations or modern introductions to several of the named options, see [19, 20, 21, 22, 23].

In the “Other” free-text entries, the most common named alternatives included relational quantum mechanics. A second recurring theme was dissatisfaction with the provided taxonomy, captured by comments like “None of the above.” At the cross-question level, one notable high-log-odds pair links “anthropic selection in a multiverse” with “Many Worlds,” suggesting that respondents attracted to explicitly multiverse-based reasoning in cosmology are also more likely to select a multiverse-like quantum interpretation (Table 1).

Another topic on which a textbook-style answer fails to command a majority concerns the fate of matter crossing a black hole event horizon. In standard general-relativistic language, infalling matter is often said to end in a singularity [24]. This is the most popular Big Mysteries Survey response (40.5%), but it still falls well short of a majority (Figure 9).

This option is substantially more popular in the Physics Magazine survey than in the Copenhagen survey (29%). Conversely, alternatives such as matter bouncing into our universe or another universe receive less support in the Physics Magazine survey than in the Copenhagen sample.

Among “Other” responses, the most common theme was that horizon crossing is locally uneventful: “Nothing happens … it simply continues to free-fall forever.” Closely related comments emphasized that crossing does not immediately imply singular behavior: “nothing special is guaranteed to happen.”

Black holes also lie at the center of the information paradox. A common way of stating the tension is that semiclassical gravity appears to permit information loss, whereas quantum theory strongly motivates information preservation [25]. It is sometimes claimed that physicists now broadly agree that information is preserved, with disagreement only about the mechanism [26]. The Big Mysteries Survey results suggest that this consensus narrative is overstated.

Information preservation only narrowly exceeds a majority in the Physics Magazine survey. Combining preservation via Hawking radiation (30.5%) and via black hole remnants (23.7%) yields 54.2% (Figure 10). Information loss remains a minority view, but at 18.8% it is far from negligible. These results closely track the Copenhagen survey, which also found 53% support for information preservation (27% Hawking radiation, 26% remnants) and 18.8% support for information loss.

In “Other” free-text comments, recurrent alternatives invoked near-horizon structure and holography, for example: “A black hole has hair” and “Holographic event horizon.” The correlation analysis adds one clear cross-domain association: respondents who choose information preservation in Hawking radiation are significantly more likely to select String Theory/M-Theory as their preferred quantum-gravity framework (Table 1).

Perhaps the most prominent unresolved problem in fundamental physics is the reconciliation of quantum mechanics with general relativity. The Big Mysteries Survey responses show no dominant approach, and uncertainty is visible in the fact that “no opinion” is the most selected response (Figure 11). String theory remains the most popular named proposal, but with only 18.9% support.

Notably, the view that gravity is not quantum ranks third (17.7%), ahead of loop quantum gravity (12.7%). If one combines the listed non-string quantum-gravity approaches, they account for 23.1% of responses, suggesting that even if string theory remains the best-known candidate, many physicists do not treat it as uniquely compelling. The overall pattern is similar to the Copenhagen survey, where string theory received 21% support and non-string alternatives combined received 19%.

The “Other” responses most commonly expressed dissatisfaction with the current menu of options, often simply “none of the above.” A related theme argued that the correct framework is still missing, e.g., “the mathematical formula … has not yet been developed.”

Using the log-odds statistic defined in Appendix A, we identify highly correlated response pairs by $\log\mathcal{O}>25$ (roughly $+7\sigma$) and strongly anticorrelated pairs by $\log\mathcal{O}<-15$ (roughly $-5\sigma$). The strongest positive associations cluster around internally consistent theory bundles: quantum-gravity explanations across early-universe, dark-matter, and dark-energy questions; modified-gravity pairings across dark-matter and dark-energy anomalies; and the dark-energy/Hubble-tension linkage between time-varying dark energy and early dark energy. A separate high-correlation cluster links black-hole information preservation in Hawking radiation with string-theory preference for quantum gravity. Figure 12 visualizes this split directly: the right tail beyond the $+7\sigma$ line feeds Table 1, while the left tail beyond the $-5\sigma$ line feeds Table 2.

The negative-tail pairs mostly involve “Other” or “No opinion” responses, indicating that respondents who select specific mainstream answers in one domain are statistically less likely than chance to select broad residual categories in related domains.