Discerning Between QM Interpretations

[rjbeery]

This brief paper contains a proposal based on no controversial assumptions. All feedback is welcome!

https://goo.gl/Lkv4s5

[C C]

Conclusion: It is possible, in theory, to devise a test which would help us delineate between broad classes of QM interpretations. As proposed, this test would pit conservation of momentum against causality. Reducing the number of plausible interpretations may help to draw the community toward a more unified understanding of this phenomenon.

Regardless of the coherence or feasibility of this particular proposal, it's at least an example of the door being promoted as open. Since it's unclear what preset determinations or a priori declarations like "___ is un-testable" or "this set of __ cannot be culled in number" would be doing as roadblocks and discouragement in an overall enterprise which claims to be receptive to modifications and revisions wrought by contingencies and continuing developments in the future.

[rjbeery]

Regardless of the coherence or feasibility of this particular proposal, it's at least an example of the door being promoted as open. Since it's unclear what preset determinations or a priori declarations like "___ is un-testable" or "this set of __ cannot be culled in number" would be doing as roadblocks and discouragement in an overall enterprise which claims to be receptive to modifications and revisions wrought by contingencies and continuing developments in the future.

Hi C C, I think what you're saying is that, normally, comments directed at physics in casual forums such as this tend to be negative and denouncing. If that's what you're saying then I agree 100%. Nothing in my proposal even questions the QM in any way, it just tries to make the case that different interpretations are actually making different predictions.