On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

## Advertising

Continued investigation of the EM-drive may be the crack in physics that
> finally shows that conventional quantum mechanics is an arcane, obsolete,
> and incomplete formulation of the physics of small matter. Just because
> quantum mechanics mostly works, doesn't mean it is a good formulation of
> the problem.
>
It is important to distinguish the Copenhagen interpretation of QM from the
results of the mathematical calculations. I understand that many
physicists consider the mathematical calculations to be the essential part
of QM and the Copenhagen interpretation to be something that is up for
debate and a function of personal tastes. I gather that the results of the
QM calculations are the effectively the same in almost all cases, whether
you're considering standard calculations or ones based on pilot waves.
When the topic of the Copenhagen interpretation and pilot waves has come up
for discussion, the challenge that has been raised is to produce a case
where an experiment will distinguish between the two. Without an
experiment to sort between the two descriptions, the selection of
interpretation is perhaps a philosophical/esthetic one.
There are a few corner cases where the pilot wave approach will yield
different results. Perhaps the EM drive is tapping into one of them.
Eric