Michael B. Heaney replied to the topic Thinking about QM as a variational principle (online 7/9 @ 9am UTC-6) in the forum Retrocausal theories 5 years, 7 months ago
In your paper, you say collapse does not need to be instantaneous. Won’t this violate the conservation laws?
Well, I don’t think so, but if I’ve misunderstood something I’d appreciate your enlightening me. The point is that if I make a measurement (or prepare a state) at time t1 and again at t2 > t1, with no intervening measurement, then I have no experimental evidence for *how* the system got into the state I observe at t2. The Copenhagen interpretation tells me that it collapsed in an instant, at t2, but if instead I assert (as I do!) that it changed smoothly during the interval (t1,t2), there is no experimental evidence that can prove me wrong. Therefore I conclude that (A) my explanation cannot be refuted by the experimental record and (B) in particular, if there’s any failure of conservation, it can’t be measured.