The question is as in the title. I feel that it doesnt change the mausrement.
I am not sure what exactly do you ask. Perhaps - do different interpretations make different measurable predictions?
The interpretation does not affect the outcome of experiments - Nature does not care what you think is going to happen or why you think it happens. But this is very philosophical.
See the faq:
Indeed it's quite philosophical, but if nature doesn't care then that's good for me, neither do I care about the interpratations.
Pick the one that makes the maths easy is what I do.
Then why did you started this thread?
By the way, for me interpretations are useful because they help to develop intuition about otherwise abstract technical subjects. I guess I don't need to explain why intuition is useful.
Of course, sometimes intuition may lead to a wrong result, but that's a matter of difference between a good and a not-so-good interpretation. So even if we cannot say that one interpretation is "right" and another interpretation "wrong", a good and useful interpretation is the one which helps you to get quickly to a correct result.
There seems to be a higher tolerance for philosophy in the QM forum ;)
Use the search function for interpretations to see what I mean.
That's why its called an interpretation - it makes no difference to anything observable.
I don't think we need interpretations in order to develop intuition. In fact I think I have a very good intuition for QM and I do not care at all about interpretations. In my opinion, not having to think in certain patterns allows us to think more freely. Interpretations are always running behind, because they always need to adapt new developments to their framework, while instrumentalists aren't limited in the way they can propose new theories.
I agree that the QM forum has a high tolerance for philosophical topics.
You can't avoid interpretations - where does the math come from?
Simon is correct.
It may seem like you do not need an interpretation, but a careful look at even just taking the formalism at face value shows you are making some eg the formalism speaks of probability and interpreting that is a major can of worms. In applied math you correctly don't worry about it, but if you are being exact there is no doubt you are making interpretive assumptions.
That said its of zero practical importance - its simply the kind of thing philosophy types worry about.
I didn't say we don't need interpretations. I said, we don't need them in order to develop intuition. Read carefully. ;) Of course, we need to explain, how the numbers that the theory predicts, relate to experiments. That's true also in classical mechanics (nobody worries about interpretations there, by the way). Beyond the correspondence between numbers and measurement apparata, interpretations are irrelevant. That's what I meant by instrumentalism. And it's a matter of fact that instrumentalists have much more freedom in the way they can use the framework to built theories.
I'm thinking that there isn't much more to be said on this topic. If anyone has a proof by example that I'm wrong, PM me and I'll reopen it.
Separate names with a comma.