> I don't believe any of the possible interpretations of QM have a clear path to being proven, so are they pseudoscience as well?
The characterization is a little bit harsh, but yes. The Copenhagen interpretation is non-falsifiable, (relative to MWI) so while I don't know what it is, I know it isn't science.
There's a reason most reputable scientific journals don't accept papers dealing with interpretations of quantum mechanics. There's no "there" there.
Hawking radiation is interesting because a proof of lack of Hawking radiation is a proof of the falsehood of quantum mechanics. Which is really interesting; any time you can falsify something like quantum mechanics every physicist should be paying attention. Also, if certain models of string theory are correct, particle accelerators like the LHC should be able to produce micro black holes, which will then evaporate in detectable ways. So Hawking radiation is of observational interest as of 2010 as a possible way to provide evidence to support string theory. (spoiler alert: we didn't find any)
The characterization is a little bit harsh, but yes. The Copenhagen interpretation is non-falsifiable, (relative to MWI) so while I don't know what it is, I know it isn't science.
There's a reason most reputable scientific journals don't accept papers dealing with interpretations of quantum mechanics. There's no "there" there.
Hawking radiation is interesting because a proof of lack of Hawking radiation is a proof of the falsehood of quantum mechanics. Which is really interesting; any time you can falsify something like quantum mechanics every physicist should be paying attention. Also, if certain models of string theory are correct, particle accelerators like the LHC should be able to produce micro black holes, which will then evaporate in detectable ways. So Hawking radiation is of observational interest as of 2010 as a possible way to provide evidence to support string theory. (spoiler alert: we didn't find any)