假设引力子被证实且Pilot Wave Theory兼容狭义相对论，能否从理论上证明量子力学诠释正确？

Great question—this cuts right to the heart of quantum foundations and the hunt for a Theory of Everything (ToE). Let’s unpack it with the context you’ve laid out:

First, let’s anchor this in a key fact: all mainstream quantum interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Pilot Wave Theory, etc.) are explicitly designed to make identical experimental predictions. This isn’t a bug—it’s a feature, since they all have to align with decades of confirmed quantum experimental data. As long as this equivalence holds, no experimental test can distinguish between them. So what about theoretical proof?

To theoretically validate one interpretation over others, we need to leverage constraints that go beyond standard quantum mechanics—specifically, the requirements of a consistent ToE:

• Quantum-Gravity Compatibility: You’ve assumed gravitons are confirmed and Pilot Wave Theory is relativistically consistent via constructive quantum field theory. But a ToE needs a fully self-consistent quantum gravity framework, and different interpretations may behave very differently here:
  • For example, Pilot Wave’s dual "real particle + guiding wave" ontology might naturally explain the emergence of classical spacetime from quantum gravitational effects, whereas Many-Worlds’ branching structure could offer a cleaner solution to the black hole information paradox.
  • If one interpretation avoids fundamental contradictions that plague others in quantum gravity (like Copenhagen’s ill-defined "wavefunction collapse" in curved spacetime), that’s a strong theoretical preference.
• Occam’s Razor & Theoretical Simplicity: While not a strict "proof," ToEs are almost always judged by mathematical elegance and minimal assumptions. Many-Worlds has no need for ad-hoc collapse rules; Pilot Wave requires an additional guiding wave equation; Copenhagen relies on a vague observer boundary. If one interpretation lets you build a quantum gravity framework with the fewest unproven assumptions, it becomes the default choice.
• Ontological Consistency: If your ToE demands a specific ontological stance (e.g., "all physical quantities have objective, observer-independent reality"), Pilot Wave’s realist approach fits better than Copenhagen’s instrumentalist view. If the ToE rejects special status for observers, both Pilot Wave and Many-Worlds are more aligned than Copenhagen.

It’s important to clarify: in fundamental physics, "proof" isn’t the same as mathematical rigor. A physical theory’s validity ultimately ties back to experiment. But if one interpretation is the only self-consistent way to integrate quantum mechanics with quantum gravity (your hypothesized ToE), and that ToE makes new, testable predictions (e.g., specific graviton-quantum coupling effects, macroscale quantum gravity signatures), then that interpretation is indirectly validated.

For example: if a Pilot Wave-based quantum gravity framework predicts a unique gravitational effect that’s later observed in experiments, even though Pilot Wave and other interpretations are equivalent in standard quantum tests, this new evidence would make Pilot Wave the preferred foundation for the ToE.

• As long as all interpretations remain experimentally equivalent, strict theoretical proof of one over the others is impossible—physics can’t confirm a theory that has no distinguishable experimental consequences.
• However, if your ToE requires specific theoretical properties (self-consistency, simplicity, ontological coherence) and one interpretation is the only viable fit, plus that ToE generates verifiable new predictions, then that interpretation can be indirectly confirmed as the basis for the ToE.

内容的提问来源于stack exchange，提问作者Anglel Kaldanis