I will listen to any hypothesis but on one condition–that you show me a method by which it can be tested.
If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.
In last chapter, concerned with consistency; here trying to generate its opposite, to develop differences.
In general tests require that both halves of apparatus vary in time, otherwise effects likely to be averaged away.
This explains why not generally seen, and also gives insight as to what to look for.
This means we have to prefer particles to beams.
Analysis is simplified by absence of free parameters; complexified by fact we do not know what the initial wave function looks like.
Consider foundational experiments, as in [Lamoreaux-1992] [Ghose-1999] [Auletta-2000]. In most cases, we can flip time and a space dimension to get a test of quantization in time.
We wish to minimize assumptions about initial dispersions in time and the like. we can use a single slit to prepare beam for a subsequent single or double slit experiment.
We limit ourselves to procedures already known to work; we would rather not rely on measuring quantum energy until shown to exist.
The most obvious metric is generally additional uncertainty in laboratory time, a product of additional uncertainty in quantum time.
Focus on a "starter set" of experiments.
Benefits of defining "starter set" of experimental tests:
Completes definition of temporal quantization.
Establishes temporal quantization is testable.
Experiments breed experiments; starter set opens up lines of attack.
Null results may themselves be interesting; for instance, a preferred frame might be defined as one where temporal quantization is maximally falsified.