Cramer's Transactional Interpretation

In summary: Does anyone have any opinions on the transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? Does anyone really take it seriously." (published on December 10, 2017), poses the question of whether or not the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is taken seriously by the scientific community. Kastner notes that criticisms have been levied against it (to do with causal loops) but others have proposed resolutions to this problem without compromising the overall integrety of the idea. He also mentions that the transactional interpretation requires adopting fundamentally new concepts about time (not that this is a bad thing - since we do not have a coherent interpretation of just what "time" is anyway). Kastner concludes his article by asking whether or not the transactional interpretation is on an
  • #1
Amanita-Virosa
5
1
Does anyone have any opinions on the transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? Does anyone really take it seriously. I know criticisms have been levied against it (to do with causal loops) but others have proposed resolutions to this problem without compromising the overall integrety of the idea.

I'm interested to here peoples opinions as it doesn't seem to have attracted that much attention.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I asked a similar question a while ago. What I understand of it, is that it doesn't really give a clear picture beyond the 1-particle wavefunction situation. It's not clear how to interpret a general wavefunction of many particles. At least, that's what I saw of it.
 
  • #3
Amanita-Virosa said:
Does anyone have any opinions on the transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? Does anyone really take it seriously. I know criticisms have been levied against it (to do with causal loops) but others have proposed resolutions to this problem without compromising the overall integrety of the idea.

I'm interested to here peoples opinions as it doesn't seem to have attracted that much attention.
I find it surprising that few people seem to take it more seriously.

To me, it seems to provide an intuitively easy way to understand entanglement, and provides a way to address the apparent temporal asymmetries at the quantum level.

I think the reason it is not taken seriously is because it requires adopting fundamentally new concepts about time (not that this is a bad thing - since we do not have a coherent interpretation of just what "time" is anyway).

MF
 
  • #4
i did not understand the interpretation very well

- does a time-travelling (backwards) wave function exists?

- Is there a wave-particle duality of this is just an illusion??

- How does probability appear ??
 
  • #5
If we have a theory where everything is particle-particle interactions, then we ought to also have a theory where everything is wave-wave interactions. The philosophical difficulties with the particle picture are well-known...Schroedinger's cat, EPR, etc. The Copenhagen interpretation, with its focus on oberver and measurement, is supposed to resolve these difficulties. The wave picture has its own set of problems. It seems that according to the transactional interpretation, the backwards-travelling waves are the answer to these difficulties.

Therefore the wave interpretation of quantum mechanics ought to be on an equal footing with the particle interpretation.
 
  • #6
Yes, I take it seriously and yes, I think it's underappreciated and yes, I think it
presents us with a new paradigm of spacetime (and beyond).

See my new thread inviting questions/comments/concerns about TI:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=380128


R. E. Kastner
 

1. What is Cramer's Transactional Interpretation?

Cramer's Transactional Interpretation is a quantum mechanics theory proposed by physicist John Cramer in the 1980s. It suggests that each quantum event is not a single, irreversible occurrence, but rather a transaction between an advanced and retarded wave.

2. How does Cramer's Transactional Interpretation differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

One key difference is that it does not involve the collapse of the wave function, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. Instead, it proposes that all possible outcomes of a quantum event exist simultaneously and are then "selected" by the transaction between the advanced and retarded waves.

3. What is the evidence for Cramer's Transactional Interpretation?

Currently, there is no direct experimental evidence for Cramer's theory. However, it has been shown to be mathematically consistent with other interpretations of quantum mechanics and can make predictions that have been confirmed by experiments.

4. How does Cramer's Transactional Interpretation explain quantum entanglement?

In Cramer's theory, entanglement occurs when two particles are involved in a transactional handshake. This allows for non-local interactions between the particles, as the advanced and retarded waves can extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the particles.

5. What are the implications of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation?

If this interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, it could potentially lead to a better understanding of the nature of reality and allow for the development of new technologies, such as quantum computers. However, further research and experiments are needed to confirm its validity.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
29
Views
963
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
119
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
84
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
644
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top