I Does this paper rule out the Transactional Interpretation?

Nickyv2423
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600162.full
They claimed to have shown that non local causaulity models of QM do not work. But does that include the Transactional interpretation, which is non local and retrocausal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, this does not rule out TI. It rules out certain kinds of hidden variables models. TI does not have any hidden variables.
So if anything, this strengthens the case for TI.
 
  • Like
Likes entropy1 and bhobba
No.

It' still a valid interpretation.

Like a lot of these papers claiming to rule this or that out, or show things like the violation of the uncertainty principle, it involves misunderstandings.

Thanks
Bill
 

Thread 'Violation of Bell Inequality with unentangled photons'

I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
View full post »

Thread 'Question about discussions around quantum interpretations'

I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
View full post »

Thread 'Modern View of Quantum Phenomena'

This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
View full post »

Similar threads

I How can Bohmian mechanics explain entanglement?
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
I A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
15
Replies
710
Views
37K
I Can anti-realism really save nonlocality?
Replies
40
Views
2K
I Does Time-Symmetry Imply Retrocausality? How does the Quantum World Say “Maybe”?
3
Replies
119
Views
2K
I Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?
Replies
35
Views
489
I How Does the Many-Worlds Interpretation Address Nonlocality?
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Realistic interpretation of QM
3
Replies
109
Views
10K
I Can entanglement swapping be explained without nonlocal influences?
Replies
32
Views
391
A Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
Replies
37
Views
6K
A Realism from Locality? Bell's Theorem & Nonlocality in QM
5
Replies
226
Views
22K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top