Does this paper rule out the Transactional Interpretation?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of a paper published in the journal Advances in Science, which claims to demonstrate that non-local causality models in quantum mechanics (QM) are ineffective. However, it is established that this claim does not extend to the Transactional Interpretation (TI) of QM, which is non-local and retrocausal. The consensus is that the paper specifically rules out certain hidden variable models, thereby reinforcing the validity of the Transactional Interpretation rather than undermining it.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the Transactional Interpretation of QM
  • Knowledge of hidden variable theories in quantum physics
  • Awareness of non-locality and retrocausality concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
  • Examine hidden variable theories and their implications in QM
  • Study non-locality and retrocausality in quantum physics
  • Analyze critiques of papers claiming to rule out interpretations of QM
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics researchers, and students interested in the nuances of quantum interpretations and their implications for foundational theories in physics.

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   Reactions: 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 226 ·
8
Replies
226
Views
24K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
13K
Replies
19
Views
2K