Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is backward-in-time causality a requirement in Cramer's transactional interpretation?

  1. Jul 24, 2007 #1
    From the wikipedia entry:

    "Suppose a particle (such as a photon) emitted from a source could interact with one of two detectors. According to TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, the "offer wave", and when this wave reaches the detectors, each one replies with an advanced wave, the "confirmation wave", that travels backwards in time, back to the source."

    I would interpret it this way:

    A detector emits a wave forward in time. When a potential emitter receives the signal, it replies with another wave, forward in time as well, towards the detector.

    I don't see the difference between a wave going backwards in time from the detector towards the source and a wave going forward in time in the opposite direction.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2007 #2
    Is the question too stupid or nobody is interested in the transactional interpretation here? Or, maybe, both of them?
     
  4. Oct 8, 2011 #3
    Re: Is backward-in-time causality a requirement in Cramer's transactional interpretat

    I think Cramer is trying to explain time anomolies exhibited in the "delayed choice" "double slit" experiments. Somehow a particle exhibits behavior based on events that have not yet happened. A forward time interpretation would not allow that possibility.
     
  5. Oct 8, 2011 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    Re: Is backward-in-time causality a requirement in Cramer's transactional interpretat

    This thread is 4 years old.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is backward-in-time causality a requirement in Cramer's transactional interpretation?
Loading...