Is Time-Reversed Causality Crucial in Cramer's Transactional Interpretation?

ueit
Messages
478
Reaction score
10
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the question too stupid or nobody is interested in the transactional interpretation here? Or, maybe, both of them?
 


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.
 


This thread is 4 years old.
 

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 Experiment distinguishes Standard QM vs Bohm: Asymmetric beam splitter
Replies
15
Views
2K
I Is the Transactional Interpretation deterministic?
Replies
15
Views
3K
I Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester in multi-world interpretation
Replies
21
Views
4K
I How To Experimentally Confirm the Wigner-Von Neumann Interpretation
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
Transactional Interpretation Absorber?
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Universe thermodynamic equilibrium & Transactional Interpretation
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Questions on the Bohmian mechanics interpretation for instrumentalists
Replies
13
Views
2K
I A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
Replies
25
Views
5K
A Schrödinger's original interpretation
Replies
21
Views
3K
Can the Transactional Interpretation Shed Light on the Double-Slit Experiment?
Replies
4
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top