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

[ueit]

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.

 

[ueit]

Is the question too stupid or nobody is interested in the transactional interpretation here? Or, maybe, both of them?

 

[DougJ]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This thread is 4 years old.