QM interpretation with something moving backward in time?

[thenewmans]

It’s easy enough to find the interpretations that break counterfactual definiteness in order to maintain locality. But I’m not sure how to find the ones with something (perhaps information) moving backwards through time.

The reason I ask is I’ve always had trouble with the idea that a measurement on one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other. That’s because that implies simultaneity and a preferred inertial frame of reference. It also implies (something (info?) traveling superluminally. I’ve always thought you can avoid those issues by having the information travel backwards through time. That way, you can keep the information within the light cones of the 2 measurements. Chances are I’m not the first to think of this.

 

[atyy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

 

[thenewmans]

Wow. Thanks Atyy. That was quick. So the pilot-wave interpretation doesn't include anything going backwards in time. Right?

 

[atyy]

Right, the pilot wave is a naive Newtonian interpretation. It works for non-relativistic QM and some relativistic QM, not yet sure whether it works for everything.

The transactional interpretation is much less studied than the pilot wave theory, so it is even less clear where it works or doesn't. You can look up Ruth Kastner's research for some current attempts at advancing the transactional interpretation.

 

[Jilang]

Here's something to ponder on.
http://math.stackexchange.com/quest...ents-influence-the-probability-of-past-events

 

[RUTA]

It’s easy enough to find the interpretations that break counterfactual definiteness in order to maintain locality. But I’m not sure how to find the ones with something (perhaps information) moving backwards through time.

The reason I ask is I’ve always had trouble with the idea that a measurement on one entangled particle instantaneously affects the other. That’s because that implies simultaneity and a preferred inertial frame of reference. It also implies (something (info?) traveling superluminally. I’ve always thought you can avoid those issues by having the information travel backwards through time. That way, you can keep the information within the light cones of the 2 measurements. Chances are I’m not the first to think of this.

It's called retrocausality. I wrote a short Insight on it https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/retrocausality/

 

[thenewmans]

Atty: That page you linked to says “TIQM is explicitly non-local.” If the confirmation wave travels back to the emitter along the same path as the offer wave, then it stays within the future light cone of the emission event. It also stays within the past light cone of the measurement event. So why is TIQM considered non-local? I was thinking that counterfactual definiteness could be sacrificed in order to maintain locality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation#Advances_over_previous_interpretations