Transactional Interpretation question

  • Thread starter Thread starter fruitfly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation
fruitfly
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
In the transactional interpretation of quantum events, can the absorber and the emiter correspond to the same particle? Could an electron at time t1 for example, transfer a virtual photon to itself at time t2?

If this is the case, could this provide an explanation of why an electron does not lose energy as it orbits around an atomic nucleus? (by having the emited photons reabsorbed at future times).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The absorbers are to be in the remote past and future. I don't see how the formalism can be adapted to you suggestion. It is essential that the waves be "reflected" from outside the system.
 
But couldn't we regard the electron of the past and the electron of the future as a valid emiter/absorber pair?
 

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 Can I take the transactional interpretation seriously?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Is the Transactional Interpretation deterministic?
Replies
15
Views
3K
I Universe thermodynamic equilibrium & Transactional Interpretation
Replies
10
Views
3K
I New interpretation for the double slit experiment with light?
Replies
15
Views
2K
I Experiment distinguishes Standard QM vs Bohm: Asymmetric beam splitter
Replies
15
Views
2K
Transactional Interpretation Absorber?
Replies
1
Views
1K
I How To Experimentally Confirm the Wigner-Von Neumann Interpretation
2
Replies
52
Views
6K
A Schrödinger's original interpretation
Replies
21
Views
3K
I Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester in multi-world interpretation
Replies
21
Views
4K
A The thermal interpretation and measurement
Replies
17
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top