Two-State Vector Formalism - I like it

[.Scott]

I just ran into a Scientific American article (link below) based on a recently updated paper (2nd link).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-may-be-even-spookier-than-you-think/
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09483

It was the first time I had run into the term "Two-State Vector Formalism". It's one of the QM interpretations that explicitly treat cause and effect as running both forward and backward through time.

The article reports on another QM experiment that is planned. It's one of those "QM says it will happen; and it certainly will; but we just got to really see it" experiments. The connection to TSVF is simply that the results are easier to explain in that framework.

But, for me, TSVF opens up new questions. Taken broadly, once any system is bounded at two moments in time, more can be known about it. Trivially, we would know more about our universe if we knew everything about the Big Bang and its final destiny. Together, the Big Bang and the final destiny combine to form the universe - perhaps in full detail. And they work together, each in a sense creating the other. So I wonder: Does QM mathematically prefer some BigBang/FinalDestiny combinations over others? Could we nail down patterns that would make some QM experiments more predictable?

 

[atyy]

I don't know if the Two-State formalism solves the measurement problem. I think it still gives observers or measurements a special status, and so doesn't solve the measurement problem (which is the usual reason to search for alternatives to Copenhagen).