Primary Menu Search
  • Aims & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Content
  • Book Reviews
  • Supplement
  • Members
  • Submit
  • Contact IJQF

International Journal of Quantum Foundations

An online forum for exploring the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and quantum gravity

You are here: Home ∼ On the Status of the Measurement Problem: Recalling the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation

On the Status of the Measurement Problem: Recalling the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation

Published by International Journal of Quantum Foundations on December 25, 2017

Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 128-141

Ruth E. Kastner [Show Biography]

Ruth E. Kastner earned her M.S. in Physics and Ph.D. in Philosophy (History and Philosophy of Science) and the University of Maryland, College Park (1999). She has taught a variety of philosophy and physics courses throughout the Baltimore-Washington corridor, and currently is a member of the Foundations of Physics group at UMCP. She is also an Affiliate of the physics department at the SUNY Albany campus. She specializes in time-symmetry and the Transactional Interpretation (TI) of quantum mechanics, and in particular has extended the original TI of John Cramer to the relativistic domain. Her interests and publications include topics in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, quantum ontology, counterfactuals, spacetime emergence, and free will. She is the author of two books: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (Cambridge, 2012) and Understanding Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles (Imperial College Press, 2015). She is also an Editor of the collected volume Quantum Structural Studies (World Scientific, 2016).

In view of a resurgence of concern about the measurement problem, it is pointed out that the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI) remedies issues previously considered as drawbacks or refutations of the original Transactional Interpretation (TI). Specifically, once one takes into account relativistic processes that are not representable at the non-relativistic level (such as particle creation and annihilation, and virtual propagation), absorption is quantitatively defined in unambiguous physical terms. In addition, specifics of the relativistic transactional model demonstrate that the Maudlin ‘contingent absorber’ challenge to the original TI cannot even be mounted: basic features of established relativistic field theories (in particular, the asymmetry between field sources and the bosonic fields, and the fact that slow-moving bound states, such as atoms, are not offer waves) dictate that the ‘slow-moving offer wave’ required for the challenge scenario cannot exist. It is concluded that issues previously considered obstacles for the Transactional Interpretation are no longer legitimately viewed as such, and that reconsideration of the model is warranted in connection with solving the measurement problem.
Full Text Download (278k) | View Submission Post

Posted in Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2018 Tagged Discussion Note

Article written by International Journal of Quantum Foundations

International Journal of Quantum Foundations

← Previous Next →

Latest Issues

  • Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2022
  • Volume 8, Issue 2, April 2022
  • Volume 8, Issue 3, July 2022
  • Volume 8, Issue 4, October 2022
  • Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2023
  • Volume 9, Issue 2, April 2023

IJQF Supplement

  • Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2022
  • Volume 4, Issue 2, July 2022
  • Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2023
  • Volume 5, Issue 2, April 2023

IJQF Members

Newest | Active | Popular
  • Profile picture of editor
    editor
    active 6 hours, 55 minutes ago
  • Profile picture of David Deutsch
    David Deutsch
    active 11 hours, 2 minutes ago
  • Profile picture of Sheldon Goldstein
    Sheldon Goldstein
    active 1 day, 6 hours ago
  • Profile picture of Nathan Argaman
    Nathan Argaman
    active 3 days, 15 hours ago
  • Profile picture of Roger Penrose
    Roger Penrose
    active 5 days, 8 hours ago

IJQF Forums

Newest | Active | Popular | Alphabetical
  • Group logo of 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell’s theorem
    2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell’s theorem
    active 3 months, 3 weeks ago
  • Group logo of 2018 Workshop on Wigner’s Friend
    2018 Workshop on Wigner’s Friend
    active 3 years, 8 months ago
  • Group logo of 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers
    2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers
    active 4 years ago
  • Group logo of 2015 International Workshop on Quantum Foundations
    2015 International Workshop on Quantum Foundations
    active 4 years, 7 months ago
  • Group logo of John Bell Workshop 2014
    John Bell Workshop 2014
    active 5 years, 2 months ago
  • Group logo of 2017 International Workshop: Collapse of the Wave Function
    2017 International Workshop: Collapse of the Wave Function
    active 5 years, 2 months ago

Most Viewed

  • On Testing the Simulation Theory (16,065)
  • 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell’s theorem (3,325)
  • Latest Papers on Quantum Foundations (1,970)
  • OBITUARY FOR HEINZ-DIETER ZEH (1932 — 2018) (1,629)
  • Non-Relativistic Limit of the Dirac Equation (1,595)
  • International Journal of Quantum Foundations (1,360)
  • Review of “Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory” (1,166)
  • Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously (1,065)
  • The Meaning of the Wave Function: In Search of the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics (945)
  • On testing the simulation hypothesis (911)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Primary Menu

  • Aims & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Content
  • Book Reviews
  • Supplement
  • Members
  • Submit
  • Contact IJQF

Copyright © 2023 International Journal of Quantum Foundations.

Powered by WordPress and Path. Back to Top