How does the block universe perspective differ from Feynman’s space-time approach to QM?

Based on a look at the paper you reference, I think the entire 4D phi*psi object is a complete description of reality. Either phi* alone or psi alone are incomplete descriptions of reality.

Consider the classical case of Alice flipping a coin, letting it fall into a box without looking at it, then closing the box. Alice can assign probabilities of 50% it is heads and 50% it is tails. Then Alice opens the box and sees heads. She can now assign a probability of 100% heads for the entire time it was in the box. The same logic applies to…[Read more]

Thank you for your explanation!

Hi David,

Thank you, that is very helpful.

Suppose Alice has an excited atom that can emit a photon, and Charlie (C) has a ground state atom that can absorb the photon. Alice measures the state of her atom every minute. She finds it in the excited state (H) for the first 3 minutes, then she finds it in the ground state (T) for the next 3…[Read more]

Ken,

My Relativistic Symmetrical Interpretation (RSI) never defines or uses a probability for an experiment after it already has a known outcome! That would make no sense.

Suppose the experiment has been completed. Then the RSI postulates that the complex transition amplitude density phi*(x,t)psi(x,t) is the complete description of what…[Read more]

Hi All,

I am online for the next hour. Hope to hear from you!

Michael

Hi David,

I’m reading your paper, and would like to get an intuitive, physical understanding of what you mean by the words causal, retrocausal, bicausal, acausal, and a correlator. Could you please help?

Thanks,

Michael

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your question!
Let us first review the Conventional Interpretation (CI) of QM: Consider an electron that is localized as a gaussian wavefunction psi(x,0) around x=0cm at t=0s. What is the probability that this electron will later be found localized as a gaussian wavefunction phi(x,10) around x= 25cm at t=10s? The CI calculates…[Read more]

One could argue that the equivalence of the Stueckelberg-Feynman interpretation to the *standard* QM is evidence that retrocausation is a viable explanation.

Thanks, that clarifies it!

Hi Miroljub,

Thanks for your question. Since Ruth wrote this, I will defer to her for an elaboration.

Best regards,

Michael

Hi Ruth,

Thanks for your post. I’m now reading your interesting book “Understanding our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles.” Near the end of Chapter 2, you make the point that “quantum objects are wave-like entities that need to be described by complex numbers…Anything observable in the world of appearance must be described by real…[Read more]