> > I wouldn't say it's a post you owe me an answer to, but in the middle of > another thread I mentioned an alternate interpretation of quantum mechanics > along with a link to the original paper. I'd love to see your opinion of it > when you get a chance. It's called the transactional interpretation, and > John Cramer's paper on this interpretation can be found at: > http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html > > It was originally published in July of 1986 in _Reviews of Modern Physics_.
Its been kicking around since David Bohm in the '50s. It had some support before the work of Bell and Wagner. The key sticking point with this interpretation is that it requires real hidden backwards in time signals. These signals violate causality. The supports get around this problem by requiring the signals to remain hidden. So, we have a real, but hidden violation of one of the basic principals of physics. Obviously, this cannot be falsified. Which invokes a significant problem for realism. We have the opinion that physics describes reality, but the reality it describes in inherently unobservable. IMHO, this is a very weak realism. This is compounded by the fact that there are several realistic interpretations that describe vastly different realities that are vying for a place as the best realistic interpretation. And, of course, there is no experimental means to pick one over the other. I think the most straightforward solution is to drop the metaphysical baggage of realism and accept a philosophical position that does not require contortions to match observation. But, YMMV, since I can not falsify any of the "realistic" interpretations of QM. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
