scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard

> According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
> time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
> the experiment.  In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
> and everything looks normal.

Yes, but how small? Because now they perform experiments
over large distance. Not just the 45 meters of the old
Jasin interferometer. But 10 km. or even 100 km. And
still they find interferences. (Of course those
beams are correlated and well protected!).

In general the argument 'contra' the transactional
interpretation is this one below (in this case, by
Anton Zeilinger). But I do not know well enough Cramer's
interpretation. So I cannot judge.

<In the Transactional Interpretation the state vector is
considered to be a real physical wave emitted as an
"offer wave" based on the preparation procedure of the
experiment. The interaction then comes to a close
through the emission of the "confirmation wave" by
what is usually called the collapse of the wave function.
The quantum particle, e.g. the photon, electron etc.,
is then considered to be identical with the finished
transaction. It is fundamental to that interpretation
that where the closure of the transaction takes place
is an unexplained input to the process.>

The "transactional interpretation" is unduly "realistic"!
A better conception of a "bi-causal" determination of
EPR correlations is provided by the so-called "2-state
approach" of Aharovov et al. which has the added thrill
that it makes verifiable predictions beyond the conventional
QM formalism. Check

http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9501011

Both the "protective" and the "weak-value" experiments
associated with this idea are now being tried out...

-Joao
 

-- 

Joao Pedro Leao  :::  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
----------------------------------------------
"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"
-------------------------------------------------------
 


Reply via email to