Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1610.04609

THE RELATIVISTIC TRANSACTIONAL INTERPRETATION: IMMUNE TO THE MAUDLIN CHALLENGE

Ruth E. Kastner

Published Nov 20, 2018• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Transactional Interpretation has been subject at various times to a challenge based on a type of thought experiment first proposed by Maudlin. It has been argued by several authors that such experiments do not in fact constitute a significant problem for the transactional picture. The purpose of this work is to point out that, when the relativistic level of the interpretation is considered, Maudlin-type challenges cannot even be mounted, since the putative 'slow-moving offer wave,' taken as subject to contingent confirmation, does not exist. This is a consequence of the Davies relativistic quantum-mechanical version of the direct-action theory together with the asymmetry between fermionic field sources and bosonic fields. The Maudlin challenge therefore evaporates completely when the relativistic level of the theory is taken into account.

DOI
10.1142/9789813276895_0011

Related papers

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

R. E. Kastner

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 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 TI are no longer legitimately viewed as such, and that reconsideration of the transactional picture is warranted in connection with solving the measurement problem.

arXiv:1709.09367•WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE) eBooks•Apr 14, 2019•28 citations

On Delayed Choice and Contingent Absorber Experiments

Ruth E. Kastner

It is pointed out that a slight variation on the Wheeler Delayed Choice Experiment presents the same challenge to orthodox quantum mechanics as Maudlin-type contingent absorber experiments present to the Transactional Interpretation (TI). Therefore, the latter cannot be used as a basis for refutation of TI.

arXiv:1205.3258•ISRN Mathematical Analysis•Dec 2, 2011•11 citations

Challenges, Replies, and Applications

Ruth E. Kastner

In this chapter, the relativistic transactional interpretation (RTI) is shown to completely nullify the Maudlin objection (a type of contingent absorber experiment) to the original, nonrelativistic TI. RTI is applied to some prominent quantum “paradoxes” such as the quantum eraser and the Frauchiger–Renner paradox and shown to resolve these. In addition, RTI derives standard decoherence results while also providing an account of concrete measurement outcomes that is missing in standard (unitary-only) decoherence theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 22, 2022•0 citations

Can Transactional Description of Quantum-Mechanical Reality be Considered Complete?

Peter J. Lewis

The Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a promising way of fulfilling Einstein’s vision of a completed quantum mechanics. However, it has received forceful criticism from Maudlin. Indeed, I shall argue that the force of Maudlin’s criticisms has been underestimated, and that none of the extant responses are adequate. An adequate response, I contend, requires reconceptualizing the kinds of explanations the Transactional Interpretation gives. I sketch such a reinterpretation and argue that it does not fall prey to Maudlin’s objections. However, there remain significant obstacles in the way of formulating a fully adequate version of the Transactional Interpretation.

•Nov 3, 2010•0 citations

Maudlin's Challenge Revisited

Peter J. Lewis

In 1994, Maudlin proposed proposed an objection to the transactional interpretation (TI), involving an absorber that changes location depending on the trajectory of the particle. Maudlin considered this objection fatal. However, the TI did not die; rather, a number of responses were developed, some attempting to accommodate Maudlin's example within the existing TI, and others modifying the TI. I argue that none of these responses is fully adequate. The reason, I submit, is that there are two aspects to Maudlin's objection; the more readily soluble aspect has received all the attention, but the more problematic aspect has gone unnoticed. I consider the prospects for developing a succesful version of the TI in light of this second aspect of the objection.

•Oct 13, 2011•0 citations

Causal Symmetry and the Transactional Interpretation

Evans, Peter W.

Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics posits retrocausal influences in quantum processes in an attempt to alleviate some of the interpretational difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation. In response to Cramer's theory, Maudlin (2002) has levelled a significant objection against any retrocausal model of quantum mechanics. I present here an examination of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and an analysis of Maudlin's critique. I claim that, although Maudlin correctly isolates the weaknesses of Cramer's theory, his justification for this weakness is off the mark. The cardinal vice of the transactional interpretation is its failure to provide a sufficient causal structure to constrain uniquely the behaviour of quantum systems and I contend that this is due to a lack of causal symmetry in the theory. In contrast, Maudlin attributes this shortcoming to retrocausality itself and emphasises an apparently fundamental incongruence between retrocausality and his own metaphysical picture of reality. I conclude by arguing that the problematic aspect of this incongruence is Maudlin's assumptions about what is appropriate for such a metaphysical picture.

arXiv:1011.2287•Nov 10, 2010•1 citation
The Transactional Interpretation has been subject at various times to a challenge based on a type of thought experiment first proposed by Maudlin. It has been argued by several authors that such experiments do not in fact constitute a significant problem for the transactional picture. The purpose of this work is to point out that, when the relativistic level of the interpretation is considered, Maudlin-type challenges cannot even be mounted, since the putative 'slow-moving offer wave,' taken as subject to contingent confirmation, does not exist. This is a consequence of the Davies relativistic quantum-mechanical version of the direct-action theory together with the asymmetry between fermionic field sources and bosonic fields. The Maudlin challenge therefore evaporates completely when the relativistic level of the theory is taken into account.
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 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 TI are no longer legitimately viewed as such, and that reconsideration of the transactional picture is warranted in connection with solving the measurement problem.
In this chapter, the relativistic transactional interpretation (RTI) is shown to completely nullify the Maudlin objection (a type of contingent absorber experiment) to the original, nonrelativistic TI. RTI is applied to some prominent quantum “paradoxes” such as the quantum eraser and the Frauchiger–Renner paradox and shown to resolve these. In addition, RTI derives standard decoherence results while also providing an account of concrete measurement outcomes that is missing in standard (unitary-only) decoherence theory.
The Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a promising way of fulfilling Einstein’s vision of a completed quantum mechanics. However, it has received forceful criticism from Maudlin. Indeed, I shall argue that the force of Maudlin’s criticisms has been underestimated, and that none of the extant responses are adequate. An adequate response, I contend, requires reconceptualizing the kinds of explanations the Transactional Interpretation gives. I sketch such a reinterpretation and argue that it does not fall prey to Maudlin’s objections. However, there remain significant obstacles in the way of formulating a fully adequate version of the Transactional Interpretation.
In 1994, Maudlin proposed proposed an objection to the transactional interpretation (TI), involving an absorber that changes location depending on the trajectory of the particle. Maudlin considered this objection fatal. However, the TI did not die; rather, a number of responses were developed, some attempting to accommodate Maudlin's example within the existing TI, and others modifying the TI. I argue that none of these responses is fully adequate. The reason, I submit, is that there are two aspects to Maudlin's objection; the more readily soluble aspect has received all the attention, but the more problematic aspect has gone unnoticed. I consider the prospects for developing a succesful version of the TI in light of this second aspect of the objection.
Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics posits retrocausal influences in quantum processes in an attempt to alleviate some of the interpretational difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation. In response to Cramer's theory, Maudlin (2002) has levelled a significant objection against any retrocausal model of quantum mechanics. I present here an examination of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and an analysis of Maudlin's critique. I claim that, although Maudlin correctly isolates the weaknesses of Cramer's theory, his justification for this weakness is off the mark. The cardinal vice of the transactional interpretation is its failure to provide a sufficient causal structure to constrain uniquely the behaviour of quantum systems and I contend that this is due to a lack of causal symmetry in the theory. In contrast, Maudlin attributes this shortcoming to retrocausality itself and emphasises an apparently fundamental incongruence between retrocausality and his own metaphysical picture of reality. I conclude by arguing that the problematic aspect of this incongruence is Maudlin's assumptions about what is appropriate for such a metaphysical picture.