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:1712.09697

Reply to Marchildon: absorption and non-unitarity remain well-defined in the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation

Ruth E. Kastner

Published Dec 27, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I rebut some erroneous statements and attempt to clear up some misunderstandings in a recent set of critical remarks by Marchildon regarding the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI), showing that his negative conclusions regarding the transactional model are ill-founded.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1712.09697

Related papers

Remarks on the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

‎Louis Marchildon

Kastner (arXiv:1709.09367) and Kastner and Cramer (arXiv:1711.04501) argue that the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI) of quantum mechanics provides a clear definition of absorbers and a solution to the measurement problem. I briefly examine how RTI stands with respect to unitarity in quantum mechanics. I then argue that a specific proposal to locate the origin of nonunitarity is flawed, at least in its present form.

arXiv:1712.03060•Dec 8, 2017•0 citations

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

Reply to `No Contradictions between Bohmian and quantum mechanics'

Partha Ghose

Marchildon's claim (quant-ph/0007068) regarding Ghose's papers (quant-ph/0001024 and 0003037) is shown to be erroneous.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008007•Aug 1, 2000•3 citations

5 L'interprétation transactionnelle relativiste (RTI)

EDP Sciences eBooks•May 21, 2026•0 citations

Quantifying Absorption in the Transactional Interpretation

Ruth E. Kastner, J. G. Cramer

The Transactional Interpretation offers a solution to the measurement problem by identifying specific physical conditions precipitating the non-unitary `measurement transition' of von Neumann. Specifically, the transition occurs as a result of absorber response (a process lacking in the standard approach to the theory). The purpose of this Letter is to make clear that, despite recent claims to the contrary, the concepts of `absorber' and `absorber response,' as well as the process of absorption, are physically and quantitatively well-defined in the transactional picture. In addition, the Born Rule is explicitly derived for radiative processes.

arXiv:1711.04501•WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE) eBooks•Apr 14, 2019•29 citations

Reply to `Relativistic formulation of quantum state diffusion?'

Heinz‐Peter Breuer, Francesco Petruccione

It has been demonstrated recently by the authors that the non-relativistic quantum state diffusion model can be generalized to yield a consistent, relativistically covariant theory. It is shown here that the `counterexample' constructed by Diósi can easily be disproven.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Nov 27, 1998•2 citations
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.
The Transactional Interpretation offers a solution to the measurement problem by identifying specific physical conditions precipitating the non-unitary `measurement transition' of von Neumann. Specifically, the transition occurs as a result of absorber response (a process lacking in the standard approach to the theory). The purpose of this Letter is to make clear that, despite recent claims to the contrary, the concepts of `absorber' and `absorber response,' as well as the process of absorption, are physically and quantitatively well-defined in the transactional picture. In addition, the Born Rule is explicitly derived for radiative processes.