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

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Retrocausal quantum mechanics: Maudlin's challenge revisited

Peter J. Lewis

Published Oct 8, 2013• 23 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.09.004

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics and Retrocausality

David Atkinson

Astrophysics and space science library•Jan 1, 2000•1 citation

Retrocausality and quantum mechanics

David Thomas Pegg

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Aug 4, 2008•35 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

Time Symmetric Quantum Theory Without Retrocausality? A Reply to Tim Maudlin

Matthew Leifer

In arXiv:1707.08641, Tim Maudlin claims to construct a counterexample to the result of Proc. Roy. Soc. A vol. 473, iss. 2202, 2017 (arXiv:1607.07871), in which it was shown that no realist model satisfying a certain notion of time-symmetry (in addition to three other assumptions) can reproduce the predictions of quantum theory without retrocausality (influences travelling backwards in time). In this comment, I explain why Maudlin's model is not a counterexample because it does not satisfy our time-symmetry assumption. I also explain why Maudlin's claim that one of the Lemmas we used in our proof is incorrect is wrong.

arXiv:1708.04364•Aug 15, 2017•1 citation

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

Retrocausality and Quantum Measurement

David Thomas Pegg

Foundations of Physics•Jun 12, 2008•3 citations
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.
In arXiv:1707.08641, Tim Maudlin claims to construct a counterexample to the result of Proc. Roy. Soc. A vol. 473, iss. 2202, 2017 (arXiv:1607.07871), in which it was shown that no realist model satisfying a certain notion of time-symmetry (in addition to three other assumptions) can reproduce the predictions of quantum theory without retrocausality (influences travelling backwards in time). In this comment, I explain why Maudlin's model is not a counterexample because it does not satisfy our time-symmetry assumption. I also explain why Maudlin's claim that one of the Lemmas we used in our proof is incorrect is wrong.
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.