No one can say what quantum mechanics means (and this is a book about it)

Jack Sarfatti

Chris Fields

What does it mean to say that an event is physically possible?One might say, in the spirit of everyday usage, that an event is physically possible if its occurrence is consistent with the laws of physics.But which laws of physics, starting from when?Here things get tricky.In a Laplacian universe governed by the fully-deterministic laws of classical electrodynamics and mechanics, exactly one future is consistent with any complete and precise specification of initial conditions.Given an incomplete, imprecise specification -the best that human observers can achieve, even in principle -many futures may appear to be physically possible, but only one of them actually is.In this kind of universe, our intuitive notion that many different outcomes of an experiment, for example, are physically possible is just an ignorancedriven delusion.Philosopher of physics Ruth Kastner's new book, The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, subtitled The Reality of Possibility, takes on this question of the meaning of physical possibility in the theoretical context defined by relativistic quantum field theory.Lest this seem daunting, be assured that this is a philosophical book; aside from Chapters 5 and 6 dealing with technical objections, it emphasizes ontological questions and employs the physics -all of which is clearly presented for the non-expert -as a way to raise them.The ontological questions that it raises, not just 'what is possibility?' but also 'what is actuality?' and 'what are space and time?' underlie not just physics but any theory of action.The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is, therefore, not just about the interpretation of quantum mechanics; it is about how 'nature makes its choice' in any circumstance, and how 'the actual arises from the potential' (205) as a result.After briefly introducing quantum theory and its various interpretations in Chapter 1, Kastner addresses, in Chapter 2, the essential preliminary question of what is to count as an acceptable scientific explanation.The divide between realists and instrumentalists about quantum theory -or between 'ontic ' and 'non-ontic' approaches

Bonnie Ellen McGill

If I could to do this properly, and know this as what is proper (to, of, the thesis), I could say that this is to have balanced the (energy) books – in sum. That a framework of being (multiple) books, I could say text, I could say space, is already in place to have then the balance. Overall – in sum, average, to conserve. I could say, what is already in place? I could say, the atom, rather than the (text)book, if I did not know better, that is, that I can add to the atom in its division: it could (also) be a particle or a wave. So it might be that I adumbrate how it is that de Broglie first thought matter waves, and by so doing, I might observe that the velocity of the phase wave associated to a particle is excessive to the system which produces it. Or rather that to carry energy requires a modification of this phase wave; no specifics, but rather a group (velocity). And in observing this, think through what is at stake in the claims to observers observing that which can(not) be seen. I could say, that this is key (words); how to (re)order the infinite to (re)produce itself? And this in relation to energy. I might (probably) be questioning frames, the mathematics, mechanics; how and why this is invested in as supplement and proof of what is. What would be unity? What is proper (for there to (probably) be unity)? This in relation to eigenvalues, and Schrödinger’s Wave Equation – what is properly characteristic of the being particle, wave? I can only gesture towards this, the field –

Jeffrey Bub

Philip Moriarty

To say that I eagerly anticipated the arrival of my review copy of Jean Bricmont’s latest book, Quantum Sense and Nonsense , would be an understatement approaching “we physicists have maybe got one or two loose ends to tie up when it comes to interpreting quantum mechanics” proportions.