Part of a series on |

Quantum mechanics |
---|

The **transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics** (**TIQM**) takes the wave function of the standard quantum formalism, and its complex conjugate, to be retarded (forward in time) and advanced (backward in time) waves that form a quantum interaction as a Wheeler–Feynman handshake or transaction. It was first proposed in 1986 by John G. Cramer, who argues that it helps in developing intuition for quantum processes. He also suggests that it avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and also resolves various quantum paradoxes.^{ [1] }^{ [2] }^{ [3] } TIQM formed a minor plot point in his science fiction novel *Einstein's Bridge*.

More recently, he has also argued TIQM to be consistent with the Afshar experiment, while claiming that the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.^{ [4] } The existence of both advanced and retarded waves as admissible solutions to Maxwell's equations was explored in the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. Cramer revived their idea of two waves for his transactional interpretation of quantum theory. While the ordinary Schrödinger equation does not admit advanced solutions, its relativistic version does, and these advanced solutions are the ones used by TIQM.

In TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred. The quantum mechanism behind transaction formation has been demonstrated explicitly for the case of a photon transfer between atoms in Sect. 5.4 of Carver Mead's book *Collective Electrodynamics*. In this interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction does not happen at any specific point in time, but is "atemporal" and occurs along the whole transaction, and the emission/absorption process is time-symmetric. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device to record the observer's knowledge as in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics.^{[ citation needed ]} Philosopher and writer Ruth Kastner argues that the waves exist as possibilities outside of physical spacetime and that therefore it is necessary to accept such possibilities as part of reality.^{ [5] }

Cramer has used TIQM in teaching quantum mechanics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

TIQM is explicitly non-local and, as a consequence, logically consistent with counterfactual definiteness (CFD), the minimum realist assumption.^{ [2] } As such it incorporates the non-locality demonstrated by the Bell test experiments and eliminates the observer-dependent reality that has been criticized as part of the Copenhagen interpretation. Cramer states that the key advances over Everett's Relative State Interpretation ^{ [6] } are that the transactional interpretation has a physical collapse and is time-symmetric.^{ [2] }

The transactional interpretation is superficially similar to the two-state vector formalism (TSVF)^{ [7] } which has its origin in work by Yakir Aharonov, Peter Bergmann and Joel Lebowitz of 1964.^{ [8] }^{ [9] } However, it has important differences—the TSVF is lacking the confirmation and therefore cannot provide a physical referent for the Born Rule (as TI does). Kastner has criticized some other time-symmetric interpretations, including TSVF, as making ontologically inconsistent claims.^{ [10] }

Kastner has developed a new *Relativistic Transactional Interpretation* (RTI) also called *Possibilist Transactional Interpretation* (PTI) in which space-time itself emerges by a way of transactions. It has been argued that this relativistic transactional interpretation can provide the quantum dynamics for the causal sets program.^{ [11] }

In 1996, Tim Maudlin proposed a thought experiment involving Wheeler's delayed choice experiment that is generally taken as a refutation of TIQM.^{ [12] } However Kastner showed Maudlin's argument is not fatal for TIQM.^{ [13] }^{ [14] }

In his book, *The Quantum Handshake*, Cramer has added a hierarchy to the description of pseudo-time to deal with Maudlin's objection and has pointed out that some of Maudlin's arguments are based on the inappropriate application of Heisenberg's knowledge interpretation to the transactional description.^{ [15] }

Transactional Interpretation faces criticisms. The following is partial list and some replies:

1. "TI does not generate new predictions / is not testable / has not been tested."

TI is an exact interpretation of QM and so its predictions must be the same as QM. Like the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), TI is a "pure" interpretation in that it does not add anything ad hoc but provides a physical referent for a part of the formalism that has lacked one (the advanced states implicitly appearing in the Born rule). Thus the demand often placed on TI for new predictions or testability is a mistaken one that misconstrues the project of interpretation as one of theory modification.^{ [16] }

2. “It is not made clear where in spacetime a transaction occurs.”

One clear account is given in Cramer (1986), which pictures a transaction as a four-vector standing wave whose endpoints are the emission and absorption events.^{ [17] }

3. "Maudlin (1996, 2002) has demonstrated that TI is inconsistent."

Maudlin's probability criticism confused the transactional interpretation with Heisenberg's knowledge interpretation. However, he raised a valid point concerning causally connected possible outcomes, which led Cramer to add hierarchy to the pseudo-time description of transaction formation.^{ [18] }^{ [13] }^{ [19] }^{ [20] }^{ [21] } Kastner has extended TI to the relativistic domain, and in light of this expansion of the interpretation, it can be shown that the Maudlin Challenge cannot even be mounted, and is therefore nullified; there is no need for the 'hierarchy' proposal of Cramer.^{ [22] } Maudlin has also claimed that all the dynamics of TI is deterministic and therefore there can be no 'collapse.' But this appears to disregard the response of absorbers, which is the whole innovation of the model. Specifically, the linearity of the Schrödinger evolution is broken by the response of absorbers; this directly sets up the non-unitary measurement transition, without any need for ad hoc modifications to the theory. The non-unitarity is discussed, for example in Chapter 3 of Kastner's book *The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility* (CUP, 2012).^{ [23] }

4. "It is not clear how the transactional interpretation handles the quantum mechanics of more than one particle."

This issue is addressed in Cramer's 1986 paper, in which he gives many examples of the application of TIQM to multi-particle quantum systems. However, if the question is about the existence of multi-particle wave functions in normal 3D space, Cramer's 2015 book goes into some detail in justifying multi-particle wave functions in 3D space.^{ [24] } A criticism of Cramer's 2015 account of dealing with multi-particle quantum systems is found in Kastner 2016, "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation and its Evolution into the 21st Century, Philosophy Compass (2016).^{ [25] } It observes in particular that the account in Cramer 2015 is necessarily anti-realist about the multi-particle states: if they are only part of a 'map,' then they are not real, and in this form TI becomes an instrumentalist interpretation, contrary to its original spirit. Thus the so-called "retreat" to Hilbert space (criticized also below in the lengthy discussion of note^{ [24] }) can instead be seen as a needed expansion of the ontology, rather than a retreat to anti-realism/instrumentalism about the multi-particle states. The vague statement (under^{ [24] }) that "Offer waves are somewhat ephemeral three-dimensional space objects" indicates the lack of clear definition of the ontology when one attempts to keep everything in 3+1 spacetime.

The **Copenhagen interpretation** is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics principally attributed to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It is one of the oldest of numerous proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics, as features of it date to the development of quantum mechanics during 1925–1927, and it remains one of the most commonly taught.

The **mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics** are those mathematical formalisms that permit a rigorous description of quantum mechanics. This mathematical formalism uses mainly a part of functional analysis, especially Hilbert space which is a kind of linear space. Such are distinguished from mathematical formalisms for physics theories developed prior to the early 1900s by the use of abstract mathematical structures, such as infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, and operators on these spaces. In brief, values of physical observables such as energy and momentum were no longer considered as values of functions on phase space, but as eigenvalues; more precisely as spectral values of linear operators in Hilbert space.

**Quantum mechanics** is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

**Quantum entanglement** is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics lacking in classical mechanics.

**Wave–particle duality** is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:

It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

In quantum mechanics, **counterfactual definiteness** (**CFD**) is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. The term "counterfactual definiteness" is used in discussions of physics calculations, especially those related to the phenomenon called quantum entanglement and those related to the Bell inequalities. In such discussions "meaningfully" means the ability to treat these unmeasured results on an equal footing with measured results in statistical calculations. It is this aspect of counterfactual definiteness that is of direct relevance to physics and mathematical models of physical systems and not philosophical concerns regarding the meaning of unmeasured results.

The **de Broglie–Bohm theory**, also known as the *pilot wave theory*, **Bohmian mechanics**, **Bohm's interpretation**, and the **causal interpretation**, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

An **interpretation of quantum mechanics** is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics "corresponds" to reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments, there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation. These views on interpretation differ on such fundamental questions as whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or stochastic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered real, and what the nature of measurement is, among other matters.

In quantum mechanics, **wave function collapse** occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation". It is the essence of a measurement in quantum mechanics which connects the wave function with classical observables like position and momentum. Collapse is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time; the other is the continuous evolution via the Schrödinger equation. Collapse is a black box for a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. Calculations of quantum decoherence show that when a quantum system interacts with the environment, the superpositions *apparently* reduce to mixtures of classical alternatives. Significantly, the combined wave function of the system and environment continue to obey the Schrödinger equation. More importantly, this is not enough to explain wave function collapse, as decoherence does not reduce it to a single eigenstate.

In philosophy, **philosophy of physics** deals with conceptual and interpretational issues in modern physics, many of which overlap with research done by certain kinds of theoretical physicists. Philosophy of physics can be broadly lumped into three areas:

A **wave function** in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters *ψ* and Ψ.

The **many-minds interpretation** of quantum mechanics extends the many-worlds interpretation by proposing that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the mind of an individual observer. The concept was first introduced in 1970 by H. Dieter Zeh as a variant of the Hugh Everett interpretation in connection with quantum decoherence, and later explicitly called a many or multi-consciousness interpretation. The name *many-minds interpretation* was first used by David Albert and Barry Loewer in 1988.

The **Wheeler–DeWitt equation** is a field equation. It is part of a theory that attempts to combine mathematically the ideas of quantum mechanics and general relativity, a step towards a theory of quantum gravity. In this approach, time plays a role different from what it does in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, leading to the so-called 'problem of time'. More specifically, the equation describes the quantum version of the Hamiltonian constraint using metric variables. Its commutation relations with the diffeomorphism constraints generate the Bergman–Komar "group".

The **Afshar experiment** is a variation of the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics, devised and carried out by Shahriar Afshar while at the private, Boston-based Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS). The results were presented at a Harvard seminar in March 2004. Afshar claimed that the experiment gives information about which of two paths a photon takes through the apparatus while simultaneously allowing interference between the two paths to be observed, by showing that a grid of wires, placed at the nodes of the interference pattern, does not alter the beams. Afshar claimed that the experiment violates the principle of complementarity of quantum mechanics, which states roughly that the particle and wave aspects of quantum objects cannot be observed at the same time, and specifically the Englert–Greenberger duality relation. The experiment has been repeated by a number of investigators but its interpretation is controversial and there are several theories that explain the effect without violating complementarity.

**John Gleason Cramer, Jr.** is a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, known for his development of the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. He has been an active participant with the STAR Experiment at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.

The **Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory**, named after its originators, the physicists Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler, is an interpretation of electrodynamics derived from the assumption that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time-reversal transformation, as are the field equations themselves. Indeed, there is no apparent reason for the time-reversal symmetry breaking, which singles out a preferential time direction and thus makes a distinction between past and future. A time-reversal invariant theory is more logical and elegant. Another key principle, resulting from this interpretation and reminiscent of Mach's principle due to Tetrode, is that elementary particles are not self-interacting. This immediately removes the problem of self-energies.

The **Born rule** is a key postulate of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement of a quantum system will yield a given result. In its simplest form, it states that the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point. It was formulated by German physicist Max Born in 1926.

The **history of quantum mechanics** is a fundamental part of the history of modern physics. Quantum mechanics' history, as it interlaces with the history of quantum chemistry, began essentially with a number of different scientific discoveries: the 1838 discovery of cathode rays by Michael Faraday; the 1859–60 winter statement of the black-body radiation problem by Gustav Kirchhoff; the 1877 suggestion by Ludwig Boltzmann that the energy states of a physical system could be *discrete*; the discovery of the photoelectric effect by Heinrich Hertz in 1887; and the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy-radiating atomic system can theoretically be divided into a number of discrete "energy elements" *ε* such that each of these energy elements is proportional to the frequency *ν* with which each of them individually radiate energy, as defined by the following formula:

In quantum physics, a **quantum state** is a mathematical entity that provides a probability distribution for the outcomes of each possible measurement on a system. Knowledge of the quantum state together with the rules for the system's evolution in time exhausts all that can be predicted about the system's behavior. A mixture of quantum states is again a quantum state. Quantum states that cannot be written as a mixture of other states are called **pure quantum states**, while all other states are called **mixed quantum states**. A pure quantum state can be represented by a ray in a Hilbert space over the complex numbers, while mixed states are represented by density matrices, which are positive semidefinite operators that act on Hilbert spaces.

The **two-state vector formalism** (**TSVF**) is a description of quantum mechanics in terms of a causal relation in which the present is caused by quantum states of the past and of the future taken in combination.

- ↑ Cramer, John (July 2009). "Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics".
*Reviews of Modern Physics*.**58**(3): 795–798. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_223. ISBN 978-3-540-70622-9. - 1 2 3 Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics".
*Reviews of Modern Physics*.**58**(3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647. - ↑ Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF).
*International Journal of Theoretical Physics*.**27**(2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751. - ↑ Cramer, John G. (December 2005). "A Farewell to Copenhagen?".
*Analog*. The Alternate View. Dell Magazines. - ↑ George Musser and Ruth Kastner; "Can We Resolve Quantum Paradoxes by Stepping Out of Space and Time?",
*Scientific American*blog, June 21, 2013. - ↑ Everett, Hugh (July 1957). "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (PDF).
*Reviews of Modern Physics*.**29**(3): 454–462. Bibcode:1957RvMP...29..454E. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454. - ↑ Avshalom C. Elitzur, Eliahu Cohen:
*The Retrocausal Nature of Quantum Measurement Revealed by Partial and Weak Measurements*, AIP Conf. Proc. 1408:*Quantum Retrocausation: Theory and Experiment (13–14 June 2011, San Diego, California)*, pp. 120–131, doi : 10.1063/1.3663720 - ↑ Aharonov, Yakir; Bergmann, Peter G.; Lebowitz, Joel L. (1964-06-22). "Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement".
*Physical Review*. American Physical Society (APS).**134**(6B): 1410–1416. doi:10.1103/physrev.134.b1410. ISSN 0031-899X. - ↑ Yakir Aharonov, Lev Vaidman:
*Protective measurements of two-state vectors*, in: Robert Sonné Cohen, Michael Horne, John J. Stachel (eds.):*Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-At-A-Distance*, Quantum Mechanical Studies for A. M. Shimony, Volume Two, 1997, ISBN 978-0792344537, pp. 1–8, p. 2 - ↑ Kastner, Ruth E. (2017). "Is there really "retrocausation" in time-symmetric approaches to quantum mechanics?". AIP Conference Proceedings.
**1841**: 020002. arXiv: 1607.04196 . doi:10.1063/1.4982766.Cite journal requires`|journal=`

(help) - ↑ Kastner, Ruth E. (August 2012). "The Possibilist Transactional Interpretation and Relativity".
*Foundations of Physics*.**42**(8): 1094–1113. arXiv: 1204.5227 . Bibcode:2012FoPh...42.1094K. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9658-4. - ↑ Maudlin, Tim (1996).
*Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics*(1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1444331271. - 1 2 Kastner, Ruth E (May 2006). "Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and Causal Loop Problems".
*Synthese*.**150**(1): 1–14. arXiv: quant-ph/0408109 . doi:10.1007/s11229-004-6264-9. - ↑ Kastner, Ruth E (2012). "On Delayed Choice and Contingent Absorber Experiments".
*ISRN Mathematical Physics*.**2012**(1): 1–9. arXiv: 1205.3258 . Bibcode:2012arXiv1205.3258K. doi:10.5402/2012/617291. - ↑ Cramer, John G. (2016).
*The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions*. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406. - ↑
*The Quantum Handshake*by John G. Cramer, p. 183: "No consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics can be tested experimentally, because each is an interpretation of the same quantum mechanical formalism, and the formalism makes the predictions. The Transactional Interpretation is an exact interpretation of the QM formalism. Like the Many-Worlds and the Copenhagen interpretations, the TI is a "pure" interpretation that does not add anything*ad hoc*, but does provide a physical referent for a part of the formalism that has lacked on (e.g. the advanced wave functions appearing in the Born probability rule and amplitude calculations). Thus the demand for new predictions or testability from an interpretation is based on a conceptual error by the questioner that misconstrues an interpretation as a modification of quantum theory. According to Occam's Razor, the hypothesis that introduces the fewest independent assumptions is to be preferred. The TI offers this advantage over its rivals, in that the Born probability rule is a result rather than an independent assumption." - ↑
*The Quantum Handshake*by John G. Cramer, p. 183: The TIQM "pictures a transaction as emerging from an offer-confirmation handshake as a four-vector standing wave normal in three-dimensional space with endpoints at the emission and absorption verticies. Kastner has predicted an alternative account of transaction formation in which the formation of a transaction is not a spatiotemporal process but one taking place on a level of possibility in a higher Hilbert space rather than in 3+1-dimensional spacetime." - ↑ Berkovitz, J. (2002). ``On Causal Loops in the Quantum Realm," in T. Placek and J. Butterfield (Ed.), Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Modality, Probability and Bell's Theorems, Kluwer, 233–255.
- ↑ Marchildon, L (2006). "Causal Loops and Collapse in the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics".
*Physics Essays*.**19**(3): 422–9. arXiv: quant-ph/0603018 . Bibcode:2006PhyEs..19..422M. doi:10.4006/1.3025811. - ↑
*The Quantum Handshake*by John G. Cramer, p. 184: "Maudlin raised an interesting challenge for the Transactional Interpretation by pointing out a paradox that can be constructed when the non-detection of a slow particle moving in one direction that modifies the detection configuration in another direction. This problem is dealt with by the TI ... by introducing a hierarchy in the order of the transactional formation ... Other solutions to the problem raised by Maudlin can be found in the references." - ↑
*The Quantum Handshake*by John G. Cramer, p. 184: Maudlin also made the claim, based on his assumption that the wave function is a representation of observer knowledge, that it must change when new information is made available. "That Heisenberg-inspired view is not a part of the Transactional Interpretation, and introducing it leads to bogus probability argument. In the Transactional Interpretation, the offer wave does not magically change in mid-flight at the instant when new information becomes available, and its correct application leads to the correct calculation of probabilities that are consistent with observation." - ↑ Kastner, R. E. (2016). "The Relativistic Transactional Interpretation: Immune to the Maudlin Challenge". arXiv: 1610.04609 [quant-ph].
- ↑ Kastner, R. E. The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (CUP, 2012)
- 1 2 3
*The Quantum Handshake*by John G. Cramer, p. 184. Cramer's earlier publications "provided many examples of the application of the TI to systems involving more than one particle. These include the Freedman-Clauser experiment, which describes a 2-photon transaction with three vertices, and the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect, which describes a 2-photon transaction with four vertices. [Other publications contain] many examples of more complicated multi-particle systems, including systems with both atoms and photons. But perhaps the question posed above is based on the belief that quantum mechanical wave functions for systems of more than one particle cannot exist in normal three-dimensional space and must be characterized instead as existing only in an abstract Hilbert space of many dimensions. Indeed, Kastner’s "Possibilist Transactional Interpretation" takes this point of view and describes transaction formation as ultimately appearing in 3D space but forming from the Hilbert-space wave functions. ... The "standard" Transactional Interpretation presented here, with its insights into the mechanism behind wave function collapse through transaction formation, provides a new view of the situation that makes the retreat to Hilbert space unnecessary. The offer wave for each particle can be considered as the wave function of a free (i.e., uncorrelated) particle and can be viewed as existing in normal three-dimensional space. The application of conservation laws and the influence of the variables of the other particles of the system on the particle of interest come not in the offer wave stage of the process but in the formation of the transactions. The transactions "knit together" the various otherwise independent particle wave functions that span a wide range of possible parameter values into a consistent ensemble, and only those wave function sub-components that are correlated to satisfy the conservation law boundary conditions at the transaction vertices are permitted to participate in this transaction formation. The "allowed zones" of Hilbert space arise from the action of transaction formation, not from constraints on the initial offer waves, i.e., particle wave functions. Thus, the assertion that the quantum wave functions of individual particles in a multi-particle quantum system cannot exist in ordinary three-dimensional space is a misinterpretation of the role of Hilbert space, the application of conservation laws, and the origins of entanglement. It confuses the "map" with the "territory". Offer waves are somewhat ephemeral three-dimensional space objects, but only those components of the offer wave that satisfy conservation laws and entanglement criteria are permitted to be projected into the final transaction, which also exists in three-dimensional space." - ↑ Kastner, R. E. (2016). "The Transactional Interpretation and its Evolution into the 21st Century: An Overview". arXiv: 1608.00660 [quant-ph].

- Further reading

- John G. Cramer,
*The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions*, Springer Verlag 2016, ISBN 978-3-319-24642-0. - Ruth E. Kastner,
*The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility,*Cambridge University Press, 2012. - Ruth E. Kastner,
*Understanding Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles,*Imperial College Press, 2015. - Tim Maudlin,
*Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity*, Blackwell Publishers 2002, ISBN 0-631-23220-6 (discusses a*gedanken experiment*designed to refute the TIQM; this has been refuted in Kastner 2012, Chapter 5) - Carver A. Mead,
*Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism*, 2000, ISBN 9780262133784. - John Gribbin,
*Schrödinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality: solving the quantum mysteries*has an overview of Cramer’s interpretation and says that “with any luck at all it will supersede the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard way of thinking about quantum physics for the next generation of scientists.”

- John G. Cramer, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Washington, presents "The Quantum Handshake Explored." YouTube video dated 1 Feb 2018.
- Pavel V. Kurakin, George G. Malinetskii,
*How bees can possibly explain quantum paradoxes*, Automates Intelligents (February 2, 2005). (This paper tells about a work attempting to develop TIQM further) - Kastner has also applied TIQM to other quantum mechanical issues in "The Transactional Interpretation, Counterfactuals, and Weak Values in Quantum Theory" and "The Quantum Liar Experiment in the Transactional Interpretation"
- A generally comprehensible introduction to the Transactional Interpretation can be found in "Quantum Mechanics - the dream stuff is made of" (September 2015)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article

Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.

Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.

Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.