What is the Problem with the Transactional Interpretation

[sethoflagos]

After 40 years of not having the time, I've finally got around to writing up a thermodynamic analysis of how a trumpet works.

 

Bear with me.

 

One thing a trumpet doesn't do is support even harmonics in its waveform. Any such acoustic wave emerging from the performer is negated by an equal and opposite reverse wave sent back from the room. Seemingly entering the bell 5 milliseconds before the note commenced. The maths tells me that this seems to be the case, but reconciling it takes a little thought.

 

And that thought drifted to the EPR paradox. I'll not attempt to summarise it, I'll just link to the activities of Alice and Bob at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox.

 

I've thought about this before and often wondered why Alice's +x spin particle doesn't simply (!) send a T-symmetric advanced wave back to it's point of origin, eliminating all potential histories of a +x spin particle reaching Bob by destructive interference.

 

We know that Alice can't manipulate her observation to transmit information so there is no faster than light communication involved, just a reconciliation of the physics.

 

I've never taken this further because most of QM maths is beyond my meagre capabilities.

 

But then I discovered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory which seems to postulate just this idea for the Maxwell Equations.

 

Which lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation.

 

On the face of it, it seems such a neat way to resolve so many issues, there has to be a flaw somewhere.

 

Doesn't there?

Edited August 17, 2016 by sethoflagos

[Sensei]

One thing a trumpet doesn't do is support even harmonics in its waveform. Any such acoustic wave emerging from the performer is negated by an equal and opposite reverse wave sent back from the room. Seemingly entering the bell 5 milliseconds before the note commenced. The maths tells me that this seems to be the case, but reconciling it takes a little thought.

 

If you have little container with hole diameter r, therefor it has area A=PI*r^2 (with r=0.5 cm, A=3.14159265*0.5^2=0.7854 cm^2 area)

and sound wave is moving (actually air) outside of this hole,

room has 400 cm x 500 cm x 275 cm size (20 m^2 floor).

Sound wave bounce of the walls.

And very very little amount will return back to your hole..

It won't be able to cancel out wave going outside.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Sensei

[sethoflagos]

Thanks, but it isn't the acoustics I'm asking about here.

[Strange]

It is an interpretation. As such it is as valid as any other interpretation. Take your pick. If you like it, use it.

[sethoflagos]

It is an interpretation. As such it is as valid as any other interpretation. Take your pick. If you like it, use it.

 

If you can't blow it out of the water on sight, Strange, then I'm considerably more comfortable with it. Maybe even comfortable enough to consider applying Occam's Razor to the Multiverse, which has always seemed a bit too profligate for my taste.

 

Many thanks for your time and consideration.

[Endy0816]

Learning about asymetric waveforms in the trumpet was interesting.

[Strange]

 

If you can't blow it out of the water on sight, Strange, then I'm considerably more comfortable with it. Maybe even comfortable enough to consider applying Occam's Razor to the Multiverse, which has always seemed a bit too profligate for my taste.

 

Many thanks for your time and consideration.

 

 

Note that is it just an interpretation; not a different theory. So all interpretations are equally valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

[sethoflagos]

 

 

Note that is it just an interpretation; not a different theory. So all interpretations are equally valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

Understood. But some interpretations do my head in a little less than others. I have no objective justification for preferring green over orange. Just do