Retrocausal quantum mechanics: Maudlin's challenge revisited

Peter Lewis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 1994, Maudlin proposed an objection to retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics in general, and to the transactional interpretation (TI) in particular, 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 successful retrocausal quantum theory in light of this second aspect of the objection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)442-449
Number of pages8
JournalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Volume44
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

quantum mechanics
quantum theory
absorbers
trajectories
Quantum Mechanics
Transactional Interpretation

Keywords

  • Advanced action
  • Quantum mechanics
  • Retrocausal quantum mechanics
  • Time-symmetric quantum mechanics
  • Transactional interpretation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History and Philosophy of Science
  • Physics and Astronomy(all)
  • History

Cite this

@article{8d95aaab01a5484dacb0a4ffa99f1e1c,
title = "Retrocausal quantum mechanics: Maudlin's challenge revisited",
abstract = "In 1994, Maudlin proposed an objection to retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics in general, and to the transactional interpretation (TI) in particular, 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 successful retrocausal quantum theory in light of this second aspect of the objection.",
keywords = "Advanced action, Quantum mechanics, Retrocausal quantum mechanics, Time-symmetric quantum mechanics, Transactional interpretation",
author = "Peter Lewis",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.09.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "442--449",
journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics",
issn = "1355-2198",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retrocausal quantum mechanics

T2 - Maudlin's challenge revisited

AU - Lewis, Peter

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - In 1994, Maudlin proposed an objection to retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics in general, and to the transactional interpretation (TI) in particular, 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 successful retrocausal quantum theory in light of this second aspect of the objection.

AB - In 1994, Maudlin proposed an objection to retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics in general, and to the transactional interpretation (TI) in particular, 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 successful retrocausal quantum theory in light of this second aspect of the objection.

KW - Advanced action

KW - Quantum mechanics

KW - Retrocausal quantum mechanics

KW - Time-symmetric quantum mechanics

KW - Transactional interpretation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885230872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885230872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.09.004

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84885230872

VL - 44

SP - 442

EP - 449

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

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

SN - 1355-2198

IS - 4

ER -