[extropy-chat] Cramer on Afshar

[Damien Broderick]

John Cramer (who devised the Transactional Interpretation of QT) writes on 
the Afshar QT experiments in the latest ANALOG:

http://www.analogsf.com/0412/altview.shtml

He concludes:

< Does this mean that the theory of quantum mechanics has also been 
falsified? No indeed! The quantum formalism has no problem in predicting 
the Afshar result. A simple quantum mechanical calculation using the 
standard formalism shows that the wires should intercept only a very small 
fraction of the light. The problem encountered by the Copenhagen and 
Many-Worlds Interpretations is that the Afshar Experiment has identified a 
situation in which these popular interpretations of quantum mechanics are 
inconsistent with the quantum formalism itself.

What about the Transactional Interpretation, which describes each quantum 
process as a handshake between a normal "offer" wave (y) and a back-in-time 
advanced "confirmation" wave (y*)? The offer waves from the laser pass 
through both pinholes and cancel at the positions of the zeroes in the 
interference pattern. Therefore, no transactions can form at these 
locations, and the wires can intercept only a very small amount of light. 
Thus, the Transactional interpretation is completely consistent with the 
results of the Afshar Experiment and with the quantum formalism.

Does this mean that the Copenhagen and Many Worlds Interpretations, having 
been falsified by experiment, must be abandoned? Does it mean that the 
physics community must turn to an interpretation like the Transactional 
Interpretation that is consistent with the Afshar results? Perhaps. I 
predict that a new generation of "Quantum Lawyers" will begin to populate 
the physics literature with arguments challenging what "is" is and claming 
that the wounded interpretations never said that interference should be 
completely absent in a quantum which-way measurement. And most practicing 
physicists who learned the Copenhagen Interpretation at the knee of an old 
and beloved professor will not abandon that mode of thinking, even if it is 
found to be inconsistent with the formalism and with experiment.

But nevertheless, the rules of the game have changed. There is a way of 
distinguishing between interpretations of quantum mechanics. It will take 
some time for the dust to settle, but I am confident that when it does we 
will have interpretations of quantum mechanics that are on a sounder 
footing than the ones presently embraced by most of the physics community.>

Damien Broderick