Appendix A

Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum

Mechanics and the Transactional
Interpretation

A.1 Basic Questions and Answers

At physics meetings at which talks are given, it is conventional to leave some time
at the end of the presentation for questions about ideas that need clarification or
that might not have been adequately covered during the formal presentation. Werner
Heisenberg remarked [1] that no one who gave a talk at Niels Bohr’s Institute in
Copenhagen ever finished the presentation, because Bohr always asked too many
questions.
So, in the spirit of Bohr’s inquisitiveness, here are some questions that may have
been raised by material in this book, along with short answers. We will start with a
few basic questions.

Q: What is quantum mechanics?

A: Quantum mechanics is the standard physics theory that deals with the smallest
scale of physical objects in the universe, objects (atoms, nuclei, photons, quarks) so
small that the lumpiness or quantization of otherwise apparently continuous physical
variables becomes important.

Q: What is the meaning of the angular frequency ω and wave number k of waves?
A: Light waves have a characteristic frequency f indicating how many times per
second the electric field of the light wave oscillates. The angular frequency ω is just
the same characteristic expressed in radians of phase per second instead of oscillations
per second, so ω = 2π f . Light waves also have a characteristic wavelength λ as
they move through space, which is the spatial distance between one electric-field
maximum and the next. The wave number k is a way of looking at the reciprocal of
that characteristic, so that k = 2π/λ. The speed of light c is related to these quantities
as c = f λ = ω/k. When we deal with particle-waves, for example using the de
Broglie wavelength, we also characterize them in terms of ω and k.

Q: What is quantization?

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 169

J.G. Cramer, The Quantum Handshake, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24642-0
170 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

A: It’s the idea that there are minimum size chunks for certain quantities like
energy and angular momentum. The minimum energy chunk for light of frequency
f is E = h f = ω, where h is Planck’s constant and  is h divided by 2π . We call
the particle of light carrying this minimum-size energy chunk ω a photon.

Q: How big is Planck’s constant?

A: Planck’s constant is very small. It represents the minimum unit of action
(energy × time) in quantum physics, and it has the value h = 6.62606957×10−34 J ·
s = 4.135667516×10−15 eV ·s. Further,  = h/2π = 1.054571726×10−34 J ·s =
6.58211928 × 10−16 eV · s. As an example of the use of h, red visible light has a
wavelength of about λγ = 500 nanometers (nm). A photon of red light carries an
energy of E γ = hc/λγ = 2.48 eV . An eV is an electron-volt, the energy required
to move one charged electron through a potential of 1 V. An electron-volt is a very
small quantity of energy, roughly the amount of energy that an atomic electron gains
or loses by jumping from one atomic orbit to another.

Q: What if Planck’s constant was zero?

A: Setting  to zero is a way of taking the classical limit of quantum mechanics: the
uncertainty principle goes away, and in that limit quantum mechanics becomes more
or less equivalent to Newtonian mechanics. However, Planck’s treatment of black
body radiation suggests that a universe in which Planck’s constant was zero would
be very different than ours, because hot objects would rapidly radiate away all their
energy as high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (the ultraviolet catastrophe),
matter would be extremely cold, and the universe would be dominated by light.

Q: What is angular momentum, why is it quantized, and why is it conserved?

A: Angular momentum is the rotational momentum of a rotating or spinning
object. It is the product of the angular rotation rate ω and the rotational inertia I of
the object. In quantum mechanics, if one requires the state of an object that is slowly
turned through 360◦ to return to exactly the same state as before, this has the rather
unexpected consequence of requiring that angular momentum must be quantized
in units of . Thus, it is 360◦ rotational symmetry that causes angular momentum
to be quantized. Therefore, one would think that no object in our universe could
have a non-zero angular momentum of less than one  unit. As it turns out, this
is wrong, because fermions (see below) have an intrinsic spin of half an  unit
and therefore do not have 360◦ symmetry. Angular momentum conservation is the
rotational manifestation of Newton’s 3rd Law, which in it’s rotational form states
that in the absence of external torques, the angular momentum of a system is an
unchanging time-independent constant.

Q: What is the difference between orbital angular momentum and spin angular
momentum?
A: In an atom, two distinct kinds of angular momentum are present: the angular
momentum created by the electrons orbiting the nucleus and the intrinsic spin angu-
lar momentum of the electrons themselves. The orbital angular momentum always
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 171

comes in units of , while the electron spins are each /2. The total angular momen-
tum is the vector sum of these components, and it can be quite complicated because of
the variety of ways in which the component angular momentum vectors can couple.
The parity (see below) of the system wave function depends on the orbital angular
momentum, with odd values (1, 3, 5, …) giving odd parity and even values (0, 2, 4, …)
giving even parity.

Q: What is parity?
A: A parity transformation means that the three spatial coordinates (x, y, and z)
of a quantum system are reversed in sign and direction. If the quantum wave function
remains the same under such a transformation, the system is said to have positive
parity. Example: cos(x) = cos(−x). If the quantum wave function changes sign
under such a transformation, the system is said to have negative parity. Example:
sin(x) = − sin(−x). Each energy state of an atom or nucleus has a definite parity,
either positive or negative. In a “quantum jump” atomic transition, if the parity
changes the properties of the emitted photon will be different than if the parity
remains the same. Parity is related to mirror-image symmetry.

Q: Why is photon linear polarization, important in EPR experiments, constrained

by angular momentum conservation?
A: Photons are boson particles (see below) that have an intrinsic spin angular
momentum of one  unit. If this spin vector points in the direction of motion of
the photon, the photon is in a state of left circular polarization; if the spin vector
points against the direction of motion, it is in a state of right circular polarization.
Because the photon travels at the speed of light, special relativity does not allow
its spin to point in any other directions. States of linear polarization can be formed
by a superposition of the right and left circular polarization states, as discussed in
Sect. 6.6 and quantified by Eqs. 6.4 and 6.5. Since angular momentum conservation
constrains the spins of the photons of a system, it also constrains the states of linear
polarization, and EPR experiments make use of this.

Q: What is a fermion?
A: Fundamental particles called fermions, including electrons, muons, neutrinos,
and quarks, have an intrinsic angular momentum or “spin” of 1/2 , i.e. half an  unit.
Composite fermions, which are made up of three quarks, include neutrons, protons,
and heavier baryons. Fermions obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli exclusion
principle, the requirement that only one fermion can occupy any particular quantum
state. This leads to the electron-shell structure in atoms, to the neutron and proton
shell structures in nuclei, and to valence behavior and chemical bonding in chemistry.
In quantum wave mechanics, fermions are described using the Dirac wave equation.
The half-integer spin of fermions means that one must rotate such particles through
two full revolutions or 720◦ before they return to their original state. These peculiar
172 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

fermion particles also come with antimatter twins (e.g., positrons for electrons and
anti-quarks for quarks) of opposite parity (opposite mirror-symmetry).1

Q: What is a boson?
A: Fundamental particles called bosons, including photons, gluons, the Z 0 and
±
W weak-interaction particles, and the Higgs particle, the mediating particles for the
fundamental forces, all have an intrinsic spin that is either zero or an integer multiple
of . Composite bosons include alpha-particles, many atoms and nuclei, and π - and
K -mesons. Bosons obey Bose–Einstein statistics and can form a “condensate” in
which a large number of bosons all have identical wave functions and occupy the same
quantum state. Lasers are an example of the operation of Bose–Einstein statistics for
photons. In quantum mechanics, bosons are described by the electromagnetic wave
equation for light and the Klein–Gordon equation for massive particles.

Q: Is light made of particles or of waves?

A: Light exhibits the behavior of both a particle and a wave. The Transactional
Interpretation shows us that light moves from place to place as waves, but at locations
where it is emitted or absorbed it obeys the boundary conditions of a particle carrying
energy ω, momentum k, and angular momentum . One might say that light travels
as a wave but takes-off and lands as a particle. It is usually convenient to think of
low energy photons, e.g., radio transmissions, as waves, and high energy photons
like X-rays and gamma rays as particles. In the TI the wavelike-behavior is present
in the offer and confirmation waves, and the particle-like behavior is present in the
completed transactions.

Q: Are electrons really particles?

A: Electrons follow much the same rules as photons, traveling as waves but taking-
off and landing as particles. The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect discussed in Sect. 6.9
demonstrates that particles in transit do not have a separate identity from their wave
functions, and that there can be no one-to-one correspondence established between a
particle that is emitted and a particle that is subsequently captured or absorbed. One
can “manufacture” an arriving particle from fractions of the particles that departed.
Further, the Bohr/de Broglie view of electrons orbiting in atoms is that they are
standing waves bent around the circumference of the orbit. Nevertheless, it is con-
venient to think of electrons as particles, because the particle aspects of their nature
are normally much more apparent that their wave aspects.

Q: What is the difference between interference and diffraction?

A: Both are wave phenomena. Diffraction is the behavior of a wave that has had
part of its extent “chopped off” by a slit or aperture. When a wave consisting of
wave fronts that are parallel planes (i.e., a plane wave) comes to a pinhole, only
that part of the wave that overlaps the hole can get through. The result is that the
emerging wave fronts are curved surfaces like hemispheres centered on the pinhole.

1I have always suspected that there must be a connections between the peculiar fractional spin of
fermions and their antimatter and parity behavior, but no one has ever been able to explain it to me,
including prominent string theorists who claim to be masters of a “theory of everything”.
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 173

Attempting to restrict the wave to a small region causes it to “diffract” and spread
out as it propagates further.
Interference comes from the combination of two or more waves of the same
wavelength and frequency that overlap with some definite phase relation between
them. If two waves have a phase difference of 0 or some integer multiple of 2π ,
the interference will be constructive, and the resulting wave will have twice the
amplitude of its components. If two waves have a phase difference that is some odd-
integer multiple of π , the interference will be destructive, and the resulting wave will
cancel and have zero amplitude. A good example of this kind of behavior is two-slit
interference as discussed in Sect. 6.1.

Q: What is the difference between an experiment and a gedankenexperiment?

A: Many in-principle experimental ideas, i.e., demonstrations of natural processes
in an experimental setting where measurements are made, are either too diffi-
cult to implement in practice or are so obvious that they are not worth actual
implementation, and therefore fall into the category of thought experiments or
gedankenexperiments. Examples of the too-difficult variety are the boxed-atom
experiments of Sect. 6.19. Examples of the too-obvious variety are Einstein’s Bubble
(Sect. 6.2), Schrödinger’s Cat (Sect. 6.3), and Renninger’s Negative-Result Experi-
ment (Sect. 6.6). In the discussion of applications of the TI to experiments, we have
labeled the real experiments that have actually been performed in the quantum optics
laboratory with an asterisk (*) to distinguish them from the gedankenexperiments.

Q: What is meant by “the formalism” of quantum mechanics?”

A: Basically, the formalism of quantum wave mechanics is mathematics consist-
ing of (1) a differential equation like Schrödinger’s wave equation that relates mass,
energy, and momentum; (2) the mathematical solutions of that wave equation, called
wave functions, which contain information about location, energy, momentum, etc.
of some system; (3) operators that can extract quantities of interest from quantum
wave functions, and (4) procedures for using operators and wave functions to make
predictions about physical measurements on the system. See Appendix B for more
details. The formalism of quantum matrix mechanics involves using matrix repre-
sentations and manipulations to describe and connect the states of a system and will
not be described further here.

Q: What is a “system” in quantum mechanics?

A: A quantum system is any collection of physical objects that is to be described
by a wave function. It could be a single electron, a group of quarks, an atom, a cat in
a box, a quantum computer, or the whole universe and all its contents.

Q: What is meant by “entanglement”?

A: Entanglement is a term coined by Schrödinger to indicate that the quantum
state of one particle depends on some details of the quantum state of the other particle.
Entanglement often occurs because two entangled particles are emitted by the same
source, and some conservation law, e.g., energy, momentum, or angular momentum
174 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

conservation, can only be preserved if the particles have values of that quantity that
are correlated. See Sect. 3.3 for a discussion of entanglement.

Q: What is quantum nonlocality?

A: Albert Einstein distrusted quantum mechanics because he perceived embedded
in its formalism what he called “spooky actions at a distance”. The characteristic that
worried Einstein is now called “nonlocality”. The term locality means that separated
system parts that are out of speed-of-light contact can only retain some definite rela-
tionship through memory of previous contact. Nonlocality means that some relation-
ship is being enforced nonlocally across space and time. The nonlocality of quantum
mechanics has been spotlighted by quantum-optics EPR (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen)
experiments showing in ever increasing detail the peculiar actions and consequences
of nonlocality. These measurements, for example the correlated optical polariza-
tions for oppositely directed photons, show that something very like faster-than-light
hand-shaking must be going on within the formalism of quantum mechanics and in
nature itself.

Q: Can quantum nonlocality be used to send nonlocal signals faster than light and
backwards in time?
A: This question is addressed in some detail in Chap. 7. The short answer is that
nonlocal signaling is impossible unless the standard formalism of quantum mechan-
ics is an approximation to a more general theory that might allow such signaling.
Several philosophers of science [2–7] have demonstrated that the formulators of the
standard quantum formalism used the impossibility of nonlocal signals as a guide
in constructing the theory and thereby built that impossibility into the formalism.
It is not clear if there might be a more general quantum formalism in which this
built-in prohibition is eliminated. Thus, the doorway to nonlocal signaling is open
just a crack, but it is a very small crack.

Q: What is an interpretation of quantum mechanics?

A: Quantum mechanics arrived in the world of physics without an interpretation
that allowed one to picture what was going on behind the mathematics. See Chap. 2.
Since that time, starting with the Copenhagen Interpretation devised in the late 1920s,
there have been a number of attempts to solve this problem. The subject of this book,
the Transactional Interpretation, is one of these. Many ideas that are promoted as
“interpretations” have the deficiency that they only focus on one or two of the inter-
pretational problems of the quantum formalism listed in Sect. 2.6. The Transactional
Interpretation deals with all of them.

Q: Why not use experimental results to determine the correct interpretation of

quantum mechanics?
A: The problem is that, unlike most ideas in physics, QM interpretations cannot
be tested, verified, or falsified by laboratory experiments because all of the rival
interpretations are describing the same mathematics, and it is the mathematics that
makes the testable predictions. Interpretations of QM can only be eliminated if (a)
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 175

they fail to explain quantum phenomena,2 or (b) they are found to be inconsistent with
the QM mathematics. See Sects. 6.15 and 6.20 for examples of the latter situation.

Q: Why is there so much controversy about interpreting quantum mechanics?

A: Interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be falsified by experimental
tests, and so there is no good way of eliminating the inadequate ones. The problem
of QM interpretation is compounded because there are no social forces propelling
the physics and philosophy communities to settle on one interpretation and adopt
it as the standard, as is normally done with testable physical theories. Rather the
social forces work in the other direction, giving rewards in the form of recognition,
conference invitations, and tenure to those who “do their own thing” in the area of QM
interpretations, since it is a playground where their ideas cannot be tested or falsified.
There seems to be more prestige in having your own interpretation than in adopting
someone else’s. In lieu of testing interpretations by performing experiments, the
philosophy-of-science community seems to have devolved to “challenges” in which
advocates of each interpretation attempt to poke holes in the interpretations of their
rivals. This is rather like horseback-mounted knights engaging in jousting duels in
a medieval court. It may be entertaining to spectators and some participants, but it
does not promote convergence.3

Q: What is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics?

A: The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of ideas and
principles devised by Bohr, Heisenberg, and Born in the late 1920s to give meaning
to the formalism of quantum mechanics and to avoid certain “paradoxes” that seemed
implicit in the formalism. It is the interpretation that may be presented in textbooks
on quantum mechanics. It is described in detail in Sect. 2.6 above. Its principal ele-
ments are: Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Born’s probability rule, Heisenberg’s
knowledge interpretation, and Bohr’s complementarity principle.
We should note that the Copenhagen Interpretation, first explicitly given that name
by Heisenberg in 1955 [8], is somewhat of a moving target, since both Bohr and
Heisenberg modified their views during their long careers and they often disagreed
over the finer points of the interpretation. In particular, according to von Weizsäcker
[9] Heisenberg considerably modified his emphasis on logical positivism over the
years.

2 In fact, many “interpretations” that fail to explain quantum nonlocality, particularly those that, like

the decoherence interpretation, focus exclusively on wave function collapse, remain alive and well
and continue to attract adherents.
3 As a personal note, my own work on the Transactional Interpretation was done well after I had

been granted tenure at the University of Washington and probably has had a net negative impact
on my academic career, since my DOE-funded primary research area, experimental nuclear and
relativistic heavy-ion physics, is very far removed from quantum interpretations and the philosophy
of science.
176 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

Q: What is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?

A: In the quantum formalism there are pairs of variables, including conserved
quantities, that are multiplied together in the wave functions and that Bohr has called
“complementary”. These pairs include position/momentum, energy/time, and angu-
lar position/angular momentum. These variables are subject to Heisenberg’s uncer-
tainty principle, which describes a “see-saw” relation between the uncertainties in
the two members of the pair. For example, the uncertainty in the position on the
x-axis Δx and the uncertainty in the x-component of momentum Δpx are governed
by the uncertainty relation ΔxΔpx ≥ . If Δx is decreased, then Δpx necessarily
increases, and vice versa. As discussed in Sect. 2.4, this behavior can be explained
in terms of the mathematics of Fourier analysis. It is important to realize that the
mathematics of Fourier analysis tells us that if a particle has a well-defined value
for one of two complementary variables, it cannot have a well-defined value for the
other variable, hidden or not.

Q: What is Born’s probability rule?

A: The Born probability rule is the method for extracting a probability from
quantum wave functions. The probability is P = ψψ ∗ where ψ is the wave function
describing the state of a quantum system and ψ ∗ is the complex conjugate or time-
reverse of the wave function. This forces the probability to be real and positive, even
when the wave function is a complex quantity, with real and imaginary parts. For the
Copenhagen Interpretation, the Born rule is an assumption, a non-obvious postulate
that must be adopted ad hoc. One of the major arguments in favor of the Transactional
Interpretation is that the Born rule is a direct consequence of the transaction model
and not an independent assumption.

Q: What is Heisenberg’s knowledge interpretation?

A: Heisenberg’s knowledge interpretation is the assertion that the wave function
of quantum mechanics is a mathematical encoding of the knowledge of an observer
who is making measurements on the system that the wave function describes. This
assumption offers an explanation of how the wave function collapses (the observer
gains knowledge from a measurement) and deals with simple nonlocality problems
like the Einstein’s bubble paradox described in Sect. 6.2. It may seems strange that
the solution to a simple second-order differential equation relating mass, energy,
and momentum is supposed to provide a map of thought processes of an observer,
but that is what the knowledge interpretation asks us to accept, and indeed it has
been accepted by most of the prominent theorists of the late 20th century. From
the point of view of the Transactional Interpretation, the knowledge interpreta-
tion has it backwards: the change in observer knowledge is a consequence of a
change in the wave function (because a transaction forms), not the cause of the wave
function change.

Q: What is Bohr’s complementarity principle?

A: Complementarity is a term that Nies Bohr invented to describe and generalize
the behavior of complementry variables in a quantum system. Bohr [10] described
complementarity in these words:
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 177

… however far the [quantum] phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical
explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms. The argument
is simply that by the word “experiment” we refer to a situation where we can tell others what
we have done and what we have learned, and that, therefore, the account of the experimental
arrangements and of the results of the observations must be expressed in unambiguous
language with suitable application of the terminology of classical physics.
This crucial point … implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behavior
of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the
conditions under which the phenomena appear. … Consequently, evidence obtained under
different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must
be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts
the possible information about the objects.

Essentially, complementarity is the idea that two seemingly contradictory descrip-

tions can characterize the same phenomenon. It is a generalization from the
uncertainty principle to the ideas that there are balanced “unknowables” in quan-
tum systems and that a system and measurement on that system are inseparable parts
of the whole and cannot be considered separately. In his writings over the years,
Bohr moved from using the wave versus particle dichotomy as an example of com-
plementarity to using the more general example of comparing dynamic principles to
teleological conservation-law principles [11].4

Q: What is the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics?

A: Hugh Everett III (1930–1982), a student of John Wheeler at Princeton, intro-
duced the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) in an attempt to explain the curious QM
phenomenon of wave function collapse [12, 13]. Everett asserted that in a measure-
ment of some physical quantity with several possible outcomes, the wave function
does not collapse at all, but instead the universe itself splits into alternative universes,
each of which contains one of the possible outcomes of the measurement. Quantum
interference between universes can occur when they are indistinguishable. This pecu-
liar view of quantum phenomena has accumulated many adherents. Notable among
these is David Deutsch [14], who views the MWI as an aid to thinking about quantum
computers as parallel processing in many parallel universes at once. Problems with
the MWI are: (1) that it is very confused about the origin and operation of the Born
probability rule, and (2) that it does not seem to be able to explain quantum nonlo-
cality. In fact, Everett described the EPR work as a “false paradox” and promised to
write a subsequent paper that would explain how to deal with it using the MWI [12].
He never made good on that promise.

4I was on the second row of a large lecture hall when Niels Bohr, near the end of his life, gave a
Physics Colloquium at Rice University in 1960. He recounted for us his solution of the Einstein
Clock paradox at the 8th Solvay Conference in 1930, and he spoke at length on the power of the
principle of complementarity. His Danish-accented English was somewhat difficult to understand
at first, but it was a very interesting talk.
178 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

Q: Can the quantum wave function ψ, particularly for multi-particle systems, be

considered a real object that exists in normal three-dimensional space?
A: Yes, in the TI view the quantum wave function ψ can be taken as a real-but-
incomplete object moving through ordinary 3-dimensional space. See Sect. 5.7. The
wave function is the offer wave that initiates a quantum transaction that transfers
energy and momentum across space-time. In the multi-particle case, multi-vertex
transactions form that select from the “free” (i.e., uncorrelated) wave functions of
each particle only those wave function components that satisfy appropriate conser-
vation laws at all of the vertices, thereby enforcing entanglement.

Q: In Chap. 7 on nonlocal signaling, it was demonstrated that the potential sig-

nal is blocked by the superposition of a switchable interference pattern and an
“anti-interference” pattern, the latter 180◦ out of phase with the former, so that it
“erases” the signal. Why not just shift the phase of the anti-interference pattern by
180◦ , so that it does not do this?
A: There is no general answer to this question, but for the experimental setups
discussed in Chap. 7 there is no place that a phase shift element, e.g., a half-wave
plate, could be inserted so that it would shift the phase of one of the interference
patterns without shifting the other by an equal amount. There does not seem to be a
way of unblocking the blocker.

Q: Why is it the emitter that is responsible for transaction formation?

A: The emitter chooses, weighted by echo strength, which of the offer/confirmation
echoes that it receives from potential absorbers is to be used as the trigger to form a
transaction with that absorber, and it may also choose to form no transaction at all.

Q: That is not time-symmetric; why is it the emitter rather than the absorber that
selects the transaction”
A: There is a quantum mechanical arrow of time that favors the emitter over the
absorber. It is related to the electromagnetic arrow of time that favors retarded over
advanced electromagnetic waves. This is discussed further in Sect. 9.1.

Q: What is “pseudo-time” in the Transactional Interpretation?

A: The Transactional Interpretation account of the formation of a transaction
is layered, with an offer wave followed by a confirmation wave followed by echo
selection followed by transaction formation. However, since these processes are
occurring in both time directions, the layers cannot represent a time sequence in the
usual sense. Therefore, we say that the sequence occurs in pseudo-time, meaning the
layered causal sequence in the build-up to a transaction.

Q: How can the Transactional Interpretation account for the interaction of two
wave functions, for example, those involving only spins?
A: This question is one for the quantum formalism, not the interpretation of it. The
wave functions that the TI describes are generated from a wave equation containing
a Hamiltonian that characterizes the interactions present in the system that is being
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 179

described mathematically. Thus, the wave functions, as offer and confirmation waves,
have the interactions already built into them by the formalism that they describe.

Q: Why doesn’t the Transactional Interpretation provide a detailed mathematical

description of the formation of a transaction?
A: A proper interpretation describes the formalism and does not modify or elab-
orate it. Otherwise, it is a new theory, not an interpretation. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate for the Transactional Interpretation to provide a detailed mathematical
description of the formation of a transaction. However, we note that Carver Mead
[15] has provided a quantum mechanical description of the “quantum jump” trans-
port of a photon from one atom to another using mixed atomic states, and this can be
taken as a prototype for the formation of a transaction as an exponential avalanche
triggered by perturbations from an exchange of advanced and retarded waves. His
calculation is described in Sect. 5.4 above.

Q: How can the Transactional Interpretation be applied to relativistic quantum

mechanics?
A: There are two branches of relativistic quantum mechanics, relativistic wave
mechanics and quantum field theory. The Transactional Interpretation is fully com-
patible with relativistic wave mechanics and indeed depends on the advanced wave
solutions of relativistic wave equations.
Ruth Kastner, in her book on the TI [16] goes into some detail on the application
of the Transactional Interpretation to quantum field theory. She provides some new
and interesting insights into quantum processes at the Feynman-diagram level and
encounters no problems in doing so. However, in our opinion quantum field theory
is suspect because it predicts that the energy content on the quantum vacuum is 10120
times larger than its actual value. We feel that quantum field theory must eventually
be replaced by a new theory of quantum gravity that will accommodate both particle
physics and gravitational physics. Therefore, placing emphasis on developing any
detailed interpretation of the present state of quantum field theory is problematical,
since it must inevitably change.

Q: Why should one accept an interpretation that has waves going backwards in
time, when nothing in the real world behaves that way?
A: Two reasons: (1) it seems to be the only way of providing any visualizable
explanation of quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and (2) the advanced waves
that go backwards in time, as complex-conjugated wave functions ψ ∗ , are present in
the standard formalism of quantum wave mechanics for all to see, if they just open
their eyes and their mind.
180 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

A.2 Questions from Chapter 3 on Nonlocality

These are questions taken from Chap. 3, which discusses quantum nonlocality:

Q: Can the quantum wave functions of entangled systems be objects that exist in
normal three-dimensional space?
A: Yes. The wave functions are objects in normal three-dimensional space, and
the entanglement and nonlocal correlations between objects are arranged by the
application of conservation laws at the vertices of the final transaction.

Q: What are the true roles of the observers and measurements in quantum
processes that involve several separated measurements on entangled subsystems?
A: The observer and measurement can be end-points of a transaction, but they have
no special status. Giving “observer knowledge” a special role amounts to confusing
the effect with the cause in wave function collapse.

Q: What is wave function collapse (or state vector reduction) and how does it
occur, particularly for entangled systems?
A: Wave function collapse and state vector reduction can be understood as the
formation of a transaction that projects out one possible outcome from among the
possibilities implicitly or explicitly contained in the initial offer wave function. For
entangled systems a multi-vertex transaction forms in which conservation laws are
enforced at all vertices together to enable entanglement and nonlocal correlations.

Q: How can quantum nonlocality be understood?

A: Nonlocality can be understood as arising from a muli-vertex transactional
handshake of retarded and advanced waves that connects and correlates entangled
objects and their source across space-time.

Q: How can quantum nonlocality be visualized?

A: Nonlocality can be visualized as the multi-vertex transaction across space-
time, connecting and correlating separated system parts. Chapter 6 provides many
examples of such multi-vertex transactions.

Q: What are the underlying physical processes that make quantum nonlocality
possible?
A: The underlying physical process that makes quantum nonlocality possible is
the transactional handshake between retarded and advanced waves across space-time
that connects entangled and separated parts of an overall system back to the event
at which they separated, so that conservation laws appropriate to the system can be
enforced.
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 181

A.3 Questions from Discussions of the TI Found

on the Internet

These are questions taken from various “challenges to the TI” extracted from Internet-
based discussions of the Transactional Interpretation.

Q: “Isn’t the Transactional Interpretation mathematically imprecise?”

A: This is a peculiar question, because the mathematics of quantum mechanics
is contained in the formalism that the interpretation describes, not in the interpre-
tation itself. That said, the Transactional Interpretation does not have any problems
with mathematical precision. The offer waves ψ for massive particles are solutions
of the Schrödinger wave equation and the confirmation waves ψ ∗ are solutions
of the complex conjugate of the Schrödinger wave equation, both derivable from
relativistically-invariant wave equations. A transaction formation (see Sect. 5.6) is
a genuinely stochastic event, and therefore does not obey a deterministic equation.
Outcomes based on actualized transactions obey the Born rule, and the TI provides
a derivation of the Born probability rule rather than assuming it, as is the case in the
Copenhagen Interpretation. The TI is a direct map of the quantum formalism and is
imprecise only to the extent that the underlying formalism is imprecise.

Q: “Can the Transactional Interpretation make new predictions that are experi-
mentally testable, so that it can be verified or falsified?”
A: No consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics can be tested experimen-
tally, 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 Copen-
hagen 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 one (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.

Q: “Just where and when in space-time does a transaction occur?”

A: A clear account of transaction formation is given in Chap. 5, which pictures
a transaction as emerging from an offer-confirmation handshake as a four-vector
standing wave in normal three-dimensional space with endpoints at the emission and
absorption vertices. Kastner [16] has presented 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
normal three-dimensional space.
182 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

Q: “Hasn’t Maudlin [17] already demonstrated that the Transactional Interpreta-

tion is inconsistent?”
A: No, he has not. Maudlin’s gedankenexperiment was discussed in Sect. 6.14.
Maudlin [17] 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 modifies the detection configuration in another
direction. This problem is dealt with by the TI in Sect. 5.5 above by introducing a
hierarchy in the order of transaction formation. Maudlin’s paradox is discussed in
detail in Sect. 6.14. Other solutions to the problem raised by Maudlin can be found
in references [18–20].

Q: “Hasn’t Maudlin [17] demonstrated that the Transactional Interpretation leads

to an incorrect calculation of probability?”
A: Maudlin did make that incorrect claim. It is based on his assumption that the
wave function is a representation of observer knowledge and must change when
new information becomes available. That Heisenberg-inspired view is not a part
of the Transactional Interpretation, and introducing it leads to bogus probability
arguments. 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.

Q: “Hasn’t Maudlin [17] demonstrated that the Transactional Interpretation is

deterministic rather than stocastic?”
A: Maudlin certainly made that claim, but it has no basis. The intrinsic randomness
of the Transactional Interpretation comes in the third stage of transaction formation,
in which the emitter, presented with a sequence of retarded/advanced echoes that
might form a transaction, hierarchically and randomly selects one (or none) of these
as the initial stage of transaction formation, as described in Sect. 5.5.
In Carver Mead’s TI-based mathematical description of a quantum jump [15],
the perturbations between emitter and absorber create a frequency-matched pair of
unstable mixed states that either exponentially avalanche to a full-blown transac-
tion with the transfer of energy or else disappear due to boundary conditions when
a competing transaction forms. In a universe full of particles, this process does not
occur in isolation, and both emitter and absorber also experience random perturba-
tions from other systems that can randomly drive the instability in either direction.
Ruth Kastner [16] has described this situation in transaction formation as “spon-
taneous symmetry breaking”, which relates the process to analogous behavior in
quantum field theory.

Q: “How can the Transactional Interpretation handle the quantum mechanics of

systems with more than one particle?”
A: This is a peculiar question, because Refs. [21, 22] long ago provided many
examples of the application of the TI to systems involving more than one particle.
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 183

These include the Freedman-Clauser experiment, which describes a 2-photon trans-

action with three vertices (see Sect. 6.8), and the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect, which
describes a 2-photon transaction with four vertices (see Sect. 6.9). Chapter 6 above
provides many examples of more complicated multi-particle systems, including sys-
tems with both atoms and photons.
But perhaps the question posed above is based on the belief that quantum mechan-
ical 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 Transac-
tional Interpretation” [16] takes this point of view and describes transaction forma-
tion as ultimately appearing in 3D space but forming from the Hilbert-space wave
functions.
As discussed in Sect. 5.7, 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 influ-
ence 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 trans-
actions. 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.

These questions are Nick Herbert’s “Quantum Mysteries”, taken from his online
blog “Quantum Tantra: Investigating New Doorways into Nature”. It is available
online at http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com.

Q: Quantum Mystery # 1a: What does the quantum wave function really represent?
A: The wave function represents an offer to form a transaction that constitutes
an interaction and an exchange of conserved quantities. It is a retarded wave that
propagates at the natural velocity of the particle it describes through normal three-
184 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

dimensional space, but it is not, in itself, observable; only the transaction it may form
is observable.

Q: Quantum Mystery # 1b: What is really happening in the world before any
measurements are made?
A: Retarded offer waves propagate from the source to potential sites for trans-
action formation, advanced confirmation waves propagate back to the source, the
source selects from among the advanced/retarded echos it receives, and a transaction
(an advanced/retarded standing wave), possibly one involving a measurement, may
form. The transaction is what is “really happening”.

Q: Quantum Mystery # 2a: What really happens during a quantum measurement?

A: A quantum measurement is the particular type of transaction that enables an
observer to gain information about a quantum system under study.

Q: Quantum Mystery # 2b: How does a quantum possibility decide to turn into
an actuality?
A: The offer wave represents a “quantum possibility”. It travels to potential sites
of transaction formation, where it stimulates them to generate advanced confirmation
waves that travel back to the source. The source randomly and hierarchly selects one
confirmation for transaction formation, and a transaction forms, turning possibility
into actuality.

Q: Quantum Mystery # 3a: What (if anything) is actually exchanged between two
distant entangled quantum subsystems?
A: Nothing is directly exchanged between distant entangled quantum subsystems.
Each subsystem exchanges retarded and advanced waves with the system producing
the entangled subsystems, and the boundary conditions at each transaction vertex
enforce the conservation laws that are the basis of the entanglement and the resulting
correlation.

Q: Quantum Mystery # 3b: When will physicists get smart enough to be able to
tell their kids a believable story about what’s really going on between Alice and Bob?
A: After they read this book and understand the Transactional Interpretation.

A.4 Questions from Tammaro

These are questions taken from Tammaro, reference [23], Sect. 9, which criticizes
the Transactional Interpretation and a number of other QM interpretations. Many of
the questions about the TI that Tammaro raises are answered in Chaps. 5 and 6, but
here are a few that perhaps require special attention.
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 185

Q: How can the probability relation used for the Dirac Equation, P = ψψ † , be
reconciled with the Transactional Interpretation?
A: For the relativistic Dirac wave equation, which is used for fractional-spin
fermion particles subject to Fermi-Dirac statistics, the probability is P = ψψ † ,
where † indicates that the conjugate-transpose of a column matrix must be taken
and a matrix multiplication performed. Is this different from the Born rule discussed
above?
No. The use of column and row matrices is a book-keeping technique used in
Dirac algebra to keep track of four-momentum components, spin projections, etc.,
and the transpose operation simply ensures that appropriate pairs of elements in the
matrices will be properly paired with and multiplied by their complex conjugates,
as the Born rule indicates. The Dirac probability procedure is just the Born rule,
generalized for Dirac algebra.

Q: How can the probability relation used for the Klein–Gordon Equation, P =
i
2mc2
(ψ ∗ dtd ψ− ψ dtd ψ ∗ ), be reconciled with the Transactional Interpretation and its
use of the Born probability rule?
A: The problem with the Klein–Gordon (K-G) equation (if it is a problem) is that it
has both retarded and advanced wave functions as solutions, and the latter have energy
eigenvalues that are negative. The result is that the Born probability ψψ ∗ as applied
to general Klein–Gordon wave functions does not satisfy the continuity equation,
because it associates positive probabilities with the negative energy solutions. The
probability needs to be negative for advanced waves that when emitted carry negative
energy backwards in time to a previous point where they may form a transaction by
handshaking with a retarded wave. The probability needs to be negative because
energy disappears at the “emission” point and moves in the negative time direction,
while ψψ ∗ always gives a positive probability value.
∗ d ∗
As stated above, the K-G probability relation P = 2mc i
2 (ψ dt ψ − ψ dt ψ ) must
d

be used in the general case. Referring to Appendix B.2, the energy operator that
extracts the energy from a wave function is E = i dtd , i.e., the time derivative
∗ d ∗
multiplied by i. Therefore, the expression P = 2mc i
2 (ψ dt ψ −ψ dt ψ ) is equivalent
d
∗ ∗
to (ψ Eψ − ψEψ )/(2mc ). The energy operator E extracts the energy from the
2

wave function or its complex conjugate, subtracts them (which is equivalent to adding,
since they will have opposite signs), divides the added eigen-energies by 2mc2 , and
leaves behind the ψψ ∗ Born product. Since both retarded waves with positive energy
eigenvalues and advanced waves with negative energy eigenvalues are solutions to
the K-G equation, both kinds of waves can be the represented by ψ in the probability
equation, and the latter will have negative energy eigenvalues. If ψ is a retarded
wave, i.e., contains exp(−i Et/), the energy eigenvalue E = mc2 will be positive,
so the procedure will give a net positive probability. If ψ is an advanced wave, i.e.,
contains exp(+i Et/), the energy eigenvalue E = −mc2 will be negative, so the
procedure will give a net negative probability. Thus the K-G probability expression
is just a generalization of the Born rule that includes a book-keeping mechanism
for insuring that the probability for both advanced and retarded wave solutions to
186 Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics …

the Klein–Gordon equation has the proper sign. It is completely consistent with the
Transactional Interpretation.
We note that some textbooks attempt to associate the negative-energy K-G solu-
tions with antimatter rather than with advanced waves. This perhaps works for the
special case of fermion-composite particles like π -mesons, but the Klein–Gordon
equation describes particles obeying Bose–Einstein statistics or bosons, and funda-
mental point-like bosons do not have antimatter twins. It is the fermion particles,
described by the Dirac equation and obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli
principle, that have the peculiarities of half-integer spins and antimatter twins with
opposite parity. Further, the association of K-G wave function solutions with “charge
currents”, i.e., multiplying probabilities by particle charge to eliminate negative prob-
abilities, is questionable because important point-like bosons, e.g., photons, gluons,
Z 0 bosons, Higgs bosons, and perhaps axions, are electrically uncharged.5

Q: The Transactional Interpretation fails to deal with the “measurement problem”,

doesn’t it?
A: The measurement problem arises from the mind-set of the knowledge inter-
pretation, in that changes in observer knowledge are produced by measurements, but
“measurement” has no precise definition. For the TI, a measurement is just another
transaction, and the TI avoids the thorny questions of just what a measurement is and
when and how it collapses the wave function. The TI does this by means of the atem-
poral description of transaction formation. See the discussion of the Schrödinger’s
Cat Paradox in Sect. 6.3 above. Also, see Chap. 3.3 of Kastner’s TI book [16] for
more detailed analysis of the TI solution to the measurement problem and Carver
Mead’s mathematical description of transaction formation [15].

A.5 Questions from “Interpretations of QM”

in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

These are questions taken from the “Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics” article
by Peter J. Lewis published in the online Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [27].
The article, despite its general title, seems to be a puff-piece promoting the Everett-
Wheeler Many-Worlds Interpretation.

5 As a practical matter, I have had much experience doing calculations in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion

physics in which we numerically solved the Klein–Gordon equation and then used the numerical
wave function solutions produced to predict the behavior and correlations of π mesons [24–26]
from 200 GeV/nucleon ion-ion collisions. In such calculations, we did not use the K-G probability
relation quoted in the question above. Instead, we calculated the retarded-wave positive-energy K-G
wave-function solutions and used these with the ψψ ∗ Born relation to evaluate the probabilities
needed in the calculations. This works very well, as long as one does not use the advanced K-G
solutions with negative energies, which are easy to recognize and avoid.
Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions About Quantum Mechanics … 187

Q: In the Transactional Interpretation, does the wave function exist in a pre-

collapse form?
A: The question begs for a definition of “exists”. The wave function or offer wave
exists as a representation of possibility and as a component of the final process, but
it is not in a form that can be experimentally tested to verify its existence. It also
exists as a mathematical solution of the appropriate wave equation that satisfies the
system-imposed boundary conditions.

Q: Does the story involving forwards and backwards waves constitute a genuine
explanation of transaction formation?
A: The question begs for a definition of “genuine”. What is required for a plausible
description and explanation (that is visible in the quantum formalism itself) to become
a “genuine explanation”? If mathematics is needed, in Sect. 5.6 we discuss Carver
Mead’s mixed-state calculation [15] using the standard quantum wave mechanics
formalism. That provides a mathematical description of the “quantum-jump” transfer
of a photon between atoms, a transaction that forms through the exchange of advanced
and retarded waves between the atoms.

Q: Is the Transactional Interpretation a hidden variable theory?

A: Of course not. Complementary variables that form Fourier pairs cannot have
simultaneous precise values, either in the standard quantum formalism or in the
Transactional Interpretation view of that formalism. See the discussion in Sects. 2.4
and 2.5.

Q: Is the Transactional Interpretation a description of the quantum world or an

“instrumentalist recipe”?
A: We are unsure what an “instrumentalist recipe” is, but it sounds very much
like a philosopher’s insult to experimental physicists and experimental physics. The
Transactional Interpretation is indeed a description of the quantum world, and it is
also a recipe for explaining and understanding many otherwise mysterious experi-
ments (see Chap. 6) that the interpretations promoted in Lewis’ article appear to be
incapable of explaining. See, for example, the “boxed atom” experiments analyzed
in Sect. 6.19.

Q: Isn’t the Everett interpretation the only interpretation that follows directly from
a literal reading of the standard theory of quantum mechanics?
A: That is a very peculiar assertion in view to the problems that the Everett
interpretation has with accommodating the Born Probability rule, entanglement, and
nonlocality [28], all parts of standard quantum mechanics. Everett tried to evade
the nonlocality issue by calling EPR nonlocality a “false paradox”. Further, the
Afshar experiment [29] (see Sect. 6.17) demonstrates the experimental presence of
interference in a situation in which the Everett interference rule (no interference
between distinguishable “worlds”) predicts no interference. We would say that the
Transactional Interpretation is the only interpretation that follows directly from a
literal reading of standard quantum mechanics.
Appendix B
A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism

Here we will provide a brief summary of the formalism of quantum wave mechanics,
keeping at a minimum the need for the reader to have a mathematical background. In
this discussion, we will use only one space dimension x. The formalism, of course,
is normally applied to waves in 3D space, but this requires the use of vectors and
gets in the way of explaining what is going on, so we will stick to 1D.

B.1 Waves Properties and Wave Functions

We will start with the concept of traveling waves. A useful example is a wave/kink
traveling down a clothes line. If you hit a taut clothes line with a stick, a downward
“kink” travels down the line until it hits the end, where it reflects and an upward
kink comes back. If you arrange to wiggle the end of the clothes line up and down
continuously and smoothly, ripples in the shape of sine waves travel down the line.
Ripples in a pond, ocean waves, earthquake waves, sound waves, and light waves all
behave in this same way. The wave has a fairly constant shape, but that shape moves
along in the medium (e.g., the clothes line, etc.) with some velocity.
We can focus on just those traveling waves that are sinusoidal (i. e., have the shape
of a sine wave). If you take a snapshot of a sinusoidal traveling wave on a clothes
line, you can identify its wavelength λ as the distance from one maximum to the next.
If you observe at one point along its travel, that section of rope will rise and fall and
you can identify its period T as the time it takes, starting from a height maximum, to
fall to a minimum height and then rise to the next maximum. You can also identify
its amplitude A as half the distance between a maximum point and a minimum point
as it oscillates. We can use these quantities to define some additional properties of
the wave. Its wave number k is given by k = 2π/λ and its angular frequency ω is
given by ω = 2π/T . The speed v of the wave as it travels in the medium is given by
v = λ/T = ω/k.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 189

J.G. Cramer, The Quantum Handshake, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24642-0
190 Appendix B: A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism

Using this information, we can write the wave function of the traveling wave as:

ψ(x, t) = A cos(kx − ωt) = {A exp[i(kx − ωt)]}, (B.1)

where x is a position in space, t is the time, and {} means the real part of a complex
function (see Chap. 4). The ωt term here has a minus sign in order to make the wave
move along the +x axis, because at later and later times it requires going to a larger
and larger x-value to keep the argument of the cosine function at the same value,
e.g., at a maximum or minimum.
The wave functions of quantum mechanics differ in only one way from the wave
functions for sound waves or ripples on a clothes line: we must use the entire complex
function instead of using just the real part:

ψ(x, t) = A exp[i(kx − ωt)]. (B.2)

In the quantum world, we will use wave functions for describing massless photons
of light, and we will also use wave functions for describing two classes of massive
particles, bosons and fermions. For the purposes of this discussion, all of these particle
types share the same form for their wave functions, but the quantum wave equations
to which these wave functions are solutions may be very different.

B.2 Wave Function Localization in x and p

The wave function ψ(x, t) = A exp[i(kx − ωt)] of Eq. B.2 is what is called a “plane
wave”. It assumes that the amplitude A is a constant and describes traveling waves
with a definite momentum p = k and energy E = ω, but with no definite locations
in time or space. However, what do we do if we wish to describe a “wave packet” that
is localized in space? The answer is that we must make the amplitude A a function of
position x, which has the effect of making k a variable with a distribution of values.
This makes the wave more likely to be in the place where A is large than in the place
where A is small.
If we wish to localize a particle at a position x0 within a position uncertainty of
σx we can write the wave function as
√
ψ(x, t) = (σx 2π )−1 exp[−(x − x0 )2 /2σx2 ] exp[i(kx − ωt)] (B.3)

This makes the amplitude A a unit-area Gaussian distribution centered about x0 with
a variance of σx , as shown in Fig. B.1.
What is the effect of this localization on the variable k which is complementary
to x? We can answer this question, as discussed in Sect. 2.4, by calculating φ(k), the
momentum-space wave function of ψ(x), which is the Fourier transform of ψ(x). It is
well known that the Fourier transform of a Gaussian distribution is another Gaussian
distribution, with the widths of the two Gaussians in a see-saw relation: The Fourier
Appendix B: A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism 191

Fig. B.1 A quantum wave function ψ(x) of Eq. B.3 localized at x0 = 0 with a width σx = 1 and
k = 10. The real part of ψ(x) is shown as red/solid and the imaginary part as blue/dashed

transform of ψ(x) gives φ(k) with a localization uncertainty of σk = 1/σx . In other

words, σk σx = 1. We can then bring the momentum p into the picture by recalling
that p = k. Therefore, in terms of the momentum uncertainty σ p , the same relation
can be written as σ p σx = , which is a version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation
(see Sect. 2.4).

B.3 Operators and Eigenvalues

Now that we have a wave function, we can ask what it describes and how we can
access the information that it contains. Let us start by focusing on light waves.
Light is a combination of a sinusoidal electric field and a sinusoidal magnetic field,
vibrating in phase but at right angles to each other and moving at the speed of light
in the direction perpendicular to both fields. Figure B.2 shows a vertically polarized
classical light wave, as predicted by Maxwell’s equations.
The quantum mechanical version of light differs from this picture because
the energy and momentum are quantized into photons. Each photon carries an
energy of E = ω and a momentum of p = k, where  is Planck’s constant
(6.62606957 × 10−34 m2 kg/s) divided by 2π . By substituting in the energy and
momentum expressions, we can write the wave function ψγ that is the offer wave
for a photon as: ψγ (x, t) = A exp[ i ( px − Et)].
We can see that this wave function contains the photon’s energy and momentum
as interior variables, but how can we get them out? The trick is to use calculus. The
192 Appendix B: A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism

Fig. B.2 A vertically polarized classical light wave showing the electric (red) and magnetic (green)
field directions, the wavelength λ, and the direction of wave motion (pink)

calculus operation of differentiation, ddx f (x), determines the rate at which a function
f (x) changes when x is changed. For example, if f (x) = x 2 , then ddx f (x) = 2x.
So what happens if we differentiate the function f (x) = exp(ax)? The answer is:
d
dx
exp(ax) = aexp(ax). In other words, differentiating the exponential with respect
to x leaves it unchanged, except that it pulls out the quantity that is multiplying x
inside the exponential.
Therefore, ddx ψγ (x, t) = ip ψγ (x, t). In other words, the operation of differenti-
ating the photon wave function with respect to x pulls the quantity i p/ out of the
wave function. This is good, but we would rather not have the i/ as extra baggage.
Therefore, we can define the momentum operator:

 d
P≡ (B.4)
i dx
Pψγ (x, t) = pψγ (x, t). (B.5)

The momentum operator P extracts just the momentum p from the wave function.
Similarly, differentiation with respect to the time t will extract a quantity that includes
the energy E, the variable in the wave function that t multiplies. In particular, we can
define the energy operator as E ≡ i dtd . Here the i has moved from denominator to
numerator because the Et term has a minus sign, and i = −1/i. Thus, Eψγ (x, t) =
Eψγ (x, t) and energy operator extracts the photon energy E from the wave function.
In the language of quantum mechanics, we say that p and E are the momentum and
energy eigenvalues of the wave function.
If these operators operate twice on the wave function, they extract the square of
the eigenvalue. This allows us to define square operators that extract the momentum-
squared and the energy-squared. The momentum-squared operator is P2 ≡ PP ≡
2
−2 ddx 2 , so that P2 ψγ (x, t) = p 2 ψγ (x, t). Similarly, the energy-squared operator is
2
E2 ≡ EE ≡ −2 dtd 2 , so that E2 ψγ (x, t) = E 2 ψγ (x, t).
Appendix B: A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism 193

B.4 Wave Equations and Solutions

So far, we have used the wave functions without asking where they came from. Now
we will drop the other shoe. The wave equation is a differential equation that relates
the wave function to its derivatives, and the wave function is a solution of this wave
equation, i.e., a mathematical function that, when differentiated once or twice and
substituted into the wave equation will satisfy the indicated equality.
The electromagnetic wave equation is used in both classical mechanics and quan-
tum mechanics. It is derived by manipulating Maxwell’s equations, the set of equa-
tions that describe the classical behavior of electric and magnetic fields. The elec-
tromagnetic wave equation for the electromagnetic vector potential A of an electro-
2 2
magnetic wave is the differential equation dtd 2 A = c2 ddx 2 A. The quantum mechanical
version of the electromagnetic wave equation is:

d2 ω2 d 2 2 d
2
ψγ = ψγ = c ψγ . (B.6)
dt 2 k2 d x 2 dx2
We note that the operations performed on ψγ are similar to the momentum-squared
operator P2 and energy-squared operator E2 defined in Sect. B.2 above. In particular,
using these operators, we can rewrite the wave equation as:

(−E2 /2 )ψγ = c2 (−P2 /2 )ψγ (B.7)

or more simply as:

E2 ψγ = c2 P2 ψγ . (B.8)

Thus, in operator terms the electromagnetic wave equation is just the operator version
of the energy-momentum relation of a photon, i.e., E = cp or E 2 = c2 p 2 .

The energy-momentum relation for massive particles is different from the above
photon relation. In particular, if E is the kinetic energy and p the momentum of a
particle of mass m, then the non-relativistic relation between them is p 2 /2m = E.
This suggests that, using operators, the wave equation for a massive particle should
be similar, i.e., that:
(1/2m)P2 ψm = Eψm . (B.9)

Rewriting this using the above definitions of P2 and E gives:

−2 d 2 d
2
ψm = i ψm (B.10)
2m d x dt
or more simply;
i d 2 d
ψm = ψm . (B.11)
2m d x 2 dt
194 Appendix B: A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism

This is the Schrödinger wave equation, the fundamental non-relativistic wave equa-
tion of quantum mechanics.
Thus, by the straightforward use of energy-momentum relations and operators
we have derived that fundamental wave equations of quantum mechanics. The quan-
tum mechanical wave function given in Sect. B.1 above is the solution for both the
electromagnetic wave equation and the Schrödinger equation.

In the domain of relativistic quantum mechanics, the Klein–Gordon equation that

is the appropriate wave equation for boson particles can be derived from the relativis-
tic energy-momentum relation E 2 = ( pc)2 +(mc2 )2 , where E is now the total energy
of the system (including the rest mass-energy). The Dirac equation, appropriate for
fermions, can be similarly derived from relativistic energy-momentum relations, but
in a somewhat more complicated way because it includes spin vectors.

B.5 Making Predictions

The use of operators to extract values of variables from the wave function, as
described above, is incomplete, because the extracted quantity is multiplied by the
wave function. The question of how to make a prediction of the outcome of a mea-
surement remains to be defined.
As indicated in Sect. B.2, we can construct operators that can extract quantities
like energy and momentum from the wave function. These can be used to calcu-
late a prediction of the “expectation value” of the quantity by making a “quantum
mechanical sandwich” with wave functions as the “bread” and an operator as the
“meat”. This is interpreted by the TI as follows: The offer wave ψ contains informa-
tion that can be extracted by some operator Q (perhaps a device that measures the
quantity q) so that Qψ = qψ. Multiplying this by the confirmation wave ψ ∗ gives
ψ ∗ (Qψ) = qψψ ∗ = ( pr ob)q. The latter is the probability of the variable of interest
having a value of q at the location of the wave function ψ. Since we are interested in
the overall value, this must be averaged over all space to get the “expectation value”
of q, which we represent as q .
For example, suppose that we want to calculate the expectation value E of the
energy of a system described by wave function ψ(x). The procedure to calculate it is:
 ∞
E = ψ ∗ (x)Eψ(x)d x. (B.12)
−∞

This works because ψ ∗ Eψ = ψ ∗ Eψ = ψ ∗ ψ E = (ψψ ∗ )E = P E, where P is

the probability of finding the quantity E at a particular space-time location. The
integration adds up all of the probabilities, effectively averaging E over all space.
Appendix B: A Brief Overview of the Quantum Formalism 195

Similarly, if we wanted the expectation value  p of the momentum, we would

calculate:
 ∞
 p = ψ ∗ (x)Pψ(x)d x. (B.13)
−∞

That’s how quantum wave mechanics calculations are done. The Transactional
Interpretation provides insights into why this mathematics describes Nature in action.
Appendix C
Quantum Dice and Poker—Nonlocal Games
of Chance

In this Appendix we want to describe two games of chance that are analogous to the
behavior of entangled particles. These may help in understanding how non-classical
the quantum game is.

C.1 Quantum Dice

Suppose that you are given two dice that have somehow been entangled by a conser-
vation law that requires the number seven. You roll one of the dice and get a random
face between one and six. You can plot the results of many such rolls, and you find
a completely flat distribution, which each face equally probable.
Then you roll its entangled twin, and the face that appears, when added to that
from the first roll, is always seven. However, if you plot the distribution of faces from
many rolls, again there is a completely flat distribution. The dice are, at the same
time, completely random in the numbers they produce individually, and perfectly
correlated in their sum, in that together they always produce a seven.
In this way, the quantum dice behave in the same way as a pair of entangled par-
ticles, which give random but correlated results of selected measurements. Perhaps,
contrary to Einstein’s expectations, the Old One does play dice, and they are loaded
by entanglement.

C.2 The Rules of Quantum Poker

Quantum poker is a “game” played with ordinary playing cards that illustrates the
nature of the nonlocal quantum correlations in EPR situations. Alice and Bob are
playing a game of quantum poker. The deck, handled only by the Dealer, consists of
eight cards, two copies each of four card types: [ A♠], [K ♠], [A♥], and [K ♥].

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 197

J.G. Cramer, The Quantum Handshake, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24642-0
198 Appendix C: Quantum Dice and Poker—Nonlocal Games of Chance

Each players chooses a “measurement” to make during the game and whispers
to the Dealer their choice of measurement. The measurement selected may be either
color (red or black) or hi/lo (ace or king). The Dealer randomly draws one card from
the deck, selects its duplicate from the deck, and gives one of these cards to Alice
and one to Bob. The Dealer then gives each player a second card, based on their
measurement choice. If the player is measuring color, the Dealer gives the player
the other card in the deck that is the same color; if the player is measuring hi/lo, the
Dealer gives the player the other high or low card from the deck.
Examples: (A1) Alice declares that she is measuring color, receives the [A♥],
and the Dealer also gives her the [K ♥]; (A2) Alice is measuring hi/lo, receives the
[A♥], and the Dealer also gives her the [ A♠]; (B1) Bob is measuring hi/lo, receives
the [K ♥], and the Dealer also gives him the [K ♠]; (B2) Bob is measuring color,
receives the [K ♥], and the Dealer also gives him the [A♥].

Now, by looking at his cards, Bob is asked to determine which measurement-type

Alice had selected. Does he have enough information to do that? No! He knows that
one of his cards matches one of Alice’s, but he does not know which one, and he has
no information about Alice’s other card, so he cannot tell if his hand matches hers or
not. All he sees is a series of pairs that randomly correspond to the two alternative
colors or the two alternative hi/lo values he has chosen to measure.

C.3 The Implications of Quantum Poker

We can see that when Bob choses to do the same measurement as Alice, he always
receives the same resulting card pair. However, if he choses the other measurement,
he always gets a non-matching result. In any case, it should be clear that Alice cannot
send a message to Bob by using her measurement choice, and Bob cannot receive
such a message.
This game of quantum poker is exactly the same situation as if Alice and Bob
were receiving polarization-entangled photons, as in the Freedman-Clauser exper-
iment described in Sect. 6.8. They could, for example, choose to measure either
horizontal/vertical linear polarization or diagonal/antidiagonal 45◦ linear polariza-
tion for their received photon. If Alice and Bob choose the same measurement, they
will always get the same result. However, if they choose to do different measure-
ments, they will get uncorrelated results. In any case, Alice cannot send a message to
Bob using her choice of polarization measurements, even though their photons are
entangled.

One question remains: how does Nature arrange to play the role of the Dealer
in the card game of quantum entanglement, in which Alice and Bob may be very
far apart? The Transactional Interpretation provides an answer to this question, as
discussed in Sect. 6.6.
Appendix D
Detailed Analyses of Selected
Gedankenexperiments

D.1 Hardy One-Atom Experiment (Sect. 6.17.1)

The Transactional Interpretation provides a step-by-step description of any quantum

event that involves the transfer of conserved quantities (energy, momentum, particle
number, angular momentum, angular momentum projection, …). We will apply the
TI to the quantum events of the Hardy single-atom interaction-free measurement
scenario, described in Sect. 6.17.1 above and shown here in Fig. D.1. Here two cou-
pled transactions are involved: (1) the emission at L and the absorption at C, D,
or Z + of the single photon, and (2) the emission at X 0 and the absorption at X ±
of the single atom. As in Sect. 6.12, we will explicitly indicate the offer waves by
specification of the path as a Dirac ket state vector | path , underlining the sym-
bols corresponding to optical elements at which a reflection has occurred. Similarly,
confirmation waves will be indicated by a Dirac bra state vector path |, listing the
elements in the time-reversed path with reflections underlined.
First, let us consider the boundary conditions at the six transaction vertices L, C,
D, X 0, Z +, and X ±. The photon source L is permitted to emit precisely one photon
of the appropriate wavelength during the measurement period. Detectors C and D
are permitted to absorb either a single photon in one of the detectors or no photons in
either detector. The atom at Z + is permitted to absorb one photon. The initial atom
vertex X 0 must emit exactly one atom, which has an X-axis spin projection of + 1/2 .
The final atom vertex X ± must absorb exactly one atom and report its X-axis spin
projection, which may be either + 1/2 or − 1/2 .
Next, let us consider some particular components of the offer wave initially sent
by the photon source L. In particular, consider the offer wave components that ter-
minate at detectors C and D and atom Z +. These are:

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 199

J.G. Cramer, The Quantum Handshake, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24642-0
200 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments

Fig. D.1 The hardy single-atom interaction-free measurement

| 1 ≡ | L : S1 : M1 : S2 : C (D.1)
| 2 ≡ | L : S1 : M1 : S2 : D (D.2)
| 3 ≡ | L : S1 : M2 : S2 : C (D.3)
| 4 ≡ | L : S1 : M2 : S2 : D (D.4)
| 5 ≡ | L : S1 : Z + . (D.5)

Examples of offer wave paths are shown in Fig. D.2.

The arrival of these offer wave components will stimulate confirmation waves
that are returned from detectors C and D, and atom Z + and travel back to photon
source L. These are:
 6 | ≡ C : S2 : M1 : S1 : L | (D.6)
 7 | ≡ D : S2 : M1 : S1 : L | (D.7)
 8 | ≡ C : S2 : M2 : S1 : L | (D.8)
 9 | ≡ D : S2 : M2 : S1 : L | (D.9)
 10 | ≡ Z + : S1 : L | . (D.10)

There are also “dead end” confirmation waves from C and D to the backside of the
atom that will cancel and vanish. These are:
Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments 201

Fig. D.2 Offer waves a | 1 and | 2 and b | 5

 11 | ≡ C : S2 : M2 : Z + | (D.11)
 12 | ≡ D : S2 : M2 : Z + | (D.12)

The cancellation occurs because they were stimulated by equal-intensity offer waves
that were already 90◦ out of phase because of the reflection to D at S2 , and the
time-reversed confirmation wave from C receives an additional −90◦ phase shift on
reflection from S2 on its path to the atom. Thus, along the path to the atom the two
confirmation waves have equal amplitudes and a 180◦ phase difference, so that they
will cancel. We note that this subtlety was missed in reference [22] and was pointed
out in reference [30].
The offer wave components from the atom source X 0 to the atom detector
X ± are:
202 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments

| a ≡ | X 0+ : Z + : X + (D.13)
| b ≡ | X 0+ : Z + : X − (D.14)
| c ≡ | X 0+ : Z − : X + (D.15)
| d ≡ | X 0+ : Z − : X − . (D.16)

These offer waves will stimulate corresponding confirmation waves to X 0, which

are:
 e | ≡ X + : Z + : X 0+ | (D.17)
 f | ≡ X − : Z + : X 0+ | (D.18)
 g | ≡ X + : Z − : X 0+ | (D.19)
 h | ≡ X −; Z − : X 0+ | . (D.20)

If there had been no interaction between the photon and the atom (or if the Z +
box had not been in the photon’s path), the photon offer waves | 2 and | 4 and
atom offer waves | b and | d would be in destructive interference superpositions
and would cancel. This prevents detection of a photon at “dark” detector D and
prevents measurement of X-axis − 1/2 spin projection for the atom. The photon-
atom interaction with a 100 % interaction strength, as assumed by Hardy, means that
photon offer waves | 3 and | 4 may be completely blocked by the presence of
the atom in the Z + box. The atom offer waves | c and | d will also be absent
because absorption of the photon will place that atom in an excited state in box Z +,
which breaks the coherent superposition of the two Z-axis projections. The source
L has one photon to emit and three confirmation types to choose from: (1)  10 |:
no photon is detected at C or D because the photon was absorbed at the Z + box,
and the subsequent X-axis spin measurement on the atom had equal probabilities for
X -axis spin + 1/2 and − 1/2 , because the state superposition was broken by the atomic
excitation; (2)  6 | and  8 |: the photon is detected at C and the subsequent X-axis
spin measurement on the atom showed a preference for X -axis spin + 1/2 , with some
probability of − 1/2 ; and (3)  7 |: the photon is detected at D, the atom is present in
box Z + suppressing  9 |, and the subsequent X-axis spin measurement on the atom
had equal probabilities for X -axis spin + 1/2 and − 1/2 , i.e., transactions a | e and
b | f .
Hardy focused on outcome (3), and so we will examine it in detail. The photon is
detected at D because the destructive superposition of offer waves | 2 and | 4 has
been broken because offer wave | 4 is blocked by the atom, which must be in box
Z +. The photon transaction is confirmed only by  7 |, because  9 | is also blocked
by the atom. If this transaction forms, no other transaction may form because of the
one-photon boundary condition at source L. Similarly, the atom can have either of
two transactions, offer wave | a or | b confirmed by confirmation waves | e or
| f , respectively, so that measurement of X-axis spin projections + 1/2 and − 1/2
are equally probable. However, only one of these transactions may form, because of
the one-atom boundary condition at X 0.
Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments 203

Thus, photon detection at D means that the atom is definitely in box Z + and that
the atom, initially prepared at X 0 in X-axis spin state + 1/2 , can be found with equal
probability at X in either spin state, even though there has been no real interaction
between the photon and the atom. The Transactional Interpretation provides a way
of visualizing this non-classical result and understanding its origin.

D.2 Polarization-Entangled EPR Experiment (Sect. 7.3)

Figure D.3 shows a polarization-entangled EPR experiment much like the Freedman-
Clauser expeeriment, except that we are using a variable-entanglement source like
the one described in Sect. 7.3. We initially set α = 0 for 100 % entanglement. When
θ is zero and the polarimeters are aligned, there will be a perfect anti-correlation
between the polarizations measured by Alice and by Bob. The random polarization
(H or V) that Alice measures will always be the opposite of that measured by Bob
(H A VB or V A H B ). However, when θ is increased, the perfect H A VB and V A H B anti-
correlations are degraded and correlated detections H A H B and V A VB , previously not
present, will begin to appear. Local theories require that for small θ rotations this
correlation degradation should increase linearly with θ , while quantum mechanics
predicts that it should increase as θ 2 , i.e., quadratically [31]. This is the basis of Bell’s
Inequalities discussed in Sect. 2.8.
The quantum mechanical analysis of this system is fairly simple because, assum-
ing that the entangled photons have a single spatial mode, their transport through
the system can be described by considering only the phase shifts and polarization
selections that the system elements create in the waves. We have used the formalism
of Horne, Shimony and Zeilinger [32] to perform such an analysis and to calculate
the joint wave functions for simultaneous detections at both detectors. These are:

Fig. D.3 A two-photon 4-detector EPR experiment using linear polarization with variable entan-
glement
204 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments
√
Ψ H H (α, θ ) = [− sin(α) cos(θ ) + i cos(α) sin(θ )]/ 2 (D.21)
√
Ψ H V (α, θ ) = [− cos(α) cos(θ ) + i sin(α) sin(θ )]/ 2 (D.22)
√
ΨV H (α, θ ) = [cos(α) cos(θ ) − i sin(α) sin(θ )]/ 2 (D.23)
√
ΨV V (α, θ ) = [sin(α) cos(θ ) − i cos(α) sin(θ )]/ 2. (D.24)

The corresponding joint detection probabilities are:

PH H (α, θ ) = [1 − cos(2α) cos(2θ )]/4 (D.25)

PH V (α, θ ) = [1 + cos(2α) cos(2θ )]/4 (D.26)
PV H (α, θ ) = [1 + cos(2α) cos(2θ )]/4 (D.27)
PV V (α, θ ) = [1 − cos(2α) cos(2θ )]/4. (D.28)

Figure D.4 shows plots of these joint detection probabilities versus θ for the four
detector combinations with: α = 0 (100 % entangled), α = π/8 (71 % entangled),

Fig. D.4 Joint detection probabilities versus θ for the four detector combinations with: α = 0
(red/solid, 100 % entangled), α = π/8 (green/dashed, 71 % entangled), and α = π/4 (blue/dot-
dashed, 0 % entangled)
Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments 205

and α = π/4 (0 % entangled). One can see from these plots and equations that the
singles probabilities are: PH H + PH V = PV H + PV V = PH H + PV H = PH V + PV V =
1/2 , and so no signaling is possible.

D.3 Path-Entangled EPR Experiment* (Sect. 7.4)

As in the polarization-entangled EPR example discussed in Sect. 7.3, the quantum

mechanical analysis of this system is fairly simple because, assuming that the entan-
gled photons have a single spatial mode, their transport through the system can be
described by considering the phase shifts that the system elements create in the waves.
To test the validity of the above arguments, we have used the formalism of Horne,
Shimony and Zeilinger [32] to analyze the dual-interferometer configuration shown
in Fig. D.5 and to calculate the joint wave functions for detections of the entangled
photon pairs in various combinations.
For B S A in, these wave functions are:

Φ A1 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [i cos(α)(eiφ A − eiφ B )

√
+ sin(α)(1 + ei(φ A +φ B ) )]/(2 2) (D.29)
Φ A1 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [− cos(α)(e iφ A
+e iφ B
)
√
+ i sin(α)(1 − ei(φ A +φ B ) )]/(2 2) (D.30)
Φ A0 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [cos(α)(e iφ A
+e iφ B
)
i(φ A +φ B )
√
+ i sin(α)(1 − e ]/(2 2) (D.31)
Φ A0 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [i cos(α)(e iφ A
−e iφ B
)
√
− sin(α)(1 + ei(φ A +φ B ) ]/(2 2). (D.32)

Fig. D.5 A 4-detector path-entangled dual-interferometer EPR experiment with variable

entanglement
206 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments

Fig. D.6 Bob’s non-coincident singles detector probabilities PB1 (α, φ B ) and PB0 (α, φ B )
(Eqs. D.37 and D.38) for α = 0 (red/solid, 100 % entangled), α = π/8 (green/dash, 71 % entan-
gled), and α = π/4 (blue/dot-dash, 0 % entangled)

The corresponding joint detection probabilities are:

PA1 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = {1 − sin(φ A )[sin(2α) + sin(φ B )]

− cos(2α) cos(φ A ) cos(φ B ) + sin(2α) sin(φ B )}/4 (D.33)
PA1 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = {1 − sin(2α)[(sin(φ A ) + sin(φ B )]
+ cos(2α) cos(φ A ) cos(φ B ) + sin(2α) sin(φ B )}/4 (D.34)
PA0 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = {1 + sin(2α)[(sin(φ A ) + sin(φ B )]
+ cos(2α) cos(φ A ) cos(φ B ) + sin(2α) sin(φ B )}/4 (D.35)
PA0 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = {1 − sin(φ B )[sin(2α) + sin(φ A )]
− cos(2α) cos(φ A ) cos(φ B ) + sin(2α) sin(φ A )}/4. (D.36)

The non-coincident singles detector probabilities for Bob’s detectors are obtained
by summing over Alice’s detectors, which he does not observe. Thus

PB1 (α, φ B ) ≡ PA1 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) + PA0 B1 (α, φ A , φ B )

= [1 + sin(2α) sin(φ B )]/2 (D.37)
PB0 (α, φ B ) ≡ PA1 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) + PA0 B0 (α, φ A , φ B )
= [1 − sin(2α) sin(φ B )]/2. (D.38)

Note that these singles probabilities have no dependences on Alice’s phase φ A for
any value of α. Here again we see an example of Schrödinger steering, in that Alice
is manipulating the wave functions that arrive at Bob’s detectors, but not in such a
way that would permit signaling.
Figure D.6 shows plots of Bob’s non-coincident singles detector probabilities
PB1 (α, φ B ) and PB0 (α, φ B ) for the cases of α = 0 (100 % entangled), α = π/8
(71 % entangled), and α = π/4 (not entangled).
Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments 207

We see here a demonstration of the see-saw relation between entanglement and

coherence [33], in that the probabilities for fully entangled system are constant,
independent of φ B , because the absence of coherence suppresses the Mach–Zehnder
interference, while the unentangled system shows strong Mach–Zehnder interfer-
ence. The α = π/8 case, with 71 % coherence and entanglement, also shows fairly
strong Mach–Zehnder interference and raises the intriguing possibility that a nonlo-
cal signal might survive.
Therefore, the question raised by the possibility of nonlocal signaling is: What
happens to Bob’s detection probabilities when Alice’s beam splitter B S A is removed?
To answer this question, we re-analyze the dual interferometer experiment of Fig. D.5
with B S A in the “out” position. These calculations give the joint wave functions for
simultaneous detections of detector pairs:

Ψ A1 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [sin(α) − ieiφ B cos(α)]/2 (D.39)

Ψ A1 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [i sin(α) − e iφ B
cos(α)]/2 (D.40)
Ψ A0 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [e iφ A
(cos(α) − ie iφ B
sin(α)]/2 (D.41)
Ψ A0 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [ie iφ A
(cos(α) + ie iφ B
sin(α)]/2. (D.42)

The corresponding joint detection probabilities are:

PA1 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [1 + sin(2α) sin(φ B )]/4 (D.43)

PA1 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [1 − sin(2α) sin(φ B )]/4 (D.44)
PA0 B1 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [1 + sin(2α) sin(φ B )]/4 (D.45)
PA0 B0 (α, φ A , φ B ) = [1 − sin(2α) sin(φ B )]/4. (D.46)

The non-coincident singles detector probabilities for Bob’s detectors are identical to
the singles detector probabilities of Eqs. D.37 and D.38 obtained when B S A was in
place.

D.4 Wedge-modified Path-Entangled EPR Experiment

(Sect. 7.5)

We have performed this analysis of the experiment shown in Fig. D.7, tweaking the
mirror angles for maximum overlap of the waves on the two paths to detector D A .
The calculation gives large analytical expressions for joint detection probability as
a function of position on detector D A , but these must be integrated numerically to
208 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments

Fig. D.7 A 3-detector wedge modification of the path-entangled dual-interferometer EPR experi-
ment with variable entanglement

Fig. D.8 Magnitudes of the wave functions Ψa1 (red/solid) and Ψa2 (blue/dotted) as functions of
position x on the face of detector D A . Oscillations are the result of Gaussian tail truncation by the
apex of wedge mirror W A

obtain the position-independent probabilities. Here Fig. D.8 shows the overlap of
the magnitudes of the wave functions for paths a1 and a2 versus position. The wave
functions have a basic Gaussian profile with oscillations arising from the truncation
of one Gaussian tail by W A .
Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments 209

Fig. D.9 Probabilities of coincident detections at D A and D B1 (red/solid) and at D A and D B0

(blue/dotted) with α = 0, φ A = 0, and φ B = 0

Figure D.10 shows the corresponding probabilities for α = 0 (e.g., fully entan-
gled) of coincident photon pairs at Alice’s detector D A and at Bob’s detectors D B1
and D B0 . The probabilities are highly oscillatory because of the interference of the
two waves and the phase walk of the wave functions with angle, analogous to two-slit
interference.
To test the possibility of a nonlocal signal, we must integrate these probabilities
over the extent of the detector face and calculate difference functions from these
results and similar evaluations of Eqs. D.37 and D.38. We can expect some errors
in numerical integration due to the oscillation shown in Fig. D.9. The difference
functions as 2-D contour plots in φ B versus α are shown in Fig. D.10.
Thus, the differences between the probabilities predicted by of Eqs. D.37 and D.38
and the numerically-integrated probabilities of Fig. D.10 are on the order of a few
parts per million. Does this mean that there is a small residual nonlocal signal? No!
It means that any comparison involving numerical integration is subject to round-
off error and is not reliable beyond a few parts per million. The results shown in
Fig. D.10 demonstrate that no nonlocal signal is possible using the wedge-modified
configuration of Fig. D.7.
210 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments

Fig. D.10 Difference between numerical singles probabilities and evaluations of Eqs. D.37 and
D.38. Here the regions labeled “A” reach minima of 5.7 × 10−7 , the regions labeled “B” reach
maxima of 6.08 × 10−6 , and the regions labeled “C” reach maxima of 5.51 × 10−6 . Small blotches
indicate regions in which numerical integration has produced larger errors
Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments 211

References

1. W. Heisenberg, Reminiscences from 1926 and 1927, in reference [35]

2. P.J. Bussey, Phys. Lett. A 123, 1–3 (1987)
3. K.A. Peacock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2733 (1992)
4. J.B. Kennedy, Phil. Sci. 62, 543–560 (1995)
5. P. Mittelstädt, Ann. Phys. 7, 710–715 (1998)
6. K.A. Peacock, B.S. Hepburn, in Proceedings of the Meeting of the Society of Exact Philosophy
(1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9906036
7. S. Weinstein, Synthese 148, 381–399 (2006)
8. W. Heisenberg, The development of the interpretation of quantum theory, in Niels Bohr and
the Development of Physics, ed. by W. Pauli (Pergamon, London 1955)
9. Th. Görnitz, C.F. von Weizsäcker, Copenhagen and transactional interpretations. Int. J. Theor.
Phys. 27, 237–250 (1988)
10. N. Bohr, Atti del Congresso Internazionale dei Fisici Como, 11–20 Settembre 1927, vol 2
(Zanchelli, Bologna, 1928), pp. 565-588
11. N. Bohr, Discussions with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in Albert
Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. by P. Schilpp (Open Court, 1949)
12. H. Everett, III, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957); see also [35]
13. J.A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 463 (1957); see also [33]
14. D. Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—And Its Implications
(Penguin Books, London, 1998). ISBN: 978-0140275414
15. Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000); ISBN: 0-262-
13378-4
16. R.E. Kastner, The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possi-
bility (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)
17. T. Maudlin, Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity, (Blackwell, 1996, 1st ed.; 2002, 2nd. ed.)
18. J. Berkovitz, On causal loops in the quantum realm, in Proceedings of the NATO Advanced
Research Workshop on Modality, Probability, and Bell’s Theorems, ed. by T. Placek, J. Butter-
field (Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2002), pp. 233–255
19. R.E. Kastner, Cramer’s transactional interpretation and causal loop problems. Synthese 150,
1–40 (2006)
20. L. Marchidon, Causal loops and collapse in the transactional interpretation of quantum mechan-
ics. Phys. Essays 38, 807–814 (2006)
21. J.G. Cramer, The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 58,
647–687 (1986)
22. J.G. Cramer, Found. Phys. Lett. 19, 63–73 (2006)
23. E. Tammaro, Why current interpretations of quantum mechanics are deficient (2014, unpub-
lished), arXiv:1408.2093v2 [quant-ph]
24. J.G. Cramer, G.A. Miller, J.M.S. Wu, J.-H. Yoon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102302 (2005),
arXiv:0411031 [nucl-th]
25. G.A. Miller, J.G. Cramer, Polishing the lens: I pionic final state interactions and HBT
correlations—distorted wave emission function (DWEF) formalism and examples. J. Phys.
G34, 703–740 (2007)
26. M. Luzum, J.G. Cramer, G.A. Miller, Understanding the optical potential in HBT interferom-
etry. Phys. Rev. C 78, 054905 (2008)
27. P.J. Lewis, Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(2015), http://www.iep.utm.edu/qm-inter
28. R.E. Kastner, J.G. Cramer, Why everettians should appreciate the transactional interpretation,
unpublished (2007), arXiv:1001.2867 [quant-ph]
29. S.S. Afshar, Violation of the principle of complementarity, and its implications, Proc. SPIE
5866, 229–244 (2005), arXiv:0701027 [quant-ph]
212 Appendix D: Detailed Analyses of Selected Gedankenexperiments

30. A.C. Elitzur, S. Dolev, Multiple interaction-free measurements as a challenge to the transac-
tional interpretation of quantum mechanics, in AIP Conference Proceedings Frontiers of Time:
Retrocausation—Experiment and Theory, vol. 863, ed. by D. Sheehan (2006), pp. 27–44
31. N. Herbert, Am. J. Phys. 43, 315 (1975)
32. M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger, in Sixty Two Years of Uncertainty, ed. by A.I. Miller
(Plenum Press, 1990)
33. A.F. Abouraddy, M.B. Nasr, B.E.A. Saleh, A.V. Sergienko, M.C. Teich, Phys. Rev. A 63,
063803 (2001)
34. H. Everett III, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957). See also [36]
35. A.P. French, P.J. Kennedy (eds.), Niels Bohr, A Centernary Volume (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, 1985)
36. J.A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 463 (1957). See also [34]
Index

A Bell inequality violation, 91

AAD predictions, 94 Bell, John Stuart, 29, 30
Absorber, 3, 59, 60, 64, 69, 94, 107, 110, Bell state, 32, 122, 127, 148
112, 121, 142, 164, 165, 178, 182 Bell’s theorem, 5, 30, 32–35, 37, 39
Actual experiment, 75 Bertel, Annemarie, 17
Advanced solution, 1 Bester, Alfred, 152
Advanced wave, 1, 4, 50, 61, 179 Beta-decay, 3, 29, 40, 41
Advanced-wave echo, 4 Biedenharn, Lawrence C., 1
Afshar experiment, 111 Black hole information paradox, 130
Afshar, Shariar S., 111 Block universe, 111, 165, 166
Aharonov, Y., 94 Blocked interference, 138
Albert, D.Z., 94 Bohm, David, 30, 42
Alternative interpretations, 6 Bohr complementarity, 25, 59, 70, 111, 175,
Angular frequency, 169 176
Angular momentum, 5, 12, 13, 29, 31, 32, Bohr complementarity principle, 177
39, 40, 43, 49, 92, 125, 156, 170, 171 Bohr Institute, 14, 17, 23
Angular momentum conservation, 5, 30, 41, Bohr model, 12, 14, 17
113, 138, 171 Bohr, Niels, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27,
Angular momentum quantization, 15, 17, 28, 40, 41, 57, 67, 177
170 Boltzmann H-Theorem, 163
Annihilation radiation, 29 Boltzmann, Ludwig, 163
Antimatter, 50, 162, 172, 186 Bombelli, Rafael, 47
Arrow of time, 3, 53, 161, 178 Born probability rule, 25, 65, 68, 70, 109,
Aspect, Alain, 35 176
Atom excited state, 66 Born, Max, 15, 25, 57
Atom ground state, 66 Bose-Einstein statistics, 50, 172, 186
Atomic nucleus, 11 Boson, 49, 64, 172, 186, 190, 194
Atomic spectra, 9, 12–14 Boundary condition, 1, 3, 52, 65, 69, 72, 79,
Atomic transitions, 18, 66 85, 90, 91, 94, 98, 110, 156, 172, 183,
Avalanche, 67, 110, 182 199, 202
Boxed-atom experiment, 117, 199
Bra, 32, 84, 102
B Budrys, Algis, 152
BBO crystal, 113
Beat frequency, 66
Becquerel, Henri, 40 C
Bell inequalities, 5, 33, 91 Cardano, Gerolamo, 47
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 213
J.G. Cramer, The Quantum Handshake, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24642-0
214 Index

Carlsberg Brewery, 14 Dolev, S., 118, 120, 121, 124

Causality, 1, 51, 52, 96, 137, 164 Don’t-ask-don’t-tell, 8, 70
Charge conjugation, 162 Dopfer experiment, 114
Circular polarization, 30, 86, 87, 96, 171 Dopfer, Birgit, 114
Classical limit, 170 Down-conversion, 98, 113, 114, 137, 141
Clauser, John, 35, 91 Duality, 24–28, 41, 57, 88, 111, 172
Clockwise, 86
Collapse, 24, 26
Complementarity, 25, 111, 176, 177 E
Complementary, 70 EEmitter, 110
Complementary variables, 20 Eigenvalues, 17, 60, 185, 191, 192
Complex conjugate, 25, 32, 63, 69, 87, 96, Einstein, Albert, 10, 27, 28
176, 181, 185 Einstein bubble paradox, 4, 78, 173
Complexity, 24, 49 Einstein clock paradox, 27, 177
Compton effect, 40 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR), 5, 28, 29,
Compton, Arthur H., 40 174
Confirmation wave, 63 Electron, 171, 172
Conjugate variables, 25 Elitzur, Avshalom, 100, 117, 118, 120, 121,
Conservation laws, 39, 41, 43, 44, 71, 72, 124
125, 129, 130, 164–167, 173, 178, Elitzur-Dolev 2-atom experiment, 120
180, 183, 184, 197 Elitzur-Dolev 3-atom experiment, 118
Constructive interference, 76 Elliptical polarization, 125
Contra-factual definiteness (CFD), 94 Emitter, 3, 52, 59, 60, 62–64, 66, 68, 69, 82,
Copenhagen, 14 94, 121, 178
Costa de Beauregard, Olivier, 5 Encryption, 155, 157, 158
Counter-clockwise, 86 Energy exchange, 77
Energy operator, 192
Entangled photons, 98
D Entanglement, 29, 43, 152, 167, 174
D’Amato, S., 94 Entanglement-coherence complementarity,
Davies, Paul, 5 137, 207
Davisson-Germer experiment, 14 EPR experiment, 5, 91
De Broglie guide waves, 5, 117 Euler, Leonhard, 47
De Broglie wavelength, 13, 14 Euler’s formula, 47
De Broglie, Louis, 5, 13, 17, 83 Everett III, Hugh, 177, 186
Debye, Peter, 17 Expanding universe, 3
Decoherence, 157 Expectation value, 194
Decoherence time, 157
Delayed-choice experiment, 88, 98, 99
Destructive interference, 68, 76, 77, 103, F
119, 121, 143, 145, 146, 173, 202 FAQ, 169
Determinism, 111, 165, 166 Fast Fourier transform (FFT), 20
Deutsch, David, 158, 177 Fermi-Dirac statistics, 50, 171
Diffraction, 76, 114, 115, 154, 173 Fermi, Enrico, 41
Dipole moment, 66, 69 Fermion, 49, 64, 171, 186, 190, 194
Dipole resonators, 66, 67 Feynman, Richard, 2, 51, 75, 156
Dirac bra, 32, 84, 102 Firewall, 130
Dirac equation, 49, 64, 171, 185, 194 Fourier analysis, 20, 176
Dirac ket, 32, 84, 102, 152 Fourier transform, 20
Dirac, Paul, 19, 49 Free will, 165
Distinguishable, 34, 76, 100, 112, 143, 144, Freedman, Stuart, 35, 91
147, 177, 187 Freedman-Clauser experiment, 26, 35, 39,
Disturbance model, 22 91, 122, 125, 144, 183, 198
Index 215

G Interpretation, Bohm-de Broglie, 42, 65, 66,

Göttingen, 15 93, 117
Garg, A., 125 Interpretation, collapse, 117
Gaussian pulse, 20 Interpretation, consistent histories, 117
Gedankenexperiment, 22, 27, 75, 80, 83, 89, Interpretation, Copenhagen, 6, 8, 24, 57–59,
116, 118, 120, 121, 124, 173 69, 75, 100, 112, 131, 175
Ghost interference experiment, 113 Interpretation, decoherence, 85, 167
Gisin, Nicolas, 35, 128 Interpretation, Everett-Wheeler, 101, 112,
Gluon, 172 129, 158, 177, 186
Gribbin, John, 6 Interpretation, Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber, 66
Interpretation, knowledge, 4, 26, 58, 70, 78,
79, 84, 109, 121, 131, 167, 176, 186
H Interpretation, many-worlds, 101, 112, 129,
Hahn-Meitner Institute, 6 158, 177
Half-wave plate, 76, 137, 141 Interpretation, possibilist transactional, 71,
Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect, 92, 183 167, 183
Handshake, 3–5, 61, 63, 100, 124, 126, 130, Interpretation, Transactional, 6, 8, 57, 59, 68,
152, 158, 165–167, 180, 181 69
Hardy, Lucien, 117 IQOQI, 125
Hardy one-atom experiment, 117, 199
Harmonic oscillator, 18
HBT effect, 92 J
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, 70, 152, Jordan, Pascal, 16, 20
176
Heisenberg’s microscope, 22
Heisenberg, Werner, 7, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29,
K
57, 78, 81, 85, 175
Kastner, Ruth, 6, 67, 71, 108, 124, 182, 183,
Helgoland, 16
186
Herbert, Nick, 34, 148, 183
Kelvin, Lord, 9
Hidden variables, 42
Ket, 32, 84, 102, 152
Hidden variable theories, 4, 30, 35, 42, 187
Klein-Gordon equation, 4, 64, 172, 185, 194
Hierarchy, 67, 68, 108, 121, 182
Higgs boson, 172, 186 Konopinski, Emil, 54
Hilbert space, 44, 71, 183 Kramers, Hendrik “Hans” A., 14, 40
Hoyle, Fred, 5 Kwiat, Paul, 105
Hydrogen atom, 13

L
I Lamb shift, 52
I, 47 Left circular polarization, 86
Identity, 24 Leggett, Anthony J., 125
Indeterminism, 24 Leggett-Garg inequalities, 125
Indiana University, 3 Lewis, Gilbert N., 77
Institute for Advanced Studies, 28 Lewis, Peter, 68, 108, 186
Integer spin, 172 Light polarization, 30
Intensity interferometry, 92 Light waves, 10
Interaction-free measurement, 100, 117, LiIO3 crystal, 114
118, 120 Linear polarization, 30, 86, 171
Interference, 173 Local hidden-variable theories, 33
Interference complementarity, 142, 144 Localization, 190
Interference suppression, 78 Localized waves, 20
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 186 Logical positivism, 8, 17, 24, 58
Interpretation, 57, 66 Loopholes, 43
Interpretational problems, 6, 19, 24, 168 Low-intensity two-slit experiment, 76
216 Index

M Parity nonconservation, 3
Mach, Ludwig, 101 Parity transformation, 171
Magnetic flux quanta, 157 Particle in a box, 14
Malus’ law, 31, 34, 106, 125 Particle-like, 172
Matrix diagonalization, 17 Particle scattering, 18
Matrix element, 17 Path-entangled EPR, 139
Matrix inversion, 17 Path entanglement, 114
Matrix mechanics, 17, 18 Path label, 76
Maudlin gedankenexperiment, 67, 108, 182 Path labeling, 78
Maudlin, Tim, 67, 108, 182 Pauli exclusion principle, 50, 171
Maxwell, James Clerk, 10 Pauli, Wolfgang, 14, 41
Maxwell’s equations, 1 Peierls, Rudolf, 26
Mead calculation, 68 Penniston, Penny, 6
Mead, Carver, 66, 110, 179, 182, 186 Pflegor-Mandel experiment, 94
Measurement, 24 Philosophical economy, 65
Measurement problem, 24, 26, 70, 83, 186 Photoelectric effect, 10
Modern physics, 4 Photon, 10, 13, 19, 22, 27, 29, 30, 32, 40, 60,
Momentum entanglement, 114 67, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 91, 94, 96, 101,
Momentum operator, 192 170, 172
Muon, 171 Photon cascade, 32, 91
MWI, 177 Photon polarization, 37, 171
MZ interferometer, 101 Photon scattering, 40
Pilot-wave model, 5
Pion, 94
N Planck’s constant, 10, 170
Narlikar, J., 5 Planck, Max, 10
National Security Agency, 155 Podolsky, Boris, 28
Neutrino, 41, 171 Polarization basis, 30, 37
Newton’s 2nd Law, 57 Polarization correlations, 91
No self-interaction, 51 Polarization-entangled EPR, 138
No-signal theorems, 135 Polarization transformations, 87
Non-commuting polarizations, 86
Position-momentum complementarity, 22
Non-commuting variables, 85
Positivism, 8, 17, 24, 58, 70, 75, 131
Nonlocality, 5, 6, 24, 28, 29, 39, 42, 91, 152,
Prime numbers, 158
167, 174
Princeton University, 28
Nonlocal realistic theories, 124
Pseudo-time, 64, 178
Nonlocal signal, 37, 114, 115, 135, 174
Norman, Eric, 4

Q
O QM formalism, 173
Observables, 25 Quantization, 170
Observer-created reality, 27 Quantum computer, 155
Observers, 70 Quantum computing, 156
Occam’s Razor, 158, 181 Quantum dots, 157
Offer-confirmation echo, 63 Quantum eraser experiment, 98
Offer wave, 63 Quantum field theory, 54, 67, 135, 136, 179,
Operator, 173, 191 182
Quantum gates, 157
Quantum interpretations, 59, 174
P Quantum jumps, 13, 67
Paradox, 6, 58 Quantum liar paradox, 124
Parallel universes, 158, 177 Quantum mechanics, 6, 169
Parity, 3, 29, 31, 32, 50, 162, 171, 186 Quantum mystery, 75, 77
Index 217

Quantum poker, 197 Shih, Y.H., 113

Quantum reality, 126 Shor algorithm, 157
Quantum system, 173 Shor, Peter, 157
Quantum teleportation, 152 Signal + anti-signal, 142, 144
Quantum textbooks, 59 Slater, John C., 15
Quantum weirdness, 126, 131 Snowden, Edward, 155
Quantum wormhole, 130 Solvay Conference, 27, 78, 177
Quantum Zeno effect, 105 Sommerfeld, Arnold, 17
Quark, 171 Source of randomness, 110
Quarter-wave plate, 100 Special relativity, 136
Qubit read-out, 156 Spectral lines, 12
Qubits, 156 Spin, 49, 171
Spin 1/2 , 156, 170, 172
Spontaneous symmetry breaking, 67, 182
R Spooky actions at a distance, 28, 37, 174
Radiative damping, 51 Square root of minus one, 47
Radioactivity, 10, 40 Standing wave, 13, 64
Randomness, 24, 67, 110, 111, 139, 168, 182 Stark effect, 18
Real 3D space, 71, 181 Stars, 9
Realism, 126 Star Trek, 152
Realism test, 125 State vector, 69
Reality, 70 Stern-Gerlach effect, 116
Relativistic wave equations, 64 Stern-Gerlach separator, 116
Relativistic wave mechanics, 179 Subluminal influences, 128
Relativity, 136 Superluminal influences, 128
Renninger, 173
Renninger gedenkenexperiment, 83, 85, 108
Retarded potentials, 1 T
Retarded solution, 1 Taylor, Sir Geoffrey Ingram, 76
Retarded wave, 1, 4, 50, 60 Teleportation, 152
Retrocausal, 37, 90 Testing interpretations, 175, 181
Reversibility, 164 Thompson, J.J., 11
Rice University, 1 Time arrow, cosmological, 161
Right circular polarization, 86 Time arrow, CP, 162
Rigid rotor, 18 Time arrow, electromagnetic, 161
Rosen, Nathan, 28 Time arrow, subjective, 161
Rosenfeld, Leon, 27 Time arrow, thermodynamic, 161
Rotational symmetry, 360◦ , 50, 170 Time reversal, 48, 162
RSA encryption, 158 Time-reversed EPR, 121
Rutherford, Ernest, 11 Time symmetry, 3, 50
Transaction, 63, 69
Transaction formation, 66, 67, 168, 182
S Transaction model, 1-D, 59
Sagnac source, 137 Transaction model, 3-D, 62
Schrödinger cat paradox, 80, 173 Transactional handshake, 130
Schrödinger equation, 4, 17, 19, 64, 194 Two-slit experiment, 10, 75
Schrödinger steering, 139, 142, 206
Schrödinger, Erwin, 7, 17, 19, 29, 67, 85
See-saw relation, 20, 137, 176, 190, 207 U
Self-energy problem, 50 Uncertainty principle, 20, 21, 43, 70, 109
Self renormalization, 54 Unitarity, 143
Shaknov, I., 29 Universe wave function, 73
Shiekh, Anwar, 143 University of Washington, 3
218 Index

V Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, 51

Vaidmann, Lev, 100, 117 Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics, 3, 51
Van Vogt, A.E., 152 Wheeler-Feynman handshake, 5, 54, 59, 68
Variable entanglement, 137, 138, 141 Wheeler, John, 2, 29, 51, 177, 186
V diagram, 5 Which-way information, 76, 100, 111, 114,
Von Neumann, John, 84 115, 141
Wien, Max, 17
Wigner’s Friend paradox, 82
W Wigner, Eugene, 84
W± , 172 Wormhole connection, 130
Wave, advanced, 1, 4, 50, 61, 179
Wu, C.S., 29
Wave equation, 1, 17, 18, 173, 190, 193
Wave function, 4, 48, 173, 189, 190
Wave function collapse, 43, 78, 81, 83, 176
Wave-like, 172 Y
Wave mechanics, 17, 18 Young, Thomas, 10, 75
Wave number, 169
Wave on string, 189
Wave, retarded, 1, 4, 50 Z
Weak source, 77, 88, 102, 121 Z0 , 172
Wedge, 143 Zehnder, Ludwig, 101
Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment, 88, Zeilinger, Anton, 98, 105, 114, 125, 137, 141
98, 99 Zurich, University of, 17