The Quantum Liar Experiment in Cramer's Transactional Interpretation

Cramer's Transactional Interpretation (TI) is applied to the "Quantum Liar Experiment" (QLE). It is shown how some apparently paradoxical features can be explained naturally, albeit nonlocally (since TI is an explicitly nonlocal interpretation, at least from the vantage point of ordinary spacetime). At the same time, it is proposed that in order to preserve the elegance and economy of the interpretation, it may be necessary to consider offer and confirmation waves as propagating in a "higher space" of possibilities.Comment: Minor editing error correcte

The 'Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser' Neither Erases Nor Delays

It is demonstrated that 'quantum eraser' (QE) experiments do not erase any information. Nor do they demonstrate retrocausation or 'temporal nonlocality' in their 'delayed choice' form, beyond standard EPR correlations. It is shown that the erroneous erasure claims arise from assuming that the improper mixed state of the signal photon physically prefers either the 'which way' or 'both ways' basis, when no such preference is warranted. The latter point is illustrated through comparison of the QE spatial state space with the spin-1/2 space of particles in the EPR-spin experiment.Comment: Final version, to appear in Foundations of Physic

Why the Afshar Experiment Does Not Refute Complementarity

A modified version of Young's experiment by Shahriar Afshar demonstrates that, prior to what appears to be a ``which-way'' measurement, an interference pattern exists. Afshar has claimed that this result constitutes a violation of the Principle of Complementarity. This paper discusses the implications of this experiment and considers how Cramer's Transactional Interpretation easily accomodates the result. It is also shown that the Afshar experiment is analogous in key respects to a spin one-half particle prepared as ``spin up along $\bf x$'', subjected to a nondestructive confirmation of that preparation, and post-selected in a specific state of spin along $\bf z$. The terminology ``which-way'' or ``which-slit'' is critiqued; it is argued that this usage by both Afshar and his critics is misleading and has contributed to confusion surrounding the interpretation of the experiment. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Bohr would have had no more problem accounting for the Afshar result than he would in accounting for the aforementioned pre- and post-selection spin experiment, in which the particle's preparation state is confirmed by a nondestructive measurement prior to post-selection. In addition, some new inferences about the interpretation of delayed choice experiments are drawn from the analysis.Comment: Final version: typos corrected; to appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physic

Antimatter in the Direct-Action Theory of Fields

One of Feynman's greatest contributions to physics was the interpretation of negative energies as antimatter in quantum field theory. A key component of this interpretation is the Feynman propagator, which seeks to describe the behavior of antimatter at the virtual particle level. Ironically, it turns out that one can dispense with the Feynman propagator in a direct-action theory of fields, while still retaining the interpretation of negative energy solutions as antiparticles.Comment: Forthcoming in a special issue of Quanta Magazine honoring Richard P. Feynman; ed. Eliahu Cohe