Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cramer - retro causility

  • 03-07-2007 1:13am
    #1
    JoeB-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 689 ✭✭✭


    Hi

    John Cramer has recently raised money to perform an experiment to do with retro causality. My limited knowledge of these subjects would suggest that he is a real physicist and is taken seriously. Could he be correct regarding retro causality?

    I'd be surprised if conclusive evidence existed that he's wrong... by this I mean that I don't think he'd ignore criticisms and if a proof existed he'd admit he was wrong. Since that hasn't happened I feel that it must be an open question.

    Some info on
    http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml

    I'm very excited about this as we may be in for a major result which will shake things up.

    Cheers
    Joe


Comments

  • #2
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    Hey Joe, saw this on the Atheism forum but never got round to it. Good to see somebody else who reads the alternate view columns.
    John Cramer has recently raised money to perform an experiment to do with retro causality. My limited knowledge of these subjects would suggest that he is a real physicist and is taken seriously.
    He is a real one alright and definitely should be taken seriously.

    I'll read a bit more so I can comment more correctly, but he seems to be saying that the transactional interpretation of QM makes some results much easier to understand. Just like sometimes it easier to understand results using the Copenhagen interpretation or the Many Worlds Interpretation.

    However this is provisional, I'm not familiar with the experimental apparatus. So once I understand that I'll get back to you.


  • #3
    JoeB-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    Hi Son Goku

    Yes, I definitely enjoy the Analog columns, I don't read the magazine... only the online columns at http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html
    I have read them all and most several times.

    Yes as well to the fact that he does say that his 'transactional interpretation' makes it easier to use the maths (or to 'visualise' results, I never understand much of it anyway!, he he)
    He actually teaches his students using his own interpretation. At the University of Washington I think.

    There is this other forum where there are a few posts regarding the experiment. Some good posts, particularly from CesiumFrog who really seems to know his stuff!!!!
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1382398

    They don't hold out much hope of Cramer getting a good result... but Cramer is no fool and he thinks it's worthwhile which is good enough for me.

    Cheers
    Joe


Advertisement