http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10533&cpage=1#comments

Naively perhaps, I thought I might contribute something by posting the link to the arxiv paper associated with your notes here, while just briefly summarizing that your Relativistic Transactional Interpretation did provide a precise definition of measurement in terms of the interaction between emitters and absorbers, and that you quantitatively linked the probabilities to the coupling amplitude and fine structure constant.

I was disappointed to see that not only was my comment not posted, and thus the subject of RTI never broached, but Woit even took the opportunity to take a dig at another of your papers in the comments (search for “Kastner”).

This made me think about the cold shoulder TI and RTI have received over the years, and wondered if you might have something to say about the professional reaction to your work. Do you think your ideas have gotten a “fair shake”? If not, what do you attribute that to?

]]>In QED,do we really have to believe the photon goes through every possible path in spacetime, or can we try to replace these paths with a de Broglie-Bohm realistic pilot wave?

I can’t quite see how to reconcile this “sum of all histories” with PTI!Are all possibles trajectories actualized?

Thanks!

Lineu. ]]>

be moments in time, they could also be pebbles, they may be fruitcakes.

https://math-problem-solver.com/ . Maclaurin and Dyke say that a

concept is naturalistic iff it has observable consequences. ]]>