Quantifying Absorption in the Transactional Interpretation R. E. Kastner∗ , John G. Cramer† June 19, 2018 wrote:
3 Conclusion
It is shown herein that emission and absorption processes are quantitatively well-defined
in the transactional (direct-action) picture, and are essentially the same as in the standard
theory of quantum electrodynamics, except for the replacement of the quantized field by
the response of charged currents jj to an emitting current ji. Such emissions and responses
cannot be predicted–they are inherently indeterministic. But the physical circumstances of
their occurrence can be defined and quantified by identifying the coupling constant between
interacting fields (e in the case of the electromagnetic interaction) as the amplitude for
generation of an OW (Fock state |ki) or CW (dual Fock state hk| ), both being required
for the existence of a ‘real photon,’ which in the direct-action picture is described by a
Fock state projection operator |kihk|.
Virtual photons are identified as the basic timesymmetric connections or propagators between currents, which do not prompt responses, do not precipitate the non-unitary transition, and thus remain an aspect of unitary (forcebased) interactions only.
Thus, virtual photons (time-symmetric propagator) convey force
only, while real photons (projection operators, quanta of a real-valued field) convey real
10energy and break linearity. The latter is just an expression of what Einstein noted long
ago: real electromagnetic energy (the actualized photon |kihk| ) is emitted and absorbed
as a particle (projection operator with definite spatial momentum ~k) [16]. It has been
shown herein that the product of the amplitudes of emission and absorption constitute
the squaring process for obtaining the probability of either radiative process considered
separately, thus demonstrating that the Born Rule arises naturally in the direct-action
theory of fields, in which both processes must always occur together (i.e., there is never
emission without absorption, and vice versa).
Finally, any quantized field theory can be re-expressed as a direct action theory, as
shown by Narlikar [17]. Therefore, any field for which the basic Davies model holds is a
component of the transactional model, and transfers of real quanta of those fields can be understood as the result of actualized transactions. (However, there is an asymmetry between
gauge boson fields and their fermionic sources, and in general such sources participate in
transactions indirectly, by way of boson confirmations [18]). While the direct-action theory
has historically been regarded with distrust, it is perfectly self-consistent; and it should also
be noted here that as recently as 2003, Wheeler himself was advocating reconsideration of
the direct-action picture [19].
Bangstrom wrote:The transfer of a quantum of energy (Cramer unfortunately calls it a photon) is instant and complete with the collapse of the superposition state. The interaction is nonlocal and simultaneous at both ends with no need for a physical object, as either a particle or a wave, to pass through space transporting energy from one electron to the other.
I'm aware of your personal theory about this aspect, but as I said to Faradave above, you should shift over to Personal Theory for discussions of that.
Again, TI is not about "collapse of the superposition state", it is about the real transmission and absorption of e.m. energy by means of photon exchange between non-entangled atoms. Just like your WiFi signal comes to your device.
BTW, Cramer still seems quite happy with the terminology 'photon' here...