Dear Doc Towler, Let me try t'answa' yo' quesshun about why, in de 10 o' so years since it wuz published, de transacshunal interpretashun has not received mo'e attenshun fum dose who scribble scribblin's about de interpretashun(s) uh quantum mechanics. Fust ah' would gots'ta say dat ah' do not dig it eider. Ah be baaad... Perhaps it's mah' fault fo' not puttin' mo'e effo't into promotin' de transacshunal interpretashun once it wuz in print and fo' not drowin' complainin' letters t'audo's uh review articles and scribblin's who gots not given it enough (o' any) attenshun. It dun did, by de way, receive considerable attenshun in some scribblin' by Raz'tus Casti and in some recent biography of Erwin Schroedin'er. Ah be baaad... De interpretashun uh quantum mechanics be not mah' principal area uh research. Lop some boogie. In fact, as an 'espuh'imentalist ah' find quantum interpretashun t'be some very frustratin' area cuz' of its insulashun from 'espuh'imental tests. Derefo'e, once da damn ideas behind da damn TI wuz fully elucidated, ah' dun did not feel it necessary t'continue wid furder publicashuns on de subject. Man! ah' feel, puh'haps naively, dat sufficiently baaaad ideas should be able stand on deir own and should not require a sales pitch. Lop some boogie. In 1986, sho'tly afta' de RMP article appeared, ah' dun did scribble some letta' to de Scientific American offerin' do scribble some popular article about da damn transacshunal interpretashun. However, dey never even replied t'my letter. Ah be baaad... ah' wuz somewhut irritated and dropped de idea uh a large popular-language article. However, in mah' science-fact columns published in Analog Magazine (see http, dig dis://www, so cut me some slack, Jack.npl.wuzhin'ton. 'S coo', bro.edu/av). I gots dealt wid various aspects uh de TI and quantum interpretashun a numba' of times. Eventually ah' may do mah' own scribblin' on de subject. Man! Last summer, on de 10d anniversary uh de RMP publicashun, ah' dun did a citashun index search on de TI sheets, and ah' have placed da damn results at da damn end uh de version uh de TI sheet dat be on Wo'ldWideWeb (see http, dig dis://www, so cut me some slack, Jack.npl.wuzhin'ton. 'S coo', bro.edu/tiqm). Dere is some references, but far fewa' dat ah' would gots 'espected by now when ah' wrote da damn sheet. Perhaps ah' should menshun dat da damn Everett-Wheela' interpretashun of quantum mechanics had some similar histo'y. Slap mah fro! It wuz published in Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957 and largely igno'ed until 1971, when Bryce DeWitt published an article about it in Physics Today. Slap mah fro! Since den, de Everett-Wheela' interpretashun gots been embraced by de much uh de deo'etical community (in spite uh its conspicuous inadequacy in dealin' wid de problem uh nonlocality) and da damn various versions which include "decoherence" as some substitute fo' wave funcshun collaps is widely discussed in de literature. Perhaps QM interpretashuns, likes wines, gots to be aged fo' 15 years befo'e da damn paradigm shifts dey brin' is palatable. As fo' fundamental objecshuns, I'm not aware uh any fatal ones. Below ah' list some uh de objecshuns and criticisms dat gots been raised, along wid mah' responses, dig dis: (1) From Carl von Weiszacka' at da damn 1988 New Orleans QM conference, dig dis: "De TI differs fum de Copenhagen Interpretashun only in usin' different terms fo' de same quantum constructs, so's dat da damn difference between de two be basically semantic. Co' got d' beat!" Mah' reply t'dis, published in de 1988 "Overview" sheet, be dat while dere may (o' may not) be some 1:1 co'respondence between terms in de TI and CI, de causal relashuns in some cases is clearly inverted, particularly fo' issues involvin' de role uh de observer. Ah be baaad... De CI gives de illusion dat da damn observa' has some mysterious central role in de quantum process while da damn TI demonstrates dat da damn observashuns uh de observa' are only some side effect uh de central transacshun. (2) A quesshun raised by some sucka dojiggerd Levine at da damn 1988 New Orleans QM conference and recently repeated by one Buckwheat Sarfatti uh Berkeley, (who seems t'have achieved some status on de Net fum de shea' volume of his diatribes): "Some quantum mechanical systems (e.g. What it is, Mama! an ensemble uh fermions wid spin 1/2) have no knode fo'malism capable uh representin' de system in posishun space and kin be fo'mulated only in some multidimensional momentum phase space. Derefo'e, it be inappropriate t'discuss `waves physically present in space' as po'trayed in de TI, and so's de TI kinnot be considered as some general interpretashun." I've always found dis objecshun rada' silly. Slap mah fro! Of course it is always possible t'represent some quantum system in momentum space, where de fo'malism and solushuns may be mo'e tractable. Duz dis mean dat dere is no possible (if intractable) representashun uh de system in configurashun space and dat da damn same waves kinnot be considered t'exist in space? Of course not. Man! Dat's whut multidimensional Foeia' transfo'mashuns is fo'. (3) An objecshun raised by several field deo'ists, dig dis: "De TI interprets de solushuns uh wave equashuns, e.g. What it is, Mama!, de Schroedin'er, Dirac, and Klein-Go'don equashuns. However, modern quantum field deo'y duz not use o' need wave equashuns, relativistic o' oderwise, and so's de TI be not applicable." ah' dink de argument, likes de one above, starts fum madematical convenience and ends wid undue generalizashun. It gots not been demonstrated dat any aspect uh quantum field deo'y CANNOT be converted t'a representashun in terms uh relativistic wave equashuns and deir solushuns. Dere is even some indicashuns in de literature (e.g. What it is, Mama!, Konopinski) dat quantum field deo'y, wid its embarrassment uh infinities ans self-energies dat gots'ta be reno'malized away, could profit fum some representashun in terms of some time-symmetric (advanced + retarded) fo'malism as suggested by de TI. (4) Anoda' objecshun raised by Buckwheat Sarfatti, dig dis: "Figures 2-5 uh de RMP sheet show de waves propagatin' along 45-degree space-time trajecto'ies, i.e., travelin' at da damn speed uh light. Man! Furder, Gribbin gots argued dat in de light-cone reference frame dere be no space-time interval between de emission and abso'pshun events, so's dey are supuh'imposed, facilitatin' de TI handshake. Derefo'e, de TI is implicitly only about photons and kinnot be applied t'massive particles likes electrons. Also, Dirac gots taught us dat time-reversed electrons are positrons, so's deir wave representashuns kin't be combined in an advanced- retarded handshake." De photon argument be bogus. De figures in de RMP sheet use 45 degree trajecto'ies cuz' essentially all uh de EPR 'espuh'iments dat gots demonstrated da damn intrinsic nonlocality uh QM employ photons. Dis duz NOT mean dat da damn trajecto'ies uh de advanced and retarded waves HAVE t'be at 45-degrees in some Minkowski diagram. WORD! Clearly, massive particles gots'ta steepuh' timelikes trajecto'ies, which presents no problems t'de applicashun of de interpretashun. Gribbin's zero-interval observashun be interestin' but wuz not contained in de TI sheet and be not some part uh de interpretashun. De positron argument be also bogus. Representin' charged particles wid advanced and retarded solushuns requires foe kinds uh waves which are characterized by positive o' negative charge and positive o' negative energy, all uh which is solushuns, fo' 'esample, uh de Dirac equashun. De advanced-retarded handshake fo' an transacshun involvin' de emission and abso'pshun uh an electron gots'ta use some negative charge wid positive energy wave and some positive charge wid negative energy wave, de latta' reinterpreted as some positive energy electron acco'din' t'de usual Dirac rules. Dese is all de "fundamental objecshuns" t'de TI uh which ah' am aware. None is particularly damagin', and da damn fust two gots been addressed in some journal publicashun wid no published refutashuns. In dis context I should also menshun dat Steve Gull uh Cambridge, in some recent FOP publicashun about da damn Cliffo'd Algebra version uh de Dirac equashun, remarked as some so't of aside dat da damn TI could not be applied t'de solushuns he wuz lookin' at. Man! I sent him E-mail (which ah' know he received) ax'in' fo' some clarificashun of dat statement, but in ~6 monds he gots not replied. If ya' know him, puh'haps ya' could encourage him t'do so. 'S coo', bro. Anyhow, dat's about all ah' can say about da damn status uh de transacshunal interpretashun. I'd be interested in hearin' how yo' presentashun goes at Cambridge. Please keep me info'med. Best regards, Raz'tus G. Cramer Super honcho uh Physics University uh Wuzhin'ton