Subject: ... and the potential quantum event becomes real.
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:29:25 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: John G Cramer <>

Dear John,

I suppose you know that I like your Transactional Interpretation (TI) of quantum mechanics; see the last paragraph on p. 12 in

But I think your TI has limitations. Your latest paper [Ref. 3] starts with the following statement: "The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics [1] is an explicitly nonlocal and relativistically
invariant alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation."

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has managed to explain the dynamics of the embedding of a quantum event into Minkowski spacetime, not to mention Lorentz-invariant theory of non-local interactions. Your TI employs a special atemporal medium, which keeps the conserved quantities in some special "dough" of quantum potentialities "until the conserved quantities are transferred and the potential quantum event becomes real" [Ref. 3].

AFTER the potential quantum event becomes real, people say -- hey, I just got a quantum event in my back light cone, but how did it get
there, and when?

It would be great if you can elaborate on your atemporal "handshaking" medium in the context of STR and GR, and then suggest some energy-driven collapse-free theory. I believe your colleagues will be highly interested. The issue is very old,

Best regards,


[Ref. 3] John G. Cramer, A Transactional Analysis of Interaction Free Measurements, Version 23 (August 14, 2005), quant-ph/0508102 v1.

p. 2: "... until the conserved quantities are transferred and the
potential quantum event becomes real."



Subject: The Deep Humming of the Universe
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:05:20 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: John Cramer <>
BCC: [snip]

Dear Professor Cramer,

Seventeen years ago, when I was still working at the Institute of Physics at the BG Academy of Sciences in Sofia, I requested a preprint from your Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics [Ref. 1]. Thanks again for sending me your preprint. I mentioned your name in my White Paper at

I am again fascinated by your recent 'sound of the universe' [Ref. 2]. The sound does resemble a large jet plane flying 100 feet in the middle of the night. I downloaded your BigBangSound_2.wav file, 781.3Kb, from

Of course, I can't hear the input from the atemporal hand-shaking medium [Ref. 1, Fig. 4, Footnotes 14 and 15]. I'm wondering why. Let me make a wild guess.

Perhaps your atemporal hand-shaking medium has been wiped out in the well-known balloon metaphor of space expansion,

We might recover it only as some numerically finite but physically unattainable upper bound on the volume of 3-D space,

There should be a new, currently unknown to us, cut-off on the volume of space, such that this upper bound on the space volume cannot be reached for any *finite* time interval from the cosmological time.

Taking the absolute zero "temperature" as a guiding metaphor, I suppose that such *numerically finite* but *physically unattanable* cut-off would refer to an *infinite* amount of dark energy needed to stretch the spacetime metric up to the point of this hypothetical upper bound of the volume of 3-D space.

Not any kind of space but the 3-D space of tables and chairs around you. I don't like those "multidimensional superstitious" (S. Glashow) in string/M hypotheses.

Hence we would have an ever-expanding universe, some currently unknown pseudo-Friedmann-Lemaître universe maybe, which would certainly look like 'applicable on *infinite* volume of space', for the simple reason that such universe cannot reach its upper bound on the volume of 3-D space for any *finite* cosmological time and *finite* amount of dark energy stretching its metric,

Hence the universe could be both finite and infinite: finite in each and every instant of cosmological time, and infinite in the reference frame of your good old atemporal hand-shaking medium producing the physically unattainable upper bound on the volume of 3-D space. More at

Just a wild guess about the dark energy,

prompted by your deep humming of the universe.

You mentioned an 11-year-old boy who wanted to know what the Big Bang sounded like for a school project [Ref. 2]. I like this boy very much, and I'm restructuring my CD ROM "Physics of Human Intention" to meet the requirements of such bright kids. The future belongs to them, we're old and biased,

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.  The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe,

Pritie amzanig huh?


[Ref. 1] The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647 (1986).

[Ref. 2] Big Bang sounded like a deep hum, by Marcus Chown
10:09 30 October 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition,

The Big Bang sounded more like a deep hum than a bang, according to an analysis of the radiation left over from the cataclysm.

Physicist John Cramer of the University of Washington in Seattle has created audio files of the event which can be played on a PC. "The sound is rather like a large jet plane flying 100 feet above your house in the middle of the night," he says.

Giant sound waves propagated through the blazing hot matter that filled the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. These squeezed and stretched matter, heating the compressed regions and cooling the rarefied ones.

Even though the Universe has been expanding and cooling ever since, the sound waves have left their imprint as temperature variations on the afterglow of the big bang fireball, the so-called cosmic microwave background.

School project

Cramer was prompted to recreate the din last heard 13.7 billion years ago by an 11-year-old boy who wanted to know what the Big Bang sounded like for a school project.

To produce the sound, Cramer took data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Launched in 2001, the probe has been measuring tiny differences in the temperature between different parts of the sky.

From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across. At that time the sound waves were too low in frequency to be audible. To hear them, Cramer had to scale the frequencies 100,000 billion billion times.

Nevertheless, the loudness and pitch of the sound waves reflect what happened in the early Universe. During the 100-second recording, the frequencies fall because the sound waves get stretched as the Universe expands. "It becomes more of a bass instrument," says Cramer.

Note: If you listen to the sound file produced by John Cramer, you will notice that "the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years" (cf. above) do not indicate any initial peak nor anything that could even remotely resemble some "big bang".

Click to see the reference

The wave pattern shows a very smooth "beginning", which could hardly be an artifact. You can download 'the big hummmm of the universe', BigBangSound_2.wav, 781.3Kb, from here. I took the liberty of converting John's wave file into .mp3 format, BigBangSound_2.mp3, 283Kb, which you can get from

Again, the bottom line is the nature of dark energy and dark matter. We cannot be certain about our models of the universe, based on only 4 per cent of the stuff in it. The rest is still a deep mystery. There are equally convincing arguments for both finite and infinite universe, and the nature of the driving force that accelerates the "expansion" of the universe is totally unknown. Hence the topology of the 3-D space is not known either. It could be 'both closed and open'. Example: the topology of brain states in Ulric Neisser's cognitive cycle. The human brain, just like the universe, is a physical system.

Why not model the universe as a huge brain? It can sing beautifully!

Dimi Chakalov
Halloween, 2003