Reply to Marchildon: absorption and non-unitarity remain well-defined in the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation

TL;DR

This paper defends the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation against recent criticisms, clarifying misconceptions and demonstrating that its core concepts remain well-defined and valid.

Contribution

It provides a rebuttal to critiques of RTI, reaffirming the interpretation's consistency and addressing misunderstandings about its theoretical foundations.

Findings

RTI remains well-defined in relativistic contexts

Criticisms of RTI are based on misunderstandings

The paper clarifies the theoretical robustness of RTI

Abstract

I rebut some erroneous statements and attempt to clear up some misunderstandings in a recent set of critical remarks by Marchildon regarding the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI), showing that his negative conclusions regarding the transactional model are ill-founded.