Physical Review A

Reply to ‘‘Stapp’s algebraic argument for nonlocality’’

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published May 1, 1994• 10 citations

Abstract

The logical structure of my recently proved nonlocality theorem [Phys. Rev. A 46, 6860 (1992)] is examined from the perspective of the theory counterfactual conditionals. It is shown in detail why the argument of Dickson and Clifton [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4259 (1994)] does not substantiate their claim.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.49.4257

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review ASep 1, 19992 citations

Comment on “Nonlocality, counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics”

Henry Pierce Stapp

A recent proof [H. P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. 65, 300 (1997)], formulated in the symbolic language of modal logic, claims to show that contemporary quantum theory, viewed as a set of rules that allow us to calculate statistical predictions among certain kinds of observations, cannot be imbedded in any rational framework that conforms to the principles that (1) the experimenters' choices of which experiments they will perform can be considered to be free choices, (2) outcomes of measurements are unique, and (3) the free choices just mentioned have no backward-in-time effects of any kind. This claim is similar to Bell's theorem, but much stronger, because no reality assumption alien to quantum philosophy is used. The paper being commented on [W. Unruh, Phys. Rev. A 59, 126 (1999)] argues that some such reality assumption has been ``smuggled'' in. That argument is examined here and shown, I believe, to be defective.

Physical Review ASep 1, 199911 citations

Stapp’s algebraic argument for nonlocality

Michael Dickson, Rob Clifton

Stapp has recently presented a revised algebraic version of his (and others') earlier nonlocality arguments. Stapp's argument would seem to be an improvement over traditional arguments because he assumes only the so-called parameter-independence condition, but neither determinism nor the so-called outcome-independence condition. We show that, in fact, Stapp's argument rests on a logical fallacy.

Physical Review AMay 1, 199411 citations

Comment on “Nonlocal character of quantum theory,” by Henry P. Stapp [Am. J. Phys. 65 (4), 300–304 (1997)]

Abner Shimony, Howard Stein

A 1997 paper by Henry Stapp attempts to achieve a definitive argument for his long-sustained thesis that quantum mechanics implies a nonlocality inconsistent with the locality of relativity theory. His argument assumes both the validity of counterfactual reasoning under certain circumstances and the free choice of performance of experiments, and it specifically refrains from any assumptions about “elements of physical reality” as understood by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. In Sec. I we drastically condense his argument but retain his central principle of inference, called “LOC2,” which he claims is a consequence of relativistic locality. By careful attention to counterfactual reasoning we then throw doubt upon this claim and hence upon his argument as a whole. In Sec. II we answer Stapp’s reply to our critique of the 1997 paper. Section III is a postscript, commenting briefly on Stapp’s answer to Sec. II.

American Journal of PhysicsAug 1, 200118 citations

Comments on ‘Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds’

Henry Pierce Stapp

Clifton, Butterfield, and Redhead [1989] have constructed two separate arguments that bear some resemblances to a proof of mine pertaining to the nonlocal character of quantum theory. Their arguments have flaws, which they point out. I explicate my proof by explaining in detail both how it differs logically from the two arguments they have constructed, and how it avoids the pitfalls of both.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceMar 1, 19907 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Consistent histories and quantum reasoning’ ”

Robert B. Griffiths

The argument presented in the preceding Comment is not consistent with the principles of reasoning employed in the consistent histories interpretation of quantum theory, and hence tells us nothing about locality or nonlocality from the perspective of that interpretation.

Physical Review AOct 1, 19980 citations