Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

American Journal of Physics

Response to “The real scandal of quantum mechanics,” by Richard Conn Henry [Am. J. Phys. 77 (10), 869–870 (2009)]

Art Hobson

Published Sep 18, 2009• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1119/1.3130928

Related papers

The real scandal of quantum mechanics

R. C. Henry

See also companion Response to “The real scandal of quantum mechanics,” by Richard Conn Henry [Am. J. Phys. 77 (10), 869–870 (2009)]

American Journal of Physics•Sep 18, 2009•5 citations

Response to “The scandal of quantum mechanics,” by N. G. van Kampen [Am. J. Phys. 76, 989–990 (2008)]

Art Hobson

American Journal of Physics•Mar 16, 2009•6 citations

The scandal of quantum mechanics

N. G. van Kampen

American Journal of Physics•Oct 14, 2008•35 citations

Comments on ‘‘When is a quantum measurement?’’ [Am. J. Phys. 5 4, 688 (1986)]

Peter John Bussey

American Journal of Physics•Jun 1, 1988•0 citations

Science Miseducation in A Private Universe

Michael Riordan

Riordan replies: The question of what is “real” has been debated—and will continue to be debated—by philosophers for centuries. If nothing is real except for observations, as Richard Henry states in his last sentence, then quantum mechanics itself must not be real or true. Therefore, his strict empiricist conclusion rests on very shaky ground.© 2004 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Feb 1, 2004•0 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 Physics•Aug 1, 2001•18 citations
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.