Reply to Unruh

Stapp, Henry P.

Published Dec 19, 1997• 0 citations

Abstract

certain counterfactual statement in my recent nonlocality proof should be re-interpreted in a way that would block the proof.I give reason's why that statement should not be re-interpreted.

Related papers

Reply to Unruh

Henry Pierce Stapp

William Unruh has suggested (quant-ph/9710032) that a certain counterfactual statement in my recent nonlocality proof should be re-interpreted in a way that would block the proof. I give reason's why that statement should not be re-interpreted.

Dec 19, 19973 citations

Reply to Unruh

Henry Pierce Stapp

arXiv:quant-ph/9712043Dec 19, 19970 citations

Reply to ?quantum nonlocality without counterfactual definiteness??

Henry Pierce Stapp

Foundations of Physics LettersAug 1, 19902 citations

Reply to ?determinism, realism, and Stapp's 1985 proof of nonlocality?

Henry Pierce Stapp

Foundations of Physics LettersAug 1, 19890 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

Is quantum mechanics non-local?

Henry Pierce Stapp

A recent proof, couched in the symbolic language of modal logic, shows that a well-defined formulation of the question posed in the title is answered affirmatively. In a paper with the same title Unruh has tried in various ways to translate the symbolic proof into normal prose, and has claimed that the proof must fail in some way or another. A correct translation is given here, and it is explained why the difficulties encountered by Unruh do not actually arise.

arXiv:quant-ph/9805047May 15, 19980 citations