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

Comment on Theoretical Model of a Purported Empirical Violation of the Predections of Quantum Theory

Jonathan P. Dowling, Berthold‐Georg Englert, Axel Schenzle, J.W. Alcock, Randall Hyman

Published Dec 1, 1998• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

We show that an alternative quantum theory proposed by Stapp directly violates Einstein casuality.

Related papers

Comments on Stapp's “Copenhagen Interpretation” and the Significance of Bell's Theorem

L. E. Ballentine

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1974•3 citations

Theoretical model of a purported empirical violation of the predictions of quantum theory

Henry Pierce Stapp

A generalization of Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum theory is used to model a reported violation of the predictions of orthodox quantum theory.Received 28 March 1994DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.50.18©1994 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Jul 1, 1994•247 citations

Reply to a Criticism of a Causal Re-Interpretation of the Quantum Theory

David Böhm

Physical Review•Jul 15, 1952•29 citations

Further Comment on “Alternative to the Orthodox Interpretation of Quantum Theory”

Mendel Sachs

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1969•3 citations

The conjunction fallacy, confirmation, and quantum theory: Comment on Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013).

Jerome R. Busemeyer, Zheng Wang, Emmanuel M. Pothos +1 more

The conjunction fallacy refers to situations when a person judges a conjunction to be more likely than one of the individual conjuncts, which is a violation of a key property of classical probability theory. Recently, quantum probability (QP) theory has been proposed as a coherent account of these and many other findings on probability judgment "errors" that violate classical probability rules, including the conjunction fallacy. Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013) presented an alternative account of the conjunction fallacy based on the concept of inductive confirmation. They presented new empirical findings consistent with their account, and they also claimed that these results were inconsistent with the QP theory account. This comment proved that our QP model for the conjunction fallacy is completely consistent with the main empirical results from Tentori et al. (2013). Furthermore, we discuss experimental tests that can distinguish the 2 alternative accounts.

Journal of Experimental Psychology General•Jan 1, 2015•27 citations

Counterfactual Logic and the Hardy Paradox: Remarks on Shimony and Stein's Criticism of Stapp's Proof

Tomasz Bigaj

This is an extended critique of comments made by Abner Shimony and Howard Stein on Henry Stapp’s proof of the non-locality of quantum mechanics. Although I claim that ultimately Stapp’s proof does not establish its purported conclusion, yet Shimony and Stein’s criticism contains a number of weak points, which need to be clarified.

•May 1, 2004•2 citations
The conjunction fallacy refers to situations when a person judges a conjunction to be more likely than one of the individual conjuncts, which is a violation of a key property of classical probability theory. Recently, quantum probability (QP) theory has been proposed as a coherent account of these and many other findings on probability judgment "errors" that violate classical probability rules, including the conjunction fallacy. Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013) presented an alternative account of the conjunction fallacy based on the concept of inductive confirmation. They presented new empirical findings consistent with their account, and they also claimed that these results were inconsistent with the QP theory account. This comment proved that our QP model for the conjunction fallacy is completely consistent with the main empirical results from Tentori et al. (2013). Furthermore, we discuss experimental tests that can distinguish the 2 alternative accounts.