English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

By rigorously formalizing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument, andBohr's reply, one can appreciate that both arguments were technically correct.Their opposed conclusions about the completeness of quantum mechanics hingedupon an explicit difference in their criteria for when a measurement on Alice'ssystem can be regarded as not disturbing Bob's system. The EPR criteria allowtheir conclusion (incompletness) to be reached by establishing the physicalreality of just a single observable $q$ (not a conjugate pair $q$ and $p$), butI show that Bohr's definition of disturbance prevents the EPR chain ofreasoning from establishing even this. Moreover, I show that Bohr's definitionis intimately related to the asymmetric concept of quantum discord from quantuminformation theory: if and only if the joint state has no Alice-discord, shecan measure any observable without disturbing (in Bohr's sense) Bob's system.Discord can be present even when systems are unentangled, and this hasimplications for our understanding of the historical development of notions ofquantum nonlocality.

Quantum discord is Bohr's notion of non-mechanical disturbance introduced in his answer to EPR