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

arXiv:1208.4964 · Annals of Physics

Quantum discord is Bohr’s notion of non-mechanical disturbance introduced to counter the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument

Howard M. Wiseman

Published Jun 11, 2013• 28 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1016/j.aop.2013.05.002

Related papers

Quantum Discord in Quantum Information Theory

Alexander Streltsov

SpringerBriefs in physics•Nov 1, 2014•5 citations

Hidden variables and the argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen

Paul K. Feyerabend

THE ARGUMENT Opponents of Bohr's interpretation often refer to an argument by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, (EPR) according to which, the formalism of wave mechanics is such that it demands the existence of exact simultaneous values of non-commuting variables. Clearly, if this should be the case, then Bohr's interpretation of the uncertainty relations would have to be dropped and it would have to be replaced by the interpretation of Einstein and Popper. At the same time all those difficulties which prompted Bohr to invent the hypothesis of the indefiniteness of state descriptions would reappear. Even worse, it would seem that an inconsistency has been discovered in the very foundations of the quantum theory. For if it should indeed be the case that the only way of combining duality, the quantum postulate and the conservation laws consists in assuming indefiniteness of state descriptions, then the case of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen would show that wave mechanics is intrinsically unable to allow for a coherent account embracing these three experimental facts. We now turn to a closer analysis of the argument. Assume that a system S (coordinates q, q ′, q ″ …, q n , r, r ′, r n , …, r m ; or ( qr ) for short) which is in the state Φ ( qr ) has been (either mentally, or by physical separation) divided into two subsystems, S ′ ( q ) and S ″ ( r ).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 29, 1981•12 citations

Quantum Discord in Quantum Communication Protocols

Animesh Datta, Vaibhav Madhok

Quantum science and technology•Jan 1, 2017•4 citations

Did bohr succeed in defending the completeness of quantum mechanics?

K Morita

This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.

Principia an international journal of epistemology•Apr 28, 2020•2 citations

Quantum discord as a tool for comparing collapse models and decoherence

Shreya Banerjee, Sayantani Bera, Tejinder P. Singh

arXiv:1604.05834•Physics Letters A•Sep 30, 2016•6 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Re-Examined

David H. Sharp

This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions: (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by: (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible. In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid. The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr.

Philosophy of Science•Jul 1, 1961•27 citations
THE ARGUMENT Opponents of Bohr's interpretation often refer to an argument by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, (EPR) according to which, the formalism of wave mechanics is such that it demands the existence of exact simultaneous values of non-commuting variables. Clearly, if this should be the case, then Bohr's interpretation of the uncertainty relations would have to be dropped and it would have to be replaced by the interpretation of Einstein and Popper. At the same time all those difficulties which prompted Bohr to invent the hypothesis of the indefiniteness of state descriptions would reappear. Even worse, it would seem that an inconsistency has been discovered in the very foundations of the quantum theory. For if it should indeed be the case that the only way of combining duality, the quantum postulate and the conservation laws consists in assuming indefiniteness of state descriptions, then the case of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen would show that wave mechanics is intrinsically unable to allow for a coherent account embracing these three experimental facts. We now turn to a closer analysis of the argument. Assume that a system S (coordinates q, q ′, q ″ …, q n , r, r ′, r n , …, r m ; or ( qr ) for short) which is in the state Φ ( qr ) has been (either mentally, or by physical separation) divided into two subsystems, S ′ ( q ) and S ″ ( r ).
This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.
This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions: (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by: (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible. In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid. The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr.