Results 161 to 170 of about 1,309 (208)
Neural circuit mechanisms underlying dominance traits and social competition. [PDF]
Biophys Rev (Melville)Yan H, Wang J.
europepmc +1 more source
Recent advances in cancer nanomedicine: From smart targeting to personalized therapeutics - pioneering a new era in precision oncology. [PDF]
Mater Today BioYounas A +10 more
europepmc +1 more source
A principled basis for nonequilibrium network flows. [PDF]
Nat CommunYang YJ, Dill KA.
europepmc +1 more source
In Our Mind's Eye: Thinkable and Unthinkable, and Classical and Quantum in Fundamental Physics, with Schrödinger's Cat Experiment. [PDF]
Entropy (Basel)Plotnitsky A.
europepmc +1 more source
The Walnut's Dark Secret: Polyphenol Oxidase and the Enigmatic Pathway to Melanin. [PDF]
Int J Mol SciDandekar AM +5 more
europepmc +1 more source
Some of the next articles are maybe not open access.
Related searches:
Related searches:
Physics Reports, 1978
Abstract Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued in 1935 that quantum mechanics fails to give an adequate description of physical reality, and also cannot give a consistent wave-function description of certain phenomena. We show that a calculation based upon the reduced density matrix removes the formal inconsistency pointed out by EPR.
C.D. Cantrell, Marlan O. Scully
exaly +2 more sources
Abstract Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued in 1935 that quantum mechanics fails to give an adequate description of physical reality, and also cannot give a consistent wave-function description of certain phenomena. We show that a calculation based upon the reduced density matrix removes the formal inconsistency pointed out by EPR.
C.D. Cantrell, Marlan O. Scully
exaly +2 more sources
Physics World, 1995
Colin Jack is to be complimented on his entertaining exposition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in "Sherlock Holmes investigates the EPR paradox" (April pp39–42), but the more serious explanation he gives is misleading in an important respect. There is, and need be, no "influence" travelling from one detector to the other.
H N V Temperley
exaly +2 more sources
Colin Jack is to be complimented on his entertaining exposition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in "Sherlock Holmes investigates the EPR paradox" (April pp39–42), but the more serious explanation he gives is misleading in an important respect. There is, and need be, no "influence" travelling from one detector to the other.
H N V Temperley
exaly +2 more sources