Editing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (section)

=== Bohr's reply ===
The publication of the paper prompted a response by [[Niels Bohr]], which he published in the same journal (''[[Physical Review]]''), in the same year, using the same title.<ref name='Bohr1935'>{{cite journal |title=Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? |date=1935-10-13 |first=N. |last=Bohr |journal=[[Physical Review]] |volume=48 |issue=8 |pages=696–702 |doi=10.1103/PhysRev.48.696|bibcode=1935PhRv...48..696B |url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/1060284/files/PhysRev.48.696.pdf |doi-access=free }}</ref> (This exchange was only one chapter in [[Bohr–Einstein debates|a prolonged debate between Bohr and Einstein]] about the nature of quantum reality.)
He argued that EPR had reasoned fallaciously. Bohr said measurements of position and of momentum are [[Complementarity (physics)|complementary]], meaning the choice to measure one excludes the possibility of measuring the other. Consequently, a fact deduced regarding one arrangement of laboratory apparatus could not be combined with a fact deduced by means of the other, and so, the inference of predetermined position and momentum values for the second particle was not valid. Bohr concluded that EPR's "arguments do not justify their conclusion that the quantum description turns out to be essentially incomplete."