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:1212.6481 · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Bohr's way to defining complementarity

Alberto De Gregorio

Published Feb 1, 2014• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.10.002

Related papers

The Genesis of Bohr’s Complementarity Principle and the Bohr-Heisenberg Dialogue

Mara Beller

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1992•2 citations

Bohr’s Idea of Complementarity

Jan Hilgevoord

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1992•0 citations

From Como to Copenhagen: The Beginnings and Ends of Complementarity

Arkady Plotnitsky, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

This paper examines the transformation of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, known as complementarity, from the version presented in his famous Como lecture (1927), which introduced complementarity, to a new version that was developed by Bohr shortly thereafter, in part under the impact of his intervening exchanges with Einstein. While the existence of more than one version of Bohr's complementarity (and of still different versions of the Copenhagen interpretation by others) has been noted, Bohr's rethinking itself of complementarity has rarely been adequately addressed. Apart from refining and indeed correcting the Como argument, the transformation in question was, I argue, defined by a shift from a more philosophical to a more experimental argument. My aim is to explore both this shift and the complexity of the relationships between physics and philosophy in Bohr's thinking in order to understand better the beginnings and the ends, also in the sense of aims, of Bohr's complementarity.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

General complementarity and the double-prism experiment

Lars Löfgren

The interesting double-prism experiment of Ghose, Home, and Agarwal 5) has been suggested 5, 8, 16, 7, 6) as a challenge to Bohr´s views of complementarity. With the linguistic complementarity 14) as a general notion of complementarity, we analyze Bohr´s views of complementarity. We find that a careful formulation of Bohr´s wave-particle complementarity, with an explicit characterization of measurability as a particular low-level kind of quantum theoretical inferribility, is in fact not confronted by the double-prism experiment. Much less is the outcome a challenge to Bohr´s primary view of complementarity, namely as a tension between definability and observability in a quantum mechanical observation language. This primary view of Bohr, which is visible already in his Como paper 1), is a general formulation of quantum mechanical complementarity. Although it connects well to the subsequent metamathematical development of the wider linguistic complementarity, as a tension between describability and interpretability in a language, it is today surprisingly seldom referred to in quantum mechanical texts. Rather, discussions of the role of complementarity for the interpretability problem for quantum theory tend to focus on Bohr´s view of complementarity in terms of phenomena, which he conceived in his later discussions with Einstein (and which appears less clear than Bohr´s primary view of complementarity). The hierarchical structuring of quantum theory which is suggested in our analysis of the double-prism experiment, and in the analysis of complementarity in terms of phenomena, is of interest also for the general interpretability problem for quantum theory, and for questions about a quantum mechanical reality.

•Jan 1, 1994•7 citations

Niels Bohr's Complementarity

Makoto Katsumori

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 2011•17 citations

Bohr’s Complementarity

Pandora Hadzidaki

Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations
This paper examines the transformation of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, known as complementarity, from the version presented in his famous Como lecture (1927), which introduced complementarity, to a new version that was developed by Bohr shortly thereafter, in part under the impact of his intervening exchanges with Einstein. While the existence of more than one version of Bohr's complementarity (and of still different versions of the Copenhagen interpretation by others) has been noted, Bohr's rethinking itself of complementarity has rarely been adequately addressed. Apart from refining and indeed correcting the Como argument, the transformation in question was, I argue, defined by a shift from a more philosophical to a more experimental argument. My aim is to explore both this shift and the complexity of the relationships between physics and philosophy in Bohr's thinking in order to understand better the beginnings and the ends, also in the sense of aims, of Bohr's complementarity.
The interesting double-prism experiment of Ghose, Home, and Agarwal 5) has been suggested 5, 8, 16, 7, 6) as a challenge to Bohr´s views of complementarity. With the linguistic complementarity 14) as a general notion of complementarity, we analyze Bohr´s views of complementarity. We find that a careful formulation of Bohr´s wave-particle complementarity, with an explicit characterization of measurability as a particular low-level kind of quantum theoretical inferribility, is in fact not confronted by the double-prism experiment. Much less is the outcome a challenge to Bohr´s primary view of complementarity, namely as a tension between definability and observability in a quantum mechanical observation language. This primary view of Bohr, which is visible already in his Como paper 1), is a general formulation of quantum mechanical complementarity. Although it connects well to the subsequent metamathematical development of the wider linguistic complementarity, as a tension between describability and interpretability in a language, it is today surprisingly seldom referred to in quantum mechanical texts. Rather, discussions of the role of complementarity for the interpretability problem for quantum theory tend to focus on Bohr´s view of complementarity in terms of phenomena, which he conceived in his later discussions with Einstein (and which appears less clear than Bohr´s primary view of complementarity). The hierarchical structuring of quantum theory which is suggested in our analysis of the double-prism experiment, and in the analysis of complementarity in terms of phenomena, is of interest also for the general interpretability problem for quantum theory, and for questions about a quantum mechanical reality.