Bohr's general thesis of complementarity conveys the idea that we can, and perhaps must, make use of the classical physical concepts in quantum physics, notwithstanding the inadequacies of these concepts; but we can use them only within the limits circumscribed by the quantum of action – beyond these limits the classical concepts cease to be well defined. This idea originated in his thesis that the conceptual structure of the quantum theory is in a sense a generalisation of the conceptual scheme of classical mechanics; and this thesis was a corollary of the correspondence principle. During the first months of 1927 Bohr regarded quantum mechanics as the quantum-theoretical generalisation of classical mechanics to which he had been looking forward. He came also to think that quantum mechanics required in a sense the generalisation of the two classical models of particle and wave. In classical physics these two models generally pertain to different theories, the particle model to the mechanical theory of matter, the wave model to the electromagnetic theory of radiation. In quantum physics, however, the two models pertain to one theory, quantum mechanics, and each is applicable to matter and radiation. Where discontinuity obtains, the standard classical models of matter and radiation cease to be well defined, and the alternative, non-standard models may be used. There is no logical inconsistency in this dual use of the models since each is appropriately applicable only in different empirical circumstances.
Bohr's general thesis of complementarity conveys the idea that we can, and perhaps must, make use of the classical physical concepts in quantum physics, notwithstanding the inadequacies of these concepts; but we can use them only within the limits circumscribed by the quantum of action – beyond these limits the classical concepts cease to be well defined. This idea originated in his thesis that the conceptual structure of the quantum theory is in a sense a generalisation of the conceptual scheme of classical mechanics; and this thesis was a corollary of the correspondence principle. During the first months of 1927 Bohr regarded quantum mechanics as the quantum-theoretical generalisation of classical mechanics to which he had been looking forward. He came also to think that quantum mechanics required in a sense the generalisation of the two classical models of particle and wave. In classical physics these two models generally pertain to different theories, the particle model to the mechanical theory of matter, the wave model to the electromagnetic theory of radiation. In quantum physics, however, the two models pertain to one theory, quantum mechanics, and each is applicable to matter and radiation. Where discontinuity obtains, the standard classical models of matter and radiation cease to be well defined, and the alternative, non-standard models may be used. There is no logical inconsistency in this dual use of the models since each is appropriately applicable only in different empirical circumstances.
Niels Bohr's theory of complementarity was an attempt to solve the enormous problems of interpretation – especially the problem of wave particle duality – that beset the quantum theory in the mid-twenties. By 1920 electromagnetic radiation could be conceived of either in terms of the wave model or in terms of the particle model, though neither conception alone was wholly adequate to the empirical data. By the mid-twenties the duality problem was quite general, applying to matter as well as to radiation. Quantum mechanics, the new quantum theory, could be interpreted partially in terms of one or other of the two models but not comprehensively in terms of either. Bohr's theory can be fully understood only against the background of the interpretative problems which it was intended to solve; and the root of these problems goes back to the very origin of the quantum theory, viz. the quantum hypothesis to the effect that in certain physical processes energy is transferred discontinuously in discrete amounts. Wave-particle duality was a development of the continuity-discontinuity duality which the quantum hypothesis introduced into physics. How did wave-particle duality arise?
Having discussed the meaning of complementarity in general and wave particle complementarity in particular, I wish now to explicate Bohr's subtle argument for the thesis that certain pairs of classical concepts which are mutually compatible in classical physics are mutually exclusive in quantum physics, i.e. the thesis of kinematic–dynamic complementarity. It is generally held that Bohr regarded the mutual exclusiveness in question as being not only epistemic but also ontic or semantic, in the sense that the uncertainty principle expresses a restriction not only on the joint measurability of canonically conjugate observables but also on the joint instantiation of the properties corresponding to these observables. I shall consider the question of the ontic or semantic construal of kinematic–dynamic complementarity in Chapter 7. Bohr's argument for complementarity in the epistemic sense is, however, more fundamental: it goes to the heart of his theory of observation and measurement in quantum physics. What, then, is Bohr's argument? The mutual exclusiveness of kinematic and dynamic properties Kinematic and dynamic attributes in quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive in the sense that they cannot be simultaneously measured; they are, in this sense, epistemically incompatible. Why did Bohr think this? His reasons may seem intricate, but they are basically quite simple. Two main factors, he maintains, account for the epistemic incompatibility: ( a ) measurements of these two different sorts of properties require mutually exclusive experimental arrangements, incompatible measurement procedures; ( b ) the indeterminability of the interaction between the object and the instrument of measurement precludes extrapolation of the different measurement results to one and the same time.
Bohr's response in 1925 to the failure of the Bohr–Kramers–Slater theory was, as we have seen, to regard wave–particle duality as having a formal, rather than realistic, significance; he saw it as a ‘limitation of our usual means of visualization’. That same year, however, wave–particle duality was generalised by Louis-Victor de Broglie to cover the theory of matter. Moreover, the advent of quantum mechanics (i.e. matrix mechanics and wave mechanics), rather than dispelling the duality problem, heightened it. How did Bohr respond to these new developments in the quantum theory? A matter of waves In the autumn of 1923 de Broglie put forward the extremely bold hypothesis that any particle whatever is associated with a wave whose wavelength λ and frequency ν are proportional to the particle's momentum and energy respectively: λ = h / p , v = E / h . De Broglie regarded his hypothesis as the basis of a new mechanics, a wave mechanics related to classical mechanics in the same way as wave optics is related to ray optics. On this view the trajectory of a particle corresponds to the ray of the wave associated with it (i.e. the normal to the equiphase surface of the wave), and the velocity of the particle corresponds to the group velocity of the wave. De Broglie suggested, moreover, that in certain circumstances particles should exhibit diffraction effects: a stream of electrons, for example, which passes through a slit in a screen should undergo diffraction.
The great difference between the sub-atom dimension reality described by quantum physics and the ordinary reality by classical physics makes people puzzled and thus calls for explanation. There is no absolute explanation workable in any context An explanation must be related with the our culture context. Classical physics is an explanation system for the world within sensual dimension,the scale that human are able to observe directly by sense organs. Classical physics,primary sensual dimension and ordinary languages are compatible with each other. The limitation of the primary sensual dimension is defined by optical telescope and optical microscope. People try to extend this view of reality to larger and smaller scale,but it does not work either on the cosmos dimension or the sub-atom dimension. Niels Bohr introduced a term phenomenon into quantum physics to replace its counterpart concept object in classical physics. All objects in the quantum world are theoretical construction by phenomena such as the data of instrument,the trace in cloud chamber. However,it is not possible to construct a single visible model to explain those phenomena. Two paradoxical and alternative models,like particle and wave,are needed in the explanation,and this is the complementary principle.
Niels Bohr, as is well known, introduced the notion of complementarity into physics, as a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that objects have complementary properties that cannot be measured accurately at the same time. For example, the particle and wave aspects of physical objects are such complementary phenomena. Both concepts are borrowed from classical mechanics, where it is impossible to be both, a particle and a wave at the same time. Particle and Wave represent the complementarity of the Discrete and the Continuous. Humans reason by means of concepts (meanings) and language, as well as, by means of logical or arithmetic symbolism. Meanings are continua, whereas logic and arithmetic are based on relations of identity and difference.
To resolve the challenges (paradoxes) attending the genesis of quantum theory, Niels Bohr in 1927 proposed a generalization of the conceptual framework of classical physics, termed complementarity, which posited pairs of classical concepts that could be manifested only in mutually exclusive experimental arrangements with both needed to embrace the full range of physical experience. In this context particle–wave complementarity has encountered two major obstacles; (1) No formulation of it has commanded a general consensus; and (2) empirical evidence abounds that contradicts the claim of mutual exclusivity of particle and wave properties of quantum objects in a single experiment. These problems are rooted in the unrestricted scope of this claim. It is shown that a restricted version of particle–wave complementarity, here called “which value–interference” complementarity, is consistent with observations, is naturally contained in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory and, in fact, holds in any representation of quantum theory defined by the eigenvectors of a complete set of commuting observables, such as the configuration space position (kinematic) variables or the complementary linear momentum (dynamic) variables. Thus, the which value–interference form of particle–wave complementarity exists within kinematic–dynamic complementarity, a “layered” complementarity, so to speak. It is hoped that a consistent and valid exposition of particle–wave complementarity will be helpful to those who find the framework of complementarity useful and appropriate for some purpose.