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

Revue d histoire des sciences

L'évolution de la complémentarité dans les textes de Bohr (1927-1939)

Bernadette Bensaude‐Vincent

Published Jan 1, 1985• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

SUMMARY. — This paper emphasizes the evolution of complementarity, in Niels Bohr's successive formulations of this idea, from 1927 to 1939, despite little, if any change in the definition of the concept with time. In the Como lecture, in 1927, Bohr introduced the idea of « complementary descriptions » in a problematic, polemical way. Against Schrödinger' s interpretation, he stressed the « irrationality » inherent in the quantum postulate. In 1935, Bohr again used complementarity polemically, in his reply to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen. But far from intending it to convey irrationality this time, he meant to use it instead to prove that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. Finally, I will take up Bohr's attempts to apply complementarity to fundamental problems in biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. I will argue that the introduction of complementarity outside physics was not motivated by an imperialist ambition of the Copenhagen School, but rather inspired by Bohr's own personal philosophy.

DOI
10.3406/rhs.1985.4006

Related papers

Complementary Descriptions (PART I): A Set of Ideas Regarding the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Christian DE RONDE

Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. The complementary descriptions approach is a framework for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, more specifically, it focuses in the development of the idea of complementarity and the concept of potentiality in the orthodox quantum formulation. In PART I of this article, we analyze the ideas of Bohr and present the principle of complementary description which takes into account Einstein's ontological position. We argue, in PART II, that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum to classical limit. We conclude that one should further develop complementarity in order to elaborate a consistent worldview.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507105•Jul 11, 2005•5 citations

Complementary Descriptions (PART II): A Set of Ideas Regarding the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Christian DE RONDE

Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. The complementary descriptions approach is a framework for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, more specifically, it focuses in the development of the idea of complementarity and the concept of potentiality in the orthodox quantum formulation. In PART I of this article, we analyze the ideas of Bohr and present the principle of complementary description which takes into account Einstein's ontological position. We argue, in PART II, that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum to classical limit. We conclude that one should further develop complementarity in order to elaborate a consistent worldview.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507114•Jul 12, 2005•0 citations

Einstein et la complémentarité au sens de Bohr : du retrait dans le tumulte aux arguments d'incomplétude

Michel Paty

SUMMARY. — In this article, I examine Einstein's objections to quantum mechanics, with the formalism's interpretation in terms of complementarity as the historical setting. From 1924 to 1927, the period of development of a formalised quantum theory, Einstein raised certain questions that kept him from joining the throng of ardent supporters. Against the theory and its interpretation of 1927, he at first advanced arguments with the idea of eventually finding a flaw in quantum mechanics, and casting doubts upon its pretensions of completeness. Finally acknowledging, in 1931, the theory's coherence and accuracy at describing phenomena, he then tried to put forth objections to the theory's interpretation, which aimed at demonstrating the theory's incompleteness. These arguments culminated in the « Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen » article of 1935, and Einstein repeated them continually until his death. The analysis here calls, of course, for assessments of both the import of Einstein's arguments in relation to physics today, as well as to Einstein's own conceptions where theoretical physics is concerned, but these go beyond the aims of the present article.

Revue d histoire des sciences•Jan 1, 1985•4 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

Biología y filosofía de la complementariedad en Niels Bohr

Karim Gherab Martín

This article discusses Niels Bohr's philosophy of complementarity in the field of biology. To do this, it shows how the concept of complementarity arises in quantum physics and how Bohr generalizes it so that to apply it to biology. Likewise, the article looks for the philosophical sources that give rise to the philosophy of complementarity and concludes that said philosophy is oriented towards an epistemological, rather than an ontological, analysis of subatomic objects and living beings.

Bajo Palabra•Nov 26, 2020•5 citations

Understanding Quantum Mechanics Through the Complementary Descriptions Approach

Christian DE RONDE

Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general dificulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. Earlier, we have introduced a development of the concept of complementarity which constitutes a new approach to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We argue that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems of quantum theory. Within the scheme proposed by modal interpretations we analyze the relation between holism and reductionism as well as the problems proposed by Arntzenius and Clifton. We discuss the problem of presupposing the concept of entity within the quantum formalism and bring into stage the concept of faculty as a way to recover the objective character of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:0705.3850•May 25, 2007•2 citations
SUMMARY. — This paper emphasizes the evolution of complementarity, in Niels Bohr's successive formulations of this idea, from 1927 to 1939, despite little, if any change in the definition of the concept with time. In the Como lecture, in 1927, Bohr introduced the idea of « complementary descriptions » in a problematic, polemical way. Against Schrödinger' s interpretation, he stressed the « irrationality » inherent in the quantum postulate. In 1935, Bohr again used complementarity polemically, in his reply to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen. But far from intending it to convey irrationality this time, he meant to use it instead to prove that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. Finally, I will take up Bohr's attempts to apply complementarity to fundamental problems in biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. I will argue that the introduction of complementarity outside physics was not motivated by an imperialist ambition of the Copenhagen School, but rather inspired by Bohr's own personal philosophy.
Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. The complementary descriptions approach is a framework for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, more specifically, it focuses in the development of the idea of complementarity and the concept of potentiality in the orthodox quantum formulation. In PART I of this article, we analyze the ideas of Bohr and present the principle of complementary description which takes into account Einstein's ontological position. We argue, in PART II, that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum to classical limit. We conclude that one should further develop complementarity in order to elaborate a consistent worldview.
Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. The complementary descriptions approach is a framework for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, more specifically, it focuses in the development of the idea of complementarity and the concept of potentiality in the orthodox quantum formulation. In PART I of this article, we analyze the ideas of Bohr and present the principle of complementary description which takes into account Einstein's ontological position. We argue, in PART II, that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum to classical limit. We conclude that one should further develop complementarity in order to elaborate a consistent worldview.
SUMMARY. — In this article, I examine Einstein's objections to quantum mechanics, with the formalism's interpretation in terms of complementarity as the historical setting. From 1924 to 1927, the period of development of a formalised quantum theory, Einstein raised certain questions that kept him from joining the throng of ardent supporters. Against the theory and its interpretation of 1927, he at first advanced arguments with the idea of eventually finding a flaw in quantum mechanics, and casting doubts upon its pretensions of completeness. Finally acknowledging, in 1931, the theory's coherence and accuracy at describing phenomena, he then tried to put forth objections to the theory's interpretation, which aimed at demonstrating the theory's incompleteness. These arguments culminated in the « Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen » article of 1935, and Einstein repeated them continually until his death. The analysis here calls, of course, for assessments of both the import of Einstein's arguments in relation to physics today, as well as to Einstein's own conceptions where theoretical physics is concerned, but these go beyond the aims of the present article.
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.
Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general dificulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. Earlier, we have introduced a development of the concept of complementarity which constitutes a new approach to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We argue that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems of quantum theory. Within the scheme proposed by modal interpretations we analyze the relation between holism and reductionism as well as the problems proposed by Arntzenius and Clifton. We discuss the problem of presupposing the concept of entity within the quantum formalism and bring into stage the concept of faculty as a way to recover the objective character of quantum mechanics.