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.
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.
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.
Complementarity, e.g., the wave–particle duality of nature, lies at the heart of quantum mechanics. It distinguishes the world of quantum phenomena from the reality of classical physics. In the 1920s, quantum theory as we know it today was still new, and examples used to illustrate complementarity emphasized the position (particle-like) and momentum (wave-like) attributes of a quantum mechanical object, be it a photon or a massive particle. This is the historical reason why complementarity is often superficially identified with the so-called wave-particle duality of matter . Complementarity, however, is a more general concept. We say that two observables are complementary if precise knowledge of one of them implies that all possible outcomes of measuring the other one are equally probable. We may illustrate this by two extreme examples. The first example consists of the position and momentum (along one direction) of a particle: if, say, the position is predetermined then the result of a momentum measurement cannot be predicted, all momentum values are equally probable (in a large range). The second extreme involves two orthogonal spin components of a spin- 1/2 particle: if, say, the vertical spin component has a definite value ( up or down ) then upon measuring a horizontal component both values ( left or right , for instance) are found, each with a probability of 50%. Thus, in the microcosmos complete knowledge in the sense of classical physics is not available. The classic example of the merger of wave and particle behavior is provided by Young's double-slit experiment.
In an interesting series of articles published few years ago Afshar and coworkers [1,2] reported an optical experiment in which they claimed to refute the well known N. Bohr principle of complementarity [3, 4]. Obviously this result, if justified, would constitute a serious attack against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (known as the Copenhagen interpretation). This work stirred much debate in different journals (see for examples references [5–12]). We think however that there are still some important misunderstandings concerning the interpretation of this experiment. In a preprint written originally in 2004 [5] (and following some early discussions with Afshar) we claimed already that the interpretation by Afshar et al. can be easily stated if we stay as close as possible from the texts written by Bohr. The aim of the present article (which was initially written in 2005 to precise a bit the thought developed in [5]) is to comment the interpretation discussed in [1]. We will in the following analyze the meaning of Bohr principle and show that far from disproving its content the experiment [1] is actually a complete confirmation of its general validity. The difficulties associated with the understanding of this principle are not new and actually complementarity created troubles even in Einstein mind [3] so that we are here in good company. To summarize a bit emphatically Bohr’s complementarity we here remind that this principle states that if one of a pair of non commuting observables of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second (complementary) is lost [3, 4, 15, 16]. This can be equivalently expressed as a kind of duality between different descriptions of the quantum system associated with different experimental arrangements which mutually exclude each other (read in particular [3,4]). Later in the discussion we will try to precise this definition but for the moment it is enough to illustrate the concepts by examples Consider for instance the well known Young double-pinholes interference experiment made with photons. The discrete nature of light precludes the simultaneous observation of a same photon in the aperture plane and in the interference pattern: the photon cannot be absorbed twice. This is already a trivial manifestation of the principle of Bohr. Here it implies that the two statistical patterns associated with the wave in the aperture plane and its Fourier (i. e., momentum) transform require necessarily different photons for their recording. It is in that sense that each experiment excludes and completes reciprocally the other. In the case considered before the photon is absorbed during the first detection (this clearly precludes any other detection). However even a non-destructive solution for detection implying entanglement with other quantum systems has a radical effect of the same nature: the complementarity principle is still valid. For example, during their debate Bohr and Einstein [3] discussed an ideal which-way experiment in which the recoil of the slits is correlated to the motion of the photon. Momentum conservation added to arguments based on the uncertainty relations are sufficient to explain how such entanglement photon-slits can erase fringes [15–19]. It is also important for the present discussion to remind that the principle of complementarity has a perfidious consequence on the experimental meaning of trajectory and path followed by a particle. Indeed the unavoidable interactions existing between photons and detectors imply that a trajectory existing independently of any measurement process cannot be unambiguously defined. This sounds even like a tragedy when we consider once again the two-holes experiment. Indeed for Bohr this kind of experiments shows definitely the essential element of ambiguity which is involved in ascribing conventional physical attributes to quantum systems. Intuitively (i. e., from the point of view of classical particle dynamic) one would expect that a photon detected in the focal plane of the lens must have crossed only one of the hole 1 or 2 before to reach its final destination. However, if this is true, one can not intuitively understand how the presence of the second hole (through which the photon evidently did not go) forces the photon to participate to an interference pattern (which obviously needs an influence coming from both holes). Explanations to solve this paradox have been proposed by de Broglie, Bohm, and others using concepts such as empty waves or quantum potentials [20, 21]. However all these explanations are in agreement with Bohr principle (since they fully reproduce quantum predictions) and can not be experimentally distinguished. Bohr and Heisenberg proposed for all needed purposes a much more pragmatic and simpler answer: don’t bother, the complementarity principle precludes the simultaneous observation of a photon trajectory and of an interference pattern. For Bohr [3]: This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path
Updating the wave-particle duality Maria C. Bosca e-mail: bosca@ugr.es Departamento de Fisica Atomica, Molecular y Nuclear Universidad de Granada E-18071. Granada Spain The wave-particle-duality, the fundamental component of the new quantum formalism in Bohr’s opinion, must be reformulated by incorporating the results of some experiments accomplished in the last decades of twentieth century. The Bohr´s complementarity principle stated the mutual exclusiveness and joint full completeness of the two (classical) descriptions of quantum systems; after Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen’paper, the wave-particle duality, or wave-particle complementarity, could be expressed by stating that it is impossible to build up an experimental arrangement in which we observe at the same time both corpuscular and wave aspects. In a two-slit experiment, they would correspond, respectively, to the which-way knowledge and the observation of interference pattern. Bohr showed this mutual exclusivity in numerous examples , and linked it to the unavoidable disturbance inherent in any measurement event. In quantum mechanical formalism, the complementarity principle has a clear mathematical expression: two observables are complementary if precise knowledge of one of them implies that all possible outcomes of the other are equally probable; their extension to classical concepts (as wave and particle) is not concerned. In 1991 Scully et al published a variant of the two-slit experiment that incorporates two micromasers cavities and a laser beam to provide which-path information without net momentum transferred during the interaction ; the impossibility of know which slit an atom went through and still observe the interference fringes is preserved by the establishing of quantum correlations between the measuring apparatus and the system being observed. They claimed that complementarity, of which wave-particle duality would be to them a manifestation, is more fundamental than the uncertainty principle . In 1996 B-G. Englert, following an approach originally due to Wooters and Zurek , derived , without making use of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, an inequality that quantifies the mutual compatibility relation between fringe visibility and which-way information. The inequality, that they denominated as “interferometric duality”, has the expression D^2 + V^2 ≤ 1, where D stands for the distinguishability of the ways and V for the fringe visibility; both of them are mathematical expressions that can be measured to check experimentally the inequality . Today, it is clear that intermediate particle-wave behaviours exist and, in addition to that, there are single experiments in which both classical wave-like and particle-like behaviours are showed total and simultaneously on an individual system. For instance, in the Bose’s double-prism experiment , tunnelling and perfect anticoincidence were observed in single photon states. Consequently, the meaning of the wave-particle duality must incorporate the simultaneous use of the two classical descriptions in the interpretation of experiments, loosing their original mutual exclusivity , which is incorporated as an extreme case in the new interferometric duality, a continuous quantum concept . The wave-particle duality, therefore, must be formulated as an interpretative addition to quantum mechanics, to which is possible to renounce if any pretension of visualize quantum phenomena in terms of classical concepts and intuitions is abandoned.
Ninety years ago in 1927, at an international congress in Como, Italy, Niels Bohr gave an address which is recognized as the first instance in which the term "complementarity", as a physical concept, was spoken publicly [1], revealing Bohr's own thinking about Louis de Broglie's "duality". Bohr had very slowly accepted duality as a principle of physics: close observation of any quantum object will reveal either wave-like or particle-like behavior, one or the other of two fundamental and complementary features. Little disagreement exists today about complementarity's importance and broad applicability in quantum science. Book-length scholarly examinations even provide speculations about the relevance of complementarity in fields as different from physics as biology, psychology and social anthropology, connections which were apparently of interest to Bohr himself (see Jammer [2], Murdoch [3] and Whitaker [4]). Confusion evident in Como following his talk was not eliminated by Bohr's article [1], and complementarity has been subjected to nine decades of repeated examination ever since with no agreed resolution. Semi-popular treatments [5] as well as expert examinations [6-9] show that the topic cannot be avoided, and complementarity retains its central place in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, recent approaches by our group [10-13] and others [14-20] to the underlying notion of coherence now allow us to present a universal formulation of complementarity that may signal the end to the confusion. We demonstrate a new relationship that constrains the behavior of an electromagnetic field (quantum or classical) in the fundamental context of two-slit experiments. We show that entanglement is the ingredient needed to complete Bohr's formulation of complementarity, debated for decades because of its incompleteness.
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.