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

On Bohr's Method of Complementarity

Changsheng Hu

Published Jan 1, 2002• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Bohr was one of the greatest scientists of the last century. The essay systematically reveals method of complementarity and its characteristics on the basis of complementarity principle by studying his Scientific creations. This method has certain methodological significance to the scientific and creative activities in our country.

Related papers

Bohr's complementarity

Diego S. Starke, Jonas Maziero, Marcos L. W. Basso +1 more

Quantum complementarity is a fundamental feature of quantum systems and has captivated the physics research community for nearly a century, with significant advancements emerging in recent decades. This review traces the historical evolution of the concept of complementarity, beginning with Bohr's original formulation. It then explores its modern quantification through complementarity relations and its profound connection to the foundational postulates of quantum theory. Furthermore, it delves into key related developments, such as the operational definition of complementarity in the context of incompatible observables, its potential links with quantum uncertainty relations and contextuality, its various applications, and other pertinent topics. This review aims to serve physicists interested in quantum resources, quantum correlations, and the foundational principles of quantum mechanics.

quant-pharXiv:2605.26375•May 27, 2026•0 citations

Complementarity and Scientific Rationality

Simon W. Saunders

Abstract: Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized as incoherent and opportunistic, and based on doubtful philosophical premises. If so Bohr’s influence, in the pre-war period of 1927-1939, is the harder to explain, and the acceptance of his approach to quantum mechanics over de Broglie’s had no reasonable foundation. But Bohr’s interpretation changed little from the time of its first appearance, and stood independent of any philosophical presuppositions. The principle of complementarity is itself best read as a conjecture of unusually wide scope, on the nature and future course of explanations in the sciences (and not only the physical sciences). If it must be judged a failure today, it is not because of any internal inconsistency. Despite the expenditure of much effort, I have been unable to obtain a clear understanding of Bohr’s principle of complementarity (Einstein). Bohr’s point- and the central point of quantum mechanics- is that no elemen-

•Oct 1, 2004•19 citations

Принцип дополнительности Н. Бора и проблема его статуса

Макаров Андрей Борисович

The article is devoted to the problem of scientific and philosophical status of complementarity principlef. The author analyzes its explication by N. Bohr and its comprehension by scientists and epistemologists. It is shown that generally, the complementarity principle is a set of ideas, which allows comprehending of specific situation in quantum mechanics. Some of ideas – the role of language of classical physics, the role of macro-instrument, the integrity of scientific experiment, the integrity of micro-object – could be seen as general scientific and epistemological principles. The prohibition of ontologisation of quantum phenomenon, which necessarily leads to contradictions is considered as the semantic core of Bohr’s approach. However, the attempts of its generalization in science and philosophy were not successful. The complementarity postulate is viewed as methodological principle of foundations of quantum mechanics in its Copenhagen interpretation.

•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Niels Bohr’s Complementarity and Quantum Tunneling

Slobodan Perović

Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle is a tenuous synthesis of seemingly discrepant theoretical approaches (the wave mechanical approach, and that of Heisenberg and early Bohr) based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant experimental results. Yet the role of complementarity, and the experimentalist-minded approach behind it, were not confined to a provisional best-available synthesis of well-established experimental results alone. They were also pivotal in discovering and explaining the phenomenon of quantum tunneling in its various forms. The core principles of Bohr’s method and the ensuing complementarity account of quantum phenomena remain highly relevant guidelines in the current controversial debate and in experimental work on quantum tunneling times.

•Nov 11, 2017•2 citations

Science and irrationalism or the generalized complementarity principle of Bohr

Alexander Klimets

The article formulates and substantiates the philosophical epistemological principle, which generalizes the principle of complementarity of Bohr to all phenomena of reality. The general complementarity principle is formulated as follows: the rational side of reality and its cognition and its associated irrational side of reality and its cognition are complementary to each other. The general principle of complementarity allows one to search for phenomena of duality in various fields, grouping them according to rational and irrational signs.

•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

How Bohr Specifically Adapted William James’s “Complementarity” for Physics Many Years After Bohr First Read James’s “Complementarity”: Setting the Historical Record Straight in Order That James’s Complementarity Can Be Properly Evaluated on Its Own Merits for Quantum Measurement

Douglas Michael Snyder

Today it is important to see James’s original complementarity in 1890 independently of Bohr’s discussions on complementarity in order that James’s conception can be properly evaluated as the model on its own merits for quantum measurement. On the basis of new evidence and a deeper analysis of previous evidence presented here, it is very reasonable to conclude based on Bohr’s own words that Bohr read James’s complementarity between approximately 1908 and 1912. An Appendix provides the relevant text from both Bohr’s Nobel biography and his interview with the American Institute of Physics to support this conclusion. Bohr’s description of significant events in his life are matched with dates in his Nobel biography, adding support to the conclusion. How Bohr specifically adapted James’s complementarity to physics is presented. Bohr’s discussion of “mental activity” is compared here to James’s definition of complementarity focusing on consciousness and is found to be extremely similar to James’s definition. In addition, a side by side comparison of James’s definition of complementarity and Bohr’s most important and well-known definition of complementarity for physics is presented. This comparison shows just how Bohr adapted James’s complementarity to Bohr’s complementarity for physics. Examining the chapters “The Stream of Thought”” (chapter 9 in James’s “The Principles of Psychology”) and “The Relation of Minds to Other Things” (chapter 8 in “The Principles of Psychology”) shows that the very evidence that James used to develop complementarity in “The Relation of Minds to Other Things” is discussed in “The Stream of Thought,” a chapter that Bohr acknowledged reading and concerning which he had a very high opinion. It is also made clear in the paper that Bohr was aware that he had a choice to adopt complementarity for physics along the lines of James’s complementarity, which he had read, and that he rejected this possibility. Instead, in his complementarity for physics, Bohr adopted a very different approach fundamentally based on the necessity of a physical interaction between a physical system and a physical measuring apparatus with an uncontrolled aspect to obtain a specific measurement result. Bohr attempted to apply the uncertainty principle to this uncontrolled feature of the physical interaction. Bohr’s approach has been the widely adopted framework for understanding quantum measurement since 1927. The historical description of complementarity in Bohr’s Nobel biography is discussed in light of the evidence presented and is shown to be incorrect. It is important to set the record straight regarding the origin of complementarity so that James’s complementarity is not seen as an appendage of Bohr’s version of complementarity for physics. Bohr’s attempt to extrapolate what his Nobel biography incorrectly states was complementarity originally developed by Bohr, which was for physics, to other fields confuses and detracts from the importance of James’s complementarity which was in fact the original. Bohr’s detour with his proposed necessity (and its proposed fundamental significance) of a physical interaction in the measuring process with an uncontrolled aspect in quantum mechanics has distracted attention away from the possible significance of James’s original concept in psychology to quantum measurement, including its evaluation on its own merits as to whether it provides the correct conceptual framework for this measurement.

•Feb 27, 2024•0 citations
Quantum complementarity is a fundamental feature of quantum systems and has captivated the physics research community for nearly a century, with significant advancements emerging in recent decades. This review traces the historical evolution of the concept of complementarity, beginning with Bohr's original formulation. It then explores its modern quantification through complementarity relations and its profound connection to the foundational postulates of quantum theory. Furthermore, it delves into key related developments, such as the operational definition of complementarity in the context of incompatible observables, its potential links with quantum uncertainty relations and contextuality, its various applications, and other pertinent topics. This review aims to serve physicists interested in quantum resources, quantum correlations, and the foundational principles of quantum mechanics.
Abstract: Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized as incoherent and opportunistic, and based on doubtful philosophical premises. If so Bohr’s influence, in the pre-war period of 1927-1939, is the harder to explain, and the acceptance of his approach to quantum mechanics over de Broglie’s had no reasonable foundation. But Bohr’s interpretation changed little from the time of its first appearance, and stood independent of any philosophical presuppositions. The principle of complementarity is itself best read as a conjecture of unusually wide scope, on the nature and future course of explanations in the sciences (and not only the physical sciences). If it must be judged a failure today, it is not because of any internal inconsistency. Despite the expenditure of much effort, I have been unable to obtain a clear understanding of Bohr’s principle of complementarity (Einstein). Bohr’s point- and the central point of quantum mechanics- is that no elemen-
The article is devoted to the problem of scientific and philosophical status of complementarity principlef. The author analyzes its explication by N. Bohr and its comprehension by scientists and epistemologists. It is shown that generally, the complementarity principle is a set of ideas, which allows comprehending of specific situation in quantum mechanics. Some of ideas – the role of language of classical physics, the role of macro-instrument, the integrity of scientific experiment, the integrity of micro-object – could be seen as general scientific and epistemological principles. The prohibition of ontologisation of quantum phenomenon, which necessarily leads to contradictions is considered as the semantic core of Bohr’s approach. However, the attempts of its generalization in science and philosophy were not successful. The complementarity postulate is viewed as methodological principle of foundations of quantum mechanics in its Copenhagen interpretation.
Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle is a tenuous synthesis of seemingly discrepant theoretical approaches (the wave mechanical approach, and that of Heisenberg and early Bohr) based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant experimental results. Yet the role of complementarity, and the experimentalist-minded approach behind it, were not confined to a provisional best-available synthesis of well-established experimental results alone. They were also pivotal in discovering and explaining the phenomenon of quantum tunneling in its various forms. The core principles of Bohr’s method and the ensuing complementarity account of quantum phenomena remain highly relevant guidelines in the current controversial debate and in experimental work on quantum tunneling times.
The article formulates and substantiates the philosophical epistemological principle, which generalizes the principle of complementarity of Bohr to all phenomena of reality. The general complementarity principle is formulated as follows: the rational side of reality and its cognition and its associated irrational side of reality and its cognition are complementary to each other. The general principle of complementarity allows one to search for phenomena of duality in various fields, grouping them according to rational and irrational signs.
Today it is important to see James’s original complementarity in 1890 independently of Bohr’s discussions on complementarity in order that James’s conception can be properly evaluated as the model on its own merits for quantum measurement. On the basis of new evidence and a deeper analysis of previous evidence presented here, it is very reasonable to conclude based on Bohr’s own words that Bohr read James’s complementarity between approximately 1908 and 1912. An Appendix provides the relevant text from both Bohr’s Nobel biography and his interview with the American Institute of Physics to support this conclusion. Bohr’s description of significant events in his life are matched with dates in his Nobel biography, adding support to the conclusion. How Bohr specifically adapted James’s complementarity to physics is presented. Bohr’s discussion of “mental activity” is compared here to James’s definition of complementarity focusing on consciousness and is found to be extremely similar to James’s definition. In addition, a side by side comparison of James’s definition of complementarity and Bohr’s most important and well-known definition of complementarity for physics is presented. This comparison shows just how Bohr adapted James’s complementarity to Bohr’s complementarity for physics. Examining the chapters “The Stream of Thought”” (chapter 9 in James’s “The Principles of Psychology”) and “The Relation of Minds to Other Things” (chapter 8 in “The Principles of Psychology”) shows that the very evidence that James used to develop complementarity in “The Relation of Minds to Other Things” is discussed in “The Stream of Thought,” a chapter that Bohr acknowledged reading and concerning which he had a very high opinion. It is also made clear in the paper that Bohr was aware that he had a choice to adopt complementarity for physics along the lines of James’s complementarity, which he had read, and that he rejected this possibility. Instead, in his complementarity for physics, Bohr adopted a very different approach fundamentally based on the necessity of a physical interaction between a physical system and a physical measuring apparatus with an uncontrolled aspect to obtain a specific measurement result. Bohr attempted to apply the uncertainty principle to this uncontrolled feature of the physical interaction. Bohr’s approach has been the widely adopted framework for understanding quantum measurement since 1927. The historical description of complementarity in Bohr’s Nobel biography is discussed in light of the evidence presented and is shown to be incorrect. It is important to set the record straight regarding the origin of complementarity so that James’s complementarity is not seen as an appendage of Bohr’s version of complementarity for physics. Bohr’s attempt to extrapolate what his Nobel biography incorrectly states was complementarity originally developed by Bohr, which was for physics, to other fields confuses and detracts from the importance of James’s complementarity which was in fact the original. Bohr’s detour with his proposed necessity (and its proposed fundamental significance) of a physical interaction in the measuring process with an uncontrolled aspect in quantum mechanics has distracted attention away from the possible significance of James’s original concept in psychology to quantum measurement, including its evaluation on its own merits as to whether it provides the correct conceptual framework for this measurement.