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

Вестник Вятского государственного гуманитарного университета

О связи принципа дополнительности Н. Бора с иными системами знаний

Вячеслав Георгиевич Мушич-громыко

Published Jan 1, 2008• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In some cases with quantum experiments, some features of the objects disappear. These features we define as a pair of conjugate and complementarity quantities. Such results are not a rarity in quantum studies and this fact makes it possible to use the princi ple of complementarity in various fields of other natural sciences and some applied areas of knowledge (concerning classical objects of knowledge). The author solves this problem by discovering a certain methodology that would be similar to the principle of complementarity but applicable to the objects in cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.

Related papers

Социальный субъект в свете принципа дополнительности

Андрей Иванович Виноградов

The article describes methodological procedures that help apply the principle of complementarity to socio-humanitarian cognition. The objects studied by social sciences prove to bear fundamental similarities with the objects studied by quantum physics. Taking a subject of history as an example, the author reveals the wave-particle essence of the social subject.

Вестник Северного (Арктического) федерального университета. Серия: Гуманитарные и социальные науки•Jan 1, 2013•0 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

К вопросу о продлении методологической силы принципа дополнительности Н. Бора на иные сферы познания

Вячеслав Георгиевич Мушич-громыко

The paper aim is to consider cognition in mathematics from the point of view of principle of complementarity when the latter stretches to elimination of the contradictions and disproves in historical development of such a scientific notion as «polyhedron».

Вестник Чувашского университета•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

О соотношении генезиса общения и концепции дополнительности

Вячеслав Георгиевич Мушич-громыко

The paper is devoted to explanation the possible transcriptions of notion Principle of Complementarity in its applying to the other material than in quantum events. Moreover, the author makes a contrast between such notions as principle of and simply complementarity with further emphasizing on the notion integrity.

Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Серия: Социально-гуманитарные науки•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

Philosophy and Complementarity

T. Bergstein

From the preceding exposition it follows that not only physics but natural science as a whole is basically dependent on ordinary language. The complementarity of quantum physics displays the fundamental interdependence of observation and description of natural phenomena, and the very objectivity of natural science relies directly on the differentiation of experiences into external and private phenomena afforded by ordinary language. Because of the extreme smallness of the quantum of action the complementarity of physical phenomena is not experienced either in daily life or in classical physics. But the interdependence of observation and description of phenomena prevails as much in classical science as in quantum physics. The very aim of experimental investigation is to perform observations in those particular ways which make possible the communication of information sufficient for the reproduction of the observed phenomena. Concordantly the elementary physical variables, which are indispensable to any systematic analysis in natural science, are defined through reference to measuring arrangements constructed so as to be unambiguously describable in ordinary language. Thus no scientific formula, law, or result of measurement can be given objective significance independent of ordinary language. Through every hierarchy of descriptions in natural science ordinary language penetrates as the unambiguity of propositions.

•Jan 1, 1972•0 citations

The nature of particle–wave complementarity

Wendell G. Holladay

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.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1998•18 citations
In some cases with quantum experiments, some features of the objects disappear. These features we define as a pair of conjugate and complementarity quantities. Such results are not a rarity in quantum studies and this fact makes it possible to use the princi ple of complementarity in various fields of other natural sciences and some applied areas of knowledge (concerning classical objects of knowledge). The author solves this problem by discovering a certain methodology that would be similar to the principle of complementarity but applicable to the objects in cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.
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.
From the preceding exposition it follows that not only physics but natural science as a whole is basically dependent on ordinary language. The complementarity of quantum physics displays the fundamental interdependence of observation and description of natural phenomena, and the very objectivity of natural science relies directly on the differentiation of experiences into external and private phenomena afforded by ordinary language. Because of the extreme smallness of the quantum of action the complementarity of physical phenomena is not experienced either in daily life or in classical physics. But the interdependence of observation and description of phenomena prevails as much in classical science as in quantum physics. The very aim of experimental investigation is to perform observations in those particular ways which make possible the communication of information sufficient for the reproduction of the observed phenomena. Concordantly the elementary physical variables, which are indispensable to any systematic analysis in natural science, are defined through reference to measuring arrangements constructed so as to be unambiguously describable in ordinary language. Thus no scientific formula, law, or result of measurement can be given objective significance independent of ordinary language. Through every hierarchy of descriptions in natural science ordinary language penetrates as the unambiguity of propositions.
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.