An Axiom is presented and justified which (a) Explains duality in interference without complementarity or “which way” (welcher-weg) observation (b) Shows the equivalence: Coherence and alignment ≡ Interference ≡ No “which way” observation; No coherence or alignment ≡ No interference ≡ “which way” observation (c) Explains Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment (d) Explains results of experimental implementations of Wheeler’s experiment which show retro-causality with and without entanglement (e) Explains non-local action at a distance, and (f) Rephrases Albert Einstein’s unanswered question “Is quantum mechanics complete?” at a more fundamental level than just duality and non-locality. The explanation given does not require that the particle (photon) somehow “know” about the test setup or “which way” observation or change its behavior from particle to wave and vice versa as required by currently accepted explanation based on Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle. No new assumptions are made, only a new complete interpretation of probability which is already a fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics.
An Axiom is presented and justified which (a) Explains duality in interference without complementarity or “which way” (welcher-weg) observation (b) Shows the equivalence: Coherence and alignment ≡ Interference ≡ No “which way” observation; No coherence or alignment ≡ No interference ≡ “which way” observation (c) Explains Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment (d) Explains results of experimental implementations of Wheeler’s experiment which show retro-causality with and without entanglement (e) Explains non-local action at a distance, and (f) Rephrases Albert Einstein’s unanswered question “Is quantum mechanics complete?” at a more fundamental level than just duality and non-locality. The explanation given does not require that the particle (photon) somehow “know” about the test setup or “which way” observation or change its behavior from particle to wave and vice versa as required by currently accepted explanation based on Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle. No new assumptions are made, only a new complete interpretation of probability which is already a fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics.
Early on, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr heatedly debated wave-particle duality. To explain duality Bohr postulated his principle of complementarity, which is now widely accepted, but has mystifying metaphysical implications. Albert Einstein disagreed. Richard Feynman called it the “only mystery�? in quantum mechanics. Ingenious experiments including those using entanglement have confirmed Bohr’s complementarity. In this paper a new Duality Theorem is presented with proof which explains duality with particle always remaining particle and wave always remaining wave throughout, without using wave-particle complementarity or “which way�? (welcher-weg) observation. We explain results of reported experiments by showing the equivalence: Coherence and alignment ≡ Interference ≡ No “which way�? observation; No coherence or alignment ≡ No interference ≡ “which way�? observation That is, complementarity is redundant; conventional criteria of alignment and coherence alone suffice for interference. Our explanation does not require that photon somehow “know�? about the test setup or “which way�? observation and change its behavior from particle to wave and vice versa. No new assumptions are made, only new reasoning. In the context of entanglement we also help explain non-local action at a distance, and rephrase Albert Einstein’s unanswered question “Is quantum mechanics complete?�? at a more fundamental level.
Interference with or without entanglement has been recognized as a key resource for quantum computing and quantum communications systems, as for example discussed by Nielsen and Chuang1 and numerous other works. Multiple paths between sources and detectors require an understanding of the underpinning wave-particle duality issue in the interference effects. Recently a new axiom (particle and its wave function φ(r, t) cannot be coincident or co-located at space-time point (rk, tk) unless φ(r, t) = δ(r-rk, t-tk) the Dirac delta function) has been suggested2 and justified, which explains duality without Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle, thus eliminating the role of the observer, avoiding complicated “which way” (welcher-weg) considerations and observer subjectivity. This greatly simplifies analysis and design of multi-path quantum systems and restores objectivity. The same paper also suggested in the context of entanglement new concepts of (a) “total causality” that includes entanglement as a cause to locally and causally explain “action at a distance”, and (b) “partial causality” that excludes entanglement as a cause and thereby introduces the perception of strange phenomena of non-locality, retro-causality and quantum erasure, which are nevertheless very important. This paper reviews and then applies the axiom to bring much needed clarity to certain confusing and much debated aspects of developments in non-interaction measurements, counterfactual communications and quantum computers. These potential clarifications and simplifications of analysis and design of multi path systems may help developers of future quantum communication and quantum computer systems.
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
This work presents a unified, interpretive account of quantum interference and delayed-choice experiments that applies equally to photons and massive particles. Rather than invoking spacetime trajectories, wave–particle duality, retrocausality, or collapse postulates, the paper locates quantum interference in the coherent evolution of internal, pre-geometric degrees of freedom defined over classical spacetime. Within this framework, “which-path” questions are not merely unanswered but fundamentally ill-posed: interference arises from global coherence of an internal field subject to experimental boundary conditions, while spacetime itself remains single-valued and classical at laboratory scales. The approach reproduces all standard quantum-mechanical predictions without modification and is explicitly interpretive rather than predictive. A central result is a unified explanation of why interference occurs across disparate physical systems—photons, electrons, atoms, and molecules—while decoherence manifests through system-dependent physical mechanisms. Photons and massive particles differ in how internal coherence is lost (e.g., electromagnetic absorption versus collisional and thermal interactions), but not in the underlying principle. Delayed-choice experiments are reinterpreted without paradox: changes to the apparatus modify boundary conditions for the internal field rather than retroactively altering particle histories. By removing spacetime paths from the fundamental ontology, the framework offers a consistent, path-free account of interference, decoherence, and localized detection that preserves the empirical success of quantum mechanics while clarifying its conceptual foundations.
The subjective and the objective aspects of probabilities are incorporated in a simple duality axiom inspired by observer participation in quantum theory. Transcending the classical notion of probabilities, it is proposed and demonstrated that all probabilities may be fundamentally quantum mechanical in the sense that they may all be derived from the corresponding amplitudes. The classical coin-toss and the quantum double slit interference experiments are discussed as illustrative prototype examples. Absence of multi-order quantum interference effects in multiple-slit experiments and the Experimental tests of complementarity in Wheeler's delayed-choice type experiments are explained using the involvement of the observer.
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.