Explaining Duality Explaining Duality, the “only Mystery” of Quantum Mechanics, Without Complementarity or “which Way” (Welcher-Weg)

Sarma N. Gullapalli

Partha Ghose

A critical re-examination of the double-slit experiment and its variants is presented to clarify the nature of what Feynmann called the ``central mystery'' and the ``only mystery'' of quantum mechanics, leading to an interpretation of complementarity in which a `wave {\em and} particle' description rather than a `wave {\em or} particle' description is valid for the {\em same} experimental set up, with the wave culminating in the particle sequentially in time. This interpretation is different from Bohr's but is consistent with the von Neumann formulation as well as some more recent interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Partha Ghose

A critical re-examination of the double-slit experiment and its variants is presented to clarify the nature of what Feynman called the “central mystery” and the “only mystery”of quantum mechanics, leading to an interpretation of complementarity in which and description rather than a wave or particle' description is valid for the same experimental set up, with the wave culminating in the particle sequentially in time. This interpretation is different from Bohr's but is consistent with the von Neumann formulation as well as some more recent interpretations of quantum mechanics.

pSarma N Gullapallip

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.

Tsung-I Dow

Adolf Grünbaum