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

Niels Bohr

On The Notions of Causality and Complementarity

Published Jan 1, 1996• 13 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/s1876-0503(08)70378-5

Related papers

Causality and Complementarity

David Favrholdt

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1999•1 citation

Causality and Complementarity : Supplementary Papers

Henry J. Folse, Niels Henrik David Bohr, Jan Faye

•Jan 1, 1999•9 citations

Causal isomorphism and complementarity: Setting the record straight

Irving Kirsch, Michael E. Hyland

•Jan 1, 1989•2 citations

On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity

Niels Henrik David Bohr

Article MetricsDownloadsCitationsNo data available.01234JulAugSepOctNovDec500Total6 Months12 MonthsTotal number of downloads for the most recent 6 whole calendar months.

Science•Jan 20, 1950•214 citations

On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity

Niels Henrik David Bohr

A short exposition is given of the foundation of the causal description in classical physics and the failure of the principle of causality in coping with atomic phenomena. It is emphasized that the individuality of the quantum processes excludes a separation between a behaviour of the atomic objects and their interaction with the measuring instruments denning the conditions under which the phenomena appear. This circumstance forces us to recognize a novel relationship, conveniently termed complementarity, between empirical evidence obtained under different experimental conditions. An appropriate tool for a complementary mode of description is provided by the quantum-mechanical formalism which allows us to account for regularities of definite or statistical character beyond the grasp of classical physical explanation. – N. B.

dialectica•Jan 1, 1948•340 citations

When does entanglement through gravity imply gravitons?

Nikolaos Mitrakos, Maria Papageorgiou, T. Rick Perche +1 more

Detection of entanglement through the Newtonian potential has been claimed to support the existence of gravitons, by extrapolating to a thought experiment which demonstrates that complementarity and causality would be in conflict unless quantum fluctuations exist. We critically assess this consistency argument using scalar field models. We show that whether complementarity or no-signalling is violated when quantum fluctuations are neglected, depends on how this approximation is taken, while in both cases entanglement is generated locally in spacetime. We clarify that the correct reading of the paradox requires making a clear distinction between two notions of causality violation: Newtonian action-at-a-distance and the quantum mechanical no-signalling; the latter is pertinent while the former is not. We conclude that the thought experiment (a) does not add to the epistemological relevance of entanglement through Newtonian potentials (b) lends support for the existence of gravitons, if retardation effects are detected in entanglement through gravity.

gr-qcCross-listedarXiv:2601.03214•Jan 7, 2026
A short exposition is given of the foundation of the causal description in classical physics and the failure of the principle of causality in coping with atomic phenomena. It is emphasized that the individuality of the quantum processes excludes a separation between a behaviour of the atomic objects and their interaction with the measuring instruments denning the conditions under which the phenomena appear. This circumstance forces us to recognize a novel relationship, conveniently termed complementarity, between empirical evidence obtained under different experimental conditions. An appropriate tool for a complementary mode of description is provided by the quantum-mechanical formalism which allows us to account for regularities of definite or statistical character beyond the grasp of classical physical explanation. – N. B.
Detection of entanglement through the Newtonian potential has been claimed to support the existence of gravitons, by extrapolating to a thought experiment which demonstrates that complementarity and causality would be in conflict unless quantum fluctuations exist. We critically assess this consistency argument using scalar field models. We show that whether complementarity or no-signalling is violated when quantum fluctuations are neglected, depends on how this approximation is taken, while in both cases entanglement is generated locally in spacetime. We clarify that the correct reading of the paradox requires making a clear distinction between two notions of causality violation: Newtonian action-at-a-distance and the quantum mechanical no-signalling; the latter is pertinent while the former is not. We conclude that the thought experiment (a) does not add to the epistemological relevance of entanglement through Newtonian potentials (b) lends support for the existence of gravitons, if retardation effects are detected in entanglement through gravity.