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

De Gruyter eBooks

The ‘Mystery’ of Quantum Physics: Narrating the Wave-Particle Duality in a Richard Feynman Lecture

Angela Gencarelli

Published Nov 6, 2023• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1515/9783111319971-004

Related papers

Solving the mystery of wave/particle duality--the road to a unified theory of physics

Dennis B. Crossley

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 18, 2010•0 citations

Wave-particle duality: The mystery keeps unfolding

Partha Ghose

Pramana•Nov 1, 1998•1 citation

Two Lectures on the Wave‐Particle Duality

N. David Mermin

Physics Today•Jan 1, 1993•4 citations

Wave-particle dualism and the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Christopher Dewdney, G. Horton, Mai Mai Lam +2 more

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 1992•24 citations

Explaining duality, the “only mystery” of quantum mechanics, without complementarity or “which way” (welcher-weg)

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.

•Feb 2, 2019•0 citations

The Strange New World of the Quantum: Wave-Particle Dualism

Menas C. Kafatos, Robert L. Nadeau

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations
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.