Abstract Bohr brought to the challenge the conviction that no single picture could express the entire content of any domain of experience. He therefore did not privilege waves or particles but sought a way to have them both. Heisenberg bridled at this. He was not so fond as his boss of admitting waves associated with his rival Schrödinger. Their discussion grew heated. Bohr left to go skiing, and Heisenberg pre-empted him by inventing the uncertainty principle. Bohr responded with ‘complementarity’, and aired his new philosophy in a lecture at Lake Como. He talked for an hour, inaudibly, in lengthy ‘Bohrish’ sentences hard to unscramble when read and impossible when only heard. We must use both wave and particle descriptions, he claimed, but we must also remember that in the quantum domain they are merely symbolic, applicable only when limited by acts of observation, which can be described using only classical concepts.
Abstract Bohr brought to the challenge the conviction that no single picture could express the entire content of any domain of experience. He therefore did not privilege waves or particles but sought a way to have them both. Heisenberg bridled at this. He was not so fond as his boss of admitting waves associated with his rival Schrödinger. Their discussion grew heated. Bohr left to go skiing, and Heisenberg pre-empted him by inventing the uncertainty principle. Bohr responded with ‘complementarity’, and aired his new philosophy in a lecture at Lake Como. He talked for an hour, inaudibly, in lengthy ‘Bohrish’ sentences hard to unscramble when read and impossible when only heard. We must use both wave and particle descriptions, he claimed, but we must also remember that in the quantum domain they are merely symbolic, applicable only when limited by acts of observation, which can be described using only classical concepts.
‘The new wave mechanics gave rise to the hope that an account of atomic phenomena might be obtained which would not differ essentially from that afforded by the classical theories of electricity and magnetism. Unfortunately, Bohr's statement in the following communication of the principles underlying the description of atomic phenomena gives little, if any, encouragement in this direction.’ This comment is to be found in the brief note prefaced by the editors of the British journal Nature to Niels Bohr's paper ‘The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory’ in the supplement of 14 April 1928. The article in question is the famous paper which first introduced and defined the concept of ‘complementarity’ and outlined the basic points of what was to become known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the paper, Bohr returned to the arguments contained in the paper discussed at the International Congress of Physicists held at Como in September 1927 to mark the centenary of the death of Alessandro Volta and published in the proceedings of the same congress. It was probably his conviction that the new viewpoint adopted in the description of nature fully expressed the theoretical and cognitive content of quantum physics coupled with his enthusiasm at having achieved ‘after many years of struggling in the dark […] the fulfilment of the old hopes’ that induced him to give his work broader and more prestigious circulation.
Ninety years ago in 1927, at an international congress in Como, Italy, Niels Bohr gave an address which is recognized as the first instance in which the term "complementarity", as a physical concept, was spoken publicly [1], revealing Bohr's own thinking about Louis de Broglie's "duality". Bohr had very slowly accepted duality as a principle of physics: close observation of any quantum object will reveal either wave-like or particle-like behavior, one or the other of two fundamental and complementary features. Little disagreement exists today about complementarity's importance and broad applicability in quantum science. Book-length scholarly examinations even provide speculations about the relevance of complementarity in fields as different from physics as biology, psychology and social anthropology, connections which were apparently of interest to Bohr himself (see Jammer [2], Murdoch [3] and Whitaker [4]). Confusion evident in Como following his talk was not eliminated by Bohr's article [1], and complementarity has been subjected to nine decades of repeated examination ever since with no agreed resolution. Semi-popular treatments [5] as well as expert examinations [6-9] show that the topic cannot be avoided, and complementarity retains its central place in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, recent approaches by our group [10-13] and others [14-20] to the underlying notion of coherence now allow us to present a universal formulation of complementarity that may signal the end to the confusion. We demonstrate a new relationship that constrains the behavior of an electromagnetic field (quantum or classical) in the fundamental context of two-slit experiments. We show that entanglement is the ingredient needed to complete Bohr's formulation of complementarity, debated for decades because of its incompleteness.
The new quantum theory was a mathematical description of the way in which an electron behaves when bounded by some kind of potential – such as being in an electric field, acting as a harmonic oscillator or simply being confined to a certain area of space. This mathematical description was then interpreted to be a description of the electron as being probabilistic. It was Schrödinger’s wave equation, together with de Broglie’s concept of a matter wave, that led to various important concepts like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, an explanation of the emission and absorption of photons in atoms, quantum tunnelling and so on. This chapter explains what Schrödinger did – the marriage of waves and particles.
From the outset, Heisenberg had resolved to eliminate classical space-time pictures involving particles and waves from the quantum mechanics of the atom. He had wanted to focus instead on the properties actually observed and recorded in laboratory experiments, such as the positions and intensities of spectral lines. Alone in Copenhagen in February 1927, he now pondered on the significance and meaning of such experimental observables. Feeling the need to introduce at least some form of ‘visualizability’, he asked himself some fundamental questions, such as: What do we actually mean when we talk about the position of an electron? He went on to discover the uncertainty principle: the product of the ‘uncertainties’ in certain pairs of variables—called complementary variables—such as position and momentum cannot be smaller than Planck’s constant h (now h / 4π).
Abstract In June 1925 Heisenberg made the breakthrough that would lead to matrix mechanics. The theory was abstract, offered no means for visualizing the mechanics of the atom, and its application required a lot of heavy lifting. Erwin Schrödinger subsequently made the breakthrough that would lead to wave mechanics, building on Louis de Broglie’s association of a wave with an electron. In Schrödinger’s wave equation the quantum numbers of the hydrogen atom arise naturally. He argued that his ‘wavefunction’ offered a realistic description of the electron in an atom, and sought to eliminate Bohr’s discontinuous quantum jumps. But in the spring of 1926, Max Born offered an enduring alternative. The modulus-square of the wavefunction is a measure of probability in an unvisualizable microphysics. In an intense debate with Bohr, Schrödinger demanded a theory based on logical concepts free from contradictions. Bohr was left to ponder what this might mean.
Wonderful news from Copenhagen Heisenberg and Schrödinger invented mathematical formalisms that provided correct answers to all the various problems of (non-relativistic) quantum theory. It was Bohr who uncovered the underlying significance of the theory; in particular he showed how the profound conceptual difficulties encountered as the theory developed – the so-called wave–particle duality, the totally unclassical nature of the uncertainty principle – could be neutralised by a revision, or more accurately a generalisation, of our use of physical concepts. Such was the generally accepted view of things from soon after 1927, when Bohr first put forward his ideas on complementarity at an international meeting of physicists at Como, through the 1930s, when it was felt that Bohr destroyed Einstein's contrary opinions, and certainly up to the time of Bohr's death in 1962. Bohr's analysis is usually spoken of as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, though it is instructive to realise that such a term was frowned upon by those closest to Bohr, since it appears to suggest that the interpretation is just one among (conceivably) many. Let us examine, for example, the words of Léon Rosenfeld, Bohr's disciple and long-term collaborator, as expounded at a conference in 1957 [52]. Rosenfeld maintained that any idea of ‘interpreting a formalism’ was a ‘false problem’, that in a good theory, the ‘ordinary language (spiced with technical jargon for the sake of conciseness)’ in which it is described, is ‘ inseparably united … with whatever mathematical apparatus is necessary’, that ‘we are here not faced with a matter of choice between two possible languages or two possible interpretations, but with a rational language intimately connected with the formalism and adapted to it, on the one hand, and with rather wild, metaphysical speculations … on the other’.