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

arXiv:nlin/0407046 · Foundations of Physics

Complementarity in Classical Dynamical Systems

Peter beim Graben, Harald Atmanspacher A

Published Feb 1, 2006• 67 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10701-005-9013-0

Related papers

Classical and quantum complementarity

Raquel Galazo García, Irene Bartolomé, Laura Ares +1 more

arXiv:1811.12636•Physics Letters A•Aug 28, 2020•11 citations

Complementarity of Structure and Dynamics

Harald Atmanspacher A

NATO ASI series. Series B : Physics•Jan 1, 1991•7 citations

The nature of particle–wave complementarity

Wendell G. Holladay

To resolve the challenges (paradoxes) attending the genesis of quantum theory, Niels Bohr in 1927 proposed a generalization of the conceptual framework of classical physics, termed complementarity, which posited pairs of classical concepts that could be manifested only in mutually exclusive experimental arrangements with both needed to embrace the full range of physical experience. In this context particle–wave complementarity has encountered two major obstacles; (1) No formulation of it has commanded a general consensus; and (2) empirical evidence abounds that contradicts the claim of mutual exclusivity of particle and wave properties of quantum objects in a single experiment. These problems are rooted in the unrestricted scope of this claim. It is shown that a restricted version of particle–wave complementarity, here called “which value–interference” complementarity, is consistent with observations, is naturally contained in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory and, in fact, holds in any representation of quantum theory defined by the eigenvectors of a complete set of commuting observables, such as the configuration space position (kinematic) variables or the complementary linear momentum (dynamic) variables. Thus, the which value–interference form of particle–wave complementarity exists within kinematic–dynamic complementarity, a “layered” complementarity, so to speak. It is hoped that a consistent and valid exposition of particle–wave complementarity will be helpful to those who find the framework of complementarity useful and appropriate for some purpose.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1998•18 citations

Complementarity in quantum systems

Dénes Petz

arXiv:quant-ph/0610189•Reports on Mathematical Physics•Apr 1, 2007•33 citations

Weak Quantum Theory: Formal Framework and Selected Applications

Harald Atmanspacher A

Two key concepts of quantum theory, complementarity and entanglement, are considered with respect to their significance in and beyond physics. An axiomatically formalized, weak version of quantum theory, more general than the ordinary quantum theory of physical systems, is described. Its mathematical structure generalizes the algebraic approach to ordinary quantum theory. The crucial formal feature leading to complementarity and entanglement is the non‐commutativity of observables.The ordinary Hilbert space quantum mechanics can be recovered by stepwise adding the necessary features. This provides a hierarchy of formal frameworks of decreasing generality and increasing specificity. Two concrete applications, more specific than weak quantum theory and more general than ordinary quantum theory, are discussed: (i) complementarity and entanglement in classical dynamical systems, and (ii) complementarity and entanglement in the bistable perception of ambiguous stimuli.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•45 citations

Complementarity in quantum systems

András Szántó

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations
To resolve the challenges (paradoxes) attending the genesis of quantum theory, Niels Bohr in 1927 proposed a generalization of the conceptual framework of classical physics, termed complementarity, which posited pairs of classical concepts that could be manifested only in mutually exclusive experimental arrangements with both needed to embrace the full range of physical experience. In this context particle–wave complementarity has encountered two major obstacles; (1) No formulation of it has commanded a general consensus; and (2) empirical evidence abounds that contradicts the claim of mutual exclusivity of particle and wave properties of quantum objects in a single experiment. These problems are rooted in the unrestricted scope of this claim. It is shown that a restricted version of particle–wave complementarity, here called “which value–interference” complementarity, is consistent with observations, is naturally contained in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory and, in fact, holds in any representation of quantum theory defined by the eigenvectors of a complete set of commuting observables, such as the configuration space position (kinematic) variables or the complementary linear momentum (dynamic) variables. Thus, the which value–interference form of particle–wave complementarity exists within kinematic–dynamic complementarity, a “layered” complementarity, so to speak. It is hoped that a consistent and valid exposition of particle–wave complementarity will be helpful to those who find the framework of complementarity useful and appropriate for some purpose.
Two key concepts of quantum theory, complementarity and entanglement, are considered with respect to their significance in and beyond physics. An axiomatically formalized, weak version of quantum theory, more general than the ordinary quantum theory of physical systems, is described. Its mathematical structure generalizes the algebraic approach to ordinary quantum theory. The crucial formal feature leading to complementarity and entanglement is the non‐commutativity of observables.The ordinary Hilbert space quantum mechanics can be recovered by stepwise adding the necessary features. This provides a hierarchy of formal frameworks of decreasing generality and increasing specificity. Two concrete applications, more specific than weak quantum theory and more general than ordinary quantum theory, are discussed: (i) complementarity and entanglement in classical dynamical systems, and (ii) complementarity and entanglement in the bistable perception of ambiguous stimuli.