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:quant-ph/0406132 · Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento

The complementarity of quantum observables: Theory and experiments

Paul Busch, PEKKA J. LAHTI

Published Apr 1, 1995• 28 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/bf02743814

Related papers

General complementarity and the double-prism experiment

Lars Löfgren

The interesting double-prism experiment of Ghose, Home, and Agarwal 5) has been suggested 5, 8, 16, 7, 6) as a challenge to Bohr´s views of complementarity. With the linguistic complementarity 14) as a general notion of complementarity, we analyze Bohr´s views of complementarity. We find that a careful formulation of Bohr´s wave-particle complementarity, with an explicit characterization of measurability as a particular low-level kind of quantum theoretical inferribility, is in fact not confronted by the double-prism experiment. Much less is the outcome a challenge to Bohr´s primary view of complementarity, namely as a tension between definability and observability in a quantum mechanical observation language. This primary view of Bohr, which is visible already in his Como paper 1), is a general formulation of quantum mechanical complementarity. Although it connects well to the subsequent metamathematical development of the wider linguistic complementarity, as a tension between describability and interpretability in a language, it is today surprisingly seldom referred to in quantum mechanical texts. Rather, discussions of the role of complementarity for the interpretability problem for quantum theory tend to focus on Bohr´s view of complementarity in terms of phenomena, which he conceived in his later discussions with Einstein (and which appears less clear than Bohr´s primary view of complementarity). The hierarchical structuring of quantum theory which is suggested in our analysis of the double-prism experiment, and in the analysis of complementarity in terms of phenomena, is of interest also for the general interpretability problem for quantum theory, and for questions about a quantum mechanical reality.

•Jan 1, 1994•7 citations

Further Aspects of Quantum Observables

Kevin Costello, Owen Gwilliam

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 10, 2021•0 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 and Paradox in Quantum Physics

Robert Samuel Matthews

Routledge eBooks•May 17, 2022•0 citations

On delayed choice and quantum erasure in two-slit experiment for testing complementarity

Guang-Liang Li

The principle of complementarity is one of the cornerstones of quantum theory. The aim of this study was to advance our understanding of complementarity by analyzing the role of delayed choice and quantum erasers in two-slit experiments, and by proposing experiments for verifying the analysis. The analysis is based on models consisting of measurable spaces and probability measures involved in the experiments. The main findings are as follows: (a) The complementarity principle manifests itself in such a way that wave and particle behaviors cannot be simultaneously observed almost surely with respect to any single, fixed measure. (b) Described by different measures, complementary properties can coexist in the same experimental setup. (c) Which-way information will not preclude or erase interference fringes. (d) Delayed choice and quantum erasers are irrelevant to testing complementarity. (e) It is possible for us to know through which slit each quantum object passed almost surely with respect to the measure corresponding to the slit while the interference pattern is intact. Based on the experiments analyzed, realizable experiments are proposed for verifying the above results.

Journal of Physics Communications•Sep 13, 2021•3 citations

Complementarity in quantum systems

Dénes Petz

arXiv:quant-ph/0610189•Reports on Mathematical Physics•Apr 1, 2007•33 citations
The interesting double-prism experiment of Ghose, Home, and Agarwal 5) has been suggested 5, 8, 16, 7, 6) as a challenge to Bohr´s views of complementarity. With the linguistic complementarity 14) as a general notion of complementarity, we analyze Bohr´s views of complementarity. We find that a careful formulation of Bohr´s wave-particle complementarity, with an explicit characterization of measurability as a particular low-level kind of quantum theoretical inferribility, is in fact not confronted by the double-prism experiment. Much less is the outcome a challenge to Bohr´s primary view of complementarity, namely as a tension between definability and observability in a quantum mechanical observation language. This primary view of Bohr, which is visible already in his Como paper 1), is a general formulation of quantum mechanical complementarity. Although it connects well to the subsequent metamathematical development of the wider linguistic complementarity, as a tension between describability and interpretability in a language, it is today surprisingly seldom referred to in quantum mechanical texts. Rather, discussions of the role of complementarity for the interpretability problem for quantum theory tend to focus on Bohr´s view of complementarity in terms of phenomena, which he conceived in his later discussions with Einstein (and which appears less clear than Bohr´s primary view of complementarity). The hierarchical structuring of quantum theory which is suggested in our analysis of the double-prism experiment, and in the analysis of complementarity in terms of phenomena, is of interest also for the general interpretability problem for quantum theory, and for questions about a quantum mechanical reality.
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.
The principle of complementarity is one of the cornerstones of quantum theory. The aim of this study was to advance our understanding of complementarity by analyzing the role of delayed choice and quantum erasers in two-slit experiments, and by proposing experiments for verifying the analysis. The analysis is based on models consisting of measurable spaces and probability measures involved in the experiments. The main findings are as follows: (a) The complementarity principle manifests itself in such a way that wave and particle behaviors cannot be simultaneously observed almost surely with respect to any single, fixed measure. (b) Described by different measures, complementary properties can coexist in the same experimental setup. (c) Which-way information will not preclude or erase interference fringes. (d) Delayed choice and quantum erasers are irrelevant to testing complementarity. (e) It is possible for us to know through which slit each quantum object passed almost surely with respect to the measure corresponding to the slit while the interference pattern is intact. Based on the experiments analyzed, realizable experiments are proposed for verifying the above results.