Complementarity Revisited

  • Towfic ShomarEmail author


Complementarity can be considered as the weirdest idea associated with quantum mechanics. For Bohr, Complementarity is important in order to be able to convey successfully the non-classical features of quantum mechanics. This paper discusses the epistemic and ontological implications of different new experiments that attempt to detect complementarity. Complementarity has surely survived the attempts to overcome it, yet some of these experiments have led to a more general form of complementarity. Others claim to be able to differentiate among the different interpretations of quantum physics. Nonetheless, such claims have revealed contradictory representations of the ontological picture of the universe. Hence, Bohr’s position is still valid.


Philosophy of physics Wave particle duality Complementarity Quantum mechanics 



I would like to profoundly thank one of the referees for his important and extensive comments, for his time and dedication, and for his patience that allowed me to rework my paper until it has been accepted for publication.


  1. Afshar, S. (2007a). Violation of Bohr’s complementarity: One slit or both? Accessed 19 Apr 2008.
  2. Afshar, S. (2007b). Violation of the principle of Complementarity, and its implications. Accessed 19 Apr 2008.
  3. Afshar, S., et al. (2007). Paradox in wave–particle duality. Accessed 19 Apr 2008.
  4. Beller, M. (1992). The birth of Bohr’s complementarity: The context and the dialogues. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,23(1), 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beller, M., & Fine, A. (1994). Bohr’s response to EPR. In Niels Bohr & Contemporary Philosophy (Eds.), Faye and Folse (pp. 1–31). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Bilban, T. (2013). Husserl’s reconsideration of the observation process and its possible connections with quantum mechanics: Supplementation of informational foundations of quantum theory. Prolegomena,12(2), 459–486.Google Scholar
  7. Bohr, N. (1927). In Kalckar, J. (Ed.), Niels Bohr collected works. Volume 6: Foundations of quantum physics I. Amsterdam: Elsevier (1985).Google Scholar
  8. Bohr, N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. In J. Wheeler & W. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 87–126). Princeton: Princeton University Press (1983).Google Scholar
  9. Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of the physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review,48, 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bohr, N. (1939). Natural philosophy and human culture. Nature,143, 268–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohr, N. (1948). On the notions of causality and complementarity. Dialectica,2, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bohr, N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.), (1949, pp. 201–241).Google Scholar
  13. Bohr, N. (1955). Physical science and man’s position. In Favrholdt, D. (Ed.), Niel Bohr collected work (vol. 10, pp. 102–105). Amsterdam: Elsevier 1999. (pp. 810–813 from the origin).Google Scholar
  14. Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Brida, G., et al. (2004). A conclusive experiment to throw more light on “light”. Physics Letters A,328, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Busch, P. (1987). Some realizable joint measurement of complementary observables. Foundations of Physics,17(9), 905–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Busch, P., & Shilladay, C. R. (2002). Uncertainty reconciles complementarity with joint measurability. Accessed 23 Aug 2018.
  18. Camilleri, K. (2017). Why do we find Bohr Obscure?: Reading Bohr as a philosopher of experiment. In Faye, J., & Folse, H. (Eds.), Niels Bohr and the philosophy of physics: Twenty-first-century perspectives (pp. 19–46).Google Scholar
  19. Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled world. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cartwright, N. (2018). Theoretical practices that work: Those that mimic nature’s own. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science,9(1), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cartwright, N., Shomar, T., & Suarez, M. (1995). The tool box of science. In W. Herfel, et al. (Eds.), Theories and models in scientific processes. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities (Vol. 44). Amsterdam: Rodpi.Google Scholar
  22. Cattaneo, J. Dalla, Chiara, M., & Giuntini, R. (1993). Fuzzy intuitionistic quantum logics. Studia Logica,52(3), 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cattaneo, G., & Laudisa, F. (1994). Axiomatic unsharp quantum theory (from Mackey to Ludwig and Piron). Foundations of Physics,24, 631–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chiao, R., Kwiat, P., & Steinberg, A. (1993). Faster than light. Scientific American, August (pp. 38–46).Google Scholar
  25. Clifton, B. (1999). Complementarity between position and momentum as a consequence of Kochen–Specker arguments. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
  26. Dieks, D. (2016). Niels Bohr and the formalism of quantum mechanics. Appeared also in Faye and Folse (Eds.) (2017).
  27. Dorato, M. (2016). Bohr’s relational holism and the classical-quantum interaction. Accessed 3 Nov 2019.
  28. Drezet, A. (2008). Complementarity and Afshar’s experiment. Accessed 22 Nov 2019.
  29. Drezet, A. (2011). Wave particle duality and the Afshar experiment. Progress in Physics,1, 57–64.Google Scholar
  30. Eichmann, U., et al. (1993). Young’s interference experiment with light scattered from two atoms. Physical Review Letters,70, 2359–2362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of the physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review,47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Englert, B.-G., Scully, M. O., & Walther, H. (1994). The duality in matter and light. Scientific American,271(6), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Faye, J. (1991). Niels Bohr: His heritage and legacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Faye, J. (2016). Experience and beyond. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Faye, J., & Folse, H. (1994). Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Faye, J., & Folse, H. (Eds.). (1999). Niels Bohr’s philosophical writings. Vol. IV. Causality and complementarity. Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
  37. Faye, J., & Folse, H. (Eds.). (2017). Niels Bohr and the philosophy of physics: Twenty-first-century perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Feynman, R., Leighton, R., & Sands, M. (1964). The Feynman lectures on physics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Folse, H. (1985). The philosophy of Niels Bohr. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  40. Folse, H. (1986). Niels Bohr complementarity and realism. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings of PSA),1, 96–104.Google Scholar
  41. Folse, H. (1993). Bohr’s framework of complementarity and the realism debate. In Faye and Folse (1993, pp. 119–139).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ghose, P., Home, D., & Agarwal, G. (1991). An experiment to throw more light on light. Physics Letters A,153(9), 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ghose, P., Home, D., & Agarwal, G. (1992). An “Experiment to throw more light on light”: Implications. Physics Letters A,168(2), 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ghose, P., & Sinha Roy, M. (1991). Confronting the complementarity principle in an interference experiment. Physics Letters A,161(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Halvonson, H. (2001). Complementarity of representation in quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,35, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heisenberg, W. (1963). Interview with W. Heisenberg. In T. Kohn (Ed.), Archives for the history of quantum physics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  47. Hiley, B. J., & Callaghan, R. E. (2006). What is erased in quantum erasure? Foundation of Physics, December. From Hilly’s Research gate,
  48. Home, D. (2013). Bohr’s philosophy of wave–particle complementarity. Resonance, pp. 905–916, October, 2013.
  49. Home, D., & Kalayerou, P. (1989). A new twist to Einstein’s two-slit experiment: Complementarity vis-a-vis the causal interpretation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General,22, 3253–3266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Honner, J. (1987). The description of nature: Niels Bohr and the philosophy of quantum physics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  51. Jacobson, A. (2007). Leon Rosenfeld Marxist defense of complementarity. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences,37(Supplement), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jammer, M. (1966). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  53. Kastner, R. E. (2005). Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,36(4), 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kauark-Leite, P. (2017). Transcendental versus quantitiative meanings of Bohr’s complementarity principle. In Faye, J., & Folse, H. (Eds.), Niels Bohr and the philosophy of physics: Twenty-first-century perspectives (pp. 67–90).Google Scholar
  55. Krips, H. (1987). The metaphysics of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  56. Krips, H. (1993). A critique of Bohr’s local realism. In Faye and Folse (1993, pp. 269–277).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kwiat, P., Steinberg, A., & Chiao, R. (1992). Observation of a quantum eraser: A revival of coherence in a two-photon interference experiment. Physical Review A,45(11), 7729–7739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kwiat, P., Steinberg, A., & Chiao, R. (1993a). High-visibility interference in a Bell-inequality experiment for energy and time. Physical Review A,47(4), R2472–R2475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kwiat, P., Steinberg, A., Chiao, R., Eberhard, P., & Petroff, M. (1993b). High-efficiency single-photon detectors. Physical Review A,48(2), 867–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kwiat, P., Vareka, W., Hong, C., Nerthel, H., & Chiao, R. (1990). Correlated two-photon interference in a dual-beam Michelson interferometer. Physical Review A,41(5), 2910–2913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation in convergent realism. Philosophy of Science,48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laudan, L. (1984). Explaining the success of science. In James Cushing (Ed.), Science and reality. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lurçat, F. (2007). Understanding quantum mechanics with Bohr and Husserl. In Luciano Boi, Pierre Kerszberg, & Frédéric Patras (Eds.), Rediscovering phenomenology: Phenomenological essays on mathematical beings, physical reality, perception and consciousness (Phaenomenologica) (pp. 229–258). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mittelstaedt, P., et al. (1987). Unsharp particle–wave duality in a photon split-beam experiment. Foundations of Physics,17(9), 891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mizobuchi, Y., & Ohtaké, Y. (1992). An “experiment to throw more light on light”. Physics Letters A,168(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Murdoch, D. (1987). Niels Bohr’s philosophy of physics. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pais, A. (1991). Niels Bohr’s times, in physics, philosophy, and polity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  68. Perovic, S. (2017). Niels Bohr’s complementarity and quantum tunneling. In Fay and Folse (2017). Accessed 22 Nov 2019.Google Scholar
  69. Pessoa, O. (2000). Complementing the principle of complementarity. Physics Essays,13(1), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Qureshi, T. (2012). Modified two-slit experiments and complementarity. Journal of Quantum Information Science,2, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Saunders, S. (2005). Complementarity and scientific rationality. Foundations of Physics,35, 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.). (1949). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
  73. Scully, M., Englert, B., & Walther, H. (1991). Quantum optical tests of complementarity. Nature,351(6322), 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shomar, T. (2008). Bohr as a phenomenological realist. Journal for General Philosophy of Science,39, 321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shomar, T. (2013). Phenomenological realism, superconductivity and quantum mechanics. SaarBrucken: Lambert Academic Publication.Google Scholar
  76. Wootters, W., & Zurek, W. (1979). Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability and a quantitative statement of Bohr’s principle. Physical Review D,19, 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of ArtsUniversity of JordanAmmanJordan
  2. 2.CPNSS, LSELondonUK

Personalised recommendations