Prior Interpretations of Complementarity

  • Makoto Katsumori
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 286)


Bohr’s idea of complementarity is generally characterized as a key component of what is called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. As quantum mechanics was firmly established as a cornerstone of modern physics, and as the Copenhagen interpretation became predominant over the competing accounts, Bohr’s complementarity became widely recognized as an essential constituent of the ‘orthodoxy.’ This does not mean, however, that his point of view was universally accepted or always clearly or unambiguously understood.


Logical Positivist Copenhagen Interpretation Hermeneutic Philosophy Atomic Object Diachronic Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beller, Mara. 1999. Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beller, Mara, and Arthur Fine. 1994. “Bohr’s Response to EPR.” In Faye and Folse 1994, 1–31.Google Scholar
  3. Bohr, Niels. 1985. Niels Bohr 1885–1962: Der Kopenhagener Geist in der Physik, edited by Karl v. Meyenn, Klaus Stolzenburg, and Roman U. Sexl. Braunschweig: Friedf. Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
  4. Brock, Steen. 2003. Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Quantum Physics in the Light of the Helmholtzian Tradition of Theoretical Physics. Berlin: Logos Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Bunge, Mario. 1955. “Strife About Complementarity.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6 (21):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunge, Mario, ed. 1967. Quantum Theory and Reality. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Camilleri, Kristian. 2009. Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist as Philosopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cassidy, David C. 1992. Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Cassirer, Ernst. 1977. Zur modernen Physik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  10. Chevalley, Catherine. 1994. “Niels Bohr’s Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism.” In Faye and Folse 1994, 33–55.Google Scholar
  11. Favrholdt, David. 1992. Niels Bohr’s Philosophical Background. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.Google Scholar
  12. Faye, Jan. 1991. Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy — An Anti-Realist View of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faye, Jan. 2002a. “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.
  14. Faye, Jan, and Henry J. Folse, eds. 1994. Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. Vol. 153 Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Faye, Jan, and Henry J. Folse. 1998. “Introduction.” In PWNB, 4:1–23.Google Scholar
  16. Feshbach, Herman, Tetsuo Matsui, and Alexandra Oleson, eds. 1988. Niels Bohr: Physics and the World. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Folse, Henry J. 1985. The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity. Amsterdam: North-Holland Physics Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Folse, Henry J. 1996. “The Bohr-Einstein Debate and the Philosophers’ Debate over Realism Versus Anti-Realism.” In Realism and Anti-Realism in the Philosophy of Science: Beijing International Conference, 1992, edited by Robert S. Cohen, Risto Hilpinen, and Qiu Renzong. Vol. 169 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 289–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Fujita, Shingo. 1991. Sōhosei no tetsugakuteki-kōsatsu [Philosophical Investigations on Complementarity]. Tokyo: Taga-shuppan.Google Scholar
  20. Heisenberg, Werner. 1930. Physikalische Prinzipien der Quantentheorie. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag, 1958. Eng. trans. Carl Eckart and F. C. Hoyt. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. New York: Dover Publications, 1949.Google Scholar
  21. Heisenberg, Werner. 1958. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Heisenberg, Werner. 1971. Schritte über Grenzen. München: R. Piper & Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Held, Carlsten. 1994. “The Meaning of Complementarity.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25 (6), 871–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holton, Gerald. 1973. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Honner, John. 1987. The Description of Nature: Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Quantum Physics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ito, Kenji. 2002. “Values of ‘Pure Science’: Nishina Yoshio’s wartime discourse between nationalism and physics, 1940–1945.” Historical Studies of the Physical Sciences 33, Part 1:61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobsen, Anja Skaar. 2007. “Leon Rosenfeld’s Marxist Defense of Complementarity.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 37, Supplement:3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jammer, Max. 1974. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective. New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication.Google Scholar
  29. Jammer, Max. 1989. The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. [The History of Modern Physics 1800–1950, Volume 12]. New York: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  30. Kaiser, David. 1992. “More Roots of Complementarity: Kantian Aspects and Influences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (2):213–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kant, Immanuel. 1781. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1956. Eng. trans. Norman Kemp Smith. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1929.Google Scholar
  32. Kant, Immanuel. 1790. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1924.Google Scholar
  33. Murdoch, Dugald. 1987. Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pauli, Wolfgang. 1961. Physik und Erkenntnistheorie. Braunschweig: Friedf. Vieweg & Sohn, 1984.Google Scholar
  35. Petersen, Aage. 1963. “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr.” In French and Kennedy 1985, 299–310.Google Scholar
  36. Pitt, Axel. 1971. “Die dialektische Begründung der quantenmechanischen Statistik durch die Metaphysik Hegels.” Philosophia Naturalis 13:371–93.Google Scholar
  37. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 1994. Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology After Bohr and Derrida. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Popper, Karl R. 1982. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics [From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery], edited by William Warren Bartley, III. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  39. Schiemann, Gregor. 2008. Werner Heisenberg. Nördlingen: Verlag C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  40. von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich. 1971. Die Einheit der Natur. München: Carl Hanser Verlag. Eng. trans. Francis J. Zucker. The Unity of Nature. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1980.Google Scholar
  41. von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich. 1976. Zum Weltbild der Physik. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Human StudiesAkita UniversityAkitaJapan

Personalised recommendations