Complementarity (physics)

Last updated

In physics, complementarity is a conceptual aspect of quantum mechanics that Niels Bohr regarded as an essential feature of the theory. [1] [2] The complementarity principle holds that certain pairs of complementary properties cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously. For example, position and momentum or wave and particle properties. In contemporary terms, complementarity encompasses both the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality.

Contents

Bohr considered one of the foundational truths of quantum mechanics to be the fact that setting up an experiment to measure one quantity of a pair, for instance the position of an electron, excludes the possibility of measuring the other, yet understanding both experiments is necessary to characterize the object under study. In Bohr's view, the behavior of atomic and subatomic objects cannot be separated from the measuring instruments that create the context in which the measured objects behave. Consequently, there is no "single picture" that unifies the results obtained in these different experimental contexts, and only the "totality of the phenomena" together can provide a completely informative description. [3]

History

Background

Complementarity as a physical model derives from Niels Bohr's 1927 presentation in Como, Italy, at a scientific celebration of the work of Alessandro Volta 100 years previous. [4] : 103  Bohr's subject was complementarity, the idea that measurements of quantum events provide complementary information through seemingly contradictory results. [5] While Bohr's presentation was not well received, it did crystallize the issues ultimately leading to the modern wave-particle duality concept. [6] : 315  The contradictory results that triggered Bohr's ideas had been building up over the previous 20 years.

This contradictory evidence came both from light and from electrons. The wave theory of light, broadly successful for over a hundred years, had been challenged by Planck's 1901 model of blackbody radiation and Einstein's 1905 interpretation of the photoelectric effect. These theoretical models use discrete energy, a quantum, to describe the interaction of light with matter. Despite confirmation by various experimental observations, the photon theory (as it came to be called later) remained controversial until Arthur Compton performed a series of experiments from 1922 to 1924 demonstrating the momentum of light. [7] : 211  The experimental evidence of particle-like momentum seemingly contradicted other experiments demonstrating the wave-like interference of light.

The contradictory evidence from electrons arrived in the opposite order. Many experiments by J. J. Thompson, Robert Millikan, and Charles Wilson, among others, had shown that free electrons had particle properties. However, in 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that electrons had an associated wave and Schrödinger demonstrated that wave equations accurately account for electron properties in atoms. Again some experiments showed particle properties and others wave properties.

Bohr's resolution of these contradictions is to accept them. In his Como lecture he says: "our interpretation of the experimental material rests essentially upon the classical concepts." [5] Direct observation being impossible, observations of quantum effects are necessarily classical. Whatever the nature of quantum events, our only information will arrive via classical results. If experiments sometimes produce wave results and sometimes particle results, that is the nature of light and of the ultimate constituents of matter.

Bohr's lectures

Niels Bohr apparently conceived of the principle of complementarity during a skiing vacation in Norway in February and March 1927, during which he received a letter from Werner Heisenberg regarding an as-yet-unpublished result, a thought experiment about a microscope using gamma rays. This thought experiment implied a tradeoff between uncertainties that would later be formalized as the uncertainty principle. To Bohr, Heisenberg's paper did not make clear the distinction between a position measurement merely disturbing the momentum value that a particle carried and the more radical idea that momentum was meaningless or undefinable in a context where position was measured instead. Upon returning from his vacation, by which time Heisenberg had already submitted his paper for publication, Bohr convinced Heisenberg that the uncertainty tradeoff was a manifestation of the deeper concept of complementarity. [8] Heisenberg duly appended a note to this effect to his paper, before its publication, stating:

Bohr has brought to my attention [that] the uncertainty in our observation does not arise exclusively from the occurrence of discontinuities, but is tied directly to the demand that we ascribe equal validity to the quite different experiments which show up in the [particulate] theory on one hand, and in the wave theory on the other hand.

Bohr publicly introduced the principle of complementarity in a lecture he delivered on 16 September 1927 at the International Physics Congress held in Como, Italy, attended by most of the leading physicists of the era, with the notable exceptions of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Dirac. However, these three were in attendance one month later when Bohr again presented the principle at the Fifth Solvay Congress in Brussels, Belgium. The lecture was published in the proceedings of both of these conferences, and was republished the following year in Naturwissenschaften (in German) and in Nature (in English). [9]

In his original lecture on the topic, Bohr pointed out that just as the finitude of the speed of light implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between space and time (relativity), the finitude of the quantum of action implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between the behavior of a system and its interaction with the measuring instruments and leads to the well-known difficulties with the concept of 'state' in quantum theory; the notion of complementarity is intended to capture this new situation in epistemology created by quantum theory. Physicists F.A.M. Frescura and Basil Hiley have summarized the reasons for the introduction of the principle of complementarity in physics as follows: [10]

In the traditional view, it is assumed that there exists a reality in space-time and that this reality is a given thing, all of whose aspects can be viewed or articulated at any given moment. Bohr was the first to point out that quantum mechanics called this traditional outlook into question. To him the "indivisibility of the quantum of action" [...] implied that not all aspects of a system can be viewed simultaneously. By using one particular piece of apparatus only certain features could be made manifest at the expense of others, while with a different piece of apparatus another complementary aspect could be made manifest in such a way that the original set became non-manifest, that is, the original attributes were no longer well defined. For Bohr, this was an indication that the principle of complementarity, a principle that he had previously known to appear extensively in other intellectual disciplines but which did not appear in classical physics, should be adopted as a universal principle.

Debate following the lectures

Complementarity was a central feature of Bohr's reply to the EPR paradox, an attempt by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen to argue that quantum particles must have position and momentum even without being measured and so quantum mechanics must be an incomplete theory. [11] The thought experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen involved producing two particles and sending them far apart. The experimenter could choose to measure either the position or the momentum of one particle. Given that result, they could in principle make a precise prediction of what the corresponding measurement on the other, faraway particle would find. To Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, this implied that the faraway particle must have precise values of both quantities whether or not that particle is measured in any way. Bohr argued in response that the deduction of a position value could not be transferred over to the situation where a momentum value is measured, and vice versa. [12]

Later expositions of complementarity by Bohr include a 1938 lecture in Warsaw [13] [14] and a 1949 article written for a festschrift honoring Albert Einstein. [15] It was also covered in a 1953 essay by Bohr's collaborator Léon Rosenfeld. [16]

Mathematical formalism

For Bohr, complementarity was the "ultimate reason" behind the uncertainty principle. All attempts to grapple with atomic phenomena using classical physics were eventually frustrated, he wrote, leading to the recognition that those phenomena have "complementary aspects". But classical physics can be generalized to address this, and with "astounding simplicity", by describing physical quantities using non-commutative algebra. [13] This mathematical expression of complementarity builds on the work of Hermann Weyl and Julian Schwinger, starting with Hilbert spaces and unitary transformation, leading to the theorems of mutually unbiased bases. [17]

In the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, physical quantities that classical mechanics had treated as real-valued variables become self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. These operators, called "observables", can fail to commute, in which case they are called "incompatible": Incompatible observables cannot have a complete set of common eigenstates; there can be some simultaneous eigenstates of and , but not enough in number to constitute a complete basis. [18] [19] The canonical commutation relation implies that this applies to position and momentum. In a Bohrian view, this is a mathematical statement that position and momentum are complementary aspects. Likewise, an analogous relationship holds for any two of the spin observables defined by the Pauli matrices; measurements of spin along perpendicular axes are complementary. [11] The Pauli spin observables are defined for a quantum system described by a two-dimensional Hilbert space; mutually unbiased bases generalize these observables to Hilbert spaces of arbitrary finite dimension. [20] Two bases and for an -dimensional Hilbert space are mutually unbiased when

Here the basis vector , for example, has the same overlap with every ; there is equal transition probability between a state in one basis and any state in the other basis. Each basis corresponds to an observable, and the observables for two mutually unbiased bases are complementary to each other. [20] This leads to the description of complementarity as a statement about quantum kinematics:

For each degree of freedom the dynamical variables are a pair of complementary observables. [21]

The concept of complementarity has also been applied to quantum measurements described by positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs). [22] [23]

Continuous complementarity

While the concept of complementarity can be discussed via two experimental extremes, continuous tradeoff is also possible. [24] [25] The wave-particle relation, introduced by Daniel Greenberger and Allaine Yasin in 1988, and since then refined by others, [26] quantifies the trade-off between measuring particle path distinguishability, , and wave interference fringe visibility, : The values of and can vary between 0 and 1 individually, but any experiment that combines particle and wave detection will limit one or the other, or both. The detailed definition of the two terms vary among applications, [26] but the relation expresses the verified constraint that efforts to detect particle paths will result in less visible wave interference.

Modern role

While many of the early discussions of complementarity discussed hypothetical experiments, advances in technology have allowed advanced tests of this concept. Experiments like the quantum eraser verify the key ideas in complementarity; modern exploration of quantum entanglement builds directly on complementarity: [24]

The most sensible position, according to quantum mechanics, is to assume that no such waves preexist before any measurement. [24]

—  Anton Zeilinger

In his Nobel lecture, physicist Julian Schwinger linked complementarity to quantum field theory:

Indeed, relativistic quantum mechanics-the union of the complementarity principle of Bohr with the relativity principle of Einstein-is quantum field theory. [27]

— Julian Schwinger

The Consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics takes a generalized form of complementarity as a key defining postulate. [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics, stemming from the work of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and others. While "Copenhagen" refers to the Danish city, the use as an "interpretation" was apparently coined by Heisenberg during the 1950s to refer to ideas developed in the 1925–1927 period, glossing over his disagreements with Bohr. Consequently, there is no definitive historical statement of what the interpretation entails.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox</span> Historical critique of quantum mechanics

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen which argues that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete. In a 1935 paper titled "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?", they argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory, and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing these hidden variables. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

A photon is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless particles that always move at the speed of light measured in vacuum. The photon belongs to the class of boson particles.

Quantization is the systematic transition procedure from a classical understanding of physical phenomena to a newer understanding known as quantum mechanics. It is a procedure for constructing quantum mechanics from classical mechanics. A generalization involving infinite degrees of freedom is field quantization, as in the "quantization of the electromagnetic field", referring to photons as field "quanta". This procedure is basic to theories of atomic physics, chemistry, particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and quantum optics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quantum mechanics</span> Description of physical properties at the atomic and subatomic scale

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that describes the behavior of nature at and below the scale of atoms. It is the foundation of all quantum physics, which includes quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uncertainty principle</span> Foundational principle in quantum physics

The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

In physics, a correspondence principle is any one of several premises or assertions about the relationship between classical and quantum mechanics. The physicist Niels Bohr coined the term in 1920 during the early development of quantum theory; he used it to explain how quantized classical orbitals connect to quantum radiation. Modern sources often use the term for the idea that the behavior of systems described by quantum theory reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers: for large orbits and for large energies, quantum calculations must agree with classical calculations. A "generalized" correspondence principle refers to the requirement for a broad set of connections between any old and new theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wave function</span> Mathematical description of quantum state

In quantum physics, a wave function is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ and Ψ. Wave functions are complex-valued. For example, a wave function might assign a complex number to each point in a region of space. The Born rule provides the means to turn these complex probability amplitudes into actual probabilities. In one common form, it says that the squared modulus of a wave function that depends upon position is the probability density of measuring a particle as being at a given place. The integral of a wavefunction's squared modulus over all the system's degrees of freedom must be equal to 1, a condition called normalization. Since the wave function is complex-valued, only its relative phase and relative magnitude can be measured; its value does not, in isolation, tell anything about the magnitudes or directions of measurable observables. One has to apply quantum operators, whose eigenvalues correspond to sets of possible results of measurements, to the wave function ψ and calculate the statistical distributions for measurable quantities.

In physics, a hidden-variable theory is a deterministic physical model which seeks to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics by introducing additional variables.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quantum number</span> Notation for conserved quantities in physics and chemistry

In quantum physics and chemistry, quantum numbers are quantities that characterize the possible states of the system. To fully specify the state of the electron in a hydrogen atom, four quantum numbers are needed. The traditional set of quantum numbers includes the principal, azimuthal, magnetic, and spin quantum numbers. To describe other systems, different quantum numbers are required. For subatomic particles, one needs to introduce new quantum numbers, such as the flavour of quarks, which have no classical correspondence.

In quantum physics, a measurement is the testing or manipulation of a physical system to yield a numerical result. A fundamental feature of quantum theory is that the predictions it makes are probabilistic. The procedure for finding a probability involves combining a quantum state, which mathematically describes a quantum system, with a mathematical representation of the measurement to be performed on that system. The formula for this calculation is known as the Born rule. For example, a quantum particle like an electron can be described by a quantum state that associates to each point in space a complex number called a probability amplitude. Applying the Born rule to these amplitudes gives the probabilities that the electron will be found in one region or another when an experiment is performed to locate it. This is the best the theory can do; it cannot say for certain where the electron will be found. The same quantum state can also be used to make a prediction of how the electron will be moving, if an experiment is performed to measure its momentum instead of its position. The uncertainty principle implies that, whatever the quantum state, the range of predictions for the electron's position and the range of predictions for its momentum cannot both be narrow. Some quantum states imply a near-certain prediction of the result of a position measurement, but the result of a momentum measurement will be highly unpredictable, and vice versa. Furthermore, the fact that nature violates the statistical conditions known as Bell inequalities indicates that the unpredictability of quantum measurement results cannot be explained away as due to ignorance about "local hidden variables" within quantum systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bohr–Einstein debates</span> Series of public disputes between physicists Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein

The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science, insofar as the disagreements—and the outcome of Bohr's version of quantum mechanics becoming the prevalent view—form the root of the modern understanding of physics. Most of Bohr's version of the events held in the Solvay Conference in 1927 and other places was first written by Bohr decades later in an article titled, "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics". Based on the article, the philosophical issue of the debate was whether Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which centered on his belief of complementarity, was valid in explaining nature. Despite their differences of opinion and the succeeding discoveries that helped solidify quantum mechanics, Bohr and Einstein maintained a mutual admiration that was to last the rest of their lives.

Quantum mechanics is the study of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atomic and subatomic particles. By contrast, classical physics explains matter and energy only on a scale familiar to human experience, including the behavior of astronomical bodies such as the moon. Classical physics is still used in much of modern science and technology. However, towards the end of the 19th century, scientists discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. The desire to resolve inconsistencies between observed phenomena and classical theory led to a revolution in physics, a shift in the original scientific paradigm: the development of quantum mechanics.

Heisenberg's microscope is a thought experiment proposed by Werner Heisenberg that has served as the nucleus of some commonly held ideas about quantum mechanics. In particular, it provides an argument for the uncertainty principle on the basis of the principles of classical optics.

The ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics considers the quantum state description to apply only to an ensemble of similarly prepared systems, rather than supposing that it exhaustively represents an individual physical system.

The history of quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of the history of modern physics. The major chapters of this history begin with the emergence of quantum ideas to explain individual phenomena—blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, solar emission spectra—an era called the Old or Older quantum theories. Building on the technology developed in classical mechanics, the invention of wave mechanics by Erwin Schrödinger and expansion by many others triggers the "modern" era beginning around 1925. Paul Dirac's relativistic quantum theory work lead him to explore quantum theories of radiation, culminating in quantum electrodynamics, the first quantum field theory. The history of quantum mechanics continues in the history of quantum field theory. The history of quantum chemistry, theoretical basis of chemical structure, reactivity, and bonding, interlaces with the events discussed in this article.

The Planck constant, or Planck's constant, denoted by , is a fundamental physical constant of foundational importance in quantum mechanics: a photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant, and the wavelength of a matter wave equals the Planck constant divided by the associated particle momentum.

Some interpretations of quantum mechanics posit a central role for an observer of a quantum phenomenon. The quantum mechanical observer is tied to the issue of observer effect, where a measurement necessarily requires interacting with the physical object being measured, affecting its properties through the interaction. The term "observable" has gained a technical meaning, denoting a Hermitian operator that represents a measurement.

In 1923, American physicist William Duane presented a discrete momentum-exchange model of the reflection of X-ray photons by a crystal lattice. Duane showed that such a model gives the same scattering angles as the ones calculated via a wave diffraction model, see Bragg's Law.

A hallmark of Albert Einstein's career was his use of visualized thought experiments as a fundamental tool for understanding physical issues and for elucidating his concepts to others. Einstein's thought experiments took diverse forms. In his youth, he mentally chased beams of light. For special relativity, he employed moving trains and flashes of lightning to explain his most penetrating insights. For general relativity, he considered a person falling off a roof, accelerating elevators, blind beetles crawling on curved surfaces and the like. In his debates with Niels Bohr on the nature of reality, he proposed imaginary devices that attempted to show, at least in concept, how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might be evaded. In a profound contribution to the literature on quantum mechanics, Einstein considered two particles briefly interacting and then flying apart so that their states are correlated, anticipating the phenomenon known as quantum entanglement.

References

  1. ↑ Wheeler, John A. (January 1963). ""No Fugitive and Cloistered Virtue"—A tribute to Niels Bohr". Physics Today . Vol. 16, no. 1. p. 30. Bibcode:1963PhT....16a..30W. doi:10.1063/1.3050711.
  2. ↑ Howard, Don (2004). "Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology" (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 71 (5): 669–682. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.164.9141 . doi:10.1086/425941. JSTOR   10.1086/425941. S2CID   9454552.
  3. ↑ Bohr, Niels; Rosenfeld, Léon (1996). "Complementarity: Bedrock of the Quantal Description". Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958). Niels Bohr Collected Works. Vol. 7. Elsevier. pp. 284–285. ISBN   978-0-444-89892-0.
  4. ↑ Baggott, J. E. (2013). The quantum story: a history in 40 moments (Impression: 3 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN   978-0-19-965597-7.
  5. 1 2 Bohr, N. (1928). "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory". Nature. 121 (3050): 580–590. Bibcode:1928Natur.121..580B. doi: 10.1038/121580a0 .
  6. ↑ Kumar, Manjit (2011). Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality (Reprint ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. pp.  242, 375–376. ISBN   978-0-393-33988-8.
  7. ↑ Whittaker, Edmund T. (1989). A history of the theories of aether & electricity. 2: The modern theories, 1900 - 1926 (Repr ed.). New York: Dover Publ. ISBN   978-0-486-26126-3.
  8. ↑ Baggott, Jim (2011). The Quantum Story: A History in 40 moments. Oxford Landmark Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN   978-0-19-956684-6.
  9. ↑ Bohr, N. (1928). "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory". Nature . 121 (3050): 580–590. Bibcode:1928Natur.121..580B. doi: 10.1038/121580a0 . Available in the collection of Bohr's early writings, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (1934).
  10. ↑ Frescura, F. A. M.; Hiley, B. J. (July 1984). "Algebras, quantum theory and pre-space" (PDF). Revista Brasileira de Física. Special volume "Os 70 anos de Mario Schonberg": 49–86, 2.
  11. 1 2 Fuchs, Christopher A. (2017). "Notwithstanding Bohr: The Reasons for QBism". Mind and Matter. 15: 245–300. arXiv: 1705.03483 . Bibcode:2017arXiv170503483F.
  12. ↑ Jammer, Max (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN   0-471-43958-4.
  13. 1 2 Bohr, Niels (1939). "The causality problem in atomic physics". New theories in physics. Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation. pp. 11–38.
  14. ↑ Chevalley, Catherine (1999). "Why Do We Find Bohr Obscure?". In Greenberger, Daniel; Reiter, Wolfgang L.; Zeilinger, Anton (eds.). Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 59–74. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1454-9. ISBN   978-9-04815-354-1.
  15. ↑ Bohr, Niels (1949). "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics". In Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court.
  16. ↑ Rosenfeld, L. (1953). "Strife about Complementarity". Science Progress (1933- ). 41 (163): 393–410. ISSN   0036-8504. JSTOR   43414997.
  17. ↑ Durt, Thomas; Englert, Berthold-Georg; Bengtsson, Ingemar; żYczkowski, Karol (2010-06-01). "On Mutually Unbiased Bases". International Journal of Quantum Information. 08 (4): 535–640. arXiv: 1004.3348 . doi:10.1142/S0219749910006502. ISSN   0219-7499. S2CID   118551747.
  18. ↑ Griffiths, David J. (2017). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. p. 111. ISBN   978-1-107-17986-8.
  19. ↑ Cohen-Tannoudji, Claude; Diu, Bernard; Laloë, Franck (2019-12-04). Quantum Mechanics, Volume 1: Basic Concepts, Tools, and Applications. Wiley. p. 232. ISBN   978-3-527-34553-3.
  20. 1 2 Klappenecker, A.; Rotteler, M. (2005). "Mutually unbiased bases are complex projective 2-designs". Proceedings. International Symposium on Information Theory, 2005. IEEE. pp. 1740–1744. doi:10.1109/isit.2005.1523643. ISBN   0-7803-9151-9. S2CID   5981977.
  21. ↑ Scully, Marian O.; Englert, Berthold-Georg; Walther, Herbert (May 1991). "Quantum optical tests of complementarity". Nature. 351 (6322): 111–116. Bibcode:1991Natur.351..111S. doi:10.1038/351111a0. ISSN   0028-0836. S2CID   4311842.
  22. ↑ Busch, P.; Shilladay, C. R. (2003-09-19). "Uncertainty reconciles complementarity with joint measurability". Physical Review A. 68 (3): 034102. arXiv: quant-ph/0207081 . Bibcode:2003PhRvA..68c4102B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.034102. ISSN   1050-2947. S2CID   119482431.
  23. ↑ Luis, Alfredo (2002-05-22). "Complementarity for Generalized Observables". Physical Review Letters. 88 (23): 230401. Bibcode:2002PhRvL..88w0401L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.230401. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   12059339.
  24. 1 2 3 Zeilinger, Anton (1999-03-01). "Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 71 (2): S288–S297. Bibcode:1999RvMPS..71..288Z. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.71.S288. ISSN   0034-6861.
  25. ↑ Englert, Berthold-Georg (1999-01-01). "Remarks on Some Basic Issues in Quantum Mechanics". Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A. 54 (1): 11–32. Bibcode:1999ZNatA..54...11E. doi: 10.1515/zna-1999-0104 . ISSN   1865-7109.
  26. 1 2 Sen, D. (2014). "The Uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics". Current Science. 107 (2): 203–218. JSTOR   24103129.
  27. ↑ Schwinger, Julian (1966). "Relativistic Quantum Field Theory". Science . 153 (3739): 949–953. Bibcode:1966Sci...153..949S. doi:10.1126/science.153.3739.949. JSTOR   1719338. PMID   17837239.
  28. ↑ Hohenberg, P. C. (2010-10-05). "Colloquium : An introduction to consistent quantum theory". Reviews of Modern Physics. 82 (4): 2835–2844. arXiv: 0909.2359 . Bibcode:2010RvMP...82.2835H. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2835. ISSN   0034-6861. S2CID   20551033.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.