The principle of complementarity, its manifestations and essence. The principle of complementarity, its manifestations and essence What is the principle of complementarity in physics

To complete the picture, we also consider Bohr's complementarity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principles. Reflecting on the problematic issues of quantum mechanics, Niels Bohr noted that the data of various experiments are not united by one picture. The insufficiency of this view was discussed in paragraph 5.2.

Why, then, did Bohr defend the principle of complementarity so vigorously, and right up to the end of his days? It must be assumed that the very formulation of the principle of complementarity did not appear by chance, but was a reaction to some urgent problem.

It really is. Attempts to describe the results of quantum mechanical measurements using the concepts of classical concepts are known to be unsatisfactory. If we add the principle of complementarity to them, then an illusion is created that the problem situation has been resolved. It was this illusion that led Bohr to the principle of complementarity. He stubbornly adhered to the erroneous belief that the results of quantum mechanical measurements should be described in terms of the concepts of classical physics. But since they are contradictory, they must be accompanied by the principle of complementarity. But the fact is that after that they will not cease to be contradictory. This is the reason for his mistake. Thus, the principle of complementarity is not a principle of quantum mechanics.

It is interesting that Bohr gave the principle of complementarity a general philosophical significance. "In the general philosophical aspect, it is significant here that in relation to analysis and synthesis in other areas of knowledge, we encounter situations reminiscent of the situation in quantum mechanics. Thus, the integrity of living organisms and the characteristics of people with consciousness, as well as human cultures, represent features of integrity, the display of which requires typically an additional way of describing" . It means that analysis and synthesis complement each other. It is one thing if the parts of the system are considered, another thing is when the system appears as a whole. Analyzing, we do not take into account, and sometimes destroy the whole. When we consider the whole, we do not take into account that it consists of some parts.

At first glance, Bohr's reasoning seems not only correct, but highly original. But upon closer examination, it turns out that they do not at all testify in favor of the principle of complementarity. In fact, he argues about the nature of the so-called system features. The fact is that the interaction of parts of the system leads to the formation of integrative properties that these parts do not possess. For example, a water molecule has properties that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, which form its composition, do not have. This circumstance is perfectly explained by quantum chemistry, that's all. The characteristics of atoms and molecules are not complementary in the specific sense that Bohr postulated. The essence of the situation under consideration with system features is quite simple: they are the result of the interaction of some objects. To understand this, there is no need to resort to the services of the principle of complementarity, which explains nothing.

The sequence of quantum principles can be represented as follows:

wave function postulate => Pauli principle => operational principle => visualization principle => principle of observability => the principle of relativity to the means of observation.

conclusions

• 1. So, the main milestones of scientific transduction are marked by principles that form a certain hierarchy.
• 2. Rearranging principles in places is unacceptable.

• Bohr N. Quantum physics and philosophy // Bor N. Selected scientific works: in 2 volumes. M .: Nauka, 1971. T. 2. P. 532.
• In fairness, we note that when explaining the nature of system features, researchers encounter significant difficulties, but they are overcome without resorting to the principle of complementarity. Cm.: Kaike V. A. Philosophy of Science: A Concise Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: "Omega-L", 2008. S. 181–183.

The principle of complementarity is a methodological postulate, which was originally formulated by the great Danish physicist and philosopher Niels Bohr in relation to the field The principle of complementarity of Bohr, most likely, came into being only due to the fact that even earlier, the German physicist Kurt Gödel proposed his conclusion and the formulation of the famous theorem about the properties of deductive systems, which belongs to the field of Niels Bohr, extended Godel's logical conclusions to quantum mechanics and formulated the principle approximately as follows: in order to reliably and adequately know the subject of the microcosm, it should be investigated in systems that mutually exclude each other, that is, in some additional systems. This definition went down in history as the principle of complementarity in quantum mechanics.

An example of such a solution to the problems of the microworld was the consideration of light in the context of two theories - wave and corpuscular, which led to a scientific result that was amazing in terms of efficiency, which revealed to man the physical nature of light.

Niels Bohr in his understanding of the conclusion made went even further. He makes an attempt to interpret the principle of complementarity through the prism of philosophical knowledge, and it is here that this principle acquires universal scientific significance. Now the formulation of the principle sounded like this: in order to reproduce any phenomenon for the purpose of its knowledge in a sign (symbolic) system, it is necessary to resort to additional concepts and categories. In simpler terms, the principle of complementarity implies in cognition not only possible, but in some cases necessary, the use of several methodological systems that will allow one to acquire objective data about the subject of research. The principle of complementarity, in this sense, has shown itself as a fact of agreement with the metaphorical nature of the logical systems of methodology - they can manifest themselves in one way or another. Thus, with the advent and comprehension of this principle, in fact, it was recognized that logic alone was not enough for cognition, and therefore illogical conduct in the research process was recognized as acceptable. Ultimately, the application of the Bohr principle contributed to a significant change

Later, Yu. M. Lotman expanded the methodological significance of the Bohr principle and transferred its laws to the sphere of culture, in particular, applied to the description Lotman formulated the so-called “paradox of the amount of information”, the essence of which is that human existence mainly takes place in conditions of information insufficiency . And as development progresses, this insufficiency will increase all the time. Using the principle of complementarity, it is possible to compensate for the lack of information by transferring it to another semiotic (sign) system. This technique led, in fact, to the emergence of computer science and cybernetics, and then the Internet. Later, the functioning of the principle was confirmed by the physiological adaptation of the human brain to this type of thinking, due to the asymmetry of the activity of its hemispheres.

Another provision, which is mediated by the operation of the Bohr principle, is the fact of the discovery by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, the law of the uncertainty relation. Its action can be defined as the recognition of the impossibility of the same description of two objects with the same accuracy if these objects belong to different systems. The philosophical analogy of this conclusion was given in the work “On Reliability”, he stated that in order to assert the certainty of something, one must doubt something.

Thus, Bohr's principle has acquired enormous methodological significance in various fields.

ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLE

The principle that Bohr called complementarity is one of the most profound philosophical and natural scientific ideas of our time, with which only such ideas as the principle of relativity or the concept of a physical field can be compared. Its generality does not allow it to be reduced to any one statement - it must be mastered gradually, using concrete examples. The easiest way (as Bohr did in his time) is to start with an analysis of the process of measuring the momentum p and the coordinate x of an atomic object.

Niels Bohr noticed a very simple thing: the coordinate and momentum of an atomic particle cannot be measured not only simultaneously, but in general with the help of the same instrument. In fact, in order to measure the momentum p of an atomic particle and not change it very much, an extremely light mobile "instrument" is needed. But precisely because of his mobility, his position is very uncertain. To measure the x-coordinate, we must therefore take another - a very massive "device", which would not move when a particle hit it. But no matter how her momentum changes in this case, we will not even notice it.

When we speak into a microphone, the sound waves of our voice are converted there into membrane vibrations. The lighter and more mobile the membrane, the more accurately it follows the vibrations of the air. But the more difficult it is to determine its position at each moment of time. This simplest experimental setup is an illustration of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation: it is impossible to determine both characteristics of an atomic object - the coordinate x and the momentum p - in the same experiment. Two measurements and two fundamentally different devices are required, the properties of which are complementary to each other.

Additionality- this is the word and the turn of thought that became available to everyone thanks to Bohr. Before him, everyone was convinced that the incompatibility of two types of devices inevitably entails the inconsistency of their properties. Bohr denied such straightforwardness of judgments and explained: yes, their properties are indeed incompatible, but for a complete description of an atomic object, both of them are equally necessary and therefore do not contradict, but complement each other.

This simple argument about the complementarity of the properties of two incompatible devices explains well the meaning of the principle of complementarity, but by no means exhausts it. In fact, we need instruments not by themselves, but only to measure the properties of atomic objects. The x-coordinate and momentum p are those concepts, which correspond to two properties measured with two instruments. In the familiar chain of knowledge

phenomenon -> image -> concept -> formula

the principle of complementarity affects, first of all, the system of concepts of quantum mechanics and the logic of its conclusions.

The fact is that among the strict provisions of formal logic there is the “rule of the excluded middle”, which says: of two opposite statements, one is true, the other is false, and there cannot be a third. In classical physics, there was no occasion to doubt this rule, since there the concepts of "wave" and "particle" are really opposite and essentially incompatible. It turned out, however, that in atomic physics both of them are equally well applicable to describe the properties of the same objects, and for complete descriptions must be used simultaneously.

People brought up on the traditions of classical physics perceived these requirements as a kind of violation of common sense and even talked about the violation of the laws of logic in atomic physics. Bohr explained that the point here was not at all in the laws of logic, but in the carelessness with which, sometimes, without any reservations, classical concepts are used to explain atomic phenomena. But such reservations are necessary, and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation δx δp ≥ 1/2h is an exact representation of this requirement in a strict language of formulas.

The reason for the incompatibility of additional concepts in our minds is deep, but understandable. The fact is that we cannot know the atomic object directly - with the help of our five senses. Instead, we use precise and sophisticated instruments that have been invented relatively recently. To explain the results of experiments, we need words and concepts, but they appeared long before quantum mechanics and are in no way adapted to it. However, we are forced to use them - we have no other choice: we learn the language and all the basic concepts with mother's milk and, in any case, long before we learn about the existence of physics.

Bohr's principle of complementarity is a successful attempt to reconcile the shortcomings of an established system of concepts with the progress of our knowledge of the world. This principle expanded the possibilities of our thinking, explaining that in atomic physics not only concepts change, but also the very formulation of questions about the essence of physical phenomena.

But the significance of the principle of complementarity goes far beyond quantum mechanics, where it originally arose. Only later - when trying to extend it to other areas of science - did its true meaning for the entire system of human knowledge become clear. One can argue about the legitimacy of such a step, but one cannot deny its fruitfulness in all cases, even those far from physics.

Bohr himself liked to give an example from biology, connected with the life of the cell, the role of which is quite similar to the importance of the atom in physics. If an atom is the last representative of a substance that still retains its properties, then a cell is the smallest part of any organism that still represents life in its complexity and uniqueness. To study the life of a cell means to know all the elementary processes that take place in it, and at the same time to understand how their interaction leads to a completely special state of matter - to life.

When trying to execute this program, it turns out that the simultaneous combination of such analysis and synthesis is not feasible. In fact, in order to penetrate into the details of the mechanisms of a cell, we examine it through a microscope - first an ordinary one, then an electronic one - we heat the cell, pass an electric current through it, irradiate it, decompose it into its component parts ... But the more closely we begin to study the life of the cell, the more we will interfere in its functions and in the course of natural processes occurring in it. In the end, we will destroy it and therefore we will not learn anything about it as a whole living organism.

And yet the answer to the question "What is life?" requires analysis and synthesis at the same time. These processes are incompatible, but not contradictory, but only complementary - in the sense of Bohr. And the need to take them into account simultaneously is only one of the reasons why there is still no complete answer to the question of the essence of life.

As in a living organism, the integrity of its properties "wave - particle" is important in the atom. Final divisibility matter gave rise not only to the finite divisibility of atomic phenomena- she also gave the X limit of divisibility concepts with which we describe these phenomena.

It is often said that the right question is half the answer. These are not just pretty words.

A correctly posed question is a question about the properties of a phenomenon that it really has. Therefore, such a question already contains all the concepts that must be used in the answer. An ideally posed question can be answered briefly: “yes” or “no”. Bohr showed that the question "Wave or particle?" when applied to an atomic object, it is incorrectly set. Such separate The atom has no properties, and therefore the question does not allow a clear answer "yes" or "no". In the same way as there is no answer to the question: “Which is larger: a meter or a kilogram?”, And any other questions of this type.

Two additional properties of atomic reality cannot be separated without destroying the completeness and unity of the natural phenomenon that we call the atom. In mythology, such cases are well known: it is impossible to cut a centaur into two parts, while keeping both the horse and the man alive.

An atomic object is neither a particle nor a wave, and even neither at the same time. An atomic object is something third, which is not equal to the simple sum of the properties of the wave and the particle. This atomic "something" is beyond our five senses, and yet it is certainly real. We do not have images and senses to fully imagine the properties of this reality. However, the strength of our intellect, based on experience, allows us to know it without it. In the end (it must be admitted that Born was right), "... now the atomic physicist has gone far from the idyllic ideas of the old-fashioned naturalist who hoped to penetrate the secrets of nature, lying in wait for butterflies in the meadow."

When Heisenberg discarded the idealization of classical physics - the concept of "a state of a physical system independent of observation" - he thereby anticipated one of the consequences of the complementarity principle, since the concepts of "state" and "observation" are complementary in the sense of Bohr. Taken separately, they are incomplete and therefore can only be determined jointly, through each other. Strictly speaking, these concepts do not exist separately at all: we always observe not something at all, but certainly something condition. And vice versa: every "state" is a thing in itself until we find a way to "observe" it.

The concepts taken separately: wave, particle, state of the system, observation of the system are some abstractions that have nothing to do with the atomic world, but are necessary for its understanding. Simple, classical pictures are complementary in the sense that a harmonious fusion of these two extremes is necessary for a complete description of nature, but within the framework of the usual logic, they can coexist without contradictions only if the scope of their applicability is mutually limited.

After thinking a lot about these and other similar problems, Bohr came to the conclusion that this is not an exception, but a general rule: any truly deep phenomenon of nature cannot be defined unambiguously with the help of the words of our language and requires at least two mutually exclusive additional concepts for its definition. This means that, provided that our language and habitual logic are preserved, thinking in the form of complementarity puts limits on the exact formulation of concepts that correspond to truly deep phenomena of nature. Such definitions are either unambiguous, but then incomplete, or complete, but then ambiguous, since they include additional concepts that are incompatible within the framework of ordinary logic. Such concepts include the concepts of "life", "atomic object", "physical system" and even the very concept of "knowledge of nature".

It has long been known that science is just one of the ways to study the world around us. Another, additional, method is embodied in art. The very coexistence of art and science is a good illustration of the complementarity principle. You can completely go into science or live entirely in art - both of these approaches to life are equally legitimate, although taken separately and incomplete. The core of science is logic and experience. The basis of art is intuition and insight. But the art of ballet requires mathematical precision, and "... inspiration in geometry is as necessary as in poetry" They do not contradict, but complement each other: true science is akin to art - just like real art always includes elements Sciences. In their highest manifestations, they are indistinguishable and inseparable, like the "wave-particle" properties in the atom. They reflect different, additional aspects of human experience and only taken together give us a complete picture of the world. Unfortunately, only the "uncertainty relation" for the conjugated pair of concepts "science - art" is unknown, and therefore the degree of damage that we suffer with a one-sided perception of life.

Of course, the above analogy, like any analogy, is neither complete nor strict. It only helps us to feel the unity and inconsistency of the entire system of human knowledge.

In everyday life, there are two ways to transfer energy in space - through particles or waves. In order, say, to throw off a domino bone balanced on its edge from the table, you can give it the necessary energy in two ways. First, you can throw another domino at it (that is, transfer a point impulse using a particle). Secondly, you can build dominoes in a row, leading along the chain to the one on the edge of the table, and drop the first one onto the second: in this case, the impulse will be transmitted along the chain - the second domino will overwhelm the third, the third the fourth, and so on. This is the wave principle of energy transfer. In everyday life, there are no visible contradictions between the two mechanisms of energy transfer. So, a basketball is a particle, and sound is a wave, and everything is clear.

Let's summarize what has been said. If photons or electrons are directed into such a chamber one at a time, they behave like particles; however, if sufficient statistics of such single experiments are collected, it will be found that, in aggregate, these same electrons or photons will be distributed on the back wall of the chamber in such a way that a familiar pattern of alternating peaks and decays of intensity will be observed on it, indicating their wave nature. In other words, in the microcosm, objects that behave like particles, at the same time, seem to “remember” their wave nature, and vice versa. This strange property of microworld objects is called quantum wave dualism. Many experiments were carried out in order to "reveal the true nature" of quantum particles: various experimental techniques and installations were used, including those that would allow halfway to the receiver to reveal the wave properties of an individual particle or, conversely, to determine the wave properties of a light beam through the characteristics of individual quanta. Everything is in vain. Apparently, quantum-wave dualism is objectively inherent in quantum particles.

The complementarity principle is a simple statement of this fact. According to this principle, if we measure the properties of a quantum object as a particle, we see that it behaves like a particle. If we measure its wave properties, for us it behaves like a wave. The two views are by no means contradictory; they are complement one another, which is reflected in the name of the principle.

As I already explained in the Introduction, I believe that the philosophy of science has benefited from such wave-particle duality incomparably more than would have been possible in its absence and a strict distinction between corpuscular and wave phenomena. Today it is quite obvious that the objects of the microcosm behave in a fundamentally different way than the objects of the macrocosm that we are accustomed to. But why? On what tablets is it written? And, just as medieval natural philosophers struggled to figure out whether the flight of an arrow was "free" or "forced," so modern philosophers struggle to resolve quantum wave dualism. In fact, both electrons and photons are not waves or particles, but something very special in its intrinsic nature - and therefore not amenable to description in terms of our everyday experience. If we continue to try to squeeze their behavior into the framework of paradigms familiar to us, more and more paradoxes are inevitable. So the main conclusion here is that the dualism we observe is generated not by the inherent properties of quantum objects, but by the imperfection of the categories in which we think.

Vadim Rudnev

The complementarity principle is a methodological principle formulated by Niels Bohr in relation to quantum physics, according to which, in order to most adequately describe a physical object related to the microcosm, it must be described in mutually exclusive, additional description systems, for example, both as a wave and as a particle ( cf. many-valued logics).

This is how he interprets the culturological significance of P. d. for the 20th century. Russian linguist and semiotician V. V. Nalimov:

"Classical logic turns out to be insufficient to describe the external world. Trying to comprehend this philosophically, Bohr formulated his famous principle of complementarity (hereinafter in quotations, italics and spacing are the authors' - V.R.), according to which mutually exclusive, additional concept classes.

This requirement is equivalent to expanding the logical structure of the language of physics. Bohr uses what seems to be a very simple means: the mutually exclusive use of two languages, each of which is based on ordinary logic, is recognized as acceptable. They describe mutually exclusive physical phenomena, such as the continuity and atomism of light phenomena. (...) Bohr himself was well aware of the methodological significance of the principle he formulated: "... the integrity of living organisms and the characteristics of people with consciousness, as well as human cultures, represent features of integrity, the display of which requires a typically additional way of description." (...) The principle of complementarity is, in fact, the recognition that well-defined logical systems act as metaphors: they define models that behave both like the outside world and not. One logical construction is not enough to describe the entire complexity of the microworld. The requirement to violate the generally accepted logic when describing the picture of the world (see - V. R.) obviously first appeared in quantum mechanics - and this is its special philosophical significance.

Later Yu. M. Lotman applied an expanded understanding of P. d. to the description of the semiotics of culture. Here is what he writes:

"... the mechanism of culture can be described in the following way: the insufficiency of information at the disposal of a thinking individual makes it necessary for it to turn to another similar unit. If we could imagine a being acting in a condition of complete information, then it would be natural to assume that it does not need its own kind to make decisions. The normal situation for a person is to work in conditions of insufficient information. No matter how much we spread the circle of our information, the need for information will develop, overtaking the pace of our scientific progress Consequently, as knowledge grows, ignorance will not decrease, but increase, and activity, becoming more effective, will not become easier, but more difficult.Under these conditions, the lack of information is compensated by its stereoscopicity - the possibility of obtaining a completely different projection of the same reality - (see. - V.R.) translating it into a completely different language. ii lies in the fact that he is different.

P. d. is also caused by purely physiological - functional asymmetry of the cerebral hemispheres - this is a kind of natural mechanism for the implementation of P. d.

In a certain sense, Bohr formulated P.D. due to the fact that Kurt Gödel proved the so-called incompleteness theorem for deductive systems (1931). According to Gödel's conclusion, a system is either consistent or incomplete.

Here is what V. V. Nalimov writes about this:

"It follows from Gödel's results that the commonly used consistent logical systems, in whose language arithmetic is expressed, are incomplete. There are true statements expressible in the language of these systems, which cannot be proved in such systems. (...) It also follows from these results that no strictly fixed extension of the axioms of this system can make it complete - there will always be new truths that cannot be expressed by its means, but cannot be deduced from it. (...)

The general conclusion from Gödel's theorem is a conclusion of great philosophical significance: human thinking is richer than its deductive forms.

Another physical, but also philosophically meaningful position, directly related to P. D., is formulated by the great German physicist of the twentieth century. Werner Heisenberg called the uncertainty relation. According to this provision, it is also impossible to accurately describe two interdependent objects of the microcosm, for example, the coordinate and momentum of a particle. If we have accuracy in one dimension, then it will be lost in another.

The philosophical analogue of this principle was formulated in Ludwig Wittgenstein's last treatise (see analytic philosophy, certainty) On Certainty. In order to doubt anything, something must remain certain. We have called this principle of Wittgenstein's "door hinge principle".

Wittgenstein wrote:

"The questions we raise and our doubts are based on the fact that certain propositions are freed from doubt, that they are like loops on which these questions and doubts revolve. (.. .) That is, it belongs to the logic of our scientific research that certain things are in fact certain.(...) If I want the door to rotate, the hinges must be stationary.

Thus, P. D. is of fundamental importance in the methodology of culture of the twentieth century, substantiating the relativism of knowledge, which in cultural practice naturally led to the emergence of the phenomenon of postmodernism, which elevated the idea of ​​stereoscopicity, complementarity of artistic languages ​​into the main aesthetic principle.

Bibliography

Bor N. Atomic physics and human knowledge - M., 1960

Heisenberg V. Steps beyond the horizon. - M., 1987.

Nalimov VV Probabilistic model of language. - M., 1979.

Lotman Yu. M. The phenomenon of culture // Lotman Yu. M. Izbr. articles in 3 vols. - Tallinn, 1992. - V. 1.

Wittgenstein L. About authenticity / Per. A. F. Gryaznova // Vopr. Philosophy, 1984. - M 4.

Rudnev V. Text and reality: The direction of time in culture // Wiener slawisticher Almanach, 1987. - V. 17.

Rudnev V. On unreliability // Logos, 1997. - Issue. 9.