Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Uncertainty and complementarity: the heart of quantum physics

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2000 Phys. Educ. 35 393

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/35/6/303)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 141.209.100.60
This content was downloaded on 01/01/2015 at 11:32

Please note that terms and conditions apply.


Uncertainty and
complementarity: the heart
of quantum physics
Gesche Pospiech
Institute of Physics Education, University of Frankfurt/Main, Germany
The discussion of particlewave dualism
still plays an important part in teaching
quantum theroy. This surely is for
historical reasons, since it was important
in grasping the concept of uncertainty.
Recent EPR-like experiments, however,
indicate new ways of teaching the notions
of uncertainty and complementarity.
These allow us to achieve a clear
understanding without difficult
mathematical obstacles and promote also
a well-founded discussion of
philosophical aspects. The core of the
considerations presented here are
systems consisting of two-state objects,
for example the spin states of photons or
electrons.
Quantum theory has been much discussed since its
invention almost a century ago. Many people were
excited by its strangeness and became interested in
its implications. Soon it became obvious that the
interpretation of its mathematical structure would
have a deep influence on the world view. Several
incompatible opinions emerged:
Some people could accept the world only as an
objectively existing reality and as being well
determined in all its properties. This is the
viewpoint and the presupposition of classical
physics.
Some people regarded the indeterminism and
the holism that came into the physical
world with quantum theory as a fundamental
philosophical advance.
These differing attitudes initiated a long-lasting
debate and the different interpretations could not
QUANTUM PHYSICS
be settled till now. Only recently, by the
realization of former gedanken experiments, has
something like experimental philosophy arisen
that might help in deciding which interpretations
could explain the experimental results best within
a unique conceptual context.
A thorough conceptual understanding of quan-
tum theory, however, does not seem possible with-
out at least a rough knowledge of the mathematical
structure of quantum theory. But the mathemati-
cal difficulties of the fully developed apparatus
e.g. handling infinite-dimensional Hilbert space,
the abstract concept of operators and related
subjectsprevent many people from obtaining a
detailed understanding. Furthermore the mathe-
matical formalism often hides the philosophical is-
sues. For educational purposes I therefore propose
an elementary procedure that quickly reaches the
heart of quantum theory.
One possible and far-reaching method is
indicated by the relevance of the concept of
spin in many recent experiments concerning the
fundamentals of quantum theory in the spirit of
the famous EPR experiment. Its consequent
use during a course opens up a comparatively
simple way of teaching quantum theory to novices
right from the start (Peres 1993, Pospiech 1999).
The unfolding of the mathematical structures with
the help of spin presents a fixed framework
for a well-motivated interpretation of quantum
phenomena. It should become clear to the students
that the inevitable conceptual changes have their
counterpart in a change of mathematical structure.
Admittedly this framework, although far-reaching,
cannot explain all aspects of quantum theory,
especially the heavily discussed measuring process
and the emergence of classicality. Nevertheless
Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000 393
QUANTUM PHYSICS
it allows a close look at these questions. At
the heart of the difficulties lies uncertainty, an
understanding of the EPR experiment and the
transition from the quantum regime to the classical
regime, where the concept of complementarity
comes in.
The heart of quantum theory
In 1900 Planck solved the problem of black body
radiation by introducing the constant that now
bears his name. Then 25 years later (which
is now 75 years ago) Heisenberg discovered
the mathematical structure of quantum physics.
At once he was struck by the beauty of the
observed structure, and after he had controlled
energy conservation he decided not to be overly
concerned about the non-commutativity of the kind
of multiplication he had to use.
However, it was just this non-commutativity
after the quantization of actionthat gave the first
sign that nature had something fundamentally new
to offer physicists (and mankind).
From classical physics to quantum physics
Most difficulties in understanding quantum theory
arise from trying to develop quantum theory start-
ing from classical concepts and then explaining
the differences. So one often triesmostly for
historical reasonsto explain the peculiarities of
quantum theory in relation to the classical con-
cepts of position and momentum or to the duality
of wave and particle. But it is just these classical
concepts borne from daily experiences that have
to be thrown away. Hence a completely different
path should be taken in order to explain quantum
theory. There are several different methods of at-
tacking quantum physics:
From a practical point of view. This
means teaching atomic physics, perhaps with
computer simulations of the Schrodinger
equation and training in the use of these tools,
in order to explain related phenomena. This
approach is related to the many semiclassical
descriptions that exist and work very well to
quite an extent.
From a pragmatic point of view. Physics tries
to describe natural phenomena and wants to
make predictions about them. In quantum
394 Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000
theory predictions about a single quantum
object in a single measurement can only be
made as a probability. Therefore in this case
the probability description of quantum theory
is the relevant one.
From a philosophical point of view. Quantum
theory has had a deep influence on many peo-
ples views concerning reality and objectivity.
For an insight into the whys of the behaviour
of quantum objects the fundamental structures
of quantum theory have to be treated, mainly
the nature of uncertainty.
In this article I will follow the last point,
elucidating the fundamental ontological difference
between classical and quantum physics.
Main differences between classical and quan-
tum objects. It turns out that the following
points are quite important for a deeper understand-
ing of quantum phenomena:
1. The most important feature of quantum theory
is its linearity. The consequence of this
is that any two superimposed states form
an admissible third state. These strictly
valid superpositions are the roots of all the
unusual phenomena, the indeterminism, the
uncertainty, the representation of physical
quantities as operators in a linear vector space
and so on.
2. In classical physics as well as in everyday life
objects have fixed values for all their physical
properties. Each object can be described
in an objective manner independent of the
order in which different measurements are
performed; every physical quantity can be
measured exactly and always possesses a fixed
value. This is no longer true with quantum
objects: the value to be obtained depends on
the order of measurements. This may sound
strange at first if we think of objects as little
balls. But as soon as we consider actions
from daily life that we perform all day, we
know very well that the order may play a very
substantial role; some results depend crucially
on the order in which things are done: we must
write down a phone number in our address
book before throwing away the scrap of paper.
Otherwise the phone number could be given a
wrong digit.

3. Classical objects are isolated not only from
their environment but also from the measuring
apparatus. This isolation and well-determined
existence are the characterizing features of
classical physics. Only the neglect of
possibly existing (weak) relations between
objects and the modelling of behaviour under
ideal circumstances made possible the great
achievements of physics since the beginning
of modern scienceoften marked by Galileo.
From this success it is quite obvious that most
physicists claim that physics has to describe an
objective real world, independent of a subject or an
observer. Seemingly this important assumption is
no longer fulfilled in quantum theory. There arise
features such as uncertainty of values for physical
quantities.
Characterization of measurement. We men-
tioned measurement above, so what happens to
quantum objects with respect to their states in
a quantum measurement? Physical quantities
are represented by operators with corresponding
eigenvalues (the possible results of a measure-
ment) and eigenstates (the possible states after a
measurement). A first approach to the measure-
ment process consists in interpreting a measure-
ment of a given physical quantity as an irreversible
projection onto one of these eigenstates, resulting
in one single well-defined value, namely the cor-
responding eigenvalue. Therefore the possibilities
of a quantum object (the superposition of eigen-
states) change into a single fact. Repeating the
same measurement (i.e. projection) gives exactly
the same result: the measured property has now
obtained a definite value. One could say that the
quantum object is lifted into the classical world
through contact with the environment. An isolated
quantum object shows superpositions or entangle-
ments which are destroyed at once if the isolation
breaks down, e.g. in a measurement; to a certain
extent it becomes a classical system. But which
value from its catalogue of possibilitites is actually
obtained remains completely undetermined and the
value is decided by chance, in sharp contrast to the
classical Laplace Daemon.
Let us look at a simple experiment, suitable for
school, giving a hint of this unfamiliar property of
physics.
QUANTUM PHYSICS
First experiments towards quantum theory
The purely quantum phenomenon of spin,
related to polarization of photons, offers quite
a simple introduction to the heart of quantum
theory. The spin or, more generally, two-state
systems can serve as a unifying concept, as
a kind of link between the following subjects
that are nowadays broadly discussed: quantum
cryptography, teleportation, quantum computing,
and last but not least the philosophical aspects
mainly concerning the perception of reality.
Since these topics are touched on in the media,
students can be motivated by referring to these
fascinating phenomena.
The following experiments concerning the spin
are intended to give a first impression of what
quantum phenomena may look like and to promote
a feeling of the differences from classical physics,
especially concerning the properties of quantum
objects. There are surely much more sophisticated
experiments, but my purpose here is to do it
almost hands-on. Hence the interpretation of the
experiments is by no means unique and has to
be prepared carefully, invoking the imagination of
the students. The main objective is to indicate
that one gets into contradictions if it is assumed
that the spin of a single photon does have fixed
components, which the observer just would not
know.
Polarization properties with light. Polarization
of light cannot be perceived directly without
training (Rieck 1999), but calcite crystals and
polarization analysers are often available. The
beam of a (HeNe) laser (see figure 1) is sent first
through a polarizer, oriented at an angle of 45 to
the vertical, then through a calcite crystal (I).
A second calcite crystal (II) is then inserted.
If it is oriented in the same orientation as the first
the distance travelled by the two outgoing beams
simply increases.
But what happens if the second one is turned
to an angle of 45 relative to the first crystal?
What is to be expected with an interpretation in
terms of single photons and under the classical
assumption that each single photon possesses a
well-determined direction of polarization? Before
the first crystal all photons are polarized at 45
relative to the vertical because of their preparation.
Hence they leave the first crystal with a probability
Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000 395
QUANTUM PHYSICS
r
laser polarizer calcite I
Figure 1. Sketch of the experimental set-up. The arrowed lines indicate the path of the light beams or
(single) photons; the dashed line indicates that the path differs according to the orientation of the second
calcite crystal. The small arrows indicate the direction of polarization of the photons.
1
2
along either the 0 or the 90 beam. For the same
reason, namely the preparation of the photons at
45 , after the second crystal one should see the
45 beam only, and no 45 beam, which would
be orthogonal to the first preparation. Hence two
images of the laser beam should be expected. But
four images are visible! Analysis by a polarizer
then shows the results given in table 1.
Of course, this phenomenon could be ex-
plained in terms of light being a wave and the vec-
tor of electric field strength oscillating in the polar-
ization direction. But as soon as light is regarded
as being composed of single photons, difficulties
arise in defining field strength etc. Therefore the
tacit assumption has to be abandoned that the first
preparation has fixed the property direction of po-
larization once and for all. The concept that has
to be introduced now is uncertainty: fixed values
of a physical quantity arise only in a measurement.
Table 1. Table of visible images if the second
calcite crystal is turned at an angle of 45 relative
to the first and a polarization analyser is inserted
between the lens and the screen.
Orientation of Number of visible
polarizer images
90 4 images
45 2 images (the upper left
ones (white circles))
0 4 images
45 2 images (the lower right
ones (black circles))
90 4 images
396 Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000

x
x
images
calcite II lens of beam
Peculiarities of quantum theory
Now we are ready to discuss the most important
feature of quantum theory besides the superposi-
tion principle.
Quantum phenomena: uncertainty. The de-
scription of quantum objects in terms of eigen-
states of self-adjoint operators becomes crucial as
soon as two different physical quantities (opera-
tors) with different eigenstates are analysed. From
a mathematical point of view uncertainty is there-
fore quite simple: as alluded to above its root is
just the principle of superposition together with the
description of physical quantities by operators.
The concrete mathematical structures relating
the unfamiliar behaviour of quantum objects to
the non-existence of common eigenstates of the
involved operators extend to a deep philosophical
question: Do we have to change our perception
of reality, as was first pointed out in the EPR
experiment? Indeed, recent experiments indicate
that for a consistent interpretation of quantum
theory we need a modified understanding of
reality, differing from classical physics in that
no fixed reality exists in advance, i.e. before a
measurement. It emerges only on contact with an
environment.
The first uncertainty relations to be discovered
by Heisenberg are at the same time perhaps the
most difficult ones to understand: the uncertainty
of position with regard to momentum. Accord-
ingly there are uncountably many formulations and
interpretations of them. Why are the uncertainty
relations of position and momentum so difficult to
comprehend from a conceptual point of view?

They give rise to associations with classical
concepts and hence tend to produce confusion.
It is very difficult to convey the non-existence
of the position of a physical object, because
in everyday life every object has a describable
position. It is nearly impossible to talk about
an object without mentioning its position. This
problem becomes obvious as soon as the double-
slit experiment is treated: how to describe the
passage of a photon through the apparatus? A
possible formulation would be that the photon is
in a superposition of possibilities of position (and
equally in a superposition of momenta). But it
does not seem possible to provide students with a
concrete image of classical objects. Lets look at
an example.
A photograph of a moving car can be taken
in two different ways: one with sharp contours,
hiding the velocity; the other with blurred
contours, hiding the exact position. In classical
physics the car always has definite position and
definite momentum; we cant tell from just one
photograph. From the point of view of quantum
theory, however, the car would not be on a
fixed path: only the photograph fixes the values,
either for position or for momentum. Once the
photographer has taken a photograph of one kind
(position or velocity), it cannot be replaced with
the other kind. The crucial point to be stressed
is that in quantum theory statements can be made
about the photograph only; the car itself is not
accessible for further measurements (it simply
has gone) and cannot be described completely
and correctly. This is indeed very difficult to
comprehend.
There are mathematical reasons. The operators
representing position and momentum are very
difficult to handle and cannot be taught at
school.
The underlying principle of superposition, how-
ever, is easy to comprehend. Hence it might be ad-
visable to choose a different way in order to get the
students acquainted with the structures of quantum
physics. As was alluded to in Pospiech (1999),
the pure quantum phenomenon of spin allows for
a concise and unique formulation of uncertainty.
Because of their comparatively simple mathemat-
ical structure (the spin operators are represented
by the 2 2 Pauli matrices) the corresponding un-
certainty relation can be computed directlyeven
QUANTUM PHYSICS
by people with a poor background in mathematics,
and the physical interpretation is at hand quickly
with help of the above mentioned simple experi-
ments. Therefore a correct understanding of other
uncertainty relations is promoted.
There might be a way to intuitively accept
the notion of uncertainty although it is not known
from classical objects such as balls. Many people
experience a kind of uncertainty if they talk to each
other and try to arrange things: there are differing
opinions and semantics and so on; for an example
see Pospiech (2000).
The principle of complementarity. The uncer-
tainty is deeply connected with the term comple-
mentarity. In the early times of quantum theory
Heisenberg and Bohr had different views on the
uncertainty relations. Bohr tried to capture its es-
sential feature with the notion of complementarity.
The main example for illustration was again posi-
tion and momentum. There are several notions of
complementarity that are not always clearly dis-
tinguished.
1. Complementarity of position and wavelength
(momentum with the de Broglie relation). This
notion already is well known from classical
waves, e.g. acoustic waves, where either a pure
sine wave with a single frequency is observed
or a short signal containing many frequencies.
The mathematical notion relating the range of
frequencies to the length of the wave is simply
the Fourier transfom.
2. Complementarity among two concepts of
classical physics, e.g. particle and wave.
Quantum objects showdepending on the
measuring apparatustypes of behaviour that
might be described in analogy to a wave
(interference) or to a particle (if so-called
which way information is extracted). Some-
times, however, both aspects are revealed at
the same time: in the Taylor experiment single
photons arrive on the screen and form an
interference pattern.
3. Spacetime description versus causality. This
means that the description of objects in space
and time (by a trajectory) is complementary to
their description in terms of the corresponding
conservation theorems of momentum and
energy. Both these descriptions follow from
the principle of least action: the space
time description is derived from differential
Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000 397
QUANTUM PHYSICS
equations, the conservation theorems stem
from symmetry considerations, as expressed in
the Noether theorems.
This last characterization refers best to Bohrs
understanding of the term complementarity (von
Weizsacker 1976) and clearly shows how uncer-
tainty and complementarity are related to each
other. As soon as two observables satisfy an un-
certainty relation Bohr would call them comple-
mentary to each other: each describes one aspect
of the whole physical process and each delivers
a complete description. It is to be noted that, in
Bohrs opinion, complementarity can apply only
to observable phenomenawhich therefore have
to be described in terms of classical physicsand
not to abstract concepts, such as the -function.
Bohr used the term complementarity in a very gen-
eral sense: suppose there is given One Whole of
which we could imagine a bundle of properties
(e.g. the -function of quantum physics). But if
we wish to describe it, we can capture only aspects
of itfirmly related to each other. Hence, in order
to appreciate complementarity we have to concern
ourselves with the observation and measurement
of quantum objects.
There is another quotation from Bohr that
gives a hint of the interpretation of complemen-
tarity when he says (Bohr 1958, S 92):
. . . the term complementarity only gives a
hint of the logical conditions related to our
position in description and in collecting of
experiences in atomic physics.
Hence neither wave nor particle is the relevant
notion for talking about complementarity but
rather the standpoint the observer takes in referring
to an experiment. She has to choose between
two mutually exclusive possible descriptions, e.g.
space versus momentum, whereas in classical
physics both are necessary for a complete
description. So a treatment of complementarity
should not focus on particlewave dualism. But
what could complementarity be then? It is seen to
be deeply connected to the (human) description of
quantum objects.
Measurement and complementarity. Taking
into account that only experiments, measurements
and the recording and communicating of them
make up physics, there isrelated to comple-
mentarityanother important feature about our
398 Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000
perception of quantum phenomena lying far
deeper: we need classical physics in order
to be able to describe quantum phenomena.
Already Bohr always insisted: classical physics
is necessary to describe and understand quantum
theory (Gornitz 1999; Bohr 1958, S 90):
The conditions of experiments can be
varied in many ways; important however
is that we in every single case can
communicate to others what we have done
or observed and that because of this the
measuring apparatus has to be described
in the world of classical physics.
We have to communicate our observations to other
people or record them on a tape. However, if
we want to relate something absolutely precisly,
we have to duplicate it; but this is forbidden
for quantum objects by the No-Cloning theorem
(Peres 1993). The results of a measurement
never give complete information on the state of
a quantum object because a state is a quantum
physical quantity, described by a -function.
Observations or measurements, however, always
have to be communicated classically; they cannot
be related in quantum language, whatever that
might be.
Classical versus quantum. From the described
relations we can derive the following threefold
image with a circular structure. We start with
a quantum object in its quantum state, the
-function with all its possibilities. Without
any measurement nothing is known about the
given quantum object. It has to be isolated
completely from its environment in order to remain
undisturbed. Hence it can be regarded as one
Whole, mathematically to be charcterized by the
action S through = eiS/h .
From this quantum description in terms of
the -function we now turn to a description
in terms of the action S and related physical
quantities, thus using physical quantities well
known from classical physics, where the action
can be written as a function of position and
momentum. In quantum physics, however,
these quantities are represented by operators that
are related to each other by an uncertainty
relation [q, p] = ih. So it seems plausible
that in quantum physics the action (and other
functions) are already described completely by one

variable. In this sense the term complementarity
acquires a new meaning. If, say, position is
measured the quantization of action implies that
this measurement already gives all the obtainable
information while at the same timebecause of
superpositionsmomentum is undetermined and
uncertain.
On the third level we are describing measure-
ments and talking about observations. Then the
physical quantity in question has eventually taken
on definite values, which in advance could only
be talked of in terms of probability. Viewed from
the classical world the shadow of the quantum ob-
ject and its state is seen. Whilst, however, in the
classical world a full description requires fixing all
values for all physical properties, in the quantum
world only half of them are needed. Hence also
the uncertainty throws its shadow onto the classi-
cal world. Perhaps herein lies the deeper reason
why we can speak about quantum phenomena only
in partly true images which in principle are never
totally adequate. Very fine experiments in recent
years (see e.g. Herzog et al 1996) have shown
a fine structure of this shadow, allowing one to
look down to the second level and to get a glimpse
of the first level.
What is striking is that this three-level
image could help explain why semiclassical
approximations to quantum phenomena so often
give correct results: as soon as we observe an
objectas we inevitably do in an experimentit
has taken the first step into classicality, or we could
say that it throws a shadow visible in the classical
world. Only in very fine experimental set-ups is
the classical approximation (i.e. the description
of the shadow) no longer adequate, and hence
the object needs a quantum mechanical treatment,
which helps to resolve the shadow.
Conclusion
Until today most people have viewed nature and
its physical description similarly to the view
of newtonian physics. But quantum theory
QUANTUM PHYSICS
requires a change in viewing physics and its
meaning for people: suddenly there are notions
such as (cor)relation, uncertainty, chance
etc. In all these respects quantum theory
deviates significantly from classical physics.
Complementarity is one of the fundamental
notions Bohr developed for dealing with quantum
phenomena. His notion of complementarity
nowadays might be enriched by the three-level
image described in the last section, a construction
related to the Schichtenstruktur introduced by
Gornitz (1999). Hence it is seen that human beings
need both parts of physics to describe nature
classical theory as well as quantum physics.
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank Thomas Gornitz for very fruitful
discussions.
Received 17 August 2000
PII: S0031-9120(00)16468-8
References
Bohr N 1958 Atomphysik und menschliche Erkenntnis
(Wiesbaden: Friedrich Vieweg) pp 8495
Gornitz T 1999 Quanten sind anders (Heidelberg:
Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
Herzog T J, Kwiat P G, Weinfurter H and Zeilinger A
1996 Complementarity and the quantum eraser
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 30347
Peres A 1993 Quantum Theory: Concepts and
Methods, vol 57 of Fundamental Theories of
Physics (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic)
Pospiech G 1999 Teaching the EPR paradox at high
school? Phys. Educ. 34 3116
Pospiech G 2000 Experiences with a modern course in
quantum physics Research in Science Education:
Past, Present and Future ed R Duit (Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic)
Rieck K 1999 Polarisation wahrnehmen Zur Didaktik
der Physik und Chemie (Koln: Aulis Verlag)
in press
von Weizsaecker C F 1976 Zum Weltbild der Physik
(Stuttgart: Hirzel Verlag)
Phys. Educ. 35(6) November 2000 399