002401c25780$ce1358c0$f0c7fea9@scerir">I don't understand.George Levy:5) Is complementarity anthropically necessary?I may be wrong but it seems to me that complementarityis nothing more, and nothing less than a consequenceof the finiteness of (quantum) information.
002401c25780$ce1358c0$f0c7fea9@scerir">Yes, this is a difference between the thought experiment and nature. Or is it? The fact that we haven't been able to show discreteness in QM indeterminacy is no proof that there isn't.It seems also that the complementarity principle isa "smooth" principle.
002401c25780$ce1358c0$f0c7fea9@scerir">When we say, i.e. following vonWeizsaeker, that localization and superposition arecomplementary, we mean that the predictability of thepath plus the visibility of the interference fringes (in thedouble slit experiment) equals a certain constant.There is a "smooth" transition between the wave-like
behavior and the particle-like behaviour.Wootters and Zurek [see "Complementarity in the Double-
Slit Experiment: Quantum Nonseparability and a
Quantitative Statement of Bohr's Principle", in
Physical Review, D19, (1979)] showed that a photon
still has a wave-like behaviour even if the path
(the which way in a double-slit experiment) is
predicted almost certainly. Their gedanken
experiment is very simple: a single-slit+ a double-slit + a screen.Thus to me the question "Is complementarity anthropicallynecessary?" means "Can *we* get infinite informationfrom a single quantum?"
This would be a great feature for quantum computers. But I don't understand how you arrive to this conclusion.