Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0809.3764

Locality and the classical limit of quantum mechanics

Tom Banks

Published Sep 22, 2008• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I argue that conventional estimates of the criterion for classical behavior of a macroscopic body are incorrect, because they do not take into account the locality of interactions, which characterizes the behavior of all systems described approximately by local quantum field theory. Black holes are the only localized objects which do not have such a description. The deviations from classical behavior of a macroscopic body, except for those which can be described as classical uncertainties in the initial values of macroscopic variables,are {\it exponentially} small as a function of the volume of the macro-system in microscopic units.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0809.3764

Related papers

Locality and the classical limit of quantum systems

Tom Banks

I argue that conventional estimates of the criterion for classical behavior of a macroscopic body are incorrect in most circumstances,because they do not take into account the locality of interactions, which characterizes the behavior of all systems described approximately by local quantum field theory. The deviations from classical behavior of a macroscopic body, except for those that can be described as classical uncertainties in the initial values of macroscopic variables,are {\it exponentially} small as a function of the volume of the macro-system in microscopic units. Conventional estimates are correct only when the internal degrees of freedom of the macrosystem are in their ground state, and the classical motion of collective coordinates is adiabatic. Otherwise, the system acts as its own environment and washes out quantum phase correlations between different classical states of its collective coordinates. I suggest that it is likely that we can only achieve meso-scopic superpositions, for systems which have topological variables, and for which we can couple to those variables without exciting phonons.

arXiv:0907.0977•Jul 6, 2009•3 citations

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics

Amita Dua

In the 17th century, it was thought that motion of macroscopic and microscopic objects could be well-expressed by using the laws of classical mechanics. But towards the end of 19th century, experimental studies showed that classical mechanics failed when applied to microscopic objects. This was mainly because classical mechanics did not take into account the concept of de-Broglie’s dual nature of matter and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Also, classical mechanics does not put any restrictions on the values of dynamical properties (likes position, momentum, energy etc.) calculated for microscopic object. According to classical mechanics, microscopic objects can have any value of dynamical properties, ( exact , large or small is permissible). Also any number of properties can be calculated simultaneously for a system.

CRC Press eBooks•Nov 6, 2025•0 citations

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics

Amita Dua, Chayannika Singh

In the 17th century, it was thought that motion of macroscopic and microscopic objects could be well-expressed by using the laws of classical mechanics. But towards the end of 19th century, experimental studies showed that classical mechanics failed when applied to microscopic objects. This was mainly because classical mechanics did not take into account the concept of de-Broglie’s dual nature of matter and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Also, classical mechanics does not put any restrictions on the values of dynamical properties (likes position, momentum, energy etc.) calculated for microscopic object. According to classical mechanics, microscopic objects can have any value of dynamical properties, ( exact, large or small is permissible). Also any number of properties can be calculated simultaneously for a system.

CRC Press eBooks•Mar 15, 2024•11 citations

Disentanglement of quantum wave functions: Answer to ‘‘Comment on ‘Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems’ ’’

G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber

It is shown that the assumption of a stochastic localization process for the quantum wave function is essentially different from the suppression of coherence over macroscopic distances arising from the interaction with the environment and allows for a conceptually complete derivation of the classical behavior of macroscopic bodies.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Nov 15, 1987•98 citations

A possible cosmological effect on the quantum-to-classical transition

C. L. Herzenberg

Although cosmic expansion at very small distances is usually dismissed as entirely inconsequential, these extraordinarily small effects may in fact have a real and significant influence on our world. A calculation suggests that the minute recessional velocities associated with regions encompassed by extended bodies may have a role in creating the distinction between quantum and classical behavior. Using the criterion that the uncertainty in position should be smaller than the size of an object together with estimates based on the range of Hubble velocities extending through the object lead to a threshold size that could provide a fundamental limit distinguishing the realm of objects governed by classical laws from those governed by quantum mechanics.

arXiv:physics/0603136•Mar 16, 2006•3 citations

Experimental undecidability of macroscopic quantumness

Paweł Kurzyński, Akihito Soeda, Ravishankar Ramanathan +3 more

Quantum mechanics marks a radical departure from the classical understanding of Nature, fostering an inherent randomness which forbids a deterministic description; yet the most fundamental departure arises from something different. As shown by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2], quantum mechanics portrays a picture of the world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum mechanics predicts phenomena which cannot be explained by any theory with objective realism, although our everyday experience supports the hypothesis that macroscopic objects, despite being made of quantum particles, exist independently of the act of observation; in this paper we identify this behavior as classical. Here we show that this seemingly obvious classical behavior of the macroscopic world cannot be experimentally tested and belongs to the realm of ontology similar to the dispute on the interpretations of quantum mechanics [3,4]. For small systems such as a single photon [5] or a pair [6], it has been experimentally proven that a classical description cannot be sustained. Recently, there have also been experiments that claim to have demonstrated quantum behavior of relatively large objects such as interference of fullerenes [7], the violation of Leggett-Garg inequality in Josephson junction [8], and interference between two condensed clouds of atoms [9], which suggest that there is no limit to the size of the system on which the quantum-versus-classical question can be tested. These behaviors, however, are not sufficient to refute classical description in the sense of objective reality. Our findings show that once we reach the regime where an Avogadro number of particles is present, the quantum-versus-classical question cannot be answered experimentally.

arXiv:1111.2696•Nov 11, 2011•2 citations
I argue that conventional estimates of the criterion for classical behavior of a macroscopic body are incorrect, because they do not take into account the locality of interactions, which characterizes the behavior of all systems described approximately by local quantum field theory. Black holes are the only localized objects which do not have such a description. The deviations from classical behavior of a macroscopic body, except for those which can be described as classical uncertainties in the initial values of macroscopic variables,are {\it exponentially} small as a function of the volume of the macro-system in microscopic units.
I argue that conventional estimates of the criterion for classical behavior of a macroscopic body are incorrect in most circumstances,because they do not take into account the locality of interactions, which characterizes the behavior of all systems described approximately by local quantum field theory. The deviations from classical behavior of a macroscopic body, except for those that can be described as classical uncertainties in the initial values of macroscopic variables,are {\it exponentially} small as a function of the volume of the macro-system in microscopic units. Conventional estimates are correct only when the internal degrees of freedom of the macrosystem are in their ground state, and the classical motion of collective coordinates is adiabatic. Otherwise, the system acts as its own environment and washes out quantum phase correlations between different classical states of its collective coordinates. I suggest that it is likely that we can only achieve meso-scopic superpositions, for systems which have topological variables, and for which we can couple to those variables without exciting phonons.
In the 17th century, it was thought that motion of macroscopic and microscopic objects could be well-expressed by using the laws of classical mechanics. But towards the end of 19th century, experimental studies showed that classical mechanics failed when applied to microscopic objects. This was mainly because classical mechanics did not take into account the concept of de-Broglie’s dual nature of matter and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Also, classical mechanics does not put any restrictions on the values of dynamical properties (likes position, momentum, energy etc.) calculated for microscopic object. According to classical mechanics, microscopic objects can have any value of dynamical properties, ( exact , large or small is permissible). Also any number of properties can be calculated simultaneously for a system.
In the 17th century, it was thought that motion of macroscopic and microscopic objects could be well-expressed by using the laws of classical mechanics. But towards the end of 19th century, experimental studies showed that classical mechanics failed when applied to microscopic objects. This was mainly because classical mechanics did not take into account the concept of de-Broglie’s dual nature of matter and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Also, classical mechanics does not put any restrictions on the values of dynamical properties (likes position, momentum, energy etc.) calculated for microscopic object. According to classical mechanics, microscopic objects can have any value of dynamical properties, ( exact, large or small is permissible). Also any number of properties can be calculated simultaneously for a system.
Although cosmic expansion at very small distances is usually dismissed as entirely inconsequential, these extraordinarily small effects may in fact have a real and significant influence on our world. A calculation suggests that the minute recessional velocities associated with regions encompassed by extended bodies may have a role in creating the distinction between quantum and classical behavior. Using the criterion that the uncertainty in position should be smaller than the size of an object together with estimates based on the range of Hubble velocities extending through the object lead to a threshold size that could provide a fundamental limit distinguishing the realm of objects governed by classical laws from those governed by quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics marks a radical departure from the classical understanding of Nature, fostering an inherent randomness which forbids a deterministic description; yet the most fundamental departure arises from something different. As shown by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2], quantum mechanics portrays a picture of the world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum mechanics predicts phenomena which cannot be explained by any theory with objective realism, although our everyday experience supports the hypothesis that macroscopic objects, despite being made of quantum particles, exist independently of the act of observation; in this paper we identify this behavior as classical. Here we show that this seemingly obvious classical behavior of the macroscopic world cannot be experimentally tested and belongs to the realm of ontology similar to the dispute on the interpretations of quantum mechanics [3,4]. For small systems such as a single photon [5] or a pair [6], it has been experimentally proven that a classical description cannot be sustained. Recently, there have also been experiments that claim to have demonstrated quantum behavior of relatively large objects such as interference of fullerenes [7], the violation of Leggett-Garg inequality in Josephson junction [8], and interference between two condensed clouds of atoms [9], which suggest that there is no limit to the size of the system on which the quantum-versus-classical question can be tested. These behaviors, however, are not sufficient to refute classical description in the sense of objective reality. Our findings show that once we reach the regime where an Avogadro number of particles is present, the quantum-versus-classical question cannot be answered experimentally.