We put forth the idea that Hamilton's equations coincide with deterministic and reversible evolution. We explore the idea from five different perspectives (mathematics, measurements, thermodynamics, information theory and state mapping) and we show how they in the end coincide. We concentrate on a single degree of freedom at first, then generalize. We also discuss possible philosophical reasons why the laws of physics can only describe such processes, even if others must exist.
We put forth the idea that Hamilton's equations coincide with deterministic and reversible evolution. We explore the idea from five different perspectives (mathematics, measurements, thermodynamics, information theory and state mapping) and we show how they in the end coincide. We concentrate on a single degree of freedom at first, then generalize. We also discuss possible philosophical reasons why the laws of physics can only describe such processes, even if others must exist.
The main distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is the lack in the latter of a full mechanical determinism: different final states can arise from the same physical state, after the measurement. No hidden variable is supposed to exist, nothing can discriminate two apparently identical states even if they give a different result. In this paper we try to put the basis for a more fundamental theory that (approximately) coincides with quantum mechanics when comparing statistics, but it is more fundamental, since it mathematically describes measurement processes giving an explicit time evolution of the wave function during the collapse. The theory is deterministic even if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still valid. The theory distinguishes physical states that collapse and physical states that do not collapse. The theory can be made compatible with all experiments done in the past, but new phenomena such as violations of the Born law or the superposition principle could transpire. However, even if we have probably shown that it is possible to build ad hoc a theory that can describe both the wave function collapse and the Schrödinger linear evolution, a simple and unified construction is still missing.
In a deterministic theory, one can deduce the state of the universe at any one time from the dynamical laws that govern its evolution and its state at any other time.In particular, one can deduce from the conditions that obtained at some early boundary condition for the universe, its state at all subsequent times.It is a piece of well-received philosophical common sense that there is no room in a deterministic theory for objective probabilities.Arguments will be given below that this piece of philosophical common sense is mistaken, and that a probability measure over the space of physically possible trajectories is an indispensable component of any theory -deterministic or otherwise -that can be used as a basis for prediction or receive confirmation from the evidence.Phase space is the central representational space in physics.It is the space within which all of the states pertaining to a system are represented, and it encodes all of the general information that we have about those states.To take an obvious example (less obvious examples will be given below) the fact that a pair of quantities are represented by different dimensions in phase space encodes the fact that they represent separate degrees of freedom.Physically possible histories are represented by trajectories through phase space and in a deterministic theory, when dealing with a closed system, there is (no more than) one trajectory through each point.Since the universe as a whole is the only truly closed system, this means there is one trajectory through each point in the phase space of the universe.Probabilities may be invoked in applications of theory, when the state of a system or the values of external variables are not known with full precision, but they are eliminable given complete knowledge.And they don't appear in the statement of the laws.The laws serve simply to identify the physically allowable trajectories.About Newtonian dynamics, Laplace famously said "given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it -an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis -it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, and the past, would be present to its eyes."ii It is a short step from this to the idea that probabilities invoked in classical contexts are subjective rather than objective.If they represent anything, it is facts about our epistemic states, not facts about the world.iii Popper, and Lewis, and other influential figures have endorsed this view, categorically rejecting any role for objective probabilities indeterministic contexts.In Popper's words:
What is the physical significance of entropy? What is the physical origin of irreversibility? Do entropy and irreversibility exist only for complex and macroscopic systems? The bulk of the physics community accepts and teaches that all these fundamental questions are rationalized within statistical mechanics. Indeed, for everyday laboratory physics, the mathematical formalism of statistical mechanics (canonical and grandcanonica1, Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distributions) allows a successful description of the thermodynamic equilibrium properties of matter, including entropy values. But an ever growing handful of physicists (Schrodinger among the first) have realized that, even in its explanation of the meaning of entropy, statistical mechanics is impaired by ambiguities and logical inconsistencies. They have started to search for a better theory to eliminate these stumbling blocks while maintaining the mathematical formalism that has been so successful in so many applications. This handful of upstreamers must not be confused with the many schools of physicists that have thrived on the more renowned incompleteness of statistical mechanics, namely, the lack of a quantitative (and the weakness of the qualitative) explanation of the origin of irreversibility. In these studies the thrust is provided by the discovery that the macroscopic dynamics of certain complex systems may be modeled using a few-degrees-of-freedom nonlinear Hamiltonian with singularities that give rise to bifurcations and chaotic behavior. These results have generated successful ways to describe irreversible behavior, but their link to the origin of irreversibility is still only heuristic (what is the connection between the nonlinear model Hamiltonian and the true full Hamiitonian?) and does not provide yet a rigorous resolution of the century-old paradox of the conflict between the irreversibiiity of macroscopic behavior, and the reversibility of the laws of mechanics. To resolve both the problem of the meaning of entropy and that of the origin of irreversibility we have built entropy and irreversibility into the laws of mechanics. The result is a theory that we call quantum thermodynamics that has all the necessary properties to combine mechanics and thermodynamics uniting all the successful results of both theories, eliminating the logical inconsistencies of statistical mechanics and the paradox on irreversibiiity, and providing an entirely new perspective on the microscopic origin of irreversibility, nonlinearity and therefore chaotic behavior. The mathematical formalism of quantum thermodynamics differs from that of statistical mechanics mainly in the equation of motion which is nonlinear but has solutions identical to those of the Schrodinger equation for all the states for which statistical mechanics reduces to quantum mechanics. The physical meaning of the formalism of quantum thermodynamics differs more drastically from that of statistical mechanics. The significance of the state operator of quantum thermodynamics is entirely different from that of the density operator of statistical mechanics, even though the two are mathematically equivalent. Indeed they obey different equations of motion. In particular, quantum thermodynamics is concerned only with those systems for which quantum mechanics would describe the states with vectors in Hilbert space or, equivalently, projection operators. Using a well known jargon, we can say that quantum thermodynamics like quantum mechanics is concerned only with pure quantum states. However, it postulates that the set of pure quantum states of a system is much broader than contemplated by quantum mechanics. Pure quantum states must be described by operators defined by all the features of projection operators except the condition of idempotence. As a result, an operator that within statistical mechanics would describe a mixed quantum state (that is, the average state of a statistical mixture of identical systems in different pure quantum states) in quantum thermodynamics describes a pure quantum state, a state that neither quantum mechanics non statistical mechanics would contemplate. Conceptually, the increased richness of pure quantum states is a new revolutionary postulate of quantum physics. But from the point of view of the statistical mechanics practitioners the new theory is not as traumatic as it seems. Whenever one uses a nonidempotent density operator to describe a thermodynamic equilibrium state one simply has to reinterpret it as one of the new pure quantum states. One even saves the usual ad hoc arguments on thermal baths and reservoirs that are usually required in statistical mechanics to justify the use of a nonidempotent density operator to describe the state of a system. In this paper we discuss the background and formalism of quantum thermodynamics including its nonlinear equation of motion and the main general results. Our objective is to show in a not-too-technical manner that this theory provides indeed a complete and coherent resolution of the century-old dilemma on the meaning of entropy and the origin of irreversibility. As a byproduct, we discuss a long set of criteria that a theory should meet in order to afford the same claim.
This work explores a simple question: why does nature end up using equations that look quantum? Instead of starting from the usual quantum axioms (wavefunctions, operators, measurement rules), we begin with three much weaker and more intuitive requirements: • physical evolution should be reversible • distinguishability between states should have a consistent geometry • classical mechanics must appear as a limiting case From only these conditions, probability flow is forced to acquire a phase degree of freedom, and an information–geometric curvature term inevitably appears. When the two are combined, the resulting dynamics takes the form of the Schrödinger equation. The point of the paper is not to claim that quantum mechanics is fully derived, nor that measurement theory is explained. Rather, it shows that once reversible probabilistic dynamics is required to be geometrically consistent, quantum-type evolution becomes extremely hard to avoid. In this sense, the wavefunction can be interpreted not as a mysterious physical object, but as a natural coordinate system describing consistent probability flow.
This paper argues that such strictly deterministic formulations rely on idealizations that obscure an essential physical feature: the objective growth of information associated with irreversible processes. Drawing on thermodynamics, information theory, and the foundations of quantum mechanics, the paper is based on the notion of ontic entropy as a measure of the objective informational content instantiated by physical systems. This paper proposes a classification of determinism based on the informational characteristics of physical evolution. By distinguishing between strict causal determinism, probabilistic determinism, and chaotic determinism, it becomes possible to analyze causal structure without conflating necessity with lawfulness or probability with indeterminism.
The aim of this work is to show that particle mechanics, both classical and quantum, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian, can be derived from few simple physical assumptions. Assuming deterministic and reversible time evolution will give us a dynamical system whose set of states forms a topological space and whose law of evolution is a self-homeomorphism. Assuming the system is infinitesimally reducible—specifying the state and the dynamics of the whole system is equivalent to giving the state and the dynamics of its infinitesimal parts—will give us a classical Hamiltonian system. Assuming the system is irreducible—specifying the state and the dynamics of the whole system tells us nothing about the state and the dynamics of its substructure—will give us a quantum Hamiltonian system. Assuming kinematic equivalence, that studying trajectories is equivalent to studying state evolution, will give us Lagrangian mechanics and limit the form of the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian to the one with scalar and vector potential forces.