arXiv:2503.07666

Classical Mechanics as an Emergent Compression of Quantum Information

Krzysztof Sienicki

Published Mar 9, 2025• 0 citations

Abstract

The correspondence principle states that classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics in the appropriate limits. However, beyond this heuristic rule, an information-theoretic perspective reveals that classical mechanics is a compressed, lower-information representation of quantum reality. Quantum mechanics encodes significantly more information through superposition, entanglement, and phase coherence, which are lost due to decoherence, phase averaging, and measurement, reducing the system to a classical probability distribution. This transition is quantified using Kolmogorov complexity, where classical systems require \( O(N) \) bits of information, while quantum descriptions require \( O(2^N) \), showing an exponential reduction in complexity. Further justification comes from Ehrenfest's theorem, which ensures that quantum expectation values obey Newton's laws, and path integral suppression, which eliminates non-classical trajectories when \( S \gg \hbar \). Thus, rather than viewing quantum mechanics as an extension of classical mechanics, we argue that classical mechanics is a lossy, computationally reduced encoding of quantum physics, emerging from a systematic loss of quantum correlations.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2503.07666

Related papers

Quantum-Enhanced Kolmogorov Complexity Theory

Jincheng Zhang

This paper investigates the potential impact of quantum mechanics on Kolmogorov complexity, a fundamental concept in information theory. The core claim is that quantum phenomena, specifically entanglement and superposition, introduce limitations to the compression achievable through Kolmogorov complexity that are absent in the classical framework. We demonstrate through theoretical analysis that certain datasets exhibit compression ratios exceeding those attainable by classical methods, leveraging the unique properties of quantum states. This extends Kolmogorov complexity by incorporating quantum principles, offering a novel perspective on the nature of information and its quantification. The theoretical framework presented here highlights potential discrepancies between classical and quantum notions of information and sets the stage for future research exploring the implications of quantum mechanics for fundamental information theory. We present a novel approach to defining Kolmogorov complexity within a quantum context, focusing on the measurement problem and its effect on the ability to uniquely determine a string. This work doesn't present experimental results; it is a purely theoretical exploration.

Sep 3, 20260 citations

Self-Induced Decoherence and the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics

Mario Castagnino, Olímpia Lombardi

In this paper we argue that the emergence of the classical world from the underlying quantum reality involves two elements: self-induced decoherence and macroscopicity. Self-induced decoherence does not require the openness of the system and its interaction with the environment: a single closed system can decohere when its Hamiltonian has continuous spectrum. We show that, if the system is macroscopic enough, after self-induced decoherence it can be described as an ensemble of classical distributions weighted by their corresponding probabilities. We also argue that classicality is an emergent property that arises when the behavior of the system is described from an observational perspective.

Philosophy of ScienceDec 1, 200555 citations

Classical Mechanics as a Subset of Quantum Mechanics?

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Classical mechanics was developed in the 1600s and is considered a complete theory in that it matches observables in the macroscopic world. In the 1920s, however, it was found that different mechanical rules seem to apply to the electron in an atom. In this note we try to argue that classical mechanics is a subset of quantum mechanics i.e. it is based on partial information or the dropping of information. In (1) we noted that a classical spatial density Cdx/v(x,) where v(x) is velocit, is sometimes presented in the literature (2). This expression is proportional to dt associated with a fixed length dx so the density is a relative one. If one considers two bound classical systems (a particle in a box) with different constant speeds (in the interior) then dt is different for each, but Cdx/v(x) does not distinguish. Thus we argue that information has been lost. The higher v particle not only has a higher impulse, but an increased frequency and we argued in (1) that quantum mechanics takes note of this extra frequency by increasing the number of crests associated with higher constant velocities. In this note, we point out that quantum mechanics itself is linked to the dropping of information. If one considers free particle wavefunctions W(x) for different momenta (i.e velocities if mo is the same), one has exp(i p1 x), exp(i p2 x) etc. These clearly have different information. They describe direction, but more importantly they have an associated wavelength proportional to 1/p. P(x)=W*(x)W(x)=constant and so this information, which is physical, is lost . P(x) is related to the question: What is the probability for a particle to be at x? If one considers cos(px) as a nonlocal spatial distribution which shows motion i.e. negative and positive parts of cos(px), then sin(px) is a spatially shifted distribution which helps to indicate direction, but also shows that all x points are the same. One has a peak of cos(px) at x=0 and a lower value at x=delta, but due to the motion, the peak may later be at delta just like a classical wave. This is what W*(x)W(x)=constant captures. It shows that even though cos(px) maps to x in a certain way with sin(px) in an extra dimension, overall the free particle has no preference for one x point versus another. There are two points we wish to make. First, classical mechanics seems to be based on P(x) i.e. it drops information about a wavelength. Space is broken into tiny dx units and the particle has a constant velocity in each even if it is accelerating. This is the Newtonian picture and leads to dp/dt = Force or pp/2m + V(x) = E. This information, however, is contained completely in quantum mechanics because for a bound state with V(x) one has: -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W + V(x) = En. -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is exactly KE(x) classical. Quantum mechanics, however, displays more information than the classical picture. For example, only certain En are allowed and W*(x)W(x) leads to a spatial density which does not appear in classical mechanics. This leads to a second point. exp(ipx) contains information about a wavelength which is lost if one only considers P(x) for a free particle. If there is an interaction (two electrons shifted in space, a V(x) or a single or double slits etc) exp(ipx) acts like a probability and adds in OR or interaction situations. In such a case the information regarding the wavelength becomes physically crucial. In other words for an interaction this information does not drop out as it does in the classical scenario of pp/2m + V(x) = E. Thus we argue that classical mechanics is a subset of quantum mechanics. Wavelengths are tiny in the macroscopic world and so are simply not observed, allowing the subset scenario of pp/2m + V(x)=E (nonrelativistic) to be an excellent approximation. Indeed for every energy level of a quantum bound state this relationship also holds. It is the spatial density which is altered.

Jul 4, 20220 citations

Singularity Appendices 33

John Barnhart

Appendix 33 Quantum Correspondence Tests 33.1 Mapping to Hilbert Space Formalism 33.1.1 Objective This section establishes the requirement that BSFM admits a well-defined mapping into a Hilbert space structure in regimes where quantum mechanical behavior is observed. The purpose is to ensure compatibility with the standard mathematical framework of quantum theory. 33.1.2 Hilbert Space Embedding Requirement BSFM must allow a mapping such that: • each physical state S ∈ S corresponds to a vector |Ψ⟩ ∈ H • the set of admissible states maps into a complete inner-product space • superposition structure is preserved under state combination This implies the existence of a well-defined embedding: • Φ : S → H 33.1.3 Linearity Condition Within the mapped representation: • linear combinations of states must correspond to valid physical superpositions • evolution must be representable as a linear (or effectively linear) operator in the quantum regime • interference effects must be preserved under the mapping This ensures consistency with quantum mechanical structure. 33.1.4 Inner Product Consistency The mapping must define an inner product structure such that: • physical distinguishability corresponds to orthogonality relations • probability amplitudes are derived from inner product magnitudes • normalization conditions are preserved under evolution Formally, physical probabilities must be recoverable from: • ⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩ 33.1.5 State Completeness Requirement The mapped Hilbert space representation must be: • complete under limits of convergent sequences of states • closed under allowed linear operations in the quantum regime • sufficient to represent all physically distinguishable configurations This ensures no loss of physical information under mapping. 33.1.6 Branch-to-State Correspondence Within BSFM, branching structure must map consistently into quantum structure such that: • branches correspond to components of a superposed state • branch weights correspond to amplitude coefficients • coherence relations between branches map to phase structure This provides the structural link between BSFM evolution and quantum formalism. 33.1.7 Failure Condition The mapping to Hilbert space fails if: • no consistent vector space representation exists for BSFM states • inner product structure cannot be defined or preserved • branching cannot be represented as superposition without contradiction • linearity or normalization is violated in the quantum regime 33.1.8 Summary BSFM is compatible with quantum formalism only if its state structure can be consistently embedded into a Hilbert space where superposition, inner products, and linear evolution reproduce standard quantum mechanical behavior in the appropriate limit. Appendix 33 — Quantum Correspondence Tests 33.2 Unitarity and Norm Preservation Conditions 33.2.1 Objective This section establishes the requirement that BSFM must preserve total probability (norm) under evolution in the quantum correspondence regime. This ensures compatibility with unitary evolution in standard quantum mechanics and prevents loss or creation of probability mass. 33.2.2 Norm Definition Requirement In the Hilbert space representation: • each physical state |Ψ⟩ ∈ Hmust satisfy a well-defined norm • probability interpretation requires normalization of state vectors Formally: • ⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩ =1 for all physically valid states after normalization. 33.2.3 Unitary Evolution Condition For an evolution operator U acting in the quantum regime: • |Ψₙ₊₁⟩ = U|Ψₙ⟩ BSFM must ensure that: • U†U = 1 This guarantees that evolution preserves inner products between states and maintains probability consistency over time. 33.2.4 Norm Preservation Requirement Under BSFM evolution in the quantum correspondence regime: • total probability must remain invariant under iteration • branching weights (when mapped to amplitudes) must conserve norm globally • no net gain or loss of probability mass is permitted Formally: • ⟨Ψₙ₊₁|Ψₙ₊₁⟩ = ⟨Ψₙ|Ψₙ⟩ 33.2.5 Branch-Amplitude Consistency Condition If BSFM branching maps to quantum amplitudes: • the sum of squared amplitude magnitudes must remain constant • interference structure must not alter total probability • redistribution among branches is permitted only under unitary constraints Formally: • Σᵢ |cᵢ⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾|² = Σᵢ |cᵢⁿ|² 33.2.6 Conservation of Probability Flow In dynamic evolution: • probability may redistribute across states or branches • but total probability within the Hilbert space must remain fixed • no leakage outside the admissible state space is allowed This ensures closed-system behavior in the quantum regime. 33.2.7 Non-Unitary Failure Detection Any deviation from unitary behavior indicates breakdown of quantum correspondence. This includes: • loss of normalization under evolution • growth or decay of total probability • non-invertible evolution operators in the quantum regime • inconsistent amplitude mapping from branching structure 33.2.8 Boundary Condition for Emergent Unitarity If unitarity is not fundamental in BSFM but emergent: • there must exist a regime where effective dynamics become unitary • non-unitary effects must be suppressed or canceled in that limit • deviations must vanish under appropriate coarse-graining or symmetry conditions 33.2.9 Summary BSFM is consistent with quantum mechanics only if its mapped evolution preserves norm and satisfies unitary dynamics in the Hilbert space representation, ensuring conservation of probability and reversible evolution in the quantum correspondence regime. Appendix 33 — Quantum Correspondence Tests 33.3 Superposition and Interference Consistency 33.3.1 Objective This section establishes that BSFM must reproduce the defining quantum features of superposition and interference when mapped into its Hilbert space correspondence. The requirement is that linear combination of states and phase-dependent effects must emerge consistently from the underlying branching structure. 33.3.2 Superposition Principle Requirement In the quantum correspondence regime, BSFM must allow state combinations such that: • if |Ψ₁⟩ and |Ψ₂⟩ are valid states, then a|Ψ₁⟩ + b|Ψ₂⟩ • is also a valid physical state where a, b ∈ ℂ This ensures closure under linear combination within the mapped Hilbert space structure. 33.3.3 Branch-State Correspondence In BSFM terms: • individual branches correspond to components of a composite state • branching structure maps to decomposition of a superposed state • branch weights correspond to amplitude magnitudes and phases The mapping must preserve distinguishability and recombination behavior of branches. 33.3.4 Interference Requirement BSFM must reproduce interference effects such that: • combined amplitudes produce non-classical probability distributions • phase relationships between components affect observable outcomes • constructive and destructive interference emerge naturally from the structure Formally, observable probabilities must depend on: • cross terms of amplitude combinations, not only individual contributions 33.3.5 Coherence Preservation Condition For interference to remain valid: • phase relationships between components must be preserved under evolution • coherence between branches must not collapse prematurely in the quantum regime • decoherence must only emerge under classical-limit conditions (Appendix 32 regime boundary) This ensures correct separation between quantum and classical behavior. 33.3.6 Non-Additive Probability Structure BSFM must reproduce the quantum rule that: • probabilities are not simply additive over branches • interference terms modify total outcomes • classical probability emerges only when coherence is lost This distinguishes quantum behavior from classical stochastic aggregation. 33.3.7 Consistency Requirement The mapping must ensure: • superposition in Hilbert space corresponds consistently to branching combinations in BSFM • interference patterns remain invariant under valid transformations • no hidden classical averaging removes quantum phase dependence 33.3.8 Failure Condition Superposition and interference consistency fails if: • linear combinations of states are not preserved in the mapping • interference terms cannot be recovered from branch structure • probabilities reduce to purely additive classical form in the quantum regime • phase information is lost or undefined under evolution 33.3.9 Summary BSFM is consistent with quantum superposition only if its branching structure maps into a linear state space where phase-dependent interference effects are preserved, producing non-classical probability behavior consistent with standard quantum mechanics. Appendix 33 — Quantum Correspondence Tests 33.4 Path Integral Equivalence Validation 33.4.1 Objective This section establishes the requirement that BSFM must reproduce, in an appropriate limit, the structure and predictions of the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. The goal is to ensure equivalence between BSFM branching evolution and summation over histories. 33.4.2 Path Integral Correspondence Requirement In the quantum regime, BSFM must admit an equivalence such that: • the total amplitude for transition between states is given by a sum over all allowed evolution histories • each history contributes with a well-defined weight and phase structure • the full evolution is recoverable as an aggregate over all admissible paths Formally, BSFM must support a mapping consistent with: • “sum over histories” structure in the quantum correspondence limit 33.4.3 Branch-History Mapping Condition BSFM branching must correspond to path decomposition such that: • each branch corresponds to a distinct dynamical history • the full set of branches represents the complete set of allowed paths • recombination of branches reproduces full transition amplitudes This ensures structural eq

May 3, 20260 citations

Quantum Mechanics As A Limiting Case of Classical Mechanics

Partha Ghose

In spite of its popularity, it has not been possible to vindicate the conventional wisdom that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. The purpose of the present paper is to offer an alternative point of view in which quantum mechanics emerges as a limiting case of classical mechanics in which the classical system is decoupled from its environment.

arXiv:quant-ph/0001025Jan 10, 20000 citations

Light as a Quantum Agent: Bridging Path Integrals and Reinforcement Learning

Bhushan Bhoja Poojary

We propose a novel and interdisciplinary conceptual framework that bridges Feynman’s path integral formulation of quantum mechanics with reinforcement learning (RL) in artificial intelligence. In the path integral approach, a quantum system does not follow a single predetermined trajectory but instead explores all possible paths simultaneously, assigning each a complex amplitude weighted by eiS/h, where S represents the classical action. Constructive and destructive interference across these paths acts as a natural filter, amplifying trajectories of stationary action and suppressing suboptimal ones, thereby leaving paths of least action as the observable outcomes. We argue this process is strongly analogous to a quantum agent evaluating an entire policy space in superposition, where interference effectively encodes a reward mechanism that eliminates non-optimal policies. This perspective not only deepens our understanding of light’s propagation in complex refractive media but also inspires the design of quantum-inspired Reinforcement learning architectures capable of leveraging the intrinsic parallelism of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, the advent of quantum computing, with its inherent properties of superposition, entanglement, and quantum interference, provides a tangible pathway for implementing such algorithms in practice. To illustrate this paradigm, we propose a toy model wherein policies are encoded as quantum states, rewards are mapped to phase shifts, and measurement collapses the superposed state into an optimal policy. The implications of this framework extend beyond algorithmic innovation, offering insights into the possibility that nature itself operates as a quantum learning system, with physical laws emerging from a process akin to reinforcement learning.

American Journal of Modern PhysicsSep 9, 20251 citation