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

Fundamental theories of physics

The Classical Limit of a Physical Theory and the Dimensionality of Space

Borivoje Dakić, Časlav Brukner

Published Dec 9, 2015• 57 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-94-017-7303-4_8

Related papers

The classical limit of a physical theory and the dimensionality of space

Borivoje Dakić, Časlav Brukner

In the operational approach to general probabilistic theories one distinguishes two spaces, the state space of the "elementary systems" and the physical space in which "laboratory devices" are embedded. Each of those spaces has its own dimension- the minimal number of real parameters (coordinates) needed to specify the state of system or a point within the physical space. Within an operational framework to a physical theory, the two dimensions coincide in a natural way under the following "closeness" requirement: the dynamics of a single elementary system can be generated by the invariant interaction between the system and the "macroscopic transformation device" that itself is described from within the theory in the macroscopic (classical) limit. Quantum mechanics fulfils this requirement since an arbitrary unitary transformation of an elementary system (spin-1/2 or qubit) can be generated by the pairwise invariant interaction between the spin and the constituents of a large coherent state ("classical magnetic field"). Both the spin state space and the "classical field" are then embedded in the Euclidean three-dimensional space. Can we have a general probabilistic theory, other than quantum theory, in which the elementary system ("generalized spin") and the "classical fields" generating its dynamics are embedded in a higher-dimensional physical space? We show that as long as the interaction is pairwise, this is impossible, and quantum mechanics and the three-dimensional space remain the only solution. However, having multi-particle interactions and a generalized notion of "classical field" may open up such a possibility.

arXiv:1307.3984•Jul 15, 2013•2 citations

On the dimensionality of physical space

Lajos Jánossy, Wolfgang Yourgrau, A. J. van der Merwe

Acta Physica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae•Feb 1, 1978•0 citations

On the Classical Limits of Physics

Valia Allori, Nino Zanghı̀

•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

An interpretation of quantum foundations based on density functional theory and polymer self-consistent field theory

Russell B. Thompson

Abstract The Feynman quantum-classical isomorphism between classical statistical mechanics in 3+1 dimensions and quantum statistical mechanics in 3 dimensions is used to connect classical polymer self-consistent field theory with quantum time-dependent density functional theory. This allows the theorems of density functional theory to relate non-relativistic quantum mechanics to a classical statistical mechanical derivation of polymer self-consistent field theory for ring polymers in a 4 dimensional thermal-space. One dynamic postulate is added to two static postulates which allows for a description of quantum physics from a 5 dimensional thermal-space-time ensemble perspective. A connection with aspects of classical field theory can be made in the classical limit.

arXiv:2111.14236•Quantum Studies Mathematics and Foundations•Jul 19, 2022•8 citations

Sein oder Nichtsein als Grundfrage der Quantenphysik / To he or not to be as basic question in quantum physics

Fritz Bopp

The question is often asked how to interprete quantum physics. That question does not arise in classical physics, since Newton's axioms are immediately connected with basic ideas and experiences. The same is possible in quantum physics, if we remember how elementary particle physicists describe their experiments. As Helmholtz has pointed out. the basic assumption of classical physics is that of geneidentity. That means: Bodies remain the same during their motion. Obviously, that is no longer true in quantum physics. Particles can be created and annihilated. Therefore creation and annihilation must be considered as basic processes. Motion only occurs, if a particle is annihilated in a certain point, if an equal one is created in an infinitesimally neighbouring point, and if this process is continuously going on during a certain time. Motions of that kind are compatible with the existence of some manifest creation and annihilation processes. If we accept this idea, quantum physics can be derived from first principles. As in classical physics, we know therefore what happens from the very beginning. Thus questions of interpretation become dispensable. A particular mathematical method is used to exhaust continua. The theory is formulated in a finite lattice, whose point density and extension equally go to infinity. All calculations are therefore performed in a finite dimensional Hilbert space. The results are however related to an infinite dimensional one. Earlier calculations may, therefore, be essentially correct, though they must be rejected in theories which are based on manifestly infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Here limiting processes do not occur in the state space. They are only admissible for numerical results.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A•Feb 1, 1984•4 citations

Physical Theory in Hilbert Space

IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS eBooks•Mar 1, 2006•0 citations
In the operational approach to general probabilistic theories one distinguishes two spaces, the state space of the "elementary systems" and the physical space in which "laboratory devices" are embedded. Each of those spaces has its own dimension- the minimal number of real parameters (coordinates) needed to specify the state of system or a point within the physical space. Within an operational framework to a physical theory, the two dimensions coincide in a natural way under the following "closeness" requirement: the dynamics of a single elementary system can be generated by the invariant interaction between the system and the "macroscopic transformation device" that itself is described from within the theory in the macroscopic (classical) limit. Quantum mechanics fulfils this requirement since an arbitrary unitary transformation of an elementary system (spin-1/2 or qubit) can be generated by the pairwise invariant interaction between the spin and the constituents of a large coherent state ("classical magnetic field"). Both the spin state space and the "classical field" are then embedded in the Euclidean three-dimensional space. Can we have a general probabilistic theory, other than quantum theory, in which the elementary system ("generalized spin") and the "classical fields" generating its dynamics are embedded in a higher-dimensional physical space? We show that as long as the interaction is pairwise, this is impossible, and quantum mechanics and the three-dimensional space remain the only solution. However, having multi-particle interactions and a generalized notion of "classical field" may open up such a possibility.
Abstract The Feynman quantum-classical isomorphism between classical statistical mechanics in 3+1 dimensions and quantum statistical mechanics in 3 dimensions is used to connect classical polymer self-consistent field theory with quantum time-dependent density functional theory. This allows the theorems of density functional theory to relate non-relativistic quantum mechanics to a classical statistical mechanical derivation of polymer self-consistent field theory for ring polymers in a 4 dimensional thermal-space. One dynamic postulate is added to two static postulates which allows for a description of quantum physics from a 5 dimensional thermal-space-time ensemble perspective. A connection with aspects of classical field theory can be made in the classical limit.
The question is often asked how to interprete quantum physics. That question does not arise in classical physics, since Newton's axioms are immediately connected with basic ideas and experiences. The same is possible in quantum physics, if we remember how elementary particle physicists describe their experiments. As Helmholtz has pointed out. the basic assumption of classical physics is that of geneidentity. That means: Bodies remain the same during their motion. Obviously, that is no longer true in quantum physics. Particles can be created and annihilated. Therefore creation and annihilation must be considered as basic processes. Motion only occurs, if a particle is annihilated in a certain point, if an equal one is created in an infinitesimally neighbouring point, and if this process is continuously going on during a certain time. Motions of that kind are compatible with the existence of some manifest creation and annihilation processes. If we accept this idea, quantum physics can be derived from first principles. As in classical physics, we know therefore what happens from the very beginning. Thus questions of interpretation become dispensable. A particular mathematical method is used to exhaust continua. The theory is formulated in a finite lattice, whose point density and extension equally go to infinity. All calculations are therefore performed in a finite dimensional Hilbert space. The results are however related to an infinite dimensional one. Earlier calculations may, therefore, be essentially correct, though they must be rejected in theories which are based on manifestly infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Here limiting processes do not occur in the state space. They are only admissible for numerical results.