Is the Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Implied by the Correspondence Principle?

Kurt Gottfried

The classical limit of the Schrodinger equation implies the orthodox statistical interpretation for degrees of freedom in finite-dimensional subspaces of the full Hilbert space, but the argument presented does not imply the Born interpretation for degrees of freedom that have a classical counterpart.

John Hasbrouck Van Vleck

Alisa Bokulich

Niels Bohr’s “correspondence principle” is typically believed to be the requirement that in the limit of large quantum numbers (n→∞) there is a statistical agreement between the quantum and classical frequencies. A closer reading of Bohr’s writings on the correspondence principle, however, reveals that this interpretation is mistaken. Specifically, Bohr makes the following three puzzling claims: First, he claims that the correspondence principle applies to small quantum numbers as well as large (while the statistical agreement of frequencies is only for large n); second, he claims that the correspondence principle is a law of quantum theory; and third, Bohr argues that formal apparatus of matrix mechanics (the new quantum theory) can be thought of as a precise formulation of the correspondence principle. With further textual evidence, I offer an alternative interpretation of the correspondence principle in terms of what I call Bohr’s selection rule. I conclude by showing how this new interpretation of the correspondence principle readily makes sense of Bohr’s three puzzling claims.

Joseph Ford, Giorgio Mantica

This elementary review paper presents the compelling evidence which supports the notion that quantum mechanics is much too simple a theory to adequately describe a complex world. Rigorous arguments based on algorithmic complexity theory are used to show that both the quantum Arnol’d cat and a broad category of finite, bounded, undriven, quantum systems do not obey the correspondence principle, implying that quantum mechanics is also not complete. An experiment, well within current laboratory capability, is proposed which can expose the inability of quantum mechanics to adequately describe macroscopic chaos. In its final section, this paper describes a theoretical framework that provides a proper setting for interpreting these surprising results.