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

Physics Today

Beyond the classical view of atoms

David L. Rosen

Published Apr 30, 2013• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The article “Insights from the classical atom,” by Petar Grujić and Nenad Simonović (Physics Today, May 2012, page 41), was interesting but incomplete. It left out stochastic electrodynamics (SED), an approach to classical mechanics that includes the effects of a proposed zero-point radiation background.The zero-point radiation is a Lorentz-invariant random distribution of energy into different modes of electromagnetic radiation. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) uses the hypothesis that the amplitudes of the Lorentz-invariant radiation are quantized, whereas SED uses the hypothesis that they are continuous.The motions of electric charges in SED are modeled using the equations of motion for a particle, often associated with a concrete visualization. SED is considered part of classical physics because of the continuous distribution of amplitudes. However, discrete values for energy and momentum emerge from SED without the ad hoc quantization conditions of QED.Stochastic electrodynamics has been investigated as a classical physics explanation for quantum phenomena. For instance, the blackbody radiation spectrum has been derived without quantum assumptions.11. T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. 182, 1374 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.182.1374 Lorentz-invariant radiation provides perturbations that mimic quantum phenomena such as the Casimir force, the van der Waals force, the Lamb shift, and the radius of the Bohr atom.22. M. Ibison, B. Haisch, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2737 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2737Physical chemistry provides many mathematical expressions that are often thought to be fundamentally quantum in nature. However, some of those expressions have been shown to emerge from both QED and SED. For example, the Schrödinger equation has been derived from SED,33. G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1101 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728139 G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00727993 and the wavefunction in the SED Schrödinger equation is shown to have the a priori significance of position probability amplitude. A physical model based on SED has been developed to increase our understanding of both the diffraction of particle beams and the Pauli exclusion principle.44. A. F. Kracklauer, Found. Phys. Lett. 12, 441 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021629310707Quantum mechanics is often cited to justify chemical bonding on an elementary level. However, the visualizations used for chemical bonding are often based on mathematical expressions that can be derived from either QED or SED. Regardless of which turns out to be more accurate in physics experiments or more complete in mathematical description, the two theories overlap with regard to physical chemistry. Therefore, I propose that introductory chemistry taught in secondary schools can be rationalized as easily by references to SED as to QED.Either theory produces identical predictions for many experiments involving second-order correlations, squeezing (quadrature noise reduction), and the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen proposal.55. S. Chaturvedi, P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A 55, 912 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.912 However, SED is not completely equivalent to QED on a mathematical or physical level. The SED Schrödinger equation is incomplete, because there is a companion equation that has no counterpart in ordinary quantum mechanics and restricts initial conditions.33. G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1101 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728139 G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00727993 Furthermore, the predictions of QED and SED are different with regard to high-order correlations in nonlinear optics.I agree fully with Grujić and Simonović that the classical atom is alive and well. Models of the atom based on SED are sufficiently accurate for many technological and most pedagogical applications. Even if the classical atom isn’t the most fundamental description of the physical world, it is still an important one.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. 182, 1374 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.182.1374, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. M. Ibison, B. Haisch, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2737 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2737, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1101 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728139 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISIG. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00727993, , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. A. F. Kracklauer, Found. Phys. Lett. 12, 441 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021629310707, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI5. S. Chaturvedi, P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A 55, 912 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.912, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2013 American Institute of Physics.

DOI
10.1063/pt.3.1962

Related papers

Self field electromagnetism and quantum phenomena

Kenneth Howard Schatten

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) has been extremely successful inits predictive capability for atomic phenomena. Thus the greatest hope for any alternative view is solely to mimic the predictive capability of quantum mechanics (QM), and perhaps its usefulness will lie in gaining a better understanding of microscopic phenomena. Many “paradoxes” and problematic situations emerge in QED. To combat the QED problems, the field of Stochastics Electrodynamics (SE) emerged, wherein a random “zero point radiation” is assumed to fill all of space in an attmept to explain quantum phenomena, without some of the paradoxical concerns. SE, however, has greater failings. One is that the electromagnetic field energy must be infinit eto work. We have examined a deterministic side branch of SE, “self field” electrodynamics, which may overcome the probelms of SE. Self field electrodynamics (SFE) utilizes the chaotic nature of electromagnetic emissions, as charges lose energy near atomic dimensions, to try to understand and mimic quantum phenomena. These fields and charges can “interact with themselves” in a non-linear fashion, and may thereby explain many quantum phenomena from a semi-classical viewpoint. Referred to as self fields, they have gone by other names in the literature: “evanesccent radiation”, “virtual photons”, and “vacuum fluctuations”. Using self fields, we discuss the uncertainty principles, the Casimir effects, and the black-body radiation spectrum, diffraction and interference effects, Schrodinger's equation, Planck's constant, and the nature of the electron and how they might be understood in the present framework. No new theory could ever replace QED. The self field view (if correct) would, at best, only serve to provide some understanding of the processes by which strange quantum phenomena occur at the atomic level. We discuss possible areas where experiments might be employed to test SFE, and areas where future work may lie.

Radiation effects and defects in solids•Jul 1, 1994•0 citations

Bohr’s molecular model and the melding of classical and quantum mechanics

Leonard D. Mlodinow

Permit me to add some information to the article entitled, “Bohr’s molecular model, a century later.” The authors discuss the idea of “dimensional scaling,” approximating the spectra of atoms and molecules by employing perturbation theory to expand around the infinite-dimension/classical limit. That technique of approximating the Schrödinger equation, originally called the 1/N expansion, was developed and applied to numerous problems in the 1980s, including simple atoms, quarkonium, and the hydrogen molecule.11. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0,22. C. M. Bender, L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1305 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.1305,33. T. Imbo, U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2655 (1985); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.31.2655M. Kumar, A. Srivastava, J. K. Bhattacharjee, K. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. A 117, 226 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(86)90081-2 It grew out of attempts in the 1970s to formulate quantum chromodynamics in the limit of a large number of colors. The use of the 1/N expansion in atomic physics was discussed by Edward Witten (Physics Today, July 1980, page 38), who pointed out that his discussion was based on work that applied the method to hydrogen and helium atoms.11. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0The work in reference 11. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0 made use of algebraic methods for the analysis, but the coordinate space method was also developed and was initially used to treat the strong-field Zeeman effect.22. C. M. Bender, L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1305 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.1305 A nice description of the status of the field at the time was given by Laurence Yaffe (Physics Today, August 1983, page 50). Many additional applications of that method in the physics literature may be found in reference 44. A. Chatterjee, Phys. Rep. 186, 249 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90048-7.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISIL. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0, , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. C. M. Bender, L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1305 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.1305, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. T. Imbo, U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2655 (1985); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.31.2655, Google ScholarCrossref, ISIM. Kumar, A. Srivastava, J. K. Bhattacharjee, K. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. A 117, 226 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(86)90081-2, , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. A. Chatterjee, Phys. Rep. 186, 249 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90048-7, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2014 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Aug 1, 2014•1 citation

Stochastic electrodynamics and the interpretation of quantum theory

Emilio Santos

I propose that quantum mechanics is a stochastic theory and quantum phenomena derive from the existence of real vacuum stochastic fields filling space. I revisit stochastic electrodynamics (SED), a theory that studies classical systems of electrically charged particles immersed in an electromagnetic (zeropoint) radiation field with spectral density proportional to the cube of the frequency, Planck's constant appearing as the parameter fixing the scale. Asides from briefly reviewing known results, I make a detailed comparison between SED and quantum mechanics. Both theories make the same predictions when the stochastic equations of motion are of first order in Planck constant, but not in general. I propose that SED provides a clue for a realistic interpretation of quantum theory.

arXiv:1205.0916•May 4, 2012•1 citation

Simulation Results Related to Stochastic Electrodynamics

Daniel C. Cole

Stochastic electrodynamics (SED) is a classical theory of nature advanced significantly in the 1960s by Trevor Marshall and Timothy Boyer. Since then, SED has continued to be investigated by a very small group of physicists. Early investigations seemed promising, as SED was shown to agree with quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum electrodynamics (QED) for a few linear systems. In particular, agreement was found for the simple harmonic electric dipole oscillator, physical systems composed of such oscillators and interacting electromagnetically, and free electromagnetic fields with boundary conditions imposed such as would enter into Casimir‐type force calculations. These results were found to hold for both zero‐point and non‐zero temperature conditions. However, by the late 1970s and then into the early 1980s, researchers found that when investigating nonlinear systems, SED did not appear to provide agreement with the predictions of QM and QED. A proposed reason for this disagreement was advocated by Boyer and Cole that such nonlinear systems are not sufficiently realistic for describing atomic and molecular physical systems, which should be fundamentally based on the Coulombic binding potential. Analytic attempts on these systems have proven to be most difficult. Consequently, in recent years more attention has been placed on numerically simulating the interaction of a classical electron in a Coulombic binding potential, with classical electromagnetic radiation acting on the classical electron. Good agreement was found for this numerical simulation work as compared with predictions from QM. Here this worked is reviewed and possible directions are discussed. Recent simulation work involving subharmonic resonances for the classical hydrogen atom is also discussed; some of the properties of these subharmonic resonances seem quite interesting and unusual.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•12 citations

Contribution from stochastic electrodynamics to the understanding of quantum mechanics

Luis de la Peña, Ana Marı́a Cetto

During the last decades there has been a relatively extensive attempt to develop the theory of stochastic electrodynamics (SED) with a view to establishing it as the foundation for quantum mechanics. The theory had several important successes, but failed when applied to the study of particles subject to nonlinear forces. An analysis of the failure showed that its reasons are not to be ascribed to the principles of SED, but to the methods used to construct the theory, particularly the use of a Fokker-Planck approximation and perturbation theory. A new, non perturbative approach has been developed, called linear stochastic electrodynamics (LSED), of which a clean form is presented here. After introducing the fundamentals of SED, we discuss in detail the principles on which LSED is constructed. We pay attention to the fundamental issue of the mechanism that leads to the quantum behaviour of field and matter, and demonstrate that indeed LSED is a natural way to the quantum formalism by demanding its solutions to comply with a limited number of principles, each one with a clear physical meaning. As a further application of the principles of LSED we derive also the Planck distribution. In a final section we revisit some of the most tantalizing quandaries of quantum mechanics from the point of view offered by the present theory, and show that it offers a clear physical answer to them.

arXiv:quant-ph/0501011•Jan 3, 2005•12 citations

Quantum Mechanics Derived from the Coulomb Field

Fusao Ishii

Quantum mechanics is defined here as the theoretical framework crystallised at the fifth Solvay Conference of 1927, comprising five postulates: the wavefunction, the canonical commutation relation [x, p] = iℏ, the Born rule, the Schrödinger equation, and the transition probability rule. We present a complete derivation of all five Solvay postulates from purely classical foundations, starting from the directly observable Coulomb field of the electron. The single empirical input is ℏ—measured from pre-Solvay experiments (Planck 1900–1911, Einstein 1905, Casimir 1948/Lamoreaux 1997) without quantum mechanical interpretation, in the same way G was measured by Cavendish (1798) without general relativity. By Einstein’s photoelectric theory (1905) generalized to all electromagnetic fields, the Coulomb field energy is carried in electromagnetic quanta, each carrying both electric and magnetic fields with energy density ϵ0E^2. Lorentz invariance uniquely determines the ZPF spectral energy density u(ω) ∝ ω^3 (Boyer 1969, 1975). The Casimir force measurement gives the total ZPF energy per mode B = ℏ; classical E/B equipartition from Maxwell’s equations gives the electric energy per mode ℏω/2. The central original contribution is the physical justification of the Compton frequency cutoff ωc = mc^2/ℏ: an electron cannot emit an electromagnetic quantum with energy exceeding mc^2, because the residual electron would require negative mass, never observed in nature. By equating two independent expressions for the momentum variance of the ZPF-driven harmonic oscillator—one from the Abraham–Lorentz equation, one from Nelson’s osmotic velocity formula—D = ℏ/2m is derived without any quantum assumption. The ZPF-driven motion is then proved to be Brownian motion in the precise sense of Wiener (1923): all four Wiener conditions are verified from the properties of the ZPF established in Sections 3–4. This answers the question Nelson (1966) explicitly left open: “We do not attempt to give a physical explanation of why the electron should undergo Brownian motion.” The physical explanation is that the electron cannot escape its own Coulomb field. By Itô’s stochastic calculus and Nelson’s theorem, this gives the Schrödinger equation as an effective description valid for timescales Δt ≫ ℏ/mc^2. The transformation ψ = √ρe^(iS/ℏ) linearises the nonlinear Fokker–Planck equation, explaining why superposition holds. All five Solvay postulates emerge as consequences of classical physics plus the single measured constant ℏ. No Solvay postulate is assumed anywhere.

•Jun 16, 2026•0 citations
The article “Insights from the classical atom,” by Petar Grujić and Nenad Simonović (Physics Today, May 2012, page 41), was interesting but incomplete. It left out stochastic electrodynamics (SED), an approach to classical mechanics that includes the effects of a proposed zero-point radiation background.The zero-point radiation is a Lorentz-invariant random distribution of energy into different modes of electromagnetic radiation. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) uses the hypothesis that the amplitudes of the Lorentz-invariant radiation are quantized, whereas SED uses the hypothesis that they are continuous.The motions of electric charges in SED are modeled using the equations of motion for a particle, often associated with a concrete visualization. SED is considered part of classical physics because of the continuous distribution of amplitudes. However, discrete values for energy and momentum emerge from SED without the ad hoc quantization conditions of QED.Stochastic electrodynamics has been investigated as a classical physics explanation for quantum phenomena. For instance, the blackbody radiation spectrum has been derived without quantum assumptions.11. T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. 182, 1374 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.182.1374 Lorentz-invariant radiation provides perturbations that mimic quantum phenomena such as the Casimir force, the van der Waals force, the Lamb shift, and the radius of the Bohr atom.22. M. Ibison, B. Haisch, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2737 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2737Physical chemistry provides many mathematical expressions that are often thought to be fundamentally quantum in nature. However, some of those expressions have been shown to emerge from both QED and SED. For example, the Schrödinger equation has been derived from SED,33. G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1101 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728139 G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00727993 and the wavefunction in the SED Schrödinger equation is shown to have the a priori significance of position probability amplitude. A physical model based on SED has been developed to increase our understanding of both the diffraction of particle beams and the Pauli exclusion principle.44. A. F. Kracklauer, Found. Phys. Lett. 12, 441 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021629310707Quantum mechanics is often cited to justify chemical bonding on an elementary level. However, the visualizations used for chemical bonding are often based on mathematical expressions that can be derived from either QED or SED. Regardless of which turns out to be more accurate in physics experiments or more complete in mathematical description, the two theories overlap with regard to physical chemistry. Therefore, I propose that introductory chemistry taught in secondary schools can be rationalized as easily by references to SED as to QED.Either theory produces identical predictions for many experiments involving second-order correlations, squeezing (quadrature noise reduction), and the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen proposal.55. S. Chaturvedi, P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A 55, 912 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.912 However, SED is not completely equivalent to QED on a mathematical or physical level. The SED Schrödinger equation is incomplete, because there is a companion equation that has no counterpart in ordinary quantum mechanics and restricts initial conditions.33. G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1101 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728139 G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00727993 Furthermore, the predictions of QED and SED are different with regard to high-order correlations in nonlinear optics.I agree fully with Grujić and Simonović that the classical atom is alive and well. Models of the atom based on SED are sufficiently accurate for many technological and most pedagogical applications. Even if the classical atom isn’t the most fundamental description of the physical world, it is still an important one.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. 182, 1374 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.182.1374, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. M. Ibison, B. Haisch, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2737 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2737, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. G. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1101 (1983); https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00728139 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISIG. H. Goedecke, Found. Phys. 13, 1195 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00727993, , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. A. F. Kracklauer, Found. Phys. Lett. 12, 441 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021629310707, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI5. S. Chaturvedi, P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A 55, 912 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.912, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2013 American Institute of Physics.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) has been extremely successful inits predictive capability for atomic phenomena. Thus the greatest hope for any alternative view is solely to mimic the predictive capability of quantum mechanics (QM), and perhaps its usefulness will lie in gaining a better understanding of microscopic phenomena. Many “paradoxes” and problematic situations emerge in QED. To combat the QED problems, the field of Stochastics Electrodynamics (SE) emerged, wherein a random “zero point radiation” is assumed to fill all of space in an attmept to explain quantum phenomena, without some of the paradoxical concerns. SE, however, has greater failings. One is that the electromagnetic field energy must be infinit eto work. We have examined a deterministic side branch of SE, “self field” electrodynamics, which may overcome the probelms of SE. Self field electrodynamics (SFE) utilizes the chaotic nature of electromagnetic emissions, as charges lose energy near atomic dimensions, to try to understand and mimic quantum phenomena. These fields and charges can “interact with themselves” in a non-linear fashion, and may thereby explain many quantum phenomena from a semi-classical viewpoint. Referred to as self fields, they have gone by other names in the literature: “evanesccent radiation”, “virtual photons”, and “vacuum fluctuations”. Using self fields, we discuss the uncertainty principles, the Casimir effects, and the black-body radiation spectrum, diffraction and interference effects, Schrodinger's equation, Planck's constant, and the nature of the electron and how they might be understood in the present framework. No new theory could ever replace QED. The self field view (if correct) would, at best, only serve to provide some understanding of the processes by which strange quantum phenomena occur at the atomic level. We discuss possible areas where experiments might be employed to test SFE, and areas where future work may lie.
Permit me to add some information to the article entitled, “Bohr’s molecular model, a century later.” The authors discuss the idea of “dimensional scaling,” approximating the spectra of atoms and molecules by employing perturbation theory to expand around the infinite-dimension/classical limit. That technique of approximating the Schrödinger equation, originally called the 1/N expansion, was developed and applied to numerous problems in the 1980s, including simple atoms, quarkonium, and the hydrogen molecule.11. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0,22. C. M. Bender, L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1305 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.1305,33. T. Imbo, U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2655 (1985); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.31.2655M. Kumar, A. Srivastava, J. K. Bhattacharjee, K. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. A 117, 226 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(86)90081-2 It grew out of attempts in the 1970s to formulate quantum chromodynamics in the limit of a large number of colors. The use of the 1/N expansion in atomic physics was discussed by Edward Witten (Physics Today, July 1980, page 38), who pointed out that his discussion was based on work that applied the method to hydrogen and helium atoms.11. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0The work in reference 11. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0 made use of algebraic methods for the analysis, but the coordinate space method was also developed and was initially used to treat the strong-field Zeeman effect.22. C. M. Bender, L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1305 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.1305 A nice description of the status of the field at the time was given by Laurence Yaffe (Physics Today, August 1983, page 50). Many additional applications of that method in the physics literature may be found in reference 44. A. Chatterjee, Phys. Rep. 186, 249 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90048-7.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 128, 314 (1980); https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(80)90323-1 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISIL. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Ann. Phys. 131, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90181-0, , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. C. M. Bender, L. D. Mlodinow, N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1305 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.1305, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. T. Imbo, U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2655 (1985); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.31.2655, Google ScholarCrossref, ISIM. Kumar, A. Srivastava, J. K. Bhattacharjee, K. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. A 117, 226 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(86)90081-2, , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. A. Chatterjee, Phys. Rep. 186, 249 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90048-7, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2014 American Institute of Physics.
I propose that quantum mechanics is a stochastic theory and quantum phenomena derive from the existence of real vacuum stochastic fields filling space. I revisit stochastic electrodynamics (SED), a theory that studies classical systems of electrically charged particles immersed in an electromagnetic (zeropoint) radiation field with spectral density proportional to the cube of the frequency, Planck's constant appearing as the parameter fixing the scale. Asides from briefly reviewing known results, I make a detailed comparison between SED and quantum mechanics. Both theories make the same predictions when the stochastic equations of motion are of first order in Planck constant, but not in general. I propose that SED provides a clue for a realistic interpretation of quantum theory.
Stochastic electrodynamics (SED) is a classical theory of nature advanced significantly in the 1960s by Trevor Marshall and Timothy Boyer. Since then, SED has continued to be investigated by a very small group of physicists. Early investigations seemed promising, as SED was shown to agree with quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum electrodynamics (QED) for a few linear systems. In particular, agreement was found for the simple harmonic electric dipole oscillator, physical systems composed of such oscillators and interacting electromagnetically, and free electromagnetic fields with boundary conditions imposed such as would enter into Casimir‐type force calculations. These results were found to hold for both zero‐point and non‐zero temperature conditions. However, by the late 1970s and then into the early 1980s, researchers found that when investigating nonlinear systems, SED did not appear to provide agreement with the predictions of QM and QED. A proposed reason for this disagreement was advocated by Boyer and Cole that such nonlinear systems are not sufficiently realistic for describing atomic and molecular physical systems, which should be fundamentally based on the Coulombic binding potential. Analytic attempts on these systems have proven to be most difficult. Consequently, in recent years more attention has been placed on numerically simulating the interaction of a classical electron in a Coulombic binding potential, with classical electromagnetic radiation acting on the classical electron. Good agreement was found for this numerical simulation work as compared with predictions from QM. Here this worked is reviewed and possible directions are discussed. Recent simulation work involving subharmonic resonances for the classical hydrogen atom is also discussed; some of the properties of these subharmonic resonances seem quite interesting and unusual.
During the last decades there has been a relatively extensive attempt to develop the theory of stochastic electrodynamics (SED) with a view to establishing it as the foundation for quantum mechanics. The theory had several important successes, but failed when applied to the study of particles subject to nonlinear forces. An analysis of the failure showed that its reasons are not to be ascribed to the principles of SED, but to the methods used to construct the theory, particularly the use of a Fokker-Planck approximation and perturbation theory. A new, non perturbative approach has been developed, called linear stochastic electrodynamics (LSED), of which a clean form is presented here. After introducing the fundamentals of SED, we discuss in detail the principles on which LSED is constructed. We pay attention to the fundamental issue of the mechanism that leads to the quantum behaviour of field and matter, and demonstrate that indeed LSED is a natural way to the quantum formalism by demanding its solutions to comply with a limited number of principles, each one with a clear physical meaning. As a further application of the principles of LSED we derive also the Planck distribution. In a final section we revisit some of the most tantalizing quandaries of quantum mechanics from the point of view offered by the present theory, and show that it offers a clear physical answer to them.
Quantum mechanics is defined here as the theoretical framework crystallised at the fifth Solvay Conference of 1927, comprising five postulates: the wavefunction, the canonical commutation relation [x, p] = iℏ, the Born rule, the Schrödinger equation, and the transition probability rule. We present a complete derivation of all five Solvay postulates from purely classical foundations, starting from the directly observable Coulomb field of the electron. The single empirical input is ℏ—measured from pre-Solvay experiments (Planck 1900–1911, Einstein 1905, Casimir 1948/Lamoreaux 1997) without quantum mechanical interpretation, in the same way G was measured by Cavendish (1798) without general relativity. By Einstein’s photoelectric theory (1905) generalized to all electromagnetic fields, the Coulomb field energy is carried in electromagnetic quanta, each carrying both electric and magnetic fields with energy density ϵ0E^2. Lorentz invariance uniquely determines the ZPF spectral energy density u(ω) ∝ ω^3 (Boyer 1969, 1975). The Casimir force measurement gives the total ZPF energy per mode B = ℏ; classical E/B equipartition from Maxwell’s equations gives the electric energy per mode ℏω/2. The central original contribution is the physical justification of the Compton frequency cutoff ωc = mc^2/ℏ: an electron cannot emit an electromagnetic quantum with energy exceeding mc^2, because the residual electron would require negative mass, never observed in nature. By equating two independent expressions for the momentum variance of the ZPF-driven harmonic oscillator—one from the Abraham–Lorentz equation, one from Nelson’s osmotic velocity formula—D = ℏ/2m is derived without any quantum assumption. The ZPF-driven motion is then proved to be Brownian motion in the precise sense of Wiener (1923): all four Wiener conditions are verified from the properties of the ZPF established in Sections 3–4. This answers the question Nelson (1966) explicitly left open: “We do not attempt to give a physical explanation of why the electron should undergo Brownian motion.” The physical explanation is that the electron cannot escape its own Coulomb field. By Itô’s stochastic calculus and Nelson’s theorem, this gives the Schrödinger equation as an effective description valid for timescales Δt ≫ ℏ/mc^2. The transformation ψ = √ρe^(iS/ℏ) linearises the nonlinear Fokker–Planck equation, explaining why superposition holds. All five Solvay postulates emerge as consequences of classical physics plus the single measured constant ℏ. No Solvay postulate is assumed anywhere.