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

Journal of Mathematical Physics

Classical theories and nonclassical theories as special cases of a more general theory

Dirk Aerts

Published Oct 1, 1983• 76 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We analyze the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. We come to the conclusion that this difference can be found in the nature of the observables that are considered for the physical system under consideration. Classical mechanics can only describe a certain kind of what we called ‘‘classical observable.’’ Quantum mechanics can only describe another kind of observable; it cannot describe, however, classical observables. To perform this analysis, we use a theory where every kind of observable can be treated and which is in a natural way a generalization of both classical and quantum mechanics. If in a study of a physical system in this theory we restrict ourselves to the classical observables, we rediscover classical mechanics as a kind of first study of the physical system, where all the nonclassical properties are hidden. If we find that this first study is too rough we can also study the nonclassical part of the physical system by a theory which is eventually quantum mechanics.

DOI
10.1063/1.525626

Related papers

Quantum mechanics for natural philosophers (II)

Peter Gibbins

Quantum mechanics comes in a variety of different forms and formalisms. There is wave mechanics, matrix mechanics, Dirac's version of quantum mechanics, von Neumann's version of quantum mechanics. The philosopher of physics has to ask not only what quantum mechanics means, but also what it is. Orthodoxy in the philosophy of physics treats quantum mechanics as the general theory of microphysics which takes Hilbert space as its state space and which associates observables with certain special operators on that space. This amounts to a decision as to what quantum mechanics is. However it is a far from arbitrary decision. For the Hilbert space, or von Neumann, formalism summarizes and captures everything that is in the other versions of quantum mechanics, without any of the dubious mathematics of, for example, Dirac's version. Contemporary philosophers of physics take a very formal view of what quantum mechanics is, a view which has many advantages and some disadvantages. Whatever the disadvantages of focussing on the formalism of quantum mechanics - and it may lead to losing sight of the ‘physics' and possibly to a bias against Bohrian Copenhagenism - it is certainly true that the literate philosopher of physics must have some acquaintance with Hilbert space. There are in fact several topics we have to deal with, though we deal with them only very cursorily. (This chapter is no substitute for Jauch's classic text Foundations of Quantum Mechanics .)

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 1987•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics vs. Classical Physics

Will Raven

Abstract In this chapter, we explore the differences between quantum mechanics and classical physics, focusing on three main ideas: compatible and incompatible observables, states of an observable, and the superposition of states. By examining these concepts, you will gain insight into how measurements impact quantum mechanical systems and the ideas behind the uncertainty principle.

Springer eBooks•Oct 17, 2024•0 citations

Can we make sense out of the measurement process in relativistic quantum mechanics?

Yakir Aharonov, David Z. Albert

We study the instantaneity of the state-reduction process in relativistic quantum mechanics. The conclusion of various authors that this instantaneity will restrict the set of relativistic observables to purely local ones (i.e., that the measurement of any nonlocal property of a system at a well-defined time would give rise to violations of relativistic causality) is found to be erroneous, and experiments (of a kind not encountered before in measurement theory) are described whereby certain nonlocal properties of some simple physical systems can be measured at a well-defined time without violating causality. The attempts of certain authors to reconcile the reduction process with the covariance of the relativistic quantum state are considered and found wanting, and it is argued that the covariance of relativistic quantum theories resides exclusively in the experimental probabilities, and not in the underlying quantum states. The problem of nonlocal measurement is considered in general: distinctions (which are not to be met with in the nonrelativistic case) arise in relativistic quantum mechanics between what can be measured for fermions and what can be measured for bosons, between what can be measured for individual systems and what can be measured for ensembles, and between what kinds of states can be verified by measurement and what kinds of states can be prepared by measurement; and these pose difficult questions about the nature of measurement itself.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jul 15, 1981•218 citations

Hidden human variables in quantum mechanics?

Göte Nyman

The problem of the observer in quantum mechanics is getting new human content. The paradox of Wigner's friend and its extended versions have observers who not only observe quantum phenomena, but communicate, have memories and even super-observer powers. Observers are represented by particle paths and state memories and advanced AI has been suggested to act as an observer. There is a new call for a solid theory of the observer in quantum mechanics. Two different branches of observer theories have emerged. The purely physical one is Heisenbergian, e.g. relational quantum mechanics where the observer is considered as any other physical quantum system. The other branch is psychologically rich as its observer has complex human faculties such as a mind, mental states and memory (Many minds), or the observer is considered as an active and experiencing agent, with continuously refreshed, scientific expectations (QBism). Is the human observer a special case, different from other quantum mechanical systems? Why is there no theory of the general observer in quantum mechanics? A historical summary is covered on how quantum mechanical interpretations have treated the observer, and the concept of hidden human variables is suggested to continue the discussion on the theoretical nature of the observer.

arXiv:2010.03419•Oct 6, 2020•0 citations

Classical Mechanics

Jeffrey Alan Barrett

Abstract While quantum mechanics is one of the most successful physical theories we have ever had, it is deeply counterintuitive. It must be given the empirical evidence it explains. We consider some of the historical evidence for the theory and the conceptual arguments that led from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. These considerations illustrate some of the ways in which our commonsense and philosophical intuitions are simply incompatible with the physical world.

•Dec 26, 2019•0 citations

EXTENDED QUANTUM MECHANICS

B Pavel

The work can be considered as an essay on mathematical and conceptual structure of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (QM) which is related here to some other (more general, but also to more special and “approximative”) theories. QM is here primarily reformulated in an equivalent form of a Poisson system on the phase space consisting of density matrices, where the “observables”, as well as “symmetry generators” are represented by a specific type of real valued (densely defined) functions, namely the usual quantum expectations of corresponding selfadjoint operators. It is shown in this paper that inclusion of additional (“nonlinear”) symmetry generators (i.e. “Hamiltonians”) into this reformulation of (linear) QM leads to a considerable extension of the theory: two kinds of quantum “mixed states” should be distinguished, and operator ‐ valued functions of density matrices should be used in the r ˆ ole of “nonlinear observables”. A general framework for physical theories is obtained in this way: By different choices of the sets of “nonlinear observables” we obtain, as special cases, e.g. classical mechanics on homogeneous spaces of kinematical symmetry groups, standard (linear) QM, or nonlinear extensions of QM; also various “quasiclassical approximations” to QM are all subtheories of the presented extension of QM - a version of the extended quantum mechanics (EQM). A general interpretation scheme of EQM extending the usual statistical interpretation of QM is also proposed. Eventually, EQM is shown to be (included into) a C -algebraic (hence linear) quantum theory. Mathematical formulation of these theories is presented. The presentation includes an analysis of problems connected with differentiation on infinite ‐ dimensional manifolds, as well as a solution of some problems connected with the work with only densely defined unbounded real‐valued functions on the (infinite dimensional) “phase space” which correspond to unbounded operators (generators) and to their nonlinear generalizations. Also “nonlinear deformations” of unitary representations of kinematical symmetry Lie groups are introduced. Possible applications are briefly discussed, and some specific examples are presented. The text contains also brief reviews of Hamiltonian classical mechanics, as well as of QM. Mathematical appendices make the paper nearly selfcontained.

•Jan 1, 2000•18 citations
We analyze the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. We come to the conclusion that this difference can be found in the nature of the observables that are considered for the physical system under consideration. Classical mechanics can only describe a certain kind of what we called ‘‘classical observable.’’ Quantum mechanics can only describe another kind of observable; it cannot describe, however, classical observables. To perform this analysis, we use a theory where every kind of observable can be treated and which is in a natural way a generalization of both classical and quantum mechanics. If in a study of a physical system in this theory we restrict ourselves to the classical observables, we rediscover classical mechanics as a kind of first study of the physical system, where all the nonclassical properties are hidden. If we find that this first study is too rough we can also study the nonclassical part of the physical system by a theory which is eventually quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics comes in a variety of different forms and formalisms. There is wave mechanics, matrix mechanics, Dirac's version of quantum mechanics, von Neumann's version of quantum mechanics. The philosopher of physics has to ask not only what quantum mechanics means, but also what it is. Orthodoxy in the philosophy of physics treats quantum mechanics as the general theory of microphysics which takes Hilbert space as its state space and which associates observables with certain special operators on that space. This amounts to a decision as to what quantum mechanics is. However it is a far from arbitrary decision. For the Hilbert space, or von Neumann, formalism summarizes and captures everything that is in the other versions of quantum mechanics, without any of the dubious mathematics of, for example, Dirac's version. Contemporary philosophers of physics take a very formal view of what quantum mechanics is, a view which has many advantages and some disadvantages. Whatever the disadvantages of focussing on the formalism of quantum mechanics - and it may lead to losing sight of the ‘physics' and possibly to a bias against Bohrian Copenhagenism - it is certainly true that the literate philosopher of physics must have some acquaintance with Hilbert space. There are in fact several topics we have to deal with, though we deal with them only very cursorily. (This chapter is no substitute for Jauch's classic text Foundations of Quantum Mechanics .)
We study the instantaneity of the state-reduction process in relativistic quantum mechanics. The conclusion of various authors that this instantaneity will restrict the set of relativistic observables to purely local ones (i.e., that the measurement of any nonlocal property of a system at a well-defined time would give rise to violations of relativistic causality) is found to be erroneous, and experiments (of a kind not encountered before in measurement theory) are described whereby certain nonlocal properties of some simple physical systems can be measured at a well-defined time without violating causality. The attempts of certain authors to reconcile the reduction process with the covariance of the relativistic quantum state are considered and found wanting, and it is argued that the covariance of relativistic quantum theories resides exclusively in the experimental probabilities, and not in the underlying quantum states. The problem of nonlocal measurement is considered in general: distinctions (which are not to be met with in the nonrelativistic case) arise in relativistic quantum mechanics between what can be measured for fermions and what can be measured for bosons, between what can be measured for individual systems and what can be measured for ensembles, and between what kinds of states can be verified by measurement and what kinds of states can be prepared by measurement; and these pose difficult questions about the nature of measurement itself.
The problem of the observer in quantum mechanics is getting new human content. The paradox of Wigner's friend and its extended versions have observers who not only observe quantum phenomena, but communicate, have memories and even super-observer powers. Observers are represented by particle paths and state memories and advanced AI has been suggested to act as an observer. There is a new call for a solid theory of the observer in quantum mechanics. Two different branches of observer theories have emerged. The purely physical one is Heisenbergian, e.g. relational quantum mechanics where the observer is considered as any other physical quantum system. The other branch is psychologically rich as its observer has complex human faculties such as a mind, mental states and memory (Many minds), or the observer is considered as an active and experiencing agent, with continuously refreshed, scientific expectations (QBism). Is the human observer a special case, different from other quantum mechanical systems? Why is there no theory of the general observer in quantum mechanics? A historical summary is covered on how quantum mechanical interpretations have treated the observer, and the concept of hidden human variables is suggested to continue the discussion on the theoretical nature of the observer.
The work can be considered as an essay on mathematical and conceptual structure of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (QM) which is related here to some other (more general, but also to more special and “approximative”) theories. QM is here primarily reformulated in an equivalent form of a Poisson system on the phase space consisting of density matrices, where the “observables”, as well as “symmetry generators” are represented by a specific type of real valued (densely defined) functions, namely the usual quantum expectations of corresponding selfadjoint operators. It is shown in this paper that inclusion of additional (“nonlinear”) symmetry generators (i.e. “Hamiltonians”) into this reformulation of (linear) QM leads to a considerable extension of the theory: two kinds of quantum “mixed states” should be distinguished, and operator ‐ valued functions of density matrices should be used in the r ˆ ole of “nonlinear observables”. A general framework for physical theories is obtained in this way: By different choices of the sets of “nonlinear observables” we obtain, as special cases, e.g. classical mechanics on homogeneous spaces of kinematical symmetry groups, standard (linear) QM, or nonlinear extensions of QM; also various “quasiclassical approximations” to QM are all subtheories of the presented extension of QM - a version of the extended quantum mechanics (EQM). A general interpretation scheme of EQM extending the usual statistical interpretation of QM is also proposed. Eventually, EQM is shown to be (included into) a C -algebraic (hence linear) quantum theory. Mathematical formulation of these theories is presented. The presentation includes an analysis of problems connected with differentiation on infinite ‐ dimensional manifolds, as well as a solution of some problems connected with the work with only densely defined unbounded real‐valued functions on the (infinite dimensional) “phase space” which correspond to unbounded operators (generators) and to their nonlinear generalizations. Also “nonlinear deformations” of unitary representations of kinematical symmetry Lie groups are introduced. Possible applications are briefly discussed, and some specific examples are presented. The text contains also brief reviews of Hamiltonian classical mechanics, as well as of QM. Mathematical appendices make the paper nearly selfcontained.