Relations of Quantum to Classical Physics

Larry Weaver

Arkady Plotnitsky, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Gregg S. Jaeger +2 more

Beginning with its introduction by W. Heisenberg, quantum mechanics was often seen as an overly abstract theory, mathematically and physically, vis‐à‐vis classical physics or relativity. This perception was amplified by the fact that, while the quantum‐mechanical formalism provided effective predictive algorithms for the probabilistic predictions concerning quantum experiments, it appeared unable to describe, even by way idealization, quantum processes themselves in space and time, in the way classical mechanics or relativity did. The aim of the present paper is to reconsider the nature of mathematical and physical abstraction in modern physics by offering an analysis of the concept of “physical fact” and of the concept of “physical concept,” in part by following G. W. F. Hegel’s and G. Deleuze’s arguments concerning the nature of conceptual thinking. In classical physics, relativity, and quantum physics alike, I argue, physical concepts are defined by the following main features—1) their multi‐component multiplicity; 2) their essential relations to problems; 3) and the interactions between physical, mathematical, and philosophical components within each concept. It is the particular character of these interactions in quantum mechanics, as defined by its essentially predictive (rather than descriptive) nature, that distinguishes it from classical physics and relativity.

Skender, Ahmetaj, Kabashi +3 more

Arkady Plotnitsky

Beginning with its introduction by W. Heisenberg, quantum mechanics was often seen as an overly abstract theory, mathematically and physically, vis‐à‐vis classical physics or relativity. This perception was amplified by the fact that, while the quantum‐mechanical formalism provided effective predictive algorithms for the probabilistic predictions concerning quantum experiments, it appeared unable to describe, even by way idealization, quantum processes themselves in space and time, in the way classical mechanics or relativity did. The aim of the present paper is to reconsider the nature of mathematical and physical abstraction in modern physics by offering an analysis of the concept of “physical fact” and of the concept of “physical concept,” in part by following G. W. F. Hegel’s and G. Deleuze’s arguments concerning the nature of conceptual thinking. In classical physics, relativity, and quantum physics alike, I argue, physical concepts are defined by the following main features—1) their multi‐component multiplicity; 2) their essential relations to problems; 3) and the interactions between physical, mathematical, and philosophical components within each concept. It is the particular character of these interactions in quantum mechanics, as defined by its essentially predictive (rather than descriptive) nature, that distinguishes it from classical physics and relativity.

Emile Grgin, Aage Petersen

Wenwen LYU, Feng Wang

This paper introduces the development of the principle of relativity from Galileo's principle of relativity to special relativity and then to general relativity. Inspired by this, we explored the transformation form of quantum mechanics to meet Galileo's principle of relativity. Firstly, from the point that unitary transformation can keep the physical laws of quantum mechanics unchanged, we correspond the momentum translation unitary transformation in quantum mechanics to the Galileo transformation in classical mechanics, and reveal that the transformation form of quantum mechanics that meets the Galileo principle of relativity can be realized through the momentum translation unitary transformation. This inquiry is conducive to students' in-depth thinking about the corresponding relationship between quantum mechanics and classical physics, can help beginners reduce the conflict between quantum physics and classical physics, and help students build a bridge from classical to quantum thinking.