We start by rewriting classical mechanics in a quantum mechanical fashion and point out that the only difference with quantum theory re- sides at one point. There is a classical analogon of the collapse of the wavefunction and an extension of the usual Born rule is proposed which might solve this problem. We work only with algebra’s over the real (com- plex) numbers, general number fields of finite characteristic allowing for finite dimensional representations of the commutation relations are not considered given that such fields are not well ordered and do not give rise to a well defined probability interpretation. Our theory generalizes however to discrete spacetimes and finite dimensional algebra’s. Looking at physics this way, spacetime itself distinguishes itself algebraically by means of well chosen commutation relations and there is further nothing special about it meaning it has also a particle interpretation just like any other dynamical variable. Likewise, there is no reason for the dynamics to be Hamiltonian and therefore we have a nonconservative formulation of quantum physics at hand. The harmonic oscillator (amongst few oth- ers) distinguishes itself because the algebra forms a finite dimensional Lie algebra; the classical and quantum (discrete) harmonic oscillator are stud- ied in a some more generality and examples are given which are neither classical, nor quantum.
We start by rewriting classical mechanics in a quantum mechanical fashion and point out that the only difference with quantum theory re- sides at one point. There is a classical analogon of the collapse of the wavefunction and an extension of the usual Born rule is proposed which might solve this problem. We work only with algebra’s over the real (com- plex) numbers, general number fields of finite characteristic allowing for finite dimensional representations of the commutation relations are not considered given that such fields are not well ordered and do not give rise to a well defined probability interpretation. Our theory generalizes however to discrete spacetimes and finite dimensional algebra’s. Looking at physics this way, spacetime itself distinguishes itself algebraically by means of well chosen commutation relations and there is further nothing special about it meaning it has also a particle interpretation just like any other dynamical variable. Likewise, there is no reason for the dynamics to be Hamiltonian and therefore we have a nonconservative formulation of quantum physics at hand. The harmonic oscillator (amongst few oth- ers) distinguishes itself because the algebra forms a finite dimensional Lie algebra; the classical and quantum (discrete) harmonic oscillator are stud- ied in a some more generality and examples are given which are neither classical, nor quantum.
I. The arena of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is the abstract, unobserved and unobservable, M-dimensional formal Hilbert space ≠ spacetime. II. The arena of observations—and, more generally, of all events (i.e., everything) in the real physical world—is the classical four-dimensional physical spacetime. III. The “Born rule” is the random process “magically” transforming I into II. Wavefunctions are superposed and entangled only in the abstract space I, never in spacetime II. Attempted formulations of quantum theory directly in real physical spacetime actually constitute examples of “locally real” theories, as defined by Clauser and Horne, and are therefore already empirically refuted by the numerous tests of Bell’s theorem in real, controlled experiments in laboratories here on Earth. Observed quantum entities (i.e., events) are never superposed or entangled as they: (1) exclusively “live” (manifest) in real physical spacetime and (2) are not described by entangled wavefunctions after “measurement” effectuated by III. When separated and treated correctly in this way, a number of fundamental problems and “paradoxes” of quantum theory vs. relativity (i.e., spacetime) simply vanish, such as the black hole information paradox, the infinite zero-point energy of quantum field theory and the quantization of general relativity.
Classical mechanics of a free particle is based on Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian/Hamilton theories. A single frame of reference is chosen (the lab) and particles with the same mass mo (for example) moving at different velocities are considered in the free particle scenario (i.e in the absence of force (potentials)). We argue that the above is identical to considering a single particle with mass mo at time=to and x=0 viewed by various frames moving at different constant velocities -v. From the point of view of each frame, the particle moves at a velocity v. Thus the Newtonian picture of an mo particle moving at different speeds may be considered as a problem of special relativity. We argue (as in (1)) that (x,t)=(0,t) transforms to (x’,t’) such that x’/t’=v. If one uses a metric (1 0) (first row) (0 -1) second row, one may derive special relativistic relationships. In particular, one may obtain the Lorentz invariant -Et + px if (p,E) and (x,t) transform in the same manner. We argue that the relationships obtained from special relativity pertain to classical mechanics and so one may mathematically obtain a function L(v) such that p=dL/dv and E=pv - L for a free particle. In other words, special relativity governs Lagrangian results in the free particle case and is not really needed (in this special case). More importantly, it is special relativity which links E with t and p with x. As noted above, if one considers Netwonian mechanics in a single frame, the notion of special relativity does not arise, but the scaling of time by E and of x by p does i.e. A= -Et+px is the classical action both relativistically and nonrelativistically. It is just not written in this way usually (i.e. A = -mo t sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) relatiivstically and A =t .5mo vv nonrelativistically) We argued in (2) that scaling must manifest itself physically and that it accounts for the physical wavelength in quantum mechanics. We argue that the quantum mechanics of a free particle ultimately follows from special relativity. As a result, ideas of quantum mechanics would not have appeared in Newtonian mechanics nor Lagrangian or Hamiltonian theories. When special relativity was developed it focused on transformations related to different frames, but these are equivalent to describing one frame with many different velocities (same mo). Thus the physics in one frame is governed by special relativity even if it is nonrelativistic. We argue that the notion of the wavelength which appears even in the Schrodinger formalism follows from scaling of x by p which ultimately originates from special relativity. In other words, both the Lagrangian formalism and quantum mechanics follow from special relativity in the free particle case. We argue that free particle quantum mechanics is the starting point of overall quantum mechanics.
We show that quantum theory (QT) is a substructure of classical probabilistic physics. The central quantity of the classical theory is Hamilton’s function, which determines canonical equations, a corresponding flow, and a Liouville equation for a probability density. We extend this theory in two respects: (1) The same structure is defined for arbitrary observables. Thus, we have all of the above entities generated not only by Hamilton’s function but also by every observable. (2) We introduce for each observable a phase space function representing the classical action. This is a redundant quantity in a classical context but indispensable for the transition to QT. The basic equations of the resulting theory take a “quantum-like” form, which allows for a simple derivation of QT by means of a projection to configuration space reported previously [Quantum Stud Math Found 5:219–227, 2018]. We obtain the most important relations of QT, namely the form of operators, Schrödinger’s equation, eigenvalue equations, commutation relations, expectation values, and Born’s rule. Implications for the interpretation of QT are discussed, as well as an alternative projection method allowing for a derivation of spin.
The Schrodinger equation for a single spinless particle is formally obtained via a classical phonon model, namely the Frenkel-Kontorova model. Starting from a one-dimensional lattice of coupled harmonic oscillators, we show that the continuous limit of the corresponding Newtonian equation of motion yields the Klein-Gordon equation for a real-valued field. By introducing a complex-valued change of variables mixing the real-valued displacement and velocity fields, and by separating fast and slow time scales, the Klein-Gordon equation is written as the Schrodinger equation within the non-relativistic limit. This complex change of variable also allows to rewrite classical global observables of the phonon field, such as the total energy or momentum, as the corresponding quantum observables. Additionally, we show that when a friction force is incorporated into the classical model, the corresponding Klein-Gordon equation can be rewritten as a Schrodinger equation with a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. While the global approach is limited here to the non-relativistic regime and does not address the measurement problem, quantization or relativistic effects, it nonetheless illustrates how quantum algebra and complex-valued wave functions can be exactly reproduced using classical dynamics. The relativistic regime for a spinless particle and the link between commutators and Poisson brackets is addressed in the second part of this series.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)
Classical and quantum physics represent two distinct theories; however, quantum physics is regarded as the more fundamental of the two. It is posited that classical mechanics should arise from quantum mechanics under certain limiting conditions. Nevertheless, this remains a challenging objective. In this work, we explore the potential for unifying the dynamics of classical and quantum physics. This discussion does not suggest that classical behavior emerges from quantum mechanics; rather, it demonstrates the exact equivalence between the dynamics of quantum observables and their classical counterparts. It is shown that the Heisenberg equations of motion can be cast in a form that is structurally equivalent to Newton's equations of motion, with ℏ dropping out from the equations. In a generalized analysis, the Heisenberg equations are cast in a form that is identical to the classical Hamilton's equations of motion. This implies that both quantum and classical dynamics are governed by the same form of equations, with the Heisenberg operators substituting the classical observables.