The Moon — caught in an exact balance of attractive and repulsive forces — orbits the Earth with flawless regularity, never faltering. A ball rolls predictably down a slope of a certain grade, always passing the same landmarks in the same sequence of times. There are no surprises in the macroscopic world of classical mechanics, a world where to know the present is to predict the future and retrace the past. Observations may differ superficially according to individual frames of reference, but there is always agreement on the larger issues. Energy is conserved. Momentum is conserved. Differences in coordinates and velocities, along with perceptions of motion and rest, are all reconciled, and Newton’s deterministic equations of motion are the law of the land.
The Moon — caught in an exact balance of attractive and repulsive forces — orbits the Earth with flawless regularity, never faltering. A ball rolls predictably down a slope of a certain grade, always passing the same landmarks in the same sequence of times. There are no surprises in the macroscopic world of classical mechanics, a world where to know the present is to predict the future and retrace the past. Observations may differ superficially according to individual frames of reference, but there is always agreement on the larger issues. Energy is conserved. Momentum is conserved. Differences in coordinates and velocities, along with perceptions of motion and rest, are all reconciled, and Newton’s deterministic equations of motion are the law of the land.
The aim of this chapter is to present some very basic principles of classical mechanics. They can help us understand the novelty of quantum theory. Classical mechanics was founded by Newton and contemporary 17th-century natural philosophers, and further developed in the 18th and 19th centuries by many physicists and mathematicians, as a result of the search for a rational, causal, and scientific explanation of the universe. In classical mechanics, real-world objects are modeled as a collection of point particles, i.e., objects with negligible size. The motion of a point particle is characterized by a small number of parameters such as its position, mass, velocity, and the forces applied to it. The position of a point particle is defined with respect to an arbitrary fixed reference point in the three- dimensional Euclidean space, which is usually chosen as the origin of some coordinate system. The velocity of a point particle is the rate of change of its position with time. The force applied to a point particle (called the external force) is the cause for the point particle x y z A to undergo a certain change in its velocity, i.e., an acceleration (Newton’s second law of motion). For the sake of simplicity, here we shall refer to a point particle or a collection of point particles simply as an object. Newton’s first law of motion states that if an object experiences no net external force, then its velocity is constant, i.e., the object is either at rest or it moves in a straight line with a constant speed. The first law of motion postulates the existence of a certain set of frames of reference called inertial reference frames, relative to which the motion of an object not subject to external forces is a straight line at a constant speed. For this reason, Newton’s first law is also referred to as the law of inertia.
Primitive man must have found nature singularly puzzling and intricate. The simplest phenomena could be trusted to recur indefinitely; an unsupported body invariably fell, a stone thrown into water sank, while a piece of wood floated. Yet other more complicated phenomena shewed no such uniformity—the lightning struck one tree in the grove while its neighbour of similar growth and equal size escaped unharmed; one month the new moon brought fair weather, the next month foul. Confronted with a natural world which was to all appearances as capricious as himself, man's first impulse was to create Nature in his own image; he attributed the seemingly erratic and unordered course of the universe to the whims and passions of gods, or of benevolent or malevolent lesser spirits. Only after much study did the great principle of causation emerge. In time it was found to dominate the whole of inanimate nature: a cause which could be completely isolated in its action was found invariably to produce the same effect. What happened at any instant did not depend on the volitions of extraneous beings, but followed inevitably by inexorable laws from the state of things at the preceding instant. And this state of things had in turn been inevitably determined by an earlier state, and so on indefinitely, so that the whole course of events had been unalterably determined by the state in which the world found itself at the first instant of its history; once this had been fixed, nature could move only along one road to a predestined end.
In this note we argue there exist two force delivery schemes which are already well-known in classical mechanics namely: F(x)dx and F(t)dt. The former is associated with work and kinetic energy, is deterministic (yields x(t)) and requires information about velocity (or rest mass). It deals with F(x) where F=Force. The second is associated with an impulse which changes momentum. In this case, one does not need to know the rest mass or velocity. For example, a particle with momentum p (this allows for many mo,v pairs with the same p) strikes a surface and is reflected back with -p. It is also associated with probability as such a scenario exists for light reflecting and refracting from a surface. One does not know a priori the probabilities for these two phenomena so the problem is probabilistic. Classical mechanics primarily deals with the F(x) force delivery scheme, e.g. solving a differential equation(s) which arise directly from dp/dt = F(x) or using Lagrange’s or Hamilton’s formalism. Ultimately one obtains the deterministic result x(t). Although the notion of an impulse is well-known in Newtonian mechanics, it does not seem to be used much in calculations because an explicit form of F(t) is usually not known i.e. the force acts in a very tiny dx region in a very short period of time. As noted above, both schemes i.e. both deterministic and probabilistic situations appear in the macroscopic classical world, yet for some reason it is suggested that Newtonian mechanics is only deterministic. Newton considered a photon to be a particle with momentum p. A single photon reaching a surface with a different index of refraction has a certain probability to reflect and another to refract. This is a probabilistic, not deterministic, scenario governed by an impulse delivery. The probabilistic problem of light reflecting and refracting in a macroscopic situation may be solved by using continuity of the periodic electric field and its derivative from Maxwell’s solution for a photon from his electromagnetic equations. We have suggested in previous notes, however, that no knowledge of Maxwell’s result is needed. A steady state reflection/refraction problem removes time (unlike the x(t) deterministic picture), but seems to require some kind of balance on the right and left hand sides of the medium. Furthermore two equations are needed to solve for the two unknowns (i.e. reflection and refraction probabilities). Intensity/flux does not balance because the incident and reflected rays have positive flux. For n1<n2, it would be good to have a balance function which allows partial cancellation of the incident and reflected fluxes. The solution exp(ipx) allows exactly this and this solution only requires knowledge of p, momentum, not of rest mass (i.e. velocity). Thus there seem to be two force delivery mechanisms in the macroscopic classical world with very different solutions. The first is the F(x) delivery yielding the deterministic x(t) and requiring knowledge of mo (rest mass). The second is the impulse delivery which is probabilistic, makes use of exp(ipx), and does not require rest mass. If rest mass is known, however, exp(ipx) is linked with the average equation x = p/m t. At first the two delivery schemes seem mutually exclusive, but in the impulse situation, we try to show that a series of impulses may create the semblance of an F(x). Thus one has the exp(ipx) from the probabilistic force delivery scheme, but at the same time an F(x) emerges and so an x(t) type solution should also follow. How can this be? exp(ipx) is probabilistic and one may create averages with probabilities. Such an average or root mean square average may exhibit deterministic behavioiur. Thus exp(ipx) may be used together with a potential V(x) to create a solution W(x)= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) such that the prms(x) behaves like a Force(x) delivery result, yet at the same time one has the features of the impulse delivery as exp(ipx)s are used. Thus the exp(ipx) impulse approach may be used in strict impulse delivery problems and in F(x) delivery problems. This is exactly what occurs in quantum mechanics.
Prior to and into the first decade of Niels Bohr's 1913 atomic theory, physicists dealt with physical systems in which the usual space and time pictures of classical physics were assumed trustworthy and so could be extrapolated to any sort of matter in motion, for example, electrons move like billiard balls and light behaves analogously to water waves. In the German scientific milieu this visual imagery was accorded a reality status higher than viewing merely with the senses and was referred to as ‘ordinary intuition [ gewöhnliche Anschauung ]’. Ordinary intuition is the visual imagery abstracted from phenomena that we have actually witnessed in the world of sense perceptions. The concept of ordinary intuition was much debated during 1923–27 by physicists like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrödinger, all of whom used this term with proper Kantian overtones, and all of whom lamented its loss in the new quantum mechanics. Ordinary intuition is associated with the strong causality of classical mechanics. According to the law of causality, initial conditions (position and velocity or momentum and energy) can be ascertained with in-principle perfect accuracy. Consequently any system's continuous development in space and time can be traced with in-principle perfect accuracy using Newton's laws of motion and conservation of energy and momentum. Any limitations to the accuracy of measurements are assumed not to be intrinsic to the phenomena, that is they are interpreted to be systematic measurement errors that ideally can be made to vanish.