Abstract This chapter discusses limiting correspondence relations between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. The semiclassical limit is singular and no reductive relation obtains between these two theories. It is argued that the fundamental theory (quantum mechanics) is explanatorily deficient in that it cannot fully account for aspects of the asymptotic borderland between classical and quantum mechanics.
Abstract This chapter discusses limiting correspondence relations between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. The semiclassical limit is singular and no reductive relation obtains between these two theories. It is argued that the fundamental theory (quantum mechanics) is explanatorily deficient in that it cannot fully account for aspects of the asymptotic borderland between classical and quantum mechanics.
Familiar formulations of classical and quantum mechanics are shown to follow from a general theory of mechanics based on pure states with an intrinsic probability structure. This theory is developed to the stage where theorems from quantum logic enable expression of the state geometry in Hilbert space. Quantum and classical mechanics are then elaborated and applied to subsystems and the measurement process. Consideration is also given to space-time geometry and the constraints this places on the dynamics. Physics and Mathematics, it is argued, are growing apart; the inadequate treatment of approximations in general and localisation in quantum mechanics in particular are seen as contributing factors. In the description of systems, the link between localisation and lack of knowledge shows that quantum mechanics should reflect the domain of applicability. Restricting the class of states provides a means of achieving this goal. Localisation is then shown to have a mathematical expression in terms of compactness, which in turn is applied to yield a topological theory of bound and scattering states. Finally, the thesis questions the validity of classical limits and quantisations in intertheoretic reduction, and demonstrates that a widely accepted classical limit does not constitute a proof of reduction. It proposes a procedure for determining whether classical and quantum mechanics are weakly equivalent over a domain of applicability, and concludes that, in this restricted sense, classical mechanics reduces to quantum mechanics.
Abstract Classical and quantum mechanics are two very different theories, each describing the world within its own range of validity. It is often stated that classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics in a certain limit. This is known as the correspondence principle. According to Planck’s version of the correspondence principle, classical mechanics is recovered when the limit in which a dimensionless parameter containing Planck’s constant h goes to zero is taken, while Bohr’s version entails taking the limit of large quantum numbers. However, despite what is usually stated in textbooks, the relation between the two theories is much more complex to state and understand. Here we deal with this issue by analysing some key examples, in some of which also the analogously subtle relation between wave and geometric optics is considered. Implications for quantum mechanics teaching at undergraduate level are carefully discussed.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Shakespeare , Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 5 The challenge of semiclassical mechanics: Reassessing the views Semiclassical mechanics significantly broadens our understanding of the relationship between classical and quantum mechanics. It reveals that there is much more to the relation between these theories than simply showing that classical behavior can be recovered from quantum systems in the limit of large actions ( ħ → 0) or large quantum numbers ( n → ∞). Although these limits are an important piece of the puzzle, the usual reductionist account of the quantum–classical relation in terms of these limits alone does not tell the whole story. More specifically, research in semiclassical mechanics has uncovered a number of surprising theoretical and experimental correspondences . Indeed the program of semiclassical research can be broadly understood as the theoretical and experimental task of uncovering these correspondences and extending them in new ways. On the theoretical side, semiclassical methods such as EBK quantization, Gutzwiller's trace formula, and closed orbit theory show how classical structures can be used to construct quantum quantities. These semiclassical methods have proven to be not just useful calculational tools, but also important investigative tools, in that they are often able to provide physical insight into the structure of the quantum dynamics, and hence lead to new discoveries.
… there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out. Shakespeare , Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2 Introduction The philosophical importance of semiclassical appeals to classical structures in explaining quantum phenomena was first recognized by Robert Batterman (1993; 1995; 2002). More generally, Batterman has argued that when it comes to explaining phenomena in the asymptotic domain between two theories, the fundamental theory describing that domain is often explanatorily deficient, and an adequate explanation must make essential reference to the less fundamental theory. For example, in discussing the relation between classical and quantum mechanics, Batterman writes, “There are many aspects of the semiclassical limit of quantum mechanics that cannot be explained purely in quantum mechanical terms, though they are in some sense quantum mechanical … [T]hese quantum mechanical features require reference to classical properties for their full explanation” (Batterman 2002, pp. 109–10). He has extended these arguments to other theory pairs with singular limits as well, arguing that in optics, for example, one finds explanations of wave-theoretic phenomena that make an essential and ineliminable appeal to ray-theoretic structures such as caustics. More recently, Batterman's arguments have been the subject of considerable criticism from figures such as Clifford Hooker (2004), Michael Redhead (2004), and Gordon Belot (2005). These criticisms have tended to cluster around the following two assumptions: First, in saying that a classical structure (such as a trajectory or caustic) explains , one is thereby committed to the claim that the structure exists .
There are many important questions that do not fall neatly into any one discipline; rather, their full investigation requires the integration of two or more distinct fields. This book is about just such a question – one that arises at the intersection of physics, philosophy, and history. The question can be simply stated as “What is the relation between classical and quantum mechanics?” The simplicity of the question, however, belies the complexity of the answer. Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are two of the most successful scientific theories ever developed, and yet how these two very different theories can successfully describe one and the same world – the world we live in – is far from clear. One theory is deterministic, the other indeterministic; one theory describes a world in which chaotic behavior is pervasive, and the other a world in which it is almost entirely absent. Did quantum mechanics simply replace classical mechanics as the new universal theory? Do they each describe their own distinct domains of phenomena? Or is one theory really just a continuation of the other? In the philosophy literature, this sort of issue is known as the problem of intertheoretic relations. Currently, there are two accepted philosophical frameworks for thinking about intertheoric relations: the first is reductionism, and the second, pluralism. As we shall see, these labels each actually describe a family of related views.
Abstract Where does quantum mechanics part ways with classical mechanics? How does quantum randomness differ fundamentally from classical randomness? We cannot fully explain how the theories differ until we can derive them within a single axiomatic framework, allowing an unambiguous account of how one theory is the limit of the other. Here we derive non-relativistic quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics within a common framework. The common axioms include conservation of average energy and conservation of probability current. But two axioms distinguish quantum mechanics from classical statistical mechanics: an “ontic extension” defines a nonseparable (global) random variable that generates physical correlations, and an “epistemic restriction” constrains allowed phase space distributions. The ontic extension and epistemic restriction, with strength on the order of Planck’s constant, imply quantum entanglement and uncertainty relations. This framework suggests that the wave function is epistemic, yet it does not provide an ontic dynamics for individual systems.