This paper attempts to make sense of a notion of ``approximation on certain scales'' in physical theories. I use this notion to understand the classical limit of ordinary quantum mechanics as a kind of scaling limit, showing that the mathematical tools of strict quantization allow one to make the notion of approximation precise. I then compare this example with the scaling limits involved in renormalization procedures for effective field theories. I argue that one does not yet have the mathematical tools to make a notion of ``approximation on certain scales" precise in extant mathematical formulations of effective field theories. This provides guidance on the kind of further work that is needed for an adequate interpretation of quantum field theory.
This paper attempts to make sense of a notion of approximation on certain scales'' in physical theories. I use this notion to understand the classical limit of ordinary quantum mechanics as a kind of scaling limit, showing that the mathematical tools of strict quantization allow one to make the notion of approximation precise. I then compare this example with the scaling limits involved in renormalization procedures for effective field theories. I argue that one does not yet have the mathematical tools to make a notion of approximation on certain scales" precise in extant mathematical formulations of effective field theories. This provides guidance on the kind of further work that is needed for an adequate interpretation of quantum field theory.
I argue that it is possible to give an interpretation of the classical ℏ→0 limit of quantum mechanics that results in a partial explanation of the success of classical mechanics. The interpretation is novel in that it allows one to explain the success of the theoretical structure of classical mechanics. This interpretation clarifies the relationship between physical quantities and propositions in quantum theories and provides a precise notion of a quantum theory holding “approximately on certain scales.”
In this chapter we discuss theories which are rigorous in their formulation but which in order to be useful need to be modified by introducing approximations of some kind. The approximations we are interested in are those which involve introduction of classical mechanical concepts, that is, the classical picture and/or classical mechanical equations of motion in part of the system. At this point, we wish to distinguish between “the classical picture,” which is obtained by taking the classical limit ħ → 0 and the appearance of “classical equations of motion.” The latter may be extracted from the quantum mechanical formulation without taking the classical limit—but, as we shall see later by introducing a certain parametrization of quantum mechanics. Thus there are two ways of introducing classical mechanical concepts in quantum mechanics. In the first method, the classical limit is defined by taking the limit ħ → 0 either in all degrees of freedom (complete classical limit) or in some degrees of freedom (semi-classical theories). We note in passing that the word semi-classical has been used to cover a wide variety of approaches which have also been referred to as classical S-matrix theories, quantum-classical theories, classical path theory, hemi-quantal theory, Wentzel Kramer-Brillouin (WKB) theories, and so on. It is not the purpose of this book to define precisely what is behind these various acronyms. We shall rather focus on methods which we think have been successful as far as practical applications are concerned and discuss the approximations and philosophy behind these. In the other approach, the ħ-limit is not taken—at least not explicitly— but here one introduces “classical” quantities, such as, trajectories and momenta as parameters, and derives equations of motion for these parameters. The latter method is therefore one particular way of parameterizing quantum mechanics. We discuss both of these approaches in this chapter. The Feynman path-integral formulation is one way of formulating quantum mechanics such that the classical limit is immediately visible [3]. Formally, the approach involves the introduction of a quantity S, which has a definition resembling that of an action integral [101].
Introduction: Conceptual issues in quantum field theory Part I. Philosophers' Interests in Quantum Field Theory: 1. Why are we philosophers interested in quantum field theory 2. Quantum field theory and the philosopher Part II. Three Approaches to the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory: 3. The usefulness of a general theory of quantized fields 4. Effective field theory in condensed matter physics 5. The triumph and limitations of quantum field theory 6. Comments Discussions Part III. Does Quantum Field Theory Need a Foundation: 7. Does quantum field theory need a foundation? Part IV. Mathematics, Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory: 8. Renormalization group theory: its basis and formulation in statistical physics 9. Where does quantum field theory fit into the big picture? 10. The unreasonable effectiveness of quantum field theory 11. Comment: the quantum field theory of physics and of mathematics Part V. Quantum Field Theory and Spacetime: Introduction 12. Quantum field theory and spacetime: formalism and reality 13. Quantum field theory of geometry 14. 'Localization' in quantum field theory: how much of QFT is compatible with what we know about spacetime 15. Comments VI. 16. What is quantum field theory and what did we think it was? 17. Comments Discussions Part VII.Renormalization Group: 18. What is fundamental physics? A renormalization group perspective 19. Renormalization group: an interesting yet puzzling idea Part VIII. Non-Abelian Gauge Theory: 20. Gauge fields, gravity and Bohm's theory 21. Is the Aharonov-Bohm effect local? Discussions Part IX. The Ontology of Particles or Fields: 22. The ineliminable classical face of quantum field theory 23. The logic of quanta 24. Do Feynman diagrams endorse a particle ontology? 25. On the ontology of QFT Part X. Panel Discussion.
The concept of scaling dimensions is important in the physics of large systems, in particular, in the statistical mechanics of critical phenomena. The main purpose of this article is to explain and formulate this important concept in a more transparent and precise fashion. Discussion is in the framework of the n-component classical spin model and the renormalization group. It is emphasized that not every quantity, but only special ones, called scaling variables, have well-defined scaling dimensions. In general these variables can be derived by making use of certain parameters which are the scaling fields of Wegner. The dimensions are simply related to the exponents associated with the renormalization group. We hope to extract a fairly concrete picture by a general formulation followed by explicit determination of the scaling variables in the large-n limit. Dimensions are obtained to O(n1).
Introduction The main theme of this survey is the quantization of classical mechanical systems in terms of algebraic geometry. The aim is thus to relate questions of mathematics and theoretical physics. We first recall briefly the main problems and methods which turn us to study the new subject. Quantization itself is the main problem of theoretical physics. The need to introduce and develop it was dictated by the creators of quantum theory. According to the ‘Copenhagen philosophy’, the physical predictions of a quantum theory must be formulated in terms of classical concepts (the first sentence of Woodhouse; here we quote the beginning of this survey). Thus in addition to the usual structures (Hilbert space, unitary transformations, selfadjoint operators …, see, for example, Landau and Lifschitz) any reasonable quantum theory has to admit an appropriate passage to a classical limit under which quantum observables are transferred to their classical analogues. However, as Dirac pointed out at the beginning of the quantum age, the correspondence between quantum theory and classical theory should be based not just on numerical coincidences taking place in the limit h → ∞, but on an analogy between their mathematical structures. Classical theory does approximate the quantum theory, but it does more – it supplies a framework for some interpretation of quantum theory. Using this idea, we can in general understand a quantization procedure as a correspondence between classical and quantum theories. In this sense, quantization of the classical mechanical systems is a movement in one direction, while taking the quasiclassical limit goes in the opposite direction.
When attempting to describe the world using mathematical models, we almost inevitably encounter a problem of tractability: the equations that most faithfully describe the real-world system of interest are too complex to be solved exactly. There are different ways to respond to this situation. One approach is to move to a simpler set of equations; if all goes well, we may hit upon a more tractable representation of the target system which is nevertheless predictive, explanatory or otherwise useful. Another approach is to retain the more complex equations but broaden the range of methods used to draw inferences from them. Applied mathematicians have developed a dizzying array of approximation methods, which allow quantitative results to be obtained in the absence of exact solutions. In the context of quantum physics alone, the list of approximation methods is long and ever-expanding: perturbative expansions, WKB semi-classical expansions, Hartree-Fock variational approximations, Born-Oppenheimer approximations, numerical integration methods, Monte Carlo simulations, and the list goes on.