Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Philosophy of Science

The Classical Limit as an Approximation

Benjamin H. Feintzeig

Published Apr 30, 2020• 12 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.”

DOI
10.1086/709731

Related papers

The classical limit

Peter Holland

Conceptual and formal problems Many of the problems surrounding the interpretation of quantum mechanics stem from the absence of a sufficiently general and physically transparent analysis of the connection with the domain in which classical concepts are assumed to apply. It is the purpose of this chapter to describe with the aid of a few examples how the quantum potential approach provides a context within which the conceptual and formal issues raised by this problem may be clarified. A key question is to explain how the state or context dependence which is so characteristic of the quantum domain turns into state independence at a certain level, characterized as ‘classical’. To illustrate one aspect of the conceptual problem we recall that in Bohr's interpretation the validity of classical concepts is already presupposed since, it is suggested, it is only in terms of these that one can unambiguously communicate the results of experiments in the quantum domain. Thus, classical physics must be considered as prior to quantum mechanics and the latter is a generalization of the former in that it provides a new set of laws governing the application of classical concepts. According to this view, any procedure by which classical mechanics is recovered from quantum mechanics as a mathematical limit can only be a demonstration of consistency with the already postulated epistemological relation between the two theories and not as a ‘derivation’ of classical mechanics from quantum mechanics (George, Prigogine & Rosenfeld, 1972).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 13, 1993•0 citations

Rigorous theories

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].

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 27, 2003•0 citations

Towards a new interpretation of quantum mechanics?

André Julg, Pierre Julg

Abstract Quantum mechanics is a remarkable formalism for studying problems in the microscopic domain, and nobody has reasonably contested its power. Nevertheless, in spite of the many interpretations which have been proposed, its true meaning is far from being clear. The aim of this preliminary paper is to show that it is possible to conceive within a classical framework an interpretation of quantum mechanics and to make its limits of validity precise.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Feb 1, 1983•4 citations

The Status of Scaling Limits as Approximations in Quantum Theories

Benjamin H. Feintzeig

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.

•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics As A Limiting Case of Classical Mechanics

Partha Ghose

In spite of its popularity, it has not been possible to vindicate the conventional wisdom that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. The purpose of the present paper is to offer an alternative point of view in which quantum mechanics emerges as a limiting case of classical mechanics in which the classical system is decoupled from its environment.

arXiv:quant-ph/0001025•Jan 10, 2000•0 citations

Kuantum Mantığı

Hatice Kırmacı

Quantum Logic Distributivity And The Algebraic Structure Of Propositions As with many subatomic particles, the question of under what conditions the electron behaves as a particle or as a wave continues to be the subject of research. It was necessary to employ appropriate logic to organise the propositions describing the behaviour of such an object at the subatomic scale into a precise from and to establish coherent relationships between them. Quantum logic, which can be regarded as an interpretation of quantum mechanics, arose from this need. In classical mechanics, the state and properties of a system are described using the propositions of classical logic, which is based on Boolean algebra. In quantum mechanics, however, the fact that the operators representing the measured quantities do not commute has shown that quantum phenomena cannot be described using the propositions of classical logic. It is therefore necessary to have a formal framework suited to the propositions describing quantum phenomena. In our study, we highlight the various differences between classical logic and quantum logic, examine the distributive property and discuss, from the perspective of Birkhoff and von Neumann, the algebraic structure to which quantum logic might correspond. At the conclusion of our research, we find that, in order to assert that all experimental propositions logically equivalent to a given experimental proposition constitute a physical property, the operators corresponding to the measured quantities must commute with one another. Boolean algebra has an algebraic structure that allows classical logic to be formalised. In such algebra, the distributive property holds; thus, distributivity does not pose a problem for classical logic. Consequently, the distributive property does not always hold in quantum logic and quantum systems can be modelled using orthomodular lattices associated with closed subspaces of Hilbert space. We believe that this model must evolve in parallel with the discovery of new quantum phenomena and that it provides a framework conductive to this evolution. Keywords: Quantum logic; distributivity; partially order sets (posets); lattice; orthomodular lattice; Hilbert space; Boolean algebra.

•Sep 9, 2026•0 citations
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.”
Conceptual and formal problems Many of the problems surrounding the interpretation of quantum mechanics stem from the absence of a sufficiently general and physically transparent analysis of the connection with the domain in which classical concepts are assumed to apply. It is the purpose of this chapter to describe with the aid of a few examples how the quantum potential approach provides a context within which the conceptual and formal issues raised by this problem may be clarified. A key question is to explain how the state or context dependence which is so characteristic of the quantum domain turns into state independence at a certain level, characterized as ‘classical’. To illustrate one aspect of the conceptual problem we recall that in Bohr's interpretation the validity of classical concepts is already presupposed since, it is suggested, it is only in terms of these that one can unambiguously communicate the results of experiments in the quantum domain. Thus, classical physics must be considered as prior to quantum mechanics and the latter is a generalization of the former in that it provides a new set of laws governing the application of classical concepts. According to this view, any procedure by which classical mechanics is recovered from quantum mechanics as a mathematical limit can only be a demonstration of consistency with the already postulated epistemological relation between the two theories and not as a ‘derivation’ of classical mechanics from quantum mechanics (George, Prigogine & Rosenfeld, 1972).
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].
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.
Quantum Logic Distributivity And The Algebraic Structure Of Propositions As with many subatomic particles, the question of under what conditions the electron behaves as a particle or as a wave continues to be the subject of research. It was necessary to employ appropriate logic to organise the propositions describing the behaviour of such an object at the subatomic scale into a precise from and to establish coherent relationships between them. Quantum logic, which can be regarded as an interpretation of quantum mechanics, arose from this need. In classical mechanics, the state and properties of a system are described using the propositions of classical logic, which is based on Boolean algebra. In quantum mechanics, however, the fact that the operators representing the measured quantities do not commute has shown that quantum phenomena cannot be described using the propositions of classical logic. It is therefore necessary to have a formal framework suited to the propositions describing quantum phenomena. In our study, we highlight the various differences between classical logic and quantum logic, examine the distributive property and discuss, from the perspective of Birkhoff and von Neumann, the algebraic structure to which quantum logic might correspond. At the conclusion of our research, we find that, in order to assert that all experimental propositions logically equivalent to a given experimental proposition constitute a physical property, the operators corresponding to the measured quantities must commute with one another. Boolean algebra has an algebraic structure that allows classical logic to be formalised. In such algebra, the distributive property holds; thus, distributivity does not pose a problem for classical logic. Consequently, the distributive property does not always hold in quantum logic and quantum systems can be modelled using orthomodular lattices associated with closed subspaces of Hilbert space. We believe that this model must evolve in parallel with the discovery of new quantum phenomena and that it provides a framework conductive to this evolution. Keywords: Quantum logic; distributivity; partially order sets (posets); lattice; orthomodular lattice; Hilbert space; Boolean algebra.