n our previous paper, we showed that the so-called quantum entanglement also exists in classical mechanics. The inability to measure this classical entanglement was rationalized with the definition of a classical observer which collapses all entanglement into distinguishable states. It was shown that evidence for this primary coherence is Newton’s third law. However, in reformulating a "classical entanglement theory" we assumed the existence of Newton’s second law as an operator form where a force operator was introduced through a Hilbert space of force states. In this paper, we derive all related physical quantities and laws from basic quantum principles. We not only define a force operator but also derive the classical mechanic's laws and prove the necessity of entanglement to obtain Newton’s third law.
n our previous paper, we showed that the so-called quantum entanglement also exists in classical mechanics. The inability to measure this classical entanglement was rationalized with the definition of a classical observer which collapses all entanglement into distinguishable states. It was shown that evidence for this primary coherence is Newton’s third law. However, in reformulating a "classical entanglement theory" we assumed the existence of Newton’s second law as an operator form where a force operator was introduced through a Hilbert space of force states. In this paper, we derive all related physical quantities and laws from basic quantum principles. We not only define a force operator but also derive the classical mechanic's laws and prove the necessity of entanglement to obtain Newton’s third law.
Despite the fact that it has been known since the time of Heisenberg that quantum operators obey a quantum version of Newton's laws, students are often told that derivations of quantum mechanics must necessarily follow from the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulations of mechanics. Here, we first derive the existing Heisenberg equations of motion from Newton's laws and the uncertainty principle using only the equations F=dtdP, P=mdtdV, and [X,P]=i. Then, a new expression for the propagator is derived that makes a connection between time evolution in quantum mechanics and the motion of a classical particle under Newton's laws. The propagator is solved for three cases where an exact solution is possible 1) the free particle 2) the harmonic oscillator 3) a constant force, or linear potential in the standard interpretation. Such a picture may be useful for students as they make the transition from classical to quantum mechanics and help solidify the equivalence of the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian formulations of physics in their minds.
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.
Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics have long been framed as binary opposites—but this dichotomy has yielded no real benefits, only persistent confusion. The fundamental equations of quantum mechanics cannot logically demarcate a clear boundary between the quantum and classical realms; in fact, the mass m and potential energy V in the Schrödinger equation seamlessly traverse the divide between the microscopic and macroscopic. The electromagnetic potential energy in the Schrödinger equation can be replaced with the potential energy of interactive forces, which can further be converted into force itself using the relation F = V/r. Derivations have now produced a force operator and quantum mechanical equations that explicitly incorporate force—including a quantum formulation of Newton’s second law. These results provide direct evidence that quantum and classical mechanics are not incompatible, but complementary. By resolving the historical absence of “force” as a formal concept in quantum mechanics, we bridge the conceptual gap between macroscopic classical frameworks and microscopic quantum theory, challenging long-held perceptions of their irreconcilability. This unified approach explains why nanoscale particles exhibit quantum properties, simplifies calculations of quantum forces, and lays the groundwork for a generalized wave mechanics that unifies mechanical descriptions across all scales.
In reality, micro objects and macro objects coexist harmoniously, and each macro object depends on micro particles to exist (macro is a collection of micro objects, indicating that they have a very extensive relationship and are symbiotic). However, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics have long been regarded as binary oppositions. This is a serious disconnect between theory and phenomena, requiring the establishment of new theories and methods that are compatible between quantum and classical. Prior to this, many reasons and methods for combining quantum theory with classical theory have been found (providing numerous computational examples). The wave mechanics equations of classical mechanics laws have been written. The technical method used is still the conversion rule of the Hermitian operator in the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics. There are no new assumptions. The key is to use the relationship between force and energy in the planetary model to obtain wave mechanics equations that include force, Newton's second law, and the law of conservation of momentum. Thus, quantum mechanics, which is compatible with classical mechanics, truly becomes a form of 'mechanics'. This kind of mechanics is generalized wave mechanics. Quantum and classical are coordinated and compatible, resulting in no clear boundary between quantum and classical. It will seriously affect the credibility of quantum decoherence and wave function collapse.
In this chapter we shall first summarize some conceptual and formal features of classical mechanics (Sec. 1.1). Modern physics started with the works of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton from which classical mechanics, one of the most beautiful and solid intellectual buildings of the human history, came out. The architecture of classical mechanics was developed between the end of the eighteenth century and the second half of the nineteenth century, and its present form is largely due to Lagrange, Jacobi, and Hamilton. As we shall see in this chapter, classical mechanics is built upon the requirement of determinism, a rather complex assumption which is far from being obvious. In Sec. 1.2 we shall present the two main conceptual features of quantum mechanics on the basis of an ideal interferometry experiment: the superposition principle and the principle of complementarity. In Sec. 1.3 a first formal treatment of quantum-mechanical states is developed: quantum states are represented by vectors in a space that turns out to be a Hilbert space. In Sec. 1.4 the significance of probability for quantum mechanics is explained briefly: we will show that probability is not just an ingredient of quantum mechanics, but is rather an intrinsic feature of the theory. Furthermore, we shall see that quantum probability is not ruled by Kolmogorov axioms of classical probability. Finally, we discuss the main evidences which have historically revealed the necessity of a departure from classical mechanics.
Newton's second law of motion, F = ma, has long been considered a cornerstone of classical mechanics, providing a fundamental framework for understanding the behavior of macroscopic objects. However, as physics delves into the quantum realm, the applicability of Newton's second law becomes limited, and the principles of quantum mechanics emerge as the dominant description of particle behavior. Beginning with an overview of the historical development of classical mechanics by Newton and the emergence of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, the article delves into the foundational principles of framework. The classical description of particles as point masses with deterministic trajectories is contrasted with the probabilistic nature of quantum particles described by wave functions and superposition principles. Practical applications and implications of these theories are also discussed, shedding light on their significance in various scientific disciplines. This research article presents a comparative analysis of Newton's second law of motion and quantum physics, examining their fundamental principles and implications through the lens of classical and quantum mechanics. Beginning with an overview of Newton's second law and its significance in classical mechanics, the article delves into the foundational postulates of quantum mechanics and their departure from classical concepts. This explores the inherent limitations of Newton's second law when applied to quantum phenomena, comparing and contrasting its principles with those of quantum physics. Through a comprehensive analysis of evidence and theoretical frameworks, this article elucidates the boundaries of classical mechanics and highlights the need for quantum mechanics to describe phenomena at the atomic and subatomic levels. Through an exploration of key differences and similarities, this aims to provide insights into the behavior of particles at both macroscopic and microscopic scales