Abstract In this chapter we study the limit ħ → 0 of quantum mechanics. The passage from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics involves precisely this limit, and the approximation schemes developed for small ħ are known as the semi-classical approximation. The semi-classical approximation has a predecessor: the so-called old quantum theory. Many of the questions concerning the connection between the quantum and classical mechanics were already raised during the years of foundation of quantum mechanics, 1900–1927, but satisfactory answers have not always been obtained.
Abstract In this chapter we study the limit ħ → 0 of quantum mechanics. The passage from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics involves precisely this limit, and the approximation schemes developed for small ħ are known as the semi-classical approximation. The semi-classical approximation has a predecessor: the so-called old quantum theory. Many of the questions concerning the connection between the quantum and classical mechanics were already raised during the years of foundation of quantum mechanics, 1900–1927, but satisfactory answers have not always been obtained.
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].
Quantum mechanics is essentially a 20th century development that is based on a number of observations that defied classical explanations. While some of these experiments have semiclassical explanations, the triumph of quantum mechanics is that it gives precise verification for an overwhelming number of experimental observations. Its extensions into relativistic quantum mechanics through quantum electrodynamics (QED), electro-weak theory, and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) have led us to the Standard Model of today. While the number of unanswered questions remains approximately constant at each stage of development, the number of answered questions that relate theory with experiment continues to grow rapidly. In this chapter, some of the historical landmarks in the development of the theory are noted. The resolution of the dilemmas presented by classical theory will be dealt with in later chapters, but these are listed to motivate the break from classical mechanics. Because of the apparently unphysical nature of the postulates upon which quantum mechanics is founded, we supply motivation and justification for this break. In the first part of this chapter, we will review some of the experiments that confounded classical theory, and then introduce a formalism that provides some rationale for the postulates upon which quantum mechanics is based. In the end, these postulates will stand on their own.
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).
One of the main unsolved question in Quantum Mechanics (QM) is its compatibility with classical mechanics. The laws of QM, which describe the microscopic world, must merge into the classical ones for large enough physical systems, but it is still unknown at which point, if any, the transition occurs and if the transition is smooth or sudden as the size increases. Furthermore, a strict extension of QM to the macroscopic world leads to well known 'paradoxes', which is not straightforward to solve. This question is tightly connected with the measurement problem, since any measurement apparatus must give a response which can be described at classical level. Many experiments have been performed to answer to this question. They mainly try to find to which extent the number of particles can be increased in order to observe clear evidence of violation of standard QM. In this paper we argue that the macroscopicity parameter is not the number of particles but the number of independent degrees of freedom, as proposed in a recent model for the completion of QM. This introduces a sort of change of paradigm. To support this claim a representative set of well known experiments are analyzed from this point of view. This brings to a new interpretation of the experiments. A general scheme for the quantum-classical transition is discussed in some details.
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.”
Two new possibilities in the axiomatic foundations of quantum mechanics are examined: first, the possibility of introducing a non-symmetric transition probability between pure states, and second, showing that the concept of orthocomplementation in the logic of events is unnecessary and of secondary importance. An axiomatic scheme is presented which does not involve the concept of orthocomplementation and yet has all the advantages of the well-known quantum logic axiomatics, because the generalised logic of events admits an extension, which is a complete orthocomplemented orthomodular lattice with the covering law holding in it. Thus, the approach to quantum axiomatics may be seen as answering both the old questions of the quantum logic approach (e.g. the questions of the complete lattice structure of the logic, atomicity, the validity of the covering law) and the question concerning the necessity of the orthocomplementation in the logic of events, recently raised by Mielnik (1976).