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

arXiv:quant-ph/0001015

Structure behind Mechanics II: Deduction

Ono, Toshihiko

Published Jan 7, 2000• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper proves that protomechanics, previously introduced in quant-ph/9909025, deduces both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It does not only solve the problem of the arbitrariness on the operator ordering for the quantization procedure, but also that of the analyticity at the exact classical-limit of $\hbar =0 $. In addition, proto-mechanics proves valid also for the description of a half-spin.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0001015

Related papers

Structure behind Mechanics I: Foundation

Ono, Toshihiko

This paper proposes a basic theory on physical reality and a new foundation for quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It presents a scenario not only to solve the problem of the arbitrariness on the operator ordering for the quantization procedure, but also to clarify how the classical-limit occurs. This paper is the first of the three papers into which the previous paper quant-ph/9906130 has been separated for readability.

arXiv:quant-ph/9909025•Sep 8, 1999•0 citations

Structure behind Mechanics

Ono, Toshihiko

This paper proposes a basic theory on physical reality, and a new foundation for quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It does not only solve the problem of the arbitrariness on the operator ordering for the quantization procedure, but also clarifies how the classical-limit occurs. It further compares the new theory with the known quantization methods, and proposes a self-consistent interpretation for quantum mechanics. It also provides the internal structure inducing half-integer spin of a particle, the sense of the regularization in the quantum field theory, the quantization of a phenomenological system, the causality in quantum mechanics and the origin of the thermodynamic irreversibility under the new insight.

arXiv:quant-ph/9906130•Jun 30, 1999•0 citations

From classical to quantum mechanics: “How to translate physical ideas into mathematical language”

Hervé Bergeron

Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].

arXiv:quant-ph/0102084•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Sep 1, 2001•12 citations

Overview of "Structure behind Mechanics"

Ono, Toshihiko

This letter proposes a new scenario to solve the structural or conceptual problems remained in quantum mechanics, and gives an overview of the theory proposed in quant-ph/9906130 (including quant-ph/9909025 and quant-ph/0001015).

arXiv:quant-ph/9912021•Dec 5, 1999•0 citations

Classical Mechanics

Jeffrey Alan Barrett

Abstract While quantum mechanics is one of the most successful physical theories we have ever had, it is deeply counterintuitive. It must be given the empirical evidence it explains. We consider some of the historical evidence for the theory and the conceptual arguments that led from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. These considerations illustrate some of the ways in which our commonsense and philosophical intuitions are simply incompatible with the physical world.

•Dec 26, 2019•0 citations

The Classical Limit as an Approximation

Benjamin H. Feintzeig

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.”

Philosophy of Science•Apr 30, 2020•12 citations
This paper proves that protomechanics, previously introduced in quant-ph/9909025, deduces both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It does not only solve the problem of the arbitrariness on the operator ordering for the quantization procedure, but also that of the analyticity at the exact classical-limit of ℏ=0\hbar =0 ℏ=0. In addition, proto-mechanics proves valid also for the description of a half-spin.
This paper proposes a basic theory on physical reality, and a new foundation for quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It does not only solve the problem of the arbitrariness on the operator ordering for the quantization procedure, but also clarifies how the classical-limit occurs. It further compares the new theory with the known quantization methods, and proposes a self-consistent interpretation for quantum mechanics. It also provides the internal structure inducing half-integer spin of a particle, the sense of the regularization in the quantum field theory, the quantization of a phenomenological system, the causality in quantum mechanics and the origin of the thermodynamic irreversibility under the new insight.
Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].
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.”