It's the other way around-Newton's laws are the limiting case of quantum mechanics. Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 for ``why'' questions.

Hi,

This thread is an amazing and thought -provoking discussion. Regards to Prof. Mazen and Prof. Preston.

Interesting discussion. From Stam Nicolis answer, also large objects are included

To us, a continuation is to ask if Quantum Mechanics is the tool to discover and create new structures and physics. I think, for example that the birds in the sky may provide a useful path, or something else large-scale more natural that we observe for which, at first, nature do not have a solution, but in time it develops.

Dear Stam Nicolis

First the question ''why'' here has a specific mean, because we talk about one concept ''the motion'' so why we have two different laws?

I think this is an acceptable question.

And yes Newton's laws are the limiting case of quantum mechanics (for high quantum numbers) but only in a statistical way, so we can't derive Newton's law from Schrodinger equation (for example we don't have the concept of initial velocity in quantum mechanics)

with best regards.

There aren't two different laws-Newton's laws can be derived from the Schrödinger equation, for instance. It's from quantum mechanics-in whatever framework-that classical mechanics is obtained as a limiting case. Of course there's an initial velocity in quantum mechanics, since its probability distribution evolves.

That the probability distributions of canonically conjugate variables can't be both delta functions doesn't mean their evolution can't be computed-and it is.

Dear Preston Guynn

Thank you for the kind words,

God willing I will read your papers to understand your opinion about this subject.

With best regards.

Dear Stam Nicolis

As we know the concept of initial velocity need to know the velocity in a specific time and in specific location and this violates the uncertainty principle.

And as I know we can't derive Newton's law from Schrodinger equation please see this reference:

U. Klein, ”What is the limit h → 0 of quantum theory?”

University of Linz, Institute for Theoretical Physics, A-4040 Linz, Austria , October 23, 2012

With best regards

Dear Lena J-T Strömberg

I think that quantum mechanics say the truth about the statistical information of the system in both cases classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, but it doesn't tell us what really happened in classical regime (because we can't derive Newton's law from Schrodinger equation) and in the classical limit between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

with best regards

It depends on what you emphasize , and on what scale. For example rotation. Sailing in a mist, implies a rotation. Then the mist and the boat is a quasistatic state when looking from outside. It is not known if the mist would rotate in the same way ( or at all) if there were no boat. The conjugated variables are the pressure on the sail, and the density in layers at the sail. This is an inside level, however it produces energy ( that could be an out-put in another example, e.g. wind mills as we know (for electricity or mechanical power)). Concerning entropy and temperature, for the latter, an equilibrium value is often referred to, and that ends this comment. (However the layers could be regarded an eather, and is that nowadays related to the variables in QM?) / I think in terms of how Tti concludes processes, and then it is the area for the sail and pressure contact, and the oscillating signal out-put (or areas for work in the older applications ).

Of course there's no violation of the uncertainty principle in specifying the probability distributions for the initial position and the initial velocity; it's just that both can't be delta-functions, that's all and, more precisely, their variances must satisfy the uncertainty principle.

Classical mechanics is a particular limit of quantum mechanics, so, of course, quantum mechanics describes how to define it. Nothing mysterious in principle, just messy in practice.

Normal electricity (and high voltage transfer) work equally well for all temperatures. The super-conductivity requires low temperatures, not normally present. A crystal producing clock-frequencies requires a voltage, and to be tunable also other components. Diods work with a small base current, e.g. the Schottky diod, however also, maybe sensitive to heat. :/:

The Feynmann diagram, appears general, but do not apply entirely with chemical reactions for production, and to growth of a tree, since in those cases the main branch also remains. However, as I understand, they are clever illustrations for many cases.

I deviated from the question, but concerning space-time, a represesentation with distributions requires only local coordinates, and if space is reduced, time remains, and no aether or clock, a priori ( there are clocks within distance). So the formulation applies with electro-dynamics?

Mazen Khoder

There are many ways to approach your question. The obvious one is, QM is the only approach that covers atomic and subatomic phenomena. Personally, I prefer a somewhat different answer: Unlike CM, QM recognizes existence of fundamental limits to measurement, and attempts to include them in the theory. Not that this question (limits to measurement) has a universally accepted general answer yet, but calculating the signal-to-noise ratio in any given experiment by QM means is surely possible.

Read "A Self-creating Model of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0223

Dear Lena J-T Strömberg

You said:

".....

....

I deviated from the question

"

It seems so : )

You said:

" but concerning space-time, a representation with distributions requires only local coordinates, and if space is reduced, time remains, and no aether or clock, a priori ( there are clocks within distance). So the formulation applies with electro-dynamics? "

Einstein discovers the role of space-time in his general relativity theory, we don't know yet if the space-time has another important role in quantum mechanics, I claim that we have such role for the space-time in quantum mechanics, simply the space-time gives the particle (in general in case of low energy) the locations that this particle can appear at it.

With best regards.

Dear Stam Nicolis

You said: "Of course there's no violation of the uncertainty principle in specifying the probability distributions for the initial position and the initial velocity; it's just that both can't be delta-functions, that's all and, more precisely, their variances must satisfy the uncertainty principle."

Yes, Of course, we know that, but I talk about the delta-functions itself, the newton law talk about a specific velocity in a specific location, so for that, we can't derive the newton law from quantum mechanics.

As Max Jammer said: quantum mechanics and classical dynamics are built on fundamentally different foundations!

You said: "Classical mechanics is a particular limit of quantum mechanics "

We have a statistical match only between Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in the case of large quantum numbers (high energy) as the correspondence principle states.

With best regards.

QM exists because of a lack of understanding of the components and guiding principles in small scales as indicated by several observations. In such circumstance the models are built statistically. "Statistically" results in many weird relations. Better to change paradigms to discover the underlying reality. But this kind of thinking is suppressed by the status-quo community except to allow mare weirdness that are unlikely to result in experiments. As long as the credentials of the proposer are of the community, Then expensive (employing the other members of the community) can be done searching for non-existent model (dark matter, CERN and supersymmetry) .

Quantum mechanical theories often, not always, confine to the scene of the observed events. At these events relativity has no influence, thus no time interval dilation and no length contraction occurs. Also the deformation of the dynamic field that represents our universe hardly plays a role. Instead, the control of the generation of field excitations by stochastic processes plays a major role. This does not mean that the influences of gravitation and electric charges can be neglected. These influences control the coherence and the binding of the investigated objects. Regular physics tends to treat these influences by introducing forces instead of investigating the activity of the stochastic processes.

See "A self-creating Model of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0223 for an alternative approach.

Dear L. I. Plimak

You said:

" There are many ways to approach your question. The obvious one is, QM is the only approach that covers atomic and subatomic phenomena. "

This is not the answer this is the question,

why we have two dynamics laws?

specifically why subatomic level need non-local laws but classical mechanics accept local laws?

You said:" Personally, I prefer a somewhat different answer: CM, QM recognizes existence of fundamental limits to measurement, and attempts to include them in the theory."

I think the attempt of Heisenberg to understand the quantum mechanics based on the uncertainty principle is not acceptable, because he utilized the observer effect at the subatomic level (Heisenberg's microscope) and Bohr itself didn't accept this explanation, and the "Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen" paradox affirms that the particle can be affected without being subject to any measurement.

Sure the uncertainty principle is correct but we need a deep argument to understand why it is like this.

I claim that the argument is about how the motion occurs!

so if the motion is a sequence of appearances and disappearances events in space and time we can God willing understand all the above things.

With best regards.

Dear Mazen Khoder,

"specifically why subatomic level need non-local laws but classical mechanics accept local laws?"

I would think, because QM looks much deeper in the nature of this world, and encounters things that CM failed to notice.

Because our Classical description of Physical Reality non-complete.

Article Quantum Correction for Newton's Law of Motion

Dear Hans van Leunen

Thanks for your comment,

I need to read your paper to understand your ideas.

with best regards

Dear L. I. Plimak

You said:" I would think, because QM looks much deeper in the nature of this world, and encounters things that CM failed to notice. "

Yes, QM looks much deeper in the nature of this world, but why we need " non-local laws " in this case?

I claim that the answer is:

The motion is a sequence of appearances and disappearances events in space and time, and because {the particle might easily appear (if the quantum jump is enough) in a forbidden (have a variation to a very large potential field like for example the particle in an infinite potential well) place after some quantum jumps in the direction of the movement of the particle} so the particle should somehow know the distribution of fields in space, so we need a "non-local laws" as Schrodinger equation.

With best regards

Dear Timur Kamalov

Thanks for your reply,

I need to read your paper to understand your idea.

With best regards.

Dear Mazen Khoder ,

I'll accept your interpretation the moment you extend it to QED and calculate the Lamb shift, not to mention the standard model. Before that, if you would excuse my bluntness, it's sophomore's games.

Best

LP

Dear L. I. Plimak

You are right, I need to extend the interpretation to relativist quantum mechanics, I work on this goal, it is not easy to do it, but I think "God willing" I can do it.

One last thing, anyway I think that my work on non-relativist quantum mechanics is more than sophomore's games :)

With best regards.

Dear Mazen Khoder

Godspeed!

Best

LP

Mazen, my friend,

What kind of a question you ask? You have to know the answer. Classical objects have sizes longer by VERY many orders of magnitude than their wavelength. So, how can they produce interference phenomena? They have no defined phase. To the contrary, tiny objects are smaller by orders of magnitude than their wavelength, we can define for them phases, so, they can produce interference. I recommend you to read in the book of Feynman and Hibbs, "Quantum Mechanics and Path Integral", the section 2-3 "The classical limit". I attach here an extract that can help you.

Also, I see that you say "No one can derive the newton law from the Schrodinger equation." Please be so kind and read Ehrenfest's theorems.

Best regards

Still not started from the ground level.

The practical utility of quantum mechanics .

Ref :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_a_Chemical_Engineer_should_learn_Quantum_Mechanics

Christian Baumgarten

Go to the library of a nearby university and read the papers that John von Neumann wrote about his search for a suitable platform to model quantum physical theories. He doubted between Hilbert spaces, projective geometries and operator algebras. He finally selected Hilbert spaces and wrote the reason for that choice in a 1936 paper, in which he and Garret Birkhoff introduced quantum logic.

Many scientists followed von Neumann's choice.

The Hilbert Book Model clarifies that this relational structure emerges into a far more complicated structure that shows great similarity with what we can observe from physical reality.

I only had to follow the path that some excellent mathematicians paved for me.

I still regularly update the booklet "A self-creating Model of Physical Reality" because I regularly find extensions that make the Hilbert Book Model more complete.

Christian Baumgarten

You are free to do so, but you must show that this foundation evolves into a more complicated structure that shows properties and behavior that we recognize from observing reality.

The foundation must be simple and easily comprehensible. It must not be derivable from a simpler structure.

John von Neumann never tried to extend the orthomodular lattice further than the separable Hilbert space. A group around Jauch at CERN tried to extend the model further but did not succeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef-Maria_Jauch

John Baez went a bit further, but did not go far. https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/12/solers_theorem.html

I exploited the delicate difference between a vector space and a Hilbert space by letting a single vector space support a huge number of separable Hilbert spaces. This results in what I call a standard base model that suits as a very powerful mathematical platform to model quantum physical theories. This can be further extended by adding a non-separable Hilbert space. This resulted in a very powerful quaternionic differential and integral theory. It reveals candidates for dark matter and dark energy objects.

By letting a private stochastic process fill the eigenspace of a footprint operator, the separable Hilbert spaces can represent elementary particles. The non-separable Hilbert space can embed these separable Hilbert spaces. The continuum eigenspace of a dedicated operator can the reflect the ongoing embedding of the elementary particles in the dynamic field that we call our universe.

Thus in a few steps already an extensive model of physical reality can be generated that is mathematically fully self-consistent.

I never saw someone else exploiting a system similar to the standard base model.

The practical existance of Q.M is HOMO & LUMO approach of 3D -QSAR modelling .

My Dear Sofia D. Wechsler

First, sorry for the late reply,

you said:" Classical objects have sizes longer by VERY many orders of magnitude than their wavelength "

this is not necessarily, in hot energy even electron move as classical particle based on correspondence principle, and why we need wavelength for subatomic level why subatomic level didn't follow the Newton law?

you said:" Please be so kind and read Ehrenfest's theorems. "

and Feynman said: "In this way, the classical laws of motions arise from the quantum laws"

With all my respect to you and to Feynman, this is not true, only we can derive a statistical match in large quantum numbers, we can't derive f=ma from Schrodinger equation, and if anyone did this please give me the reference.

With best regards.

Dear Christian Baumgarten

First, sorry for the late reply,

you said:" No, but both can be derived from Dirac equation. "

With all my respect to you, regarding the Newton law, this is not true, only we can derive a statistical match in large quantum numbers, we can't derive f=ma from Schrodinger equation, and if anyone did this please give me the reference.

With best regards.

Mazden

It is true that the methods of QM depart sharply from the previous, still Clasical Mechanics is recoverable from the dynamics of the mean values of the Quantum Operators.

It is not true that you cannot recover Newtons laws.

Understand the Ehrenfest principle.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

You said:" Actually, I cannot figure out if the particle at position p1 is identical to the particle at position p2. The fact that the observed properties at position p1 are identical to the properties at position p2 proves nothing at all. "

Theoretically if we work on elementary particles like electrons, so if we study two electrons then yes we can't distinct between them but this only affects the statistical behavior of the system of the two electrons, but if I study one electron I can say that the electron that I observe in p2 is the same electron that I observed before at p1.

You said:" But if the particle is created by an underlying reality – e.g. a structure of basic quantum fields – I have to accept that the properties represent local “states” of the units of the basic quantum fields. “States” that are passed on by one or more units to adjacent units all along the trajectory between position p1 and position p2. That means that the underlying structure of basic quantum fields is in rest and all the observable phenomena in the universe are the result of the mutual exchange of properties between the units of the basic quantum fields (“spacetime”). Comparable to "a sequence of appearances and disappearances". "

I agree with you that exists an "underlying reality" but not for the quantum fields, it is for the "spacetime" itself, the spacetime allows all elementary particles (like bosons and fermions) to move from position to another position by a sequence of appearances and disappearances events.

You said:" Moreover, there exist no empty space in our universe "

I think this is not true, and the vacuum energy is an illusion, God willing I will publish a paper about this subject very soon.

You said:" Your paper is about the differentiation between the distinct “states” of the units of the basic quantum fields. However, you have to specify the mathematical properties of the underlying field units "

As I told you before I think that the spacetime manages the appearances of the particles in our universe, and I suggest a mathematical law for that named "alike action principle" but this is statistical law that describes the "underlying reality" of the spacetime.

With best regards.

Unless a measurement is made, a QM system is in an indefinite physical state.

In normal life, reality exists independent of observation or not.

That is the big difference.

Who says that current physics supplies the proper interpretation of what the wavefunction means. It give some indication that stochastic processes generate the provided information. Other explanations can be given that are far more sensible.

By measurement I mean that there is an observer around, not

a mere interaction between two different things.

Some people try to develop an observer independent QM.

You have to understand that the measurement hypothesis, sometimes called collapse hypothesis is needed in QM, this gives a collapse to one of the possible results of a measurement, often taken to be one of the eigenvalues.

Prior to measurement the wave function is in some unknown superposition.

As far as I know, short of very limited examples, no detailed deterministic method has been invented to say which of the possible results should show up.

Sydney

I do not deny that there could be other interpretations, but

I do not think we have any other successful one right now, with the necesary element of objective reality.

a few results come from collision theory like Compton scattering, this may be the closest to your idea, or entanglement perhaps.

Another help to reality is the Ehrenfest principle, that ties into

Classical mechanics, or the idea that a quantum system becomes Classical in the limit of very large quantum numbers.

Sydney,

You wanted to quit reinterpreting quantum physics. But what you propose next is exactly reviving the same concepts. Space and time have their background in the quaternionic number system. Quaternions can store a combination of a scalar timestamp and a three-dimensional location. This storage has an Euclidean structure. That structure is disturbed as soon as the information is transferred via a field. It is further disturbed when this field is deformed. Still reality seems to be able to organize its affairs despite these disturbances. At the scene of the observed event, relativity and deformation hardly plays a role. So at that scene everything appears to act in a regular way. The existence of the wavefunction shows that stochastic processes play a controlling role. As soon as you comprehend that role, then you understand what controls these processes and you might comprehend why physically reality acts fairly coherent.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Suggest we start by recognizing we are in one universe. The say the cosmology and the small must have rules that are reflected in our size scale. our size scale has lots of observations reduced to math. The problems is to find the analogies. I suggest physics math started going side-wise with the introduction of the Hamiltonian (energy concepts) which seemed to omit the stress without movement consumes unaccounted work/effort. So, go back to forces as the abstraction (mapping/transform). Then recognize we see 2 kinds of action in our size scale, discrete things (trees, rocks, etc.) and things where the forces exerted are treated as continuous things (wave of water, connected by forces) . So, the Planck's constant is a step in the energy of the photoelectric effect - a discrete characteristic of matter - a photon component. The "quanta" is an elementary particle. The apply Newtonian mechanics. The left side of the GR field equation then represents an ether substance that matter deforms and that exerts forces on matter. The many problem observations are easy.

I suggest to take a look at the ncatlab website. For example, Google for the Hilbert Lattice,

Sydney Ernest Grimm

The STOE concept is that the universe consists of 2 types of components Discrete and continuous (D&C) which emerge (combine to from all known experimental results). I'm unsure your "quanta" are defined or what combination of D&C they represent. The same about your "electromagnetic waves". Experiment has demonstrated 2 types of magnetic force, one due to the discrete component which causes changes in the continuous component. The other is a wave in the continuous component that moves at a speed very much greater than the speed of light. Therefore, Maxwell's equations in their current, accepted form are rejected by experiment. The definition of energy can be in 2 forms - D&C. The E of E=mc^2 is the inertial form of energy not to be confused with the momentum of particles. Confusing these 2 concepts of energy leads to many experimental inconsistencies.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

NO. He asked about the existence of QM. Part of that was to invoke Newton's concepts. Of course, he "why" of any science is to explain observations in a useful model that humans can use to predict future observations. That is, the world of the small is part of the universe. A better model is one that can encompass more of the universe such as cosmology and Newtonian mechanics. Your misinterpretation of mc^2 and quanta concepts does not describe observations. The world of the small that QM attempts to describe begins with the behavior of light which is to pick 2 types of experiments - the photoelectric effect (a particle (model) and interference experiments (traditionally thought to be a wave model). Then ask the QM question of what is the underlying reality that describes both observations and it would be helpful if the proposed model could fit in with Newton and cosmology. To answer the question, one has to discuss the underlying reality of light in the world of the small. I submit that QM as a model has failed to explain light observations and some other observations such as "quantum entanglement" and "quantum eraser". So, Why QM is simple, it uses a statistical math to begin to describe the next smaller level. This is a common approach, but it has not gone any further in describing the underlying reality.

So, you asked for the 2 components, then misinterpreted the comment then misinterpreted again with a false view of some of the words.

Sydney

You do not interprate quanta in terms of space and time.

Space and time are continuous concepts, quanta represents jumps.

By the way units of h are Energy times time, not energy alone. It has units of action, in Classical mechanics the integral of a Lagrangian over time.

In GR it is very hard to speak about energy, one of the theoretical difficulties. Therefore you cannot set up the canonical form H times wave function in it, the normal quantum proceedure.

Quanta only comes from the quantization proceedure of QM.

Sydney

I think you mean Planck length, very different from Planck constant.

Indeed , some people think that space and time become somewhat noisy at Planck lenth and time, and that this would be the source of quantum uncertainty. But I do not think they get much further than these vague ideas.

David Bohm is one of those advancing in this direction.