Summary
In the context of the general problem of equivalence between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in the macroscopic limit, we point out that, for the particular case of the one-dimensional Coulomb potential, the quantum-mechanical result in the classical limit, corresponding to a certain superposition of odd- and even-parity energy eigenfunctions, leads to inconsistency with classical mechanics. It is shown that the contradiction persists even if the singularity of the Coulomb potential is treated as the limiting case of a modified Coulomb potential in which the singularity has been smoothed out. The possible implication of this paradoxical finding is briefly discussed.
Riassunto
Nel contesto del problema generale dell'equivalenza tra meccanica classica e quantistica nel limite macroscopico, si evidenzia che, per il caso particolare del potenziale di Coulomb unidimensionale, il risultato quantomeccanico nel limite classico, corrispondente a una certa sovrapposizione di autofunzioni di energia con parità dispari e pari, porta all'incoerenza con la meccanica classica. Si mostra che la contraddizione persiste anche se la singolarità del potenziale di Coulomb è trattata come caso limite di un potenziale di Coulomb modificato nel quale la singolarità è stata facilitata. Si discute brevemente la possibile implicazione di questa scoperta paradossale.
Резюме
В связи с общей проблемой эквивалентности между классической механикой и квантовой механикой в макроскопическом пределе, мы отмечаем, что для частного случая одномерного кулоновского потенциала квантовомеханический результат в классическом пределе, соответствующий определенной суперпозиции четных и нечетных собственных энергетических состояний, приводит к противоречию с классической механикой. Показывается, что это противоречие сохраняется, даже если сингулярность кулоновского потенциала рассматривается, как предельный случай модифицированного кулоновского потенциала, в котором сингулярность сглажена. Вкратце обсуждаются возможные следствия этого парадоксального результата.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Einstein: InScientific Papers Presented to Max Born (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, London, 1953), p. 33.
M. Born:Kg. Dnsk. Vid. Selsk. Mat. Medd.,30, 1 (1955);M. Born andW. Ludwig:Z. Phys.,150, 106 (1958).
W. Pauli: InThe Born-Einstein Letters (Macmillan, London, 1971), p. 221.
L. de Broglie:Nonlinear Wave Mechanics, a Causal Interpretation (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1960), p. 136.
A. Peres andN. Rosen:Phys. Rev. B,135, 1486 (1964).
L. S. Brown:Am. J. Phys.,40, 371 (1972).
D. Home andS. Sengupta:Am. J. Phys.,51, 265 (1983).
For detailed exposition of the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics see, for example,H. Margenau:Philos. Sci.,30, 6 (1963);J. L. Park:Am. J. Phys.,36, 211 (1968);J. B. Hartle:Am. J. Phys.,36, 704 (1968);L. E. Ballentine:Rev. Mod. Phys.,42, 358 (1970);F. J. Belinfante:Conventional Quantum Theory, Publications of the University of Joensuu, Series B1, No. 14, 17 (1978);R. G. Newton:Am. J. Phys.,48, 1029 (1980);D. Home andS. Sengupta:Physics News (Bulletin of the Indian Physics Association),12, 7 (1981).
See relevant remarks on this point byA. Einstein in ref. (1)..
A. Einstein: inThe Born-Einstein Letters (macmillan, London, 1971), p. 208.
For a pertinent discussion regarding the classical-limit criterion see,e.g.,A. Messiah:Quantum Mechanics, Vol.1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1961), p. 214.
M. Andrews:Am. J. Phys.,44, 1064 (1976).
M. W. Cole andM. H. Cohen:Phys. Rev. Lett.,23, 1238 (1969); for a comprehensive review of the related works seeF. Stern:Surf. Sci.,58, 383 (1976).
R. Loudon:Am. J. Phys.,27, 649 (1969); however, we have not considered the nondegenerate ground state obtained byLoudon because this state is physically irrelevant, which has been pointed out byM. Andrews:Am. J. Phys.,34, 1194 (1966). It may be also noted that the validity of the even-parity energy eigensolutions derived byLoudon (given by eq. (3) in the present paper) has been questioned byL. K. Haines andD. H. Roberts:Am. J. Phys.,37, 1145 (1969). However, there is fallacy in such an objection, which has been recently pointed out byD. Home andS. Sengupta:Am. J. Phys.,50 552 (1982).
See, for example,M. Abramowitz andI. A. Stegun (Editors):Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover, New York, 1970), p. 509.
E. T. Whittaker andG. N. Watson:Modern Analysis (Cambridge University Press, London, 1952), p. 337.
A. Erdelyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger andF. Tricomi:Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol.1 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953), p. 264.
G. Ludwig: inWerner Heisenberg und die Physik unserer Zeit (Berlin, 1961).
H. Kummel:Nuovo Cimento,1, 1057 (1955).
N. Rosen:Am. J. Phys.,32, 597 (1964).
E. P. Wigner: inContemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, edited byC. A. Hooker (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1973), p. 380.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Traduzione a cura della Redazione.
Переведено редакцией.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Home, D., Sengupta, S. Classical limit of quantum mechanics. A paradoxical example. Nuovo Cim B 82, 214–224 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02732874
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02732874