Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 325–338 | Cite as

“Formal” Versus “Empirical” Approaches to Quantum–Classical Reduction

Article

Abstract

I distinguish two types of reduction within the context of quantum-classical relations, which I designate “formal” and “empirical”. Formal reduction holds or fails to hold solely by virtue of the mathematical relationship between two theories; it is therefore a two-place, a priori relation between theories. Empirical reduction requires one theory to encompass the range of physical behaviors that are well-modeled in another theory; in a certain sense, it is a three-place, a posteriori relation connecting the theories and the domain of physical reality that both serve to describe. Focusing on the relationship between classical and quantum mechanics, I argue that while certain formal results concerning singular \(\hbar \rightarrow 0\) limits have been taken to preclude the possibility of reduction between these theories, such results at most provide support for the claim that singular limits block reduction in the formal sense; little if any reason has been given for thinking that they block reduction in the empirical sense. I then briefly outline a strategy for empirical reduction that is suggested by work on decoherence theory, arguing that this sort of account remains a fully viable route to the empirical reduction of classical to quantum mechanics and is unaffected by such singular limits.

Keywords

Quantum Classical Reduction Limits Formal Empirical Decoherence Semiclassical 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to David Wallace, Simon Saunders, Christopher Timpson, Jeremy Butterfield and Robert Batterman for many helpful discussions on the classical domain of quantum theory.

References

  1. Bacciagaluppi G (2012) The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Winter 2012 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/qm-decoherence/
  2. Barbour J (2000) The end of time: the next revolution in physics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Batterman R (2002) The devil in the details: asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Belot G (2005) Whose devil? Which details? Philos Sci 72(1):128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry M (1994) Asymptotics, singularities and the reduction of theories. In: Skyrms B, Prawitz D, Westerståhl D (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, IX: proceedings of the ninth international congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, Uppsala, Sweden, August 7–14, 1991 (Studies in logic and foundations of mathematics, vol 134), pp 597–607Google Scholar
  6. Berry MV (1983) Semiclassical mechanics of regular and irregular motion. Les Houches Lect Ser 36:171–271Google Scholar
  7. Bokulich A (2008) Reexamining the quantum–classical relation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dizadji-Bahmani F, Frigg R, Hartmann S (2010) Who’s afraid of Nagelian reduction? Erkenntnis 73(3):393–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Joos E, Zeh D, Kiefer C, Giulini D, Kupsch J, Stamatescu I-O (2003) Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Landsman NP (2007) Between classical and quantum. In Butterfield J, Earman J (eds) Philosophy of physics (handbook of the philosophy of science), vol 1. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosaler J (2015a) Interpretation neutrality in the classical domain of quantum theory. Under review (copy available on request)Google Scholar
  12. Rosaler J (2015b) Is de Broglie–Bohm theory specially equipped to recover classical behavior? Philosophy of science (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  13. Rosaler J (2015c) Local reduction in physics. Stud hist philos modern phys 50:54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sakurai JJ, Tuan SF, Commins ED (1995) Modern quantum mechanics. Am J Phys 63:93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schlosshauer MA (2008) Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Wallace D (2012) The emergent multiverse: quantum theory according to the everett interpretation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zurek WH, Habib S, Paz JP (1993) Coherent states via decoherence. Phys Rev Lett 70(9):1187–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zurek WH, Paz JP (1995) Quantum chaos: a decoherent definition. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom 83(1):300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zurek Wojciech H (1998) Decoherence, chaos, quantum–classical correspondence, and the algorithmic arrow of time. Phys Scr 1998(T76):186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations