“Formal” Versus “Empirical” Approaches to Quantum–Classical Reduction
- 117 Downloads
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.
KeywordsQuantum Classical Reduction Limits Formal Empirical Decoherence Semiclassical
Thanks to David Wallace, Simon Saunders, Christopher Timpson, Jeremy Butterfield and Robert Batterman for many helpful discussions on the classical domain of quantum theory.
- 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/
- Barbour J (2000) The end of time: the next revolution in physics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Batterman R (2002) The devil in the details: asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction, and emergence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Berry MV (1983) Semiclassical mechanics of regular and irregular motion. Les Houches Lect Ser 36:171–271Google Scholar
- 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
- Rosaler J (2015a) Interpretation neutrality in the classical domain of quantum theory. Under review (copy available on request)Google Scholar
- Rosaler J (2015b) Is de Broglie–Bohm theory specially equipped to recover classical behavior? Philosophy of science (forthcoming)Google Scholar
- Schlosshauer MA (2008) Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar