Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T20:04:56.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonseparability and Quantum Chaos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frederick M. Kronz
Frederick M. Kronz*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional wisdom currently has it that chaotic behavior is either strongly suppressed or absent in quantum models. Indeed, some researchers have concluded that these considerations serve to undermine the correspondence principle, thereby raising serious doubts about the adequacy of quantum mechanics as a fundamental physical theory. Thus, the quantum chaos question is a prime subject for philosophical analysis. The most significant reasons given for the absence or suppression of chaotic behavior in quantum models are the linearity of Schrödinger's equation and the unitarity of the time-evolution described by that equation. Both are shown in this essay to be irrelevant by demonstrating that the crucial feature for chaos is the nonseparability of the Hamiltonian. That demonstration indicates that quantum chaos is likely to be exhibited in models of open quantum systems. A measure for probing such models for chaotic behavior is developed, and then used to show that quantum mechanics has chaotic models for systems having a continuous energy spectrum. The prospects of this result for vindicating the essence of the correspondence principle are then briefly examined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 50 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712–1180.

‡

This essay was completed with support from the National Science Foundation, grant number SBR-9602122. I would also like to thank Harald Atmanspacher, Robert Bishop, Jeremy Butterfield, and some anonymous referees for their insightful comments and constructive criticisms on earlier versions of this essay.

References

Allegrini, Paolo, Bonci, Luca, Grigolini, Paolo, Mannella, Riccard, Roncaglia, Roncaglia, and Vitali, David (1995), “Comment on ‘Quantum Chaos in the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation’”, Physical Review Letters 74: 1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amrein, Werner O., Jauch, Josef M. and Sinha, Kalyan B. (1977), Scattering Theory in Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: W.A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Antoniou, Ioannis E. and Prigogine, Ilya (1993), “Intrinsic Irreversibility and Integrability of Dynamics”, Physica A 192: 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, Ioannis E. and Tasaki, Shuichi (1993), “Generalized Spectral Decompositions of Mixing Dynamical Systems”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 46: 425–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmanspacher, Harald and Scheingraber, Herbert, (1987), “A Fundamental Link between System Theory and Statistical Mechanics”, Foundations of Physics 17: 939–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. (1991), “Chaos, Quantization and the Correspondence Principle”, Synthese 89: 189–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. (1992), “Quantum Chaos and Semiclassical Mechanics”, PSA 1992: Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, volume 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 50–65.Google Scholar
Behara, Minaketan (1990), Additive and Nonadditive Measures of Entropy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Berry, Michael V. (1987), “Quantum Chaology,” in Michael V. Berry, Ian Percival, and Nigel O. Weiss (eds.), Dynamical Chaos. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 183–198.Google Scholar
Berry, Michael V. (1989), “Quantum Chaology, Not Quantum Chaos”, Physica Scripta 40: 335–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Michael V. (1994), “Asymptotics, Singularities and the Reduction of Theories”, in Prawitz, Dag, Skyrms, Brian, and Westerståhl, Dag (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX. New York: Elsevier, pp. 597–607.Google Scholar
Bell, John S. (1966), “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, Reviews of Modern Physics 38: 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümel, Reinhold (1994), “Quantum Chaos in the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation”, Physical Review Letters 73: 428–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümel, Reinhold and Esser, Bernd (1994), “Exponential Sensitivity and Chaos in Quantum Systems”, Physical Review Letters 72: 3658–3661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümel, Reinhold and Esser, Bernd (1995), Blümel and Esser's response to Allegrini et al. 1995, Physical Review Letters 74: 1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boccaletti, Dino and Pucacco, Giuseppe (1996), Theory of Orbits. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, David (1951), Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bohm, David and Hiley, Basil J., (1993), The Undivided Universe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Böhm, Arno (1993), “Gamow Vectors and the Arrow of Time”, in Busch, Paul, Lahti, Pekka J., Mittelstadt, Peter (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics. London: World Scientific, pp. 77–97.Google Scholar
Böhm, Arno and Gadella, Manuel (1989), Dirac Kets, Gamow Vectors and Gel'fand Triplets. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), “How the Measurement Problem is an Artifact of the Mathematics”, in How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirikov, Boris V. (1992), “The Problem of Quantum Chaos”, in Heiss, Wolf-Dieter (ed.), Chaos and Quantum Chaos. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–166.Google Scholar
Connes, Alain, Narnhofer, Heide, and Thirring, Walter E. (1987) “Dynamical Entropy of C*-Algebras and von Neumann Algebras”, Communications in Mathematical Physics 112:691–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, James T. (1994), Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Daróczy, Zoltán (1970), “Generalized Information Functions”, Information and Control 16: 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewdney, Chris and Malik, Zahid (1996), “Measurement, Decoherence and Chaos in Quantum Pinball”, Physics Letters A: 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirac, Paul A.M. (1958), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espagnat, Bernard d' (1976), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: W.A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Eckmann, Jean-Pierre and Ruelle, David (1985), “Ergodic Theory of Chaos and Strange Attractors”, Reviews of Modern Physics 57: 617–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fano, Ugo (1957), “Description of States in Quantum Mechanics by Density Matrix and Operator Techniques”, Reviews of Modern Physics 29: 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flaschka, Hermann Alan C. Newell, and Tabor, Michael (1991) “Integrability”, in Zakharov, Vladimir E. (ed.), What is Integrability? New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 73–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Joseph (1989), “What is Chaos That We Should Be Mindful of It?” in Paul C.W. Davies (ed.), The New Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 348–372.Google Scholar
Ford, Joseph and Mantica, Giorgio (1992), “Does Quantum Mechanics Obey the Correspondence Principle?”, American Journal of Physics 60: 1086–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Joseph, Mantica, Giorgio, and Ristow, Gerald H. (1990), “The Arnol'd Cat: Failure of the Correspondence Principle”, in Campbell, David K. (ed.), Chaos/Xaoc. New York: The American Institute of Physics, pp. 477–493.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, Gian Carlo, Rimini, Alberto, and Weber, Tullio (1986), Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems“, Physical Review D 34: 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisin, Nicolas (1990), “Weinberg's Non-Linear Quantum Mechanics and Supraluminal Communications”, Physics Letters A 143: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giulini, Dominico, Joos, Erich, Kiefer, Claus, Kupsch, Joachim, Stamatescu, Ion-Olimpiu, and Zeh, H. Dieter (1996), Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutzwiller, Martin C. (1990), “Quantum Chaos”, Scientific American 266: 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helleman, Robert H.G. (1980), “Self-Generated Chaotic Behavior in Nonlinear Mechanics”, in Cohen, Ezechiel G.D. (ed.), Fundamental Problems in Statistical Mechanics V. New York: North-Holland, pp. 165–233.Google Scholar
Henon, Michel and Heiles, Carl (1964), “The Applicability of the Third Integral of Motion: Some Numerical Experiments”, Astronomical Journal 69: 73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilborn, Robert C. (1994), Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, Peter R. (1993), The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jammer, Max (1966), The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jensen, Roderick V. (1992), “Quantum Chaos”, Nature 355: 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, Erich and Zeh, Heinz Dieter (1985), “The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Environment”, Zeitschrift für Physik B 59: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Bernard O. (1931), “Hamiltonian Systems and Transformations in Hilbert Space”, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 17: 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronz, Frederick M. (1992), “The Projection Postulate and the Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation”, Philosophy of Science 59: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronz, Frederick M. (1991), “Quantum Entanglement and Nonideal Measurements: A Critique of Margenau's Objections to the Projection Postulate”, Synthese 89: 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunsford, Gary H. and Ford, Joseph (1972) “On the Stability of Periodic Orbits for Nonlinear Oscillator Systems in Regions Exhibiting Stochastic Behavior”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13: 700–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariz, Ananias M. (1992), “On the Irreversible Nature of Tsallis and Renyi Entropies”, Physics Letters A 165: 409–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merzbacher, Eugen (1970), Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Messiah, Albert (1961), Quantum Mechanics, vol. I. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Omnès, Roland (1994), The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, James L. (1968), “Nature of Quantum States”, American Journal of Physics 36:211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmenter, Robert H. and Valentine, R.W. (1995), “Deterministic Chaos and the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Physics Letters A 201: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polchinski, Joseph (1991), “Weinberg's Nonlinear Quantum Mechanics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physical Review Letters 66: 397–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramshaw, John D. (1993), “Irreversibility and Generalized Entropies”, Physics Letters A 175: 171–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramshaw, John D. (1992), “H-Theorems for the Tsallis and Renyi Entropies”, Physics Letters A 175: 169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichl, Linda E. (1980), A Modern Course in Statistical Physics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Renyi, Alfred (1960), “On Measures of Entropy and Information”, in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 547–561.Google Scholar
Riesz, Frigyes and Nagy, Bela Sz. (1955), Functional Analysis. New York: Frederick Unger Publishing Co. (Republished by Dover Publications in 1990.)Google Scholar
Spiller, Timothy P. and Ralph, Jason F. (1995), “The Emergence of Chaos in an Open Quantum System”, Physics Letters A 194: 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Michael (1989), Chaos and Integrability in Nonlinear Dynamics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tsallis, Constantino (1988), “Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics”, Journal of Statistical Physics 52: 479–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, John (1927), “Thermodynamik Quantenmechanischer Gesamtheiten”, Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 11: 273–291.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, John. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Robert T. Beyer's translation of the 1932 German edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wehrl, Alfred (1991), “Information Theoretical Aspects of Quantum Mechanical Entropy”, in Atmanspacher, Harald and Scheingraber, Herbert (eds.), Information Dynamics. New York: Plenum, pp. 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehrl, Alfred (1978), “General Properties of Entropy”, Reviews of Modern Physics 50: 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Steven (1989), “Testing Quantum Mechanics”, Annals of Physics 194: 336–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, Edmund T. (1944), A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wigner, Eugene P. (1932), “On the Quantum Correction for Thermodynamic Equilibrium”, Physical Review 40: 749–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeh, Heinz Dieter (1970), “On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics”, Foundations of Physics 1: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech H. (1981), “Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Does the Wave Packet Collapse?”, Physical Review D 24: 1516–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech H. (1983), “Information Transfer in Quantum Measurements: Irreversibility and Amplification”, in Meystre, P. and Scully, M.O. (eds.), Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, Wojciech H. (1994) “Preferred Sets of States, Predictability, Classicality, and Environment-Induced Decoherence”, in Halliwell, Jonathan J., Pérez-Mercader, Juan, and Zurek, Wojciech H. (eds.), Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–212.Google Scholar