arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.36207

What is Physics For? Why Classical Physics is not the Limit of Quantum Mechanics

Adam Frank·Jacques L. Pienaar·Michel Bitbol·Harald Wiltsche·Gabriela Barreto Lemos·Marcelo Gleiser·Marcus Appleby
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Quantum mechanics is justifiably held to be the most successful physical theory ever created; yet no universally accepted interpretation of its mathematical formalism exists after a century of debate. We examine the specific claim that classical physics stands as the low-action limit of quantum mechanics, arguing that the deep interpretive difficulties exposed by the quantum formalism, the measurement problem, the subject-object divide, and the nature of scientific representation, were already latent in classical physics, constituting what we call a blind spot of objectivity. Taking quantum theory as an invitation to re-examine the implicit metaphysical commitments bundled with 'classical physics', we explore two key issues-the objective/subjective split and the nature of theoretical representation-and argue that quantum mechanics does not represent a break with classical physics per se but rather brings previously unacknowledged philosophical assumptions into the limelight. We discuss the London-Bauer interpretation and QBism as exemplars of interpretations that embrace this broader reconceptualisation.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-phquant-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Adam Frank, Jacques L. Pienaar, Michel Bitbol, Harald Wiltsche, Gabriela Barreto Lemos, Marcelo Gleiser, Marcus Appleby. 2026-09-28. What is Physics For? Why Classical Physics is not the Limit of Quantum Mechanics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.36207

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

On Algebraic Background-Independence

It has recently been claimed that algebraic methods can be used to give a background-independent description of semiclassical gravity. This paper aims to provide an entry point into recent algebraic approaches to quantum gravity and to analyse and critically assess the conception of background-independence here involved. We discuss an algebraic framework for formulating an algebra of observables along the worldline of an observer in a cosmological setting. By 'gravitationally dressing' the observables to the observer's worldline, the reference to the spacetime background can be set aside at the level of the abstract *-algebra. Thus this *-algebra is taken to be independent of any particular spacetime realisation, with different states on the algebra corresponding to different backgrounds. We compare this algebraic framework to three influential notions of background-independence in the literature and argue that none of these fully captures the sense in which the *-algebra is taken to be background-independent. Building on this, we extract a novel notion of algebraic background-independence tied to the representation-independence of the *-algebra. This algebraic conception motivates two further concepts of background-independence tailored to semiclassical theories: semiclassical background-independence and perturbative background-independence. We suggest that these provide useful tools for evaluating the scope and limitations of semiclassical approaches to quantum gravity.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

Ghosts that Connect

What is a Faddeev--Popov ghost? The textbook answer is that it is a trick: a way of writing a functional determinant as a term in the action, and nothing more. Dougherty 2021 and Dougherty and Read 2026 have argued that this undersells the ghost, which on their account encodes classical structure of the configuration space, viz. the degree-one generators of the Chevalley--Eilenberg complex of the action Lie algebroid. I agree with them that the ghost encodes classical structure. But I think the structure is bigger than they say. The ghost, I argue, is a principal connection $\varpi$ on the bundle $F \to F/G$ of gauge potentials over physical configurations; the BRST operator is the exterior derivative along the orbits; and the Chevalley--Eilenberg ghost coincides with $\varpi$ restricted to the orbits (and every $\varpi$ has the same restriction). The restriction drops the horizontal complement, and I show that gauge-fixed quantisation needs that complement. A gauge-fixing installs it as a pairing of configurations across orbits (a counterpart relation, in Lewis's sense); dressed observables and local counterfactuals rely on this pairing, but it is discarded by the quotient $\F/\G$. In the non-Abelian case Singer's theorem forbids a flat $\varpi$, and there the pairing exists only as parallel transport. Finally, BRST survives gauge-fixing because it is vertical and rigid, and so leaves any such pairing unchanged.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

Schrödinger's unpublished hidden-variable model in the 1944-45 debate over the "Collapse of Determinism"

In the mid-1940s, the question of whether quantum mechanics could be supplemented by deterministic hidden variables resurfaced in a debate in ^textit{Nature}. I show that Erwin Schrödinger drafted a hitherto unpublished response to this controversy. In it, Schrödinger provided an explicit hidden-variable model, thereby showing that such models could not be ruled out. I reconstruct the historical context of this forgotten manuscript and publish here the first transcription and analysis. Importantly, Schrödinger's proposal should be understood as a proof of principle rather than as evidence of his commitment to determinism.

physics.hist-ph↗