I Is Brownian motion a purely classical phenomenon or is it also quantm?

Click For Summary
Brownian motion is primarily explained through classical thermodynamics, as demonstrated by Einstein's 1905 paper, which utilized classical mechanics before the advent of quantum mechanics. However, the discussion raises the question of whether quantum effects, such as uncertainty and scattering, play a role in the behavior of tiny particles like water molecules. While classical models are generally sufficient for elastic collisions, quantum Brownian motion introduces complexities that lead to non-Markovian descriptions. The need for quantum mechanics becomes relevant only when the specifics of particle interactions are crucial. Overall, the consensus leans towards classical explanations being adequate for most scenarios involving Brownian motion.
Aidyan
Messages
182
Reaction score
14
A water molecule is as tiny as 0.3 Angstrom. I would expect that quantum effects play a role. I'm wondering if its Brownian motion in a fluid is determined only by classical thermodynamics or if its collisional processes must take into account also quantum scatterings or other effects like quantum uncertainty? I looked for this but couldn't find anyone considering this. Any suggestion?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
When Einstein explained the Brownian motion in one of his wonderful papers of 1905 (https://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/UG/SM/MATH3075/r/Einstein_1905.pdf), he used classical mechanics only. Quantum mechanics was not invented yet, though Einstein himself was concurrently working on it. Unless you have a case where the details of the interactions during the collisions become relevant, you are unlikely to need quantum mechanics. As long as the collisions are elastic, a classical model is accurate enough.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost, PeroK and vanhees71
Of course there's also "quantum Brownian motion". Interstingly it always leads to non-Markovian descriptions. A nice paper, which should be understandable at the introductory quantum-statistics-lecture level (or even after the QM 1 lecture) is

G. W. Ford, J. T. Lewis and R. F. O’Connell, Quantum
Langevin equation, Phys. Rev. A 37, 4419 (1988),
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.37.4419
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and PeroK
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
45
Views
12K