Is superposition a valid assumption in classical systems?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter elduderino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle Superposition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the validity of the principle of superposition in classical systems, exploring its mathematical foundations and implications in both classical and quantum contexts. Participants examine whether superposition is a fundamental assumption or a derived consequence of linearity in differential equations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why Merzbacher refers to superposition as a mathematical assumption, arguing that it arises naturally from solving certain linear differential equations, which yield linearly independent functions.
  • Another participant asserts that linearity is a fundamental assumption in both mathematics and physics, suggesting that rejecting it would necessitate a complete overhaul of existing theories, including Schrödinger's equation.
  • A third participant highlights the central role of superposition in quantum mechanics, referencing Dirac's perspective that it involves peculiar relationships between states that differ from classical interpretations.
  • One participant argues that in classical systems, superposition does not generally hold, providing an example involving inputs to a system where interactions between inputs prevent simple additive behavior.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of superposition, with some supporting its foundational role in mathematics and physics, while others contend that it does not apply in classical systems. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the applicability of superposition may depend on the specific characteristics of the systems being analyzed, particularly in classical contexts where interactions can complicate outcomes.

elduderino
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
I was reading Merzbacher and it is written that it is a fundamental mathematical assumption. I was doubting if it is an assumption at all.

We get the principle of superposition when we solve certain kinds of differential equations (second order, first degree or linear) where we get as solutions linearly independent functions which span the functional basis [tex]\{ \sin x,\cos x \}[/tex] or [tex]\{ e^{ix}, e^{-ix} \}[/tex]. It is by nature of these solutions that the entire basis can be spanned, and by the linear nature of the differential equations that any linear combination of this basis set can be represented as a solution.

Why does Merzbacher still call it a mathematical assumption? Where am I wrong in my understanding.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My view on this topic is that <linearity> is a fundamental assumption of a mathematical and physical nature. Denying it means rejecting all other postulates and replacing everything with new mathematical equations. Schroedinger's equation would have to be replaced.

A consequence of the Hamiltonian operator being linear on a Hilbert space is that the linear combination of the solutions to S.E. is also a solution. Linearity is postulated and stems from every assumption.
 
In quantum mechanics, the principle of superposition is of central importance. Dirac says, it requires us to assume that between states of a system there exists peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states. The origin state must be regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two or more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on classical ideas. Any states may be considered as the result of a infinite number of two or more states, and indeed in an infinite number of ways. Conversely any two or more states may be superposed to give a new state.
 
elduderino said:
I was reading Merzbacher and it is written that it is a fundamental mathematical assumption. I was doubting if it is an assumption at all.

We get the principle of superposition when we solve certain kinds of differential equations (second order, first degree or linear) where we get as solutions linearly independent functions which span the functional basis [tex]\{ \sin x,\cos x \}[/tex] or [tex]\{ e^{ix}, e^{-ix} \}[/tex]. It is by nature of these solutions that the entire basis can be spanned, and by the linear nature of the differential equations that any linear combination of this basis set can be represented as a solution.

Why does Merzbacher still call it a mathematical assumption? Where am I wrong in my understanding.

In classical systems in nature, superposition does not hold in general. Let's say you have two inputs (x1 and x2) to a system (the weather or a brain, for instance). The system does some analysis or transformation (T) on the input and gives an output for each (y1 and y2).

When superposition holds:

T(x1 + x2) = T(x1) + T(x2) = y1 + y2

but in general, you can't assume that, because of the way information propagates through physical systems (at the classical level). x1 and x2 interact with each other. They can amplify or dampen each other, so they don't exist as simple superpositions, easy to separate: they are couped together and thus:

T(x1 + x2) != T(x1) + T(x2)

instead:

T(x1 + x2) = y3

(y3 is a solution that usually has to be found numerically, since analytical solutions seldom exist for such systems).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K