B Quantum Mechanics: Origin of the Term & Why Mechanics?

Quotidian
Messages
98
Reaction score
14
Why is 'quantum physics' often referred to as 'mechanics'? I'm interested in the specific origin of the term - when it came into vogue, and why 'mechanics' was thought suitable as a term, when it doesn't seem at all obvious that the subject matter involves mechanical principles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you learned any QM? If so, were you not struck by the parallels between QM and Classical mechanics? The same kinds of problems using similar techniques (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian) as Classical?
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and berkeman
I've read popular science books, like Brian Greene and Paul Davies, but have never studied physics after high school. But the term has entered popular discourse, so I'm just interested in the etymology. 'Quantum Physics' seems fairly self-evident but I associate 'mechanics' with mechanical (perhaps incorrectly!)
 
Quotidian said:
but I associate 'mechanics' with mechanical (perhaps incorrectly!)
The term ''mechanics'' is used in physics in a much more general way than in everyday life. For example, classical electrodynamics and fluid flow (''fluid mechanics'') are also treated according to the principles of classical mechanics.

Mechanics is a particular, systematic and general way to approach arbitrary problems in physics by means of forces acting upon objects, whether the objects are particles, solids, fluids, or fields. Its modern form exists in two closely related approaches - Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics. For the history see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics.

Thus quantum physics treated by the quantum version of the same principles is called quantum mechanics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Imager, atyy and berkeman
That's interesting! That is actually just the explanation I was looking for. (I hadn't thought to look up the Wikipedia entry on mechanics.) But I think the incongruity I'm feeling is the application of mechanics to 'fields'.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am looking at the Laughlin wave function and it contains the term $$\prod_{j<k}^{N}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q$$ In Wikipedia the lower index on ##\Pi## is ##1\le i<j\le N## and there is no upper index. I'm not sure what either mean. For example would $$\prod_{j<k}^{N}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q=\prod_{k=2}^{N}\left[\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q\right]?$$ (It seems that ##k## cannot be 1 because there would be nothing to multiply in the second product). I'm not sure what else the...
Back
Top