When does quantum take over classical?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DrummingAtom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classical Quantum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the transition between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of when quantum effects become significant for atomic systems. Participants explore the boundaries of classical and quantum descriptions, referencing specific examples and theoretical considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions when quantum mechanics "takes over" classical mechanics, noting a lack of clear information on the topic.
  • Another participant mentions evidence of quantum behavior in larger particles, such as buckyballs, referencing a specific study.
  • Some participants assert that quantum mechanics is always valid and does not "take over" classical mechanics, suggesting that both theories are applicable depending on the context and required accuracy.
  • A participant expresses confusion about an article suggesting a defined boundary between quantum and classical physics, seeking clarification on this point.
  • Another participant proposes that the "border" refers to the scale and temperature at which classical descriptions fail to accurately describe physical systems.
  • An example is provided involving oscillators, where the relationship between temperature and energy levels determines whether a quantum or classical description is appropriate.
  • It is noted that there are experimental systems where the crossover between classical and quantum behavior can be observed, indicating that this is not merely theoretical.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the transition between classical and quantum mechanics. Some argue that quantum mechanics is always applicable, while others suggest there are specific conditions under which classical mechanics fails. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise nature of the boundary between these two frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions and the conditions under which classical or quantum descriptions are valid, indicating that the discussion involves nuanced technical arguments and unresolved aspects.

DrummingAtom
Messages
657
Reaction score
2
When does quantum "take over" classical?

There's seems to be a lot of information about how relativity "takes over" classical mechanics when certain speeds are reached, like at a certain % of speed of light, etc. I haven't found much information regarding when quantum mechanics takes over for atoms within a system. I have found the Quantum Realm from wikipedia but if I try to google that term produces a whole load of strange websites and I can't decipher what's garbage anymore.

Any advice on where to start looking?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Generally when dealing with particles, though there have been quantum mechanical evidence (wave interference) even with a buckyball ([itex]C_{60}[/itex]) I can't find the paper, but this is the abstract I think: http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu453-2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Quantum mechanics never "takes over". It's always correct - in principle, one could use QM to calculate the trajectory of a baseball, but of course that's impractical.

Relativity doesn't "take over" either - it's always valid. You need to consider it at progressively lower and lower speeds as you want progressively more and more accuracy in your calculation.
 


Vanadium 50 said:
Quantum mechanics never "takes over". It's always correct - in principle, one could use QM to calculate the trajectory of a baseball, but of course that's impractical.

Relativity doesn't "take over" either - it's always valid. You need to consider it at progressively lower and lower speeds as you want progressively more and more accuracy in your calculation.

Thanks for the response. I'm confused by this article:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/04/quantum

From article said:
"One of the motivations for our experiment is to investigate a system which is on the border between quantum and classical," Treutlein said.

The article makes it seem like there is a defined line between the classical and quantum. It's pretty obvious that I don't know anything about this topic but I can't find anything online relevant to my question, which is why I'm asking for help to search.
 


Looking at the article, what the author probably means by 'the border between quantum and classical' is the scale and temperatures where classical physics no longer gives even a semi-accurate description of the situation.

The experiment in question involves forcing a macroscopic object to exhibit quantum irregularities, so the border is where it stops acting classically and starts acting 'quantumy'.
 


A good example would be some sort of oscillator with a resonance frequency f0 of a few GHz. At high temperatures where h*f<<kb*T (h is Planck's constant and kb Boltzmanns constant): the "population" of the different "levels" in the oscillator (which modes are active, they are not real levels since they overlap) can be described using a Boltzmann distribution. However, if you operate the oscillator at a temperature where h*f0>kb*T you have to use the quantum mechanical description (the Schroedinger equation to get the levels, and the Fermi's Golden Rule for the population).
In the intermediate region where h*f0 is approximately equal to kb*T both descriptions work (and you can also use some funny "hybrids", the SE for the levels and the BD for the populations).


Note that there are quite a few systems where this crossover can be seen experimentally (including mechanical oscillators), so it is not a hypothetical scenario.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K