Search arXiv⌕ 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

Relational Observables and Physical Perspectivalism in General Relativity: The View from Nowhere vs. The View from Everywhere

In General Relativity, relational constructions yield gauge-invariant Dirac observables by expressing physical fields relative to reference frames. This leaves open how the physical situations represented in different frames should be understood. I articulate two ontological interpretations within a common fibre-bundle framework, distinguishing \emph{frame-independence} from \emph{frame-freedom} to clarify appeals to perspective-neutrality. The \emph{View from Nowhere} treats the situations characterised by relational observables as partial aspects of a shared physical situation represented by a frame-free gauge-equivalence class. The \emph{View from Everywhere} takes each relational observable to characterise a comprehensive physical situation in its own right, without commitment to a shared frame-free reality. They articulate a qualified realisation of moderate and strong physical perspectivalism within GR, respectively. Using two GPS reference frames as a working example, I show that a physically constrained, frame-independent inter-frame map supplies a constructive counterexample to the claim that connecting perspectives requires frame-free structures in the ontology. The choice between the two interpretations remains open, with their ontological commitments made explicit. I conclude by outlining possible implications for quantum reference frames and relational quantum mechanics.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

From Mass to Energy-Momentum: The Field-Theoretic Perspective on the Energy-Mass Relation

The paper examines the energy-mass relation of Special Relativity (SR), its status and interpretation, through the lens of classical/non-quantum relativistic field theory. The latter arguably constitutes the fullest embodiment of SR as what Einstein labelled a "principle theory". It forms, we propose, the most appropriate perspective also for understanding the energy-mass relation. In a field-theoretic setting, the key notion is a system's energy-momentum (in local/differential or global/integral form, defined via a suitable energy-stress complex). The energy-mass relation then expresses the role that a system's _rest_-energy (provided it exists) plays as the functional counterpart of mass: thanks to important theorems, rest-energy qualifies as its field-theoretic generalisation or successor term. That is, while mass is dispensed with as a fundamental notion, rest-energy retains some---but not all---of its salient functional roles; for special cases, it turns out to be directly correlated with mass. In field theory as a general framework for more specific relativistic theories, energy-momentum replaces mass as the essential notion---a profound, yet often overlooked revision in basic physical concepts. Conservation in particular is guaranteed only for energy-momentum, but no longer for mass. In several regards, energy-momentum fuses energy, momentum and mass, with novel connections amongst them and concomitant physical effects. Situating the energy-mass relation within field theory is a surprisingly neglected, but deeply insightful vista for clarifying and philosophically reflecting on SR's foundations. The field-theoretic interpretation achieves a compelling inner coherence and unifying power, and ties it to the rich heuristic resources of field theory, crucial for post-1905 developments in physics.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

The Duality of Whittaker Potential Theory: Fundamental Representations of Electromagnetism and Gravity, and Their Orthogonality

E. T. Whittaker produced two papers in 1903 and 1904 that, although sometimes considered mere mathematical statements (Barrett, 1993), held important implications for physical theory. The Whittaker 1903 paper united electrostatic and gravitational attraction as resulting from longitudinal waves - waves whose wavefronts propagate parallel to their direction. The Whittaker 1904 paper showed that electromagnetic waves resulted from the interference of two such longitudinal waves or scalar potential functions. Although unexplored, the implications of these papers are profound: gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the existence of a hyperspace above or behind normal space, the elimination of gravitational and point charge singularities, MOND, and the expansion of the universe. This last implication can be related to the recent finding that black holes with posited vacuum energy interior solutions alongside cosmological boundaries have a cosmological coupling constant of k=3, meaning that black holes gain mass proportionally to a3 in a parameterization equation within a Robertson-Walker cosmology and are a cosmological accelerated expansion species (Farrah et al., 2023). This expansion and many features of General Relativity can be explained by the mass-proportionality and preferred direction of the longitudinal waves within the two underlying non-local Whittaker potentials (Titleman, 2022). Expansion of the universe is produced as longitudinal motion within the Whittaker potentials only when dynamic electromagnetism is separate from time-static gravity in intergalactic space.

physics.hist-ph↗