1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,subeqn,subeqnarray]{article}
2:
3: \def\baselinestretch{2}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Critical Examination of the Conceptual Foundations
8: of Classical Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Physics}
9: \author{Gennaro Auletta,
10: Institute of Philosophy, Universit\`{a} di Urbino
11: \\md0509@mclink.it}
12:
13: \maketitle
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: As it is well known, classical mechanics consists of several basic
17: features like determinism, reductionism, completeness of knowledge and
18: mechanicism. In this article the basic assumptions are discussed which
19: underlie those features. It is shown that these basic assumptions
20: --- though universally assumed up the beginnings of the XX
21: century --- are far from being obvious. Finally it is shown that --- to a
22: certain extent --- there is
23: nothing wrong in assuming these basic postulates. Rather, the error lies in the
24: epistemological absolutization of the theory, which was considered as
25: a mirroring of Nature.
26:
27: {\bf Keywords}: Perfect determination, determinism, mechanicism,
28: completeness, mirroring, causality.
29: \end{abstract}
30:
31: \section{Introduction}
32:
33: Classical mechanics (CM) is one of the greatest achievements of human
34: knowledge. It is a compact building whose conceptual and mathematical
35: aspects have been known and studied in all details and consequences,
36: though the formation of the theory itself was a difficult process which took
37: three centuries (XVII-XIX) to be completely achieved.
38:
39: But, to the best of my knowledge,
40: some basic --- and sometimes only implicitly assumed ---
41: postulates of CM
42: have not been subjected to critical examination --- a state
43: of affairs which can be partly explained by the implicit
44: character of some of them. This situation, on the other hand, has as
45: a consequence
46: that all basic postulates of the theory have not been considered in
47: their connection as a system --- contrarily to what happens for the formalism
48: of the theory, which from the beginning of XIX century is presented in
49: a systematic
50: form. In fact, to the best of my
51: knowledge, there is until today no handbook which introduces these
52: postulates in systematic order at the beginning of the
53: exposition\footnote{See \cite{kn:lelalif1976a}
54: \cite{kn:goldstein1} \cite{kn:dhestenes1986} \cite{kn:knud/hjor1995}
55: for instance.}.
56:
57: Such an enterprise is possible today because
58: quantum mechanics has shown, especially in the last twenty years,
59: that several assumptions of CM are far away from being above a
60: legitimate suspicion or a critical examination.
61:
62: I will try to expose in a systematic form these
63: assumptions. In section \ref{sec-Determinism}, I shall examine CM's
64: determinism and the postulates from which it stems. In section
65: \ref{sec-Reductionism} a similar analysis is devoted to
66: reductionism, while section \ref{sec-Mechanicism} shows that
67: mechanicism is equivalent to determinism plus reductionism.
68: Section \ref{sec-Completeness} examines
69: the postulate of the completeness of knowledge (and not of the
70: completeness of the theory itself, a problem which today cannot be
71: posed in this form). Sections \ref{sec-Classical Mechanics}--\ref{sec-Classical
72: Philosophy} are devoted to the more general consequences of these
73: assumptions while in section \ref{sec-Conclusions} some
74: concluding remarks will follow.
75:
76: \section{Determinism}
77: \label{sec-Determinism}
78:
79: Everybody admits that CM is deterministic. But determinism is a more
80: complex assumption which supposes other, more basic postulates or
81: principles.
82:
83: \subsection{Omnimoda determinatio}
84: \label{subsec-Omnimoda determinatio}
85:
86: The most basic assumption of CM is the postulate of perfect
87: determination which may be expressed as follows: all
88: properties of a physical system are perfectly determined, where a
89: {\it physical system} can be roughly understood as
90: an object or a collection of objects (somehow
91: interrelated) which can be (directly or indirectly) experienced,
92: and a {\it property} as the value which can be
93: assigned to a physical variable or observable. {\it Perfectly
94: determined} means that each variable of the system has at all times a
95: definite value.
96:
97: This assumption was always implicitly made. For all `classical'
98: physicists it was so self-evident that it was even not worth of mention.
99: In fact modern physicists --- like Galilei, Newton, and many
100: others --- inherited such assumption from all
101: past philosophy: Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, the middle-age
102: philosophers until
103: the modernity never thought differently but all assumed that all
104: properties of being are determined (the problem was obviously to
105: determine what the main or true being is). In fact Kant says: all
106: what exists is completely determined \cite[85]{kn:ikant1763} \cite[B
107: 599--602]{kn:kant1}, which means that, between every possible predicate
108: of an object and its negation, one of the pair must be actualized.
109: Since every physical property can be reduced in a binary form (i.e.
110: using what in quantum mechanics are called projectors) --- for example
111: `moving at the speed of light' or `not moving at the speed of light'
112: (in some space--time context and by reference to a system, both to be
113: specified) ---, then the philosophical definition is a generalization of
114: the physical one and, so far as physical objects are considered, they can
115: been taken to be equivalent. For this examination Kant is
116: an especially interesting example because it has been often told that
117: his philosophy is strictly related with Newtonian mechanics. The
118: latin traditional expression for the complete determination is
119: {\it omnimoda determinatio} and can be found for example in \cite[par.
120: 148]{kn:abaumgarten1739}.\footnote{On the problem see
121: also Leibniz's letter to de
122: Volder of april 1702 in \cite[239]{kn:leibniz2}.}
123:
124: Now it turns out that quantum mechanics violates the {\it omnimoda
125: determinatio} at least through the superposition principle\footnote{For
126: argumentation of this
127: point see chapters 24, 30 and 46 of \cite{kn:gauletta2000}.}: In fact
128: if a quantum system can be in a superposition state, say of wave localized
129: in an arbitrary
130: region 1 and of another in an arbitrary but different
131: region 2, then, following Kant, it is certainly impossible to say
132: `either it is in
133: the region 1 or it is not' or `either it is in the region 2 or it
134: is not', or, more simply, `either it is in the region 1 or it is in
135: the region 2', i.e. quantum mechanics does not acknowledges a
136: generalized exclusion disjunction\footnote{On this specific point see
137: \cite{kn:hardergree}.}. There are no means to reduce such an
138: indetermination to subjective ignorance, so that it must be taken as
139: an ontologically basic feature of the theory.
140:
141: \subsection{Continuity}
142: \label{sec-Continuity}
143:
144: The {\it omnimoda determinatio} may be easily confused with determinism.
145: But they are not equivalent: In fact one can conceive a `classical' world
146: where every
147: `state of the world' (roughly: the complex of all states of all systems
148: within at a given instant) is in itself perfectly determined though
149: without relationship with past and future states, in the sense that the
150: world can jump from a state to another randomly. If this would be the
151: case, nobody could speak of a deterministic evolution (for a more formal
152: definition of determinism see next subsection).
153:
154: Therefore, in order to obtain determinism we also need continuity.
155: This assumption is known as the principle of continuity and it states
156: that the variables associated to a physical system are supposed to be
157: continuous, which in physics means that, given two arbitrary values of
158: a physical variable, all intermediate possible real values are also
159: allowed.
160:
161: The principle of continuity, though often not explicitly stated in
162: handbooks, was widely used already from the early days of CM: one may
163: remember here, for example, the use of the principle made by Galilei by
164: the law of fall\footnote{See \cite[130--131, 181]{kn:mach1}
165: \cite[223]{kn:mach2}.}.
166:
167: Obviously the point of major conflict between CM and quantum
168: mechanics was continuity, which is rejected by the quantum
169: postulate (the values of quantum observables can be discontinuous)
170: and by the fact that quantum systems can jump\footnote{The quantum
171: postulate was assumed by Planck \cite{kn:planck1, kn:planck2} and
172: generalized by Bohr \cite{kn:bohr3}. About the formalism of quantum jumps see
173: \cite{kn:carmichael1}.}.
174:
175: \subsection{Determinism}
176: \label{subsec-Determinism}
177:
178: Sufficient and necessary conditions of determinism are the postulate
179: of perfect determination and the principle of continuity.
180: In fact, given the perfect determination of the state of a system at
181: an arbitrary initial state, if its dynamic variables (for example
182: the energy) are continuous, then also every future state of the system
183: will be perfectly determined and unique, i.e. without
184: alternatives or without branching\footnote{One may
185: think at Laplace's dictum that nothing is uncertain: see
186: \cite[134--35]{kn:cassirer3}
187: \cite[7]{kn:jearman1}. The latter book represent a good analysis of
188: classical determinism.}. As it is known, a mathematical
189: formulation of this assumption is given by Hamilton's canonical
190: equations, which in terms of Poisson brackets can be written
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: \dot{q} = \{H, {q}\}, & & \dot{p} = \{H, {p}\}.
193: \label{eq: poisson}
194: \end{eqnarray}
195: The Hamiltonian $H$, the energy function of the system,
196: fully describes the system and all its future (and past)
197: evolution, and it is expressed
198: in terms of the position $q$ and the momentum $p$. Note, however, that
199: determinism is not the same as predictability: in fact it is well
200: known that, for a large class of problems, almost identical initial
201: conditions can have very different solutions for later times [see
202: also subsection \ref{subsec-Linearity}].
203:
204: Determinism too is an ancient philosophical concept, introduced
205: probably by ancient atomism and further developed by ancient stoicism.
206:
207: In quantum mechanics the Schr\"{o}dinger equation is also deterministic,
208: but here what evolves deterministically is an amplitude, i.e. it
209: is --- paradoxically --- a determinism which is intrinsically probabilistic.
210: In fact, in the general
211: case, we cannot foresee what values the observables will have; we can only
212: write their probability distributions.
213: As we have already said, the break of continuity is a major feature
214: of quantum mechanics. For this reason Bohr \cite{kn:bohr5}
215: \cite{kn:bohr6} spoke of a break of determinism and of causality as such.
216: Causality may be here understood in a strict and in a wide sense,
217: following the distinction between determinism and predictability. In
218: fact, in a
219: strict sense it may be taken as equivalent to determinism. In a wide
220: sense it may be understood as predictability, and then it
221: should be rather taken as equivalent to mechanicism [see section
222: \ref{sec-Mechanicism}] to the extent in which also linearity and
223: separability are necessary in order to have a predictable future.
224:
225: One could think that, behind perfect determination and
226: continuity, determinism also supposes conservation laws. We may
227: understand the problem of conservation in two forms:
228: \begin{description}
229: \item[i)] nothing which is physical can disappear;
230: \item[ii)] in an isolated system certain
231: physical quantities such as the angular momentum are conserved.
232: \end{description}
233: On the
234: second point we shall return later [see subsection \ref{subsec-Isolability}].
235: Point i) is a general
236: statement about the conservation of energy (which obviously is a
237: conserved quantity also in the second sense). In fact energy is the basic
238: physical quantity which, following our physics,
239: can be transformed but never destroyed, a
240: fact that is expressed in a general form by Einstein's equation
241: \begin{equation}
242: E = mc^{2},
243: \label{eq:einstein'seq}
244: \end{equation}
245: which is valid also in the case of annihilation of
246: particle--antiparticle pairs (in fact, as it is known,
247: their mass is transformed in the energy of `outgoing' photons).
248:
249: In the statement i) it is the universe as a whole which is considered
250: as a closed system. It is evident that this statement is a more basic
251: one --- but also a weaker one --- than statement ii).
252: In fact, we could think a world where there can be no strict
253: conservation of the energy in the sense of statement ii) and notwithstanding
254: would be deterministic. For instance, there could be an universal but
255: unknown and unknowable `ether' such that all observable physical
256: system lose part of their energy. Then the energy would be conserved in the
257: sense of statement i) because a form of energy is transformed in
258: another form by the action of ether, but it is not conserved in the
259: sense of statement ii) because, for example, we could have a
260: a physical law of this form:
261: \begin{equation}
262: \dot{p} = F - \alpha p,
263: \label{eq:noconserv}
264: \end{equation}
265: where $F$ is the force and $\alpha$ some parameter.
266: Obviously the `path' or the `trajectory' of the every physical system
267: should be always calculable, i.e. the loss of energy should follow
268: strict laws and not be random. Otherwise the world could be not
269: deterministic. On the other hand, as we have said, even if the
270: `physics' in this
271: universe should be expressed in terms of equations like
272: (\ref{eq:noconserv}), the ether is not something which is outside of
273: such an universe, so that, in a certain objective (or meta--physical)
274: sense (God's point of
275: view?), proposition i) is satisfied. But the difficulty of this
276: position is to admit the existence of something physical which in principle
277: cannot be experienced.
278:
279: \section{Reductionism}
280: \label{sec-Reductionism}
281:
282: Reductionism, as we shall see in that what follows, is another basic
283: piece of CM and, as determinism, it supposes other assumptions which
284: need to be preliminarily examined.
285:
286: \subsection{Materialism}
287: \label{subsec-Materialism}
288:
289: One may wonder that the assumption of materialism is basic for
290: CM since one may think that it is a metaphysical assumption without
291: consequence or relevance upon a physical science as CM is. But this is
292: not the case: CM is a mechanics, i.e. a theory of the motion of
293: bodies and of the forces which act upon them. And a body is
294: necessarily a material entity.
295:
296: In fact the existence and the basic
297: properties of matter were assumed and defined from the beginnings
298: already by Galilei\footnote{See \cite[II, 387--89]{kn:cassirer1}. See
299: also \cite[248--49]{kn:mach1} \cite[106--107]{kn:hall1}.}
300: and by Newton. In the third {\it regula philosophandi} of book III of
301: the {\it Principia} \cite[552--55]{kn:newton1}, Newton makes a catalogue of
302: properties of matter (bodies): Extension (a cartesian property),
303: hardness, impenetrability, capacity to move, inertia\footnote{See
304: \cite[ch. 7]{kn:koyre1} for commentary.}. About hardness, in
305: \cite[388--92]{kn:newton2} it is explained that the parts of all
306: homogeneous hard bodies which fully touch one another stick together
307: very strongly. From their cohesion Newton inferred that particles
308: attract one another by some force, which in immediate contact is
309: exceedingly strong. On the other hand all bodies seem to be composed of
310: hard particles; for otherwise fluids, as water, would not freeze, or
311: fluids as ``spirit of nitre and mercury'' would not become hard
312: ``by dissolving the mercury and evaporating the flegma''. And therefore
313: hardness can be reckoned as the property of all uncompounded matter.
314: So far Newton. It
315: is then evident that all fluids can be reduced to hard bodies by
316: freezing or evaporating: In this case the particles cohere fully,
317: which in turn means that some bodies are not hard only because they
318: are to a certain extent rarefied, i.e. there is some vacuum between
319: the particles\footnote{An important difference with respect to
320: Descartes \cite[33--34, 1205--110]{kn:koyre3}.}.
321: In other words, following Newton, all matter can be
322: reduced to some ground `state' in which it is fully homogeneous and
323: hence inelastic. In fact elasticity is possible only if there is some
324: internal structure to the matter, which is excluded by the postulated
325: homogeneity.
326:
327: One may discuss --- and Newton himself had no final
328: position about\footnote{See the mentioned regula III.} --- if matter is
329: a continuous medium divisible {\it in
330: infinitum} or it is composed by elementary corpuscles which are strongly
331: bound and fixed together by adhering to each other.
332: However, the consequence is that, by full homogeneity and/or rigidity,
333: in case of collision of two bodies moving at the
334: same speed from opposite directions, they will coalesce at the point
335: of collision (because fully inelastic).\footnote{For examination see
336: \cite[ch. 9]{kn:koyre1}.} One may say that the kinetic energy has been
337: transformed in some activity of the particles composing the body, but
338: precisely this is impossible because there is no internal structure and
339: no possibility of the particles to translate, to rotate or vibrate
340: relatively to one another\footnote{For all the problem of bodies'
341: collision see \cite[310--31]{kn:mach1}.}. In a general way note that
342: Newton had not included the force as an intrinsic
343: property of matter as such --- i.e. forces can only act
344: `from outside' upon the matter. In fact Newton only attributes a {\it vis
345: inerti\ae} to the matter and says \cite[397--98]{kn:newton2} that it
346: ``is a passive
347: principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion
348: in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are
349: resisted. By this principle alone there never could have been any motion
350: in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies into
351: motion; and now they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for
352: conserving the motion. For from the various composition of two motions,
353: 'tis very certain
354: that there is not always the same quantity of motion in the world.
355: [\ldots] it appears that motion may be got or lost. But by reason of the
356: tenacity of the fluids, and attrition of their parts, and the weakness of
357: elasticity in solids, motion is much more apt to be lost than got, and is
358: always upon the decay. For bodies which are either absolutely hard, or so
359: oft as to be void of elasticity, will not rebound from one other.
360: Impenetrability makes them only stop. If two equal bodies meet directly
361: {\it in vacuo}, they will by the laws of motion stop where they meet, and
362: lose all their motion, and remain in rest, unless they be elastic, and
363: receive new motion from their spring.'' Therefore Newton concludes
364: \cite[401--402]{kn:newton2} that it
365: seems to him that ``these particles [of matter] have not only a {\it vis
366: inerti\ae} \ldots but also that they are moved by certain active
367: principles, such as is that of gravity, and that which causes
368: fermentation, and the cohesion of bodies.'' As it is clear in the following
369: pages of the {\it Optics} and in other places, these principles are due
370: to the direct action of God. Therefore, one can understand that Leibniz,
371: in his letter to the princess of Wales \cite[VII, 352]{kn:leibniz2}, defend
372: the conservation law of 'force and energy' against Newton. And it is
373: interesting that, in his first answer, Clark writes
374: \cite[VII, 354]{kn:newton2} that God ``not only
375: composes or puts things together, but is himself the Author and continual
376: Preserver of their original forces and moving powers''.
377:
378: Therefore we see that the materialism assumed since the early days of
379: CM is far from being obvious, and the idea of a fully homogeneous
380: matter was very soon abandoned.
381: In quantum mechanics there can be no question
382: of perfectly hard and localized corpuscles: To quantum
383: entities is intrinsic a wave-like behavior or some fuzziness. Therefore it is
384: better to speak of extended particles\footnote{On this point see
385: chapters chapters 30 and 33 of \cite{kn:gauletta2000}.}. On the other
386: hand properties as the hardness or impenetrability seem inadequate to
387: microentities as we know them now.
388:
389: \subsection{Linearity}
390: \label{subsec-Linearity}
391:
392: Linearity is an important property of classical systems. In itself it
393: is essentially a mathematical property, because it consists in the
394: requirement that the basic equations of CM must be linear, i.e.
395: reducible to a form like
396: \begin{equation}
397: a_{0}(x)y^{(n)} + a_{1}(x)y^{(n - 1)} + \ldots + a_{n}(x)y = f(x),
398: \label{eq:lineareq}
399: \end{equation}
400: where $a_{0}(x), a_{1}(x), \ldots, a_{n}(x)$ are coefficients,
401: $f(x)$ is some function and $y^{(n)} $ the $n$--th derivative of $y$.
402: But linearity has
403: a conceptual relevance to the extent in which it excludes
404: feed--back, i.e. self--increasing processes.
405:
406: It is linearity which allows an important aspect of the
407: `reductionistic methodology' of CM: the factorization between
408: component `elements' of a system, for example the decomposition of
409: motion in components by Galilei, the decomposition of forces by
410: Newton or the decomposition of harmonic components\footnote{For these
411: examples see \cite[144--45, 191--92]{kn:mach1}.}. In other words if
412: the cause (the force) ${\rm C}_{1}$ produces the effect (the
413: acceleration) ${\rm E}_{1}$ and the cause (the force) ${\rm C}_{2}$ the
414: effect (the
415: acceleration) ${\rm E}_{2}$, then ${\rm C}_{1} + {\rm C}_{2}$ produces
416: ${\rm E}_{1} + {\rm E}_{2}$. This principle is often called principle of
417: (classical) superposition.
418:
419: One could think that in CM
420: a small perturbation on a given system or the weak interaction
421: of this with another system only causes a small deviation in
422: the trajectory of the system in the phase space, such that, normally,
423: the system will `absorb' it and return on the ancient deterministic
424: path. But a perfect classical system can show such a dependence on
425: initial condition that its evolution can be chaotic (in fact in
426: chaotic regime this dependence is expressed by a strong divergence of
427: initial very close, indistinguishable trajectories in phase space).
428: Note that, in the chaos theory, chaos itself
429: is intrinsic and deterministic and not stochastic and
430: extrinsic --- in other words it is not due to random fluctuations of the
431: environment or to noise\footnote{On the
432: point see \cite{kn:hgschuster1988} \cite{kn:druelle1989}.}.
433: In fact there can be chaos also by Hamiltonian systems.
434:
435: Linearity is not violated by quantum mechanics. In fact
436: Schr\"{o}dinger equation is linear, and any attempt to introduce
437: non--linear terms in this equation has up to now
438: failed\footnote{A non--linear equation for quantum mechanics was
439: proposed in \cite{kn:bibim1}. Shimony proposed an experiment
440: aiming to verify if there are non--linear terms and if they have the
441: magnitude proposed by Bialynicki--Birula and Mycielski
442: \cite{kn:shimony5}. A later experiment performed on these outlines
443: tendentially excludes such terms \cite{kn:shuatarh1}. Obviously
444: this does not mean that the methods of quantum mechanics and chaos theory
445: cannot be combined. They can be, and actually are unified in what is
446: today known as
447: `quantum chaos'.}.
448:
449: \subsection{Separability}
450: \label{subsec-Separability}
451:
452: Separability is another key feature of CM. But it is again an
453: implicit assumption and firstly in 1935, as CM was confronted
454: with quantum mechanics, it was stated explicitly by Einstein and
455: co--workers \cite{kn:epr1}. The principle of separability may be
456: expressed in the following way:
457: given two non--interacting physical systems, all their physical properties are
458: separately determined, or, in other terms, the result of a measurement
459: on one system cannot depend on a measurement performed on
460: the other system. The meaning of the principle is the following: two
461: systems can be interdependent only through a physical interaction (for
462: example some form of potential energy).
463:
464: Again quantum mechanics violates the separability principle by a
465: consequence of the superposition principle for multiparticle systems:
466: entanglement. In fact for entangled subsystems, it is not possible to
467: factorize the probabilities of the outcomes of experiments performed
468: on each subsystem locally. In other words, probabilities calculated on
469: one of two `distant' subsystems, even if they do not
470: physically interact, are not independent\footnote{There exists a wide
471: literature on this subject. For a summary see chapters 31 and 34--35 of
472: \cite{kn:gauletta2000}.}.
473:
474: \subsection{Reductionism}
475: \label{subsec-Reductionism}
476:
477: Now we may summarize the results of this section by saying that
478: materialism plus linearity plus separability are sufficient and
479: necessary conditions of reductionism.
480: Roughly speaking, by
481: reductionism it is usually meant that a system is given as the ``sum''
482: of its constituent components, or, equivalently, that any system can
483: be divided into ``elementary'' parts. The aim of reductionism is then
484: to find the ultimate elements of matter which cannot be further
485: reduced. To our knowledge there is no certainty (and even
486: doubts) that such a task will ever be accomplished. One speaks today,
487: for example, of quarks and leptons as `divisible' particles.
488: However, quantum mechanics violates this type of reductionism because
489: it violates
490: the separability principle --- and does not, as we have seen,
491: violates linearity (leaving aside the problem of materialism). In
492: fact it is evident that, if separability is violated, no reduction of a
493: whole to `parts' is possible because the parts could be not treated as
494: independent systems.
495:
496: On the other hand, reductionism can be also understood as the reduction of
497: more complex theories and sciences as chemistry and biology to physics
498: and especially to quantum mechanics (this may be called {\it epistemological}
499: or {\it methodological}
500: reductionism relatively to the first type, which may be called {\it
501: ontological} reductionism). It is true that quantum
502: mechanics shows its effects (entanglement, for example) also at
503: mesoscopic level. But this means anyway that the mesoscopic or the
504: macroscopic world are only `illusions', apparent realities. In fact
505: the process of decoherence and especially of localization which goes
506: together with decoherence, especially when the number and the complexity
507: of systems grows, is throughout objective\footnote{See chapters 17 and
508: 24--25 of \cite{kn:gauletta2000}.}. On the other hand, no necessity
509: arises to conceive of methodological reductionism as a one--way
510: operation: If one speaks of reduction to more elementary objects, one
511: should speak --- with more reason --- of a methodological reduction of
512: microscopic equations for the constituents of a system (via coarse graining)
513: to differential equations for macroscopic variables, and from these
514: (via numerical calculations of Poincar\'{e} sections) to low
515: dimensional Poincar\'{e} maps\footnote{See
516: \cite[14--16]{kn:hgschuster1988} \cite[63--78]{kn:berge/pomeau/vidal1984}.}.
517:
518: \section{Mechanicism}
519: \label{sec-Mechanicism}
520:
521: Sufficient and necessary conditions of mechanicism are determinism and
522: reductionism. No `classical' mechanics can violate the one or the other.
523: In facts mechanicism consists in the theory that, given an input
524: (some force) we have a fully automatic and proportional output
525: (some acceleration), which
526: would be surely impossible if the whole system were more than the
527: sum of the `parts' (i.e. if the requirement of reductionism would
528: be violated), or if it would show a random reaction to a given action
529: (i.e. if the requirement of determinism would be violated). On the
530: other hand, a system satisfying the features of determinism and
531: reductionism would be necessarily mechanic. In fact we distinguish the
532: behavior of organic life from a pure mechanical behavior exactly
533: through the violation of the one or of the other requirement or of both.
534:
535: \section{Completeness}
536: \label{sec-Completeness}
537:
538: The possibility of a complete knowledge in CM is dependent on other
539: assumptions,
540: namely determinism and isolability. Let us examine firstly the
541: assumption of isolability.
542:
543: \subsection{Isolability}
544: \label{subsec-Isolability}
545:
546: CM assumes that isolated systems are possible; i.e. that we can
547: always theoretically treat and experimentally (at least in principle)
548: generate a system without physical interdependence with other systems
549: or with the environment. It is the isolability which guarantees
550: conservation laws of pertinent quantities. In fact angular momentum,
551: energy or motion can be conserved only if the system is considered as
552: isolated from others, i.e. there is no interaction such as to cause
553: dispersion or no action of an external force such as to change
554: its motion.
555: Quantum mechanics does not apparently violate this assumption. But it
556: may be asked if there are actually isolated quantum--mechanical
557: systems and even more if macroscopic systems can be fully isolated.
558:
559: \subsection{Completeness}
560: \label{subsec-Completeness}
561:
562: In CM it is supposed that one can perfectly know (at least in
563: principle) all properties of a given system. In other words the
564: properties of the object system can be perfectly
565: measured. Therefore it is postulated that the measurement
566: errors can be --- at least in principle ---
567: always reduced below an arbitrarily small quantity
568: $\epsilon$. Hence this assumption may be
569: called the postulate of reduction to zero of the measurement
570: error.
571:
572: Note that this postulate is not a direct consequence
573: of the principle of perfect determination only, because it can be the case
574: that a system is objectively but not subjectively perfectly determined.
575: It supposes continuity too:
576: in fact if the pertinent variables were
577: discontinuous, then we could not approximate to a point-like
578: value in a given interval. Hence it presupposes determinism (which,
579: as we know, is
580: equivalent to perfect determination plus continuity).
581: But isolability too: In fact if the system could never be really
582: isolated, we could never know its properties perfectly, even not in
583: a very large time interval, because, during the flow of time, it may
584: be that small interactions with external systems cause small
585: uncertainties in the measurement results so that --- even if these
586: uncertainties
587: do not cumulate --- one cannot go beyond a certain threshold.
588:
589: If we speak of the perfect knowledge of all properties of a given
590: system at the same time, then this assumption is obviously violated in
591: quantum mechanics through the uncertainty principle. In fact this
592: principle states that, by increasing the knowledge or the
593: determination of an observable of a conjugate pair, the complementary
594: observable must proportionally increase its uncertainty.
595:
596: \section{Classical Mechanics}
597: \label{sec-Classical Mechanics}
598:
599: We can now draw the first general conclusion from the above analysis:
600: CM consists of both mechanicism and completeness (of knowledge).
601: There is no doubt that there can be no CM without mechanicism.
602: But one may think that completeness is not a necessary condition of CM.
603: This is not the case because CM is actually so built that
604: a perfect transparency of the
605: object system to the knowledge corresponds to the perfect
606: ontological determination of it.
607: But it could also be not otherwise: For a physicist
608: the primary questions are objective and not subjective: In order to
609: admit an incomplete knowledge together with the assumption of
610: mechanicism --- and hence of a perfect ontological determination ---, one
611: should know some basic limitations of human mind, which in
612: principle exclude the possibility for human beings
613: of perfectly knowing systems which are objectively
614: perfectly determined. But no such problems have
615: ever been found.
616:
617: \section{Classical Gnoseology}
618: \label{sec-Classical Gnoseology}
619:
620: Classical mechanics has been developed together with what may be called a {\it
621: classical} gnoseology --- i. e. the gnoseology of Galilei, Spinoza, Newton,
622: Kant and many others. Classical gnoseology certainly supposes the
623: completeness of knowledge, i.e. that the properties of being can be
624: perfectly known. But it also supposes what may be called a `mirroring'
625: theory. Explicitly: classical gnoseology considers the act of
626: knowledge as a mirroring of the properties of the object.
627:
628: In other words, knowledge is understood as a reproduction of objective
629: and given data and
630: not as a form of interaction between subject and object. This
631: understanding of knowledge is very ancient and can also be found by
632: philosophers as Plato. Several philosophy schools have shared this
633: pointof view. Obviously, there is no agreement between several schools
634: about what is the being to be reproduced (ideas as platonic
635: substances, atoms, forms, material objects, and so on). When knowledge is so
636: understod, then one assigns to the subject a mere reproductive and
637: representative role.
638:
639: However this view is no so evident. In fact pragmatism\footnote{On this point
640: see \cite{kn:cpeirce1878a, kn:cpeirce1878c}.} proposes a different theory
641: of knowledge. It is seen as a
642: problems--solving enterprise which, by starting with a problem,
643: assumes a hypothesis (under many others possible ones) because it can
644: solve in a satisfactory manner the conflicts or the contradictions
645: arisen from the problem itself. This is not the place where to
646: examine this subject in details, but I think that this explanation of how
647: theories work and are generated is far more satisfactory for
648: describing scientific knowledge than the
649: traditional, classical approach. I only wish to stress following
650: aspects of this explanation:
651: \begin{description}
652: \item[i)] Subject and object are not understood as static beings and
653: knowledge not as a form of translation of data into a mind (and how
654: would it be possible?).
655: \item[ii)] Experience is dynamic and comprehends `subject' and
656: `object'\footnote{On this point see \cite{kn:dewey1}.}.
657: \item[iii)] Knowledge is open and never represents a final answer.
658: \item[iv)] Knowledge is a form of praxis and the theory is not
659: completely separated from other human activities.
660: \end{description}
661:
662: \section{Classical Philosophy}
663: \label{sec-Classical Philosophy}
664:
665: Classical philosophy, the main stream in XVII-XVIII centuries, is
666: compound of CM plus classical gnoseology. That
667: philosophers and physicists of that age have acknowledged all or almost
668: all the above principles can be seen from the following examples.
669: Let us first take
670: Kant's examination of the ontological proof of the existence of
671: God\footnote{In \cite[B 627]{kn:kant1}.}.
672: Kant says
673: that when I affirm that {\it God exists}, I add no new predicate to the
674: concept of God; rather I pose only the subject (God) in itself with all his
675: predicates, i.e. the object, in relationship with my concept. Both,
676: the object and the concept, must contain the same. In other words, in
677: Kant's terminology, what
678: is real does not contain something more than what is only possible
679: (the concept). If the object should contain more than the concept, then
680: the latter will not express the whole object and will therefore be
681: not adequate to this object. So far Kant. In this argumentation, the
682: {\it ominimoda determinatio} is always taken for granted and
683: three additional principles are (implicitly) assumed: that the
684: concept is isomorphic with the object (the predicates contained in the
685: concept corresponds to properties that the object
686: has: it is the mirroring theory);
687: that therefore an adequate knowledge must be
688: complete (all properties of the object must be considered in the
689: concept); and finally that one can consider the object
690: `in itself', i.e. in complete isolation from other
691: objects (it is the assumption of isolation). Since this is a general
692: arguments which goes beyond to the
693: specific problem of the existence of God, one can consider
694: the object without relationship with the
695: other objects of the universe. It is true that in \cite[B
696: 599--602]{kn:kant1} one speaks of the {\it omnimoda determinatio} as
697: an ideal, but in the above proof it is taken as an ontological fact.
698:
699: To my knowledge Kant never rejected the continuity and perhaps he had
700: nothing against linearity. He surely
701: assumed a form of materialism: Since our knowledge can only happen in
702: an experience which is intrinsic spatio--temporal \cite[B 33--73]{kn:kant1},
703: then the objects
704: of knowledge can only be bodies; and in fact Kant discusses the problem
705: of matter \cite[B 230, 277--78]{kn:kant1} and excludes that
706: the subject of knowledge can also be object of
707: knowledge \cite[B 152--165]{kn:kant1}. Of all above postulates
708: only separability remains; but, as
709: already said, it has been the object of scientific analysis only in
710: the 1930s.
711:
712: Then let us also briefly discuss the assumptions (but not the details
713: of the
714: argumentation) of the article of Einstein and
715: co--workers \cite{kn:epr1}. There is no doubt that it acknowledges
716: the {\it omnimoda determinatio}. In fact the aim of the article is to
717: show that there can be elements of the reality which cannot be
718: represented in quantum mechanics due to its `uncertain' character
719: (uncertainty principle) --- in fact, as it is well known, Einstein
720: thought that quantum mechanics could only represent a statistical
721: (and therefore incomplete) theory of microentities.
722: Specifically, the aim of the article is to show that quantum
723: mechanics violates a sufficient condition of reality, which may be
724: expressed as follows: If, without in any way disturbing a system,
725: we can predict with
726: probability equal to unity the value of a physical quantity,
727: then there exists an element of the physical reality corresponding
728: to this physical quantity. It is evident that two things are
729: supposed here: first that the reality is perfectly
730: determined in itself; second, that one can also know it perfectly (our
731: completeness condition).
732: Continuity is
733: evidently acknowledged in the formal development of the argument. So
734: there is no doubt that the article also acknowledged determinism (= {\it
735: omnimoda determinatio} + continuity).
736: Though no word is said about materialism and linearity, the core of
737: the article is represented by a strong defense of the principle of
738: separability (here for the first
739: time formulated), so that one can suppose that reductionism too was a
740: valid assumption for Einstein and co--workers.
741:
742: But the article goes even further.
743: In fact two definitions are formulated with great emphasis at the beginning:
744: That of correctness and that of completeness.
745: It is said that a theory is totally correct if
746: every element of the theory has a counterpart in reality:
747: In other words a totally correct theory is one without
748: superfluous theoretical terms. It is evident that the necessary
749: condition for assuming this definition is the mirroring
750: theory: If theories could not mirror reality, could also not mirror
751: reality correctly. About completeness it is said that
752: a theory is complete if every element of reality has a counterpart in it
753: --- it is evident that correctness together with completeness establish an
754: equivalence relationship between physical theory and reality. This definition
755: of the completeness of a theory is much stronger than that previously
756: formulated.
757: In conclusion CM and classical gnoseology, and therefore
758: classical philosophy as such, are defended in Einstein's article.
759:
760: It is very interesting that Kant and Einstein --- both scientists and
761: philosophers --- defend essentially the body of classical philosophy,
762: and that the latter does it in open conflict with quantum
763: mechanics.
764:
765: \section{Conclusions}
766: \label{sec-Conclusions}
767:
768: Summing up, CM can be schematically represented as in the figure.
769:
770: \begin{figure}[htpb]
771: \centerline{\hbox{\epsfig{file=cmc.eps,width=6in}}}
772: %\vspace{0cm}
773: \caption{\small
774: Schematic representation of the basic postulates and principles of CM.}
775: \label{fig:CMb}
776: \end{figure}
777:
778: CM has been for three centuries the model of what Science is and
779: should be. Then it is a little surprising that its basic assumptions
780: were assumed without critical examination. But two points are here
781: very important:
782:
783: \begin{description}
784: \item[i)] Without quantum mechanics and its consequences
785: nobody would have
786: perceived the problems hidden in assumptions which ultimately stem
787: from the common sense or from a refinement of the ordinary experience
788: about macroscopic objects. This does not mean at all that this experience
789: is in itself wrong. We live and act in a macroscopic world where the
790: struggle for life is the most important thing, and for this practical
791: purpose it makes no sense --- and it is perhaps even dangerous --- to
792: assume, for
793: instance, that objects are partly not perfectly determined or
794: fuzzy\footnote{And, with high probability, also macroscopic objects are partly
795: fuzzy; in fact one has shown theoretically and finally experimentally
796: that, at mesoscopic level, `Schr\"{o}dinger
797: cats' are possible \cite{kn:momekiwi1} \cite{kn:bruhadremam1}.}
798: \item[ii)] But neither CM's assumptions are wrong as such. CM
799: has been in fact a
800: powerful tool in order to explore Nature and establish some basic
801: features of the physical world. Stated in other terms, for all that
802: one knew at that time, CM worked --- and still works ---
803: very well. What is wrong is only the supposition
804: that CM's assumptions and laws are objective in the sense that they
805: mirror what Nature is in itself. In other words, what was and is wrong
806: about CM is a `mirroring' gnoseology and epistemology which has
807: produced an absolutisation of the this physical theory. In other
808: words, we have here a confirmation {\it e contrario} of the
809: rightness of the point of view of pragmatism.
810: \end{description}
811:
812: \section*{Acknowledgments}
813:
814: This article is born from a synthesis of several lessons about Classical
815: Mechanics and discussions with my
816: students in the Gregoriana University in Rome.
817:
818: The present article owes very much to
819: Prof. Giorgio Parisi whose deep insights were for me especially
820: enlightening.
821: I also thank Dr. Mauro Fortunato and Dr. Valeria Mosini
822: who red the manuscript and gave to me plenty suggestions.
823:
824: {\footnotesize
825: \begin{thebibliography}{BIALYNICKI-B./MYCIELSKI 1976}
826:
827: \bibitem[{\it AULETTA} 2000]{kn:gauletta2000}
828: AULETTA, Gennaro,
829: {\it Foundations and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
830: in the Light of a Critical-Historical Analysis of the Problems and of a
831: Synthesis of the Results}, Singapore, World Scientific
832:
833: \bibitem[{\it BAUMGARTEN} 1739]{kn:abaumgarten1739}
834: BAUMGARTEN, Alexander Gottlieb,
835: {\it Metaphysica}, 1739; VII ed., Halle 1779; rep. Hildesheim-New
836: York, Georg Olms, 1982
837:
838: \bibitem[{\it BERG\'{E} et al.} 1984]{kn:berge/pomeau/vidal1984}
839: BERG\'{E}, P./POMEAU, Y./VIDAL, C.,
840: {\it Order Within Chaos. Towards a Deterministic Approach to
841: Turbulence}, New York-Paris, J. Wiley-Hermann, 1984
842:
843: \bibitem[BIALYNICKI-B./MYCIELSKI 1976]{kn:bibim1}
844: BIALYNICKI-BIRULA, I./MYCIELSKI, J.,
845: ``Nonlinear Wave Mechanics'',
846: {\it Annals of Physics} {\bf 100}: 62--93
847:
848: \bibitem[BOHR 1913]{kn:bohr3}
849: BOHR, Niels,
850: ``On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules'',
851: {\it Philosophical Magazine} {\bf 26}: 1--25, 476--502, 857--75
852:
853: \bibitem[BOHR 1928]{kn:bohr5}
854: ---,
855: ``The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory'',
856: {\it Nature} {\bf 121}
857:
858: \bibitem[BOHR 1929]{kn:bohr6}
859: ---,
860: ``Wirkungsquantum und Naturbeschreibung'',
861: {\it Die Naturwissenschaften} {\bf 17} (1929): 483--86
862:
863: \bibitem[BRUNE {\it et al.} 1996]{kn:bruhadremam1}
864: BRUNE, M./HAGLEY, E./DREYER, J./MA\^{I}TRE, X./MAALI, A./WUNDERLICH,
865: C./RAIMOND, J. M./HAROCHE, S.,
866: ``Observing the Progressive Decoherence of the `Meter' in a Quantum
867: Measurement'',
868: {\it Physical Review Letters} {\bf 77}: 4887--90
869:
870: \bibitem[{\it CARMICHAEL} 1993]{kn:carmichael1}
871: CARMICHAEL, Howard J.,
872: {\it An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics}, Heidelberg,
873: Springer
874:
875: \bibitem[{\it CASSIRER} 1906]{kn:cassirer1}
876: CASSIRER, Ernst,
877: {\it Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und
878: Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit}, 1906, II ed. 1911, III ed. 1922;
879: Hildesheim, Olms, 1971 (IV vols.)
880:
881: \bibitem[{\it CASSIRER} 1957]{kn:cassirer3}
882: ---,
883: {\it Zur modernen Physik}, 1957, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche
884: Buchgesellschaft, 1994
885:
886: \bibitem[{\it DEWEY} 1929]{kn:dewey1}
887: DEWEY, John,
888: {\it Experience and Nature}, 1929; New York, Dover, 1958
889:
890: \bibitem[{\it EARMAN} 1986]{kn:jearman1}
891: EARMAN, John,
892: {\it A Primer on Determinism}, Dordrecht, Reidel
893:
894: \bibitem[EINSTEIN {\it et al.} 1935]{kn:epr1}
895: EINSTEIN, A./PODOLSKY, B./ROSEN N.,
896: ``Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
897: Considered Complete?'':
898: {\it Physical Review} {\bf 47}: 777-80
899:
900: \bibitem[{\it GOLDSTEIN} 1950]{kn:goldstein1}
901: GOLDSTEIN, Herbert,
902: {\it Classical Mechanics}, Massachussets, Addison-Wesley, 1950, 1965
903:
904: \bibitem[{\it HALL} 1954]{kn:hall1}
905: HALL, A. Rupert,
906: {\it The Revolution in Science. 1500-1750}, London,
907: Longman, 1954, II ed. 1962, 1983, 1989
908:
909: \bibitem[HARDEGREE 1979]{kn:hardergree}
910: HARDEGREE, Gary M.,
911: ``The Conditional in Abstract and Concrete Quantum Logic'',
912: in HOOKER, C. A. (ed.), {\it The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum
913: Mechanics. Contemporary Consolidation}, Dordrecht, Reidel: 49--108
914:
915: \bibitem[{\it HESTENES} 1986]{kn:dhestenes1986}
916: HESTENES, David,
917: {\it New Foundations of Classical Mechanics}, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1986,
918: 1987, 1990, 1993; II ed.: 1999
919:
920: \bibitem[{\it KANT A}]{kn:ikanta}
921: KANT, Immanuel,
922: {\it Kants Werke. Akademie Textausgabe}, Berlin, W. de Gruyter, 1968
923:
924: \bibitem[{\it KANT} 1763]{kn:ikant1763}
925: ---,
926: {\it Der einzige m\"{o}gliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des
927: Daseins Gottes}; in \cite[II, 63--164]{kn:ikanta}
928:
929: \bibitem[{\it KANT} 1787]{kn:kant1}
930: ---,
931: {\it Kritik der reinen Vernunft}, II ed. 1787: III v. of \cite{kn:ikanta}
932:
933: \bibitem[{\it KOYR\'{E}} 1957]{kn:koyre1}
934: KOYR\'{E}, Alexandre,
935: {\it From the Closed World to the Infinite
936: Universe}, Baltimore, John Hopkins Press
937:
938: \bibitem[{\it KOYR\'{E}} 1966]{kn:koyre2}
939: ---,
940: {\it Etudes galil\'{e}ennes}, Paris, Hermann, 1966, 1980
941:
942: \bibitem[{\it KOYR\'{E}} 1968]{kn:koyre3}
943: ---,
944: {\it Etudes newtoni\'{e}ennes}, Paris, Gallimard
945:
946: \bibitem[{\it KNUDSEN/HJORTH} 1995]{kn:knud/hjor1995}
947: KNUDSEN, J. M./HJORTH, P. G.,
948: {\it Elements of Newtonian Mechanics}, Berlin, Springer, 1995; II ed: 1996;
949: III ed.: 2000
950:
951: \bibitem[{\it LANDAU/LIFSHITZ} 1976a]{kn:lelalif1976a}
952: LANDAU, Lev D./LIFSHITZ, E. M.,
953: {\it Mechanics} (eng. tr.), I vol. of {\it The Course of Theoretical
954: Physics}, Oxford, Pergamon
955:
956: \bibitem[{\it LEIBNIZ} PS]{kn:leibniz2}
957: LEIBNIZ, Gottfried W.,
958: {\it Philosophische Scriften} (ed. Gerhardt), Halle, 1875; rep.
959: Hildesheim, Olms, 1978
960:
961: \bibitem[{\it MACH} 1883]{kn:mach1}
962: MACH, Ernst,
963: {\it Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung.
964: Historisch-kritisch dargestellt}, Leipzig, 1883, IX ed. Leipzig 1933;
965: Darmstadt, WBG, 1991
966:
967: \bibitem[{\it MACH} 1905]{kn:mach2}
968: ---,
969: {\it Erkenntnis und Irrtum}, 1905, II ed. 1906, V ed.
970: Leipzig, 1926, Darmstadt, WBG, 1991
971:
972: \bibitem[MONROE {\it et al.} 1996]{kn:momekiwi1}
973: MONROE, C./MEEKHOF, D. M./KING, B. E./WINELAND, D. J.,
974: ``A `Schr\"{o}dinger Cat' Superposition State of an Atom'',
975: {\it Science} {\bf 272}: 1131--36
976:
977: \bibitem[{\it NEWTON} 1687]{kn:newton1}
978: NEWTON, Isaac,
979: {\it Philosophi\ae Naturalis Principia Mathematica},
980: London, 1687; Cambridge, 1713; London, 1726; Harward (edited by Koyr\'{e}
981: /Cohen), University Press, 1972
982:
983: \bibitem[{\it NEWTON} 1704]{kn:newton2}
984: NEWTON, Isaac,
985: {\it Opticks or A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions,
986: Inflections and Colours of Light}, 1704 (I ed.), 1706 (II ed., lat.),
987: 1721 (III ed.), London, 1730 (IV ed.); New York, Dover, 1952, 1979
988:
989: \bibitem[{\it PEIRCE W}]{kn:peirce1}
990: PEIRCE, Charles S.,
991: {\it Writings}, Bloomington, Indiana Univeristy Press, 1986 and fs.
992:
993: \bibitem[PEIRCE 1878a]{kn:cpeirce1878a}
994: ---.,
995: ``How to Make Our Ideas Clear'',
996: {\it Popular Science Monthly} {\bf 12}: 286--302;
997: in \cite[III, 257--76]{kn:peirce1}
998:
999: \bibitem[PEIRCE 1878b]{kn:cpeirce1878c}
1000: ---,
1001: ``Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis'',
1002: {\it Popular Science Monthly} {\bf 13}: 470--82;
1003: in \cite[III, 323--38]{kn:peirce1}
1004:
1005: \bibitem[PLANCK 1900a]{kn:planck1}
1006: PLANCK, Max, ``\"{U}ber die Verbesserung der
1007: Wien'schen Spektralgleichung'',
1008: {\it Verhandlungen der Deutchen Physikalischen Gesellschaft} {\bf 2}
1009: (1900): 202--204
1010:
1011: \bibitem[PLANCK 1900b]{kn:planck2}
1012: ---,
1013: ``Zur Theorie des Gesetzes der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum'',
1014: {\it Verhandlungen der Deutchen Physikalischen Gesellschaft} {\bf 2}
1015: (1900): 237--45
1016:
1017: \bibitem[{\it RUELLE} 1989]{kn:druelle1989}
1018: RUELLE, David,
1019: {\it Chaotic Evolution and Strange Attractors}, Cambridge, U. P.,
1020: 1989, 1990, 1992
1021:
1022: \bibitem[{\it SCHUSTER} 1988]{kn:hgschuster1988}
1023: SCHUSTER, Heinz Georg,
1024: {\it Deterministic Chaos. An Introduction}, Weinheim, VCH, II ed. 1988,
1025: 1989
1026:
1027: \bibitem[SHIMONY 1979]{kn:shimony5}
1028: SHIMONY, Abner,
1029: ``Proposed Neutron Interferometer Test of Some Non-linear Variants of
1030: Wave Mechanics'',
1031: {\it Physical Review} {\bf A20}: 394--96
1032:
1033: \bibitem[SHULL {\it et al.} 1980]{kn:shuatarh1}
1034: SHULL, C. G./ATWOOD, D. K./ARTHUR, J./HORNE, M. A.,
1035: ``Search For a Nonlinear Variant of the Schr\"{o}dinger Equation by
1036: Neutron Interferometry'',
1037: {\it Physical Review Letters} {\bf 44}: 765--68
1038:
1039: \end{thebibliography}
1040: }
1041:
1042: \end{document}
1043:
1044: