Quantum field theory for classical fields

Christof Wetterich

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum field theory for classical fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Probabilistic classical fields produce a quantum field theory

desk verdict Clean free-field map, honest program, and one real flaw: the one-loop step that is meant to close the interacting case is missing a factor of i, so the paper's central claim is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.05061 v2 pith:JN3VSKVB submitted 2026-03-05 quant-ph hep-lathep-th

Christof Wetterich This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phhep-lathep-th PACS 03.65.-w03.70.+k

keywords probabilisticclassicalfieldsquantumfieldtheoryfluctuatingobservablesLiouvilleequationfunctionalintegralKlein-Gordonstatisticalcellularautomaton

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a classical field theory with random initial conditions is not merely analogous to a quantum field theory—with the right observables, it is one. When the classical field is measured through fluctuating-field observables, which blur the field by the roughness of the probability distribution, expectation values obey a functional integral of exactly the quantum type. The author constructs this path integral for a relativistic scalar field with quartic self-interaction and shows that the classical Liouville evolution becomes a complex Schrödinger equation with standard commutation relations. A reader should care because, if the construction holds, the formalism of quantum field theory follows from classical probability rather than being a separate layer of reality.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fluctuating field φ, a statistical observable formed by adding half the Fourier-conjugate variable ζ to the classical field σ. ζ measures the roughness of the probability distribution in the conjugate field, so φ encodes uncertainty rather than a sharp microstate. The mirror field χ lets the real classical wave function become a complex wave function, and the pair (φ, χ) turns the classical Liouville evolution into a unitary complex Schrödinger equation. The path-integral representation with Minkowski action S_M = ∫(∂_t σ ∂_t ζ + ζ F(σ)) is the mechanism that makes quantum expectation values emerge; the regularized cellular-automaton version guarantees unitarity.

What would settle it

Take the interacting scalar theory on progressively finer lattices and compute the equal-time correlation functions of the fluctuating field. If the one-loop correction proportional to λ²φ⁴/(m²ε²) cannot be absorbed into local counterterms, or if correlation functions fail to approach Lorentz-invariant limits as the lattice spacing goes to zero, then the claimed equivalence to a continuum quantum field theory is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a real classical wave function whose square is the probability density over field configurations, the paper applies a functional Fourier transform and defines fluctuating fields φ = σ + ζ/2 and a mirror field χ = σ − ζ/2. In this basis the Liouville equation becomes a complex Schrödinger equation, the operators for φ and its time derivative satisfy [φ̂, p̂] = iδ, and expectation values of functions of φ are given by a path integral with Minkowski action S_M = ∫(∂_t σ ∂_t ζ + ζ F(σ)). For a Klein-Gordon field with λφ^4 interaction, integrating out the mirror field yields an effective quantum action for the fluctuating field; the paper computes leading corrections and concludes t

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the continuum limit: the interacting lattice theory must yield a finite, Lorentz-invariant, local quantum field theory as the lattice spacing goes to zero, and the paper notes this has not yet been shown because the one-loop correction diverges and depends on the regulator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the equivalence is correct, every quantum field theory expectation value for fluctuating-field observables is also an expectation value in a purely classical probabilistic theory.
Non-commuting operators and phase-sensitive wave functions arise from classical probability, so quantum behavior does not require a separate quantum postulate.
The regularized functional integral is manifestly unitary, giving a route to numerical simulations of quantum field theory through classical cellular automata.
For a non-interacting Klein-Gordon field the mirror field decouples, so the equivalence is exact for observables in the fluctuating field, including particles in external potentials in the non-relativistic limit.
In the interacting case, integrating out the mirror field produces an effective action with quantum corrections; standard field-theory methods apply to compute them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: If the continuum limit can be established, the construction likely extends to any second-order classical field equation whose force term is local, so the same 'quantum from classical' map could apply to gauge fields, fluids, or gravitational perturbations.
Inference: The paper leaves implicit that this equivalence reframes the measurement problem: if quantum states are coarse-grained classical probabilities over fields, then collapse and interference are features of the observer's choice of fluctuating observables, not of a separate quantum dynamics.
Inference: A direct numerical test would simulate the interacting cellular automaton on a lattice, compute unequal-time correlation functions of φ, and compare them with the perturbative QFT predictions; agreement would support the equivalence beyond the perturbative expansion used for the effective action.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper reads as a serious attempt to make the equivalence between probabilistic classical fields and QFT concrete. When lambda = 0, the Liouville equation in the (phi, chi) variables becomes exactly the QFT path integral for the fluctuating field; the commutation relation [phi, p] = i comes from the choice of these as statistical observables, not from a postulate. That is a neat and defensible result. The cellular-automaton regularization keeps unitarity manifest and is a sensible way to approach a continuum limit. The author also states clearly that Lorentz invariance in that limit remains to be shown. That honesty should count in its favor.

The problem is the interacting case. The only explicit computation that is supposed to close it is the one-loop effective action for phi after integrating out chi. Equation (42) is internally inconsistent. From Eq. (34), the quadratic kernel in the Gaussian integral is exponentiated with -i/2 delta_chi K delta_chi. A Gaussian integral of that form gives -i ln Z = (i/2) Tr ln K up to a phase, not (1/2) Tr ln K. The missing factor i matters: it changes a real effective potential into a complex action with an uncomputed imaginary part. That is the difference between a Minkowski and a Euclidean effective action. As written, the reduction to an ordinary unitary QFT for phi - the paper's punchline - has not been shown. The problem is independent of, and prior to, the admitted open question of the continuum limit. A referee should catch this on the first pass.

Also, the novelty is limited relative to the author's own prior work. The statistical-observables construction and the core equivalence already appear in refs. [22,25,29,30]. The new contributions here are largely the explicit phi/chi representation and the one-loop attempt; the latter is the part that fails. No new observable predictions are put forward, and the 'equivalence' lives at the level of reinterpretation, which is appropriate but not ground-breaking.

Still, the paper deserves a serious referee. The free-field part is likely correct and the program is well worth engaging with. The intended audience is researchers working on classical-quantum connections, emergent quantum mechanics, and the cellular-automaton approach. If the sign issue is fixed - or, if my reading of the conventions is wrong, pointed out with the explicit definitions - the paper would be worth a careful revision. As it stands, it is an instructive draft, not a settled result.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a classical field theory with probabilistic initial conditions, whose probability distribution evolves by the Liouville equation, can be re-expressed as a quantum field theory by changing observables. After a functional Fourier transform and a field redefinition, the author introduces a fluctuating field φ and a mirror field χ. Expectation values of functions of φ are then represented by a Minkowski functional integral with action S_M. For free fields, integrating out χ leaves a φ-only QFT exactly, up to an irrelevant constant. For the interacting Klein-Gordon theory with λ φ^4 coupling, the paper proposes to integrate out χ to obtain an effective action S(φ), and computes tree-level and one-loop corrections in a saddle-point expansion. The central claim is that probabilistic classical field theories are equivalent to quantum field theories when fluctuating-field observables are used.

Significance. If correct, this would provide an explicit, parameter-free derivation of quantum-field-theoretic rules from classical probability. The free-field construction is clean, self-contained, and the cellular-automaton regularization is concrete and manifestly unitary. The paper honestly flags the unproven continuum limit. However, the interacting case is not established as written: the displayed one-loop computation is internally inconsistent, and the regularized theory's continuum limit is left open. Because the central equivalence claim depends on the interacting case, these issues are load-bearing. The manuscript is of interest to the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum-classical correspondence, but it requires substantial correction and qualification before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[§4, Eq. (42)] The one-loop Gaussian integral is evaluated with the wrong phase. From Eq. (41), the quadratic fluctuation action is \bar S_2 = -1/2 ∫ δχ K δχ, with K = m^2 + 3λ^2φ^4/(32m^2) - ∂^2. The relevant exponent for Z* is therefore -i \bar S_2 = +i/2 ∫ δχ K δχ. The single-mode result ∫ dx exp(i a x^2/2) = (2π i/a)^{1/2} gives Z ∝ det(K)^{-1/2} e^{iπN/4}, and hence -i ln Z = (i/2) Tr ln K plus a constant. The displayed result (1/2)∫ ln(q^2 + m^2 + ...) is Euclidean, not Minkowski. The missing factor i is not a convention: it changes the one-loop contribution from a real effective potential to a complex action with an uncomputed imaginary part, and the iε prescription is never specified. As written, the derivation of the interacting φ-only QFT from Eq. (34) is not supported.
[§4, continuum limit] The equivalence claim for the interacting theory requires the ε→0 limit of the lattice functional integral to define a local, Lorentz-invariant, unitary QFT. The manuscript explicitly states "For our regularisation one has to establish Lorenz symmetry in the continuum limit" and provides no proof. This is not a peripheral caveat: the one-loop correction in Eq. (42) is regulator-dependent and diverges as ε^{-2}, so the effective action S(φ) is not shown to be cutoff-independent. The abstract's unrestricted equivalence claim therefore outruns what is demonstrated. The claim should be restricted to the regularized lattice theory, or a renormalization prescription and a continuum-limit argument should be supplied.
[§4, Eqs. (33)–(40)] Even after correcting the i-factor issue, the reduction from the full (φ,χ) path integral to a φ-only QFT is demonstrated only perturbatively. Equations (37)–(40) use a saddle-point expansion around \bar χ(φ) and explicitly assume "slowly varying φ and small λφ²/m²". No non-perturbative argument is given that the χ-integration yields a local, unitary QFT action for φ for generic field configurations. Since the central claim is an equivalence of full theories, the perturbative treatment needs to be supplemented by a statement of its regime of validity or by a non-perturbative argument.

minor comments (5)

[§4, text after Eq. (31)] Typo: "Lorenz symmetry" should be "Lorentz symmetry". Also, shortly after Eq. (18), "fluctuating flied" should be "fluctuating field".
[§4, Eq. (34)] The star notation is confusing: Z(φ) is defined with exponent +i\bar S, but ΔS(φ) uses Z*(φ). Since Eq. (22) gives the χ-exponent as -i(\tilde S+S_int), the use of Z* is correct, but this should be stated explicitly to avoid the appearance of a sign inconsistency.
[§4, Eq. (42)] The logarithmic expression is multi-valued and requires an integration contour / iε prescription. This is closely related to the missing i factor, but even after the factor is corrected, the contour must be specified for the imaginary part to be well defined.
[§2, Eq. (25)] The index k and the lattice vectors ε_k are introduced in words but should be defined more explicitly in the equation, e.g., as a sum over nearest-neighbor directions.
[General] The notation Dφ, Dχ for space-time functional integrals and \tilde Dσ, \tilde Dπ for fixed-time integrals should be distinguished more carefully, since the two types of integration are used in adjacent equations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Liouville-to-QFT map is derived, not assumed; flagged issues are correctness/rigor, not circularity.

full rationale

The central claim is a formal equivalence, not a fitted prediction. The paper starts from a classical probability distribution w=q^2 obeying the Liouville equation (4), performs a functional Fourier transform (6), defines fluctuating fields φ=(σ+ζ)/2 and χ=(σ−ζ)/2 (8), and obtains the complex Schrödinger equation (17) and the functional integral ⟨A(φ)⟩=Z^{-1}∫DφDχ A(φ)e^{iS_M(φ,χ)} (20) by explicitly summing the step-evolution operator (26)–(32). No parameter is fitted to data and no empirical quantity is renamed as a prediction. The noncommutativity [φ^,p^]=i (19) is derived from the Liouvillian in (17)–(18), not inserted as an independent postulate. The self-citations [22,26,29,30] are background for the wave-function formulation and are re-derived in this paper; they are not load-bearing. The paper itself flags the main open rigor issue: "For our regularisation one has to establish Lorenz symmetry in the continuum limit." There is also an internal inconsistency in the one-loop formula: from (41), the Gaussian integral gives ΔS^(1)=(i/2)Tr ln K up to a phase, not (1/2)Tr ln K as written in (42); this affects the correctness of the interacting φ-only action but is not a circular reduction of the central claim to its inputs. Overall, the derivation is self-contained; the identified issues are mathematical/rigor risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the only regulator is the lattice spacing ε. The derivation relies on the Liouville representation, the statistical-observable definition, and on an unproven Lorentz-invariant continuum limit of the cellular-automaton regularization; the one-loop correction is cutoff-dependent and diverges as ε→0.

free parameters (1)

Lattice spacing / cutoff ε = ε (regulator; continuum limit ε→0 not realized)
The cellular-automaton regularization introduces a lattice spacing ε. The one-loop contribution to ΔS is proportional to ε^(-2) and diverges as ε→0; the paper does not provide renormalization or a finite continuum limit, so the effective QFT depends on this chosen cutoff.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption A probabilistic classical field theory is fully described by the real wave function q(t,σ,π) and the Liouville equation (4).
This is the starting point; it assumes the probability interpretation and the normalization ∫ q^2 = 1 hold.
ad hoc to paper The Fourier transform (6) and the field redefinitions φ=σ+ζ/2, χ=σ−ζ/2 give physically meaningful 'statistical observables' whose expectation values define the QFT.
This is the paper's central construction; the physical meaning and legitimacy of these observables is the premise on which the equivalence rests.
domain assumption The cellular-automaton regularized path integral has a Lorentz-invariant continuum limit.
The paper states 'For our regularisation one has to establish Lorenz symmetry in the continuum limit' but does not prove it.
domain assumption The functional integral over the mirror field χ is well-defined and, after integration, yields a renormalizable QFT for φ.
The one-loop result (42) depends on the regulator and diverges as ε^(-2); renormalizability and a finite continuum limit are assumed or deferred to future work.

invented entities (2)

Fluctuating field φ
purpose: The observable whose correlation functions are claimed to be those of a quantum field theory; it adds ζ/2 to the classical field.
φ is not a classical microstate field; it is a constructed statistical observable, so its status depends on the interpretation.
Mirror field χ
purpose: Auxiliary field (σ−ζ/2) used to write the functional integral; integrated out to obtain the QFT for φ.
χ has no direct physical operational meaning and is introduced for the path-integral representation; it is the analogue of a response/ghost field.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum field theory for classical fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JN3VSKVB

@misc{pith2026260305061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum field theory for classical fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JN3VSKVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.05061}
}

read the original abstract

For classical field theories with probabilistic initial conditions the classical field observables are an idealization. Their arbitrarily precise values poorly reflect the characteristic uncertainty in the presence of substantial fluctuations. We propose to employ observables based on fluctuating fields. In terms of these "statistical observables" the probabilistic classical field theory becomes a quantum field theory. Non-commuting operators are associated to observables. The quantum rules follow from the laws for classical probabilities. The ``quantum'' is part of the ``classical''. A regularized functional integral guarantees the unitarity of the quantum field theory. We discuss in detail the classical relativistic Klein-Gordon equation with interactions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Quantum observables for probabilistic classical particles
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Solutions of the Liouville equation can be rewritten as a Schrödinger equation whose observables are non-commuting 'quantum' operators, reproducing the harmonic oscillator and hydrogen atom spectra as special subsystems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian systems and trans- formation in hilbert space, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences17, 315 (1931), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.17.5.315

doi:10.1073/pnas.17.5.315 1931
[2]

J. v. Neumann, Zur operatorenmethode in der klassischen mechanik, Annals of Mathematics33, 587 (1932)

1932
[3]

H. E. Kandrup, Phase mixing in time-independent hamil- tonian systems, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society301, 960 (1998)

1998
[4]

V. I. Man’ko and G. Marmo, Alternative commutation relations, star products and tomography, Physica Scripta 60, 111 (1999), quant-ph/9903021

arXiv 1999
[5]

Mauro, On koopman–von neumann waves, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics A17, 1301 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0105112 [quant-ph]

D. Mauro, On koopman–von neumann waves, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics A17, 1301 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0105112 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2002
[6]

Gozzi and D

E. Gozzi and D. Mauro, On koopman–von neumann waves ii, International Journal of Modern Physics A19, 1475 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0306029 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2004
[7]

Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics without determin- ism, Foundations of Physics Letters19, 553 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505143 [quant-ph]

H. Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics without determin- ism, Foundations of Physics Letters19, 553 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505143 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2006
[8]

Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics as nonlinear quantum me- chanics, arXiv:quant-ph/0707.2319 (2007)

H. Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics as nonlinear quantum me- chanics, arXiv:quant-ph/0707.2319 (2007)

arXiv 2007

Show all 39 references

[9]

I. V. Volovich, Randomness in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, Foundations of Physics41, 516 (2011), arXiv:0910.5391 [quant-ph]

2011 arXiv
[10]

D. I. Bondar, R. Cabrera, R. R. Lompay, M. Y. Ivanov, and H. A. Rabitz, Operational dynamic modeling tran- scending quantum and classical mechanics, Physical Re- view Letters109, 190403 (2012), arXiv:1107.5139 [quant- ph]

2012 arXiv
[11]

Arbabi and I

H. Arbabi and I. Mezi´ c, Ergodic theory, dynamic mode decomposition and computation of spectral properties of the koopman operator, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems16, 2096 (2017), arXiv:1611.06664 [math.DS]

arXiv
[12]

Korda, M

M. Korda, M. Putinar, and I. Mezi´ c, Data-driven spec- tral analysis of the koopman operator, arXiv:1710.06532 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[13]

X. D. Arsiwalla, D. Chester, and L. H. Kauffman, On the operator origins of classical and quantum wave func- tions, Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations 11, 193 (2024), arXiv:2211.01838 [math-ph]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Chru´ sci´ nski, Koopman’s approach to dissipation, Re- ports on Mathematical Physics57, 319 (2006)

D. Chru´ sci´ nski, Koopman’s approach to dissipation, Re- ports on Mathematical Physics57, 319 (2006)

2006
[15]

Klein, From koopman–von neumann theory to quan- tum theory, Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foun- dations5, 219 (2018), arXiv:1705.07427 [math.DS]

U. Klein, From koopman–von neumann theory to quan- tum theory, Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foun- dations5, 219 (2018), arXiv:1705.07427 [math.DS]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Mezi´ c, On numerical approximations of the koopman operator, Mathematics10, 1180 (2022), arXiv:2009.05883 [math.DS]

I. Mezi´ c, On numerical approximations of the koopman operator, Mathematics10, 1180 (2022), arXiv:2009.05883 [math.DS]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Darling and L

K. Darling and L. M. Widrow, Linear operator theory of phase mixing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society533, 79 (2024)

2024
[18]

Gozzi, Hidden brs invariance in classical mechanics, Phys

E. Gozzi, Hidden brs invariance in classical mechanics, Phys. Lett. B201, 525 (1988)

1988
[19]

Gozzi, M

E. Gozzi, M. Reuter, and W. D. Thacker, Hidden brs invariance in classical mechanics. ii, Phys. Rev. D40, 3363 (1989)

1989
[20]

Wetterich, Time evolution of non-equilibrium effec- tive action, Physical Review Letters78, 3598 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9612206 [hep-th]

C. Wetterich, Time evolution of non-equilibrium effec- tive action, Physical Review Letters78, 3598 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9612206 [hep-th]

1997 arXiv
[21]

Wetterich, Non-equilibrium time evolution in quan- tum field theory, Physical Review E56, 2687 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9703006 [hep-th]

C. Wetterich, Non-equilibrium time evolution in quan- tum field theory, Physical Review E56, 2687 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9703006 [hep-th]

1997 arXiv
[22]

Wetterich, Quantum particles from classical probabil- ities in phase space, International Journal of Theoretical Physics51, 3236 (2012), arXiv:1003.0772 [quant-ph]

C. Wetterich, Quantum particles from classical probabil- ities in phase space, International Journal of Theoretical Physics51, 3236 (2012), arXiv:1003.0772 [quant-ph]

2012 arXiv
[23]

Wetterich, Quantum particles from coarse grained classical probabilities in phase space, Annals Phys.325, 1359 (2010), arXiv:1003.3351 [quant-ph]

C. Wetterich, Quantum particles from coarse grained classical probabilities in phase space, Annals Phys.325, 1359 (2010), arXiv:1003.3351 [quant-ph]

2010 arXiv
[24]

Wetterich, Classical probabilities for majorana and weyl spinors, Annals of Physics326, 2243 (2011), arXiv:1102.3586 [hep-th]

C. Wetterich, Classical probabilities for majorana and weyl spinors, Annals of Physics326, 2243 (2011), arXiv:1102.3586 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[25]

Wetterich, Quantum field theory from classical statis- tics, arXiv1111.4115(2011)

C. Wetterich, Quantum field theory from classical statis- tics, arXiv1111.4115(2011)

2011 arXiv
[26]

Wetterich,The Probabilistic World(Springer Nature, Heidelberg, 2025) arXiv:2011.02867 [quant-ph]

C. Wetterich,The Probabilistic World(Springer Nature, Heidelberg, 2025) arXiv:2011.02867 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[27]

J. S. Bell, On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

1964
[28]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

1969
[29]

Wetterich, Information transport in classical sta- tistical systems, Nucl

C. Wetterich, Information transport in classical sta- tistical systems, Nucl. Phys. B927, 35 (2018), arXiv:1611.04820 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Wetterich, Quantum formalism for classical statis- tics, Annals of Physics393, 1 (2018), arXiv:1706.01772 [quant-ph]

C. Wetterich, Quantum formalism for classical statis- tics, Annals of Physics393, 1 (2018), arXiv:1706.01772 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[31]

von Neumann, The general and logical theory of au- tomata, inCerebral Mechanisms in Behavior; The Hixon Symposium(Wiley, Oxford, England, 1951) pp

J. von Neumann, The general and logical theory of au- tomata, inCerebral Mechanisms in Behavior; The Hixon Symposium(Wiley, Oxford, England, 1951) pp. 1–41

1951
[32]

Ulam, Random processes and transformations, inPro- ceedings of the International Congress of Mathemati- cians, Vol

S. Ulam, Random processes and transformations, inPro- ceedings of the International Congress of Mathemati- cians, Vol. 2 (1950) pp. 264–275

1950
[33]

Zuse,Rechnender Raum(Vieweg, Teubner Verlag, 1969)

K. Zuse,Rechnender Raum(Vieweg, Teubner Verlag, 1969)

1969
[34]

Wolfram, Statistical mechanics of cellular automata, Rev

S. Wolfram, Statistical mechanics of cellular automata, Rev. Mod. Phys.55, 601 (1983)

1983
[35]

G. ’t Hooft, The cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics: A view on the quantum nature of our universe, compulsory or impossible?, inFunda- mental Theories of Physics, Vol. 185 (Springer, 2006) arXiv:1405.1548 [quant-ph]

2006 arXiv
[36]

P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia, and H. A. Rose, Statistical dy- namics of classical systems, Phys. Rev. A8, 423 (1973)

1973
[37]

H.-K. Janssen, On a lagrangean for classical field dynam- ics and renormalization group calculations of dynamical critical properties, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B: Condensed Matter23, 377 (1976)

1976
[38]

De Dominicis, Techniques de renormalisation de la th´ eorie des champs et dynamique des ph´ enom` enes cri- tiques, Journal de Physique Colloques37, C1 (1976)

C. De Dominicis, Techniques de renormalisation de la th´ eorie des champs et dynamique des ph´ enom` enes cri- tiques, Journal de Physique Colloques37, C1 (1976)

1976
[39]

Berges, Nonequilibrium quantum fields: From cold atoms to cosmology (2015), arXiv:1503.02907 [hep-ph]

J. Berges, Nonequilibrium quantum fields: From cold atoms to cosmology (2015), arXiv:1503.02907 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian systems and trans- formation in hilbert space, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences17, 315 (1931), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.17.5.315

doi:10.1073/pnas.17.5.315 1931

[2] [2]

J. v. Neumann, Zur operatorenmethode in der klassischen mechanik, Annals of Mathematics33, 587 (1932)

1932

[3] [3]

H. E. Kandrup, Phase mixing in time-independent hamil- tonian systems, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society301, 960 (1998)

1998

[4] [4]

V. I. Man’ko and G. Marmo, Alternative commutation relations, star products and tomography, Physica Scripta 60, 111 (1999), quant-ph/9903021

arXiv 1999

[5] [5]

Mauro, On koopman–von neumann waves, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics A17, 1301 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0105112 [quant-ph]

D. Mauro, On koopman–von neumann waves, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics A17, 1301 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0105112 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2002

[6] [6]

Gozzi and D

E. Gozzi and D. Mauro, On koopman–von neumann waves ii, International Journal of Modern Physics A19, 1475 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0306029 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2004

[7] [7]

Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics without determin- ism, Foundations of Physics Letters19, 553 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505143 [quant-ph]

H. Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics without determin- ism, Foundations of Physics Letters19, 553 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0505143 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2006

[8] [8]

Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics as nonlinear quantum me- chanics, arXiv:quant-ph/0707.2319 (2007)

H. Nikoli´ c, Classical mechanics as nonlinear quantum me- chanics, arXiv:quant-ph/0707.2319 (2007)

arXiv 2007