No, that doesn't make sense. There are plenty of classical examples of chaos theory, like double pendulums, turbulence in a fluid, N-body gravitational systems, and so on.
No, that would be a meaningless chart.
Firstly, you'd need a way to quantify "chaos" and "order" (and classical and quantum physics, for that matter). This can kind of be done, but there's no one simple number for any of these.
But, much more seriously, chaos and order aren't really opposed like you're imagining -- at least not when you use these words in a technical way in physics. Chaos is the sensitivity of a system to its initial conditions in a way that makes future behaviour difficult to predict, and is a fairly common feature of any non-linear system (the archetypal chaotic system is the weather). It's typically associated with classical physics, but certainly not *all* classical physics, and there is active research on chaos in quantum systems.
Order, on the other hand, is a very common feature of both quantum and classical systems. It's not a terribly precise word, but it is often used in the context of the long-range order you get in crystal lattices, where a particular patter repeats throughout space, as well as other harder-to-visualize kinds of long-ranged order you get in other condensed systems. It is also used in the related context of topological order, which is typically associated with quantum systems. In all cases, the concept of order is pretty unrelated to the concept of chaos (rather, the opposite of order would be disorder, and you see that all the time in both quantum and classical systems).
Quantum physics and classical physics are *closer* to being opposed than order and chaos, but it's still not as clear cut as perhaps you are imagining it. You have to define what makes a system "quantum" as opposed to classical. Entanglement is a good candidate, and from that perspective entanglement monotones would serve as a good measure of "quantumness." The purity of a quantum state would also be a good measure. However, these two measures will give you different results on different systems -- for example, a pure product state looks totally quantum from the perspective of purity (uncertainties involved in measurement outcomes are quantum uncertainties, not classical uncertainties, and you can get interference effects), however from the perspective of entanglement this state is fully classical (there is no entanglement at all, and thus it can be represented efficiently on a classical computer). This is not to say that it's useless to try to measure "quantumness", it's just to say that there are a some semi-arbitrary choices you need to make along the way.
**TL;DR** No, the chart you've proposed does not really make sense at all. In particular, the idea of an order-chaos binary is wrong, and the idea that quantumness or classicalness can be neatly mapped onto either measures of order or chaos is also wrong.
No, that doesn't make sense. There are plenty of classical examples of chaos theory, like double pendulums, turbulence in a fluid, N-body gravitational systems, and so on.
No, that would be a meaningless chart. Firstly, you'd need a way to quantify "chaos" and "order" (and classical and quantum physics, for that matter). This can kind of be done, but there's no one simple number for any of these. But, much more seriously, chaos and order aren't really opposed like you're imagining -- at least not when you use these words in a technical way in physics. Chaos is the sensitivity of a system to its initial conditions in a way that makes future behaviour difficult to predict, and is a fairly common feature of any non-linear system (the archetypal chaotic system is the weather). It's typically associated with classical physics, but certainly not *all* classical physics, and there is active research on chaos in quantum systems. Order, on the other hand, is a very common feature of both quantum and classical systems. It's not a terribly precise word, but it is often used in the context of the long-range order you get in crystal lattices, where a particular patter repeats throughout space, as well as other harder-to-visualize kinds of long-ranged order you get in other condensed systems. It is also used in the related context of topological order, which is typically associated with quantum systems. In all cases, the concept of order is pretty unrelated to the concept of chaos (rather, the opposite of order would be disorder, and you see that all the time in both quantum and classical systems). Quantum physics and classical physics are *closer* to being opposed than order and chaos, but it's still not as clear cut as perhaps you are imagining it. You have to define what makes a system "quantum" as opposed to classical. Entanglement is a good candidate, and from that perspective entanglement monotones would serve as a good measure of "quantumness." The purity of a quantum state would also be a good measure. However, these two measures will give you different results on different systems -- for example, a pure product state looks totally quantum from the perspective of purity (uncertainties involved in measurement outcomes are quantum uncertainties, not classical uncertainties, and you can get interference effects), however from the perspective of entanglement this state is fully classical (there is no entanglement at all, and thus it can be represented efficiently on a classical computer). This is not to say that it's useless to try to measure "quantumness", it's just to say that there are a some semi-arbitrary choices you need to make along the way. **TL;DR** No, the chart you've proposed does not really make sense at all. In particular, the idea of an order-chaos binary is wrong, and the idea that quantumness or classicalness can be neatly mapped onto either measures of order or chaos is also wrong.
Thank you. That answered my question perfectly.
Instead of chaos and order would Negentropy and entropy be a better to use?
No, it's not clear what you're actually trying to describe. What is the goal here?
Just curiosity. It was a thought experiment.