Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2306.00842

Matrix Mechanics Mis-Prized: Max Born's Belated Nobelization

J. L. Heilbron, Carlo Rovelli C

Published May 21, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We examine evaluations of the contributions of Matrix Mechanics and Max Born to the formulation of quantum mechanics from Heisenberg's Helgoland paper of 1925 to Born's Nobel Prize of 1954. We point out that the process of evaluation is continuing in the light of recent interpretations of the theory that deemphasize the importance of the wave function.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.00842

Related papers

Max Born and the quantum theory

Jeremy Bernstein

The role of Max Born in the creation of the quantum theory is discussed. Some explanations as to why he received his Nobel Prize so late are offered.

American Journal of Physics•Oct 18, 2005•27 citations

Matrix mechanics mis-prized: Max Born's belated nobelization

J. L. Heilbron, Carlo Rovelli C

The European Physical Journal H•Oct 18, 2023•6 citations

Max Born

Nevill Francis Mott

Max Born was a scientist of the greatest distinction who presided over the Göttingen school of theoretical physics in its most famous days, when from 1925 onwards a brilliant group suddenly saw its way to formulate a set of laws for the behaviour of inanimate matter which has served us well up to the present time. This set of laws, which from the very beginning was called quantum mechanics and for part of which Born was awarded the Nobel prize much later (in 1954), is what he will be remembered for and what he would probably have wanted to be remembered for.

Physics Bulletin•Jul 1, 1982•0 citations

From matrix mechanics to quantum mechanics

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Antony Valentini

The report by Born and Heisenberg on ‘quantum mechanics’ may seem surprisingly difficult to the modern reader. This is partly because Born and Heisenberg are describing various stages of development of the theory that are quite different from today's quantum mechanics. Among these, it should be noted in particular that the theory developed by Heisenberg, Born and Jordan in the years 1925–6 and known today as matrix mechanics (Heisenberg 1925b [1], Born and Jordan 1925 [2], Born, Heisenberg and Jordan 1926 [4]) a differs from standard quantum mechanics in several important respects. At the same time, the interpretation of the theory (the topic of Section II of the report) also appears to have undergone important modifications, in particular regarding the notion of the state of a system. Initially, Born and Heisenberg insist on the notion that a system is always in a stationary state (performing quantum jumps between different stationary states). Then the notion of the wave function is introduced and related to probabilities for the stationary states. At a later stage, probabilistic notions (in particular, what one now calls transition probabilities) are extended to arbitrary observables, but it remains somewhat unclear whether the wave function itself should be regarded as a fundamental entity or merely as an effective one. This may reflect the different routes followed by Born and by Heisenberg in the development of their ideas. The common position presented by Born and Heisenberg emphasises the probabilistic aspect of the theory as fundamental, and the conclusion of the report expresses strong confidence in the resulting picture.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 22, 2009•0 citations

The statistical interpretation according to Born and Heisenberg

Guido Bacciagaluppi

At the 1927 Solvay conference Born and Heisenberg presented a joint report on quantum mechanics. I suggest that the significance of this report lies in that it contains a ‘final’ formulation of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics that goes beyond Born’s origi-nal proposal. In particular, this formulation imports elements from Heisenberg’s work as well as from the transformation theory of Dirac and Jordan. I suggest further a reading of Born and Heisenberg’s position in which the wave function is an effective notion. This can make sense of a remarkable aspect of their presentation, namely the fact that the ‘quantum mechanics’ of Born and Heisenberg apparently lacks wave function collapse.

•Jan 1, 2008•9 citations

The invention of quantum mechanics—matrix mechanics

Robert Golub, S. K. Lamoreaux

Abstract Driven by the idea that a physical theory should only deal with observable quantities, Werner Heisenberg, a young post-doc working with Max Born in Göttingen, who had earlier done his Ph.D. work under Sommerfeld in Munich, was led to introduce a new type of object which represented the transitions between Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits. Max Born realized and recognized these objects as matrices. Together with Pascual Jordan, another post-doc, they worked out a complete theory, matrix mechanics. They completed this work in a few months. We discuss the role of matrix mechanics in the development of quantum mechanics.

•Feb 28, 2023•0 citations
We examine evaluations of the contributions of Matrix Mechanics and Max Born to the formulation of quantum mechanics from Heisenberg's Helgoland paper of 1925 to Born's Nobel Prize of 1954. We point out that the process of evaluation is continuing in the light of recent interpretations of the theory that deemphasize the importance of the wave function.
Max Born was a scientist of the greatest distinction who presided over the Göttingen school of theoretical physics in its most famous days, when from 1925 onwards a brilliant group suddenly saw its way to formulate a set of laws for the behaviour of inanimate matter which has served us well up to the present time. This set of laws, which from the very beginning was called quantum mechanics and for part of which Born was awarded the Nobel prize much later (in 1954), is what he will be remembered for and what he would probably have wanted to be remembered for.
The report by Born and Heisenberg on ‘quantum mechanics’ may seem surprisingly difficult to the modern reader. This is partly because Born and Heisenberg are describing various stages of development of the theory that are quite different from today's quantum mechanics. Among these, it should be noted in particular that the theory developed by Heisenberg, Born and Jordan in the years 1925–6 and known today as matrix mechanics (Heisenberg 1925b [1], Born and Jordan 1925 [2], Born, Heisenberg and Jordan 1926 [4]) a differs from standard quantum mechanics in several important respects. At the same time, the interpretation of the theory (the topic of Section II of the report) also appears to have undergone important modifications, in particular regarding the notion of the state of a system. Initially, Born and Heisenberg insist on the notion that a system is always in a stationary state (performing quantum jumps between different stationary states). Then the notion of the wave function is introduced and related to probabilities for the stationary states. At a later stage, probabilistic notions (in particular, what one now calls transition probabilities) are extended to arbitrary observables, but it remains somewhat unclear whether the wave function itself should be regarded as a fundamental entity or merely as an effective one. This may reflect the different routes followed by Born and by Heisenberg in the development of their ideas. The common position presented by Born and Heisenberg emphasises the probabilistic aspect of the theory as fundamental, and the conclusion of the report expresses strong confidence in the resulting picture.
At the 1927 Solvay conference Born and Heisenberg presented a joint report on quantum mechanics. I suggest that the significance of this report lies in that it contains a ‘final’ formulation of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics that goes beyond Born’s origi-nal proposal. In particular, this formulation imports elements from Heisenberg’s work as well as from the transformation theory of Dirac and Jordan. I suggest further a reading of Born and Heisenberg’s position in which the wave function is an effective notion. This can make sense of a remarkable aspect of their presentation, namely the fact that the ‘quantum mechanics’ of Born and Heisenberg apparently lacks wave function collapse.
Abstract Driven by the idea that a physical theory should only deal with observable quantities, Werner Heisenberg, a young post-doc working with Max Born in Göttingen, who had earlier done his Ph.D. work under Sommerfeld in Munich, was led to introduce a new type of object which represented the transitions between Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits. Max Born realized and recognized these objects as matrices. Together with Pascual Jordan, another post-doc, they worked out a complete theory, matrix mechanics. They completed this work in a few months. We discuss the role of matrix mechanics in the development of quantum mechanics.