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

SpringerBriefs in history of science and technology

The Quantum Theory of Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan

H. Capellmann

Published Jan 1, 2017• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-61884-5_5

Related papers

On the Relationship of the Heisenberg—Born—Jordan Quantum Mechanics to Mine

Erwin Schrödinger

Elsevier eBooks•Jan 1, 1968•3 citations

Max Born and the Quantum Theory

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•May 11, 2014•1 citation

The 1925 Born and Jordan paper “On quantum mechanics”

William A. Fedak, Jeffrey J. Prentis

The 1925 paper “On quantum mechanics” by M. Born and P. Jordan, and the sequel “On quantum mechanics II” by M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, developed Heisenberg’s pioneering theory into the first complete formulation of quantum mechanics. The Born and Jordan paper is the subject of the present article. This paper introduced matrices to physicists. We discuss the original postulates of quantum mechanics, present the two-part discovery of the law of commutation, and clarify the origin of Heisenberg’s equation. We show how the 1925 proof of energy conservation and Bohr’s frequency condition served as the gold standard with which to measure the validity of the new quantum mechanics.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 12, 2009•47 citations

Quantum Theory (Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg)

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Dec 28, 2025•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

Born–Jordan Quantization and the Equivalence of the Schrödinger and Heisenberg Pictures

Maurice A. de Gosson

The aim of the famous Born and Jordan 1925 paper was to put Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics on a firm mathematical basis. Born and Jordan showed that if one wants to ensure energy conservation in Heisenberg’s theory it is necessary and sufficient to quantize observables following a certain ordering rule. One apparently unnoticed consequence of this fact is that Schrödinger’s wave mechanics cannot be equivalent to Heisenberg’s more physically motivated matrix mechanics unless its observables are quantized using this rule, and not the more symmetric prescription proposed by Weyl in 1926, which has become the standard procedure in quantum mechanics. This observation confirms the superiority of Born–Jordan quantization, as already suggested by Kauffmann. We also show how to explicitly determine the Born–Jordan quantization of arbitrary classical variables, and discuss the conceptual advantages in using this quantization scheme. We finally suggest that it might be possible to determine the correct quantization scheme by using the results of weak measurement experiments.

Foundations of Physics•Sep 4, 2014•24 citations
The 1925 paper “On quantum mechanics” by M. Born and P. Jordan, and the sequel “On quantum mechanics II” by M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, developed Heisenberg’s pioneering theory into the first complete formulation of quantum mechanics. The Born and Jordan paper is the subject of the present article. This paper introduced matrices to physicists. We discuss the original postulates of quantum mechanics, present the two-part discovery of the law of commutation, and clarify the origin of Heisenberg’s equation. We show how the 1925 proof of energy conservation and Bohr’s frequency condition served as the gold standard with which to measure the validity of the new quantum mechanics.
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.
The aim of the famous Born and Jordan 1925 paper was to put Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics on a firm mathematical basis. Born and Jordan showed that if one wants to ensure energy conservation in Heisenberg’s theory it is necessary and sufficient to quantize observables following a certain ordering rule. One apparently unnoticed consequence of this fact is that Schrödinger’s wave mechanics cannot be equivalent to Heisenberg’s more physically motivated matrix mechanics unless its observables are quantized using this rule, and not the more symmetric prescription proposed by Weyl in 1926, which has become the standard procedure in quantum mechanics. This observation confirms the superiority of Born–Jordan quantization, as already suggested by Kauffmann. We also show how to explicitly determine the Born–Jordan quantization of arbitrary classical variables, and discuss the conceptual advantages in using this quantization scheme. We finally suggest that it might be possible to determine the correct quantization scheme by using the results of weak measurement experiments.