In the context of a new analysis of the notebooks of Erwin Schrödinger, the paper deals with the question of the relation between Schrödinger's creation of wave mechanics and the contemporary efforts by Werner Heisenberg and his colleagues to establish a new quantum mechanics. How can one explain, from a broader historical and epistemological perspective, the astonishing simultaneity and complementarity of these discoveries? The paper argues that neither the physical problems with which both approaches deal nor what ultimately turned out to be their common mathematical ground are sufficient to explain their complementarity. Instead, their closeness is explained by analyzing their common roots in classical mechanics and its transformation in the light of the most fundamental new quantum law, the relation between energy and frequency found by Planck. It is shown, in particular, that for both approaches a bridge between quantum and classical aspects involving this relation was crucial. In the case of Heisenberg, this bridge was given by Bohr’s correspondence principle. In the case of Schrödinger it was constituted by Hamilton’s optical-mechanical analogy.
In the context of a new analysis of the notebooks of Erwin Schrödinger, the paper deals with the question of the relation between Schrödinger's creation of wave mechanics and the contemporary efforts by Werner Heisenberg and his colleagues to establish a new quantum mechanics. How can one explain, from a broader historical and epistemological perspective, the astonishing simultaneity and complementarity of these discoveries? The paper argues that neither the physical problems with which both approaches deal nor what ultimately turned out to be their common mathematical ground are sufficient to explain their complementarity. Instead, their closeness is explained by analyzing their common roots in classical mechanics and its transformation in the light of the most fundamental new quantum law, the relation between energy and frequency found by Planck. It is shown, in particular, that for both approaches a bridge between quantum and classical aspects involving this relation was crucial. In the case of Heisenberg, this bridge was given by Bohr’s correspondence principle. In the case of Schrödinger it was constituted by Hamilton’s optical-mechanical analogy.
This chapter begins by understanding the classical view of an electromagnetic wave and proceed step-by-step in exploring the historical development of quantum mechanics. The frequency of the electromagnetic wave is the same as the frequency of mechanical oscillation of the charge, and the intensity of the electromagnetic wave is the square of the amplitude of the mechanical oscillation of the charge. The origin of quantum mechanics is linked to the discovery of then new laws of radiation by Max Planck in 1900. The explanation of the empirical facts of radiation by Planck using an extraordinarily powerful yet simple model lead to the discovery of the "quantum" nature of radiation. The work to develop a mathematical theory of quantum mechanics continued for a very long time. Two mathematical approaches for the formalism of quantum mechanics emerged. One was developed in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg, called matrix mechanics, and the other was developed by Erwin Schrodinger in 1926 called wave mechanics.
In 1926, the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger derived an equation of waves from the Hamilton variational principle inspired by the analogy between Mechanics and Optics. This equation explained much of quantum phenomenology was known at that time. Physical laws must be invariant under certain symmetries, represented by the transformations of the mathematical object that define these laws. In particular in quantum mechanics one can ask for the transformations of states and observables. These transformations must fulfill what constitutes the essence of the so-called Wigner's theorem, that is, that the transformed observables must possess the same possible sets of eigenvalues as the old ones and that the transformations of the states must give the same probabilities. The temporal evolution of the states must always be given by unit operators that conserve scalar products.
Many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics – notably Planck, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Jordan, Landé, Wigner, and London – were seriously concerned with philosophical problems. In each case one can ask a question of psychological and historical interest: was it a philosophical penchant which drew the investigator towards a kind of physics research which is linked to philosophy, or was it rather that the conceptual difficulties of fundamental physics pulled him willynilly into the labyrinth of philosophy? I shall not undertake to discuss this question, but shall cite an opinion of Peter Bergmann, which I find congenial: he learned from Einstein that “the theoretical physicist is … a philosopher in workingman's clothes” ([1], q. v.). The problems with which I am preoccupied concern the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics – either epistemological, bearing on the extent, validity, and character of human knowledge; or metaphysical, bearing on the character of reality. Although quantum mechanics is not a system of philosophy, one can wonder whether it is susceptible to coherent incorporation in a philosophical system. I propose to examine the thought of three masters of quantum mechanics – Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger – not with a critical or historical intention, but in hope of finding some enlightenment concerning the problems posed by contemporary physics. I can say in advance that enlightenment will continue to elude us; nevertheless, the ideas of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger are rich and evocative for new studies.
The article deals with the origins and development, in the first quarter of the 20th century, of the fundamental ideas advanced by Planck and Einstein and by Bohr and de Broglie concerning the quantum of action, the quanta of energy and the quanta of light, the stationary states of atomic systems and jumplike transitions between them, the correspondence principle, and the particle-wave dualism. It is shown how the development of the quantum concepts have led to two approaches to the creation of quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Born, and Dirac in algebraic form and by Schrodinger in analytic form. The main stages in the evolution of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are described, namely the development of wave mechanics and matrix mechanics, the proofs of their equivalence, the physical interpretation of the wave function, the generalized formulation of quantum mechanics as a unified theory, and the discovery of the uncertainty relations. The most important trends in the development of quantum mechanics in the course of its evolution are considered. A complete bibliography of the main period of evolution of quantum mechanics (July 1925–March 1928), classified by topics and by time of publication, is included.
A recent rethinking of the early history of Quantum Mechanics deemed the late 1920s agreement on the equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, prompted by Schrödinger’s 1926 proof, a myth. Schrödinger supposedly failed to achieve the goal of proving isomorphism of the mathematical structures of the two theories, while only later developments in the early 1930s, especially the work of mathematician John von Neumman (1932) provided sound proof of equivalence. The alleged agreement about the Copenhagen Interpretation, predicated to a large extent on this equivalence, was deemed a myth as well. If such analysis is correct, it provides considerable evidence that, in its critical moments, the foundations of scientific practice might not live up to the minimal standards of rigor, as such standards are established in the practice of logic, mathematics, and mathematical physics, thereby prompting one to question the rationality of the practice of physics. In response, I argue that Schrödinger’s proof concerned primarily a domain-specific ontological equivalence, rather than the isomorphism. It stemmed initially from the agreement of the eigenvalues of Wave Mechanics and energy-states of Bohr’s Model that was discovered and published by Schrödinger in his First and Second Communications of 1926. Schrödinger demonstrated in this proof that the laws of motion arrived at by the method of Matrix Mechanics could be derived successfully from eigenfunctions as well (while he only outlined the reversed derivation of eigenfunctions from Matrix Mechanics, which was necessary for the proof of isomorphism of the two theories). This result was intended to demonstrate the domain-specific ontological equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, with respect to the domain of Bohr’s atom. And although the full-fledged mathematico-logical equivalence of the theories did not seem out of the reach of existing theories and methods, Schrödinger never intended to fully explore such a possibility in his proof paper. In a further development of Quantum Mechanics, Bohr’s complementarity and Copenhagen Interpretation captured a more substantial convergence of the subsequently revised (in light of the experimental results) Wave and Matrix Mechanics. I argue that both the equivalence and Copenhagen Interpretation can be deemed myths if one predicates the philosophical and historical analysis on a narrow model of physical theory which disregards its historical context, and focuses exclusively on its formal aspects and the exploration of the logical models supposedly implicit in it.
The laws of quantum mechanics were formulated in the year 1925 through the work of Werner Heisenberg, followed by Max Born, Pascual Jordan, Paul Dirac, and Wolfgang Pauli. A separate but equivalent approach was independently developed by Erwin Schrödinger in early 1926. The laws governing quantum mechanics were highly mathematical and their aim was to explain many unresolved problems within the framework of a formal theory. The conceptual foundation emerged in the subsequent 2–3 years that indicated how radically different the new laws were from classical physics. In this chapter some of these salient features of quantum mechanics are discussed. The topics include the quantization of energy, wave–particle duality, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg uncertainty relations, Bohr’s principle of complementarity, and quantum superposition and entanglement. This discussion should indicate how different and counterintuitive its fundamentals are from those of classical physics.