Why were two theories (matrix mechanics and wave mechanics) deemed logically distinct, and yet equivalent, in quantum mechanics?

In Christopher Lehrer (ed.), First Annual Conference in the Foundations and History of Quantum Physics. Max Planck Institute for History of Science (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 97,297

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why were Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics considered equivalent?Slobodan Perovic - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39 (2):444-461.
Quantum mechanics, radiation, and the equivalence proof.Alexander Blum & Martin Jähnert - 2024 - Archive for History of Exact Sciences 78 (5):567-616.
The equivalence myth of quantum mechanics —Part I.F. A. Muller - 1997 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28 (1):35-61.
The equivalence myth of quantum mechanics—part II.F. A. Muller - 1997 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28 (2):219-247.
Theory Identity.Frederick Suppe - 2000 - In W. Newton-Smith (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. pp. 525-527.
Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics: Beyond and/or Within.Vasil Penchev - 2020 - Development of Innovation eJournal (Elsevier: SSRN) 8 (68):1-5.
Schrödinger's Cat.Henry Stapp - 2009 - In Daniel Greenberger, Klaus Hentschel & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Compendium of Quantum Physics: Concepts, Experiments, History and Philosophy. Springer. pp. 685-689.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
95 (#188,108)

6 months
10 (#597,547)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Slobodan Perovic
University of Belgrade

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution.Mara Beller - 1999 - University of Chicago Press.
Particles and Paradoxes: The Limits of Quantum Logic.Peter Gibbins - 1987 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
The equivalence myth of quantum mechanics —Part I.F. A. Muller - 1997 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28 (1):35-61.
The equivalence myth of quantum mechanics —Part I.F. Muller - 1995 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28 (1):35-61.

View all 13 references / Add more references