# The Controversy between Schrödinger and the Göttingen-Copenhagen Physicists in the 1950’s

## Abstract

When surveying the literature, one often gets the impression that Schrödinger held, in succession, *four* distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics, and that, except for the one he *borrowed* from the Copenhagen group, these interpretations all fell into a complete and deserved oblivion. People generally recognize the great importance of his contributions to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what they regard as important here are, as a rule, only the lines of argument and ingenious thought-experiments by which Schrödinger challenged the current orthodoxy, thus forcing his contemporaries to clarify their positions. On the face of it, none of Schrödinger’s own positive suggestions appear to have had any lasting influence. Let us then begin with a brief statement of this widespread view of Schrödinger’s philosophy of quantum mechanics, especially as originally stated in the writings of such contemporaries as Heisenberg and Born, before we subject it to critical scrutiny.

## Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Wave Mechanic Copenhagen Interpretation Quantum Jump Geiger Counter## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1a.E. Schrödinger, “Quantization as a problem of proper values” (I and II), in:
*Collected papers on wave mechanics*, Blackie and son, 1928. For a valuable assessment on the possibility of holding this Schrödinger’s initial position nowadays,Google Scholar - 1b.see J. Dorling, “Schrödinger’s original interpretation of the Schrödinger equation: a rescue attempt”, in: C.W. Kilmister (ed.),
*Schrödinger, centenary celebration of a polymath*, Cambridge University Press, 1987Google Scholar - 1c.The two papers are: A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780, 1935;Google Scholar
- 1d.E. Schrödinger, “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik”, Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849, 1935.Google Scholar
- 1e.They are both reprinted, in English translation, in: J. A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek,
*Quantum mechanics and measurement*, Princeton University Press, 1983.Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 31, 555–563, 1935Google Scholar
- 3.Quoted by: K.V. Laurikainen,
*Beyond the atom*, Springer-Verlag, 1988, p. 31Google Scholar - 4a.W. Pauli, letter to M. Born, quoted by M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 4, 95–106, 1953.Google Scholar
- 4b.Reprinted in: M. Born,
*Physics in my generation*, Pergamon Press, 1956Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 3, 109–123, 233–242, 1952;Google Scholar
- 1b.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 3, 109–123, 233–242, 1952Google Scholar
- 2.M. Born (ed.),
*The Born-Einstein letters*, Mac Millan, 1971Google Scholar - 3.M. Born (ed.),
*The Born-Einstein letters*, op. cit. p. 196Google Scholar - 4.M. Born, in: Physicalische Blätter, 17, 85–87, 1961Google Scholar
- 5.M. Born (ed.),
*The Born-Einstein letters*, op. cit. p. 195Google Scholar - 6.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 96Google Scholar
- 7.M. Born (ed.),
*The Born-Einstein letters*, op. cit. p. 202Google Scholar - 8.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 100Google Scholar
- 9.M. Born (ed.),
*The Born-Einstein letters*, op. cit. p. 195Google Scholar - 10.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 105Google Scholar
- 1.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 104Google Scholar
- 2.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 102Google Scholar
- 4.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 99Google Scholar
- 5a.M. Born, “Physical reality”, Phil. Quart., 3, 139–49, 1953.Google Scholar
- 5b.Reprinted in: M. Born,
*Physics in my generation*, Pergamon Press, 1956Google Scholar - 6.M. Born (ed.),
*The Born-Einstein letters*, op. cit. p. 202Google Scholar - 1.ibid.Google Scholar
- 2.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit. p. 98Google Scholar
- 3.ibid.Google Scholar
- 4.W. Heisenberg,
*Physics and Philosophy*, Harper and Brothers, 1958Google Scholar - 5.W. Heisenberg,
*Physics and Philosophy*, op. cit. p. 143Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 2.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 1.E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, 31, 555–563, 1935Google Scholar
- 2.E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics”, in:
*Collected papers on wave mechanics*, Blackie & son, 1928, p. 137–146Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger, “The meaning of wave mechanics”, in: A. George (ed.),
*Louis de Broglie physicien et penseur*, Albin Michel, 1953Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger,
*Statistical Thermodynamics*, Cambridge University Press, 1944, chapter VII.Google Scholar - 2a.E. Schrödinger, letter to P. Jordan, July 28, 1927;Google Scholar
- 2b.quoted by: O. Darrigol, “The origin of quantized matter waves”, H.S.P.S., 16, 197–239, 1986Google Scholar
- 3.O. Darrigol, “The origin of quantized matter waves”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 4.Letter of P. Jordan to E. Schrödinger, summer 1927, quoted by: O. Darrigol, “The origin of quantized matter waves”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 5.E. Schrödinger, in:
*Electrons et photons*, 5th Solvay conference (1927), Paris 1928, p. 208Google Scholar - 6.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 1.E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 2.M. Born, “The interpretation of quantum mechanics”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 1.ibid.Google Scholar
- 2.ibid.Google Scholar
- 1.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and Humanism*, Cambridge University Press, 1951, p. 39–41Google Scholar - 2a.E. Schrödinger, “Probability relations between separated systems”, loc. cit.;Google Scholar
- 2b.E. Schrödinger, ‘The present situation in quantum mechanics”, in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.),
*Quantum theory and measurement*, op. cit.;Google Scholar - 2c.E. Schrödinger,
*Transformation and interpretation in quantum mechanics*, (Dublin seminar 1952),Google Scholar - 2c.E. Schrödinger,
*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), edited and with introduction by M. Bitbol, Ox Bow Press, 1995.Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger, Dublin seminar,
*July 1952 colloquium*(in: E. Schrödinger,*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit. p. 19–20), and E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.Google Scholar - 4a.See E. Schrödinger,
*Nature and the Greeks*, Cambridge University Press, 1954, Chapter VII;Google Scholar - 4b.E. Schrödinger,
*William James lectures*(*c. 1954*), 3rd lecture, (in: E. Schrödinger,*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit. p. 145–149).Google Scholar - 5.E. Schrödinger,
*The problem of matter in quantum mechanics, Notes for seminar 1949, (in: E. Schrödinger, The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit. p. 97).Google Scholar - 6a.See W.H. Zurek, “Environment-induced superselection rules”, Phys. Rev. D26, 1862–1880, 1982;Google Scholar
- 6b.B. d’Espagnat, “Towards an empirical separable reality?” Found. Phys. 20, 1147–1172, 1990. As we shall see later on (paragraphs 4–3, 4–5, 6–8), Schrödinger’s final views on the measurement problem were however quite unlike the theories of decoherence.Google Scholar
- 1a.See, for instance: Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with realism: Schrödinger’s case”, in: M. Bitbol and O. Darrigol (eds.),
*Erwin Schrödinger, Philosophy and the birth of quantum mechanics*, Editions Frontières, 1993.Google Scholar - 1b.M.F Melgar “The philosophy of Erwin Schrödinger: a diachronic view of Schrödinger’s thought”, Found. Phys., 18, 357–371, 1988) has underlined the disarray of most commentators when they are confronted to the question “was Schrödinger a realist or an idealist?”.Google Scholar
- 1c.See also chapter II-2 of M. Bitbol,
*L’élision*, in: E. Schrödinger,*L’esprit et la matière*, Seuil, 1990.Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger,
*My view of the world*, Cambridge University Press, 1964Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger,
*My view of the world*, op. cit. p. 64Google Scholar - 4.ibid. p. 68Google Scholar
- 5.E. Schrödinger,
*Mind and Matter*, in:*What is life? and Mind and matter*, Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 137.Google Scholar - 1.
- 2.M. Bitbol,
*L’élision*, in: E. Schrödinger,*L’esprit et la matière*, précédé de*L’élision*par M. Bitbol, Seuil, 1990.Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger, “Quantization and proper values, IV”, in:
*Collected papers on wave mechanics*, Blackie and son, 1928Google Scholar - 4.E. Schrödinger to A. Einstein, November 18 1950, in: K. Przibram,
*Letters on wave mechanics*, (Tr. M.J. Klein), Philosophical Library, 1967 p. 37Google Scholar - 5.ibid. p. 38Google Scholar
- 6.E. Schrödinger,
*Nature and the Greeks*, op. cit. p. 92Google Scholar - 7.E. Schrödinger,
*Nature and the Greeks*, op. cit.Google Scholar - 8.E. Schrödinger,
*My view of the world*, op. cit. p. 64Google Scholar - 9.E. Schrödinger to A. Einstein, November 18 1950, in: K. Przibram,
*Letters on wave mechanics*, (Tr. M.J. Klein), op. cit. p. 38Google Scholar - 1.ibid.Google Scholar
- 2.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and Humanism*, op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar - 39.E. Schrödinger, “Might perhaps energy be merely a statistical concept?”, Nuovo cimento, , 162–170, 1958Google Scholar
- 4.L. Wessels,
*Schrödinger’s interpretations of wave mechanics*, Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1975Google Scholar - 5.W. Heisenberg,
*Physics and philosophy*, op. cit. p. 145Google Scholar - 1.ibid. p. 144Google Scholar
- 2.E. Schrödinger,
*William James lectures (c. 1954)*, 3rd lecture (in: E. Schrödinger,*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit. p. 149). See chapter 5.Google Scholar - 3a.M. Born,
*Natural philosophy of cause and chance*, Oxford University Press, 1949, p. 125, 209;Google Scholar - 3b.M. Born, “Physical reality”, Phil. Quart., 3, 139–149, 1953Google Scholar
- 5.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and the Human temperament*, G. Allen & Unwin, 1935, p. 109Google Scholar - 6.ibid. p. 118Google Scholar
- 1.bid. p. 115Google Scholar
- 2.ibid. p. 118Google Scholar
- 3a.W.T. Scott,
*Erwin Schrödinger*, University of Massachusetts Press, 1967 p. 50;Google Scholar - 3b.V.V. Raman & P. Forman, “Why was it Schrödinger who developed de Broglie’s ideas?”, HSPS, 1, 291–314, 1969Google Scholar
- 4.In: K. Przibram,
*Letters on wave mechanics*, (Tr. M.J. Klein), op. cit.Google Scholar - 5.Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with causality: Schrodinger’s case”, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 20, 307–334, 1989Google Scholar
- 6a.E. Schrödinger, “The law of chance” (1929), in:
*Science and the Human temperament*, op. cit.;Google Scholar - 6b.E. Schrödinger, “Indeterminism in physics” (1931), in:
*Science and the Human temperament*, op. cit.;Google Scholar - 6c.E. Schrödinger, “Might perhaps energy be a merely statistical concept?”, Nuovo cimento, 9, 162–170, 1958Google Scholar
- 7.E. Schrödinger, “The law of chance” in:
*Science and the Human temperament*, op. cit. p. 36Google Scholar - 8.E. Schrödinger, “The statistical law of nature”, Nature, 153, 704, 1944Google Scholar
- 9.E. Schrödinger, “Die Besonderheit des Weltbilds der Naturwissenschaft”, Acta Physica Austriaca, 1, 201–245, 1948Google Scholar
- 1.E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics” (1927), in
*Collected papers on wave mechanics*, op. cit. p. 146Google Scholar - 2a.M. Born, “On the quantum mechanics of collisions” in: J. A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek,
*Quantum theory and measurements*, op. cit.;Google Scholar - 2b.M. Born, “Das Adiabatenprinzip in der Quantenmechanik”, Z. Phys. 40, 167–192, 1926.Google Scholar
- 2c.Mara Beller “Born’s probabilistic interpretation: a case study of ‘concepts in flux’”, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 21, 563–588, 1990) however pointed that, in 1926, Born did not insist so much on particles as on quantum jumps. His strong corpuscularian commitment was developed much later (see his paper “Physical reality” op. cit., 1953).Google Scholar
- 3.In his original paper on collisions, Born refers to the probability for an electron
*“to be thrown out”*in a certain direction. Later on (in his*Atomic physics*, Blackie & son, 1944), he maintains a certain ambiguity about the epistemological status of quantum probabilities. Are they probabilities of a particle*to be*or to be*found*in a given element of volume? At page 139 of his book, we read that “∣ψ_{E}∣^{2}dv is the probability that the electron (regarded as a corpuscle)*is*in the volume element dv”; and at page 140, that “∣ψ_{n}∣^{2}dv is the probability that the electron will be*found*in the volume element dv”. See discussion in §2–4Google Scholar - 4.M. Jammer,
*The philosophy of quantum mechanics*, op. cit. p. 43Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger, Letter to Planck, July 4, 1927, in: K. Przibram,
*Letters on wave mechanics*, op. cit. p.20Google Scholar - 2.H. Reichenbach,
*Philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics*, California University Press, 1946Google Scholar - 3.See for instance the appendix to the 1952 edition of E. Schrödinger’s “Statistical thermodynamics”, op. cit.Google Scholar
- 1.E. Schrödinger, “Indeterminism in physics”, in:
*Science and the human temperament*, op. cit. p. 45.Google Scholar - 2.ibid. p. 43Google Scholar
- 1.E. Schrödinger, “Quantization as a problem of proper values II”, in:
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit. p. 27Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger, “On the relation between the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Born and Jordan, and that of Schrödinger”, in:
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit., p. 59Google Scholar - 3.See the letter of July 28, 1926, where W. Heisenberg reported to W. Pauli the outcome of Schrödinger’s conference in Munich. In: N. Bohr,
*Collected works*, E. Rüdinger (gen. ed.), vol. 6, J. Kalckar (ed.), North-Holland, 1985, p. 10.Google Scholar - 1.M. Jammer,
*The conceptual development of quantum mechanics*, Mc Graw Hill, 1966, p. 184Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger, “Quantization and proper values-I”, in:
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit., p. 11Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger, “The fundamental ideal of wave mechanics” (Nobel lecture, 1933), in:
*Science and the Human temperament*, op. cit. p. 152Google Scholar - 4.E. Schrödinger, “Quantization and proper values-II”, in:
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit. p. 26Google Scholar - 5a.E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics”, in:
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit. p. 140;Google Scholar - 5b.the fact that this additivity of frequencies does not fit with classical vibration theories was stressed much later in: E. Schrödinger, “Are there quantum jumps?”, loc. cit.
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit. p. 116, and also in: E. Schrödinger, Dublin seminar,*July 1952 colloquium*(in: E. Schrödinger,*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit. p. 25)Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger, “Zur Einsteinschen Gastheorie”, Phys. Z., 27, 95–101, 1926Google Scholar
- 2.E. Schrödinger, “The exchange of energy according to wave mechanics”, in:
*Collected papers on quantum mechanics*, op. cit., p. 141Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Camb. Roy. Soc., 31, 555–563, 1935Google Scholar
- 4.The expression is borrowed from A. Fine (
*The shaky game*, University of Chicago Press, 1986)Google Scholar - 5.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and humanism*, op. cit. p. 11Google Scholar - 6a.E. Schrödinger, letter to N. Bohr, May 5, 1928, (Tr. L. Wessels,
*Schrödinger’s interpretations of wave mechanics*, op. cit. p. 340), in: N. Bohr, Collected works, vol. 6, op. cit., p. 463; Einstein warmly approved Schrödinger’s call to relinquish the classical concepts of position and momentum in a letter of May 31, 1928;Google Scholar - 6b.N. Bohr,
*Collected works*, vol. 6, op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger,
*Four lectures on wave mechanics*, Blackie & son, 1928, p. 52Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger, “Über die Unanwendbarkeit der geometrie im Kleinen”, Naturwissenschaften, 22, 518–520, 1934: “Current quantum mechanics erroneously keeps the concepts of the classical mechanics of mass points, e.g. energy, momentum, position (…) but the price it has to pay for this is that a system in an exctly defined state cannot be ascribed definite values of those quantities. This shows that the concepts are insufficient. The concepts have to be given up, not their exact definitions.”Google Scholar
- 3.E. Schrödinger, “The present situation in quantum mechanics”, in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.),
*Quantum theory and measurement*, op. cit. §2Google Scholar - 4.ibid. § 3Google Scholar
- 5.Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with causality: Schrödinger’s case”, loc. cit.Google Scholar
- 6.L. Wessels,
*Schrödinger’s interpretations of wave mechanics*, op. cit. p. 113Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger, Letter to N. Bohr, October 23, 1926, N. Bohr,
*Collected works*, vol. 6, op. cit., p. 459Google Scholar - 2.see for instance E. Schrödinger,
*Science and humanism*, op. cit. p. 66. For more details, see § 6–1Google Scholar - 3a.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and humanism*, op. cit. p. 47;Google Scholar - 3b.E. Schrödinger, “Der Geist der Naturwissenschaft”, Eranos Jahrbuch, 14,491–520, 1946Google Scholar
- 4.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and humanism*, op. cit. p. 53Google Scholar - 5.H. Atmanspacher “Is the ontic/epistemic distinction sufficient to describe quantum systems exhaustively?”, in: K.V. Laurikainen, C. Montonen, & K. Sunnaborg,
*Symposium on the foundations of modern physics 94*, Editions Frontières 1994Google Scholar - 1a.E. Cassirer,
*Determinismus und Inderterminismus in der modernen Physik*, Götheborgs Högskolas Arsskrift 42,1937;Google Scholar - 1b.
*Determinism and indeterminism in modern physics*, Yale University Press, 1956Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and humanism*, op. cit. p. 62Google Scholar - 3.ibid. p. 49Google Scholar
- 1.L.B. Alberti,
*De Pictura*(1435), Latin text and French translation by J.L. Schefer, Macula Dédale, 1992, p. 115Google Scholar - 1.See for instance W. Heisenberg,
*Physics and Beyond, encounters and conversations*, George Allen & Unwin, 1971 (chapters 4, 5)Google Scholar - 1.in: E. Schrödinger,
*My view of the world*, op. cit.Google Scholar - 2.After his discussions with Bohr in Copenhagen in September 1926; Letter of E. Schrödinger to N. Bohr, October 23, In: N. Bohr,
*Collected works*, E. Rüdinger (gen. ed.), vol. 6, J. Kalckar (ed.), North-Holland, 1985Google Scholar - 1.E. Schrödinger, “Neue Wege in der Physik”,
*elektrotechnische Zeitschrift*, 50, 15–16,1929Google Scholar - 2.E. Schrödinger,
*Transformation and interpretation in quantum mechanics*, (in: E. Schrödinger,*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit. p. 50)Google Scholar - 3.E. Schrödinger,
*Science and Humanism*, op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar - 4.E. Schrödinger, letter of august 19th 1935 to A. Einstein, quoted and translated by A. Fine,
*The shaky game*, op. cit. p. 40Google Scholar - 5.E. Schrödinger, “The present sitation in quantum mechanics”, in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.),
*Quantum theory and measurement*, op. cit., §5Google Scholar - 1a.V. Lentzen, “The interaction between subject and object in observation”, Erkenntnis, 6, 326–333, 1936;Google Scholar
- 1b.H. Margenau, “Critical points in modern physical theory”, Philos, sci., 4, 337–370, 1937Google Scholar
- 2.E. Schrödinger,
*Transformation and interpretation in quantum mechanics*, (in: E. Schrödinger,*The interpretation of quantum mechanics*(*Dublin seminars 1949–1955 and other unpublished texts*), op. cit., p. 78)Google Scholar - 1.Y. Ben-Menahem, “Struggling with causality: Schrödinger’s case”, loc. cit., p. 78Google Scholar
- 1a.M. Redhead & P. Teller, “Particle labels and the theory of indistinguishable particles in quantum mechanics”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 43, 201–218, 1992;Google Scholar
- 1b.M.L. Dalla Chiara and G. Toraldo di Francia, “Individual, Kinds and Names in Physics”, in: Corsi et al. (eds.)
*Bridging the Gap: Philosophy, mathematics and physics*, Kluwer, 1993Google Scholar - 2a.D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory as a universal physical theory”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 24, 1–41, 1985;Google Scholar
- 2b.J.D. Barrow and F. Tipler,
*The anthropic cosmological principle*, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 458 f.Google Scholar