NAS_ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NASA TM-77379

,L THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF QUANTUM i

, _, THEORETICAL KINEMATICS AND MECHANICS ,

t" ,

W
?
l

-I
, 1

Translation of "Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der

quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeit-
"
schrift fur Physik, v. 43, no. 3-4, pp. 172-198, 1927.

!--i
.
(lIISk-TB-773791 Tile ICTaAL COIJTEIJT OF
QU&IITUB THEOiigTZCaL KZlfEH&TICS &lid BKCiikJZCS
!18_- 170 _6

(18ational aeronautics and Space

&dminist_ation) 35 p iIC &O3/_F &OI CSCL 126 63/77 Uncla8
18109

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

.. WASHINGTON D.C, 20546 DECEMBER 1983

o ,, , m
 _1 i I I II I I II

First, exact definitions are supplied in this paper for

: the terms: position, velocity, energy, etc. (of the electron,
for instance), such that they are valid also in quantum mech-
anics; then we shall show that canonically conjugated variables
" can be determined simultaneously only with a characteristic
uncertainty. This uncertainty is the intrinsic reason for the
occurrence of statistic_l relations in quantum mechanics. Their
mathematical formulation is made possible by the Dirac-Jordan
theory. Beginning from the basic principles thus obtained, we
shall show how macroscopic processes can be understood from.the
viewpoint of quantum mechanics. Several imaginary experiments
are discussed to elucidate the theory.

I i.

_classlJ_l_ _mdUnllmited
a. _,,_ _,_ioi_i_i_ u. I,,,,_.,_kRRI, l

III II_ ..... Ul

i
 W"

THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF QUANTUrl THEORETICAL KINEMATICS AND 1172" !

"I MECHANICS

By W Heisenberg, Institute for Theoretical Physics of the

' _ University, Copenhagen, Denmark

'[ I

_ i SUMMARY First,
plied in this exact
paper for definitions
the terms: are sup-
position, i
_ velocity, energy, etc. (of the electron, for
! instance), such that they are valid also in :
_ quantum mechanics; then we shall show that
=! canonically conjugated variables can be de-
_ term,ned simultaneously only with a charac-
_ teristic uncertainty _I]. This uncertainty ,
:_" is the intrinsic reason for the occurrence
of statistical relations in quantum mechan-
ics. Their mathematical formulation is made
_ possible by the Dirac-Jordan theory (2). Be-
_ ginning from the basic principles thus oh-
" rained, we shall show how macroscopic pro- 1-*
cesses can be understood from the viewpoint |:

_
of quantum mechanics
experiments
(3). Several imaginary
are discussed to elucidate the
F
theory (4).

_ We believe to understand a theory intuitively, if in all sim- _

ple cases we can qualitatively imagine the theory's experi-
.i

mental consequences and if we have simultaneously realized

._I
J that the application of the theory excludes internal contra-
dictions For instance: we believe to understand Einstein's

4l concept of a finite three-dimensional space intuitively, be-

, cause we can imagine the experimental consequences of this
concept without contradictions. Of course, these consequences I
contradict our customary intuitive space-tlme beliefs. But we [

customary view of space and time can not be deduced either _

' can
from convince
our laws ourselves that orthefrom
of thinking, possibility
experience.of applying this
The intuitive I""
, i

Numbers in the margin indicate foreign pagination

I
I
 , ORIGINAL PAGE Ig
OF POOR QUALITY

interpretation of quantum mechanics is still full of internal I

contradictions, which become apparent in the battle of opin-
_ ions on the theory of continuums and discontinuums, corpuscles
and waves. This alone tempts us to believe that an interpre-
tation of quantum mechanics is not going to be possible in the
customary terms of kinematic and mechanical concepts. Quantum
' theory, after, derives from the attempt to break with those
customary concepts of kinematics and replace them with rela-
tions between concrete, experimentally derived values. Since
this appears to have succeeded, the mathematical structure of
quantum mechanics won't require revision, on the other hand.
By the same token, a revision of the space-time geometry for
r small spaces and times will also not be necessary, since by a
_ choice of arbitrarily heavy masses the laws of quantum mechan-
k ics can be made to approach the classic laws as closely as 117___3
desired, no matter how small the spaces and times. The fact
,i that a revision of the kinematic and mechanic concepts is re-
' quired seems to follow immediately from the basic equations
of quantum mechanics. Given a mass _, it is readily understand-
able, in our customary understanding, to speak of the position
and of the velocity of the center of gravity of that mass m.
h
But in quantum mechanics, a relation Pq--qP:'f_-_i exists
between mass, position and velocity. We thus have good reasons
to suspect the uncritical application of the terms "position"
and "velocity". If we admit that for very small spaces and
times discontinuities are somehow typical, then the failure
of the concepts precisely of "position" and "velocity" become
immediately plausible: if, for instance, we imagine the uni-

it_
_1. ..q.z

dimensional motion of a mass point, then in a continuum theory

2
 J

it will be possible to trace the trajectory curve x(t) for

the particle's trajectory (or rather, that of its center of
mass) (see Fig. I, above), with the tangent to the curve in-
dicating the velocity, in each _ase. In a discontinuum theo-
! ry, in contrast, instead of the curve we shall have a series
:_ of points at finite distances (s_e Gig. 2, above). In this

case it is obviously pointless to talk of the velocity at a i

certain position, since the velocity can be defined only by
' means of two positions and consequently and inversely, two

: different velocities corresponded to each point. 1

The question thus arises whether it might not be possible, by I

i means of" a more precise analysis of those kinematic and me-
._ chanical concepts, to clear up the contradictions currently
i
to thus achieve an intuitive understanding of the relations of
existing in an intuitive interpretation of quantum mechanics,

quantum mechanics.*

I The concepts: position, path, velocity, energy /17--4

In order to be able to follow the quantum-mechanical behavior

of any object, it is necessary to know the object's mass and
and the interactive forces with any fields or other objects.

Only then is it possible to set up the hamiiconian function

for the quantum-mechanical system. [The considerations below

* This paper was written as a consequence of the efforts and

wishes expressed clearly by other scientists, much earlier, be-
fore quantum mechanics was developed. I particularly remember
Bohr's papers on the basic tenets of quantum theory (for
instance, Z.f.Physlk 13, 117 (1923)) and Einstein's discus-
sions on the relation--Setween wave fields and light quanta.
In more recent times, the problems here mentioned were dis-
cussed most clearly by W. Pauli, who also answered some of
the questions that arise ("Ouantentheorle", Handbuch d.Phys.
["Quantum theory", Handbook of Physics] Vol. XXIII, subse-
quently cited as l.c.). Quantum mechanics has changed little
in the formulation Pauli gave to these problems. It is also
a special pleasure for me here to thank Mr. W. Paull for the
stimulation I derived from our oral and written discussions,
which have substantially contributed to this paper.

i -._lh_ " II l II I III ., ,.,,m,,,

 shall in general refer to non-relativistic quantum mechanics,
since the laws of quantum-theory electrodynamics are not com-
pletely known yet.* No further statements regarding the ob-
._ Ject's "gestalt" are necessary: the totality of those inter-
_'_ active forces is best designated by the term "gestalt".

, If we want to clearly understand what is meant by the word

_ "position of the object" - for instance, an electron - (rela-
tive co a given reference system}, th_n we must indicate the
i definite experiments by means of which we intend to determine
_ the "position of the electron " Otherwise the word is meaning- ?

!
!
less In principle, there is no shortage of experiments that 1

permit a determination of the "position of the electron" to

t
any desired precision, even. For instance: illuminate the e-

lectron and look at it under the microscope. The highest pre-

cision attainable here in the determination of the position is
substantially determined by the wavelength of the light used.
But let us build in principle, a r-ray microscope and by means
s

" of it determine the position as precisely as desired. But in

I this determination a secondary circumstance becomes essential:

] the Compton effect. Any observation of the scattered light

I coming from the electron (into the eye, onto a photographic
t
i plate, into a photocell} presupposes a photoelectric effect,

i that is, it can also be interpreted as a light quantum strik-

I ing the electron, there being ref]ectedordiffracted to then
)
I

I - deflected once again by the microscope's lense - finally /17__55

I triggering the photoelectric effect. At the instant of the
determination of its position - i.e., the instant at which
'i the light quantum is diffracted by the electron - the electron
discontinuously changes its impulse. That change will be more
i pronounced, the smaller the wavelength of the light used, i.e.
the more precise the position determination is to be. In the
f iii J u i,

i * However, significant progress was made very recently through

! the work of P. Vlrac [Proc. Roy. Soc. (A), 114, 243 (1927)
' and subsequent studies.]
I

F ...........
 ,- _ ORIGINAL PAGE |g
i ' OF POOR qUALITY

.i instant at which the electron's position is known, therefore,

; its impulse can become known only to the order of magnitude
corresponding to that discontinuous change. That is, the more
!
.Ji
!4 precisely the position is determined, the more imprecisely
_ will the impulse be known, and vice-versa. This provides us
with a direct, intuitive clarification of the relation
_ h . Let q be the precision to which the value
_" Pq --qP--__i I
of _ is known (ql is approximately the average error of _),
or here, the wavelength of the light; Pl is the precision to
i which the value of _ can be determined, or in this case, the
iF discontinuous change in _ during the Compton effect. Accord-
ing to the basic equations of the Compton effect, the rela-

tion between Pl and ql is then

P,_l _ _'. , (l)

That relation (I) above stands in a direct mathematical con-

h
nection with the commutation relation Pq--qP--_;i shall
be shown below. Here we shall point out that equation (I) is
the precise expression for the fact that we once sought to
describe by dividing the phase space into cells of size h.

Other experiments can also be performed to determine the e-

lectron's position, such as impact tests. A very precise de-
termination of the position requires impacts with very fast
particles, since for slow electrons the diffraction phenomena
- which according to Einstein are a consequence of the de
Broglle waves (see for instance the Ramsay effect) - preclude
a precise determination of the position. Thus, once again for
a precise position measurement the electron's impulse changes
disontlnuously and a simple estimate of the precision with
the equations of the de Broglie waves once again leads to e-
quation (1).

This discussion seems to define the concept "position of the

electron" clearly enough and we only need to add a word about

5
the "size" of the electron. If two very fast particles strike
the electron sequentially in the very brief time interval At,
then the two positions of the electron defined by these two
particles lie very close together, separated by a distance AI.
From the laws observed for m-particles we conclude that AI can
be reduced to a magnitude of the order of 10-12 cm, provided
At is sufficiently small and the particles selected are suf- /17--6
ficiently fast. That is the meaning, when we say that the e-
lectron is a particle whose radius is not greater than 10-12 cm.

Let us move on to the concept of the "path of the electron."

By path or trajectory we mean a series of points in space (in
a given reference system) that the electron adopts as sucessive
"positions." Since we already know what "position at a certain
time" means, there &re no new difficulties, here. It is still
readily understood that the often used expression, for instance,
"the I-S orbit of the electron in the hydrogen atom" makes no
sense, from out point of view. Because in order to measure this
IS orbit, we would have to illuminate the atom with light such
that its wavelength is considerably shorter than 10-8 cm. But
one light quantum of this kind of light would be sufficient to
completely throw the electron out of its "orbit" (for which
reason never more than a single point of this "path" could be
defined, in space) and hence the word "path" is not very sen-
sible or meaningful, here. This can be easily derived from the
experimental possibilities, even without any knowledge of the
new theories.

In contrast, the imaginary position measurements can be per-

formed for many atoms in a IS state. (Atoms in a given "station-
ary" state, for instance, can in principle be isolated by the
Stern-Gerlach experiment.) Thus, for a given state, for ins-
tance 1S, of an atom, a probability function must exist for the
electron's positions, such that it corresponds, on the average,
to the classical trajectory over all phases, and that can be
established by measurements to any desired pre_ision. Accord-

ing to Born* this function is given by _is(q)$1s(q) , if

$is(q) is the Schroedinger wave function corresponding to the
state IS. I want to Join Dirac* and Jordan*, in view of sub-

sequent generalizations, in saying: the probability is given /177

by S(IS,q)_(IS,q), where S(IS,q) is that column of the trans-
formation matrix S(E,q) from E to _, which corresponds to E =
EIS (E = energies).

In the fact that in quantum theory for a given state - for

instance IS - only the probability function for the electron
position can be given, we may see a characteristic statistical
feature of quantum theory, as do Born and Jordan, quite in
contrast to the classical theory. On the other hand, if we
want to we can say with Dirac that the statistics came in via
our experiments. Because also in classical theory only the
probability of a certain electron position could be given, if
and as long as we do not know the atom's phases. Rather, the
difference between classical aud quantum mechanics consists in
this: classically, we can always assume the phases to have
been determined in a previous experiment. But in reality this
is impossible, because every experiment to determine the phase
would either destroy or modify the atom. In a definite station-
ary "state" of the atom, the phases are indetermined in

* The statistical meaning of the de Broglie waves was first

formulated by A. Einstein [Sitzungsber.d.preuss.Akad.d.
Wiss. 1925, p.3). This statistical element then plays a
slgnifT_t role for M. Born, W. Helsenberg and P. Jordan,
"Ouantum mechanics II." [Z.f.Phys. 35, 557 (1926)], espe-
cially chapter 4, 3, and P. Jordan-_Z.f.Phys. 37, 376
(1926)]; it is analyzed mathematically in a fun_-amental
paper by M. Born [Z.f.Phys. 38, 803 (1926)] and used for
the interpretation of the coIIislon phenomena. The founda-
tion for using the probability theorem from the transforma-
tion theory for matrices can be found in: W. Helsenberg [Z.
f. Phys. 40, 501 (1926)], P. Jordan [ibid. 40, 661 (1926)],
W. Paull-TAnm. in Z.f.Phys. 41, 81 (1927)]_-P. Virac [Proc.
Roy.Soc.(A) 113, 621 (1926)], P. Jordan [Z.f.Phys. 40, 809
(1926)]. The_atistical side of quantum mechanics i_ gen-
eral is discussed by P. Jordan (Naturwiss. 15, 105 (1927)]
and M. Born [Naturwlss. 15, 238 (1927)].
 a@
i ORIGINAL PAGE [8
OF POOR QUALITY

principle, which we may consider a direct clarification of the

_' known equations

El-- fE = _ h
=D or 3w- w3= _=-;

(] : action variable, w: angular variable).

t
!
The word "velocity" of an object is easily defined by measure-
merit, if it is a force-free motion. For instance, the object
can be illuminated with red light and then the particle's ve-
locity can be determined by the Doppler effect of the scatter-
ed light. The determination of the velocity will be the more
precise, the longer the wavelength of the light used is, since
then the particle's velocity change per light quantum due to
Compton effect will be the smaller. The position determination
becomes correspondingly uncertain, as required by equation(1).
If the velocity of the electron in an atom is to be measured
at a certain instant, we should have to make the nuclear charge
and the forct:s due to the other electrons disappear, at that
instant, so that the motion may proceed force free, after that
instant, to then perform the determination described above. As
was the case earlier, we once again can convince ourselves that
a function p(t) for a certain state of the atom - say, IS - can
not be defined. In contrast, there again will be a function for 117--8
the probability of _ I_ this state, which according to Dlrac
and Jordan will have the value S(1S,p)_(1S,p). Again, S(1S,p)
means the column of the transformation matrix S(E,p) of E Int_
pthat corresponds to E = EIS.

Finally, let us point out the experiments that allow the meas-
urement of the energy or the value of the action variables J.
Such experiment_ are particularly important since only with
their aid will we be able to define what we mean, when we talk
about the discontinuous change of the energy or or J. The

8
 Franck-Hertz collision experiments permit the tracing back of
the energ_ measurements on atoms to the energy measurements of
electrons moving in a straight line, because of the validity
of the energy theorem in the quantum theory. In principle,
this measurement can be made as precise as desired, if only

t we forego the simultaneous determination of the electron posi-

J
tion, i.e., of the phase (see above, the determination of _),
: k
corresponding to the relation t--tE----_-z3 The Stern-
Gerlach experiment permits the determination of the magnetic
or an average electric moment of the atom, i.e., the measure-
ment of magnitudes that depend only the action variables J. The
phases remain undetermined in principle. If it is not sensible
to talk of the frequency of a light wave at a given instant, it
is not possible either to speak of the energy of an atom at a
particular instant. In the Stern-Gerlach experiment this cor-
responds to the situation that the precision of the energy
measurement will be the smaller, the shorter the time interval
during which the atom is under the influence of the deflecting
forcem. Because an upper limit for the deflecting force is
given by the fact that the potential energy of that deflecting
force inside the beam of rays can vary only by quantities that
are considerably smaller than the energy differences of the Q

stationary states, if a determination of the stationary states'

energy is to be possible. If E I is the quantity of energy that

satisfies that condition (E I at the same time is a measure of
the precision of that energy measurement), then E1/d is the
maximum value for the deflecting force, if d is the width of
the ray beam (measurable by means of the width of the slit

used. The angular deflection of the atom beam Is then 1tl/dP,

where t I is the period of time during which the atoms are under.
the effect of the deflecting force, _ the impulse of the atoms /179
in the direction of the beam. This deflection must be at least

of the same order of magnitude as the naturaZ beam broadening

caused by diffraction in the slit, in order for a measurement

u Cf. also W. Pault, 1.c.p.61

9
 . OF POOR QOALFrV

to be possible. The angular deflection due to diffraction is

approximately _/d, where R is the de Broglie wavelength, i.e.,

a _ dp cr since _--_. _
., ; _t, _ h. (_)

"_ This equation corresponds to equation (1) and it shows that a

t': precise energy determination can be attained only through a
corresponding uncertainty in the time.

2 The Dirac-Jordan theory

i
We would like to summarize the results of the previous section
and generalize them in tLis statement: All concepts used in
classical theory to describe a mechanical system can also be
defined exactly for atomic processes, in analogy to the classic
concepts. But purely from experimentation, the experiments that

! serve for such definitions carry an inherent uncertainty, if we

expect from them the simultaneous determination of two canoni-
cally conjugated variables. The degree of this uncertainty is
given by equation (I), widened to include any canonically con-
jugated varlab]es. It is reasonable to _ere compare the quantum
theory wlth the special theory of relativity. According to the
theory of relativity, the term "slmultaneous _'can only be de-
fined by experiments in which the propagation veloclty of light
plays an essential role. if there were a "sharper" definition
of simultaneity - for instance, signals that propasate infl-
nltely rapidly - then the theory of relativlty would be Impos-
slble. But since such signals do not exist - because the velo-
city of light already appears in the definltlon of simultane-
ity - room is available for the postulate of a constant velo-
city of light and therefore th_a Fostulate is not contradicted
by the appropriate use of the terms, "position, veloclty, time *.
The situation Is similar in regard to the _efinttlon of the

10
 ORIGINAL PAGE_
' OF POOR QUALITY

concepts "electron position and velocity", in quantum theory.

All the experiments we could use to define these terms neces-
sarily contain the uncertainty expressed by equation (I), even
though they permit an exact definition of the individual con-
cepts and _. If experiments existed that allowed a "more
precise" definition of _ and _ than that corresponding to e-
quation (I), then the quantum theory would be impossible. This /IBO i
@
uncertainty - which is fixed by equation (I) - now provides the
space for the relations that find thel; terse expression in
the commutation relations of quantum mechanics,
k
Pv--qP --'- 2xi "

This equation becomes possible without having to change the

physical meaning of the variables E and _.

I
t

For those physical phenomena for which a quantum theory formu-

lation is still unknown (for instance, electrodynamics), equa- t
tion (1) represents a demand that may be helpful in finding the
new laws. For quantum mechanics, equation (1) can be derived
from the Dirac-Jordan formulation, by means of a minor general-
ization. If for a certain value n of an arbitrary parameter we
can determine the position _ of the electron at q' with a pre-
cision ql' then we can express this fact by means of a proba-
bility am_lltude $(n,q) that wlll be noticeably different from
zero only in an area of approximate dimension ql around q'. We
c_n thus say, more specifically

i.e.,
We thus have for the probability amplitude correspondtn8 to p:

s($_) : _s($ e)s_.t)de. (4)

Zn asreement wlth Jordan, we can say for :S(q,p) :hat

,(,,.)=

1'1
 J , ORIG,,._ = Pj
OF POGR 4UALITY

ferent from zero only for values of p for which 2_(p-p')ql/h

is not substantially larger than I. More especially, in the
ii In that case, according to (4), S(q,p) will be noticeably dif-
case of (3) we shall have:

S(_. j,) prop J e _ 'v,' ,tq, I

,_ i.e.,

S{_,p)prop =l,=
_ +h-'_-I"_ that is S_prope pt*

_! where

" _iqt --" .... (6) 4

/181 t
- Thus, assumption (3) for S(n,q) corresponds to the experiment-

al fact that the value p' of _ and the value q' of _ were mess-
_ ured [with the precision restriction (6)]. _
!
!

t The purely mathematical characteristic of the Dirac-Jordan

formulation of quantum mechanics is that the relations between ._i
; p,,E , etc., can be written as equations between very gen-
eral matrices, such that any variable indicated by quantum
theory appears as the diagonal matrix. The feasibility of such
a notation seem reasonable if we visualize the matrices as
tensors (for instance, moments of inertia) in multidimensional
spaces, among which mathematical relations exist. The axes of
the coordinate system in which these mathematical relations
are expressed can always be placed along the main axis of one
of these tensors. It is after all always possible to character-
ize the mathematical relation between two tensors A and B by
means of transformation formulae that will convert a system of
coordinates oriented along the main axis of A, into one ori ....
ented along the main axis of B. The latter formulation cortes- '"
ponds to $chroedinger's theory. In contrast, Dirac's notation
of the q-numbers must be considered the truly "Invarlant"

12
!
'_ formulation of quantum mechanics, independent of all coordi-
nate systems. If we wanted to derive physical results from

that mathematical model, then we must assign numerical values i

!
to the quantum mechanics variables, i.e., the matrices (or l
"tensors" in multidimensional space). This is to be understood I
as meaning that in that multidimensional
rection
kind
is arbitrarily
of experiment
space a certain di-
chosen
performed),
(that
and
is,
then
established
the "value"
by the
of the
I
matrix is asked for (for instance, the value of the moment of
inertia, in that picturel, in the direction chosen. This ques-
tion has unequivocal meaning only if the direction chosen co-
incides with one of the matrix' main axes: in that case there
will be an exact answer to the question. If the direction
chosen deviates but little from one of the matrix' main direc-

tions, we can still talk with a certain imprecision, given by

the relative inclination, with a certain probable error, of
the "value" of the matrix in the direction chosen. We can thus
state: it is possible to assign a number to every quantum
theory variable, or matrix, which provides its "value", with a
certain probable error. The probable error depends on the sys-
tem of coordinates. For each quantum mechanics variable there /182
exists one system of coordinates for which the probable error
vanishes, for that variable. Thus, a given experiment can
never provide precise information on all quantum mechanics
variables: rather, it divides the physical variables into
"known" and "unknown" {or: more or less precisely known vari-
ables), in a manner characteristic for that experiment. The
results of two experiments can be derived precisely from each
other only when the two experiments divide the physical vari-
ables in the same manner into "known" and "unknown" (i.e., if
the tensors in that multidimensional space already used for
visualization are "viewed" from the same direction, in both
experiments.) If two experiments cause two different distribu-
tions into "known" and "unknown" variables, then the relation
of the results of those experiments can be given appropriately
only statistically.

13
 ' ORiGiNAL _A_ _
OF POOR QUALITY

Let us perform an imaginary experiment, to more precisely dis-

cuss these statistical relations We shall start by sending a

t Stern-Gerlach beam of atoms through a field F I that is so in-

_ homogeneous in the beam direction, that it causes noticeably
numerous transitions due to a "shaking effect". The atom beam

._ is then allowed to run unimpeded, but then a second field shall

begin, F2, as inhomogeneous as F I. We shall assume that it is
possible to measure the number of atoms in the different sta-

tionary states, between F I and F2 and also beyond F2, by means

of an eventually applied magnetic field. Let us assume the
atoms' radiative forces to be zero. If we know that an atom was i!

in the energy state En before passing through F I, then we can

express this experimental fact by assigning a wave function to

the atom - for instance, in p-space - with a certain energy Ep

and the indetermined phase Sn

After passing through field FI, the function will have become*

_. ' _ _:,_(. __)

S(E., _)--,. _]c.,. _(E.,, _) h _.7)
Jl

Let us assume that here the 8m are arbitrarily fixed, such /183
that the Cnm is unequivocally determined by F]. The matrix
Cnm transforms the energy value before passing through F I to
that after passing through F]. If behind F] we perform a de-
termination of the stationary states - for instance, by means
of an inhomogeneous magnetic field - then we shall find, with

a probability of Cnm_nm that the atom has passed from the

state _ to the state _. If we determine experimentally that
the atom has actually acquired the state m, then in the sub-
sequent calculations we shall have to assign it the function
* See P. Dirac, Proc.Roy.Soc. (A)112, 661 (1926) and M. Born,
Z. f. Phys 40, 167 (1926).

14

%
 [,

, o

ORIGINAL PACT _
OF POOR QUALITY

Sm with an indeterminate phase, instead of the function

_c_,.Sm . Through the experimental determination "state m"

we select, from among the different possibilities (Cnm) , a

: certain _ and simultaneously destroy, as we shall explain |
below, whatever remained of phase relations in the variables

Cnm. When the beam passes through F2, we repeat the same pro-
cedure used for F I. Let dnm be the coefficients of the trans-
formation matrix that converts the energies before F2 to those
after F2. If no determination of the state is performed bet-
ween F I and F2, then the eigen-function is transformed accord-
ing to the following pattern:

s(E.,p) r-_
' _.,..s(_.,p) _-_
" _. _,_.._.,S(E,, _,). (8)
m m I

Let _=g._--e._ . If the stationary state of the atom

is determined, after F2, we shall find the state _ with a pro-

bability of enlenl . If, in contrast, we determined "state m"
between F I and F2, then the probability for _ behind F2 is
given by dml_ml . Repeating the entire experiment several times
(determining the state, each time, between F I and F2) we shall
then observe the state _, behind F2, with the relative frequency
Z.L---_,,c..c_.d,_a,.t . This expression does not agree with
m

enl_nl. For this reason Jordan (l.c.) mentions an "interference

of the probabilities". I, for one, would not agree with this.

Because the two experiments leading to enlenl or Znl, respec-

tively, are really physically different. In one case the atom

suffers no disturbance between F I and F21 in the other it is

disturbed by the equipment that makes the determination of the
stationary states possible. The consequence of this equipment
is that the "phase" of the atom changes by quantities that are
uncontrollable in principle, Just as the impulse was changed /18__4
in the determination of the electron's position (cf. I). The

magnetic field for the determination of the state between FI

and F2 will change the eigen-values E and during the observa-
tion of the atom beam (I am thinking of something like a Wilson
track) the atoms will be slowed down in different degrees,

15
statistically, and in an uncontrollable manner. As a conse-

quence, the final transformation matrix enl (from the energy i

values before F I to those after leaving F2) is no longer given
by 3_,_ , and instead each term of the sum will have, in
addition, an unknown phase factor. Hence, all we can expect

is for the average

changes, to be equal
value
to Znl.
of enlenl,
-
A simple
over all
calculation
eventual
shows
phase
this
1
to be the case.

Thus, following certain statistical rules, we can draw conclu-

sion3, based on one experiment, regarding the results possible
for _nother. The other experiment selects, by itself and from
among all the possibilities, one particular one, thus limiting
the possibilities for all subsequent experiments. This inter-
pretation of the equation for the transformation matrix S, or
Schroedinger's wave equation, is possible only because the sum
oe all solutions is also a solution. Here we can see the deeper
meaning of the linearity of Schroeding, r's equations and hence
t!ey can be understood only as waves in the phase space; for
ttis same reason we would consider any attempt to replace
these equations - for instance, in the relativistic case (for
several electrons) - by non-linear equations as doomed to fail.

3 The transition from micro to macromechanics

I believe the analyses performed in the preceding sections of

the terms "electron position", "velocity", "energy", etc., have
sufficiently clarified the concepts of quantum theory kinemat-
ics and mechanics, so that an intuitive understanding of the
_croscopic processes must also be possible, from the point of
view of quantum mechanics. The transition from micro to macro
mechanics _as already been dealt with by Schroedinger*, but I

* E. Scnroedinger, Naturwiss. 14, 664 (1926)

16
 do not believe that Schroedinger's considerations address the
essence of the problem, for the following reasons: according
to Schroedinger, in highly excited states a sum of the eigen-
i vibrations will yield a not overly large wave packet, that in
i its turn, under periodic changes of its size, performs the ,
periodic motions of the classical "electron". The following /185
ij objections can be raised here: If the wave packet had such
properties as described here, then the radiation emitted by

s
the atom could be developed into a Fourier series in which the
]

: frequencies of the harmonic vibrations are integer multiples

of the fundamental fr_4uency. Instead, the frequencies of the
: spectral lines emitted by the atom are never integer multiples
of a fundamental frequency, according to quantum mechanics -
with the exception of the special case of the harmonic oscil-
lator. Thus Schroedinger's consideration is applicable only to
the harmonic oscillator considered by him, while in all other
cases in the course of time the wave packet spreads over all
space surrounding the atom. The higher the atom's excitation

state, the slower will be the scattering of the wave packet !-_v?
But it will occur, if one waits long enough. The argument used _"-
above for the radiation emitted by an atom can be used, for the '.
time being, against all attempts of a direct transition from

quantum to classical mechanics, for high quantum numbers. For b _

this reason, it used to be attempted to circumvent that argu- |_
ment by pointing to the natural beam width of the stationary I. _
states; certainly improperly, since in the first place this I_
, ,

way
insufficient
out is already
radiation
blocked
at higher
for thestates;
hydrogenin atom,
the second
because
place,
of l\_-_'i

the transitionwithout
derstandable from quantum to classical
borrowing mechanics
from electrodynamics. must be un-
Bohr* has _0 [_
.o.

repeatedly pointed out these known difficulties, in the past, ;_{[

that make a direct connection between quantum and classical ",
1,%I., $

theory difficult. If we explained them here again in such ,_.

* N. Bohr, Basic Postulates of Quantum Theory, l.c. 17 _:,

J

F
!

detail, it is because apparently they have been forgotten. 1

I believe the genesis of the classical "orbit" can be precise-

ly formulated thus: the "orbit" only comes into being by our

observing it. Let us assume an atom in its thousandth excita- i

tion state. The dimensions of the orbit are relatively large
here, already, so that it is sufficient, in the sense of I, i
to determine the electron's position with a light of relative-
ly long wavelength. If the determination of the electron's
position is not to be too uncertain, then one consequence of i
!
Compton recoil will be that after the collision, the atom will
be in some state between, say, the 950th and the 1050th. At

the same time, the electron's impulse can be derived - to a i

precision given by equation (I) - from the Doppler effect. The i
experimental fact so obtained can be characterized by means of /186
a wave packet - or better, probability packet - in q-space, by
a variable given by the wavelength of the light used, essen-
tially composed of eigenfunctions between the 950th and the

1050th eigen-function, and through the corresponding packet in _

p-space. After a certain time, a new position determination is _;_
performed, to the same precision. According to 2, its result
can be expressed only statistically; possible positions are all
those within the now already spread wave packet, with a calcu-
lable probability. This would in no way be different in clas-
sical theory, since in classical theory the result of the sec-
ond position could also be given only statistically, due to
the uncertainty in the first determination; In addition, the
system's orbits would also spread in classical theory similarly
to the wave packet. However, the laws of statistics themselves
are different, in quantum mechanics and classical theory. The
second position determination selected a _ from among all those
possible, thus limiting the possibilities for all subsequent
determinations. After the second position determination, the
results for later measurements can be calculated only by again
assigning to the electron a "smaller" wave packet of dimension

18
I ORIG.,_AL =_'4"
OF POOR OUALI'P[ T
_ (wavelength of the light used for the observation). Thus,
each position determination reduces the wave packet again to l
its original dimension i. The "values" of the variables p
and q are known to a certain precision, during all experi-

il ments. Since within these limits of precision the values of

i_ p and q follow the classical equations of motion, we can
conclude, directly from the laws of quantum mechanics,
[

dH #H

P=- q= . J
But as we mentioned, the orbit can only be calcu]%ted statis-
tically from the initial conditions, which we may consider a J
consequence uncertainty existing in principle, in the initial
conditions. The laws of statistics are different for quantum
mechanics and classical theory. Under certain conditions, this
can lead to gross macroscopic differences between classical and
quantum theory. Before discussing an example of this, I want
to show by means of a simple mechanical system - the force-free
motion of a mass point - how the transition to the classical

theory discussed above is to be formulated mathematically. The /18__/7

equations of motion are (for unidimensional motion)

1 , 4=;i I p", p=o. (1o)

Since time can be treated as a parameter (as a "c-number") if
there are no external, time-dependent forces, then the solu-
tion to this equation is:

1 t
q ----._p, + q, ; p -- p,, (11)

where p, and _ represent impulse and position at time t=O.

At time t=O [see equations (3) to (6)], let qo = q' be meas-

ured with precision q1' Po = p' with precision p;. If from
the values" of _ and _ we are to derive the "value" of q
at time _, then according to Dirac and Jordan we must find
that transformation function, that transforms all matrices

19
 I

f ' ORIGINALPAGE_J
OF POOR QUALITY

,_{: in which qo appears as a diagonal matrix, into matrices in

g which q appears as the diagonal matrix. In the _atrlx pat-
tern in which qo appears as the diagonal matrix, p, can be

i' __ replaced by the operator _k d . According to Dirac [l.c.

_.._ equation (11)] we then have for the transformation amplitude

I;
i_ sought, S(qo,q) , the differential equation

'-: li k 0 !
"_c I,,,_ _-_q,_
+eoj s(q.,e)= es(q.,_) (1_)

:, ,,,, __
(,,).-
! S(qe, e) _ const.e ..... _.-t..... (IS) .
i

_ Thus S_ is independent of qo' i.e., if at time t : 0, qo is

- known exactly, then at any time t > 0 all values of q are e-
qually likely, i.e., the probability that _ lles within a fi-
nite range, is generally zero. This is quite clear, intuitive-

ly. Because the exact determination of qo leads to an infi-

" nitely large Compton recoil. The same would of course be true

of any mechanical system. However, if at time t = 0 , qo i_

known only to a precision ql and Po to precision PI' then [cf.
equation (3)]

S(,/,_,)= COat.e--"_ f--Tp _'--_,

and the probability function for _ will have be calculated /18_8

from the equation

We obtain

t Bdm f I t ,%

If we introduce the abbreviation

20
 " oRIGINALpAGE_
OF PoOR QUALITY

_: then the exponent in (141 becomes

i -- , (, ;,))+""I
'_ The term in q,2 can be included in the constant factor (inde-
.P
-} pendent of g); by integration we obtain

_:i
_{,-_,,)r , l,'
$(_,,j) -- eou.t.e lqt= 1 , (16

! (,_;,,_.,,)(,-
onst. e- " s qL'(I
J From which follows

(,--,._,.)'
- S(e_._J]._(_,__-- eonst.e e_t(i"+P_"-. (IT)

.-| Thus, at time t the electron is at position (tlm)p' + q' to .,

. a precision _lyT_-_ . The "wave packet" or better, the "

"probabilityto p_c_:et"
According (15), 13 has become largerto bythea time
is proportional factort, ofinversely
}:I_.

proportional to the mass - this is immediately plausible - and

, inversely proportional to q2I. Too great a precision in qo has a ,""
greater uncertainty in Po as a consequence and hence al.qo !
leads to an increased uncertainty in _[. The parameter n, which
we introduced above for formal reasons, could be eliminated in
all equations, here, since it does not enter in the calcula- ,o .

tions

of
As statistics
an example and
that those from quantumbetween
the difference theory thecanclassical
lead to gross
laws !
macroscopic differences in the results from both theories, un- '
der certain conditions, shall be briefly discussed for the
reflection of an electron flow by a grating. If the lattice
 m
w

constant is of the order of magnitude of the de Broglie wave- /189

length of the electron, then the reflection will occur in
!
i certain discrete directions in space, as does the light at a
'_ grating. Here, classical theory yields macroscopically some-
_4 thing grossly different. And yet, we can not find a contradic-
.'! tion against classical theory in the orbit of a single electron.
_i We could do it, if somehow we could direct the electron to a
_4 certain location on a grating line and there establish that the
reflection did not occur classically. But if we want to deter-
; mine the electron's position so precisely that we could say at

i which location ona grating line it would impact, then the elec-
{ tron would acquire such a velocity, due to this determination,
that the de Broglie wavelength of the electron would be reduced
to the point that in this approximation, the electron would be
a-tually reflected in the direction prescribed by classical
theory, without contradicting the laws of quantum theory.

4 Discussion of some special, imaginary experiments .:.0_

According to the intuitive interpretation of quantum theory at-

tempted here, the points in time at which transitions - the
"quantum Jumps" - occur should be experimentally determinable
in a concrete manner, such as energies of stationary states,
for instance. The precision to which such a point in time can
be determined is given by equation (2) as hlAEI, if AE is the
change in energy accompanying the transition. We are thinking
of an experiment such as the following: Let an atom, in state
2 at time t=O, return to its normal state I by emitting radia-
tion. We could then assign to the atom, in analogy to equation
(7), the eigenfunctton

i i gl i i el i i

m See W. Pauli, 1.c., p.12

,?.2
' ' ORIGINAL PAGE
t OFPOORQUALrrf

i s(t,p) = _.,_(_,_e A + _1 - e- '"_(E,,p)e- -T'- (18)

L

'I if we assume that the radiation damping wlll express itself in

-) the eigen-function by means of a factor of the form e-at(the

'_ true dependence may not be that simple). Let us send this atom
_i through an inhomogeneous magnetic field, to measure its energy,
as is customary in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, except that
) the inhomogeneous field shall follow tl_eatom beam for a good
' portion of the path. The corresponding acceleration could be
:_ measured by dividing the entire path followed by the atom beam
)
! in the magnetic field, into small partial paths, at the end of
; each of which we measure the beam's deflection. Depending on 119--0
:=_ the atom beam's velocity, the division into partial paths will
correspond, atom, partlal
_I for the also to division into time
-, intervals At. According to I, equation (2), to the interval
At corresponds a precision in the energy of h/At. The probabll-
ity of measuring a certain energy can be dlrectly derived from
S(p,E) and is hence calculated in the l.,terval from nat to
(n+1)At by means of
+ I)4e Imd&J

mAt_ (a + I)_/ &

m4t

If at time (n+1)At we make the determination, "state 2", then

for all subsequent events we may no longer assign to the atom
the elgen-function (18], but one derived from (18) if we re-
place t with t-(n+1)At. If, in contrast, we determine "state
, I", then from then on we must assign to the atom the elgen-
, function
i

Thus, in a series of Intervals &t we would first observe "state

2 e, then continuously estate 1. e To hake a differentiation of
the two states possible, At must not fall below h/AE. Thus, the

23
e

!
transition-point in time can be determined with that precision. I
We conceive of the experiment above entirely in the sense of I
|
the old _nterpretation of quantum theory, as explained by
Planck, Einstein and Bohr when we speak of a discontinuous {

change of energy. Since such an experiment can be performed, I

in principle, agreement as to its results must be possible, i

In Bohr's basic postulate of the quantum theory, the energy

of an atom, as well as the values of the action variables J, i

has the privilege over other items to be determined (such as J
|
the position of the electron, etc.) that its numerical value !
can always be given. This privileged position held by energy |
over other quantum mechanics magnitudes is owed strictly to
the circumstance
integral
that in a closed system, it represents
of the equation
an
of motion (for the energy matrix we
I
have E = const.). In contrast, in open systems the energy
has no preference over other quantum mechanics variables. In /191
particular, it will be possible to conceive of experiments,
in which the atom's phases w are precisely measurable and

for which then the energy will remain, in principle, Indeter-

mined, corresponding to a relation Jw-wJ.-:-_s- i ,
or J1wl _ h. Such an experiment is provided by resonance
fluorescence, for instance. If an atom is irradiated wlth an

etgen-frequency of say, v12 : (E 2 - E1)/h, then the atom will

vibrate in phase wlth the external radiation, in whlch case

in principle It is senseless to ask, in which state - E I or

E2 - the atom is vlbratlns. The phase relation between atom
and external radiation can be determined, for instance, by
means of the phase relations among many atoms (Woods experi-
ment). IF one does not want to use experiments Involving ra-
diation, the phase relation can also be measured by perform-
lng precise position measurements In the sense oF J 1 For the
electron, at different times, relatlve to the phase of the
ltsht used for Illumination (for many atoms). To each atom
we could then assign a "wave function" such as

24
 (Z"
ORIGINAL PAGE
OF POOR QUAL_P(

s(e. 0 --'=c,_, (J:,,,_);" _ + I/T -- ,'7v,,(_,, _) e- ,, (l_) .

Here c2 depends on the _ntensity and B on the phase of the

i illuminating light. Thus, the probability _ of a certain posl-
_i tion is

s(q,o + (,-4),,,

The periodic *,erm in (20) can be experimentally separated

from the non-periodical, since the position determi_ _.ion can
be performed at different phases of the illuminating light.

In a known imaginary experiment proposed by Bob,-, Lhe atoms of

a Stern-Gerlach atom beam are initially excited to resonance
fluorescence, at a certain location, by means of light irradia-
tion. After a certain length, the atoms pass throush an Inhomo-
geneous magnetic field; the radiation emitted by the atoms can
be observed over the entire length of their path, before and
behind the magnetic fleld. Before the atoms enter the magnetic
field, they exhibit normal resonance fluorescence, i.e., In
analogy to the d_sperslon theory, we must assume that all atoms
emit in phase wlth the incident , spherical light waves. At
first, thls latter interpretation stands in conflict wlth what
a rough application of the light quanta theory or the baslc /1_
rules of quantum theory indicate: from it one would conc].udo
that that only a few atoms would be ra!sed to an "upper state"
by the absorption of a light quantum and hence, that _11 of
the resonance radiation would come from Intensively radiating
excited centers. Thus, It used to be tempting to say: the con-
cept ot ltght quanta can be called upon here only for the
energy tmpulse balance; "in reality" all atoms radiate In lower
states as a weak and coherent spherical wave. Once the atoms
have passed through the magnetic field, there can hardly b_
 any doubt left that the atom beam has split into two beams i

of which one corresponds to atoms in the higher state and the

other, to atoms in the lower state. If the atoms in the lower

state were radiating, this would be a gross infringement of

the energy theorem, because all of the excitation energy is
t contained in the fraction with the higher state. Rather, there
can be no doubt that behind the magnetic field, only the atom i
beam with the upper states is emitting light - and non-coherent
light, at that - from the few intensively radiating atoms in
the upper state. As Bohr showed, this imaginary experiment makes !
particularly clear how careful we must be with the application i

of the concept "stationary state". From the conception of the !

I

quantum theory developed here, it is easy to discuss Bohr'S ex-

periment without any difficulty. In the outer radiation field
the phases of the atoms are determined and hence there is no
sense in talking of the energy of the atom. Even after the atom
has left the radiation field we can not say that it is in a

certain stationary state, if we are asking for coherence charac- _

teristics of the radiation. But experiments can be performed to
test in which state the atom is; the result of this experiment
car only be given statistically. Such an experiment is actual-
ly performed by the inhomogeneous magnetic field. Behind the
magnetic field, the energies of the atoms are determined and
hence their phases are undetermined. The radiation is incoher-
ent and emitted only by atoms in the upper state. The magnetic
field determined the energies and hence destroys the phase re-
lations. Bohr's imaginary experiment provides a beautiful
clarification of the fact that the energy of the atom is also,
"in reality, not a number, but a matrix."The law of conserva-
tion applies to the matrix energy and hence also to the value
of the energy, as precisely as it is measured, in each case.

Analytically, the cancellation of the phase relations can be /19--3

followed approximately thus: let Q be the coordinates of the
atom's center of mass; we can then assign to the atom (instead
of (19)) the eigen-function

26
i OR,GINAL PAG_ ?_
OF POOR QUALITY I

s(Q,Os(q, t) -- s(_, _,0 ('_D

where S(Q,t) is a function that [as S(n,q) in (1611 is differ- o

_;! ent from zero in only a small area around a point in Q-space, i
'_ and propagates with the velocity of the atoms in the direction
_} of the beam. The probability of a relative amplitude q for
some values Q is given by the integral of _

S(Q,q,t)S(O,q,t) over Q, i.e., via (20). "

The eigen-function (21), however, will change in the magnetic

field in a calculable manner, and because of the differing de-

flection of the atoms in the upper and the lower state, will
have become, behind the magnetic field, i

S(Q,_,t) = %s,(0,t),/,,(,_;,v)e h i,
_=l,t
-_ _/i -- ,'_ S, (Q, t) ea (El, q) 1 (22)

S1(Q,q,t) and S2(Q,t) will be functions in Q-space differing

from zero only in a small area surrounding the point. But this _
point is different for S1_%nd for S 2. Hence SIS 2 is zero every- _
where. Hence, the probabilzty of a relative amplitude R and a
definite value 0 is

The periodic term in (201 has disappeared and with it, the pos-

sibility of measuring a phase relation. The result of the sta-

tistical
less position
of the phase determination
of the incidentwill always
light be the itsame,
for which was regard-
deter- }

mined. We may assume that experiments with radiation whose theo-

ry has not yet been fully elaborated will yield the same re-
sults regarding the phase relations of atoms to the incident
light.

Finally, let us examine the relation between equation (2),

E1t I =h, and a problem complex discussed by Ehrenfest* and two '
other researchers by means of Bohr's correspondence principle,

27

_ mm - ...................
!
{
i

in two important papers**. Eflrenfest and Tolman speak of "weak !

quantization" when a quantifiea periodic motion is subdivided,
by quantum jumps or other disturbances, into time intervals /I__9_
: that can not be considered long in relation to the system's

period. Supposedly, in this case there are not only the exact
_ energy values from quantum theory, but also - with a lower a
priori probability that can be qualitatively indicated - energy
values that do not differ too much from the quantum theory-based
values. In quantum mechanics, such a behavior is to be inter-
i pretated as follows: since the energy is really changed, due to
: other disturbances or to quantum jumps, each energy measurement
has to be performed in the interval between two disturbances,

if it is to be unequivocal. This provides an upper limit to t I

in the sense of I. Thus the energy value Eo of a quantified
state is also measured only with a precision E I = t/t I. Here,
the question whether the system "really" adopts energy values

E that differ from Eo-with the correspondingly smaller statis-

tical weight - or whether their experimental determination is

due only to the uncertainty of the measurement, is pointless, _

in principle. If t I is smaller than the system's period, then ._.
there is no longer any sense in talking of discrete stationary "_
states or discrete energy values.

In a similar context, Ehrenfest and Breit (l.c.) point out the

following paradox: let us imagine a rotator - for instance, in
the shape of a gear wheel - fitted with a mechanism that after
f revolutions just reverses the direction of rotation. Let us
further assume that the gear wheel acts on a rack that can be
linearly displaced between two blocks. After the specified num-
ber of revolutions, the blocks force the rack, and hence the
wheel, to reverse direction. The true period T of the system is
u, , ii

XS.f. Phys. 9, 207 (1922) and P.

* P"
Ehrenfest
EhrenfeStandandR.c.G.Tolman,Breit,
Phys.Aev. 2_, 28? (1924); see also
the discussion in N. Bohr, Basic postulates of quantum theory,
l.c.
** Mr. W. Pauli pointed this relation out to me.

28
 i long in relation to the period _ of the wheel; the discrete
energy steps are correspondingly dense, and denser, she greater

T is. Since from the point of view of a consistent quantum theo-

ry all stationary states have the same statistical weight, for
i _ a sufficiently large T practically all energy values will occur
with the same frequency - in contrast to what we would expect
_ for the rotator. Initially, this paradox becomes even sharper

_ when we consider our points of view. Because in order to es-

r tablish whether the system will adopt the discrete energy val-
ues corresponding to a pure rotator singly or with special
_ _ frequency, or whether it will adopt all possible values {i.e.,
values corresponding to the small energy steps h/T) with the
same probability, a time t_ is sufficient, which is small in

for such measurements never becomes effective, it apparently

ii relation toitself
manifests T (but--
in that
_). all
That possible
is, although
energythe
values
large can
period
occur. /195
We believe that such experiments for the determination of the
system's total energy would actually yield all possible energy
values with the same probability; and this is not due to the
large period T, but to the linearly displaceable rack. Even if
the system should find itself in a state whose energy corres-
ponds to the rotator quantification, by means of external
forces acting on the rack it can be easily taken to states,
that do not correspond to the rotator quantification*. The
coupled system rotator-rack simply has periodicity character-
istics that are different from those of the rotator. The solu-
tion of the paradox rather lies in the following: if we wanted
to measure the energy of the rotator alone, then we shall first_
have to dissolve the coupling between rotator and rack. In
classical theory, for a sufficiently small mass of the rack the
dissolution of the coupling could occur without energy changes
and therefore there the energy of the total system could be
equated to that of the rotator (for a small rack mass). In
, ii

* According_to Ehrenfest and Breit, this can occur not at all,

or only rarely, due to forces acting" on the wheel.

29
 l
w

i wheel
quantumis mechanics,
at least ofthetheinteraction
same order energy
of magnitude, as
between rack one
and of
,_ the rotator's energy steps (even for a small rack mass, a high
P

wheel and rack!} Once the coupling is dissolved, the rack and

i! the wheel individually

zero-point adopt
energy remains for their quantum interaction
the elastic theory energy
between
!_ values. Thus, to the extent that we can measure the energy
values of the rotator alone,
we will always find the values
with allowed
i prescribed by quantum theory, the precision by
i the experiment. Even for a vanishingly small rack mass will
the energy of the coupled system be different from that of the
rotator. The energy of the coupled system can adopt all pos- T
' sible values (those allowed by T-quantification) with the same i
probability 6

Ouantum theory kinematics and mechanics are vastly different !

from classical. But the applicability of classical kinemati= _ -_

and mechanical concepts can not be deduced either

laws that govern our thinking, or from experience
from the
We are en- i.._.
='."

the impulse, position, energy, etc., of an electron are pre-

cisely defined concepts, we need not be discouraged by the fact "_
titled to this conclusion by the relation (I) plql _h. Since /196 i__
that the fundamental equation (I) contains only a qualitative [
statement. Since, in addition, we can qualitatively conceive of
the theory's experimental consequences, in all simple cases,
we shall no longer have to view quantum mechanics as not intui-
tive or abstract*. If we admit this, then we would of course

* Schroedinger described quantum mechanics as a formal theory,

of frightening, even repulsive un-intuitiveness and abstrac-
tion. The value of the mathematical (and to that extent, in-
tuitive) penetration of the laws of quantum mechanics accom-
" plished by Schroedinger can certainly not be praised highly
enough. However, in terms of the principled, physical ques-
tions, I believe the popular intuitiveness of wave mechanics
has deflected it from the straight path that had been _erked

3O
e

,
 &
0

also like to be able to derive the quantitative laws of quan-

tum mechanics directly from the intuitive foundations, i.e.,
essentially, from relation (I). For this reason Jordan attempt-
ed to interpret the equation

as a probability relation. We can not agree, however, with

that interpretation ( 2}. Rather, we believe that the quanti-
tative laws can be understood, to begin with, according to the
principle of the greatest possible simplicity, starting from
the intuitive foundations. If, for instance, the X coordinate
of the electron no longer is a "number" - as can be concluded
experimentally, from equation (I) - then the simplest imaginary
assumption [that does not contradict (I)] is that this X coor-
dinate is a diagonal term of a matrix whose non-diagonal terms

are expressed in an uncertainty, or respectively, by other kinds I

of transformations (cf. for instance 4). Perhaps the statement
that the velocity in the X-direction "in reality" is not a num-

ber, but a diagonal term in a matrix is no more unintuitive and _v

abstract than the determination, that the electric field inten- _T
sity "in reality" is the time portion of an antisymmetrical
t
tensor of the space-time world. The expression "in reality" is

description of natural phenomena in mathematical terms. As soon _

as we admit that all quantum theory variables "in reality" are
just as much or as little justified here as it is for any other I<_

If one assumes that the interpretation of quantum mechanics at- /19__/7

tempted here
matrices, the is valid at least
quantitative laws infollow
its essential points, then we
without difficulty, "
l,i=
ii
may be allowed to discuss its main consequences, in a few words.
We have not assumed that quantum theory - in contrast to clas- ..

that starting from exact data we can only draw statistical "::'

by the works of Einstein and de Broglie on the one hand, and ,,

by quantum mechanics, on the other.

31
l I
r
b

, conclusions. Among others, the known experiments by Geiger and

ii Bothe speak against such an assumption. Rather, in all cases
in which relations exist between variables, in classical theo-

i! ry, that can really be measured precisely, the corresponding

_-_ exact relations exist also in quantum theory (impulse and en-
", ergy theorems). But in the rigorous formulation of the law of
_;T causality - "If we know the present precisely, we can calculate
"''. the future" - it is not the conclusion that is faulty, but the
premise. We simply can not know the present in principle in all
its parameters. Therefore all perception is a selection from a
; totality of possibilities and a limitation of what is possible
in the future. Since the statistical nature of quantum theory
is so closely to the u_certainty in all observations or percep-
_i tions, one could be tempted to conclude that behind the ob-
_' served, statistical world a "real" world is hidden, in which
-: the law of causality is applicable. We want to state explicit-
ly that we believe such speculations to be both fruitless and
pointless. The only task of physics is to describe the relation

'i i cribed better by the following:

betweenobservationseThetruesituationcouldratherbedes- Because all experiments are i'_

:i, subject to the laws of quantum mechanics and hence to equation p

_ (I), it follows that quantum mechanics once and for all ,stab- '
lishes the invalidity of the law of causality.

i
4
i Addendum at the time of correction. After closing this paper,
I new investigations by Bohr have led to viewpoints that allow a

: considerable broadening and refining of the analysis of quantum ;.

. mechanics relations attempted here. In this context, Bohr cal- ,_.:
' led my attention to the fact that I had overlooked some essen- !i
t.
tial points in some discussions of this work. Above all, the
uncertainty in the observation is not due exclusively to the _
existence of discontinuities, but is directly related to the :_.
requirement of doing Justice simultaneously to the different I_
experiences expressed by corpuscular theory on the one hand, ,_,_

32
!
$

and by wave theory on the other. For instance, in the use of /19.8
an imaginary r-ray microscope, the divergence of the ray beam
must be taking into account. The first consequence of this is
i that in the observation of the electron's position, the direc-
tion of the Comptom recoil will only be known with some uncer-
tainty, which will then lead to relation (I). It is further-
more not sufficiently stressed that rigorously, the simple
theory of the Compton effect can be applied only to free elec-
trons. As professor Bohr made very clear, the care necessary in
the application of the uncertainty relationship is essential
above all in a general discussion of the transition from micro
to macro-mechanics. Finally, the considerations on resonance

fluorescence are not entirely correct, because the relation ]

electrons is not as simple as assumed here. I am greatly in-

between the phase of the light and that of the motion of the !
debted to professor Bohr for being permitted to know and discuss
during their gestation those new investigations by Bohr, men-
tioned above, dealing with the conceptual structure of quantum
theory, and to be published soon.

33