Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

On Schrdinger's equation, Hertz's mechanics and Van Vleck's determinant

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2013 Eur. J. Phys. 34 953

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/34/4/953)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 129.237.108.8
This content was downloaded on 29/09/2016 at 19:52

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

You may also be interested in:

From classical to quantum mechanics through optics

Jaume Masoliver and Ana Ros

Derivation of the Schrodinger equation from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation

J H Field

Discovering by analogy: the case of Schrdinger's equation

Constantinos Tzanakis

The case of the Doppler effect for photons revisited

Dragan V Redi

Progress in classical and quantum variational principles

C G Gray, G Karl and V A Novikov

From the origin of quantum concepts to the establishmentof quantum mechanics

M A El'yashevich

Quantum Machian time in toy models of gravity

Sean Gryb
IOP PUBLISHING EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
Eur. J. Phys. 34 (2013) 953974 doi:10.1088/0143-0807/34/4/953

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs
mechanics and Van Vlecks
determinant
R Lopes Coelho 1 and John Stachel 2
1Faculty of Science, University of Lisbon, Campo Grande C4, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal
2Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University, 745 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston,
MA 02215, USA

E-mail: rlc@fc.ul.pt and stachel@buphy.bu.edu

Received 18 November 2012, in final form 7 January 2013

Published 7 May 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/34/953

Abstract
There has been much research on Schrodingers route to what we now call
Schrodingers equation. Various authors disagree as to the exact nature of the
influence of each of the physicists he citesand of some that he does not. This
paper, intended for graduate students of and researchers in quantum theory,
clarifies Schrodingers original aims in formulating a wave equation for matter,
discusses how far he fulfilled his original aspirations and in what respects he
fell short of his goal. An analysis of Schrodingers foundational paper enables
us to distinguish between a formal and an epistemological part, and consider
the input of the physicists cited on the basis of the part in which each reference
occurs. It turns out, for instance, that Hamiltons optical-mechanical analogy
belongs entirely to the epistemological part. Indeed, no element of this analogy
plays any role in the formal part of Schrodingers argument. Instead of basing
his theory on this analogy, as is often done nowadays in the physics literature
and even in the history of science, we maintain that the aim of Schrodingers
project was to represent wave phenomena by a wave in configuration- or
q-space, paralleling Hertzs treatment in his Mechanics (1894). The influence of
this book on Schrodingers foundational paper is demonstrated by an analysis of
his unpublished paper: Hertzs Mechanics and Einsteins Theory of Gravitation.
This approach enables us to dispense with the optical-mechanical analogy in
tracing the route to Schrodingers equation. We also discuss the curious role
of the Van Vleck determinant as the missing link in taking the classical limit
of Schrodingers wavefunction. A concluding section discusses the relation of
some of Schrodingers earlier and later work to the development of quantum
field theory.

0143-0807/13/040953+22$33.00 
c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA 953
954 R L Coelho and J Stachel

Introduction

There has been much historical research on the 1926 series of papers in which Schrodinger
developed wave mechanics3. The first of these starts with Hamiltons differential equations
for classical mechanics; and the second, generally considered the foundational one (see, e.g.,
Jammer 1966, p 261, Mehra and Rechenberg 1987, p 532), begins with Hamiltons principle.
Historians of science have understandably looked for routes leading from Hamiltons work to
Schrodingers equation. We shall briefly summarize the line of development from Hamilton
to Schrodinger as it is usually presented.
In 1828, William Rowan Hamilton published his Theory of Systems of Rays, in which
the characteristic function for optics first appears (Hamilton 1828). In 1834 and 1835,
he published two papers on mechanics, in which the characteristic function is applied to
mechanical systems and the principal function is introduced (Hamilton 1834, 1835). In 1891,
Felix Klein, the famed Gottingen mathematician, drew attention to Hamiltons work, and
in 1901 regretted that his emphasis on its importance had been neglected (Klein 1901).
As an assistant in Gottingen, Arnold Sommerfeld came across Kleins lectures and brought
Hamiltons contribution to the attention of physicists. Indeed, Sommerfeld and Runges (1911)
paper inspired several important articles: Epstein 1916, Schwarzschild 1916 and Einstein
1917. Sommerfeld himself gave an account of this line of development in Atomic Structure
and Spectral Lines (Sommerfeld 1924, p 8034), which in turn is cited in Schrodingers
foundational paper. According to some authors (Klein 1964, Hanle 1971), Einsteins 1924
paper on the Quantum Theory of the Monatomic Ideal Gas influenced Schrodinger more than
other papers. According to others, de Broglies dissertation in 1925 was the most significant
road mark on Schrodingers route to the wave equation (Raman and Forman 1969, Wessels
1979, Kragh 1982, among others). Still others (Joas and Lehner 2009) defend the view that
the Hamiltonian optical-mechanical analogy was crucial to Schrodingers thinking.
All of these approaches omit one seminal work: Hertzs Principles of Mechanics Presented
in a New Form (Hertz 1894, Hertz 1956, hereafter cited as Hertz Mechanics). In this book, an
exception to Kleins criticism, Hamiltons characteristic and principal functions are deduced
from Hertzs fundamental law and interpreted in a new way. Hertz not only deals with these
functions mathematically, but he also distinguishes between their geometric and physical
meaning. As we shall show, this approach was significant not only for Schrodingers approach
to quantum theory, but also to general relativity.
To facilitate the discussion of the role of Hertz Mechanics in Schrodingers foundational
paper, we shall present a hermeneutic map of the paper. We divide it into a formal part, devoted
to the mathematical development of his theory, and an epistemological part, dealing with the
role of theoretical models and the relation between them. Thus, the input of the authors cited
by Schrodinger can be considered in connection with the part in which each reference occurs.
The first mention of Heinrich Hertz is in the formal part of Schrodingers paper, and
some connections with Hertz Mechanics can be inferred from the text itself. But many of
the most striking connections only become apparent through an examination of Schrodingers
much earlier, unpublished paper On Hertzs Mechanics and Einsteins Theory of Gravitation,
tentatively dated 191819. It is primarily this manuscript (Schrodinger 1918) that enables us to
establish the connection between Hertzs Mechanics and Schrodingers foundational paper and
thus to dispense with the optical-mechanical analogy in discussing the route to Schrodingers
equation.

3 Schr
odinger (1926a) was the first of this series of papers. The second and the fourth will be hereafter cited as Q2
and Q4. We will use both the original version and the English translation.

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 955

Table 1. Table of translations.

Hertzs PM Schrodinger 1918

Coordinate p qi Coordinate
Reduced component p

r 
r
Displacement of a system ds2 = a dp dp ds2 = gik qi qk Line element
=1 =1
r  r
Displacement of a system ds2 = b d p d p
=1 =1
(in reduced components)
dp
ds
Ri Contravariant
components of the
direction vector
d p
ds
Ri Covariant
components of the
direction vector
Momentum q pi Momentum

r 
r
E: energy of a free system 2E = m a p p 2T = gik qi qk T: kinetic energy
=1 =1
r  r
E: energy of a free system 2E = 1
m
b q q 2T = gik pi pk T: kinetic energy
=1 =1
Kinetic energy a
T =U +h T = E U Kinetic energy
aInstead of the total energy E, Hertz uses the mathematical energy h. In Hertz Mechanics, the total energy of a
conservative system is given by the sum of the kinetic energy of the system and the kinetic energy of the hidden
masses that are connected with this system (H. 605). The force exerted by the hidden masses upon the system is
given by means of the Kraftefunktion (force-function) U, which corresponds to the potential energy (H. 563, 603).
The mathematical energy h, which differs from the total energy by a constant (H. 611), is given as the difference
between the kinetic energy and the force function of a conservative system, i.e. h = TU (H. 612). Therefore, the
kinetic energy T is given as T = U + h (H. 612 b).

Indeed, the subjects addressed in paragraphs 411 of the 1926 paper (Q2, pp 4904,
1416) are dealt with in detail in Schrodinger 1918. In turn, many of the equations in this
can be found in Hertz Mechanics, sometimes with a different notation. So we shall provide a
translation table (table 1), facilitating comparison of the two texts.
The significance of Schrodingers earlier unpublished papers and (1918) for his 1926
series of papers has already been pointed out by several historians of science. Mehra and
Rechenberg (1987) presented the most detailed reading of Schrodinger (1918). However,
to our knowledge, the connection between this and Hertz Mechanics has not hitherto been
addressed.
In the final sections of the paper, we shall discuss a couple of puzzling historical
questions. In his 1926 paper, Schrodinger discusses the physical significance of the
scalar field and describes as a sort of weighting function in the configuration space
of the system. Indeed, a solution to Schrodingers equation corresponds to an ensemble of
classical trajectories. But the relation between the weighting function and the phase of
can only be understood with the help of the Van Vleck determinant. It converts an equally
probable ensemble of trajectories in phase space, determined by a complete solution to the
HamiltonJacobi equation, into the corresponding ensemble in configuration space, weighted
with the correct density function. This is a purely classical result; yet it was not until 1928 that
Van Vleck used it to clarify the semi-classical approximation to a solution of Schrodingers
equation. This question is discussed in the section On Schrodingers time-dependent equation
and Van Vlecks Determinant.
956 R L Coelho and J Stachel

Schrodingers original aim was to describe the quantum nature of ponderable matter by
means of a wave equation in ordinary three-dimensional space, i.e. by what we now call a
quantum field theory. In a 1926 paper, he actually adumbrated an approach to such a theory.
Yet he never included that paper in any collection published in his lifetime, nor even mentioned
it when discussing his early work. This question is discussed in the section on Schrodinger
and quantum field theory.

1. On the foundational paper and Hertz Mechanics

Schrodingers Q2 is divided into three sections:

(1) the Hamiltonian analogy between mechanics and optics;
(2) geometrical and undulatory mechanics;
(3) application to examples.
Schrodingers wave equation appears towards the end of section 2. Since our aim is to discuss
the road to this equation, we shall consider his paper only up to this point. As noted in the
introduction, we divide this portion of the paper into two parts: formal and epistemological.
The latter involves reflections on geometric and wave optics, and classical and undulatory
mechanics. Using the numbering of the paragraphs in the paper as well as the page numbers
from the German and English editions for clarity, in the first two sections the distribution can
be presented as follows.

Division of the paper First section Second section

Formal Paragraphs 312 Paragraphs 1936
(p 4904, 1416) (p 497506, 1925)
Epistemological Paragraphs 1318 Paragraphs 3741
(p 4947, 1618) (p 5069, 2527)

1.1. On the formal part

Schrodinger starts the formal part of his paper by recalling the HamiltonJacobi equation:
 
W W
+ T qk , + V (qk ) = 0. (Q2, equation(1))
t qk
He makes the Ansatz
W = Et + S(qk ), (Q2, equation(2))
and introducing this into (1) obtains
 
W
2T qk , = 2(E V ). (Q2, equation(1 ))
qk
This is the equation to which Schrodinger refers throughout the paper (see paragraphs 3,
4, 7, 25, 32). His interpretation of it stems from Hertz: Die Aussage der Gleichung (1 ) lat
sich nun hochst einfach aussprechen, wenn man sich der Ausdrucksweise von Heinrich Hertz
bedient (p 491).
The statement of equation (1 ) can now be very simply expressed if we make use of
the mode of expression of Heinrich Hertz, (p 14) as Schrodinger explains in the next few
paragraphs. We shall now consider the topics dealt with in these paragraphs and explain the
connection of each with Hertz Mechanics.

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 957

1.1.1. On the line element. Schrodinger writes: Sie [Gleichung 1] wird [ . . . ] einfach und
anschaulich, wenn man in diesem Raum mittels der kinetischen Energie des Systems eine
nichteuklidische Mabestimmung einfuhrt (p 491). It [equation (1 )] becomes . . . simple and
clear if we introduce into this space [of the qks] a non-Euclidean metric by means of the kinetic
energy of the system (p 14).
Accordingly, he now introduces a non-Euclidean line element
ds2 = 2T (qk , qk ) dt 2 . (Q2, equation(3))
Let us consider the connection between this line element and Hertz Mechanics.
Hertz did not use the expression line element, but rather displacement of a system
(H 29). The magnitude ds of such a displacement is determined by the quadratic form
n
 
m ds2 = mk dxk2 + dy2k + dz2k ,
k=1
where m stands for the total mass of the system and mk stands for the mass of each of the
material points of the system.
The expression for the displacement in terms of generalized coordinates is obtained by
expressing the rectangular coordinates x as functions of a set of r generalized coordinates p .
It follows that
r
x
dx = dp , (H. 57)
=1
p

and substituting in the expression for ds2, he obtained

 r  r
ds2 = a dp dp . (H. 57)
=1 =1
2
Rewriting ds in accord with Einsteins summation convention, as used by Schrodinger
in (1918), and making the corresponding changes of symbols (see table 1) one obtains
ds2 = gik dqi dqk . ((1918), equation(6))
Schrodinger obtained this equation from the kinetic energy as follows. In (1918), the
kinetic energy has the form
 
1 ds 2
T = , ((1918), equation(2))
2 dt
since it is taken for a material point with unit mass. Thus, it follows from this equation that
ds2 = 2T dt 2 .
Since
2T = gik (q1 , . . . , qn )qi qk , ((1918), equation(5))
Schrodingers equation ((1918), equation (6)) follows.
In the 1926 foundational paper, the mass is now explicitly includedin the expression for
the kinetic energy. Thus, the dimension of ds is no longer L, but rather ML.

1.1.2. Covariant and contravariant. The foundational paper states: Fur die Rechnung ist eine
der wichtigsten Abanderungen, da man sorgfaltig zwischen kovarianten und kontravarianten
Komponenten eines Vektors oder Tensors zu unterscheiden hat (p 491). One of the most
important modifications for the calculation is that we must distinguish carefully between
covariant and contravariant components of a vector or tensor (p 1415). Schrodinger
958 R L Coelho and J Stachel

distinguishes between the two expressions for the kinetic energy, in the covariant and
contravariant forms, respectively,
  by writing 2T or 2T (p 15). Hertz uses the bar symbol
for the reduced component d p , which, as we shall now see, is related to the covariant
contravariant distinction.
Hertzs reduced component can be obtained by differentiation of ds2. If we differentiate
the expression for ds2 in terms of dp s,

r 
r
ds2 = a dp dp ,
=1 =1

then
1 p ds2  r
= a dp = d p , (H. 91);
2 dp =1
the inverse of this equation

r
d p = a dp (H. 78)
=1
is then

r
dp = b d p . (H. 79)
=1
Thus, the line element can be expressed in any of the following forms:

r 
r 
r 
r 
r
ds2 = a dp dp = dp d p = b d p d p . (H. 82)
=1 =1 =1 =1 =1

Hertz defines the energy of a system as E = 12 mv 2 (H 283), so it follows from the last
three forms of ds2 that the energy E can also take the following three forms:
1   1 1 
r r r r r
E= m a p p = p q = b q q . (H. 286)
2 =1 =1 2 =1 2m =1 =1
Rewriting these equations using Einsteins symbolism and taking m = 1, as Schrodinger
did, one obtains the equations in (1918):
2T = gik qi qk = pk qk = gik pi pk . ((1918), equation(9))
In differentiating E = Hertz uses the symbols p and q to distinguish between the
1
2
mv 2 ,
first and the last forms of equations (H. 286).
If
1 
r r
E= m a p p ,
2 =1 =1
then
pE
= q ; (H. 376)
p
r  r
and if E = 1
2m
b q q , then
=1 =1

q E
= p . (H. 379)
q

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 959

In discussing the expressions for the kinetic energy, Schrodinger introduces the distinction
between the covariant and contravariant components ((1918), sheet 5). The velocities qi are
the contravariant components, while pi
T
pi = = gik qk ((1918), equation(8))
qi
are the covariant components. As noted above, this covariantcontravariant distinction
reappears prominently in the 1926 paper (Q2, paragraphs 6 and 7).

1.1.3. Operations with ds. In 1926, Schrodinger pointed out that the line element, as
defined above, has the advantage of allowing the introduction of local operations analogous
to those in three-dimensional Euclidean space, such as the angle between two line elements,
perpendicularity, divergence, etc (Q2, p 491, 14).
As an example of these operations in (1918), we take the cosine of the angle between two
linear displacements, which can also be found in Hertz. In his Mechanics, the cosine of the
angle between two infinitesimal displacements ds and ds is given by
 r r
ds ds cos(s, s ) = a dp dp , (H. 58)
=1 =1

which can also be expressed in terms of reduced components:


r 
r r 
r
ds ds cos(s, s ) = a dp dp = dp d p = d p dp
=1 =1 =1 =1

r 
r
= b d p d p . (H. 85)
=1 =1

Dividing by ds ds , it follows that

r  r
dp dp  r
dp d p r
d p dp r  r
d p d p
cos(s, s ) = a = = = b .
=1 =1
ds ds =1
ds ds =1
ds ds =1 =1
ds ds
These equations correspond to the following equations in Schrodinger:
cos(R, S) = gik Ri Sk = Ri Si = Ri Si = gik Ri Sk . ((1918), equation(13))
This is only one example of operations used in the 1926 paper that can be found in the
earlier work.

1.1.4. Straightest path and the geometry of motion. The fundamental equation (1 ) in the
1926 paper is equivalent, Schrodinger states, to the following ones:
(grad W )2 = 2(E V ), (Q2, equation(1  ))
or

|grad W | = 2(E V ). (Q2, equation(1   ))
These equations had already appeared in Schrodinger (1918) and even in Hertzs
Mechanics. But before we deal with these equations, we shall consider Hertzs fundamental
law, according to which a free system describes the straightest path. Hertz refers to this
law as being inferred from experiment; therefore, this path is a real, physical one. But there
is another, geometrical interpretation of straightest paths. In Hertzs analysis of Hamiltons
functions, straightest paths are paths that are orthogonal to a family of hypersurfaces in a
960 R L Coelho and J Stachel

q-space. Thus, we have two concepts of straightest paths: those which are paths in physical
space and those which are families of geometrical lines in q-space; the connection between
the two is that the straightest paths in q-space account for real motions in physical space.
This distinction has its parallel in Schrodinger. In order to account for phenomena
described by de Broglies matter waves, introduced in 1925 (de Broglie 1925), Schrodinger
developed the concept of q-space waves (q-Raumwellen, Q2, p 501, 21). Schematically, we
have the following parallelism:

Hertzs fundamental law Straightest path (real) Matter waves (real) de Broglie
Hertzs interpretation of Straightest path in q-space Waves in q-space Schrodinger
Hamiltons functions

Hertzs fundamental law states:

Every free system persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion along the straightest
path (H 309).
This law differs from Newtons first law in that Hertzs law is formulated for systems,
whereas Newtons law is formulated for bodies. Newtons first law states:
Every body perseveres in its state at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, ex-
cept insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed (Newton 1999,
p 416).
The last part of this sentence except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces
impressed, corresponds to that which Hertz expresses by free. If we disregard this part and
compare the two laws in Latin, we can see that Hertz was inviting a direct comparison between
the two.

Hertzs fundamental law Newtons first law

Systema omne Omne corpus
perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel
movendi uniformiter in movendi uniformiter in
directissimam directum

If there is no external force, then the curvature of the path is zero in Newtons law, whereas
in Hertzs law it is not necessarily zero, but it is rather a minimum.
We shall not use the equations of motion stated in the fundamental laws, but will see how
they are obtained because the process of obtaining Hamiltons functions is the same for both.
Both the mathematical expressions of the fundamental law and Hamiltons functions have a
geometrical component, and both become equations of motion through the introduction of
time in a similar way.
The geometrical component in Hertzs fundamental law consists of the equations of least
curvature (the straightest path) for a free system. To introduce the time into these equations
(H 155) and thus to express a motion of a free system, Hertz multiplies them by 2E = mv 2,
where v is the velocity of the free system and m is the mass. Thus, he obtains
i
m x + x X = 0, (H. 368)
=1

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 961

where x represents the second derivative of the spatial coordinate with respect to time, x
stems from the equations of internal constraints and X stands for a Lagrange multiplier. These
are the equations of motion of a free system and obviously the mathematical expression of
the fundamental law. The same procedure is used for Hamiltons characteristic and principal
functions.
Hertz deals with the equations of the system of straightest paths that are orthogonal to a
family of hypersurfaces. The product of these equations of the straightest path in q-space with
2mE leads to Hamiltons characteristic function. Schematically,

Basic equation Factor Result

Straightest path (fundamental law) 2E Equations of motion (fundamental law)

Straightest path in q-space 2mE Differential equations of Hamiltons
characteristic function

Let us first consider the geometric part of the discussion of Hamiltons function in Hertz
Mechanics. If there is a family of hypersurfaces given by R = constant, then the trajectories
perpendicular to these hypersurfaces satisfy the equation
r  r
R R 1
b 1 = 2 , (H. 214)
=1 =1
p1 p1 f
where f is a function of the p s. In a special case when f = 1, Hertz introduced a new symbol:
the family of hypersurfaces is denoted by S = constant, and the differential equations take the
form
 r  r
S S
b 1 = 1. (H. 227)
=1 =1
p1 p 1
Hertz then introduced the function V,

V = 2Em S. (H. 411)
Thus, the differential equation (H 227) takes the form
 r  r
V V
b 1 = 2mE. (H. 413)
=1 =1
p1 p 1
This is Hamiltons characteristic function for a free holonomic system (H 412).
The procedure to obtain Hamiltons function for holonomic conservative systems is the
same as before, with the exception that now the potential energy is also taken into account.
Multiplying (H 227) by 2m(U + h),
 r  r
 S  S
b 1 2m(U + h) 2m(U + h) = 2m(U + h),
=1 =1
p1 p 1
and introducing the new form of the function V,

V = 2m(U + h)S,
he obtains

r 
r
V V
b 1 = 2m(U + h). (H. 650)
=1 =1
p1 p 1
962 R L Coelho and J Stachel

In (1918), Schrodinger follows Hertzs approach. Hertzs general function R became

Schrodingers function f . He takes
f (q1 , . . . , qn ) = c,
where c is a parameter. The function f satisfies the same differential equation as R. The
direction of the greatest increase of f at point P of the q-space 4 is then given by the magnitude
of the gradient of f , which Schrodinger calls :
f f
gik = 2 . ((1918), equation(21))
qi qk
The change in the value of the function f due to a displacement ds in that direction is
then given by ds; and the distance between two neighbouring hypersurfaces f = c0 and
f = c0 + dc is then given by ds = c1 c0 . So far, this is all purely geometry. Schrodinger
then moves on to mechanics.
The principle of least action in Jacobis form states that

P1 
2(E U ) ds = 0. ((1918), equation(3))
P0
So, taking

= 2(E U ),
Schrodinger makes of

ds = c1 c0
an integral of motion, and equation ((1918), equation (21)) becomes
f f
gik = 2(E U ). ((1918), equation(24))
qi qk
This makes understandable Schrodingers statement that Jacobis principle ((1918),
equation (3)) determines the geometry of motion.
In the 1926 paper, the function is denoted not by f , but rather by W , which hence satisfies
the equation
(grad W )2 = 2(E V ). (Q2, equation(1 ))

1.1.5. The construction rule. In the foundational paper, Schrodinger moves on from this
equation (Q2, equation (1 )) to the rule for the construction of a family of hypersurfaces. This
construction by means of equal small lengths perpendicular to a hypersurface had already been
given in Hertz Mechanics. Hertz writes
Errichtet man in allen Lagen einer beliebigen Flache geradeste Bahnen senkrecht
zur Flache, und tragt auf allen die gleiche Lange ab, so wird die so erhaltene neue
Flache von jenen geradesten Bahnen ebenfalls senkrecht durchschnitten (H 228).
If we erect at all positions of any surface straightest paths perpendicular to the
surface, and cut off from each equal lengths, then the surface so obtained is cut
orthogonally by each of these straightest paths.
4 Hatte ich in (18) [f(q1, . . . ,qn) = konst.] die Konstante als variablen Parameter, die Gleichung also als Gleichung
einer Flachenschar auf
f (q1 , . . . , qn ) = c
dann ist die Richtung des starksten Aufstieges von f in jedem Punkt des q-Raumes durch die Orthogonaltrajektorien
dieser Schar gegeben ((1918), sheet 12).

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 963

Figure 1. Construction of surfaces taken from the notebook on Tensor Analytical Mechanics I.
Reproduced by permission of Ruth Braunizer.

Schrodinger (1918) follows this method of constructing hypersurfaces. He takes a

hypersurface F = 0 ((1918), equation (27)) and shows that this can become a member of
a family of hypersurfaces, f = c ((1918), equation (28)), in the following way. From each
point of the hypersurface F = 0, orthogonal displacements with the same length are drawn.
The hypersurface formed by the end points of these displacements is a member of the family,
with c = . These displacements are given by

s = . ((1918), equation(29))
2(E U )
Schrodinger writes
f = c0 + , ((1918), equation(29.1))
where
f = c0 ((1918), equation(29.2))
defines the same hypersurface as F = 0. If we construct hypersurfaces in the same way on
both sides of F = 0, then we obtain a family of hypersurfaces
f = c . ((1918), equation(30))
In the 1926 foundational paper, the same construction was carried out, first with the time
t in the function W (qi, t) taken as a constant. In the second step, it was allowed to vary.
Nun zur Konstruktionvorschrift (Q2, p 492). Let us consider the construction rule, says
Schrodinger (p 15). The hypersurface of reference is W 0 and the next hypersurface is W 0 +
dW 0. The distance between the two hypersurfaces is given by
dW0
ds = . (Q2, equation(4))
2(E V )
This also holds if dW 0 is taken in the opposite sense, W 0dW 0. All this is illustrated by a
figure in his paper (see figure 2). In this way, a family of W -hypersurfaces is constructed from
the initial one W 0.
If the time is not constant, then the initial hypersurface wanders. This wandering of the
W -hypersurfaces is described as follows. If at a certain time t, we have the hypersurfaces as
presented above (figure 2), then at time t + dt, the hypersurface W 0 reaches that place where
W 0 + dW 0 was, and so on. The distance between the two hypersurfaces is then given by
Edt
ds = . (Q2, equation(5))
2(E V )
964 R L Coelho and J Stachel

Figure 2. Q2, p 493, figure 1. Reproduced from Schrodinger (1926b) with permission from John
Wiley and Sons.

As the motion through ds occurs during the time dt, the hypersurfaces of constant phase
move with a phase velocity u = ds
dt
or
E
u= . (Q2, equation(6))
2(E V )

1.1.6. Further development. In the next step, Schrodinger introduces an equation of the form
sin ( . . . ), in which W should appear. Since W has the dimension of an action, whereas a phase
is dimensionless, he divides W by h, a constant that has the dimension of action. Thus, he
writes
 
W
sin 2 + const . (Q2, equation(10))
h
As
W = Et + S(qk ), (Q2, equation(2))
it follows
 
E S(qk )
sin 2 t + 2 + const . (Q2, equation(10))
h h
This provides him with q-space waves of frequency = Eh . Their wave length is given
by = u , where
E
u= ,
2(E V )
i.e.
u h
= = . (Q2, equation(12))
2(h V )
Actually, this wave length does not have the dimension of length, but as Schr
odinger
explains, this is due to the metric of the configuration space having the dimension ML (see
(1.1.1.).
Furthermore, Schrodinger verifies that the velocity of the image point coincides with the
group velocity of a packet of these waves. He then discusses the motion of such a wave packet
and reaches the conclusion.
Der Punkt u bereinstimmender Phase fur gewisse n-parametrige infinitesimale
Mannigfaltigkeiten von Wellensystemen bewegt sich nach denselben Gesetzen wie
der Bildpunkt des mechanischen Systems (p 505).

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 965

The point of phase agreement for certain infinitesimal manifolds of wave systems,
containing n parameters, moves according to the same laws as the image point of the
mechanical system (p 24).
Due to this argument, Schrodinger claims with great certainty that the real motion of the
system is represented by waves in q-space and not by trajectories of image points. This claim,
which appears in the epistemological part of his paper, justifies the following steps leading
to the wave equation. In welcher Weise wird man nun bei der undulatorischen Ausgestaltung
der Mechanik in den Fallen, wo sie sich als notwendig erweist, vorzugehen haben? Man mu
statt von den Grundgleichungen der Mechanik von einer Wellengleichung fur den q-Raum
ausgehen (p 509).
In what way now shall we have to proceed to the undulatory representation of mechanics
for those cases where it is necessary? We must start, not from the fundamental equations
of mechanics, but from a wave equation for q-space, (p 27) by which he means the usual
second-order scalar wave equation. The only datum for its construction he adds, is the wave
velocity (Q2, equation (6)) or (Q2, equation (6 )).
Man wird dann fur die Wellenfunktion  ansetzen (p 509).
We will then say that for the wavefunction  we have (p 27).
1
div grad  2  = 0. (Q2, equation(18))
u
Using his previous expression for the wave velocity, he obtains the explicit form of the
time-independent wave equation:
8 2
(E V ) = 0. (Q2, equation(18  ))
div grad  +
h2
This is Schrodingers wave equation as presented in the second paper.
The diagram below shows the correspondence between some of the equations in the three
works that we have been discussing.

Hertzs Mechanics Schrodinger (1918) Schrodingers paper


r 
r
b 1 S
p
S
p 1
=1 gik Ni Nk = 1
1
=1 =1
r  r
f f
b 1 R
p
R
p 1
= 1
f2
gik q qk
= 2
1 i
=1 =1
r  r
f f
b 1 V
p
V
p 1
= 2m(U + h) gik q qk
= 2 (E U ) (grad W )2 = 2 (E V )
1 i
=1 =1  
sin 2 Wh + const
2
div grad  + 8
h2
(E V ) = 0

1.2. On the epistemological part

In the epistemological part of his fundamental paper, Schrodinger argues against classical
particle mechanics and in favour of a mechanics of an undulatory character. The main
argument against classical mechanics is that its fundamental equations are useless in providing
explanations for the behaviour of microstructures. Schrodinger adds that physicists had felt
these difficulties so strongly that some doubted whether a framework based on spatio-temporal
concepts could be applied to the explanation of events in atoms.
966 R L Coelho and J Stachel

His arguments in favour of a mechanics of undulatory character are the following.

Sommerfeld, Epstein and Schwarzschild, among others, had already used a formulation of
classical mechanics that points to the undulatory character of mechanical processes. Einstein
would also agree with the concept of an undulatory mechanics, and de Broglie provides him
with a significant argument for the same aim.
These arguments show that the concept of a mechanics of undulatory character was
vague and included approaches of different kinds. Schrodingers approach differs clearly from
the others by its formulation in terms of waves in q-space. What reason does he give for the
construction of this space?
Schrodinger maintained that a q-space with undulatory character can account for real
undulatory phenomena in ordinary 3-space, an idea that clearly has its parallel in Hertz
Mechanics. According to Hertzs fundamental law, a free system moves along the straightest
path. As we have seen, in Hertzs interpretation of Hamiltons functions, straightest paths
are paths that are orthogonal to a family of hypersurfaces in a q-space. Thus, we have to
distinguish between straightest paths in real, three-dimensional space and straightest paths
which are geometrical lines in an abstract q-space. Similarly, we must distinguish between
waves that are real (de Broglie) and waves in a q-space (Schrodinger). Hertz had shown that
the straightest paths in q-space account for the real motions of particles in 3-space: Do the
waves in q-space do the same? The answer is given by Schrodingers categorical claim:

Das wirkliche mechanische Geschehen wird in zutreffender Weise erfat oder

abgebildet durch die Wellenvorgange im q-Raum (p 506).

The true mechanical process is realized or represented in a fitting way by the wave
processes in q-space (p 25).
This proposition expresses, therefore, the new idea that an undulatory q-space can account
for wave-like phenomena in real space.
This explains Schrodingers project: he takes q-space from Hertzs Mechanics and makes
of it an undulatory q-space, with frequencies, wave lengths, group velocities and wave
equations. This understanding of the development of his theory enables us to view the optical-
mechanical analogy in a way that is different from that in which it is usually presented in
the literature. Schrodinger presents the initial q-space (paragraphs 411) as the analogue of
geometric optics. He argues that there is a correspondence between mechanical trajectories
and light rays, which are the basic concept of geometric optics. Schrodinger wrote light
rays in inverted commas because his rays are elements of a q-space, whereas Hamiltonian
rays represented light rays in real 3-space (Hankins 1980, p 70ff). He further argues that both
geometric optics and classical mechanics have similar weak points. This parallelism between
both theories is used for argumentative purposes: geometric optics fails for dimensions small
in comparison with the wave length, and wave optics was the solution for this defect. Similarly,
since classical mechanics also fails for micro-motions, an undulatory mechanics could also be
the solution.
This analogy, however, is not used in the formal development. For instance, the connection
between the eikonal equation and the wave equation is a typical element invoked in this analogy,
but the eikonal equation is not even mentioned in the foundational paper. On the other hand,
in presenting the formal development of the theory based on Schrodingers categorical claim,
we were able to dispense completely with the role of the optical-mechanical analogy (see the
previous section).
In the literature, the optical-mechanical analogy has been taken as the basis of
Schrodingers development of wave mechanics. Gerber (1969) and Kubli (1970) used

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 967

Schrodingers references to Debye, Sommerfeld and Runge to defend the role of the optical-
mechanical analogy (p 496, fn 1; p 18, fn 1). Mehra and Rechenberg (1987) pointed out,
however, that this reference was added after the paper had been submitted, and concluded
that Sommerfeld and Runges paper did not influence Schrodingers results at all. Raman and
Forman (1969) cite Schrodingers notebooks on Tensor Analytical Mechanics and point out
that the third one clearly shows that Schrodinger had examined closely the analogy to which
de Broglie now attributed a fundamental significance (p 303). The fact that this belongs to his
background knowledge is not in question. The point is only that this analogy does not appear in
the formal development of the wave equation. Moreover, Schrodinger (1918) shows us that he
developed a geometric interpretation that enabled him to subsume the optical and mechanical
aspects of Hamiltons analogy. He took the function as = 2(E U ) ((1918), equation
(23)), only due to Jacobis form of the principle of least action; but the function could take a
different expression as well, namely one that connects it with optics.
Hund (1974), Kragh (1982), Wessels (1983), Mehra and Rechenberg (1987), Mehra
(1987), Moore (1989) and Joas and Lehner (2009), among others, have defended the role
of the analogy in Schrodingers work, even though there is no consensus as to its exact
significance. Joas and Lehner (2009), who based their thesis on the origin of Schrodingers
wave mechanics on the optical-mechanical analogy, write

Schrodinger is very explicit on this point in his second communication [when he

said]:

Maybe our classical mechanics is the full analog of geometrical optics [ . . . ] (p 346).

But in this quotation, it is not asserted by Schrodinger that classical mechanics is the full
analogue of geometrical optics, but rather that it may be. If Schrodinger had based his theory on
the Hamiltonian analogy, he should presumably have said something like What I claim with
great certainty is that our classical mechanics is the full analog of geometrical optics [ . . . ].
This is the form of his claim that waves in q-space represent mechanical processes. In this case,
he did not say, Maybe true mechanical processes are represented by waves in a q-space [ . . . ].
The comparison of the two forms shows where the emphasis lies. Indeed, the categorical claim
justifies a representational mechanics and this is what Schrodinger developed.
A brief comparison of Schrodingers and Sommerfelds routes to the Schrodinger equation
also corroborates our thesis, since Sommerfeld (1929) based his approach on the Hamiltonian
optical-mechanical analogy, and this approach differs from Schrodingers.
Based on Einsteins light quantum hypothesis but independently of Hamilton, de Broglie
came up with an optical-mechanical analogy and the hypothesis of wave mechanics based on
this analogy, first presented in 1923 (Kubli 1970, p 5355). According to Joas and Lehner,
Schrodinger developed de Broglies idea of a matter wave (p 338). However, as Scott (1967)
emphasizes, in Schrodingers paper de Broglies ideas have essentially been left behind
because the function no longer represents waves in ordinary three-dimensional space
(p 56). This divergence of opinions can now be explained: from the epistemological point of
view, there is a connection between de Broglies and Schrodingers theories: both are connected
by their undulatory character. From the formal point of view, however, Schrodingers waves
are waves in a q-spaceas Scott pointed outand as such they are not matter waves.
Raman and Forman (1969) posed the question Why was it Schrodinger who developed
de Broglies ideas? and Kubli (1970) asked a similar question. All three authors stress the
importance of the optical-mechanical analogy. But if this analogy led Schrodinger to his wave
equation, then why did it not lead de Broglie to it? This question can now be answered.
Schrodinger developed a theory of waves in q-space, in order to account for real motions,
968 R L Coelho and J Stachel

whereas such waves are not a topic in de Broglies project. Thus, it could not be expected that
de Broglie would obtain a wave equation in the same way as Schrodinger did.

1.3. Schrodinger on Hertz in 1948

In a paper published in 1948 (Schrodinger 1948)5, Schrodinger returned to the role of Hertz
in paving the way for a geometrization of physics. Summarizing and reiterating his earlier
ideas, he wrote
Die Milichkeit der immer noch von Geheimnis umwolkenen Kraftbegriffs mit
seinen deutlich animistischen Spuren wurde nur von wenigen stark empfunden.
Unter ihnen waren Gustav Kirchhoff, Ernst Mach, Heinrich Hertz. Wahrend die

ersten beiden sich mit einer dankenswerten Anderung des Vokabulars begnugten,
schuf der letzte sein bekanntes Kleinen Meisterwerk, die Hertzsche Mechanik,
welche statt Kraften wieder geometrische Bedingungen setzt, wie die Alten, blo
viel allgemeinerer Art. Schon nach ihrer a ueren Formgeodatische Bahnen in
Riemannschen Raumen usw.ganz besonders aber ihrem Gehalt nach ist die
Hertzsche Mechanik die Vorlauferin der relativistischen Theorie der Gravitation.
Sie und ihre versuchten Verallgemeinerungen scheinen dazu geeignet, die Hoffnung
auf eine volle Geometrisierung des Wechselspiels der Materie zu erfullen.
The awkwardness of the concept of force, still always shrouded in mystery, and with
its clearly animistic traces, was strongly felt only by a few. Among them were Gustav
Kirchhoff, Ernst Mach, and Heinrich Hertz. While the first two were satisfied with
a laudable change of vocabulary, the last created a well-known small masterpiece,
Hertzian mechanics; which, like the ancients, posited geometrical conditions instead
of forces, but of a much more general kind. Even in its external formgeodesic
paths in Riemannian spaces, etcbut more particularly in its content, Hertzian
mechanics is the forerunner of the relativistic theory of gravitation. Together with its
attempted generalizations, these theories appear to be suited to fulfil the hope for a
full geometrization of the mutual interactions of matter.

2. On Schrodingers time-dependent equation and Van Vlecks determinant

It was not until Schrodingers fourth paper (Schrodinger 1926c, hereafter cited as Schrodinger
Q4) that he introduced a time-dependent wave equation. It was still not what we now call
Schrodingers equation, but rather an equation that is of second order in time and fourth order
in the spatial variables.
(4) ( 8 2/h2 V)2 + 16 2/h2 2/t2 = 0 (Schrodinger Q4, p 140, 110).
He still regards this equation as fundamental:
Gleichung (4) ist daher offenbar die einheitliche und allgemeine Wellengleichung fur
den Feldskalar (Schrodinger Q4, p 141).
Equation (4) is thus clearly the unified and general wave equation for the scalar field
(p 111).
The equation, first order in time, second order in space, that we now call the Schrodinger
equation is merely the result of a useful Ansatz that he introduces in the search for solutions
to the fourth-order equation.
5 Quotation from p 45.

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 969

Diese Gleichung kann man versuchsweise aufspalten in zwei entweder-oder

verbundene Gleichungen (ibid.),

One can attempt to split this equation into two equations connected as eitheror
alternatives.

These two equations are the eigenvalue equations of his second paper (ibid., p139, 109,
which refers back to Schrodinger Q2, p 510).
See (Schrodinger Q4, pp 1667, 1367), where he writes the equations
(4 ) /t = h/4 i ( 8 2/h2 V)2

/t
= h/4 i ( 8 2/h2 V)2.
He devotes the final section 7 of the paper to die physikalische Bedeutung des Feldskalars
the physical significance of the scalar field (ibid., pp 1649, 1349). He now describes
as eine Art Gewichtsfunktion im Konfigurationsraum des Systems a sort of weighting
function in the configuration space of the system (ibid., p 165, 135).

Die wellenmechanische Konfiguration des Systems ist eine Superposition vieler,

streng genommen aller, kinematisch moglichen punktmechanischen Konfigurationen.
Dabei steuert jede punktmechanische Konfigurationen mit einem gewissen Gewicht
zur wahren wellenmechanische Konfiguration bei, welches Gewicht eben durch
gegeben ist. Wenn man Paradoxen liebt, kann man sagen, das System befindet
sich gleichsam in allen kinematisch denkbaren Lagen gleichzeitig, aber nicht in allen,
gleich stark (ibid., pp 1645).

The wave-mechanical configuration of the system is a superposition of many

strictly speakingof all kinematically possible point-mechanical configurations, in
which each of the point-mechanical configurations contributes to the true wave-
mechanical configuration with a certain weight, this weight being given precisely by
. If one is fond of paradoxes, one may say that the system finds itself equally in
all of the kinematically conceivable configurations, but not equally strongly in each
of them. (p 1345)

He had previously defined (x) as a density function (Dichtefunktion) (ibid., p 146, 116),
and later relates (x) to his previously defined p1/2 (ibid., p 167, 137, note 1), needed when
non-orthogonal coordinates are used6.
In other words, = is the distribution function in the configuration space of the
qks. But Schrodinger has no idea how to derive this non-uniform distribution in (extended)
configuration space from a uniform distribution in (extended) phase space. This was the
contribution of Van Vleck.
Consider a complete solution W (q, , t) of the HamiltonJacobi equation for a system
with Hamiltonian H, i.e. a solution based on stipulation of half the total number of
variables needed to specify a unique trajectory in phase space, i.e. each pair of variables
(q, ) specifies such a trajectory. A complete solution thus corresponds to a real or
virtual ensemble of such trajectories, i.e. there is one such trajectory for each fixed
value of . The density (q, , t) of these trajectories in the extended configuration space7,
with coordinates (q, t), is given by what is now called the Van Vleck determinant (Van Vleck
6 Returning to the question of wave equations that are of first-order in time in Schr
odinger (1926d) (dated September
3, 1926), he writes the equation (p 1068): p1/2  l /ql (p1/2  k alk /qk) 8 2V /h2 (4 i/h) /t =
0 (32).
7 Schouten calls the extended configuration (q, t)-space the film-space (Schouten 1951, p 193).
970 R L Coelho and J Stachel

1928)8 | 2W /(q )|; hence, if a trajectory is chosen at random, the probability P(q, , t) of
its having the values (q, ) at time t is proportional to (q, , t)9.
To complete the analogy with classical ensembles, note that, like any complex number of
amplitude  1, the probability amplitude qi, ti; q, t can be written as
[P(q , t ; q, t)]1/2 exp[(h/2 i)W (q , t ; q, t)],
i i i i

where P is a real number between 0 and 1. To the first, semi-classical approximation in the
classically allowed region of configuration space10, W is a Hamilton principal function, and P
is its Van Vleck determinant. In other words, a classical ensemble can be used to produce a
semi-classical wavefunction for a system described by some classical Hamiltonian.
Question. The classical HamiltonJacobi equation is based formally on the following
transition in the energy equation from functions to operators
E /t, p grad
acting on the HamiltonJacobi function S.
Who first noticed that what we now call the time-dependent Schrodinger equation can be
derived formally from the transition to the operators
Eop (h/2 i)/t, p (h/2 i)
acting on Schrodingers wavefunction ? The least upper bound is 1932: Frenkel (p 140) says

This can be done in the simplest manner by using the fact that the product . . .
is equal to h/2 i /t n and accordingly replacing the energy in Schrodingers
equation by the operator h/2 i /t.

He then writes what he calls the generalized equation (96).

3. Schrodinger and quantum field theory, or the dog that did not bark

In 1926, Schrodinger published a paper on Einsteins new gas theory (1926). It has been
described as really Schrodingers first paper on wave mechanics11, but it would be better
described as his first paper on quantum field theory. After demonstrating that the results of
Einsteins new counting method for particles, which we now call BoseEinstein statistics,
can be reproduced by treating them, not as particles, but as excitations of a field; he ends with
the following conclusion.

Zusammenfassung. Die wahre Bedeutung der Einsteinschen Gastheorie ist die,

da das Gas als ein System mit linearen Eigenschwingungen aufzufassen sei,
a hnlich wie ein Strahlungvolumen oder ein fester Korper. Wahrend aber beim
Strahlungsvolumen unendlich viele Eigenschwingungen vorliegen ohne irgendeine
Beschrankung der Quantenzahlen, beim festen Korper endlich viele, wieder ohne
Quantenzahlenbeschrankung, hat das Gas zwar unendlich viele Eigenschwingungen,
8 His choice of the HamiltonJacobi function has been generalized by C ecile DeWitt-Morette and applied to many
other pairs of variables that need not be canonically conjugate. For a recent discussion of what is now often called the
Van VleckDeWitt-Morette determinant, see Cartier and DeWitt-Morette (2006), chapter 4, pp 7895 and appendix
E, pp 40414.
9 It is natural to wonder: did not anyone before Van Vleck take the ensemble point of view seriously enough to
make the transition classically from extended phase space to extended configuration space, and hence define this
determinant?
10 For the semi-classical treatment of turning points and the classically forbidden region, see Berry and Mount (1972).
11 Christoph Lehner et al, Schr odingers Way to Wave Mechanics, PowerPoint Presentation, July 6, 2007, slide 10.

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 971

doch ist fur einen bestimmten, materiell abgeschlossenen Gaskorper, die Summe
der Quantenzahlen constant, da siein der gelaufigen Sprechweiseder Molekulzahl
entspricht. . . .

Sobald in einem bestimmten Fall experimentelle Tatsachen dazu notigen, auf eine
Klasse von Gegenstanden die Bosesche Statistik anzuwenden (was naturlich im Falle
des Gases noch keineswegs feststeht), hat man nach meinem Dafurhalten daraus den
Schlu zu ziehen, da diese Klasse von Gegenstanden nicht eigentlich Individuen,
sondern energetische Erregungs-zustande sind.

The true significance of Einsteins gas theory is that, like a volume filled with
radiation or a solid body, a gas is to be treated as a system with linear proper vibrations.
But while a volume filled with radiation includes infinitely many proper vibrations
without any sort of restriction on the quantum numbers, and a solid body includes a
finite number, again without restrictions on the quantum numbers; a gas includes an
infinite number of proper vibrations, but for a determinate materially closed gaseous
body the sum of the quantum numbers is constant, since it correspondsto use the
customary mode of speechto the number of molecules . . .

As soon as the experimental facts require the application of BoseEinstein statistics

to a class of objects in a particular case (which naturally is still not ascertained for
the case of gases), then in my opinion one will have to draw the conclusion that this
class of objects are not really individuals, but energetic excited states.

As we have seen in this paper, in spite of his philosophical predilection for waves in
real four-dimensional spacetime, in his papers on wave mechanics, Schrodinger was forced to
abandon this approach in favour of an approach that restored individuality to the particles; this
led to the representation of a system of N particles by waves in a 3N-dimensional configuration
space.
Yet, Schrodingers original approach could be retained and developed, and indeed by
1932, actually appeared in a major treatise: Jakob Frenkels Wave Mechanics (Frenkel 1932)12.
Frenkel writes

It is in fact a very attractive feature of the present theory (first presented in connection
with radiation by Debye in 1912 and further developed by Dirac and by Jordan) that
it attempts completely to reduce the notion of particle, or more exactly of all particles
of a given kind, to that of a system of wavesnot however in the nave sense of the
original wave-packet theory of de Broglie, but in a much deeper sense, by applying
the idea of quantization to the amplitudes of the various harmonic waves representing
stationary states.

This theory of quantized waves can be applied not only to light waves, but just as
well to waves associated with the motion of identical particles of any kind (p 160).

We do not have to speculate on what Schrodinger thought about this development, at

least in retrospect. Twenty years later, in a paper on What is an Elementary Particle?13, he wrote

12 This was the English translation of his Einf

uhrung in die Wellenmechanik; but he notes in the preface that during
the three years that had elapsed since the appearance of the German original, my views on the subject had greatly
developed, and in some respects (especially with regard to the analogy between matter and light) had been substantially
modified (p v).
13 First published in Schr
odinger (1950) and reprinted in Dick et al (1984).
972 R L Coelho and J Stachel

A method of dealing with the problem of many particles was indicated in 1926 by the
present writer. The method uses wave in many dimensional space, in a manifold of 3N
dimensions, N being the number of particles. Deeper insight led to its improvement.
The step leading to this improvement is of momentous significance. The many-
dimensional treatment has been superseded by so-called second quantization, which
is mathematically equivalent to uniting into one three-dimensional formulation the
cases N = 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . (to infinity) of the many-dimensional treatment. This highly
ingenious device includes the so-called new statistics . . . . It is the only precise
formulation of the views now held, and the one that is always used. What is so very
significant in our present context is that one cannot avoid leaving indeterminate the
number of particles dealt with. It is thus obvious that they are not individuals14.

Thus Schrodinger fully accepted and adopted the point of view of quantum field theory.
Several most-interesting questions suggest themselves for further study.
When did he adopt the viewpoint of second quantization, and did he ever refer to his own
earlier paper, Zur Einsteins Gastheorie, which had suggested the renunciation of individuality
in 1926?
Indeed, why did he exclude this important paper from the original (1926) edition of the
Abhandlungen zur Wellenmechanik, and even fail to add it to the augmented (1928) edition15?
It reminds one of the curious incident in the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze16.
Gregory [a Scotland Yard detective]: Is there any other point to which you would wish
to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.

4. Conclusion

In most of the literature on the topic, the optical-mechanical analogy has been taken as
the basis of Schrodingers development of his equation. However, in the formal part of his
development of his equation, formal elements of the analogy do not appear. Indeed, according
to our hermeneutical map, the analogy appears only in the epistemological part. For these
two reasons, the analogy can only have an effect of philosophical nature. On the other hand,
Schrodingers paper includes the categorical claim that true mechanical phenomena can be
represented in a fitting way by wave processes in q-space, which is how he justifies his project.
However, the analogy between optics and mechanics did play a role in the scientific
community of that time. If classical mechanics is taken as the analogue of geometric optics, and
if the physical deficiencies of the latter were solved by wave optics, then it might be anticipated
that a wave mechanics could solve the physical deficiencies of classical mechanics. This
argument presupposes that the physical deficiencies of geometric optics and those of classical
mechanics are analogous. It is this latter analogy that was made plausible by Schrodinger, thus
demonstrating the need for a mechanics of an undulatory character.

14 Cited from the reprint in Castellani (1988). The quotation is from pp 2023.
15 Both published in Leipzig by Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth.
16 By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; for an electronic version, see, e.g., www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/
SilvBlaz.shtm.

On Schrodingers equation, Hertzs mechanics and Van Vlecks determinant 973

Acknowledgments

This paper grew out of an effort to understand Schrodingers manuscript on Hertzs Mechanics
and Einsteins Theory of Gravitation during Ricardo Lopes Coelhos sabbatical year at the
Boston University Center for Einstein Studies and Center for Philosophy and History of
Science. He thanks these centres and is very grateful to Professor John Stachel. Financial
support by the Faculty of Science of the University of Lisbon and the Foundation for Science
and Technology is gratefully acknowledged by RLC. The authors would like to thank to Ruth
Braunizer for her kind permission to quote from the unpublished writings of Erwin Schrodinger
and to reproduce images. They also thank John Wiley and Sons for permission to reproduce
the image from Schrodingers 1926 paper.

References

Berry M and Mount K 1972 Semiclassical approximations in wave mechanics Rep. Prog. Phys. 35 31597
Cartier P and DeWitt-Morette C 2006 Functional Integration: Action and Symmetries (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
Castellani E (ed) 1988 Interpreting Bodies/Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press) pp 197210
de Broglie L 1923 Quanta et lumi`ere, diffraction et interferences CR 177 54850
de Broglie L 1925 Recherches sur la theorie des quanta Ann. Phys. 3 22128
Dick A, Kerber G and Kerber W (ed) 1984 Erwin Schrodinger: Collected Papers (General Scientific and Popular

Papers vol 4) (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften)
Einstein A 1917 Zum quantensatz von Sommerfeld und Epstein Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 19 8292
Epstein P S 1916 Zur theorie des Starkeffektes Ann. Phys., Lpz. 50 489520
Frenkel J 1932 Wave Mechanics/Elementary Theory (Oxford: Clarendon) (Engl. transl.)
Gerber J 1969 Geschichte der wellenmechanik Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 5 34916
Hamilton W R 1828 Theory of systems of rays Trans. R. Irish Acad. 15 69174
Hamilton W R 1828 Math. Pap. 1 187
Hamilton W R 1834 On a general method in dynamics Phil. Trans. R. Soc. II 247308
Hamilton W R 1834 Math. Pap. 2 10361
Hamilton W R 1835 Second essay on a general method in dynamics Phil. Trans. R. Acad. I 95144
Hamilton W R 1835 Math. Pap. 2 162211
Hankins T L 1980 Sir William Rowan Hamilton (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press)
Hanle P A 1971 The coming of age of Erwin Schrodinger: his quantum statistic of ideal gases Arch. Hist. Exact.
Sci. 17 16592
Hertz H 1894 Die Prinzipien der Mechanik in neuem Zusammenhange dargestellt (Leipzig: Barth)
Hertz H 1956 The Principles of Mechanics Presented in a New Form (New York: Dover) (Transl. by D E Jones and J
T Walley, with a new introduction by R S Cohen)
Hund F 1974 The History of Quantum Theory ed G Reece (London: Harrap)
Jammer M 1966 The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (New York: McGraw-Hill)
Joas C and Lehner C 2009 The classical roots of wave mechanics: Schrodingers transformations of the optical-
mechanical analogy Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 40 33851

Klein F 1892 Uber neuere englische Arbeiten zur Mechanik Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematikervereinigung
Klein F 1922 Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen, Zweiter Band (Berlin: Springer) pp 6012

Klein F 1901 Uber das Brunssche Eikonal Z. Math. Phys. 46 3725
Klein F 1922 Gesammelte Mathematische Abhandlungen, Zweiter Band (Berlin: Springer) pp 6036
Klein M J 1964 Einstein and wave-particle duality Nat. Philosopher 3 349
Kragh H 1982 Erwin Schrodinger and the wave equation: the crucial phase Centaurus 26 15497
Kubli F 1970 Louis de Broglie und die Entdeckung der Materiewellen Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 7 2668
Mehra J 1987 Erwin Schrodinger and the rise of wave mechanics: II. The creation of wave mechanics. Foundations
of Physics 17 12
Mehra J and Rechenberg H 1987 The Historical Development of Quantum Theory: (Erwin Schrodinger and the Rise
of Wave Mechanics part 1: Schrodinger in Vienna and Zurich, 18871925 (New York: Springer) pp 1887925
Moore W 1989 Schrodinger, Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Newton I 1972 Isaac Newtons Philosophiae naturalis Principia Mathematica 3rd edn ed A Koyre and I B Cohen
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)
Newton I 1999 The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press) A new transl. by I B Cohen and A Whitman
974 R L Coelho and J Stachel

Raman V V and Forman P 1969 Why was it Schrodinger who developed de Broglies ideas? Hist. Stud. Phys.
Sci. 1 291314
Schouten J A 1951 Tensor Analysis for Physicists (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Schrodinger E Tensoranalytische Mechanik I AHQP 39-3-001
Schrodinger E 1918 Hertzsche Mechanik und Einsteinsche Gravitationstheorie AHQP 39-3-004
Schrodinger E 1926 Zur Einsteins Gastheorie Phys. Z. 27 95101
Schrodinger E 1926a Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung) Ann. Phys. 79 36176
Schrodinger E 1926b Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Zweite Mitteilung) Ann. Phys. 79 489527
Schrodinger E 1926c Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Vierte Mitteilung) Ann. Phys. 81 10939
Schrodinger E 1926d An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules Phys. Rev. 28 104970
Schrodinger E 1927a Abhandlungen zur Wellenmechanik (Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth) (Second
augmented edition 1928; first English edition 1928)
Schrodinger E 1927b Energieaustauch nach der wellenmechanik Ann. Phys. 83 95668
Schrodinger E 1948 2400 Jahre quantentheorie Ann. Phys. 3 4348
Schrodinger E 1950 What is an elementary particle? Endeavour 9 10916
Schwarzschild K 1916 Zur quantenhypothese Preuische Abh. Deutsch. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Klasse.
Sitzungsberichte pp 54868
Scott W T 1967 Erwin Schrodinger: An Introduction to His Writings (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusets
Press)
Sommerfeld A 1924 Atombau und Spektrallinien (Braunschweig: Vieweg)
Sommerfeld A 1929 Wellenmechanik (Braunschweig: Vieweg)
Sommerfeld A and Runge I 1911 Anwendung der Vektorrechnung auf die Grundlagen der geometrischen Optik
Ann. Phys. 35 27799
Van Vleck J H 1928 The correspondence principle in the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 14 17888
Wessels L 1979 Schrodingers route to wave mechanics Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 10 31140
Wessels L 1983 Erwin Schrodinger and the descriptive tradition Springs of Scientific Creativity: Essays on Founders
of Modern Science ed R Aris, H T Davis and R H Stuewer (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press)