The author endeavours to show two things: first, that Schrödingers (and Eckarts) demonstration in March (September) 1926 of the equivalence of matrix mechanics, as created by Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Dirac in 1925, and wave mechanics, as created by Schrödinger in 1926, is not foolproof; and second, that it could not have been foolproof, because at the time matrix mechanics and wave mechanics were neither mathematically nor empirically equivalent. That they were is the Equivalence Myth. In order to make the (...) theories equivalent and to prove this, one has to leave the historical scene of 1926 and wait until 1932, when von Neumann finished his magisterial edifice. During the period 1926–1932 the original families of mathematical structures of matrix mechanics and of wave mechanics were stretched, parts were chopped off and novel structures were added. To Procrustean places we go, where we can demonstrate the mathematical, empirical and ontological equivalence of ‘the final versions of’ matrix mechanics and wave mechanics. -/- The present paper claims to be a comprehensive analysis of one of the pivotal papers in the history of quantum mechanics: Schrödingers equivalence paper. Since the analysis is performed from the perspective of Suppes structural view (‘semantic view’) of physical theories, the present paper can be regarded not only as a morsel of the internal history of quantum mechanics, but also as a morsel of applied philosophy of science. The paper is self-contained and presupposes only basic knowledge of quantum mechanics. For reasons of length, the paper is published in two parts; Part I appeared in the previous issue of this journal. Section 1 contains, besides an introduction, also the papers five claims and a preview of the arguments supporting these claims; so Part I, Section 1 may serve as a summary of the paper for those readers who are not interested in the detailed arguments. (shrink)

The author endeavours to show two things: first, that Schrödingers (and Eckarts) demonstration in March (September) 1926 of the equivalence of matrix mechanics, as created by Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Dirac in 1925, and wave mechanics, as created by Schrödinger in 1926, is not foolproof; and second, that it could not have been foolproof, because at the time matrix mechanics and wave mechanics were neither mathematically nor empirically equivalent. That they were is the Equivalence Myth. In order to make the (...) theories equivalent and to prove this, one has to leave the historical scene of 1926 and wait until 1932, when von Neumann finished his magisterial edifice. During the period 1926–1932 the original families of mathematical structures of matrix mechanics and of wave mechanics were stretched, parts were chopped off and novel structures were added. To Procrustean places we go, where we can demonstrate the mathematical, empirical and ontological equivalence of ‘the final versions of’ matrix mechanics and wave mechanics. -/- The present paper claims to be a comprehensive analysis of one of the pivotal papers in the history of quantum mechanics: Schrödingers equivalence paper. Since the analysis is performed from the perspective of Suppes structural view (‘semantic view’) of physical theories, the present paper can be regarded not only as a morsel of the internal history of quantum mechanics, but also as a morsel of applied philosophy of science. The paper is self-contained and presupposes only basic knowledge of quantum mechanics. For reasons of length, the paper is published in two parts; Part I appeared in the previous issue of this journal. Section 1 contains, besides an introduction, also the papers five claims and a preview of the arguments supporting these claims; so Part I, Section 1 may serve as a summary of the paper for those readers who are not interested in the detailed arguments. (shrink)

Dirac’s identification of the quantum analog of the Poisson bracket with the commutator is reviewed, as is the threat of self-inconsistent overdetermination of the quantization of classical dynamical variables which drove him to restrict the assumption of correspondence between quantum and classical Poisson brackets to embrace only the Cartesian components of the phase space vector. Dirac’s canonical commutation rule fails to determine the order of noncommuting factors within quantized classical dynamical variables, but does imply the quantum/classical correspondence of Poisson brackets (...) between any linear function of phase space and the sum of an arbitrary function of only configuration space with one of only momentum space. Since every linear function of phase space is itself such a sum, it is worth checking whether the assumption of quantum/classical correspondence of Poisson brackets for all such sums is still self-consistent. Not only is that so, but this slightly stronger canonical commutation rule also unambiguously determines the order of noncommuting factors within quantized dynamical variables in accord with the 1925 Born-Jordan quantization surmise, thus replicating the results of the Hamiltonian path integral, a fact first realized by E.H. Kerner. Born-Jordan quantization validates the generalized Ehrenfest theorem, but has no inverse, which disallows the disturbing features of the poorly physically motivated invertible Weyl quantization, i.e., its unique deterministic classical “shadow world” which can manifest negative densities in phase space. (shrink)

The imprints left by quantum mechanics in classical (Hamiltonian) mechanics are much more numerous than is usually believed. We show that the Schrödinger equation for a nonrelativistic spinless particle is a classical equation which is equivalent to Hamilton’s equations. Our discussion is quite general, and incorporates time-dependent systems. This gives us the opportunity of discussing the group of Hamiltonian canonical transformations which is a non-linear variant of the usual symplectic group.