4. Schrödinger to Planck


31 May 1926

My dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your kind and extremely gracious letter of the 24th, which now has finally decided me to accept the attractive invitation for this semester, however things may go. I have just written to Mr. Grüneisen. It goes without saying that, so far as I am concerned, a date when you are absent from Berlin is out of the question. Now Mr. Grüneisen was kind enough to point out to me that it might also be possible to consider a slight postponement of the date of the meeting, and since a postponement of the July 9th meeting would surely come too near the end of the semester, as he himself thinks, I have allowed myself to suggest that perhaps the June 25th meeting could be put off until July 2nd. Would that still work out with your trip to Bonn? The 25th of June would not be acceptable to me because from the 21st to the 26th a number of foreign physicists (among them Sommerfeld, Langevin, Pauli, Stern, P. Weiss) are meeting here for lectures and discussions. Now the connections work out so badly that I would have to leave here on the afternoon of the 23rd at the latest, if I do not want to travel through the night directly before the Berlin meeting. And I should not like to do that because then I am often completely exhausted and may possibly speak very badly.

I should be very grateful if you would give me some hints, in just a few words, as to how I should plan my lecture. What I mean is, should I think more of the fact that you and Einstein and Laue are in the audience—a thought without which I should feel uneasy—or should I direct myself more to those gentlemen who are further removed from theoretical work; which would of course have as an inevitable result that those named above (and a considerable number of others) will be very bored. In other words: should I recapitulate in a simplified way what has already been published or, passing over that lightly, talk more about perturbation theory, the Stark effect, and general intensity formulas? (Otherwise I could only mention these latter things briefly at the end, or else it would get to be too long; it takes about an hour for a general survey of the fundamentals, for the purpose of orientation and without much calculation, as I know from our colloquium here).

Naturally I can also do both, if there is the opportunity, one in a general meeting and the other in a more restricted colloquium.

Today I received a very kind and very interesting letter of 13 closely written pages from H. A. Lorentz5 which I still have to study in detail, of course. He raises a good many interesting questions; however, he does not reject it at all, on the whole, but still appears to be very critical. Lorentz sees one of the chief difficulties in reinterpreting classical mechanics as “wave mechanics” to lie in the fact that the “wave packet” which is to replace the “representative point” of classical mechanics in macroscopic problems, (possibly also in the motion of the electron on paths of slight curvature), that, I say, this wave packet will not remain together, but, on the contrary, will gradually spread into larger volumes by “diffraction”, according to general theorems of wave theory. I felt that to be a serious point at first—yet, strange to say, it seems not to be the case, at least not always. For the harmonic oscillator (which always remains the simplest typical example of a mechanical system which one can work with so easily and agreeably), I was able to produce a wave packet, by superposition of a large number of neighboring characteristic oscillations of high order (i.e. high quantum number), which is practically confined to a small spatial region, and which as a matter of fact revolves in precisely the harmonic ellipses described by classical mechanics for an arbitrarily long time without dispersing! I believe that it is only a question of computational skill to accomplish the same thing for the electron in the hydrogen atom. The transition from microscopic characteristic oscillations to the macroscopic “orbits” of classical mechanics will then be clearly visible, and valuable conclusions can be drawn about the phase relations of adjacent oscillations. For the present these phase relations and amplitude relations remain postulates, however; they can naturally also be so arranged that for large quantum numbers a “revolving” mass point does not result: e.g. since the structure is linear it can also be arranged so that two wave groups, revolving independently of one another, result—perhaps the equations are only approximately linear.

A second very delicate question that concerns Lorentz is the energy that is to be assigned to a characteristic oscillation. It is quite certain that the Balmer-Bohr energy value is not to be ascribed to the characteristic oscillation. In general one should not consider the individual characteristic oscillation as the equivalent of the individual Bohr orbit; that is a mistaken parallel, as the above construction shows. The concept “energy” is something that we have derived from macroscopic experience and really only from macroscopic experience. I do not believe that it can be taken over into micro-mechanics just like that, so that one may speak of the energy of a single partial oscillation. The energetic property of the individual partial oscillation is its frequency. Its amplitude must be determined in quite another way—I believe by normalizing the integral of the square of the total excitation to the value of the electronic charge.

Mr. Grüneisen was kind enough to hold out to me the prospect that either you or Mr. von Laue would offer me hospitality. If it doesn’t cause too much trouble I am naturally very pleased about it, and in any case I am very grateful for your kind offer. I would strive to give as little inconvenience as possible, and ask that it be so arranged that you are disturbed as little as possible; naturally any improvised lodging you choose is completely adequate for me.

Thank you once again for all the kindness that is always shown me by Berlin in general and by you especially, Professor Planck. With sincere respect, I remain

Yours faithfully,

E. Schrödinger

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!