Tears of Heisenberg

"It seems I have denied the law of causality"

In the previous essay 1, we talked about the principle of the uncertainty of Heisenberg - the cornerstone of the modern science of micromir. For the first time, the idea of ​​the ratio of uncertainties appeared in the article by Heisenberg (Heisenberg, 1927), published in May 1927 in the journal Zeitschrift für Physik (Russian translation (Heisenberg, 1977)). The article entered the editorial office on March 23, 1927 and contained in the final edition “Addition of the correction”, in which, in particular, it was said: “ After this work was completed, the new studies conducted by Bor have led to the points of view that allowed a significant deepening and clarification of the analysis of quantum -mechanical relationships that I tried to produce in my article ” (Heisenberg, 1927, 1927, 1927, 1927, 1927. p. 197).

This “addition to the correction” introduces some uncertainty already in the history of the creation of quantum mechanics. The fact is that among the historians of science and biographers of Bor and Geisenberg there is no consent on one simple issue: when Heisenberg transmitted his epoch -making article on the ratio of uncertainty to the editorial office of Zeitschrift für Physik - before all the contradictions between him and the boron were settled, or after? Even the author of the article after decades could not answer this question for sure, referring to bad memory.

A secondary question at first glance is actually important for the historian of science. The very fact of the existence of the “addition” says that Niels Bor did not agree with the content of the Hatezenberg article and looked at the questions raised in it in his own way. Therefore, many researchers believe that the article was sent to the journal without coordination with Bor. For example, David Cassidy, Heisenberg biographer, believes that Bor has returned from vacation on March 23, when the article was sent to the editor, and the “addition during the proofread” came after the disagreements between the physicists were smoothed out (Cassidy, 1995, p. 300).

The same opinion, although with reservations, was adhered by another assistant Bora Oscar Klein, who worked especially tightly with the chef during his sharp discussions with Heisenberg. In an interview (February 28, 1963), the American historian of science John Halebron and Belgian physics Leon Rosenfeld, who also collaborated with Bor at the stage of the formation of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, in particular, said: “ I think that he (Heisenberg. - E. B. ), perhaps sent the article before Boro returned before the boron returned Home. I am not quite sure, but I believe that he did so ”(Klein-IV, 1963).

About the same, the assistant and biographer Nils Borgen Kalckar, the editor of the sixth and seventh volumes of the collected works of the great Dange: “ Bor returned to Copenhagen, and discovered that Heisenberg had already sent his article for publication ” (Kalckar, 1985, S. 16).

For such conclusions there were reasons: psychologically, such an act of a young assistant could be understood. The months of exhausting discussions with the chef were too brightly captured in his memory, he knew too well the manner of Niels Bor to cling to each sentence, for every word. Therefore, the impatient Heisenberg could send the article to the editor, without waiting for Bor to process each of her paragraph. Such an explanation looks plausible, but the following facts refute it.

In a letter to Pauli dated March 14, 1927, Heisenberg mentions: “ Bor must (Dicitur 2 ) return tonight ” (Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 388). Already on March 18, the director of the Copenhagen Institute of Physics was at work, as evidenced by his letter from Kronig (Mehra-Rechenberg-6, 2000, p. 181). Since the article by Heisenberg indicates the date of its receipt to the editor - March 23, it is obvious that Bor had a whole week to watch the article before sending. Knowing Heisenberg’s commitment to strict discipline in the relationship of his subordinate with the leader, whether Max Born in Gettingen or Niels Bor in Copenhagen, naturally assumes that Bor initially approved the article and allowed her to send it to the editor. The recognition of Werner Geisenberg in an interview with Thomas Kun is also consistent with this: “ I don’t remember this at all, but when I write“ addition to the proofreading ”, it looks like the article was sent to print before we agreed on this. It’s hard to believe, because I never sent articles until Bor consent to it ”(Heisenberg-VIII, 1963).

True, then Werner admits that the application to the article was sent simultaneously with the article, which looks completely implausible. The sent was unlikely to be called "additioning during proofreading", if there was no proofreading yet.

So it is most likely to assume that at first Bor had no complaints about the article and she was sent to the editor with his permission. This also confirms his letter to Einstein of April 13, in which Bor does not express the slightest doubt as an article by Heisenberg. He writes: “ Before his vacation to the Bavarian Mountains, Heisenberg asked me to send you a copy of the expected proofing of the new article in Zeitschrift für Physik , as he hopes that she could interest you. This article, which I send to you, means a very significant contribution to the discussion of the general problems of quantum theory ”(Bohr, 1985, p. 418).

In the light of this assessment made in early April, it is necessary to consider as the false assumption of David Cassidy that Bor in a letter to Pauli from March 25 calls him to Copenhagen to help the rebellious Heisenberg (Cassidy, 1995, p. 300). Indeed, Bor wrote to Pauli: “ I am writing a couple of lines in a hurry to ask if you have a desire to visit Copenhagen in early April for a short time? "(Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 388).

But then he clearly talks about the purpose of such a visit: to meet with foreign colleagues who go to Copenhagen in the coming days. The very next day, the English physicist Charles Galton Darwin was supposed to come to the capital of Denmark, shortly after him, Kramers arrived, and a few days later - the Dutchman Gaudsmith and Swede Ivar Waller. In the letter of Bora there is not a single word that gives his concern to the situation with Heisenberg.

Pauli very politely refused a letter dated March 29: “ I am always very glad to listen to you and recently I was very often thinking about how you are doing and what is your opinion about the current state of affairs in physics. Therefore, I would be very happy to be able to talk with you about all these matters, but I think, unfortunately, that I can hardly follow your invitation to come to Copenhagen. Firstly, I have already agreed with Born and Yordan that on April 4 for about two days I should come to Gettingen, after which I have an agreement with my friend to spend 14 days of vacation (which I really need) ”(Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 389).

Upon learning that Pauli will not come to Copenhagen, Heisenberg writes to him on April 4 a large letter in which he mentions the ongoing discussions with Niels Bor: “ I argue with the boron about what the P1q1 ̴ h ratio lies in the wave or corpuscular part of the quantum mechanics. Bor emphasizes that, for example, in a γ-ray microscope, the diffraction of waves is significant, I insist that the theory of light quanta and the experience of Geiger-Bota are significant. Exaggerating one side or the other, you can discuss a lot without saying anything new ”(Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 391).

Nevertheless, Heisenberg has not yet been saying anything about the drama of the conflict, the same arguments were discussed in Copenhagen and before the vacation of Bor. The end of the letter has not yet moved to the sharp phase, the end of the letter also testifies to the fact that the dispute of Borus and Heisenberg: “ It is a pity that you will not come, Darwin really wanted to get acquainted with your calculations ” (Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 391).

Thus, not Heisenberg or Bor extremely need Pauli, capable of resolving their contradictions, but the guest Darwin, who spent in Copenhagen from March to June 1927.

And in the next days of April, the situation at the Borovsk Institute remained calm, without visible new indignations. This can be judged by the letter of Heisenberg Ralph Kronig on April 8, 1927: “ For the past few months I worked on an article on a visual content (of course, explosive) of quantum mechanics, which, in my opinion, has finally turned into a finished system that answers the question: Light or wave quanta ” (Mehra-Rechenberg-6, 2000, p. 182).

Then Werner went on an already mentioned long -awaited trip to the Bavarian mountains. On the way from Copenhagen to Munich, he met in Berlin with Karl Friedrich von Weizzekker, who recalled that his older friend came from an incredible radiance of the newly made discovery. Talking in a taxi on the way to the station about the not yet published ratio of uncertainties, Heisenberg added: “ It seems to me that I have denied the law of causality ” (Hermann, 1977, p. 94).

"Part of the fault, of course, lies on me"

He returned to Copenhagen Werner at the end of April. Let us try to restore the course of further events according to the available letters and memories. In a letter to Dirac, dated April 27, Heisenberg answers previously posed questions about the ratio of uncertainty and demonstrates that they remain correct in the case of measuring the particle speed with the help of an electron microscope and the Doppler effect. At the same time, the author calmly adds: “ Professor Bor says that in all these examples, a very important role is obvious, which is played by a wave theory in my theory, and of course, he is absolutely right ” (Kalckar, 1985, p. 18).

Two weeks later, on May 16, 1927, Heisenberg also writes without a blow to Pauli: “ Since my return from Easter holidays - this time especially beautiful - we have a lot of debate about quantum theory. Bor wants to write a work on the “conceptual construction” of the KV (ANTA) T (Eoria) under the motto: “There are waves and particles” - if anyone begins, he can do everything without contradictions. In connection with this work, Bor drew my attention to the fact that I missed another essential point in my article (and Dirac then asked me about it) <...>. Nevertheless, I, as before, adhere to the point of view that jumps are the most interesting in the HF (ANTA) T (Eoria), and their role cannot be reassessed; Therefore, I, as before, are very pleased with this last work - despite these errors; After all, all the results of the work are true, and relative to them, I are united; Otherwise, there are only significant taste differences between the boron and me in the understanding of the word “visual” ”(Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, pp. 394–395).

In this confession, a certain change in Heisenberg’s position is felt compared to February discussions with Bor. Now Werner admits that it is quite possible to discuss quantum mechanics from the standpoint of the wave theory, although he himself remains an adherent of matrix mechanics, which better expresses the role of jumps at the atomic level.

After this relatively calm fragment of the letter, an evidence of the exacerbation of the relationship was underway, in which Oscar Klein played an important role: “ Unfortunately, the discussions of recent times led to gross personal misunderstandings between Bor-Klein and me, part of the guilt, of course, lies with me ” (Pauli-Briefe-i, 1979, p. 395).

Two weeks later, on May 31, 1927, again, in a letter to Pauli, Heisenberg talks about the confrontation with Bor in more detail. He writes about the events that “worried him in recent weeks more than anything else for a long time”: “ As you know, I believed that the theory of Dirac-Yordan is better than wave mechanics (even in a form that meets the principle of complementarity), since the theory of dirac (Ordan) is less visible and more easily allowed to formulate jumps. So I came to the struggle for matrices against the waves; In the excitement of this struggle, I often criticized the objections of Bor against my work too sharply, not understanding and not wanting it, personally the wound of himself. When I mentally return to this discussion, I can well understand that Bora was annoying. In these personal relationships that arose through my fault, Klein intervened, and for me the situation worsened. <...> Thank God, we understand everything is now better again and try everything old as far as possible ”(Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 397).

At the end of May, the acute phase of the conflict between Heisenberg and Bor - Klein, one might say, ended. In a letter to Pauli dated June 3, 1927, Werner writes with relief: “ Thank God, I can write you about physics again today, and forget everything else ” (Pauli-Briefe-I, 1979, p. 397).

So, Heisenberg did not refer the article on the ratio of uncertainties without the consent of the chef. At first, Bor with enthusiasm perceived the work of the assistant and recommended it to Einstein. You can understand that Niels Bor, having returned to the institute after a long vacation, did not immediately delve into the details of the scientific work of his employees. After a long absence, a bunch of administrative problems are always piled on the director of the institute. But gradually the author of the recently invented “principle of complementarity” began to realize that his assistant’s work was closely connected with his new brainchild. Moreover, he began to consider the ratio of uncertainties as a consequence of the principle of complementarity. But in the work of Heisenberg, of course, nothing was said about this. This annoyed Bora, and he began to demand to pick up an article from a magazine for a radical alteration.

Intervention of "good friend"

What did not suit Niels Bor in an article by his assistant? First of all, I must say that Bor found a mistake in the mental experiment, which Heisenberg brought to illustrate his ratio of uncertainty. It is worth noting that the task of the resolution of the microscope had already put Heisenberg in an awkward position: four years ago he could not answer a similar question posed by Professor Win on an oral exam in defending a doctoral dissertation.

In the “addition of the correction”, Werner admits: “ In this regard, Bor drawed my attention to the fact that in some reasoning available in this work, I missed significant points. First of all, the uncertainty in observations is not based solely on the existence of discretions, but is directly related to the requirement that the results of various experiments described by corpuscular theory, on the one hand, and wave theory, on the other, are simultaneously satisfied. For example, when using γ-ray microscope in mental experiments, the inevitable discrepancy of the beam beam should be taken into account; It is as a result of it that when measuring the position of the electron, the direction of returns in the effect of compton can only be determined with some inaccuracy ... ”(Heisenberg, 1927, p. 197).

The main discrepancy of recent like -minded people is formulated here. Bor believed that a complete understanding of the phenomena of atomic physics is possible only when taking into account both the wave properties of the objects in question (electrons, photons, etc.), and corpuscular. In other words, we must not forget about the corpuscular-wave dualism. Not without reason, Bor emphasized, in the main formulas of quantum mechanics that connect the energy of particles with the frequency and its impulse with a wavelength, appear both the characteristics of the particle (energy and impulse) and the wave characteristics (frequency and wavelength). Geisenberg was the opposite opinion. He believed that since quantum -mercenical formalism, for example, in the form of the theory of Dirac - Yordan transformations, completely describes the phenomena of the microworld, there is no need to attract waves. This is just an alternative way to study quantum phenomena, and not an obligatory attribute, without which the description of the microworld is impossible.

According to Bor, the ratio of the uncertainty that Heisenberg was so proud of, there is a simple consequence of the principle of complementarity with which the director of the Copenhagen Institute of Physics returned from vacation. This was not mentioned in the article by Heisenberg, so Bor demanded to prevent its publication and pick up the manuscript from the editorial office of the magazine.

This requirement was absolutely unacceptable for Werner. He did not consider a mistake in one mental experiment, which serves as simply an illustration for the main concept, a sufficient basis for refusing publication. The ratio of uncertainties, derived by Heisenberg from the general formalism of quantum mechanics, was too important in his eyes for the interpretation of quantum weeric formalism, so that it is so easy to abandon its publication. This article, approved, by the way, Pauli, was supposed to confirm the highest qualifications of its author. The refusal of publication, on the contrary, reduced the authority of the Geisenberg-physicist to zero.

Bor insisted on his own, and Heisenberg resisted as best he could. Such a confrontation stretched until May. In a letter to parents of May 16, Werner writes that the misunderstanding between him and Bor only recently softened, and asks his mother to write a friendly letter to the boss to defuse the situation: “ My last work was born under an unlucky star, which led to heavy personal differences between me and Bor. В конечном счете причина состоит в том, что статья играет на том же поле, на котором намеревался работать сам Бор, после того как вернулся из Норвегии. Я, правда, знал это, но у Бора раньше не было никаких результатов, а я рассказал Бору о своих планах еще до его отъезда, так что я имел все права работать в той же области. К этому добавилась моя неосторожность: я сделал слишком острые дискуссионные замечания, а с другой стороны, очень мутное поведение одного „хорошего друга“ Бора. Расхождения в конечном счете в основном сгладились за счет моей полной уступки; надолго ли продлится этот мир, покажет будущее » (Heisenberg-Eltern, 2003, стр. 121).

На самом пике конфликта между Бором и Гейзенбергом в дискуссию вмешался тот самый «хороший друг Бора», которого упомянул Вернер в цитированном письме. Этим другом был уже известный нам шведский физик Оскар Кляйн, проходивший в Копенгагене стажировку. Кляйн сразу целиком стал на сторону Бора и подверг работу Гейзенберга уничтожающей критике, страшно его обидевшей.

Такая напряженная обстановка не могла продолжаться долго, нервы у Вернера уже были на пределе. И когда через несколько дней они снова встретились в Копенгагене и Бор опять попытался объяснить, почему Гейзенберг неправ и почему он не должен публиковать статью, то автор «соотношения неопределенностей» не выдержал и разрыдался: « Я помню, что это закончилось тем, что я разразился слезами, потому что больше не мог находиться под давлением Бора. Это было очень неприятно » (Heisenberg-VIII, 1963).

Через несколько дней разногласия по поводу микроскопа сгладились, и постепенно обстановка снова пришла в норму. Произошло это в конце весны, о чем самокритичный Вернер писал родителям в письме от 30 мая: « Дружба с Бором, слава богу, восстановлена, в конфликтах есть большая доля моей вины из-за острой критики или, точнее сказать, острой защиты моего собственного физического мнения. Я никогда не думал, что этим могу Бора сильно ранить, и открыл это, когда было уже поздно » (Heisenberg-Eltern, 2003, стр. 122).

И далее в этом письме идет фраза, подтверждающая высказанную выше мою мысль, что «Дополнение при корректуре» было послано после отправки самой статьи в редакцию: « Мою работу, кстати, я не отозвал, но, по желанию Бора, точнее, господина Кляйна, написал дополнение, в котором я подчеркиваю, что Бор обратил мое внимание на существенные ошибки в работе и что в статье, которая скоро будет опубликована, он добился существенного продвижения. К сожалению, Бор пишет эту работу вместе с господином Кляйном, но тут ничего не поделаешь. Естественно, дружба с Бором важнее, чем физика » (Heisenberg-Eltern, 2003, стр. 122).

Всему приходит конец. Срок для корректуры статьи заканчивался в двадцатых числах мая, так как третий номер сорок третьего тома журнала Zeitschrift für Physik, содержащий статью о соотношении неопределенностей, отправлен в печать 29 мая 1927 года (Mehra-Rechenberg-6, 2000, стр. 185). К этому дню Гейзенберг уступил давлению Бора и Кляйна и согласился отправить в редакцию «Дополнение при корректуре».

Окончательное умиротворение в Копенгагене наступило в начале июня, когда долгожданный Вольфганг Паули наконец приехал в институт Нильса Бора и смог сгладить все оставшиеся противоречия. О его приезде Бор сообщает английскому коллеге Фаулеру 10 июня 1927 года: « У нас в институте с недавних пор немного оживленное время с довольно большим числом посетителей. К присутствовавшему, как и Дирак, стипендиату Международного совета по образованию Йордану добавились приехавшие в эти дни Паули и Вентцель » (Mehra-Rechenberg-6, 2000, стр. 185).

Будучи близким другом и Бора и Гейзенберга, Паули смог найти нужные слова для каждого. Спустя месяц Бор признавался в письме от 15 июля 1927 года: «Вы даже не представляете, каким приятным и освежающим был Ваш визит для всех нас» (Mehra-Rechenberg-6, 2000, стр. 184). Так же был настроен и Вернер Гейзенберг, написавший Бору 18 июня того же года: « Я очень счастлив, что приехал Паули. Теперь я намного лучше понял, что это действительно важно — поставить понятия в том порядке старшинства, как Вы хотите, а не так, как я сделал это в своей статье; и я теперь очень хорошо вижу, что при этом она стала много лучше » (Mehra-Rechenberg-6, 2000, стр. 186).

Наученный горьким опытом Гейзенберг нашел утешение в новой работе, которую недавно начал. Родителей он поспешил успокоить, что она лежит в области, далекой от непосредственных интересов Бора, так что описанная драма не должна больше повториться. И чтобы не заканчивать на грустной ноте, заботливый сын меняет тему: « На следующей неделе я должен сопровождать одну русскую певицу на концерт в русском обществе. Это что-то особенное и, вероятно, очень приятное » (Heisenberg-Eltern, 2003, стр. 122).

Evgeny Berkovich

Bibliography

Bohr, Niels . Collected works, volume 6. Foundations of quantum physics I (1926–1932). Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, Tokyo: North-Holland physics publishing, 1985.

Cassidy, David. Werner Heisenberg. Leben und Werk. Heidelberg, Berlin, Oxford: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, 1995.

Heisenberg, Werner. Über den Anschaulichen inhalet der quantentheoreteischen kinematik und Muchanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, B. 43, S. 172–198. 1927

Heisenberg -eltern. Werner Heisenberg. Liebe Eltern! Briefe aus Kritischer Zeit 1918 BIS 1945. HRSG. Von Am Hirsch-Heisenberg. München: Langer-Müller Verlag, 2003.

Heisenberg-VIII. American Institute of Physics. Oral History Interviews. Werner Heisenberg — Session VIII Interviewed by Thomas S. Kuhn. 25 February 1963. aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/4661–8.

Hermann, Armin. DIE JAHRHUNDERTWISSENSCHAFT. Werner Heisenberg und Die Physik Seineer Zeit. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Antalt, 1977.

Kalckar, Jørgen. Introduction.// Niels Bohr. Collected works, volume 6. Foundations of quantum physics I (1926–1932), pp. 7–53. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, Tokyo: North-Holland physics publishing, 1985.

Klein-IV. Oskar Klein — Session IV. Interviewed by JL Heilbron and L. Rosenfeld. Location: Carlsberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Oral History Interviews. 28 February 1963. aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/4709-4.

Mehra-Rechenberg-6. Mehra, Jagdish; Rechenberg, Helmut. The Historical Development of Quantum Theory. Vol. 6, Part 1. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2000.

Pauli-briefe-i. Pauli, Wolfgang. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg ua B. I: 1919–1929. HRSG. v. Hermann Armin ua Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer Verlag, 1979.

Гейзенберг, Вернер. About the visual content of quantum -reorectic kinematics and mechanics. Успехи физических наук, т. 122, с. 651–671. 1977.

1 Беркович Е. Копенгагенская интерпретация // ТрВ-Наука. № 291 от 05.11.2019.

2 Dicitur ( лат .) — говорят.