You are on page 1of 21

27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

THEPRESENTSITUATIONINQUANTUM
MECHANICS:

ATRANSLATIONOFSCHRDINGER'S
"CATPARADOXPAPER"
ErwinSchrdinger
Translator:JohnD.Trimmer[*]

ThistranslationwasoriginallypublishedinProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,124,
32338.[AndthenappearedasSectionI.11ofPartIofQuantumTheoryandMeasurement(J.A.
WheelerandW.H.Zurek,eds.,PrincetonuniversityPress,NewJersey1983).]

Contents

IntroductoryNote
1.ThePhysicsofModels
2.StatisticsofModelVariablesinQuantumMechanics
3.ExamplesofProbabilityPredictions
4.CanOneBasetheTheoryonIdealEnsembles?
5.AretheVariablesReallyBlurred?
6.TheDeliberateAboutfaceoftheEpistemologicalViewpoint
7.ThePsifunctionasExpectationcatalog
8.TheoryofMeasurement,PartOne
9.ThePsifunctionasDescriptionofState
10.TheoryofMeasurement,PartTwo
11.Resolutionofthe"Entanglement"ResultDependentontheExperimenter'sIntention
12.Anexample
13.ContinuationoftheExample:AllPossibleMeasurementsareEntangledUnequivocally
14.TimedependenceoftheEntanglement.ConsiderationoftheSpecialRoleofTime
15.NaturalLaworCalculatingDevice?
Notes

IntroductoryNote

ThisisatranslationofSchrdinger'sthreepart1935paper[1]inDieNaturwissenschaften.Earlierthat
sameyeartherehadappearedtheEinstein,Podolsky,Rosenpaper[2](alsofamousin"paradoxology")
which,Schrdingersays,inafootnote,motivatedhisoffering.AlongwiththisarticleinGerman,
SchrdingerhadtwocloselyrelatedEnglishlanguagepublications.[3]ButtheGerman,asidefromits
oneparagraphpresentationofthefamouscat,coversadditionalterritoryandgivesmanyfascinating
insightsintoSchrdinger'sthought.Thetranslator'sgoalhasbeentoadheretothelogicalandphysical
contentoftheoriginal,whileatthesametimetryingtoconveysomethingofitssemiconversational,
attimesslightlysardonicflavor.

TRANSLATION

1.ThePhysicsofModels
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 1/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

Inthesecondhalfofthepreviouscenturytherearose,fromthegreatprogressinkinetictheoryof
gasesandinthemechanicaltheoryofheat,anidealoftheexactdescriptionofnaturethatstandsout
astherewardofcenturieslongsearchandthefulfillmentofmillennialonghope,andthatiscalled
classical.Theseareitsfeatures.

Ofnaturalobjects,whoseobservedbehavioronemighttreat,onesetsuparepresentationbasedon
theexperimentaldatainone'spossessionbutwithouthandcuffingtheintuitiveimaginationthatis
workedoutinalldetailsexactly,muchmoreexactlythananyexperience,consideringitslimited
extent,caneverauthenticate.Therepresentationinitsabsolutedeterminacyresemblesamathematical
conceptorageometricfigurewhichcanbecompletelycalculatedfromanumberofdetermining
partsas,e.g.,atriangle'sonesideandtwoadjoiningangles,asdeterminingparts,alsodeterminethe
thirdangle,theothertwosides,thethreealtitudes,theradiusoftheinscribedcircle,etc.Yetthe
representationdiffersintrinsicallyfromageometricfigureinthisimportantrespect,thatalsointime
asfourthdimensionitisjustassharplydeterminedasthefigureisinthethreespacedimensions.Thus
itisaquestion(asisselfevident)alwaysofaconceptthatchangeswithtime,thatcanassume
differentstatesandifastatebecomesknowninthenecessarynumberofdeterminingparts,thennot
onlyareallotherpartsalsogivenforthismoment(asillustratedforthetriangleabove),butlikewise
allparts,thecompletestate,foranygivenlatertimejustasthecharacterofatriangleonitsbase
determinesitscharacterattheapex.Itispartoftheinnerlawoftheconceptthatitshouldchangeina
givenmanner,thatis,iflefttoitselfinagiveninitialstate,thatitshouldcontinuouslyrunthrougha
givensequenceofstates,eachoneofwhichitreachesatafullydeterminedtime.Thatisitsnature,
thatisthehypothesis,which,asIsaidabove,onebuildsonafoundationofintuitiveimagination.

Ofcourseonemustnotthinksoliterally,thatinthiswayonelearnshowthingsgointherealworld.
Toshowthatonedoesnotthinkthis,onecallstheprecisethinkingaidthatonehascreated,animage
oramodel.Withitshindsightfreeclarity,whichcannotbeattainedwithoutarbitrariness,onehas
merelyinsuredthatafullydeterminedhypothesiscanbetestedforitsconsequences,without
admittingfurtherarbitrarinessduringthetediouscalculationsrequiredforderivingthose
consequences.Hereonehasexplicitmarchingordersandactuallyworksoutonlywhatacleverfellow
couldhavetolddirectlyfromthedata!Atleastonethenknowswherethearbitrarinessliesamdwhere
improvementmustbemadeincaseofdisagreementwithexperience:intheinitialhypothesisor
model.Forthisonemustalwaysbeprepared.Ifinmanyvariousexperimentsthenaturalobject
behaveslikethemodel,oneishappyandthinksthattheimagefitstherealityinessentialfeatures.Ifit
failstoagree,undernovelexperimentsorwithrefinedmeasuringtechniques,itisnotsaidthatone
shouldnotbehappy.Forbasicallythisisthemeansofgraduallybringingourpicture,i.e.,our
thinking,closertotherealities.

Theclassicalmethodoftheprecisemodelhasasprincipalgoalkeepingtheunavoidablearbitrariness
neatlyisolatedintheassumptions,moreorlessasbodycellsisolatethenucleoplasm,forthehistorical
processofadaptationtocontinuingexperience.Perhapsthemethodisbasedonthebeliefthat
somehowtheinitialstatereallydeterminesuniquelythesubsequentevents,orthatacompletemodel,
agreeingwithrealityincompleteexactnesswouldpermitpredictivecalculationofoutcomesofall
experimentswithcompleteexactness.Perhapsontheotherhandthisbeliefisbasedonthemethod.
Butitisquiteprobablethattheadaptationofthoughttoexperienceisaninfiniteprocessandthat
"completemodel"isacontradictioninterms,somewhatlike"largestinteger".

Aclearpresentationofwhatismeantbyclassicalmodel,itsdeterminingparts,itsstate,isthe
foundationforallthatfollows.Aboveall,adeterminatemodelandadeterminatestateofthesame
mustnotbeconfused.Bestconsideranexample.TheRutherfordmodelofthehydrogenatomconsists
oftwopointmasses.Asdeterminingpartsonecouldforexampleusethetwotimesthreerectangular
coordinatesofthetwopointsandthetwotimesthreecomponentsoftheirvelocitiesalongthe
coordinateaxesthustwelveinall.Insteadoftheseonecouldalsochoose:thecoordinatesand
velocitycomponentsofthecenterofmass,plustheseparationofthetwopoints,twoanglesthat
establishthedirectioninspaceofthelinejoiningthem,andthespeeds(=timederivatives)with

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 2/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

whichtheseparationandthetwoanglesarechangingattheparticularmomentthisagainaddsupof
coursetotwelve.Itisnotpartoftheconcept"RmodeloftheHatom"thatthedeterminingparts
shouldhaveparticularnumericalvalues.Suchbeingassignedtothem,onearrivesatadeterminate
stateofthemodel.Theclearviewoverthetotalityofpossiblestatesyetwithoutrelationshipamong
themconstitutes"themodel"or"themodelinanystatewhatsoever".Buttheconceptofthemodel
thenamountstomorethanmerely:thetwopointsincertainpositions,endowedwithcertain
velocities.Itembodiesalsoknowledgeforeverystatehowitwillchangewithtimeinabsenceof
outsideinterference.(Informationonhowonehalfofthedeterminingpartswillchangewithtimeis
indeedgivenbytheotherhalf,buthowthisotherhalfwillchangemustbeindependentlydetermined.)
Thisknowledgeisimplicitintheassumptions:thepointshavethemassesm,Mandthechargese,+e
andthereforeattracteachotherwithforcee^2/r^2,iftheirseparationisr.

Theseresults,withdefinitenumericalvaluesform,M,ande(butofcoursenotforr),belongtothe
descriptionofthemodel(notfirstandonlytothatofadefinitestate).m,M,andearenotdetermining
parts.Bycontrast,separationrisone.Itappearsastheseventhinthesecond"set"oftheexample
introducedabove.Andifoneusesthefirst,risnotanindependentthirteenthbutcanbecalculated
fromthesixrectangularcoordinates:

r=|(x1x2)^2+(y1y2)^2+(z1z2)^2|^(1/2).

Thenumberofdeterminingparts(whichareoftencalledvariablesincontrasttoconstantsofthe
modelsuchasm,M,e)isunlimited.Twelveconvenientlychosenonesdetermineallothers,orthe
state.Notwelvehavetheprivilegeofbeingthedeterminingparts.examplesofotherespecially
importantdeterminingpartsare:theenergy,thethreecomponentsofangularmomentumrelativeto
centerofmass,thekineticenergyofcenterofmassmotion.Thesejustnamedhave,however,a
specialcharacter.Theyareindeedvariable,i.e.,theyhavedifferentvaluesindifferentstates.Butin
everysequenceofstates,thatisactuallypassedthroughinthecourseoftime,theyretainthesame
value.Sotheyarealsocalledconstantsofthemotiondifferingfromconstantsofthemodel.

2.StatisticsofModelVariablesinQuantumMechanics

Atthepivotpointofcontemporaryquantummechanics(Q.M.)standsadoctrine,thatperhapsmayyet
undergomanyshiftsofmeaningbutthatwillnot,Iamconvinced,ceasetobethepivotpoint.Itis
this,thatmodelswithdeterminingpartsthatuniquelydetermineeachother,asdotheclassicalones,
cannotdojusticetonature.

Onemightthinkthatforanyonebelievingthis,theclassicalmodelshaveplayedouttheirroles.But
thisisnotthecase.Ratheroneusespreciselythem,notonlytoexpressthenegativeofthnew
doctrine,butalsotodescribethediminishedmutualdeterminacyremainingafterwardsasthough
obtainingamongthesamevariablesofthesamemodelsaswereusedearlier,asfollows:

A.Theclassicalconceptofstatebecomeslost,inthatatmostawellchosenhalfofacompletesetof
variablescanbeassigneddefinitenumericalvaluesintheRutherfordexampleforinstancethesix
rectangularcoordinatesorthevelocitycomponents(stillothergroupingsarepossible).theotherhalf
thenremainscompletelyindeterminate,whilesupernumerarypartscanshowhighlyvaryingdegrees
ofindeterminacy.Ingeneral,ofacompleteset(fortheRmodeltwelveparts)allwillbeknownonly
uncertainly.Onecanbestkeeptrackofthedegreeofuncertaintybyfollowingclassicalmechanicsand
choosingvariablesarrangedinpairsofsocalledcanonicallyconjugateones.Thesimplestexampleis
aspacecoordinatexofapointmassandthecomponentp_xalongthesamedirection,itslinear
momentum(i.e.,masstimesvelocity).Twosuchconstraineachotherintheprecisionwithwhichthey
maybesimultaneouslyknown,inthattheproductoftheirtoleranceorvariationwidths(customarily
designatedbyputtingaDeltaaheadofthequantity)cannotfallbelowthemagnitudeofacertain
universalconstant,[4]thus:

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 3/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

Deltax.Deltap_x>=hbar.

(Heisenberguncertaintyrelation.)

B.Ifevenatanygivenmomentnotallvariablesaredeterminedbysomeofthem,thenofcourse
neitheraretheyalldeterminedforalatermomentbydataobtainableeither.Thismaybecalleda
breakwithcausality,butinviewofA.,itisnothingessentiallynew.Ifaclassicalstatedoesnotexist
atanymoment,itcanhardlychangecausally.Whatdochangearethestatisticsorprobabilities,these
moreovercausally.Individualvariablesmeanwhilemaybecomemore,orless,uncertain.Overallit
maybesaidthatthetotalprecisionofthedescriptiondoesnotchangewithtime,becausetheprinciple
oflimitationsdecsribedunderA.remainsthesameateverymoment.

Nowwhatisthemeaningoftheterms"uncertain","statistics","probability"?HereQ.M.givesthe
followingaccount.Ittakesoverunquestioninglyfromtheclassicalmodeltheentireinfiniterollcallof
imaginablevariablesordeterminingpartsandproclaimseachparttobedirectlymeasurable,indeed
measuravletoarbitraryprecision,sofarasitaloneisconcerned.Ifthroughawellchosen,constrained
setofmeasurementsonehasgainedthatmaximalknowledgeofanobjectwhichisjustpossible
accordingtoA.,thenthemathematicalapparatusofthenewtheoryprovidesmeansofassigning,for
thesameorforanylaterinstantoftime,afullydeterminedstatisticaldistributiontoeveryvariable,
thatis,anindicationofthefractionofcasesitwillbefoundatthisorthatvalue,orwithinthisorthat
smallinterval(whichisalsocalledprobability.)Thedoctrineisthatthisisinfacttheprobabilityof
encounteringtherelevantvariable,ifonemeasuresitattherelevanttime,atthisorthatvalue.Bya
singletrialthecorrectnessofthisprobabilitypredictioncanbegivenatmostanapproximatetest,
namelyinthecasethatitiscomparativelysharp,i.e.,declarespossibleonlyasmallrangeofvalues.
Totestitthoroughlyonemustrepeattheentiretrialabovo(i.e.,includingtheorientationalor
preparatorymeasurements)veryoftenandmayuseonlythosecasesinwhichthepreparatory
measurementsgaveexactlythesameresults.Forthesecases,then,thestatisticsofaparticular
variable,reckonedforwardfromthepreparatorymeasurements,istobeconfirmedbymeasurement
thisisthedoctrine.

Onemustguardagainstcriticizingthisdoctrinebecauseitissodifficulttoexpressthisisamatterof
language.Butadifferentcriticismsurfaces.Scarcelyasinglephysicistoftheclassicalerawouldhave
daredtobelieve,inthinkingaboutamodel,thatitsdeterminingpartsaremeasurableonthenatural
object.Onlymuchremoterconsequencesofthepicturewereactuallyopentoexperimentaltest.And
allexperiencepointedtowardsoneconclusion:longbeforetheadvancingexperimentalartshad
bridgedthebroadchasm,themodelwouldhavesubstantiallychangedthroughadaptationtonew
facts.Nowwhilethenewtheorycallstheclassicalmodelincapableofspecifyingalldetailsofthe
mutualinterrelationshipofthedeterminingparts(forwhichitscreatorsintendedit),itnevertheless
considersthemodelsuitableforguidingusastojustwhichmeasurementscaninprinciplebemadeon
therelevantnaturalobject.Thiswouldhaveseemedtothosewhothoughtupthepictureascandalous
extensionoftheirthoughtpatternandanunscrupulousproscriptionagainstfuturedevelopment.
Woulditnotbepreestablishedharmonyofapeculiarsortiftheclassicalepochresearchers,those
who,asweheartoday,hadnoideaofwhatmeasuringtrulyis,hadunwittinglygoneontogiveusas
legacyaguidanceschemerevealingjustwhatisfundamentallymeasurableforinstanceabouta
hydrogenatom!?

Ihopelatertomakeclearthatthereigningdoctrineisbornofdistress.MeanwhileIcontinueto
expoundit.

3.ExamplesofProbabilityPredictions

Alloftheforegoingpertainstodeterminingpartsofaclassicalmodel,topositionsandvelocitiesof
pointmasses,toenergies,angularmomenta,etc.Theonlyunclassicalfeatureisthatonlyprobabilities
arepredicted.Letushaveacloserlook.Theorthodoxtreatmentisalwaysthat,bywayofcertain
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 4/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

measurementsperformednowandbywayoftheirresultingpredictionofresultstobeexpectedof
othermeasurementsfollowingthereaftereitherimmediatelyoratsomegiventime,onegainsthebest
possibleprobabilityestimatespermittedbynature.Nowhowdoesthematterreallystand?In
importantandtypicalcasesasfollows.

IfonemeasurestheenergyofaPlanckoscillator,theprobabilityoffindingforitavaluebetweenE
andE'cannotpossiblybeotherthanzerounlesbetweenEandE'thereliesatleastonevaluefromthe
series3.pi.hbar.nu,5.pi.hbar.nu,7.pi.hbar.nu,9.pi.hbar.nu,...Foranyintervalcontainingnoneofthese
valuestheprobabilityiszero.InplainEnglish:othermeasurementresultsareexcluded.Thevalues
areoddmultiplesoftheconstantofthemodelpi.hbar.nu

(Planckconstant)/2.pi,nu=frequencyoftheoscillator.

Twopointsstandout.First,noaccountistakenofprecedingmeasurementsthesearequite
unnecessary.Second,thestatementcertainlydoesn'tsufferanexcessivelackofprecisionquitetothe
contraryitissharperthananyactualmeasurementcouldeverbe.
Figure1./|\
|
|M
.
.
O........F
.
.
.

Angularmomentum.Misamaterialpoint,Oageometricreferencepoint.Thevectorarrowrepresents
themomentum(=masstimesvelocity)ofM.Thentheangularmomentumistheproductofthelength
ofthearrowbythelengthOF.

Anothertypicalexampleismagnitudeofangularmomentum.InFig.1letMbeamovingpointmass,
withthevectorrepresenting,inmagnitudeanddirection,itsmomentum(masstimesvelocity).Ois
anyarbitraryfixedpointinspace,saytheoriginofcoordinatesthusnotaphysicallysignificantpoint,
butratherageometricreferencepoint.AsmagnitudeoftheangularmomentumofMaboutO
classicalmechanicsdesignatestheproductofthelengthofthemomentumvectorbythelengthofthe
normalOF.InQ.M.themagnitudeofangularmomentumisgovernedmuchastheenergyofthe
oscillator.Againtheprobabilityiszeroforanyintervalnotcontainingsomevalue(s)fromthe
followingseries

hbar(2)^(1/2),hbar(2x3)^(1/2),hbar(3x4)^(1/2),hbar(4x5)^(1/2),...

thatis,onlyoneofthesevaluesisallowed.Againthisistruewithoutreferencetopreceding
measurements.Andonereadilyconceiveshowimportantisthisprecisestatement,muchmore
importantthanknowingwhichofthesevalues,orwhatprobabilityforeachofthem,wouldactually
pertaintoagivencase.Moreoveritisalsonoteworthyherethatthereisnomentionofthereference
point:howeveritischosenonewillgetavaluefromtheseries.Thisassertionseemsunreasonablefor
themodel,becausethenormalOFchangescontinuouslyasthepointOisdisplaced,ifthemomentum
vectorremainsunchanged.InthisexampleweseehowQ.M.doesindeedusethemodeltoreadof
thosequantitieswhichonecanmeasureandforwhichitmakessensetopredictresults,butfindsthe
classicalmodelinadequateforexplicatingrelationshipsamongthesequantities.Nowinboth
examplesdoesonenotgetthefeelingthattheessentialcontentofwhatisbeingsaidcanonlywith
somedifficultybeforcedintotheSpanishbootofapredictionofprobabilityoffindingthisorthat
measurementresultforavariableoftheclassicalmodel?Doesonenotgettheimpressionthathere
onedealswithfundamentalpropertiesofnewclassesofcharacteristics,thatkeeponlythenamein
commonwithclassicalones?Andbynomeansdowespeakhereofexceptionalcases,ratheritis

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 5/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

preciselythetrulyvaluablestatementsofthenewtheorythathavethischaracter.Thereareindeed
problemsmorenearlyofthetypeforwhichthemodeofexpressionissuitable.Buttheyarebyno
meansequallyimportant.Moreoverofnoimportancewhateverarethosethatarenaivelysetupas
classexercises."Giventhepositionoftheelctroninthehydrogenatomattimet=0,findthestatistics
ofitspositionatalatertime."Noonecaresaboutthat.

Thebigideaseemstobethatallstatementspertaintotheintuitivemodel.Buttheusefulstatements
arescarcelyintuitiveinit,anditsintuitiveaspectsareoflittleworth.

4.CanOneBasetheTheoryonIdealEnsembles?

TheclassicalmodelplaysaProteanroleinQ.M.Eachofitsdeterminingpartscanundercertain
circumstancesbecomeanobjectofinterestandachieveacertainreality.Butneverallofthem
togethernowitisthese,nowthose,andindeedalwaysatmosthalfofthecompletesetofvariables
allowedbyafullpictureofthemomentarystate.Meantime,howabouttheothers?Havetheythenno
reality,perhaps(pardontheexpression)ablurredrealityorareallofthemalwaysrealandisit
merely,accordingtoTheoremA.ofSect.2,thatsimultaneousknowledgeofthemisruledout?

Thesecondinterpretationisespeciallyappealingtothoseacquaintedwiththestatisticalviewpointthat
cameupinthesecondhalfoftheprecedingcenturythemoreso,consideringthatontheeveofthe
newcenturyquantumtheorywasbornfromit,fromacentralprobleminthestatisticaltheoryofheat
(MaxPlanck'sTheoryofHeatRadiation,December,1899).Theessenceofthislineofthoughtis
preciselythis,thatonepracticallyneverknowsallthedeterminingpartsofthesystem,butrather
muchfewer.Todescribeanactualbodyatagivenmomentonereliesthereforenotononestateofthe
modelbutonasocalledGibbsensemble.Bythisismeantanideal,thatis,merelyimaginedensemble
ofstates,thataccuratelyreflectsourlimitedknowledgeoftheactualbody.Thebodyisthen
consideredtobehaveasthoughinasinglestatearbitrarilychosenfromthisensemble.This
interpretationhadthemostextensiveresults.Itshighesttriumphswereinthosecasesforwhichnotall
statesappearingintheensembleledtothesameobservablebehavior.Thusthebody'sconductisnow
thisway,nowthat,justasforeseen(thermodynamicsfluctuations).Atfirstthoughtonemightwell
attemptlikewisetoreferbackthealwaysuncertainstatementsofQ.M.toanidealensembleofstates,
ofwhichaquitespecificoneappliesinanyconcreteinstancebutonedoesnotknowwhichone.

Thatthiswon'tworkisshownbytheoneexampleofangularmomentum,asoneofmany.Imaginein
Fig.1thepointMtobesituatedatvariouspositionsrelativetoOandfittedwithvariousmomentum
vectors,andallthesepossibilitiestobecombinedintoanidealensemble.Thenonecanindeedso
choosethesepositionsandvectorsthatineverycasetheproductofvectorlengthbylengthofnormal
OFyieldsoneortheotheroftheacceptablevaluesrelativetotheparticularpointO.Butforan
arbitrarilydifferentpointO',ofcourse,unacceptablevaluesoccur.Thusappealtotheensembleisno
helpatall.Anotherexampleistheoscillatorenergy.Takethecasethatithasasharplydetermined
value,e.g.,thelowest,3.pi.hbar.nu.Theseparationofthetwopointmasses(thatconstitutethe
oscillator)thenappearsveryunsharp.Tobeabletoreferthisstatementtoastatisticalcollectiveof
stateswouldrequirethedistributionofseparationstobesharplylimited,atleasttowardlargevalues,
bythatseparationforwhichthepotentialenergyalonewouldequalorexceedthevalue3.pi.hbar.nu.
Butthat'snotthewayitisarbitrarilylargeseparationsoccur,eventhoughwithmarkedlyreduced
probability.Andthisisnomeresecondarycalculationresult,thatmightinsomefashionbe
circumvented,withoutstrikingattheheartofthetheory:alongwithmanyothers,thequantum
mechanicaltreatmentofradioactivity(Gamow)restsonthisstateofaffairs.Onecouldgoon
indefinitelywithmoreexamples.Oneshoudlnotethattherewasnoquestionofanytimedependent
changes.Itwouldbeofnohelptopermitthemodeltovaryquite"unclassically",perhapsto"jump".
Alreadyforthesingleinstantthingsgowrong.Atnomomentdoesthereexistanensembleof
classicalstatesofthemodelthatsquareswiththetotalityofquantummechanicalstatementsofthis
moment.Thesamecanalsobesaidasfollows:ifIwishtoascribetothemodelateachmomenta
definite(merelynotexactlyknowntome)state,or(whichisthesame)toalldeterminingparts
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 6/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

definite(merelynoteactlyknowntome)numericalvalues,thenthereisnosuppositionastothese
numericalvaluestobeimaginedthatwouldnotconflictwithsomeportionofquantumtheoretical
assertions.

Thatisnotquitewhatoneexpects,onhearingthatthepronouncementsofthenewtheoryarealways
uncertaincomparedtotheclassicalones.

5.AretheVariablesReallyBlurred?

Theotheralternativeconsistsofgrantingrealityonlytothemomentarilysharpdeterminingpartsor
inmoregeneraltermstoeachvariableasortofrealizationjustcorrespondingtothequantum
mechanicalstatisticsofthisvariableattherelevantmoment.

Thatitisinfactnotimpossibletoexpressthedegreeandkindofblurringofallvariablesinone
perfectlyclearconceptfollowsatoncefromthefactthatQ.M.asamatteroffacthasandusessuchan
instrument,thesocalledwavefunctionorpsifunction,alsocalledsystemvector.Muchmoreistobe
saidaboutitfurtheron.Thatitisanabstract,unintuitivemathematicalconstructisascruplethat
almostalwayssurfacesagainstnewaidstothoughtandthatcarriesnogreatmessage.Atalleventsit
isanimaginedentitythatimagestheblurringofallvariablesateverymomentjustasclearlyand
faithfullyasdoestheclassicalmodelitssharpnumericalvalues.Itsequationofmotiontoo,thelawof
itstimevariation,solongasthesystemisleftundisturbed,lagsnotoneiota,inclarityand
determinacy,behindtheequationsofmotionoftheclassicalmodel.Sothelattercouldbestraight
forwardlyreplacedbythepsifunction,solongastheblurringisconfinedtoatomicscale,notopento
directcontrol.Infactthefunctionhasprovidedquiteintuitiveandconvenientideas,forinstancethe
"cloudofnegativeelectricity"aroundthenucleus,etc.Butseriousmisgivingsariseifonenoticesthat
theuncertaintyaffectsmacroscopicallytangibleandvisiblethings,forwhichtheterm"blurring"
seemssimplywrong.Thestateofaradioactivenucleusispresumablyblurredinsuchadegreeand
fashionthatneithertheinstantofdecaynorthedirection,inwhichtheemittedalphaparticleleaves
thenucleus,iswellestablished.Insidethenucleus,blurringdoesn'tbotherus.Theemergingparticle
isdescribed,ifonewantstoexpainintuitively,asasphericalwavethatcontinuouslyemanatesinall
directionsandthatimpingescontinuouslyonasurroundingluminescentscreenoveritsfullexpanse.
Thescreenhoweverdoesnotshowamoreorlessconstantuniformglow,butratherlightsupatone
instantatonespotor,tohonorthetruth,itlightsupnowhere,nowthere,foritisimpossibletodo
theexperimentwithonlyasingleradioactiveatom.Ifinplaceoftheluminescentscreenoneusesa
spatiallyextendeddetector,perhapsagasthatisionisedbythealphaparticles,onefindstheionpairs
arrangedalongrectilinearcolumns,[5]thatprojectbackwardsontothebitofradioactivematterfrom
whichthealpharadiationcomes(C.T.R.Wilson'scloudchambertracks,madevisiblebydropsof
moisturecondensedontheions).

Onecanevensetupquiteridiculouscases.Acatispennedupinasteelchamber,alongwiththe
followingdevice(whichmustbesecuredagainstdirectinterferencebythecat):inaGeigercounter
thereisatinybitofradioactivesubstance,sosmall,thatperhapsinthecourseofthehouroneofthe
atomsdecays,butalso,withequalprobability,perhapsnoneifithappens,thecountertubedischarges
andthrougharelayreleasesahammerwhichshattersasmallflaskofhydrocyanicacid.Ifonehasleft
thisentiresystemtoitselfforanhour,onewouldsaythatthecatstilllivesifmeanwhilenoatomhas
decayed.Thepsifunctionoftheentiresystemwouldexpressthisbyhavinginitthelivinganddead
cat(pardontheexpression)mixedorsmearedoutinequalparts.

Itistypicalofthesecasesthatanindeterminacyoriginallyrestrictedtotheatomicdomainbecomes
transformedintomacroscopicindeterminacy,whichcanthenberesolvedbydirectobservation.That
preventsusfromsonaivelyacceptingasvalida"blurredmodel"forrepresentingreality.Initselfit
wouldnotembodyanythingunclearorcontradictory.Thereisadifferencebetweenashakyoroutof
focusphotographandasnapshotofcloudsandfogbanks.

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 7/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

6.TheDeliberateAboutfaceoftheEpistemologicalViewpoint

Inthefourthsectionwesawthatitisnotpossiblesmoothlytotakeovermodelsandtoascribe,tothe
momentarilyunknownornotexactlyknownvariables,nonethelessdeterminatevalues,thatwesimply
don'tknow.InSect.5wesawthattheindeterminacyisnotevenanactualblurring,forthereare
alwayscaseswhereaneasilyexecutedobservationprovidesthemissingknowledge.Sowhatisleft?
Fromthisveryharddilemmathereigningdoctrinerescuesitselfbyhavingrecoursetoepistemology.
WearetoldthatnodistinctionistobemadebetweenthestateofanaturalobjectandwhatIknow
aboutit,orperhapsbetter,whatIcanknowaboutitifIgotosometrouble.Actuallysotheysay
thereisintrinsicallyonlyawareness,observation,measurement.IfthroughthemIhaveprocuredata
givenmomentthebestknowledgeofthestateofthephysicalobjectthatispossiblyattainablein
accordwithnaturallaws,thenIcanturnasideasmeaninglessanyfurtherquestioningaboutthe
"actualstate",inasmuchasIamconvincedthatnofurtherobservationcanextendmyknowledgeofit
atleast,notwithoutanequivalentdiminutioninsomeotherrespect(namelybychangingthestate,
seebelow).

NowthisshedssomelightontheoriginofthepropositionthatImentionedattheendofSect.2as
somethingveryfarreaching:thatallmodelquantitiesaremeasurableinprinciple.Onecanhardlyget
alongwithoutthisarticleofbeliefifoneseeshimselfconstrained,intheinterstsofphysical
methodology,tocallinasdictatorialhelptheabovementionedphilosophicalprinciple,whichno
sensiblepersoncanfailtoesteemasthesupremeprotectorofallempiricism.

Realityresistsimitationthroughamodel.Sooneletsgoofniaverealismandleansdirectlyonthe
indubitablepropositionthatactually(forthephysicist)afterallissaidanddonethereisonly
observation,measurement.Thenallourphysicalthinkingthenceforthhasassolebasisandassole
objecttheresultsofmeasurementswhichcaninprinciplebecarriedout,forwemustnowexplicitly
notrelateourthinkinganylongertoanyotherkindofrealityortoamodel.Allnumbersarisinginour
physicalcalculationsmustbeinterpretedasmeasurementresults.Butsincewedidn'tjustnowcome
intotheworldandstarttobuildupoursciencefromscratch,butratherhaveinuseaquitedefinite
shcemeofcalculation,fromwhichinviewofthegreatprogressinQ.M.wewouldlessthaneverwant
tobeparted,weseeourselvesforcedtodictatefromthewritingtablewhichmeasurementsarein
principlepossible,thatis,mustbepossibleinordertosupportadequatelyourreckoningsystem.This
allowsasharpvalueforeachsinglevariableofthemodel(indeedforawhole"halfset")andsoeach
singlevariablemustbemeasurabletoarbitraryexactness.Wecannotbesatisfiedwithless,forwe
havelostournaivelyrealisticinnocence.Wehavenothingbutourreckoningscheme,i.e.,whatisa
bestpossibleknowledgeoftheobject.Andifwecouldn'tdothat,thenindeedwouldourmeasurement
realitybecomehighlydependentonthediligenceorlazinessoftheexperimenter,howmuchtrouble
hetakestoinformhimself.Wemustgoontotellhimhowfarhecouldgoifonlyhewereclever
enough.Otherwiseitwouldbeseriouslyfearedthatjustthere,whereweforbidfurtherquestions,
theremightwellstillbesomethingworthknowingthatwemightaskabout.

7.ThePsifunctionasExpectationcatalog

Continuingtoexpoundtheofficialteaching,letusturntothealready(Sect.5)mentionedpsi
function.Itisnowthemeansforpredictingprobabilityofmeasurementresults.Initisembodiedthe
momentarilyattainedsumoftheoreticallybasedfutureexpectation,somewhataslaiddownina
catalog.Itistherelationanddeterminacybridgebetweenmeasurementsandmeasurements,asinthe
classicaltheorythemodelanditsstatewere.Withthislatterthepsifunctionmoreoverhasmuchin
common.Itis,inprinciple,determinedbyafinitenumberofsuitablychosenmeasurementsonthe
object,halfasmanyaswererequiredintheclassicaltheory.Thusthecatalogofexpectationsis
initiallycompiled.Fromthenonitchangeswithtime,justasthestateofthemodelofclassicaltheory,
inconstrainedanduniquefashion("causally")theevolutionofthepsifunctionisgovernedbya
partialdifferentialequation(offirstorderintimeandsolvedfordelta(psi)/delta(t)).Thiscorresponds
totheundisturbedmotionofthemodelinclassicaltheory.Butthisgoesononlyuntiloneagain
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 8/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

carriesoutanymeasurement.Foreachmeasurementoneisrequiredtoascribetothepsifunction(=
thepredictioncatalog)acharacteristic,quitesuddenchange,whichdependsonthemeasurement
resultobtained,andsocannotbeforeseenfromwhichaloneitisalreadyquiteclearthatthissecond
kindofchangeofthepsifunctionhasnothingwhateverincommonwithitsorderlydevelopment
betweentwomeasurements.Theabruptchangebymeasurementtiesincloselywithmatters
discussedinSect.5andwilloccupyusfurtheratsomelengthitisthemostinterestingpointofthe
entiretheory.Itispreciselythepointthatdemandsthebreakwithnaiverealism.Forthisreasonone
cannotputthepsifunctiondirectlyinplaceofthemodelorofthephysicalthing.Andindeed
becauseonemightneverdareimputeabruptunforeseenchangestoaphysicalthingortoamodel,but
becauseintherealismpointofviewobservationisanaturalprocesslikeanyotherandcannotperse
bringaboutaninterruptionoftheorderlyflowofnaturalevents.

8.TheoryofMeasurement,PartOne

Therejectionofrealismhaslogicalconsequences.Ingeneral,avariablehasnodefinitevaluebeforeI
measureitthenmeasuringitdoesnotmeanascertainingthevaluethatithas.Butthenwhatdoesit
mean?Theremuststillbesomecriterionastowhetherameasurementistrueorfalse,amethodis
goodorbad,accurate,orinaccuratewhetheritdeservesthenameofmeasurementprocessatall.
Anyoldplayingaroundwithanindicatinginstrumentinthevicinityofanotherbody,wherebyatany
oldtimeonethentakesareading,canhardlybecalledameasurementonthisbody.Nowitisfairly
clearifrealitydoesnotdeterminethemeasuredvalue,thenatleastthemeasuredvaluemust
determinerealityitmustactuallybepresentafterthemeasurementinthatsensewhichalonewillbe
recognisedagain.Thatis,thedesiredcriterioncanbemerelythis:repetitionofthemeasurementmust
givethesameresult.BymanyrepetitionsIcanprovetheaccuracyoftheprocedureandshowthatI
amnotjustplaying.Itisagreeablethatthisprogrammatchesexactlythemethodoftheexperimenter,
towhomlikewisethe"truevalue"isnotknownbeforehand.Weformulatetheessentialpointas
follows:

Thesystematicallyarrangedinteractionoftwosystems(measuredobjectandmeasuringinstrument)
iscalledameasurementonthefirstsystem,ifadirectlysensiblevariablefeatureofthesecond
(pointerposition)isalwaysreproducedwithincertainerrorlimitswhentheprocessisimmediately
repeated(onthesameobject,whichinthemeantimemustnotbeexposedtoanyadditional
influences).

Thisstatementwillrequireconsiderableaddedcomment:itisbynomeansafaultlessdefinition.
Empiricsismorecomplicatedthanmathematicsandisnotsoeasilycapturedinpolishedsentences.

Beforethefirstmeasurementtheremighthavebeenanarbitraryquantumtheorypredictionforit.
Afteritthepredictionalwaysruns:withinerrorlimitsagainthesameresult.Theexpectationcatalog
(=psifunction)isthereforechangedbythemeasurementinrespecttothevariablebeingmeasured.If
themeasurementprocedureisknownfrombeforehandtobereliable,thenthefirstmeasurementat
oncereducesthetheoreticalexpectationwithinerrorlimitsontothevaluefound,regardlessof
whateverthepriorexpectationmayhavebeen.Thisisthetypicalabruptchangeofthepsifunction
discussedabove.Buttheexpectationcatalogchangesinunforeseenmannernotonlyforthemeasured
variableitself,butalsoforothers,inparticularforits"canonicalconjugate".Ifforinstanceonehasa
rathersharppredictionforthemomentumofaparticleandproceedstomeasureitspositionmore
exactlythaniscompatiblewithTheoremAofSec.2,thenthemomentumpredictionmustchange.
Thequantummechanicalreckoningmoreovertakescareofthisautomaticallythereisnopsifunction
whatsoeverthatwouldcontradictTheoremAwhenonededucesfromitthecombinedexpectations.

Sincetheexpectationcatalogchangesradicallyduringmeasurement,theobjectisthennolonger
suitedfortesting,intheirfullextent,thestatisticalpredictionsmadeearlierattheveryleastforthe
measuredvariableitself,sinceforitnowthe(nearly)samevaluewouldoccuroverandoveragain.
ThatisthereasonfortheprescriptionalreadygiveninSect.2:onecanindeedtesttheprobability
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 9/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

predictionscompletely,butforthisonemustrepeattheentireexperimentabovo.One'sprior
treatmentofthemeasuredobject(oroneidenticaltoit)mustbeexactlythesameasthatgiventhefirst
time,inorderthatthesameexpectationcatalog(=psifunction)shouldbevalidasbeforethefirst
measurement.Thenone"repeats"it.(Thisrepeatingnowmeansofcoursesomethingquiteotherthan
earlier!)Allthisonemustdonottwicebutveryoften.Thenthepredictedstatisticsareestablished
thatisthedoctrine.

Oneshouldnotethedifferencebetweentheerrorlimitsandtheerrordistributionofthemeasurement,
ontheonehand,andthetheoreticallypredictedstatistics,ontheotherhand.Theyhavenothingtodo
witheachother.Theyareestablishedbythetwoquitedifferenttypesofrepetitionjustdiscussed.

Herethereisopportunitytodeepensomewhattheaboveattempteddelimitationofmeasuring.There
aremeasuringinstrumentsthatremainfixedonthereadinggivenbythemeasurementjustmade.Or
thepointercouldremainstuckbecauseofadefect.Onewouldthenrepeatedlymakeexactlythesame
reading,andaccordingtoourinstructionthatwouldbeaspectacularlyaccuratemeasurement.
Moreoverthatwouldbetruenotmerelyfortheobjectbutalsofortheinstrmentitself!Asamatterof
factthereisstillmissingfromourexpositionanimportantpoint,butonewhichcouldnotreadilybe
statedearlier,namelywhatitisthattrulymakesthedifferencebetweenobjectandinstrument(tatitis
thelatteronwhichthereadingismade,ismoreorlesssuperficial).Wehavejustseenthatthe
instrumentundercertaincircumstances,asrequired,mustbesetbacktoitsneutralinitialcondition
beforeanycontrolmeasurementismade.Thisiswellknowntotheexperimentalist.Theoreticallythe
mattermaybestbeexpressedbyprescribingthatonprincipletheinstrumentshouldbesubjectedto
theidenticalpriortreatmentbeforeeachmeasurement,sothatforiteachtimethesameexpectation
catalog(=psifunction)applies,asitisbroughtuptotheobject.Fortheobjectitisjusttheotherway
around,anyinterferencebeingforbiddenwhenacontrolmeasurementistobemade,a"repetitionof
thefirstkind"(thatleadstoerrorstatistics).Thatisthecharacteristicdifferencebetweenobjectand
instrument.Itdisappearsfora"repetitionofthesecondkind"(thatservesforcheckingthequantum
predictions).Herethedifferencebetweenthetwoisactuallyratherinsignificant.

>Fromthiswegatherfurtherthatforasecondmeasurementonemayuseasimilarlybuiltand
similarlypreparedinstrumentitneednotnecessarilybethesameonethisisinfactsometimesdone,
asacheckonthefirstone.itmayindeedhappenthattwoqutedifferentlybuiltinstrumentsareso
relatedtoeachotherthatifonemeasureswiththemoneaftertheother(repetitionofthefirstkind!)
theirtwoindicationsareinonetoonecorrelationwitheachother.Theythenmeasureontheobject
esssentiallythesamevariablei.e.,thesameforsuitablecalibrationofthescales.

9.ThePsifunctionasDescriptionofState

Therejectionofrealismalsoimposesobligations.Fromthestandpointoftheclassicalmodelthe
momentarystatementcontentofthepsifunctionisfarfromcompleteitcomprisesonlyabout50per
centofacompletedescription.>Fromthenewstandpointitmustbecompleteforreasonsalready
toucheduponattheendofSect.6.Itmustbeimpossibletoaddontoitadditionalcorrectstatements,
withoutotherwisechangingitelseonewouldnothavetherighttocallmeaninglessallstatements
extendingbeyondit.

Thenceitfollowsthattwodifferentcatalogs,thatapplytothesamesystemunderdifferent
circumstancesoratdifferenttimes,maywellpartiallyoverlap,butneversothattheoneisentirely
containedwithintheother.Forotherwiseitwouldbesusceptibletocompletionthroughadditional
correctstatements,namelythroughthosebywhichtheotheroneexceedsit.Themathematical
structureofthetheoryautomaticallysatisfiesthiscondition.Thereisnopsifunctionthatfurnishes
exactlythesamestatementsasanotherandinadditionseveralmore.

Thereforeifasystemchanges,whetherbyitselforbecauseofmeasurements,theremustalwaysbe
statementsmissingfromthenewfunctionthatwerecontainedintheearlierone.Inthecatalognotjust
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 10/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

newentries,butalsodeletions,mustbemade.Nowknowledgecanwellbegained,butnotlost.Sothe
deletionsmeanthatthepreviouslycorrectstatementshavenowbecomeincorrect.Acorrectstatement
canbecomeincorrectonlyiftheobjecttowhichitapplieschanges.Iconsideritacceptabletoexpress
thisreasoningsequenceasfollows:

Theorem1:Ifdifferentpsifunctionsareunderdiscussionthesystemisindifferentstates.

Ifonespeaksonlyofsystemsforwhichapsifunctionisingeneralavailable,thentheinverseofthis
theoremruns:

Theorem2:Forthesamepsifunctionthesystemisinthesamestate.

TheinversedoesnotfollowfromTheorem1butindependentlyofit,directlyfromcompletenessor
maximality.Whoeverforthesameexpectationcatalogwouldyetclaimadifferenceispossible,would
beadmittingthatit(thecatalog)doesnotgiveinformationonalljustifiablequestions.Thelanguage
usageofalmostallauthorsimpliesthevalidityoftheabovetwotheorems.Ofcourse,theysetupa
kindofnewrealityinentirelylegitimatefashion,Ibelieve.Moreovertheyarenottrivially
tautological,notmereverbalinterpretationsof"state".Withoutpresupposedmaximalityofthe
expectationcatalog,changeofthepsifunctioncouldbebroughtaboutbymerecollectingofnew
information.

WemustfaceuptoyetanotherobjectiontothederivationofTheorem1.Onecanarguethateach
individualstatementoritemofknowledge,underexaminationthere,isafterallaprobability
statement,towhichthecategoryofcorrect,orincorrectdoesnotapplyinanyrelationtoanindividual
case,butratherinrelationtoacollectivethatcomesintobeingfromone'spreparingthesystema
thousandtimesinidenticalfashion(inorderthentoallowthesamemeasurementtofollowcf.Sect.
8.).Thatmakessense,butwemustspecifyallmembersofthiscollectivetobeidenticallyprepared,
sincetoeachthesamepsifunction,thesamestatementcatalogappliesandwedarenotspecify
differencesthatarenotspecifiedinthecatalog(cf.thefoundationofTheorem2).Thusthecollective
ismadeupofidenticalindividualcases.Ifastatementiswrongforit,thentheindividualcasemust
havechanged,orelsethecollectivetoowouldagainbethesame.

10.TheoryofMeasurement,PartTwo

Nowitwaspreviouslystated(Sect.7)andexplained(Sect.8)thatanymeasurementsuspendsthelaw
thatotherwisegovernscontinuoustimedependenceofthepsifunctionandbringsaboutinitaquite
differentchange,notgovernedbyanylawbutratherdictatedbytheresultofthemeasurement.But
lawsofnaturedifferingfromtheusualonescannotapplyduringameasurement,forobjectively
vieweditisanaturalprocesslikeanyother,anditcannotinterrupttheorderlycourseofnatural
events.Sinceitdoesinterruptthatofthepsifunction,thelatteraswesaidinSect.7cannotserve,
liketheclassicalmode,asanexperimentallyverifiablerepresentationofanobjectivereality.Andyet
inthelastSectionsomethinglikethathastakenshape.

So,usingcatchwordsforemphasis,Itryagaintocontrast:1.)Thediscontinuityoftheexpectation
catalogduetomeasurementisunavoidable,forifmeasurementistoretainanymeaningatallthenthe
measuredvalue,fromagoodmeasurement,mustobtain.2.)Thediscontinuouschangeiscertainlynot
governedbytheotherwisevalidcausallaw,sinceitdependsonthemeasuredvalue,whichisnot
predetermined.3.)Thechangealsodefinitelyincludes(becauseof"maximality")somelossof
knowledge,butknowledgecannotbelost,andsotheobjectmustchangebothalongwiththe
discontinuouschangesandalso,duringthesechanges,inanunforeseen,differentway.

Howdoesthisaddup?Thingsarenotatallsimple.Itisthemostdifficultandmostinterestingpoint
ofthetheory.Obviouslywemusttrytocomprehendobjectivelytheinteractionbetweenmeasured
objectandmeasuringinstrument.Tothatendwemustlayoutafewveryabstractconsiderations.

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 11/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

Thisisthepoint.Wheneveronehasacompleteexpectationcatalogamaximumtotalknowledgea
psifunctionfortwocompletelyseparatedbodies,or,inbetterterms,foreachofthemsingly,then
oneobviouslyhasitalsoforthetwobodiestogether,i.e.,ifoneimaginesthatneitherofthemsingly
butratherthetwoofthemtogethermakeuptheobjectofinterest,ofourquestionsaboutthefuture.[6]

Buttheconverseisnottrue.Maximalknowledgeofatotalsystemdoesnotnecessarilyincludetotal
knowledgeofallitsparts,notevenwhenthesearefullyseparatedfromeachotherandatthemoment
arenotinfluencingeachotheratall.Thusitmaybethatsomepartofwhatoneknowsmaypertainto
relationsorstipulationsbetweenthetwosubsystems(weshalllimitourselvestotwo),asfollows:ifa
particularmeasurementonthefirstsystemyieldsthisresult,thenforaparticularmeasurementonthe
secondthevalidexpectationstatisticsaresuchandsuchbutifthemeasurementinquestiononthe
firstsystemshouldhavethatresult,thensomeotherexpectationholdsforthatonthesecondshoulda
thirdresultoccurforthefirst,thenstillanotherexpectationappliestothesecondandsoon,inthe
mannerofacompletedisjunctionofallpossiblemeasurementresultswhichtheonespecifically
contemplatedmeasurementonthefirstsystemcanyield.Inthisway,anymeasurementprocessatall
or,whatamountstothesame,anyvariableatallofthesecondsystemcanbetiedtothenotyet
knownvalueofanyvariableofthefirst,andofcourseviceversaalso.Ifthatisthecase,ifsuch
conditionalstatementsoccurinthecombinedcatalog,thenitcannotpossiblybemaximalinregardto
theindividualsystems.Forthecontentoftwomaximalindividualcatalogswouldbyitselfsufficefor
amaximalcombinedcatalogtheconditionalstatementscouldnotbeaddedon.

Theseconditionalpredictions,moreover,arenotsomethingthathassuddenlyfalleninherefromthe
blue.Theyareineveryexpectationcatalog.Ifoneknowsthepsifunctionandmakesaparticular
measurementandthishasaparticularresult,thenoneagainknowsthepsifunction,voilatout.It'sjst
thatforthecaseunderdiscussion,becausethecombinedsystemissupposedtoconsistoftwofully
separatedparts,thematterstandsoutasabitstrange.Forthusitbecomesmeaningfultodistinguish
betweenmeasurementsontheoneandmeasurementsontheothersubsystem.Thisprovidestoeach
fulltitletoaprivatemaximalcatalogontheotherhanditremainspossiblethataportionofthe
attainablecombinedknowledgeis,sotosay,squanderedonconditionalstatements,thatoperate
betweenthesubsystems,sothattheprivateexpectanciesareleftunfulfilledeventhoughthe
combinedcatalogismaximal,thatiseventhoughthepsifunctionofthecombinedsystemisknown.

Letuspauseforamoment.Thisresultinitsabstractnessactuallysaysitall:Bestpossibleknowledge
ofawholedoesnotnecessarilyincludethesameforitsparts.letustranslatethisintotermsofSect.9:
Thewholeisinadefinitestate,thepartstakenindividuallyarenot.

"Howso?Surelyasystemmustbeinsomesortofstate.""No.Stateispsifunction,ismaximalsum
ofknowledge.Ididn'tnecessarilyprovidemyselfwiththis,Imayhavebeenlazy.Thenthesystemis
innostate."

"Fine,butthentootheagnosticprohibitionofquestionsisnotyetinforceandinourcaseIcantell
myself:thesubsystemisalreadyinsomestate,Ijustdon'tknowwhich."

"Wait.Unfortunatelyno.Thereisno`Ijustdon'tknow.'Forastothetotalsystem,maximal
knowledgeisathand..."

Theinsufficiencyofthepsifunctionasmodelreplacementrestssolelyonthefactthatonedoesn't
alwayshaveit.Ifonedoeshaveit,thenbyallmeansletitserveasdescriptionofthestate.But
sometimesonedoesnothaveit,incaseswhereonemightreasonablyexpectto.Andinthatcase,one
darenotpostulatethatit"isactuallyaparticularone,onejustdoesn'tknowit"theabovechosen
standpointforbidsthis."It"isnamelyasumofknowledgeandknowledge,thatnooneknows,is
none.

Wecontinue.Thataportionoftheknowledgeshouldfloatintheformofdisjunctiveconditional
statementsbetweenthetwosystemscancertainlynothappenifwebringupthetwofromopposite
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 12/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

endsoftheworldandjuxtaposethemwithoutinteraction.Forthenindeedthetwo"know"nothing
abouteachother.Ameasurementononecannotpossiblyfurnishanygraspofwhatistobeexpected
oftheother.Any"entanglementofpredictions"thattakesplacecanobviouslyonlygobacktothefact
thatthetwobodiesatsomeearliertimeformedinatruesenseonesystem,thatiswereinteracting,
andhaveleftbehindtracesoneachother.Iftwoseparatedbodies,eachbyitselfknownmaximally,
enterasituationinwhichtheyinfluenceeachother,andseparateagain,thenthereoccursregularly
thatwhichIhavejustcalledentanglementofourknowledgeofthetwobodies.thecombined
expectationcatalogconsistsinitiallyofalogicalsumoftheindividualcatalogsduringtheprocessit
developscausallyinaccordwithknownlaw(thereisnoquestionwhateverofmeasurementhere).The
knowledgeremainsmaximal,butatitsend,ifthetwobodieshaveagainseparated,itisnotagainsplit
intoalogicalsumofknowledgesabouttheindividualbodies.Whatstillremainsofthatmayhave
becomeslessthanmaximal,evenverystronglyso.Onenotesthegreatdifferenceoveragainstthe
classicalmodeltheory,whereofcoursefromknowninitialstatesandwithknowninteractionthe
individualendstateswouldbeexctalyknown.

ThemeasuringprocessdescribedinSect.8nowfitsneatlyintothisgeneralscheme,ifweapplyitto
thecombinedsystem,measuredobject+measuringinstrument.Aswethusconstructanobjective
pictureofthisprocess,likethatofanyother,wedarehopetoclearup,ifnotaltogetheravoid,the
singularjumpofthepsifunction.Sonowtheonebodyisthemeasuredobject,theotherthe
instrument.Tosuppressanyinterferencefromoutsidewearrangefortheinstrumentbymeansof
builtinclockworktocreepupautomaticallytotheobjectandinlikemannercreepawayagain.The
readingitselfwepostpone,asourimmediatepurposeistoinvestigatewhatevermaybehappening
"objectively"butforlaterusewelettheresultberecordedautomaticallyintheinstrument,asindeed
isoftendonethesedays.

Nowhowdothingsstand,afterautomaticallycompletedmeasurement?Wepossess,afterwardssame
asbefore,amaximalexpectationcatalogforthetotalsystem.Therecordedmeasurementresultisof
coursenotincludedtherein.Astotheinstrumentthecatalogisfarfromcomplete,tellingusnothingat
allaboutwheretherecordingpenleftitstrace.(Rememberthatpoisonedcat!)Whatthisamountstois
thatourknowledgehasevaporatedintoconditionalstatements:ifthemarkisatline1,thenthingsare
thusandsoforthemeasuredobject,ifitisatline2,thensuchandsuch,ifat3,thenathird,etc.Now
hasthepsifunctionofthemeasuredobjectmadealeap?Hasitdevelopedfurtherinaccordwith
naturallaw(inaccordwiththepartialdifferentialequation)?Notobothquestions.Itisnomore.Ithas
becomesnarledup,inaccordwiththecausallawofthecombinedpsifunction,withthatofthe
measuringinstrument.Theexpectationcatalogoftheobjecthassplitintoaconditionaldisjunctionif
expectationcatalogslikeaBaedekerthatonehastakenapartinthepropermanner.Alongwitheach
sectionthereisgivenalsotheprobabilitythatitprovescorrecttranscribedfromtheoriginal
expectationcatalogoftheobject.ButwhichoneprovesrightwhichsectionoftheBaedekershould
guidetheongoingjourneythatcanbedeterminedonlybyactualinspectionoftherecord.

Andwhatifwedon'tlook?Let'ssayitwasphotographicallyrecordedandbybadlucklightreaches
thefilmbeforeitwasdeveloped.Orweinadvertentlyputinblackpaperinsteadoffilm.Thenindeed
havewenotonlynotlearnedanythingnewfromthemiscarriedmeasurement,butwehavesuffered
lossofknowledge.Thisisnotsurprising.Itisonlynaturalthatoutsideinterferencewillalmostalways
spoiltheknowledgethatonehasofasystem.Theinterference,ifitistoallowtheknowledgetobe
gainedbackafterwards,mustbecircumspectindeed.

Whathavewewonbythisanalysis?First,theinsightintothedisjunctivesplittingoftheexpectation
catalog,whichstilltakesplacequitecontinuouslyandisbroughtaboutthroughembedmentina
combinedcatalogforinstrumentandobject.Fromthisamalgamationtheobjectcanagainbe
separatedoutonlybythelivingsubjectactuallytakingcognizanceoftheresultofthemeasurement.
Sometimeorotherthismusthappenifthatwhichhasgoneonisactuallytobecalledameasurement
howeverdeartoourheartsiswastopreparetheprocessthroughoutasobjectivelyaspossible.And
thatisthesecondinsightwehavewon:notuntilthisinspection,whichdeterminesthedisjunction,

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 13/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

doesanythingdiscontinuous,orleaping,takeplace.Oneisinclinedtocallthisamentalaction,forthe
objectisalreadyoutoftouch,isnolongerphysicallyaffected:whatbefallsitisalreadypast.Butit
wouldnotbequiterighttosaythatthepsifunctionoftheobjectwhichchangesotherwiseaccording
toapartialdifferentialequation,independentoftheobserver,shouldnowchangeleapfashionbecause
ofamentalact.Forithaddisappeared,itwasnomore.Whateverisnot,nomorecanitchange.Itis
bornanew,isreconstituted,isseparatedoutfromtheentangledknowledgethatonehas,throughan
actofperception,whichasamatteroffactisnotaphysicaleffectonthemeasuredobject.Fromthe
forminwhichthepsifunctionwaslastknown,tothenewinwhichitreappears,runsnocontinuous
roaditranindeedthroughannihilation.Contrastingthetwoforms,thethinglookslikealeap.In
truthsomethingofimportancehappensinbetween,namelytheinfluenceofthetwobodiesoneach
other,duringwhichtheobjectpossessednoprivateexpectationcatalognorhadanyclaimthereunto,
becauseitwasnotindependent.

11.Resolutionofthe"Entanglement"ResultDependentontheExperimenter'sIntention

Wereturntothegeneralcaseof"entanglement",withouthavingspecificallyinviewthespecialcase,
justconsidered,ofameasurementprocess.SupposetheexpectationcatalogsoftwobodiesAandB
havebecomeentangledthroughtransientinteraction.Nowletthebodiesbeagainseparated.ThenI
cantakeoneofthem,sayB,andbysuccessivemeasurementsbringmyknowledgeofit,whichhad
becomelessthanmaximal,backuptomaximal.Imaintain:justassoonasIsucceedinthis,andnot
before,thenfirst,theentanglementisimmediatelyresolvedand,second,Iwillalsohaveacquired
maximalknowledgeofAthroughthemeasurementsonB,makinguseoftheconditionalrelationsthat
wereineffect.

Forinthefirstplacetheknowledgeofthetotalsystemremainsalwaysmaximal,beinginnoway
damagedbygoodandexactmeasurements.Inthesecondplace:conditionalstatementsoftheform"if
forA...thenforBB.ForitisnotconditionalandtoitnothingatallcanbeaddedonrelevanttoB.
Thirdly:conditionalstatementsintheinversesense(ifforB...thenforA...)canbetransformedinto
statementsaboutAalone,becauseallprobabilitiesforBarealreadyknownunconditionally.The
entanglementisthuscompletelyputaside,andsincetheknowledgeofthetotalsystemhasremaind
maximal,itcanonlymeanthatalongwiththemaximalcatalogofBcamethesamethingforA.

Anditcannothappentheotherwayaround,thatAbecomesmaximallyknownindirectly,through
measurementsonB,beforeBis.Forthenallconclusionsworkinthereverseddirectionthatis,Bis
too.Thesystemsbecomesimultaneouslymaximallyknown,asasserted.Incidentally,thiswouldalso
betrueifonedidnotlimitthemeasurementtojustoneofthetwosystems.Buttheinterestingpointis
preciselythis,thatonecanlimitittooneofthetwothattherebyonereacheshisgoal.

WhichmeasurementsonBandinwhatsequencetheyareundertaken,isleftentirelytothearbitrary
choiceoftheexperimenter.Heneednotpickoutspecificvariables,inordertobeabletousethe
conditionalstatements.Heisfreetoformulateaplanthatwouldleadhimtomaximalknowledgeof
B,evenifheshouldknownothingatallaboutB.Anditcandonoharmifhecarriesthroughthisplan
totheend.Ifheaskshimselfaftereachmeasurementwhetherhehasperhapsalreadyreachedhis
goal,hedoesonlytosparehimselffromfurther,superfluouslabor.

WhatsortofAcatalogcomesforthinthisindirectwaydependsobviouslyonthemeasuredvalues
thatarefoundinB(beforetheentanglementisentirelyresolved:notonmore,onanylaterones,in
casethemeasuringgoesonsuperfluously).SupposenowthatinthiswayIderivedanAcatalogina
particularcase.thenIcanlookbackandconsiderwhetherImightperhapshavefoundadifferentone
ifIhadputintoactionadifferentmeasuringplanforB.ButsinceafterallIneitherhaveactually
touchedthesystemA,norintheimaginedothercasewouldhavetouchedit,thestatementsofthe
othercatalog,whateveritmightbe,mustalsobecorrect.Theymustthereforebeentirelycontained
withinthefirst,sincethefirstismaximal.Butsoisthesecond.Soitmustbeidenticalwiththefirst.

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 14/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

Strangelyenough,themathematicalstructureofthetheorybynomeanssatisfiesthisrequirement
automatically.Evenworse,examplescanbesetupwheretherequireementisnecessarilyviolated.It
istruethatinanyexperimentonecanactuallycarryoutonlyone>groupofmeasurements(alwayson
B),foroncethathashappenedtheentanglementisresolvedandoneleansnothingmoreaboutAfrom
furthermeasurementsonB.Buttherearecasesofentanglementinwhichtwodefiniteprogramsare
specifiable,fowhicheach1)mustleadtoresolutionoftheentanglement,and2)mustleadtoanA
catalogtowhichtheothercannotpossiblyleadwhatsoevermeasuredvaluesmayturnupinone
caseortheother.Itissimplylikethis,thatthetwoseriesofAcatalogs,thatcanpossiblyarisefrom
theoneortheotheroftheprograms,aresharplyseparatedandhaveincommonnotasingleterm.

Theseareespeciallypointedcases,inwhichtheconclusionliessoclearlyexposed.Ingeneralone
mustreflectmorecarefully.IftwoprogramsofmeasurementonBareproposed,alongwiththetwo
seriesofAcatalogstowhichtheycanlead,thenitisbynomeanssufficientthatthetwoserieshave
oneormoretermsincommoninorderforonetobeabletosay:wellnow,surelyoneofthesewill
alwaysturnupandsotosetforththerequirementsas"presumablyfulfilled".That'snotenough.For
indeedoneknowstheprobabilityofeverymeasurementonB,consideredasmeasurementonthetotal
system,andundermanyabovorepetitionseachonemustoccurwiththefrequencyassignedtoit.
ThereforethetwoseriesofAcatalogswouldhavetoagree,memberbymember,andfurthermorethe
probabilitiesineachserieswouldhavetobethesame.Andthatnotmerelyforthesetwoprograms
butalsoforeachoftheinfinitelymanythatonemightthinkup.Butthisisutterlyoutofthequestion.
TherequirementthattheAcatalogthatonegetsshouldalwaysbethesame,regardlessofwhat
measurementsonBbringitintobeing,thisrequirement,isplainlyandsimplyneverfulfilled.

Nowwewishtodiscussasimple"pointed"example.

12.Anexample[7]

Forsimplicity,weconsidertwosystemswithjustonedegreeoffreedom.Thatis,eachofthemshallbe
specifiedthroughasinglecoordinateqanditscanonicallyconjugatemomentump.Theclassical
picturewouldbeapointmassthatcouldmoveonlyalongastraightline,likethespheresofthose
playthingsonwhichsmallchildrenlearntocalculate.pistheproductofmassbyvelocity.Forthe
secondsystemwedenotethetwodeterminingpartsbycapitalQandP.Astowhetherthetwoare
"threadedonthesamewire"weshallnotbeatallconcerned,inourabstractconsideratin.Butevenif
theyare,itmayinthatcasebeconvenientnottoreckonqandQfromthesamereferencepoint.The
equationq=Qthendoesnotnecessarilymeancoincidence.Thetwosystemsmayinspiteofthisbe
fullyseparated.

Inthecitedpaperitisshownthatbetweenthesetwosystemsanentanglementcanarise,whichata
particularmoment,canbecompactlyshowninthetwoequations:q=Qandp=P.Thatmeans:I
know,ifameasurementofqonthesystemyieldsacertainvalue,thataQmeasurementperformed
immediatelythereafteronthesecondwillgivethesamevalue,andviceversaandIknow,ifap
measurementonthefirstsystemyieldsacertainvalue,thataPmeasurementperformedimmediately
thereafterwillgivetheoppositevalue,andviceversa.

AsinglemeasurementofqorporQorPresolvestheentanglementandmakesbothsystems
maximallyknown.Asecondmeasurementonthesamesystemmodifiesonlythestatementsaboutit,
butteachesnothingmoreabouttheother.Soonecannotcheckbothequationsinasingleexperiment.
Butonecanrepeattheexperimentabovoathousandtimeseachtimesetupthesameentanglement
accordingtowhimcheckoneortheotheroftheequationsandfindconfirmedthatonewhichoneis
momentarilypleasedtocheck.Weassumethatallthishasbeendone.

Ifforthethousandandfirstexperimentoneisthenseizedbythedesiretogiveupfurtherchecking
andthenmeasureqonthefirstsystemandPonthesecond,andoneobtains

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 15/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

q=4P=7

canonethendoubtthat

q=4p=7

wouldhavebeenacorrectpredictionforthefirstsystem,or

Q=4P=7

acorrectpredictionforthesecond?Quantumpredictionsareindeednotsubjecttotestastotheirfull
content,ever,inasingleexperimentyettheyarecorrect,inthatwhoeverpossessedthemsufferedno
disillusion,whicheverhalfhedecidedtocheck.

There'snodoubtaboutit.Everymeasurementisforitssystemthefirst.Measurementsonseparated
systemscannotdirectlyinfluenceeachotherthatwouldbemagic.Neithercanitbebychance,if
fromathousandexperimentsitisestablishedthatvirginalmeasurementsagree.

Thepredictioncatalogq=4,p=7wouldofcoursebyhypermaximal.

13.ContinuationoftheExample:AllPossibleMeasurementsareEntangledUnequivocally

NowapredictionofthisextentisthusutterlyimpossibleaccordingtotheteachingofQ.M.,whichwe
herefollowouttoitslastconsequences.Manyofmyfriendsremainreassuredinthisanddelcare:
whatanswerasystemwouldhavegiventotheexperimenterif...,hasnotihngtodowithanactual
measurementandso,fromourepistemologicalstandpoint,doesnotconcernus.

Butletusoncemoremakethematterveryclear.Letusfocusattentiononthesystemlabelledwith
smalllettersp,qandcallitforbrevitythe"small"one.thenthingsstandasfollows.Icandirectone
oftwoquestionstothesmallsystem,eitherthataboutqorthataboutp.BeforedoingsoIcan,ifI
choose,procuretheanswertooneofthesequestionsbameasurementonthefullyseparatedother
system(whichweshallregardasauxiliaryapparatus),orImayintendtotakecareofthisafterwards,
Mysmallsystem,likeaschoolboyunderexamination,cannotpossiblyknowwhetherIhavedonethis
orforwhichquestions,orwhetherandforwhichIintendtodoitlater.Fromarbitrarilymany
pretrialsIknowthatthepupilwillcorrectlyanswerthefirstquestionthatIputtohim.Fromthatit
followsthatineverycaseheknowstheanswertobothquestions.Thattheansweringofthefirst
question,thatitpleasesmetoputtohim,sotiresorconfusesthepupilthathisfurtheranswersare
worthless,changesnothingatallofthisconclusion.Noschoolprincipalwouldjudgeotherwise,ifthis
situationrepeateditselfwiththousandsofpupilsofsimilarprovenance,howeverhemuchhemight
wonderwhatmakesallthescholarssodimwittedorobstinateaftertheansweringofthefirst
question.hewuoldnotcometothinkthathis,theteacher's,consultingatextbookfirstsuggeststothe
pupilthecorrectanswer,oreven,inthecaseswhentheteacherchoosestoconsultitonlyafter
ensuinganswersbythepupil,thatthepupil'sanswerhaschangedthetextofthenotebookinthe
pupil'sfavor.

Thusmysmallsystemholdsaquitedefiniteanswertotheqquestionandtothepquestionin
readinessfprthecasethatoneortheotheristhefirsttobeputdirectlytoit.Ofthispreparednessnot
aniotacanbechangedifIshouldperhapsmeasuretheQontheauxiliarysystem(intheanalogy:if
theteacherlooksuponeofthequestionsinhisnotebookandtherebyindedruinswithaninkblotthe
pagewheretheotheranswerstands).ThequantummechanicianmaintainsthatafteraQ
measurementontheauxiliarysystemmysmallsystemhasapsifunctioninwhich"qisfullysharp,but
pfullyindeterminate".Andyet,asalreadymentioned,notaniotaischangedofthefactthatmysmall
systemalsohasreadyananswertothepquestion,andindeedthesameoneasbefore.

Butthesituationisevenworseyet.Notonlytotheqquestionandtothepquestiondoesmyclever
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 16/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

pupilhaveadefiniteanswerready,butratheralsotoathousandothers,andindeedwithoutmy
havingtheleastinsightintothememorytechniquebywhichheisabletodoit.pandqarenotthe
onlyvariablesthatIcanmeasure.Anycombinationofthemwhatsoever,forexample

p^2+q^2

alsocorrespondstoafullydefinitemeasurementaccordingtotheformulationofQ.M.Nowitcanbe
shown[8]thatalsoforthistheanswercanbeobtainedbyameasurementontheauxiliarysystem,
namelybymeasurementofP^2+Q^2,andindeedtheanswersarejustthesame.Bygeneralrulesof
Q.M.thissumofsquarescanonlytakeonavaluefromtheseries

hbar,3.hbar,5.hbar,7.hbar,...

Theanswerthatymsmallsystemhasreadyforthe(p^2+q^2)question(incasethisshouldbethefirst
itmustface)mustbeanumberfromthisseries.Itisverymuchthesamewithmeasurementof

p^2+a^2.q^2

whereaisanarbitrarypositiveconstant.Inthiscasetheanswermustbe,accordingtoQ.M.a
numberfromthefollowingseries

a.hbar,3a.hbar,5a.hbar,7a.hbar,...

Foreachnumericalvalueofaonegetsadifferentquestion,andtoeachmysmallsystemholdsready
ananswerfromtheseries(formedwiththeavalueinquestion).

Mostastonishingisthis:theseanswerscannotpossiblyberelatedtoeachotherinthewaygivenby
theformulas!Forletq'betheanswerheldreadyfortheqquestion,andp'forthepquestion,thenthe
relation

(p'^2+a^2.q'^2)/(a.hbar)=anoddinteger

cannotpossiblyholdforgivennumericalvaluesq'andp'andforanypositivenumera.Thisisbyno
meansanoperationwithimaginednumbers,thatonecannotreallyascertain.Onecaninfactgettwo
ofthenumbers,e.g.,q'andp',theonebydirect,theotherbyindirectmeasurement.Andthenonecan
(pardontheexpression)convincehimselfthattheaboveexpression,formedwiththenumbersq'andp'
andanarbitrarya,isnotanoddinteger.

Thelackofinsightintotherelationshipsamongthevariousanswersheldinreadiness(intothe
"memorytechnique"ofthepupil)isatotalone,agapnottobefilledperhapsbyanewkindof
algebraofQ.M.Thelackisallthestranger,sinceontheotherhandonecanshow:theentanglement
isalreadyuniquelydeterminedbytherequirementsq=Qandp=P.Ifweknowthatthecoordinates
areequalandthemomentaequalbutopposite,thentherefollowsbyquantummechanicsafully
determinedonetoonearrangementofallpossiblemeasurementsonbothsystems.Forevery
measurementonthe"small"onethenumericalresultcanbeprocuredbyasuitablyarranged
measurementonthe"large"one,andeachmeasurementonthelargestipulatestheresultthata
particularmeasurementonthesmallwouldgiveorhasgiven.(Ofcourseinthesamesenseasalways
heretofore:onlythevirginmeasurementoneachsystemcounts.)Assoonaswehavebroughtthetwo
systemsintothesituationwherethey(brieflyput)coincideincoordinateandmomentum,thenthey
(brieflyput)coincidealsoinregardtoallothervariables.

Butastohowthenumericalvaluesofallthesevariablesofonesystemrelatetoeachotherweknow
nothingatall,eventhoughforeachthesystemmusthaveaquitespecificoneinreadiness,forifwe
wishwecanlearnitfromtheauxiliarysystemandthenfinditalwaysconfirmedbydirect
measurement.

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 17/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

Shouldonenowthinkthatbecausewearesoignorantabouttherelationsamongthevariablevalues
heldreadyinonesystem,thatnoneexists,thatfarrangingarbitrarycombinationcanoccur?That
wouldmeanthatsuchasystemof"onedegreeoffreedom"wouldneednotmerelytwonumbersfor
adequatelydescribingit,asinclassicalmechanics,butrathermanymore,perhapsinfinitelymany.It
isthenneverthelessstrangethattwosystemsalwaysagreeinallvariablesiftheyagreeintwo.
Thereforeonewouldhavetomakethesecondassumption,thatthisisduetoourawkwardnesswould
havetothinkthatasapracticalmatterwearenotcompetenttobringtwosystemsintoasituation
suchthattheycoincideinreferencetotwovariables,withoutnolensvolensbringingabout
coincidencealsoforallothervariables,eventhoughthatwouldnotinitselfbenecssary.Onewold
havetomakethesetwoassumptionsinordernottoperceiveasagreatdilemmathecompletelackof
insightintotheinterrelationshipofvariablevalueswithinonesystem.

14.TimedependenceoftheEntanglement.ConsiderationoftheSpecialRoleofTime

Itisperhapsnotsuperfluoustorecallthateverythingsaidinsections12and13pertainstoasingle
instantoftime.Theentanglementisnotconstantintime.Itdoescontinuetobeaonetoone
entanglementofallvariables,butthearrangementchanges.Thatmeansthefollowing.Atalatertime
tonecanverywellagainlearnthevaluesofqorofpthatthenobtain,byameasurementonthe
auxiliarysystem,butthemeasurements,thatonemustundertaketheretoontheauxiliarysystem,are
different.Whichonestheyshouldbe,onecaneasilyseeinsimplecases.Itnowofcoursebecomesa
questionoftheforcesatworkwithineachofthetwosystems.Letusassumethatnoforcesare
working.Forsimplcitywewillsetthemassofeachtobethesameandcallitm.Thenintheclassical
modelthemomentapandPwouldremainconstant,sincetheyarestillthemassesmultipliedbythe
velocitiesandthecoordinatesattimet,whichweshalldistinguishbygivingthemsubscriptst,(q_t,
Q_t),wouldbecalculatedfromtheinitialones,whichhenceforthwedesignateq,Q,thus:

q_t=q+(p/m)tQ_t=Q+(P/m)t

Letusfirsttalkaboutthesmallsystem.Themostnaturalwayofdescribingitclassicallyattimetisin
termsofcoordinateandmomentumatthistime,i.e.,intermsofq_tandp.Butonemaydoit
differently.Inplaceofq_tonecouldspecifyq.Ittooisa"determiningpartattimet",andindeedat
everytimet,andinfactonethatdoesnotchangewithtime.ThisissimilartothewayinwhichIcan
specifyacertaindeterminingpartofmyownpreson,namelymyage,eitherthroughthehnumber48,
whichchangeswithtimeandinthesystemcorrespondstospecifyingq_t,orthroughthenumber
1887,whichisusualindocumentsandcorrespondstospecifyingq.Nowaccordingtotheforegoing:

q=q_t(p/m)t

Similarlyforthesecondsystem.Sowetakeasdeterminingparts

forthefirstsystemq_t(p/m)tandp.forthesecondsystemQ_t(P/m)tandP.

Theadvantageisthatamongthesethesameentanglementgoesonindefinitely:

q_t(p/m)t=Q_t(P/m)tp=P

orsolved:

q_t=Q_t(2t/m)Pp=P.

Sothatwhatchangeswithtimeisjustthis:thecoordinateofthe"small"systemisnotascertained
simplybyacoordinatemeasurementontheauxiliarysystem,butratherbyameasurementofthe
aggregate

Q_t(2t/m)P.
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 18/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

Herehowever,onemustnotgettheideathatmaybehemeasuresQtandP,becausethatjustwon'tgo.
Ratheronemustsuppose,asonealwaysmustsupposeinQ.M.,thatthereisadirectmeasurement
procedureforthisaggregate.Exceptforthischange,everythingthatwassaidinSections12and13
appliesatanypointoftimeinparticularthereexistsatalltimestheonetooneentanglementofall
variablestogetherwithitsevilconsequences.

Itisjustthiswaytoo,ifwithineachsystemaforceworks,exceptthatthenq_tandpareentangled
withvariablesthataremorecomplicatedcombinationsofQ_tandP.

Ihavebrieflyexplainedthisinorderthatwemayconsiderthefollowing.Thattheentanglement
shouldchangewithtimemakesusafterallabitthoughtful.Mustperhapsallmeasurements,thatwere
underdiscussion,becompletedinveryshorttime,actuallyinstantaneously,inzerotime,inorderthat
theunwelcomeconsequencesbevindicated?Cantheghostbebanishedbyreferencetothefactthat
measurementstaketime?No.Foreachsingleexperimentoneneedsjustonemeasurementoneach
systemonlythevirginalonematters,furtheronesapartfromthiswouldbewithouteffect.Howlong
themeasurementlastsneednotthereforeconcernus,sincewehavenosecondonefollowingon.One
mustmerelybeabletosoarrangethetwovirginmeasurementsthattheyyieldvariablevaluesforthe
samedefinitepointoftime,knowntousinadvanceknowninadvance,becauseafterallwemust
directthemeasurementsatapairofvariablesthatareentangledatjustthispointoftime.

"Perhapsitisnotpossiblesotodirectthemeasurements?"

"Perhaps.Ievenpresumeso.Merely:today'sQ.M.mustrequirethis.Foritisnowsetupsothatits
predictionsarealwaysmadeforapointoftime.Sincetheyaresupposedtorlatetomeasurement
results,theywouldbeentirelywithoutcontentiftherelevantvariableswerenotmeasurablefora
definitepointoftime,whetherthemeasurementitselflastsalongorashortwhile."

Whenwelearntheresultisofcoursequiteimmaterial.Theoreticallythathasaslittleweightasfor
instancethefactthatoneneedsseveralmonthstointegratethedifferentialequationsoftheweather
forthenextthreedays.Thedrasticanalogywiththepupilexmainationmissesthemarkinafew
pointsofthelaw'sletter,butitfitsthespiritofthelaw.Theexpression"thesystemknows"will
perhapsnolongercarrythemeaningthattheanswercomesforthfromaninstantaneoussituationit
mayperhapsderivefromasuccessionofsituations,thatoccupiesafinitelengthoftime.Butevenifit
beso,itneednotconcernussolongasthesystemsomehowbringsforththeanswerfromwithinitself,
withnootherhelpthanthatwetellit(throughtheexperimentalarrangement)whichquestionwe
wouldliketohaveansweredandsolongastheansweritselfisuniquelytiedtoamomentoftime:
whichforbetterorforworsemustbepresumedforeverymeasurementtowhichcontemporaryQ.M.
speaks,forotherwisethequantummechanicalpredictionswouldhavenocontent.

Inourdiscussion,however,wehavestumbledacrossapossibility.Iftheformulationcouldbeso
carriedoutthatthequantummechanicalpredictionsdidnotordidnotalwayspertaintoaquite
sharplydefinedpointoftime,thenonewouldalsobefreedfromrequiringthisofthemeasurement
results.thereby,sincetheentangledvariableschangewithtime,settinguptheantinomicalassertions
wouldbecomemuchmoredifficult.

Thatpredictionforsharplydefinedtimeisablunder,isprobablealsoonothergrounds.The
numericalvalueoftimeislikeanyothertheresultofobservation.Canonemakeexceptionjustfor
measurementwithaclock?Mustitnotlikeanyotherpertaintoavariablethatingeneralhasno
sharpvalueandinanycasecannothaveitsimultaneouslywithanyothervariable?Ifonepredictsthe
valueofanotherforaparticularpointoftime,mustonenotfearthatbothcanneverbesharply
knowntogether?WithincontemporaryQ.M.onecanhardlydealwiththisapprehension.Fortimeis
alwaysconsideredaprioriasknownprecisely,althoughonewouldhavetoadmitthateverylookat
theclockdisturbstheclock'smotioninuncontrollablefashion.

PermittorepeatthatwedonotpossessaQ.M.whosestatementsshouldnotbevalidforsharplyfixed
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 19/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

pointsoftime.Itseemstomethatthislackmanifestsitselfdirectlyintheformerantinomies.Whichis
nottosaythatitistheonlylackwhichmanifestsitslefinthem.

15.NaturalLaworCalculatingDevice?

That"sharptime"isananomalyinQ.M.andthatbesides,moreorlessindependentofthat,the
specialtreatmentoftimeformsaserioushindrancetoadaptingQ.M.totherelativityprinciple,is
somethingthatinrecentyearsIhavebroughtupagainandagain,unfortunatelywithoutbeingableto
maketheshadowofausefulcounterproposal.[9]Inanoverviewoftheentirecontemporarysituation,
suchasIhavetriedtosketchhere,therecomesup,inaddition,aquitedifferentkindofremarkin
relationtothesoardentlysought,butnotyetactuallyattained,"relativisation"ofQ.M.

Theremarkabletheoryofmeasurement,theapparentjumpingaroundofthepsifunction,andfinally
the"antinomiesofentanglement",allderivefromthesimplemannerinwhichthecalculationmethods
ofquantummechanicsallowtwoseparatedsystemsconceptuallytobecombinedtogetherintoa
singleoneforwhichthemethodsseemplainlypredestined.Whentwosystemsinteract,theirpsi
functions,aswehaveseen,donotcomeintointeractionbutrathertheyimmediatelyceasetoexist
andasingleone,forthecombinedsystem,takestheirplace.Itconsists,tomentionthisbriefly,atfirst
simplyoftheproductofthetwoindividualfunctionswhich,sincetheonefunctiondependsonqute
differentvariablesfromtheother,isafunctionofallthesevariables,or"actsinaspaceofmuch
higherdimensionnumber"thantheindividualfunctions.Assoonasthesystemsbegintoinfluence
eachother,thecombinedfunctionceasestobeaproductandmoreoverdoesnotagaindivideup,after
theyhaveagainbecomeseparated,intofactorsthatcanbeassignedindividuallytothesystems.Thus
onedisposesprovisionally(untiltheentanglementisresolvedbyanactualobservation)ofonlya
commondescriptionofthetwointhatspaceofhigherdimension.Thisisthereasonthatknowledgeof
theindividualsystemscandeclinetothescantiest,eventozero,whileknowledgeofthecombined
systemremainscontinuallymaximal.Bestpossibleknowledgeofawholedoesnotincludebest
possibleknowledgeofitspartsandthatiswhatkeepscomingbacktohauntus.

Whoeverreflectesonthismustafterallbeleftfairlythoughtfulbythefollowingfact.theconceptual
joiningoftwoormoresystemsintooneencountersgreatdifficultyassoonasoneattemptsto
introducetheprincipleofspecialrelativityintoQ.M.AlreadysevenyearsagoP.A.M.Diracfounda
startlinglysimpleandelegantrelativisticsolutiontotheproblemofasingleelectron.[10]Aseriesof
experimentalconfirmations,markedbythekeytermselectronspin,positiveelectron,andpair
creation,canleavenodoubtastothebasiccorrectnessofthesolution.Butinthefirstplaceitdoes
neverthelessverystronglytranscendtheconceptualplanofQ.M.(thatwhichIhaveattemptedto
picturehere),[11]andinthesecondplaceonerunsintostubbornresistanceassoonasoneseeksto
goforward,accordingtotheprototypeofnonrelativistictheory,fromtheDiracsolutiontothe
problemofseveralelectrons.(Thisshowsatoncethatthesolutionliesoutsidethegeneralplan,in
which,asmentioned,thecombiningtogetherofsubsystemsisextremelysimple.)Idonotpresumeto
passjudgmentontheattemptswhichhavebeenmadeinthisdirection.[12]Thattheyhavereached
theirgoal,Imustdoubtfirstofallbecausetheauthorsmakenosuchclaim.

Matterstandmuchthesamewithanothersystem,theelectromagneticfield.Itslawsare"relativity
personified",anonrelatviistictreatmentbeingingeneralimpossible.Yetitwasthisfield,whichin
termsoftheclassicalmodelofheatradiationprovidedthefirsthurdleforquantumtheory,thatwas
thefirstsystemtobe"quantized".Thatthiscouldbesuccessfullydonewithsimplemeanscomesabout
becausehereonehasthingsabiteasier,inthatthephotons,the"atomsoflight",donotingeneral
interactdirectlywitheachother,[13]butonlyviathechargedparticles.Todaywedonotasyethavea
trulyunexceptionablquantumtheoryoftheelectromagneticfield.[14]Onecangoalongwaywith
buildingupoutofsubsystems(Dirac'stheoryoflight[15]),yetwithoutqutereachingthegoal.

Thesimpleprocedureprovidedforthisbythenonrelativistictheoryisperhapsafterallonlya
convenientcalculationaltrick,butonethattoday,aswehaveseen,hasattainedinfluenceof
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 20/21
27/03/2016 Schroedinger:"ThePresentSituationinQuantumMechanics"

unprecedentedscopeoverourbasicattitudetowardnature.

MywarmestthankstoImperialChemicalIndustries,London,fortheleisuretowritethisarticle.

Notes

*Box79,Route1,Millington,Md.21651.

[1]E.Schrdinger,"DiegegenwrtigeSituationinderQuantenmechanik",Naturwissenschaften23:
pp.807812823828844849(1935).

[2]A.Einstein,B.Podolsky,andN.Rosen,Phys.Rev.47:p.777(1935).

[3]E.Schrdinger,Proc.CambridgePhil.Soc.31:p.555(1935)ibid.,32:p.446(1936).

[4]h=1.041x10^(27)ergsec.Usuallyintheliteraturethe2.pifoldofthis(6.542x10^(27)erg
sec)isdesignatedashandforourhanhwithacrossbariswritten.[Transl.Note:Inconformity
withthenowuniversalusage,hbarisusedinthetranslationinplaceofh.]

[5]ForillustrationseeFig.5or6onp.375ofthe1927volumeofthisjournalorFig.1,p.734ofthe
precedingyear'svolume(1934),thoughtheseareprotontracks.

[6]Obviously.Wecannotfailtohave,forinstance,statementsontherelationofthetwotoeachother.
Forthatwouldbe,atleastoneofthetwo,somethinginadditiontoitspsifunction.Andsuchthere
cannotbe.

[7]A.Einstein,B.Podolsky,andN.Rosen,Phys.Rev.47:777(1935).Theappearanceofthiswork
motivatedthepresentshallIsaylectureorgeneralconfession?

(Paris,1931)CursosdelaUniversidadInternacionaldeVeranoenSantander,1:p.60(Madrid,
Signo,1935).

[10]Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond.A117:p.610(1928).

[11]P.A.M.Dirac,ThePrinciplesofQuantumMechanics,1sted.,p.2392nded.p.252.Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1930or1935.

[12]Herewithafewofthemoreimportantreferences:G.Breit,Phys.Rev.34:p.553(1929)and39:
p.616(1932)C.Mo/ller,Z.Physik70:p.786(1931)P.A.M.Dirac,Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond.A136:
p.453(1932)andProc.CambridgePhilSoc.30:p.150(1934)R.Peierls,Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond.
A146:p.420(1934)W.Heisenberg,Z.Physik90:p.209(1934).

[13]Butthisholds,probably,onlyapproximately.SeeM.BornandL.Infled,Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond.
A144:p.425andA147:p.522(1934)A150:p.141(1935).Thisisthemostrecentattemptata
quantumelectrodynamics.

[14]Hereagainthemostimportantworks,partiallyassignable,accordingtotheircontents,also
accordingtothepenultimatecitation:P.JordanandW.Pauli,Z.Physik47:p.151(1928)W.
HeisenbergandW.Pauli,Z.Physik56:p.1(1929)59:p.168(1930)P.A.M.Dirac,V.A.Fock,andB.
Podolsky,,cite>Physik.Z.Sowjetunion6:p.468(1932)N.BohrandL.Rosenfeld,Danske.Videns.
Selsk.(math.phys.)12:p.8(1933).

[15]Anexcellentreference:E.Fermi,Rev.Mod.Phys.4:p.87(1932).

http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 21/21

You might also like