There are many ways to formulate quantum mechanics, one was found by Heisenberg and, independently, by Dirac, another was found, independently, by Schrödinger; that’s why all three were recognized by the Nobel Prize for Physics. Once Schrödinger showed that the formulations were mathematically equivalent, which one is used is, simply, a matter of taste. Indeed a totally different formulation was found in 1942 by Feynman, who showed that it was, also, mathematically equivalent to the formulations of Heisenberg, Dirac and Schrödinger. It’s this equivalence that matters.

It doesn’t really make sense to argue about which discovery is the ``greatest". The discovery of the quantum nature of matter was, indeed, a great discovery and that’s what matters.

Dear Hinnerk,

Thank you for your post — it raises important points about the historical narrative surrounding quantum mechanics. However, I believe the situation is more nuanced than a simple correction of attribution.

You're right that Heisenberg’s 1925 matrix mechanics—elaborated with Born and Jordan—marks the formal beginning of quantum mechanics as a predictive, non-classical theory. But it's important to acknowledge that Schrödinger’s wave mechanics, introduced months later, was not just a secondary formulation but a complementary one, providing a powerful and intuitive differential framework. His approach brought quantum mechanics closer to classical ideas, enabling wider conceptual and pedagogical acceptance.

While Schrödinger initially rejected the probabilistic interpretation later formalized by Born, his mathematical contributions were foundational. Indeed, within a year, the equivalence of matrix and wave mechanics was proven, demonstrating that quantum theory is not the product of a single moment or mind, but a convergence of perspectives.

As for Steven Weinberg, his emphasis on Schrödinger may have stemmed not from historical oversight, but from a focus on explanatory clarity or the symbolic resonance of the wavefunction in modern physics. Weinberg, after all, was as much a philosopher of science as he was a physicist.

That said, perhaps the deeper issue is this: even today, large portions of quantum theory remain interpretatively unresolved. From the measurement problem and wavefunction collapse to quantum gravity and the ontology of quantum fields, we’re still working within a framework that is extraordinarily predictive yet conceptually incomplete.

In that sense, debates over historical priority—while important—may obscure the bigger picture: that quantum mechanics is still being discovered. The foundational questions Heisenberg and Schrödinger grappled with remain alive, and perhaps neither “got it entirely right.”

H

You’re absolutely right to highlight the nuanced historical origins of quantum mechanics. The oversimplification of such a rich development is common—even in respected commentaries like Weinberg’s. While Schrödinger’s wave mechanics did indeed gain more initial popularity due to its intuitive appeal, it was Heisenberg, with the matrix formulation in 1925, who mathematically launched the formalism of QM. The “Dreimännerarbeit” (Heisenberg, Born, Jordan) was not just a collaboration ,it laid the groundwork for operator-based quantum theory.

Importantly, Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction was indeed a monumental insight that shifted the meaning of Schrödinger’s work. So yes, giving full credit to Schrödinger alone distorts the story. Weinberg, like many others, may have emphasized elegance and influence over chronological or interpretive accuracy.

Thank you for bringing this up,these details matter not just for history, but for how we understand the philosophical roots of quantum theory today.