The 1927 Solvay Congress

In Chapter 4, we left Einstein in early 1926, cautiously optimistic that Schrödinger's scheme might provide what Heisenberg's could not, and did not attempt to – a mathematical description of atomic processes that could also give a physical picture of what was actually occurring. But the demonstration that the two formalisms were equivalent severely dented such optimism.

It was still possible for Einstein to prefer Schrödinger's version as offering more hope for future physical interpretation. Thus it is interesting to review the recommendations Einstein made for Nobel Prizes [1]. In 1928, Einstein suggested that Heisenberg and Schrödinger might share a prize, adding ‘With respect to achievement, each one … deserves a full Nobel prize although their theories in the main coincide in regard to reality content.’ However, Einstein was cautious enough to add that ‘it still seems problematic how much will ultimately survive of [their] grandiosely conceived theories’, and gave precedence to de Broglie, also mentioning Davisson, Germer, Born and Jordan.

By 1931, more convinced that quantum theory would last (and with de Broglie the 1929 prizewinner), Einstein plumped for Heisenberg and Schrödinger, commenting that ‘In my opinion, this theory contains without doubt a piece of the ultimate truth. The achievements of both men are independent of each other, and so significant that it would not be appropriate to divide a Nobel prize between them.’