Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 525, No. 1-2, A15A19 (2013) / DOI 10.1002/andp.

201300708

Physics Forum

THEN & NOW

Einstein, Ehrenfest, and the quantum measurement problem

Issachar Unna and Tilman Sauer

A joint paper by Albert Einstein and

Paul Ehrenfest, published just weeks
after the results of the Stern-Gerlach
experiment became known, shows
with remarkable clarity and prescience the unsurmountable difficulties that the experiment posed for
any classical interpretation. With a
focus on the measurement process,
rather than on the underlying theoretical alternatives for this experimentum crucis, the authors almost
anticipate what would later be recognized as a central conceptual difficulty of quantum mechanics, i.e., the
quantum measurement problem.

1. Introduction
In mid-May 1922, Albert Einstein
wrote to Max Born:

of the fundamental difference

between classical and quantum mechanics. [2, p. 127]
For many authors and teachers the Stern-Gerlach experiment
has become the starting point for
teaching quantum mechanics and a
paradigm of quantum measurement
(see, for example, [3], [4, pp. 26],
[5, 15, pp. 1418], and preceding
papers by A. Peres). It is remarkable
that Einstein and Ehrenfest sensed
this right away.
Stern and Gerlach, themselves,
were fully aware of the importance of
their results. Their seminal publication, The experimental proof of the
directional quantization in a magnetic field [6], states clearly that the
results provide a direct experimental
proof of this quantization.

Figure 2 The result of the Stern-Gerlach

experiment communicated in a postcard
C
to Niels Bohr. (
Niels Bohr Archive,
Copenhagen, DK)
As is well known (e.g., [7, sec.
IV.3], [810]), the experiment (see
Fig. 1) showed that a beam of silver atoms passing through an inhomogeneous magnetic field ends up
in two narrow beams (see Fig. 2),
one of which has the atomic magnetons aligned, the other antialigned,

But the most interesting

these days is the experiment
by Stern and Gerlach. The
alignment of the atoms via radiation and without collisions
is (according to present methods of considering the problem) not understandable.
Such an alignment should,
by the rules, take more than
100 years. Ehrenfest and I did
a little calculation of it. [1,
Doc. 190]
Some thirteen years later Max Born
wrote in his book Atomic Physics:
[...] Stern and Gerlachs experiment is perhaps the most
impressive evidence we have

Figure 1 (online color at: www.ann-phys.

org) Schematic view of the Stern-Gerlach
experiment. (Picture: Th. Knott)


C 2013 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

A15

Physics Forum

I. Unna and T. Sauer: The Struggle to understand the Stern-Gerlach Experiment, 1922

Figure 3 Albert Einstein and Paul Ehrenfest with son Paul Jr., in the Ehrenfest home
C Museum Boerhave,
in Leyden, 1920. (
Leyden, NL)
with the strong (10,000 gauss) magnetic field. This was contrary to the
classical prediction of a continuous
broadening of the beam in accordance with the random distribution
of the emitted single atomic magnetic moments.
Einstein and Ehrenfests little
calculation dealt with the measurement process. They were not concerned about which is the correct
theory confirmed by the experiment.
They were troubled by the actual
process through which the measurement proceeded. At that time the
common wisdom (in great part promoted by Einsteins 1916/1917 papers [11, Docs. 34, 38]) taught that
any quantum transition between
states has to take place via radiation
or collision processes. This experiment was the first which posed a real
problem for this way of understanding the measurement process, as we
hope to clarify in the following discussion.
Our subject is a paper by A.
Einstein and P. Ehrenfest entitled:
Quantum Theoretical Comments
on the Experiment of Stern and
Gerlach [12], [1, Doc. 315]. It was
published a couple of months
after the paper by Stern and
Gerlach. It was received on 21 August 1922, while the Stern-Gerlach
paper was received 1 March 1922.
This paper may have been the first

A16

which pinpointed down the major

problem of quantum measurement,
which later became known as the
wave-function collapse.
The Einstein-Ehrenfest paper
was probably conceived during Einsteins visit with Ehrenfest in Leyden
which took place between 29 April
and 13 May 1922. Discussions and
voicing doubts continued, however,
after Einsteins return to Berlin via
correspondence.
An additional important source
enabling us to catch glimpses of the
struggle Einstein and Ehrenfest went
through in preparing this important
paper is Paul Ehrenfests personal
diary.
The importance of this paper and
the discussions of its authors around
it lies, as already mentioned, in discovering and pointing out a major
problem of quantum mechanics. As
we shall see, although the authors
are not able to understand what is
going on in this experiment, their
discussions sharpened the problem
to a point that, with hindsight, can
be identified as the quantum measurement problem.

2. Outline of Einsteins and

Ehrenfests Paper
After briefly describing the experiment Einstein and Ehrenfest pose
the question: Obviously, the urging
question comes up how the atoms
attain this orientation.
During their passage through the
deflecting magnetic field no collisions occur. So long as one neglects
radiation processes, the atoms perform Larmor precession around the
direction of the magnetic field. If
the direction of the magnetic field
changes slowly relative to the speed
of the precession, no change in the
angle of the precessing motion will
take place. The alignment required

www.ann-phys.org

by quantum theory (0 and in

the present experiment) therefore
requires an external influence such
as radiation or collision.
But how quickly can the directional change due to the influence of
the radiation (of room temperature)
take place? The transition time between one quantum state to another
one can be estimatedat least to order of magnitudeby using the corresponding classical model. In our
case of a precessing atom with magnetic moment, the model would be
the radiation of a conically rotating magnetic dipole. But then the
alignment time (in a field of 10,000
Gauss) becomes of the order of 1011
seconds if only emitted radiation is
considered. If one takes into consideration also the room-temperature
radiation (positive and negative radiation absorption [11, Doc. 38])
the time reduces to 109 seconds.
These times have orders of magnitudes which cannot be relevant
at all to the experiment, since here
the entire time of flight available for
the alignment process is less than
104 seconds.
We find a detailed calculation of
the alignment time in Ehrenfests diary (items #5712, 5714, after 20 May
1922, see Fig. 4).
The radiation rate of a magnetic
dipole precessing in a magnetic
field H is given by:
dE
2
= 3 4 2
dt
3c

(1)

where c = 3 1010 cm/s is the velocity of light; 1020 erg/Gauss is

eH
is the
the Bohr Magneton, = 2mc
precession frequency, which for a
magnetic field of 10,000 Gauss is
0.9 1011 s1 (see Ehrenfests diary
item #5698, 22 April 1922).
The energy which has to be emitted or absorbed by the atom in order
to align or antialign with the magnetic field is of the order E = H ,


C 2013 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 525, No. 1-2 (2013)

i.e., in our case: E 1016 erg. Inserting the above values for dE /dt,
we get:
dE
1.6 1028 erg/s.
dt

(2)

Thus, the alignment time, , will be

E /(dE /dt) 6 1011 s.

(3)

Taking into account the thermal

radiation of the surrounding room
temperature, we use the Einstein coefficients to calculate the ratio between the rates of absorption and
emission, i.e.:
B
kT

500
A
E

(4)

(Rayleigh-Jeans
approximation).
Thus, the alignment time reduces to
 109 seconds, i.e., of the order of
a hundred years.

If one wants to avoid this difficulty, one is led to two alternative assumptions:
A. The real mechanism is such that
the atoms can never enter a
state which is not already totally
quantized.
B. Under quick influences, situations result which violate the
quantum principles as related
to orientation; the alignment required by the quantum rules
through emission and absorption of radiation is accomplished
at an exceptionally greater speed
than the transitions between
quantum states.
Einstein and Ehrenfest elaborate
on the difficulties to which each of
these alternatives leads.
Alternative A leads to the following assumption: Even very weak
fields are decisive for immediate orientation after the collision (i.e. the


C 2013 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.ann-phys.org

A17

Physics Forum

Figure 4 Entry # 5714 in Ehrenfests diaries

with a detailed calculation of the alignC Museum Boerhave, Leyden,
ment time. (
NL)

effect of strong fields). The magnetic axis of the atom will follow
completely any change of the magnetic field, even if the change is
much quicker than the Larmor precession of the atom, just as in the
case of a slow (adiabatic) change.
This can then be generalized: Any
quick change of external conditions
of a mechanical system should keep
it in the same state as it would under a similar, infinitely slow (adiabatic) change. But this assumption
necessarily implies the violation of
the mechanical equations. In a detailed footnote the examples of a
quick shortening of the cord length
of a pendulum and of the quick rotation of a magnetic field around an
atom are given. In the first example,
conservation of energy will be violated, in the second example, conservation of angular momentum no
longer holds.
According to alternative B the
magnetic axis of each atom is randomly oriented after a collision relative to the direction of the weak
magnetic field at that point. The
alignment, parallel or antiparallel,
is accomplished by emission or absorption of infrared radiation. However, these transitions from nonquantum to quantum states have
transition probabilities which are
many orders of magnitude higher
( 1013 ) than transitions from quantum to quantum states. The adjustment of quantum states requires the
possibility of emitting and absorbing
radiation. Thus, it creates a principal
difference between purely mechanical and systems that emit or absorb radiation. For example, should
the rotation axis of a symmetrical
heavy top reach quantum alignment
with the gravitation field only if it
carries proper electric charges? If
one wants to generalize hypothesis B, as related to the alignment
in quantum states, i.e., for example
to crystal grating oscillations or a

Physics Forum

I. Unna and T. Sauer: The Struggle to understand the Stern-Gerlach Experiment, 1922

rotating molecule, should one allow these to align spontaneously

into quantum lines only with proper
electric charges? This will lead to an
obvious contradiction with experimental evidence as related to specific heats, e.g., of diamond and of
gaseous H2 .
The discussed difficulties show
how unsatisfactory both alternatives are for the interpretation of
the results found by Stern and
Gerlach.

3. Correspondence related to
the Einstein-Ehrenfest
paper
On 16 May, 1922three days after
Einstein left LeydenEhrenfest sent
a letter to Einstein in which he discussed a hypothesis advanced by G.
Breit which is similar to assumption
A in the final paper. Ehrenfest considered Breits original idea nonsense. He pressed Einstein to provide his quick and clear reaction to
this hypothesis and to say how it
should, eventually, be formulated [1,
Doc. 191].
Two days lateron 18 May,
1922Einstein answered, rejecting
Breits assumption completely [1,
Doc. 193].
On 23 May, 1922, Einstein wrote
again, responding to a letter by
Ehrenfest which, unfortunately, cannot be found. He reacted to a
new hypothesis of Ehrenfesthis
Schock hypothesis. (We do not
know what this hypothesis is.) Although it appealed to Einstein when
he first received it, he now had a
different opinion, which, however,
he was not able to justify rigorously.
To us it sounds again similar to assumption A in the published paper.
Einstein stated clearly that their calculation of the alignment time is irrelevant here, since it assumes tran-

A18

sition between quantum states via

radiation, contrary to the assumption presented now. Einstein pointed
out in some detail the serious difficulties posed by this assumption.
At the end of his letter, he voiced
doubts whether our note should
be published at all, due to the controversy between them. If we are
unable to be clear enough so that
we two can agree, let us leave it. [1,
Doc. 200].
On 30 July, 1922, Ehrenfest
promised Einstein to send him the
manuscript, print-ready, for publi Physik. He
cation in Zeitschrift fur
explained:
I am sending it to you because
I added 5 lines right at the end
that would take a weight off
my chest but that you perhaps
want to discard. Please let it
stand if you ever can bring
yourself to do so. The rest of
the entire manuscript is exactly as we had discussed. [1,
Doc. 316]

www.ann-phys.org

Issachar Unna
Racah Institute of Physics,
The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, Israel
E-mail: unna@vms.huji.ac.il
Tilman Sauer
Einstein Papers Project, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA,
and Albert Einstein Center for
Fundamental Physics, Institute for
Theoretical Physics, University of Bern,
Switzerland
E-mail: tilman@caltech.edu

These final lines concern a cryptic remark about Bohrs interpretation.

About three weeks later Einstein
reported having sent the paper to
Karl Scheel, the managing editor of
Physik. His reaction to
Zeitschrift fur
the added lines is typical:
I left your last sentence standing unchanged even though I
did not understand the suggestion at all. I cant understand why the alignment in
a magnetic field should be
better understood by assuming that the quantization is
in principle imprecisely realized. It would be good if you
could make it plausible for
me, just to appease my literary conscience. [1, Doc. 329]

The special role of measurement in quantum mechanics was,

according to accepted history, first
pointed out in 1929 by Mott [13]
and accentuated by von Neumann
in his Mathematical Foundations
of Quantum Mechanics, 1932 [14].
Einstein and Ehrenfest recognized
how problematic the concept
was as soon as Stern and Gerlach
first confronted the physics community with a genuine quantum
measurement.

References
[1]

D. Kormos Buchwald, J. Illy,

Z. Rosenkranz, and T. Sauer
(eds.), The Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein. Vol. 13. The
Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, January 1922March
1923 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).
[2] M. Born, Atomic Physics (New
York: Stechert, 1936).
[3] A. R. Mackintosh, European
Journal of Physics 4, 97106
(1983).
[4] J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum
Mechanics (Menlo Park, CA:
Benjamin/Cummings, 1985).
[5] A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 1993).
[6] W. Gerlach and O. Stern,
Physik 9, 349
Zeitschrift fur
352 (1922).


C 2013 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 525, No. 1-2 (2013)

[10] W. Trageser, Der Stern-GerlachEffekt. Genese, Entwicklung und

Rekonstruktion eines Grundexperimentes der Quantentheorie
19161926, Ph.D. Thesis, Johann
Wolfgang
Goethe-Universitat
Frankfurt, 2011.
[11] A. J. Kox, M. J. Klein, and R.
Schulmann (eds.), The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.
Vol.6. The Berlin Years: Writings, 19141917 (Princeton:


C 2013 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.ann-phys.org

Princeton University Press,

1996).
[12] A. Einstein and P. Ehrenfest,
Physik 11, 3134
Zeitschrift fur
(1922).
[13] N. Mott, Procceedings of the
Royal Society A126, 7984
(1929).
[14] J. v. Neumann, Mathematische
Grundlagen
der
Quantenmechanik
(Julius
Springer,
1932).

A19

Physics Forum

[7] J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg,

The Historical Development
of Quantum Theory. Vol.1,
Pt. 2 (New York: Spinger-Verlag,
1982).
[8] F. Weinert, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern
Physics 26, 7586 (1995).
[9] Toennies, J. Peter and SchmidtBocking, Horst and Friedrich,
Bretislav and Lower, Julian C.,
Annalen der Physik 523, 1045
1070 (2011).