Particle velocity = group velocity: A common assumption in the different theories of

Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrödinger

Nathan Lima, and Ricardo Karam

Citation: American Journal of Physics 89, 521 (2021); doi: 10.1119/10.0003165

View online: https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003165
View Table of Contents: https://aapt.scitation.org/toc/ajp/89/5
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Schrödinger's equation as a diffusion equation

American Journal of Physics 89, 500 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0002765

Simple derivation of the explicit forms of quantum-mechanical fundamental representations

American Journal of Physics 89, 535 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003900

Space-time computation and visualization of the electromagnetic fields and potentials generated by moving point
charges
American Journal of Physics 89, 482 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003207

A guide to the literature of the finite rectangular well

American Journal of Physics 89, 529 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003327

Fly by Night Physics: How Physicists Use the Backs of Envelopes

American Journal of Physics 89, 547 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003924

Magnetic diffusion, inductive shielding, and the Laplace transform

American Journal of Physics 89, 490 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003508
Particle velocity 5 group velocity: A common assumption in the
€ dinger
different theories of Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schro
Nathan Lima1,a) and Ricardo Karam2,b)
1
Department of Physics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
2
Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
(Received 9 July 2020; accepted 6 December 2020)
The identification of particle velocity with the velocity of a wave group was a crucial assumption
that resolved important inconsistencies in the theoretical developments of Louis de Broglie and
Erwin Schr€odinger. Interestingly, this was one of the few common aspects of their work. In this
paper, we present a reconstruction of how group velocity became essential for both de Broglie and
Schr€odinger, as well as a comparison of important differences in their theories. Pedagogical lessons
to be extracted from this episode are also outlined. VC 2021 Published under an exclusive license by American
Association of Physics Teachers.
https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003165

I. INTRODUCTION of four lectures8 that he gave in 1928. In Sec. IV, we high-

Particles and waves are treated as antagonistic (or, according
to Bohr, complementary) notions in physics. Among other
things, particles can be localized, whereas waves are spread
over space. Therefore, attempts to associate wave phenomena
with particles or vice versa seem, at a first glance, meaningless.
However, it is well known that this was exactly what physicists
including Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, and Erwin
Schr€odinger tried to do in the early twentieth century. In partic-
ular, de Broglie’s notion of matter waves is based on the gen-
eral assumption that all matter exhibits wave-like behavior.
This assumption raises questions: How does one address the
locality of (discrete) particles using (continuous) waves and
how does one relate the particle’s and the wave’s velocities?
The issue of nonlocalization of waves can, in principle, be
solved by the notion of wave packets. In essence, a wave
packet is a group of waves of slightly different wavelengths
with phases and amplitudes cleverly chosen as to interfere
constructively in a small region of space and destructively
outside this region.1 In this mathematical description, two
different velocities appear: the phase and the group velocity.2
As many authors have already shown,3–6 these two concepts
played an important role in Louis de Broglie’s theory.
Furthermore, Schr€odinger also used the concept of a phase
wave to derive his famous wave equation, although within a
different theoretical framework. Despite that, de Broglie and
Schr€odinger agreed in one point: the group velocity is the
one to be associated with the particle velocity.
The main goal of this paper is to show how this equiva-
lence between particle and group velocities became a crucial
assumption in the theoretical developments of these two
physicists. As we will see, for de Broglie, it solved the incon-
sistency of a superluminal wave associated with a particle,
whereas for Schr€ odinger, it was a necessary assumption in
order to derive his wave equation. Interestingly, this equiva-
lence seems to be one of the few common aspects in the very
different theories proposed by these physicists.
This paper is structured as follows: in Sec. II, we present
some of the core assumptions of de Broglie’s theory, in par-
ticular how the notion of group velocity emerged, based on a
clear and concise paper he wrote in 1924 entitled A Tentative
Theory of Light Quanta.7 The main conceptual elements of
Schr€odinger’s wave mechanics, including the derivation of
his wave equation, are presented in Sec. III, based on a series
light some of the differences between de Broglie’s and
Schr€odinger’s approaches, and in Sec. V, some pedagogical
lessons that can be extracted from this study are outlined.
It is important to stress that we do not aim for a historical
reconstruction of de Broglie’s and Schr€odinger’s works, but for
a more synthetic pedagogical approach, taking as original sour-
ces de Broglie’s 1924 paper and Schr€odinger’s 1928 lectures,
which are more accessible to modern readers than the ones usu-
ally associated with their “discoveries” (de Broglie’s thesis and
Schr€odinger’s Annalen der Physik communications). This selec-
tion allows us to carve out the essence of their arguments for
assuming the equivalence between particle and group velocities
(and the essential differences between the approaches) and to
derive pedagogical lessons from this comparison. The motiva-
tion is that although group velocity is a commonly taught con-
cept, its importance for the genesis of wave mechanics is not
well known. In this sense, our presentation is intended to be suit-
able for a didactic context, an undergraduate physics course for
instance, while remaining consistent with the original sources.
II. GROUP VELOCITY IN DE BROGLIE’S THEORY
The French physicist Louis de Broglie is well known for
his attempts to relate wave and particle descriptions of both
matter and radiation. In a series of papers published in the
early 1920s, he explored different—although not always
consistent—possibilities of finding connections between
these descriptions. These works have been extensively dis-
cussed in the literature3–6 and we do not intend to delve into
their complex theoretical development.
Our goal is, rather, to present a pedagogical reconstruction
of the process that made the group velocity a crucial concept
in de Broglie’s theory even though it also led to important
contradictions. For this purpose, we chose as our main
source a paper written by de Broglie in 1924,7 which con-
tains essentially the same arguments found in his doctoral
thesis, but in a much clearer and more straightforward way.
At the center of de Broglie’s reasoning is the rather bold
assumption of the existence of a periodic phenomenon asso-
ciated with all massive bodies, including quanta, which he
assumes to bear mass. This is justified as follows:
Let us consider a moving body whose “mass at
rest”9 is m0; it moves with regard to a given observer
with velocity v ¼ bc (b < 1). In consequence of the

521 Am. J. Phys. 89 (5), May 2021 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2021 Published under an exclusive license by AAPT
V 521
 principle of energy inertia, it must contain an internal
energy equal to m0 c2 . Moreover, the quantum
relation suggests the ascription of this internal
energy to a periodic phenomenon whose frequency
 0 ¼ 1h m0 c2 (Ref. 7, p. 449).
Thus, the attribution of a periodic phenomenon to a massive
body is explained through the combination of Einstein’s mass-
energy relation10 (E0 ¼ m0 c2 ) and Planck’s (or Bohr’s) fre-
quency relation (E0 ¼ h 0 ). In an authentic special relativistic
framework, the next natural step is to describe this periodicity
from the reference frame of the observer. Given that the mate-
rial body moves with constant velocity v ¼ bc in relation to the
observer, the energy of the body is transformed as
m 0 c2
E ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 ; (1)
1b
which would be associated with a periodic phenomenon with
frequency
E m 0 c2 0
¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 : (2)
h h 1b 1b
Equation (2) provides the transformation of the frequency
associated with the energy of a material body, but it is incon-
sistent with how frequencies (e.g., of a clock) should be
transformed according to special relativity. Due to time dila-
tion, the frequency of this periodic phenomenon measured
by the observer (called  1 by de Broglie) should be smaller
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
than  0; more specifically,  1 ¼  0 ð1  b2 Þ.
De Broglie solved this apparent inconsistency by associat-
ing a traveling wave with the particle, which would have a
frequency  with respect to the observer and would remain
in phase with the intrinsic periodic phenomenon of fre-
quency  1. These traveling waves associated with the parti-
cle (called phase waves) were later shown to possess rather
unusual physical properties.4
Another way to obtain the characteristic traits of these phase
waves, also derived by de Broglie in 1924, does not take the
problem of the clock frequencies explicitly into account although
it contains its solution. For an observer carried along with the
moving body, the periodic phenomenon is represented by
sin½2p 0 t0 : (3)
Another observer, with respect to which the material body has a
velocity v ¼ bc, describes the same phenomenon in relation to
the t-coordinate defined by a Lorentz transformation
2  vx 3
t  c2
sin42p 0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi5: (4)
1  b2
By re-arranging the terms in Eq. (4),
" #
0 2p 0 v
sin 2p pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 t  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 x ; (5)
1b c2 1  b
we conclude that the observer associates with the particle a
traveling wave whose frequency  and wavelength k are
0 v single frequency, to each value of b. In other words, the
given by  ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi and 1k ¼ 2 p0ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi . The velocity of this
2
1b c 2
1b
wave can be computed by u ¼ k, which yields
522 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021
c2 c
u¼ ¼ : (6)
v b
Since b ¼ v=c < 1, Eq. (6) implies that u > c, a rather
unwelcome result. Because the speed of the wave is greater
than the speed of light, it cannot transport energy. This is
why de Broglie first considered it a fictitious wave.
In sum, de Broglie’s first undulatory proposal implied the
existence of a velocity that does not coincide with the particle
velocity (and is greater than the speed of light) and a frequency
that does not transform according to a clock frequency.
Perhaps in an attempt to solve these inconsistencies, de
Broglie showed that the particle velocity is equivalent to the
group velocity g of a superposition of phase waves of nearby
frequencies, which can be determined by11
dð=uÞ
1=g ¼ : (7)
d
2
m0ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c
Substituting  ¼ p and u ¼ c=b in Eq. (7), we get
h 1b2
g ¼ bc, which is the particle velocity. Moreover, by computing
the beat frequency  0 ¼ du=dk, we get
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 0 ¼  0 ð1  b2 Þ; (8)
which is transformed exactly like the clock frequency.
Although de Broglie did not do the calculation explicitly, it
is straightforward to show that the wavelength of such waves
may be expressed as
c=b h
k ¼ u= ¼ c2
m0ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ m0 bc ¼ h=p: (9)
p 2
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
h 1b 1b
At first glance, everything seems consistent. However, given
that a wave group is essentially the result of a superposition of
waves, how are we to make (physical) sense of these multiple
frequencies related to the (one and only) moving body? De
Broglie’s answer in 1924 was the following:
“The velocity of the moving body is the energy velocity of
c2
m0ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a group of waves having frequencies  ¼ p 2
and veloci-
h 1b
ties bc corresponding to very slightly different values of b
(Ref. 7, p. 450).”
Notice the sudden appearance of terms in plural (frequen-
cies, velocities, and values). Once again it is legitimate to
ask: where do these (slightly) different values of velocities
(b), and therefore of frequencies, come from? How are we to
make (physical) sense of them?
In his doctoral thesis,12 de Broglie hinted at a possible
interpretation:
If one attributes a velocity v ¼ bc to the body, this
does not fully determine the value of b, and it only
restricts the velocity to being between b and
b þ db; corresponding frequencies that span the
interval  þ d.
But how this indeterminacy in b could generate a wave
group associated with the particle? Following de Broglie’s
original reasoning, even if one cannot determine b precisely,
we would still be able to relate a single phase wave, with a
indeterminacy in b (and, therefore, in ) does not “create” a
superposition of waves and there is no actual wave group.13
N. Lima and R. Karam 522
 In order to resolve this theoretical inconsistency, Brown
and Martins5 proposed a reinterpretation of the de Broglie
wave group, which was suggested in later works of the
French physicist. According to this new view:
Wave groups are simply to be postulated ab initio as
representing the real properties of the quantum, with
the component phase waves having a clearly
secondary theoretical function - it is the group that is
real, not the individual phase waves (Ref. 5, p. 1136).
However, Brown and Martins conclude, “it is fairly clear
that de Broglie did not have this in mind in writing the the-
sis,” for many applications of de Broglie’s theory “rely on
the properties of the individual phase waves and not of the
wave group.”
While investigating the properties of these individual phase
waves, de Broglie derived a theorem that would play a crucial
role for Schr€
odinger’s wave mechanics, as we will show in
Sec. III. The basic problem was to extend the relations
obtained for the phase waves to the case of variable velocity.
A promising starting point is Fermat’s principle of least time,
ð tB ðB
ds
d dt ¼ d ¼ 0; (10)
tA A u
where ds is a path element and u is the phase velocity. Since
the frequency  is independent of the medium, it is possible
to multiply Eq. (10) by  and write (Ref. 7, p. 451)
ðB ðB
ds ds
d ¼d ¼ 0: (11)
A k A u
Substituting  from Eq. (2) and u from Eq. (6), Fermat’s
principle becomes
ðB ð Schr€odinger began his lectures by describing the trajectory
 1 B m0 bc
d ds ¼ d pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ds ¼ 0: (12)
A u h A 1  b2
The integrand is suggestive. Let us recall that the trajec-
tory of a particle subjected to a conservative potential can be
determined by Maupertuis’s principle, which states that from
all the possible trajectories that the particle could assume, it
will go through the one that minimizes a specific functional,
ðB
d p:ds ¼ 0; (13)
A become identical if we postulate that the velocity u is
where p is the particle’s momentum. If one adopts the rela-
tivistic expression for momentum,14 one gets
ðB ðB
m0 bc
d p:ds ¼ d pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 ds: (14)
A A 1b
This expression is exactly the same as Eq. (12). Thus, the
equality between Fermat’s principle (for the associated phase
waves) and Maupertuis’s principle (for particles) reveals that
the wave-picture and particle-picture may be synthesized in
the same minimization principle. This agreement was cele-
brated by de Broglie’s as follows:
Perhaps a new electromagnetism will give us the
laws of this complicated propagation, but it seems
that we know beforehand the final result: “the rays
523 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021
of the phase wave are identical with the paths
which are dynamically possible.” (Ref. 7, p. 451).
For later comparison, it is important to stress that de
Broglie’s equivalence between Maupertuis’s and Fermat’s
principles is dependent on a relativistic framework and does
not rely on the notion of wave groups.
€
III. GROUP VELOCITY IN SCHRODINGER’S WAVE
MECHANICS
Schr€odinger’s route to wave mechanics was likewise a very
complex and nonlinear process, which has been the object of
numerous studies.15–18 Although there are some disagreements
in the literature, it seems to be a consensus that Schr€odinger
was inspired by de Broglie’s work.19,20 According to Raman
and Forman,19 Schr€odinger “applied himself seriously and suc-
cessfully to the problem of developing an atom mechanics of
de Broglie’s phase waves.” Moreover, in the second of
Schr€odinger’s 1926 communications,23 we find an explicit ref-
erence to de Broglie’s work on phase waves.
We find here again a theorem for the “phase
waves” of the electron, which de Broglie had
derived, with essential reference to the relativity
theory, in those fine research, to which I owe the
inspiration for this work (Ref. 23, p. 20).
Despite this influence, there are important differences in the
way Schr€odinger conceptualized the wave-particle relation. In
order to highlight some of these differences, we will refer to the
first of a series of four lectures8 on wave mechanics delivered
by Schr€odinger at the Royal Institution in London in March
1928. These lectures were intended as a pedagogical presenta-
tion of wave mechanics to a broad audience and provide a good
insight into Schr€odinger’s mature views on his theory.
of a nonrelativistic21 particle with a given energy E going
from a point A to a point B in a conservative potential V,
according to Maupertuis’s principle. More precisely,
Schr€odinger wrote this principle as
ðB ð B pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
d pds ¼ d 2mðE  VÞds ¼ 0: (15)
A A
Then, inspired by de Broglie,
Ð B Schr€odinger compared Eq.
(15) to Fermat’s principle (d A dsu ¼ 0) and realized that both
C
u ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; (16)
2mðE  VÞ
in which C is a constant that may depend on the energy but
not on the coordinates x, y, z so that it can be taken out of the
integral (10). By making the integrands of the two principles
equal, Schr€odinger framed a physical situation in which
“light rays” follow the same trajectory as the particle from
point A to B. In Schr€odinger’s words:
Thus, we have made a mental picture of an
optical medium, in which the manifold of
possible light-rays coincides with the manifold of
dynamical orbits of a mass-point m moving with
given energy E in a field of force Vðx; y; zÞ. The
fact that u, the velocity of light, depends not only
N. Lima and R. Karam 523
 on the co-ordinates but also on E, the total energy back in Eq. (16), the dispersion relation of the light-signal is
of the mass-point, is of the utmost importance expressed as
(Ref. 8, p. 3). E
u ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (23)
It is known that in a dispersive medium, light with differ- 2mðE  VÞ
ent frequencies travels with different velocities. Thus, the
expression found for the velocity of light depending on It is possible to recognize that the denominator is the (non-
energy (Eq. (16)) may be framed as a dispersion relation, by relativistic) expression of momentum, then
assuming a linear relation between energy and frequency energy
ðE ¼ hÞ. This is how Planck’s (or Bohr’s) frequency rela- u¼ : (24)
momentum
tion appears in Schr€odinger’s reasoning.
Up until this point, although Schr€odinger established an Since u is the phase velocity, u ¼ k, and E ¼ h, we
equivalence between the trajectories of the particle and the have that
light signal, we still have no information about the time evo-
u ¼ k ¼ h=p; (25)
lution of their motion. Schr€odinger, then, asked “Now we
can proceed a stage farther, putting the question: can we which turns out to be
make a small” point-like “light-signal move exactly like our
mass-point?” At first glance, this seems impossible, since the h
k¼ : (26)
velocity of the mass-point is p
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Thus, Schr€odinger obtained expressions of wave quantities
v ¼ ð2T=mÞ ¼ ð2ðE  VÞ=mÞ ¼ 2mðE  VÞ=m;
(e.g., phase velocity, group velocity, frequency, and wave-
(17) length) in terms of quantities associated with particles
(momentum and energy). His interpretation of this relation-
and if we compare Eqs. (16) and (17), we realize that u and v ship, however, is far from the notion of wave-particle dual-
have an inverse dependence on energy and thus cannot be ity. Schr€odinger believed that waves constituted the essence
made always identical. In a similar way to de Broglie, of matter and that particle descriptions were approximations
Schr€
odinger solved this inconsistency by postulating that the valid for the macroscopic domain.
velocity of the particle should not be made equal to the phase The core of Schr€odinger’s view is expressed by an anal-
velocity of the light-signal but to its group velocity instead.22 ogy with optics. Similar to the relation between geometrical
He then expressed the group velocity g in relation to energy and wave optics, “ordinary mechanics is only an approxima-
and phase velocity as tion which no longer holds for very small systems.” This is
1 d 1 d d what the term wave mechanics essentially means, i.e., it is
¼ ð=uÞ ¼ ðh=uÞ ¼ ðE=uÞ: (18) the analog to wave optics. In Schr€odinger’s own words:
g d h d dE
The step that leads from ordinary mechanics to
Combining Eqs. (16)–(18) and imposing that g ¼ v, he wave mechanics is an advance similar in kind to
then obtained Huygens’ theory of light, which replaced Newton’s
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  theory. We might form the symbolic proportion:
d E 2mðE  VÞ m
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (19)
dE C 2mðE  VÞ Ordinary mechanics : Wave mechanics
The expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (19) may be ¼ Geometrical optics : Wave optics:
rewritten as
Typical quantum phenomena are analogous to
m d pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 2mðE  VÞ; (20) typical wave phenomena like diffraction and
2mðE  VÞ dE interference (Ref. 8, p. 8).

which leads to The next natural step would be to obtain a “wave equation”
to describe these typical quantum phenomena. Schr€odinger’s
  
d E pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi derivation of his wave equation in the four lectures is argu-
1 ð2mðE  VÞ ¼ 0: (21) ably his favorite one, as it appears in a mature stage of his
dE C
theory and was presented in a pedagogical exposition to a
This means that the whole expression between brackets in broad audience.
Eq. (21) must be independent of E. Since V depends on posi- The starting point of the derivation is the classical wave
tion and C may depend on energy, the only way to guarantee equation:
that this expression is energy-independent is to impose that 1 @ 2 Wðx; y; z; tÞ
the first term vanishes, i.e., r2 Wðx; y; z; tÞ  ¼ 0: (27)
u2 @t2
E Since Wðx; y; z; tÞ should represent a time periodic func-
¼ 1 ! E ¼ C: (22) tion, we limit our consideration to solutions that can be sepa-
C
rated into a space-dependent amplitude function and a
Thus, in order to make the group velocity of the light- harmonic time-dependent function
signal equal to the velocity of the particle, the constant C
needs to be equal to the energy E. Substituting this result Wðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ wðx; y; zÞe2pit ; (28)

524 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021 N. Lima and R. Karam 524
which gives, for the amplitude function,
2 2
4p 
r2 w þ w ¼ 0: (29)
u2
The last step is to substitute the previously obtained
expressions for the frequency ( ¼ Eh) and phase velocity
u ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi in Eq. (29), yielding
E
2mðEVÞ
8p2 m
r2 w þ ðE  VÞw ¼ 0; (30)
h2
which is Schr€ odinger’s time-independent equation.24 It is
worth stressing the crucial role of Eq. (23) in this derivation,
which was obtained from the assumption of an equality
between group and particle velocities.
But how did Schr€odinger interpret this equivalence
between group and particle velocities physically? In other
words, what was the ontological status of his wave group?
An indication of Schr€odinger’s initial views on this matter
can be found in a short paper he published in July 1926 in
Naturwissenschaften.27 In this article, Schr€odinger solved
the quantum harmonic oscillator and showed that the sum of
(the real parts of) its eigenfunctions is equivalent to a wave
packet that remains compact as times goes by and oscillates
with the same frequency as a classical harmonic oscillator.25
He even represented this wave group schematically as shown
in Fig. 1. This result encouraged Schr€odinger to boldly con-
jecture that a similar situation should happen in other (math-
ematically more complicated) cases, such as the hydrogen
atom. However, this turned out not to be true. In fact, the
harmonic oscillator is the only case where this happens.
In his four lectures, written two years later, we find a
much weaker commitment when it comes to the ontology of
Schr€odinger’s waves.
The statement that what really happens is correctly
described by describing a wave-motion does not nec-
essarily mean exactly the same thing as: what really
exists is the wave-motion. We shall see later on that
in generalizing to an arbitrary mechanical system we
are led to describe what really happens in such a sys-
tem by a wave-motion in the generalized space of its
co-ordinates (q-space). Though the latter has quite a
definite physical meaning, it cannot very well be said
to “exist;” hence, a wave-motion in this space cannot
be said to exist in the ordinary sense of the word
either. It is merely an adequate mathematical descrip-
tion of what happens. It may be that also in the case
of one single mass-point, with which we are now
dealing, the wave-motion must not be taken to exist
in too literal a sense although the configuration space
happens to coincide with ordinary space in this par-
ticularly simple case (Ref. 8, p. 6).
Thus, similar to de Broglie’s theory, although the equiva-
lence between group and particle velocities was essential to
Fig. 1. Oscillating wave group representing a particle in wave mechanics
(Ref. 27, p. 666).
525 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021
Schr€odinger’s derivation of his wave equation, it failed to
provide him with a physical interpretation of what was
“really” happening at the quantum level.
IV. COMPARISON
As we have shown, the starting point of Schr€odinger’s der-
ivation of his wave equation in the four lectures was de
Broglie’s theorem about the equivalence between
Maupertuis’s and Fermat’s principles. Nevertheless, there
are significant differences in how both theories deal with the
description of physical phenomena. First, Louis de Broglie’s
framework is essentially relativistic, while, despite being
inspired by de Broglie’s work, Schr€odinger’s description of
particle trajectories was nonrelativistic throughout.
Besides the different theoretical frameworks (relativistic
and nonrelativistic) and the different technical problems that
each of them had to solve, de Broglie and Schr€odinger had
different conceptions about the actual constitution of the
physical systems. To de Broglie, particles exist, light quanta
are real and have (a very small) mass, any moving body is
accompanied by a wave, and it is impossible to disjoin the
motion of body and wave propagation. To Schr€odinger, on
the other hand, particles do not exist, waves do not really
exist either, but they provide an adequate mathematical
description of what happens at the quantum level. As we
have also discussed, both proposals face different difficulties
in presenting a consistent picture of quantum reality. In fact,
by comparing both approaches, we may conclude that one of
the few things they have in common is the assumption of an
equality between particle velocity and group velocity. Even
the relation p ¼ h=k is different since p is relativistic for de
Broglie and nonrelativistic for Schr€odinger. Phase velocity
in de Broglie and Schr€odinger also differs. In Table I, a com-
parison between these two different theories is summarized.
V. PEDAGOGICAL REFLECTIONS
Let us conclude by reflecting on possible instructional
implications of this episode.
• A quick glance at some of de Broglie’s original papers is
sufficient to show that his theoretical considerations were
fundamentally relativistic. However, this is usually omit-
ted in contemporary textbooks, which often only mention
de Broglie’s (nonrelativistic) “wavelength relation” as a
plausible symmetry argument.
• Many quantum mechanics textbooks (e.g., Griffiths26)
derive the equivalence between particle and group veloci-
ties as a consequence of the previously presented formalism
of Schr€odinger’s equation. In this sense, it is instructive to
learn that the demand for this equivalence was a necessary
condition for the derivation of Schr€odinger’s equation,
which inverts the order of the arguments.
• Even though reading original sources can often be an illu-
minating experience to students, finding appropriate sour-
ces to be used productively in physics teaching is far from
being trivial. We believe that both de Broglie’s tentative
theory7 and Schr€odinger’s four lectures8 possess the nec-
essary characteristics to enable students to get an authentic
picture of the original formulations of these theories and
are more accessible to modern readers than de Broglie’s
thesis and Schr€odinger’s communications in the Annalen
der Physik.
N. Lima and R. Karam 525
Table I. Comparison between the theoretical developments of Louis de Broglie (1924) and Erwin Schr€ odinger (1928). Here, u is the velocity of the phase
wave, v the particle velocity, g the group velocity, and c the speed of light. Notice that the only common assumption (in bold text) is the equivalence between
the group and particle velocities.

• It is not uncommon to hear that it is impossible to derive ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Schr€odinger’s equation. Even Richard Feynman, in his cele-
brated lectures, stated: “Where did we get that from? The first author thanks CAPES (Coordenaç~ao de
Nowhere! It is not possible to derive from anything you Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal do Ensino Superior), for
know. It came out of the mind of Schr€odinger, invented in his supporting a research stay at the University of Copenhagen
struggle to find an understanding of the experimental observa- as part of the Project of Internationalization (PRINT)-Edital
tion of the real world.”30 Such attitude foments the idea of an 003/2019. Both authors would like to thank Christian Joas
opportunistic Schr€odinger who randomly tried out different for insightful discussions about the topic and comments on a
equations until he found one that agreed with experiment. preliminary version of this manuscript.
Although the process that led to his wave equation was
certainly influenced by experimental results, this purely APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF GROUP VELOCITY
inductive view of Schr€odinger’s work is unjustified, and (EQ. (7)) IN DE BROGLIE’S THESIS
this is clear in his four lectures. Thus, we believe that pre-
senting Schr€ odinger’s derivation of his wave equation to If waves of nearby frequencies propagate in the same
quantum mechanics students can be pedagogically valu- direction Ox with velocity u, which we call a phase velocity,
able because it illustrates Schr€odinger’s original intuition these waves exhibit, by cause of superposition, a beat if the
about phenomena at the quantum level, in particular the velocity u varies with the frequency . This phenomenon
origin of the term “wave mechanics.” was studied especially by Lord Rayleigh for the case of dis-
• Even though it is widely known that Schr€odinger’s work persive media. Imagine two waves of nearby frequencies 
was influenced by de Broglie’s, it is rather instructive to and  0 ¼  þ d and velocities u and u0 ¼ u þ du. Their
see how different their theoretical assumptions really superposition leads analytically to the following equation:
were. This awareness conveys a more dialectic image of   
how physical knowledge is being established, compared to   
x 0 0x 0
the rational and straightforward view often found in text- sin 2p t  þ / þ sin 2p  t  0 þ /
u u
books. In particular, the studies of these original sources   
show that both de Broglie and Schr€odinger were searching x
¼ 2 sin 2p t  þ w
for a physical description of what “actually happens” at u
the quantum level although neither of them succeeded in 0 0   11

the end. Being aware of this pursuit can be a relief for stu- @ @d d AA
dents who wonder about the abstract character of quantum u d
 cos 2p tx þ w0 : (A1)
mechanics. 2 d 2

526 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021 N. Lima and R. Karam 526
 ð
Thus, we get a sinusoid for which the amplitude is modu-
lated at frequency d because the sign of the cosine has little d p:ds ¼ 0: (B7)
effect. This is a well-known result. If one denotes with g the
velocity of propagation of the beat or group velocity, one finds Due to the change of variable, the function we find by
solving this minimization problem gives the shape of the tra-
dð=uÞ jectory of the body but not its dynamical properties along
1=g ¼ : (A2)
d time.

2. Relativisitic Maupertuis’s principle

APPENDIX B: THE CLASSICAL AND Hamilton’s principle in its relativistic version also implies
RELATIVISTIC VERSIONS OF MAUPERTUIS’S the minimization of a Lagrangian L:
PRINCIPLE ð
Although Maupertuis’s principle historically precedes d L ðqi ; ui Þdt ¼ 0: (B8)
Hamilton’s, we start from enunciating Hamilton’s principle,
which is more general and widely used nowadays, and then Furthermore, we still want the momentum to be repre-
derive Maupertuis’s principle as a particular case. We will sented as the derivative of the Lagrangian in relation to the
do it first nonrelativistically, as done by Schr€odinger, and generalized velocity. Thus,
then derive the relativistic one used by de Broglie.
@L mui
¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (B9)
1. Classical Maupertuis’s principle @ui
ð1  bÞ2
According to Hamilton’s principle, the trajectory that a body
assumes is the one that minimizes the following integral: Since the potential energy does not depend explicitly on
ð the velocity, the only term that is different in the relativistic
Lðqi ; vi Þdt; (B1) Lagrangian is related to the kinetic energy. It is possible to
show29 that the relativistic Lagrangian is then
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where qi and vi are the components of the generalized posi-
L ¼ mc2 1  b2  U: (B10)
tion and velocity of the body and the functional L (called
Lagrangian) is defined as the difference between the kinetic
energy (T) and the potential energy (U): Again, it is equivalent to minimize the Lagrangian itself
or the Lagrangian plus a constant. If the body is free of any
L ¼ T  U: (B2) interactions, its potential energy is null and its energy is con-
stant, then
Furthermore, it is easy to show that L relates to the gener- ð ð qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
alized momentum through  mc2
d L ðqi ; vi Þdt ¼ d pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2  mc 1  b2 dt ¼ 0:
2
1b
@L
p¼ : (B3) (B11)
@v
Also, recognizing ds=dt ¼ bc and rearranging the terms,
Since we want to minimize the integral of the Lagrangian we finally have
with respect to time, it does not make any difference whether ð ð
we minimize the Lagrangian itself or the Lagrangian plus a mbc
constant E: d pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 ds ¼ d p:ds ¼ 0; (B12)
1b
ð ð
d Lðqi ; vi Þdt ¼ d ½ Lðqi ; vi Þ þ Edt ¼ 0: (B4) which is the relativistic version of Maupertuis’s principle
used by de Broglie.
If there are only conservative forces acting upon the body, a)
Electronic mail: nathan.lima@ufrgs.br
its energy is constant and, thus, we may add the constant E b)
Electronic mail: ricardo.karam@ind.ku.dk
to the Lagrangian, yielding 1
D. Bohm, Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1951).
2
The distinction between phase and group velocity had been pointed out by
L þ E ¼ T  U þ E ¼ T  U þ T þ U ¼ 2T: (B5) Hamilton and Stokes in the 19th century, and it was introduced by
Rayleigh in the physical context in his Theory of Sound, written in 1877.
For this particular case, Hamilton’s principle becomes We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this comment.
3
E. MacKinnon, “De Broglie’s thesis: A critical retrospective,” Am. J.
ð ð ð Phys. 44, 1047–1055 (1976).
d Lðqi ; vi Þdt ¼ d ½ Lðqi ; vi Þ þ Edt ¼ d 2Tdt ¼ 0: 4
J. M. Espinosa, “Physical properties of de Broglie’s phase waves,” Am. J.
Phys. 50, 357–362 (1982).
5
(B6) H. R. Brown and R. A. Martins, “De Broglie’s relativistic phase waves
and wave groups,” Am. J. Phys. 52, 1130–1140 (1984).
6
J. Strnad and W. Kuhn, “On the de Broglie waves,” Eur. J. Phys. 6,
Moreover, in cartesian coordinates, we can write 176–179 (1985).
2Tdt ¼ mv2 dt ¼ mvðds=dtÞdt ¼ mvds ¼ pds and, thus 7
L. de Broglie, “A tentative theory of light quanta,” Philos. Mag. Lett.
finally, Maupertuis’s principle may be stated as 86(7), 446–458 (1924).

527 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021 N. Lima and R. Karam 527
 8 20
E. Schr€odinger, Four Lectures on Wave Mechanics (Royal Institution/
Blackie and Son Limited, London/Glasgow, London, 1928).
9 21
In this paper, we follow Louis de Broglie’s terminology of “rest mass.”
However, it should be mentioned that the concept of rest mass has been
widely criticized in the literature, since it is more coherent to treat mass as
a relativistic invariant. For more details, see L. B. Okun, “Mass versus rel-
ativistic and rest masses,” Am. J. Phys. 77, 430–431 (2009).
10
Einstein did not use the term “rest mass” (E. Hecht, Phys. Teach. 47, 336–341
(2009)). In Einstein’s notation, the rest energy should be written as E0 ¼ mc2 .
We write E0 ¼ m0 c2 to be consistent with de Broglie’s terminology.
11
Equation (7) is another formulation of the usual expression for group velocity
as g ¼ @x 
@k , since x ¼ 2p and k ¼ 2p u. De Broglie’s original derivation of
this expression in his doctoral thesis is presented in Appendix A. See also
Chapter 48 (Vol. 1) of the Feynman lectures (<https://www.feynmanlectures.
caltech.edu/>) for a pedagogical explanation of group velocity.
12
L. de Broglie, “Recherches sur la theorie des quanta (Researches on the
quantum theory),” Ph.D. thesis (Paris University, Paris, 1924); L. de
Broglie, Ann. Phys. 3, 22–32 (1925).
13
This inconsistency in de Broglie’s use of wave groups has been pointed
out for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, by MacKinnon (Ref.
3), but there seems to be no consensus in the literature. We are aligned
with the arguments given by Brown and Martins (Ref. 5) on this matter
and strongly recommend the interested reader to consult their paper to get
a deeper understanding of the nuances of this problem.
14
This is not so simple as it may seem. In general, one cannot insert the rela-
tivistic expression of momentum in the nonrelativistic formulation of
Maupertuis’s principle. Since de Broglie’s approach is essentially relativis-
tic, he needs the relativistic version of this principle. However, he manages
to relate these two versions and justify his use of Eq. (14). This is dis-
cussed in detail in Appendix B.
15
L. Wessels, “Schr€odinger’s route to wave mechanics,” Stud. Hist. Philos.
Sci. 10, 311–340 (1979).
16
H. Kragh, “Erwin Schr€ odinger and the wave equation: The crucial phase,”
Centaurus 26, 154–197 (1982).
17
C. Joas and C. Lehner, “The classical roots of wave mechanics:
Schr€odinger’s transformations of the optical-mechanical analogy,” Stud.
Hist. Philos. Sci. Part B 40(4), 338–351 (2009).
18
R. Karam, “Schr€odinger’s original struggles with a complex wave
function,” Am. J. Phys. 88, 433–438 (2020).
19
V. V. Raman and P. Forman, “Why was it Schr€ odinger who developed de
Broglie’s ideas?,” Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 1, 291–314 (1969).
528 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 89, No. 5, May 2021
P. A. Hanle, “Erwin Schr€ odinger’s reaction to Louis de Broglie’s thesis on
the quantum theory,” Isis 68(4), 606–609 (1977).
It is important to stress that Schr€
odinger’s research program was relativis-
tic from the very beginning (Ref. 16) and was even guided by general rela-
tivity (Ref. 17). Despite that, Schr€odinger’s original derivation in the 1926
papers was completely nonrelativistic. Although he had first obtained a rel-
ativistic equation (as it was found in his notebooks), the main motivation
for not publishing it was due to the fact that it could not fully account for
the Hydrogen spectrum (Ref. 16).
22
It should be noted that Schr€ odinger knew the concept of group velocity
even before his acquaintance with the works of de Broglie (E.
Schr€ odinger, “Zur akustik der atmosph€are,” Phys. Z. 18, 445–453 (1917)).
The importance of de Broglie’s work was drawn to Schr€ odinger’s attention
by A. Einstein. Schr€ odinger even used the name de Broglie–Einstein wave
theory (E. Schr€ odinger, “Zur Einsteinschen Gastheorie.” Phys. Z. 27,
95–101 (1926)). We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this
comment.
23
E. Schr€ odinger, Collected Papers on Wave Mechanics, translated from the
second German edition (Blackie and Son, Ltd., London and Glasgow,
1928).
24
Schr€ odinger derives his time-dependent equation by expressing, once
again,
 the time
 dependence of the wave function as a complex exponential
w  e2piEt=h and differentiating it once with respect to time w_ ¼ 2piE h w;
which enables him to eliminate the parameter E from his time-independent
h _
equation. By substituting Ew ¼ 2pi w in Eq. (30), the more familiar time-
dependent Schr€ odinger equation is obtained (Ref. 8, p. 22).
25
The interested reader can find an excellent explanation of Schr€ odinger’s
“micro-macro” paper in Chapter 14.6 of M. Longair, Quantum Concepts
in Physics: An Alternative Approach to the Understanding of Quantum
Mechanics (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 2013).
26
D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1995).
27
E. Schr€ odinger, “Der stetige Ubergang€ von der Mikro-zur
Makromechanik,” Naturwissenschaften 14, 664–666 (1926).
28
See <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/> for “Chapter 16-5 (Vol.
3) of the Feynman Lectures.”
29
See Chapter 7.9 of H. Goldstein, C. P. Poole, and J. L. Safko, Classical
Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2001).
30
R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, “The Feynman lectures on
physics; vol. III, chapter 16,” Am. J. Phys. 33, 750–752 (1965).
N. Lima and R. Karam 528