Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2401.07485

The "Sommerfeld Puzzle" and Its Extensions

Sergeĭ K. Suslov

Published Jan 15, 2024• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The exact agreement between the Sommerfeld (1916) and Dirac (1928) results for the energy levels of the relativistic hydrogen atom (the so-called "Sommerfeld puzzle") is analyzed and extended. Werner Heisenberg called this coincidence a `miracle' but Erwin Schroedinger described it as a fortuitous computational accident.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2401.07485

Related papers

Linear Bohr-Sommerfeld electron paths

Thad Dankel, Jack B. Levy

In this paper, the authors present a linear Bohr theory of the hydrogen atom and show that the allowed energy levels are exactly those of Bohr.

Journal of Chemical Education•Jun 1, 1974•1 citation

Equivalence of the Bohr-Sommerfeld and Dirac Theories for the Hydrogen Atom

IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS eBooks•Jul 7, 2015•0 citations

Disarming the Ultimate Historical Challenge to Scientific Realism

Peter Vickers

Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld's ([1916]) derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not only were his predictions good, he derived exactly the same formula that would later drop out of Dirac's 1928 treatment (something not possible using 1925 Schrödinger-Heisenberg quantum mechanics). And yet the most central elements of Sommerfeld's theory were not even approximately true: his derivation leans heavily on a classical approach to elliptical orbits, including the necessary adjustments to these orbits demanded by relativity. Even physicists call Sommerfeld's success a 'miracle', which rather makes a joke of the so-called 'no miracles argument'. However, this can all be turned around. Here I argue that the realist has a story to tell vis-à-vis the discontinuities between the old and the new theory, leading to a realist defence based on sufficient continuity of relevant structure. 1Introduction2No Realist Commitment Required?3Enter the Physicists4A New Approach to the Non-relativistic Success5Relativity and Spin6Structure and Realist Commitment7Conclusion.

arXiv:1912.04698•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Jun 27, 2018•28 citations

Disarming the Ultimate Historical Challenge to Scientific Realism

Peter Vickers

Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’s 1916 derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not only were his predictions good, he derived exactly the same formula that would later drop out of Dirac’s 1928 treatment (something not possible using 1925 Schrödinger–Heisenberg quantum mechanics). And yet the most central elements of Sommerfeld’s theory were not even approximately true: his derivation leans heavily on a classical approach to elliptical orbits, including the necessary adjustments to these orbits demanded by relativity. Even physicists call Sommerfeld’s success a ‘miracle’, which rather makes a joke of the so-called ‘no miracles argument’. However, this can all be turned around. Here I argue that the realist has a story to tell vis-à-vis the discontinuities between the old and the new theory, leading to a realist defence based on sufficient continuity of relevant structure.

•Jan 1, 2018•23 citations

Bohr-Wilson-Sommerfeld Model of the Hydrogen Atom: A Reinterpretation.

Daniel H. Deutsch

Physics Essays•Jun 1, 1989•0 citations

The Bohr-Sommerfeld theory of hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms

Masud Mansuripur

Niels Bohr’s model of the hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms, in which the electron is allowed to revolve in certain circular orbits around the nucleus, was extended by Arnold Sommerfeld to allow for the possibility of elliptical orbits. Each elliptical orbit was constrained by two quantization conditions specified by a positive integer nφ and a non-negative integer nr. If, in the presence of the attractive Coulomb force between the electron and the nucleus, the dynamics of the atom were taken to be governed by the Newtonian laws of motion, the energy Ɛ of the two-particle system was found to be a function of the positive integer n = nr + nφ. The atomic energy levels thus exhibited an n-fold degeneracy, which would be lifted in the presence of external electric or magnetic fields, thus accounting for the fine-structure of the spectral lines emitted by the atom—phenomena observed, respectively, in the Stark effect and the Zeeman effect. Sommerfeld also examined the behavior of his elliptical orbits by allowing the revolving electron to obey Einstein’s relativistic dynamics. In this case, the energy-level degeneracies were lifted (even in the absence of external perturbations), and the elliptical orbits were found to precess around the nucleus—similarly to the precession of, say, the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun. What is astonishing about Sommerfeld’s relativistic expression of the energy Ɛ as a function of nφ and nr is that it is precisely the same expression as obtained for hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms from Dirac’s equation, which came more than a decade later. Recall that the spin of the electron was not yet discovered when Sommerfeld developed his model, and that in Dirac’s fully-relativistic quantum mechanics, the spectral fine-structure arises from the coupling of the electron’s spin to its orbital motion. The present paper provides a streamlined yet detailed account of Sommerfeld’s elliptical orbits in hopes of bringing about a deeper appreciation for the miraculous coincidence of Sommerfeld’s result with that derived from Dirac’s equation.

Spintronics•Sep 18, 2025•0 citations
Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld's ([1916]) derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not only were his predictions good, he derived exactly the same formula that would later drop out of Dirac's 1928 treatment (something not possible using 1925 Schrödinger-Heisenberg quantum mechanics). And yet the most central elements of Sommerfeld's theory were not even approximately true: his derivation leans heavily on a classical approach to elliptical orbits, including the necessary adjustments to these orbits demanded by relativity. Even physicists call Sommerfeld's success a 'miracle', which rather makes a joke of the so-called 'no miracles argument'. However, this can all be turned around. Here I argue that the realist has a story to tell vis-à-vis the discontinuities between the old and the new theory, leading to a realist defence based on sufficient continuity of relevant structure. 1Introduction2No Realist Commitment Required?3Enter the Physicists4A New Approach to the Non-relativistic Success5Relativity and Spin6Structure and Realist Commitment7Conclusion.
Probably the most dramatic historical challenge to scientific realism concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’s 1916 derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not only were his predictions good, he derived exactly the same formula that would later drop out of Dirac’s 1928 treatment (something not possible using 1925 Schrödinger–Heisenberg quantum mechanics). And yet the most central elements of Sommerfeld’s theory were not even approximately true: his derivation leans heavily on a classical approach to elliptical orbits, including the necessary adjustments to these orbits demanded by relativity. Even physicists call Sommerfeld’s success a ‘miracle’, which rather makes a joke of the so-called ‘no miracles argument’. However, this can all be turned around. Here I argue that the realist has a story to tell vis-à-vis the discontinuities between the old and the new theory, leading to a realist defence based on sufficient continuity of relevant structure.
Niels Bohr’s model of the hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms, in which the electron is allowed to revolve in certain circular orbits around the nucleus, was extended by Arnold Sommerfeld to allow for the possibility of elliptical orbits. Each elliptical orbit was constrained by two quantization conditions specified by a positive integer nφ and a non-negative integer nr. If, in the presence of the attractive Coulomb force between the electron and the nucleus, the dynamics of the atom were taken to be governed by the Newtonian laws of motion, the energy Ɛ of the two-particle system was found to be a function of the positive integer n = nr + nφ. The atomic energy levels thus exhibited an n-fold degeneracy, which would be lifted in the presence of external electric or magnetic fields, thus accounting for the fine-structure of the spectral lines emitted by the atom—phenomena observed, respectively, in the Stark effect and the Zeeman effect. Sommerfeld also examined the behavior of his elliptical orbits by allowing the revolving electron to obey Einstein’s relativistic dynamics. In this case, the energy-level degeneracies were lifted (even in the absence of external perturbations), and the elliptical orbits were found to precess around the nucleus—similarly to the precession of, say, the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun. What is astonishing about Sommerfeld’s relativistic expression of the energy Ɛ as a function of nφ and nr is that it is precisely the same expression as obtained for hydrogen and hydrogen-like atoms from Dirac’s equation, which came more than a decade later. Recall that the spin of the electron was not yet discovered when Sommerfeld developed his model, and that in Dirac’s fully-relativistic quantum mechanics, the spectral fine-structure arises from the coupling of the electron’s spin to its orbital motion. The present paper provides a streamlined yet detailed account of Sommerfeld’s elliptical orbits in hopes of bringing about a deeper appreciation for the miraculous coincidence of Sommerfeld’s result with that derived from Dirac’s equation.