Cambridge University Press eBooks

From the old quantum theory to the new quantum theory: reconsidering Kuhn's incommensurability

Michela Massimi

Published Aug 4, 2005• 0 citations

Abstract

The transition from the atomic core model to the electron's spin, the debate on the adequacy of semi-classical models, and the lack of an appropriate scientific terminology are symptomatic of the revolutionary transition from the old quantum theory to the new quantum theory around 1921–5. As such, they provide us with a foil for rethinking Kuhn's view on scientific revolutions. In this view, scientific revolutions are distinctively accompanied by incommensurability between paradigms, or – to use Kuhn's later terminology – untranslatability between scientific lexicons. In the light of the historical reconstruction offered in Chapter 2, I shall here argue for the prospective intelligibility of the revolutionary transition around 1924 via a two-step argument that (1) reconsiders Kuhn's notion of incommensurability as untranslatability (Section 3.2), and (2) offers a positive account of the way the electron's Zweideutigkeit and the exclusion rule came out of the old quantum theory (Section 3.3). The revolutionary transition from the old quantum theory to the new quantum theory On 5 November 1980, Thomas Kuhn delivered a lecture at Harvard University entitled ‘The crisis of the old quantum theory: 1922–25’. In his distinctive style of reasoning, Kuhn presented the rise of quantum mechanics after 1925 as the result of a period of crisis of the old quantum theory between 1922 and 1925. The old quantum theory – in Kuhn's view – cannot be regarded as a full-blown theory but rather as a set of algorithms to solve problems and paradoxes.

DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511535352.007

Related papers

Quantum Revolution or Revolutionary Transformations?

Vladislav E. Terekhovich

The centenary of quantum mechanics brings into focus the question of the accuracy of established terminology for describing the radical transformations that occurred. Critical analysis reveals that the term “quantum revolution” fosters a simplified perception of a single, pivotal turn in physics during the 1920s and 1930s and provides a superficial account of the actual changes over the past 100 years. This article critically re-examines the established term “quantum revolution” from the perspective of its conceptual limitations in describing the real changes of the last century. Arguments are presented for its partial replacement with the more flexible concept of “revolutionary transformations in quantum theory and its interpretations”, which emphasises the processual and multifaceted nature of these changes. The methodological foundation of this research is the distinction between two types of interpretations of quantum theory: “pragmatic” interpretations, which focus on connecting the formalism with experiment, and “explanatory” interpretations, which aim to form conceptions of quantum reality. The application of the concept of a quantum revolution is justified for the pragmatic interpretation, which was formed in 1925–1927 and later became established as the orthodox view, but not for interpretations of the explanatory type. Three initial strategies for preserving classical language in the description of quantum phenomena are identified: classical realism, quantum dualism, and instrumentalism. The analysis addresses persistent historiographical myths surrounding the Copenhagen interpretation – namely, that it is inherent in the postulates of quantum theory, and that it is inherently instrumentalist and subjectivist. A distinction is shown between the orthodox (pragmatic) and the Copenhagen (explanatory) interpretations. Particular attention is paid to the realistic turn in explanatory interpretations (1952–1958), largely associated with the later works of Heisenberg. It is concluded that the development of quantum theory is characterised not by a single revolution, but by a series of transformations of varying revolutionary intensity, many of which occurred in parallel and are still far from complete.

Epistemology & Philosophy of ScienceJan 1, 20251 citation

The Historical and Physical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Robert Golub, S. K. Lamoreaux

Abstract Following the path by which humanity learned quantum mechanics can lead to an improved understanding of the theory and the origins of its perceived limitations. Our goal is to retrace the development by investigating primary sources, including original published papers and letters, with attention to their timing and influence. Quantum mechanics began in 1900 with the introduction of Planck’s constant, which lead to the “old” quantum theory and Bohr’s model of the atom. With the introduction of matter waves in 1924, a second more intense period began. By 1928 the complete fundamental structure of quantum mechanics was established with the introduction of the Schrödinger equation, the proof of its equivalence to Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, and the introduction of the relativistic Dirac equation. The theory retains the same essential form today, fueling the technological revolution that began in the last century. We culminate with an introduction to quantum information and computing. This completely new physical scientific paradigm was developed largely in Germany during a period of enormous social, economic, and political upheaval—in a hostile intellectual environment—that parallels the overturning of classical physics. It is striking that all the problems debated today were immediately recognized by the founders of the theory and instructive to see how they dealt with the various issues. We emphasize the centrality of the often neglected second quantization form of the theory for questions of interpretation and give a detailed examination of von Neumann’s widely misunderstood hidden variable theorem.

Feb 28, 202310 citations

Conclusion: Arch and Scaffold

Anthony Duncan A, Michel Janssen B

Abstract This chapter elaborates and reflects on the authors’ use of the “arch-and-scaffold” metaphor to characterize the transition from classical mechanics, via the old quantum theory, to modern quantum mechanics. It discusses in detail why this metaphor does justice to both continuous and discontinuous aspects of this transition, as well the various ways in which the metaphor applies to the contents of both volumes of the work. It contrasts the account of this transition based on the “arch-and-scaffold” metaphor with an account based on Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm shift. This shift occurs, resulting in the understanding in which the continuous aspects of the transition from classical to quantum mechanics are lost.

Aug 17, 20230 citations

Successes and Failures of the Old Quantum Theory Revisited

Anthony Duncan A, Michel Janssen B

Abstract This chapter discusses how the new quantum theory took care of some of the failures of the old quantum theory and how it put the old theory’s successes on a firmer basis. Examples in the former category are the new theory’s resolution of the problems the old theory ran into with the anomalous Zeeman effect and helium (giving the wrong value for its ground state energy and being unable to explain the spectroscopic divide between ortho- and parahelium). Examples in the latter category are the fine structure in hydrogen and the Stark effect. The chapter also discusses some examples of Kuhn losses, instances where the new theory (at least initially) could not account for phenomena explained by the old one.

Aug 17, 20230 citations

Conclusions

Jonathan Allday

From a historical point of view, a distinction can be drawn between ‘old quantum theory’ and the full quantum theory that we now use. Old quantum theory was in essence a patchwork, cobbled together by incorporating some quantum ideas into essentially classical physics. The work of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and Sommerfeld can be bracketed as old quantum theory. This classification is not meant to undermine the tremendous achievement that old quantum theory represents, but simply to underline its standing as a stage on the way to a fully formed quantum theory, which emerged from the work of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, and Dirac. The development of the photon concept is a key example of a radically new idea gradually gaining acceptance. The process works via a growing realization that more and more things can be explained in the context of the photon model.

CRC Press eBooksSep 21, 20220 citations

Quantum rules

Jim Baggott

Abstract The development of quantum theory was driven by a consistently repeated failure of classical physics to accommodate the results of ever more sophisticated experiments on the microphysical world of radiation, elementary particles, atoms, and molecules. Each break-through in the development of the theory’s conceptual structure was followed (sometimes very rapidly) by new experimental data that just did not fit, pointing to the need for yet further refinements. As is typical in such a radical change in the approach to acquiring scientific understanding, old and often unsuitable concepts were forced into service to meet the needs of the new description. Confusion reigned. The major figures in the theory’s early development took up radically different positions on the theory’s interpretation, and, as we will see, the debate became polarized in ways that remain relevant today.

Nov 6, 20030 citations