Abstract It is well known that the experimental facts of atomic physics necessitate a departure from the classical theory of electrodynamics in the description of atomic phenomena. This departure takes the form, in Bohr’s theory, of the special assumptions of the existence of stationary states of an atom, in which it does not radiate, and of certain rules, called quantum conditions, which fix the stationary states and the frequencies of the radiation emitted during transitions between them. These assumptions are quite foreign to the classical theory, but have been very successful in the interpretation of a restricted region of atomic phenomena. The only way in which the classical theory is used is through the assumption that the classical laws hold for the description of the motion in the stationary states, although they fail completely during transitions, and the assumption, called the Correspondence Principle, that the classical theory gives the right results in the limiting case when the action per cycle of the system is large compared to Planck’s constant h, and in certain other special cases. In a recent paper Heisenberg puts forward a new theory, which suggests that it is not the equations of classical mechanics that are in any way at fault, but that the mathematical operations by which physical results are deduced from them require modification. All the information supplied by the classical theory can thus be made use of in the new theory.
Abstract It is well known that the experimental facts of atomic physics necessitate a departure from the classical theory of electrodynamics in the description of atomic phenomena. This departure takes the form, in Bohr’s theory, of the special assumptions of the existence of stationary states of an atom, in which it does not radiate, and of certain rules, called quantum conditions, which fix the stationary states and the frequencies of the radiation emitted during transitions between them. These assumptions are quite foreign to the classical theory, but have been very successful in the interpretation of a restricted region of atomic phenomena. The only way in which the classical theory is used is through the assumption that the classical laws hold for the description of the motion in the stationary states, although they fail completely during transitions, and the assumption, called the Correspondence Principle, that the classical theory gives the right results in the limiting case when the action per cycle of the system is large compared to Planck’s constant h, and in certain other special cases. In a recent paper Heisenberg puts forward a new theory, which suggests that it is not the equations of classical mechanics that are in any way at fault, but that the mathematical operations by which physical results are deduced from them require modification. All the information supplied by the classical theory can thus be made use of in the new theory.
Abstract The principles of the quantum are, as is well known, not compatible with classical dynamics and electrodynamics, nor, indeed, with the extended dynamics and electrodynamics of the theory of relativity, although they do not appear to violate the principles of the theory of relativity themselves. The chief hypothesis of the quantum theory, and the one which is most at variance with classical theories, is the hypothesis of stationary states, and this is so well established by experimental evidence that it can hardly be doubted that some parts of the classical electrodynamics, at any rate, will have to be given up or modified. In the present communication, a more general form of the postulate, put fonvard by the writer some years ago, will be described, which facilitates the application of the quantum theory to problems such as that of the Zeeman phenomenon, involving magnetic fields, and restricts the region within which the classical and quantum theories are in conflict. The postulates of the quantum theory, in its present state, are as follows:— (i) Atoms, or other systems contemplated by the quantum theory, can only exist normally in one or other of certain states called stationary states. While in one of its stationary states the atom does not emit or absorb energy. This is the chief postulate of Bohr’s theory of spectra.
Abstract Although the classical electrodynamic theory meets with a considerable amount of success in the description of many atomic phenomena, it fails completely on certain fundamental points. It has long been thought that the way out of this difficulty lies in the fact that there is one basic assumption of the classical theory which is false, and that if this assumption were removed and replaced by something more general, the whole of atomic theory would follow quite naturally. Until quite recently, however, one has had no idea of what this assumption could be. A recent paper by Heisenberg* provides the clue to the solution of this question, and forms the basis of a new quantum theory. According to Heisenberg, if x and y are two functions of the co-ordinates and momenta of a dynamical system, then in general xy is not equal to yx. Instead of the commutative law of multiplication, the canonical variables qrpr (r = 1...u) of a system of u degrees of freedom satisfy the quantum conditions, which were given by the author in the form qrqs ― qsqr = 0 prps ― pspr = 0 qrps ― psqr = 0 qrpr ― prqr = ih (r ≠ s) } (1) where i is a root of — 1 and h is a real universal constant, equal to (2π)-1 times the usual Planck’s constant. These equations are just sufficient to enable one to calculate xy — yx when x and y are given functions of the p’s and q’s, and are therefore capable of replacing the classical commutative law of multiplication. They appear to be the simplest assumptions one could make which would give a workable theory.
Abstract The steady development of the quantum theory that has taken place during the present century was made possible only by continual reference to the Correspondence Principle of Bohr, according to which, classical theory can give valuable information about quantum phenomena in spite of the essential differences in the fundamental ideas of the two theories. A masterful advance was made by Heisenberg in 1925, who showed how equations of classical physics could be taken over in a formal way and made to apply to quantities of importance in quantum theory, thereby establishing the Correspondence Principle on a quantitative basis and laying the foundations of the new Quantum Mechanics. Heisenberg’s scheme was found to fit wonderfully well with the Hamiltonian theory of classical mechanics and enabled one to apply to quantum theory all the information that classical theory supplies, in so far as this information is consistent with the Hamiltonian form. Thus one was able to build up a satisfactory quantum mechanics for dealing with any dynamical system composed of interacting particles, provided the interaction could be expressed by means of an energy term to be added to the Hamiltonian function. This does not exhaust the sphere of usefulness of the classical theory. Classical electrodynamics, in its accurate (restricted) relativistic form, teaches us that the idea of an interaction energy between particles is only an approximation and should be replaced by the idea of each particle emitting waves which travel outward with a finite velocity and influence the other particles in passing over them. We must find a way of taking over this new information into the quantum theory and must set up a relativistic quantum mechanics, before we can dispense with the Correspondence Principle.
Abstract The new quantum mechanics consists of a scheme of equations which are very closely analogous to the equations of classical mechanics, with the fundamental difference that the dynamical variables do not obey the commutative law of multiplication, but satisfy instead the well-known quantum conditions. It follows that one cannot suppose the dynamical variables to be ordinary numbers (c-numbers), but may call them numbers of a special type (q-numbers). The theory shows that these q-numbers can in general be represented by matrices whose elements are c-numbers (functions of a time parameter). When one has performed the calculations with the q-numbers and obtained all the matrices one wants, the question arises how one is to get physical results from the theory, i. e., how can one obtain c-numbers from the theory that one can compare with experimental values ? Hitherto this has been done with the help of a number of special assumptions. In Heisenberg’s original matrix mechanics it was assumed that the elements of the diagonal matrix that represents the energy are the energy levels of the system, and the elements of the matrix that represents the total polarisation, which are periodic functions of the time, determine the frequencies and intensities of the spectral lines in analogy to the classical theory. Schrodinger’s wave representation of the quantum mechanics has provided new ways of obtaining physical results from the theory, based on the assumption that the square of the amplitude of the wave function can in certain cases be interpreted as a probability. From this assumption one can, for instance, work out the probability of a transition being produced in a system (or the number of transitions produced in an assembly of like systems) by an arbitrary external perturbing force, and can thus, by supposing the perturbation to consist of incident radiation, obtain directly Einstein’s B coefficients. Again in Born’s treatment of collision problems it is assumed that the square of the amplitude of the wave function scattered in any direction determines the probability of the colliding electron (or other body) being scattered in that direction.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
The nature of the problem The quantum world is inexplicable in classical terms. The predictions pertaining to the interaction of matter and light embodied in Newton's laws for the motion of particles and Maxwell's equations governing the propagation of electromagnetic fields are in flat contradiction with the experimental facts at the microscopic scale. A key feature of quantum effects is their apparent indeterminism, that individual atomic events are unpredictable, uncontrollable and literally seem to have no cause. Regularities emerge only when one considers a large ensemble of such events. This indeed is generally considered to constitute the heart of the conceptual problem posed by quantum phenomena, necessitating a fundamental revision of the deterministic classical world view. Some of the principal phenomena, among those discussed in this book, are as follows: ( a ) Self-interference: a beam of electrons sent one at a time through a barrier containing two apertures builds up through a series of localized detection events on a screen an interference pattern characteristic of waves (cf. the frontispiece and §5.1). ( b ) Tunnelling: an α-particle trapped in a nucleus can pass through a potential barrier in a manner forbidden to a classical particle (§5.3). ( c ) The stability of matter: atoms and molecules are found to exist only in certain discrete, or ‘stationary’, energy states. For this reason they do not ‘collapse’, the result predicted by classical electrodynamics. During transitions between stationary states (quantum jumps) an atom exchanges a discrete quantity of energy with the electromagnetic field (§§4.5, 7.6). […]