Niels Bohr’s “correspondence principle” is typically believed to be the requirement that in the limit of large quantum numbers (n→∞) there is a statistical agreement between the quantum and classical frequencies. A closer reading of Bohr’s writings on the correspondence principle, however, reveals that this interpretation is mistaken. Specifically, Bohr makes the following three puzzling claims: First, he claims that the correspondence principle applies to small quantum numbers as well as large (while the statistical agreement of frequencies is only for large n); second, he claims that the correspondence principle is a law of quantum theory; and third, Bohr argues that formal apparatus of matrix mechanics (the new quantum theory) can be thought of as a precise formulation of the correspondence principle. With further textual evidence, I offer an alternative interpretation of the correspondence principle in terms of what I call Bohr’s selection rule. I conclude by showing how this new interpretation of the correspondence principle readily makes sense of Bohr’s three puzzling claims.
Niels Bohr’s “correspondence principle” is typically believed to be the requirement that in the limit of large quantum numbers (n→∞) there is a statistical agreement between the quantum and classical frequencies. A closer reading of Bohr’s writings on the correspondence principle, however, reveals that this interpretation is mistaken. Specifically, Bohr makes the following three puzzling claims: First, he claims that the correspondence principle applies to small quantum numbers as well as large (while the statistical agreement of frequencies is only for large n); second, he claims that the correspondence principle is a law of quantum theory; and third, Bohr argues that formal apparatus of matrix mechanics (the new quantum theory) can be thought of as a precise formulation of the correspondence principle. With further textual evidence, I offer an alternative interpretation of the correspondence principle in terms of what I call Bohr’s selection rule. I conclude by showing how this new interpretation of the correspondence principle readily makes sense of Bohr’s three puzzling claims.
A conception of the Correspondence Principle which Bohr deployed implicitly in developing a new theory of atomic constitution in 1913, is made explicit through an extensive examination of his classic paper of that year. Arguments are considered which purport to show that the application of the principle must be restricted to few isolated cases. These arguments are either defused or rejected. In particular an extensive review of issues concerning the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is made to counter the claims that an insurmountable conceptual gap exits between the tenets of this theory and those of Classical Mechanics which makes it logically impossible for the latter to be regarded as the 'limiting case' of the former. In the light of a particular interpretation adopted and defended, a proposal is made that suggests that the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of Classical Mechanics, as well as Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, can be viewed as 'limiting cases' of Quantum Mechanics. Having established a case for the global validity of the requirement imposed on physics by the Correspondence Principle, it is then argued that this requirement is indispensable if a particular brand of realism is adopted for the interpretation of theories in physics. Taking on board the assumption that an ultimate theory exists which mirrors the underlying physical constitution of the world, it is subsequently argued that the intertheory order established by the global imposition of the principle in physics, can be used to solve the problem of rational theory choice for this brand of realism.
Planck formulated the correspondence principle between quantum and classical mechanics as the limit in which the Planck constant h goes to zero. Bohr formulated the correspondence principle to be the limit of large quantum numbers. For three common quantum mechanical systems it is shown that in order for eigenvalues of quantum mechanical observables to have meaningful classical limits, it is necessary to take the double limit as both the Planck constant goes to zero and the quantum number goes to infinity, subject to the constraint that their product is equal to an appropriate classical action. This synthesis of the Bohr and Planck formulations of the correspondence principle is also used to show that the quantum mechanical transition frequency between adjacent levels approaches the corresponding classical frequency. The features these systems have in common in their classical limit are explained by general considerations of the classical limit of the Schrödinger equation.
Bohr's 1913 trilogy marks a turning point in the history of quantum physics for its introduction of the planetary model of the atom and its derivation of the Balmer formula for the hydrogen spectrum. It has been studied in the seminal study 1 and is discussed more recently by 2-4. Famously, Bohr's classical paper made two utterly non-classical assumptions, according to which electrons orbited the nucleus in stationary states without losing energy while they emitted radiation only in transitions between these states. As I will argue in this paper, Bohr's 1913 trilogy made a third crucial major assumption, which entailed key elements of the correspondence principle formulated five years later. This third assumption postulated a relation between the mechanical frequency of a stationary state and the radiation frequency in analogy with classical radiation theory. Though this relation was in direct conflict with the key assumptions of stationary states and transitions, Bohr's reasoning—as I want to show—relied heavily on it, and a major part of his initial work was devoted to clarifying how the connection of radiation and motion, the stationary states and the transitions were interrelated. The main aim of Bohr's 1913 trilogy was to derive the Balmer formula from the newly-proposed atomic model. After the introduction of the stationary states and the frequency condition, the derivation follows a three-step recipe consisting of the calculation of the energy from classical mechanics, the quantization of the energy and finally the calculation of the spectral frequencies via the Planck Relation . Given the simplicity of the system considered and the assumption of the stationary states and the frequency condition, the first and last step did not call for an extended argument and Bohr simply gave the relevant equations. As Bohr explicitly acknowledged, the classical radiation mechanism was replaced entirely by the fundamental assumptions of his model: radiation is produced through a transition between stationary states. Though 1 was in direct conflict with the physical assumptions of his model, Bohr's thinking nonetheless depended crucially on it. This is emphasized by the fact that Bohr knew that he could quantize the orbits on the assumption that the angular momentum of the atom is equal to .1 While 1 could not be interpreted as a description of a physical process in a classical sense, Bohr kept the equation and explored its conceptual significance within his new quantum theory of the atom. This was a vital concern for Bohr, first, because he needed a justification; second, because he hoped for insights on how to develop the theory by investigating which parts of classical radiation theory could still be used within the new model. The investigation of this question loomed large in Bohr's 1913 paper and continued to play an important role in his early work on the quantum theory of the atom. For the preceding argument Bohr justified the radiation-motion relation by means of a comparison between the radiation process and the motion of the electron before and after the radiation process. This justification itself was not very convincing: it rested solely on its empirical success and the questionable mean-value argument, and Bohr decided to give a second derivation of the Balmer formula to add further plausibility to 1. Already his first hand waving argument, however, points to some of the central aspects of his attempt to connect radiation and electronic motion: In light of the missing radiation mechanism in quantum theory, Bohr tried to recover a relation between radiation and electronic motion within quantum theory analogous to the one in classical radiation theory. He refrained from proposing a new hypothetical radiation mechanism and shied away from such assumptions until 1924. Instead he resorted to experimental, mathematical and intertheoretical arguments to construct a formal relation between radiation and matter and aimed to get insights into the properties of a radiation mechanism yet to be found. In order to be equivalent to the empirical Balmer formula this function has to be , as Bohr showed by comparing the frequency of a quantum transition and the orbiting frequencies of the stationary states in the case of high quantum numbers, in which classical electrodynamics and quantum theory predict the same numerical value for the radiation frequency. This result implied the consistency of his major assumptions, the radiation-motion connection and the Balmer formula, which entered as an empirical constraint. For the argument the high quantum number limit plays an important role as it renders the condition for the consistency precisely and shows that the assumption of a relation between radiation and motion within quantum theory leads to the agreement of quantum theory and classical theory in this limit. The possibility of an emission of a radiation of such a frequency may also be interpreted from analogy with ordinary electrodynamics, as an electron rotating round a nucleus in an elliptical orbit will emit a radiation which according to Fourier's theorem can be resolved into homogeneous components, the frequencies of which are [5, 14]. This recapturing of the relation between orbital frequency and the radiation frequency is part of Bohr's conclusion: While classical electrodynamics in general is in contradiction with the basic assumptions of the Bohr model, the classical relation between the frequency of radiation and the mechanical frequency can be established at least in the classical limit as a formal relation. To show this is as important to Bohr as to show that his new model predicts the correct Balmer formula. As such the classical relation between motion and radiation is indispensable for Bohr's early work as a touchstone for his two derivations and it is of vital concern in the attempt to explore the break and the continuity with classical radiation theory. The radiation-motion relation continued to play an important role in Bohr's works following the 1913 trilogy; after he had finished his initial papers Bohr adapted his model to account for the Stark and Zeeman effects. The relation between radiation and motion played a major role in the initial work establishing the Bohr model and its extension to the Stark and Zeeman effect. Stemming from classical radiation theory this relation was in contradiction with the major assumptions of the new model of the atom; nonetheless, Bohr's thinking relied heavily on the radiation-motion connection both in establishing his results and in clarifying the foundations of the new model. Compared with his later statements on the correspondence principle there is a remarkable resemblance between the statements in 1913/1914 and the correspondence idea between 1918 and 1923: In both cases the relation between the orbiting frequency and the frequency of radiation and the asymptotic limit between quantum theory and classical electrodynamics were at the core of Bohr's reasoning. Also the idea of the Fourier series is mentioned, which would become ever more important in the development of the correspondence idea.5 While the core elements of the later principle are already apparent in the early phase, they are used very differently in both phases. This shift in the usage of the basic correspondence relation was due to the development of the quantum theory of the atom as a whole. The physicists who developed Bohr's initial model mainly extended the description of the stationary states to more complicated systems with the help of celestial mechanics. In this context the relation between the radiation frequency and the orbiting frequency was replaced by Sommerfeld's quantum condition: . The new relation did not involve any assumptions on the radiation process or the interaction between radiation and matter, it was a statement about the action of a mechanical system and its quantization. The fruitfulness of this new quantization condition led physicists including Bohr to abandon the early quantization procedure. Through this abandonment, the frequency condition became the sole relation of radiation theory, which was needed to determine the series formulae describing atomic spectra. Whereas the loss of the classical radiation mechanism had been a vital concern for Bohr in his early works, this was no longer the case in the development of the quantum theory of the atom. The relation should, however, resurface in Bohr's thinking about the transitions in quantum theory and in this form led to the formulation of the correspondence principle.
Abstract The development of the complex of assumptions and methods now referred to as the “old quantum theory” mainly took place in the first five years following the introduction of the Bohr atomic model in 1913. Three guiding principles emerged that were used, sometimes in overlapping ways, to explain the flood of spectroscopic data that needed to be explained. First, quantization rules (or conditions) were proposed to single out the allowed orbital motions of electrons in atoms. These rules were derived in various forms by Planck, Sommerfeld, and Wilson, but were put into their most general form by Schwarzschild, who recognized the underlying principle as the quantization of the action variables of a multiply periodic classical system. Second, the special role of the action variables in quantization was given convincing support by the transfer of the adiabatic principle of mechanics to quantum theory (work primarily due to Paul Ehrenfest). Third, the correspondence principle, or statement of asymptotic coincidence of quantum and classical theory in the limit of large quantum numbers, originally introduced by Bohr in 1913 as a supporting argument for his quantization of angular momentum in his theory of the hydrogen atom, was extended by Bohr and Kramers to provide selection rules and approximate intensity predictions evening the regime low quantum numbers.
It has often been remarked that Bohr's writings on the interpretation of quantum mechanics make scant reference to the mathematical formalism of quantum theory; and it has not infrequently been suggested that this is another symptom of the general vagueness, obscurity and perhaps even incoherence of Bohr's ideas. Recent years have seen a reappreciation of Bohr, however. In this article we broadly follow this "rehabilitation program". We offer what we think is a simple and coherent reading of Bohr's statements about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, basing ourselves on primary sources and making use of and filling lacunas in|recent secondary literature. We argue that Bohr's views on quantum mechanics are more firmly connected to the structure of the quantum formalism than usually acknowledged, even though Bohr's explicit use of this formalism remains on a rather global and qualitative level. In our reading, Bohr's pronouncements on the meaning of quantum mechanics should first of all be seen as responses to concrete physical problems, rather than as expressions of a preconceived philosophical doctrine. In our final section we attempt a more detailed comparison with the formalism and conclude that Bohr's interpretation is not far removed from present-day non-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Based on the Bohr's correspondence principle it is shown that relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics may be considered as generalizations of classical mechanics. A comparative description of relativistic and classical mechanics is given using three main principles: the definition of momentum, the main law of dynamics (Newton's second law) and the law of conservation of energy. The difference of relativistic mechanics from classical mechanics is due to the new definition of momentum that is proportional to energy and velocity. It is shown that new relativistic laws of dynamics make it necessary to change kinematical relations of classical mechanics such as the law of velocity composition, coordinate transformation etc. It is demonstrated that quantum mechanics may be considered as a rational statistical generalization of classical mechanics. Statistical conformities in quantum mechanics are fundamental and are not due to the incomplete information about the system. From all possible multi-parametric statistical models the root model is most remarkable. Constructing of a root multi-parametric statistical model leads to obtaining such frequencies and base functions in Fourier decomposition so that classical laws of motion are fulfilled in average. Root model leads to a consistent condition that connects eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a mechanical system that is described by a matrix equation of Heisenberg. Matrix equation of Heisenberg leads to an operator equation. The solution of the operator equation may be considered as the construction of Hamiltonian of the system and a move to the Schrodinger representation. The considered approach naturally leads to the notion of momentum operator, fundamental commutation relations, density matrix and Liouville equation construction etc.