Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics Lecture: Exploring Flatland with Cold Atoms

Randall G. Hulet

John E. Thomas

Guglielmo Maria Tino

Don Shillady

We tried to introduce the idea of quantization in Chapter 9 as a completion of a one semester course. However, we skipped over some really interesting events in the history of Science between 1900 and 1913 when Bohr derived the quantized energy of the H atom. First we want to carry out the 1901 Planck derivation of the formula for blackbody radiation [1]. Many texts just show the curve, write e¼ hn, and move on. As a student, this author found that limited explanation very frustrating since energy quantization is a fundamental concept. Even among graduate texts in quantum mechanics, we are aware of only one that does the complete treatment which we will draw upon for the mathematics [2] but supplement with a narrative that we have found helpful to students over the years. Then in 1905, Albert Einstein (1879-1955), one of the most influential scientists of all time, gave an explanation of the photoelectric effect [3] for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1921. Even reducing our list to essential topics, we need to discuss the Davisson-Germer experiment [4]. The photoelectric effect introduces the idea that light waves can act as particles while the Davisson-Germer experiment showed that particles can act like waves and confirmed the De Broglie equation [5]. However, you can be assured that it will not be as difficult as you might have anticipated and if you can absorb the meaning of just these three key experiments you should be able to begin thinking in terms of quantum mechanics! Despite our slow historical development, this is 2010 and we have to get to the twenty-first century somehow!

Andrew Whitaker

The 1927 Solvay Congress In Chapter 4, we left Einstein in early 1926, cautiously optimistic that Schrödinger's scheme might provide what Heisenberg's could not, and did not attempt to – a mathematical description of atomic processes that could also give a physical picture of what was actually occurring. But the demonstration that the two formalisms were equivalent severely dented such optimism. It was still possible for Einstein to prefer Schrödinger's version as offering more hope for future physical interpretation. Thus it is interesting to review the recommendations Einstein made for Nobel Prizes [1]. In 1928, Einstein suggested that Heisenberg and Schrödinger might share a prize, adding ‘With respect to achievement, each one … deserves a full Nobel prize although their theories in the main coincide in regard to reality content.’ However, Einstein was cautious enough to add that ‘it still seems problematic how much will ultimately survive of [their] grandiosely conceived theories’, and gave precedence to de Broglie, also mentioning Davisson, Germer, Born and Jordan. By 1931, more convinced that quantum theory would last (and with de Broglie the 1929 prizewinner), Einstein plumped for Heisenberg and Schrödinger, commenting that ‘In my opinion, this theory contains without doubt a piece of the ultimate truth. The achievements of both men are independent of each other, and so significant that it would not be appropriate to divide a Nobel prize between them.’

Anders Kastberg