As part of an attempt to establish a new understanding of the earliest applications of quantum mechanics and their importance to the overall development of quantum theory, this paper reexamines the role of research on molecular structure in the transition from the so-called old quantum theory to quantum mechanics and in the two years immediately following this shift (1926–1928). We argue on two bases against the common tendency to marginalize the contribution of these researches. First, because these applications addressed issues of longstanding interest to physicists, which they hoped, if not expected, a complete quantum theory to address, and for which they had already developed methods under the old quantum theory that would remain valid under the new mechanics. Second, because generating these applications was one of, if not the, principal means by which physicists clarified the unity, generality, and physical meaning of quantum mechanics, thereby reworking the theory into its now commonly recognized form, as well as developing an understanding of the kinds of predictions it generated and the ways in which these differed from those of the earlier classical mechanics. More broadly, we hope with this article to provide a new viewpoint on the importance of problem solving to scientific research and theory construction, one that might complement recent work on its role in science pedagogy.
As part of an attempt to establish a new understanding of the earliest applications of quantum mechanics and their importance to the overall development of quantum theory, this paper reexamines the role of research on molecular structure in the transition from the so-called old quantum theory to quantum mechanics and in the two years immediately following this shift (1926–1928). We argue on two bases against the common tendency to marginalize the contribution of these researches. First, because these applications addressed issues of longstanding interest to physicists, which they hoped, if not expected, a complete quantum theory to address, and for which they had already developed methods under the old quantum theory that would remain valid under the new mechanics. Second, because generating these applications was one of, if not the, principal means by which physicists clarified the unity, generality, and physical meaning of quantum mechanics, thereby reworking the theory into its now commonly recognized form, as well as developing an understanding of the kinds of predictions it generated and the ways in which these differed from those of the earlier classical mechanics. More broadly, we hope with this article to provide a new viewpoint on the importance of problem solving to scientific research and theory construction, one that might complement recent work on its role in science pedagogy.
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.
The history of the quantum theory has received rather uneven treatment from professional historians of science. There has been a great deal of emphasis on the early period from 1900 to 1926, during which time the classic formulations of the so-called old and new quantum theories were laid down. But there have been many important subsequent improvements in the underlying theory, its applications and interpretation. The present article attempts a more balanced perspective on the whole theory from the initial inception to its ongoing development. The subject is necessarily a technical and mathematical one, and no account, worthy of any pretensions to accuracy, can avoid reference to some technical matters. An attempt has been made to keep these to a minimum, but it is not entirely possible to eliminate them. This probably helps to explain why the more recent history has largely been dealt with by practising physicists, rather than by historians.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
Quantum mechanics is one of the most significant scientific theories in modern physics, concerned with the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic scales. By introducing concepts such as the quantization of energy, wave–particle duality, the uncertainty principle, quantum superposition, and quantum entanglement, this theory has fundamentally transformed humanity's understanding of the underlying structure of the universe. The importance of studying quantum mechanics lies not only in its ability to explain the fundamental phenomena of nature but also in its extensive contribution to the development of advanced technologies, including quantum computing, medical imaging, laser technology, secure communications, and nanotechnology. The objective of this article is to examine the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics and analyze their applications across various scientific and technological fields. This study employs a library-based research method with a descriptive–analytical approach. The required data were collected and analyzed through an extensive review of books, peer-reviewed scientific articles, and other authoritative sources in the field of quantum physics. The findings indicate that quantum mechanics, in addition to playing a fundamental role in understanding the subatomic world, constitutes one of the principal foundations for the advancement of modern technologies. Furthermore, the results suggest that the continued development of quantum technologies has the potential to exert profound impacts on scientific, industrial, and medical fields in the future. Consequently, quantum mechanics is not merely a fundamental physical theory but also a key driver of innovation and transformation in contemporary science and technology.