Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

From Appearance to Reality (Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrödinger, Dirac)

James Hopwood Jeans

Published Jul 20, 2009• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The new physics just described was still based largely on Newtonian ideas. Indeed, in its theoretical aspects, it might not unfairly be described as a final attempt to explain the world in materialistic terms—as particles being pushed and pulled about in space and time. Nevertheless, the new physics had found it necessary to abolish most of the forces of pushing and pulling, replacing the gradual changes of motion of the particles under these forces by sudden and unpredictable jumps. These appeared to involve violations of the law of causality, both in the disintegration of radioactive atoms and also in the internal changes of ordinary atoms. We seemed to see Fate defying this law as she picked out certain atoms for disintegration or collapse and, by her apparently capricious acts, sent the universe along one path or another according to her whim. On such lines the new physics had explained many phenomena which had hitherto seemed inexplicable, but it had by no means met with complete success. For instance, while it gave a perfect interpretation of the simplest spectrum of all, namely that of the hydrogen atom, it failed with more complex spectra. This was not necessarily a fatal objection; a few emendations and possibly a few new ad hoc assumptions might have effected a complete reconciliation, although this seems improbable.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511694400.007

Related papers

The New World of Modern Physics

James Hopwood Jeans

Primitive man must have found nature singularly puzzling and intricate. The simplest phenomena could be trusted to recur indefinitely; an unsupported body invariably fell, a stone thrown into water sank, while a piece of wood floated. Yet other more complicated phenomena shewed no such uniformity—the lightning struck one tree in the grove while its neighbour of similar growth and equal size escaped unharmed; one month the new moon brought fair weather, the next month foul. Confronted with a natural world which was to all appearances as capricious as himself, man's first impulse was to create Nature in his own image; he attributed the seemingly erratic and unordered course of the universe to the whims and passions of gods, or of benevolent or malevolent lesser spirits. Only after much study did the great principle of causation emerge. In time it was found to dominate the whole of inanimate nature: a cause which could be completely isolated in its action was found invariably to produce the same effect. What happened at any instant did not depend on the volitions of extraneous beings, but followed inevitably by inexorable laws from the state of things at the preceding instant. And this state of things had in turn been inevitably determined by an earlier state, and so on indefinitely, so that the whole course of events had been unalterably determined by the state in which the world found itself at the first instant of its history; once this had been fixed, nature could move only along one road to a predestined end.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 20, 2009•0 citations

Towards Quantum Mechanics

Amita Dua, Chayannika Singh

The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .

CRC Press eBooks•Mar 15, 2024•2 citations

Towards Quantum Mechanics

Amita Dua

The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .

CRC Press eBooks•Nov 6, 2025•0 citations

Introduction

Keith Hannabuss

Abstract In the first quarter of this century physicists were slowly and somewhat reluctantly forced to realize that the view of the physical world, so painstakingly built up over the preceding four centuries, was in serious need of revision. In particular, the laws that governed the motion of particles on the atomic scale were not those of classical mechanics. Physics found itself catapulted into the strange new world of quantum theory in which the very notion of position or velocity of a particle became blurred and statistical laws dominated everything.

•Mar 20, 1997•0 citations

The Copenhagen Interpretation

Jonathan Allday

With this sort of confusion among his close colleagues, it’s surprising that Bohr had the range of in uence that he did. Perhaps this was due to his personal magnetism and conviction. As Pauli pointed out: “Bohr himself integrated, in lectures at international congresses and at those carefully planned conferences in Copenhagen, the diverse scienti c standpoints and epistemological attitudes of the physicists, and thereby imparted to all participants in these conferences, the feeling of belonging, in spite of all their dissensions to one large family.”1

CRC Press eBooks•Mar 3, 2009•2 citations

A Classical Approach to the De Broglie-Wave Based on Bohr’s H-Atom-Model

Thomas Allmendinger

The atom model of Niels Bohr is commonly considered as antiquated even if it describes the atomic spectrum of hydrogen quite accurately. The later published relation of Louis De Broglie could arithmetically be implemented into Bohr’s formulation, leading to the concept of standing waves as the existence cause of excited electron states. However, at that time it was not possible to find well defined electron trajectories being classically describable. As a consequence, the »quantum mechanics« were developed by several authors, particularly by Schrodinger and by Heisenberg, but delivering a hardly under¬standable formalism where the classical physical laws appear being abrogated while abstract terms replace concrete and imaginable ones, abandoning the particle perception of mass points. In particular, Heisenberg’s »uncertainty principle« and the assumption of state probabilities seem to be in a striking variance to the idea of standing waves. In contrast, a formulation is given here which exactly describes the electron trajectories in the exited states solely by applying classical physical laws. Firstly, the original Bohr-model - in combination with De Broglie’s relation - is rolled up. From this formula system a vibration frequency - corresponding to the De-Broglie frequency – is deduced which is n-times larger than the rotation frequency of the Bohr-model. Furthermore, a direct coherence between that vibration-frequency of the electron and the frequency of the involved light is evident being explainable as a resonance effect. Then, a three-dimensional model is proposed where the electron oscillates and pulses perpendicularly to a virtual rotation plane i.e. rotating around a vertical axis, accompanied by a perpetual energy exchange between potential and kinetic energy. This leads at the excited, metastable energy states to well-defined, three-dimensional and wavy trajectories winding up on a surface similar to the one of a hyperboloid, whereas at the ground state the trajectory is planar and stable.

International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics•Aug 1, 2016•5 citations
The new physics just described was still based largely on Newtonian ideas. Indeed, in its theoretical aspects, it might not unfairly be described as a final attempt to explain the world in materialistic terms—as particles being pushed and pulled about in space and time. Nevertheless, the new physics had found it necessary to abolish most of the forces of pushing and pulling, replacing the gradual changes of motion of the particles under these forces by sudden and unpredictable jumps. These appeared to involve violations of the law of causality, both in the disintegration of radioactive atoms and also in the internal changes of ordinary atoms. We seemed to see Fate defying this law as she picked out certain atoms for disintegration or collapse and, by her apparently capricious acts, sent the universe along one path or another according to her whim. On such lines the new physics had explained many phenomena which had hitherto seemed inexplicable, but it had by no means met with complete success. For instance, while it gave a perfect interpretation of the simplest spectrum of all, namely that of the hydrogen atom, it failed with more complex spectra. This was not necessarily a fatal objection; a few emendations and possibly a few new ad hoc assumptions might have effected a complete reconciliation, although this seems improbable.
Primitive man must have found nature singularly puzzling and intricate. The simplest phenomena could be trusted to recur indefinitely; an unsupported body invariably fell, a stone thrown into water sank, while a piece of wood floated. Yet other more complicated phenomena shewed no such uniformity—the lightning struck one tree in the grove while its neighbour of similar growth and equal size escaped unharmed; one month the new moon brought fair weather, the next month foul. Confronted with a natural world which was to all appearances as capricious as himself, man's first impulse was to create Nature in his own image; he attributed the seemingly erratic and unordered course of the universe to the whims and passions of gods, or of benevolent or malevolent lesser spirits. Only after much study did the great principle of causation emerge. In time it was found to dominate the whole of inanimate nature: a cause which could be completely isolated in its action was found invariably to produce the same effect. What happened at any instant did not depend on the volitions of extraneous beings, but followed inevitably by inexorable laws from the state of things at the preceding instant. And this state of things had in turn been inevitably determined by an earlier state, and so on indefinitely, so that the whole course of events had been unalterably determined by the state in which the world found itself at the first instant of its history; once this had been fixed, nature could move only along one road to a predestined end.
The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .
The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .
Abstract In the first quarter of this century physicists were slowly and somewhat reluctantly forced to realize that the view of the physical world, so painstakingly built up over the preceding four centuries, was in serious need of revision. In particular, the laws that governed the motion of particles on the atomic scale were not those of classical mechanics. Physics found itself catapulted into the strange new world of quantum theory in which the very notion of position or velocity of a particle became blurred and statistical laws dominated everything.
With this sort of confusion among his close colleagues, it’s surprising that Bohr had the range of in uence that he did. Perhaps this was due to his personal magnetism and conviction. As Pauli pointed out: “Bohr himself integrated, in lectures at international congresses and at those carefully planned conferences in Copenhagen, the diverse scienti c standpoints and epistemological attitudes of the physicists, and thereby imparted to all participants in these conferences, the feeling of belonging, in spite of all their dissensions to one large family.”1
The atom model of Niels Bohr is commonly considered as antiquated even if it describes the atomic spectrum of hydrogen quite accurately. The later published relation of Louis De Broglie could arithmetically be implemented into Bohr’s formulation, leading to the concept of standing waves as the existence cause of excited electron states. However, at that time it was not possible to find well defined electron trajectories being classically describable. As a consequence, the »quantum mechanics« were developed by several authors, particularly by Schrodinger and by Heisenberg, but delivering a hardly under¬standable formalism where the classical physical laws appear being abrogated while abstract terms replace concrete and imaginable ones, abandoning the particle perception of mass points. In particular, Heisenberg’s »uncertainty principle« and the assumption of state probabilities seem to be in a striking variance to the idea of standing waves. In contrast, a formulation is given here which exactly describes the electron trajectories in the exited states solely by applying classical physical laws. Firstly, the original Bohr-model - in combination with De Broglie’s relation - is rolled up. From this formula system a vibration frequency - corresponding to the De-Broglie frequency – is deduced which is n-times larger than the rotation frequency of the Bohr-model. Furthermore, a direct coherence between that vibration-frequency of the electron and the frequency of the involved light is evident being explainable as a resonance effect. Then, a three-dimensional model is proposed where the electron oscillates and pulses perpendicularly to a virtual rotation plane i.e. rotating around a vertical axis, accompanied by a perpetual energy exchange between potential and kinetic energy. This leads at the excited, metastable energy states to well-defined, three-dimensional and wavy trajectories winding up on a surface similar to the one of a hyperboloid, whereas at the ground state the trajectory is planar and stable.