This chapter investigates the relation between visualizability and intelligibility, by means of an in-depth study of the transition from classical physics to quantum physics in the first decades of the twentieth century. In this development, the issue of visualizability played a central role. After a brief discussion of the visualizability of classical physics, it examines the gradual loss of visualizability in quantum theory, focusing on the work of quantum physicists Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger. The chapter presents a detailed analysis of the role of visualizability (Anschaulichkeit) in the competition between Schrödinger’s wave mechanics and Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, and in the discovery of electron spin. The contextual theory of understanding asserts that visualizability is one out of many possible tools for understanding, albeit one that has proved to be very effective in science. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the role of visualization in postwar quantum physics, especially via Feynman diagrams.
This chapter investigates the relation between visualizability and intelligibility, by means of an in-depth study of the transition from classical physics to quantum physics in the first decades of the twentieth century. In this development, the issue of visualizability played a central role. After a brief discussion of the visualizability of classical physics, it examines the gradual loss of visualizability in quantum theory, focusing on the work of quantum physicists Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger. The chapter presents a detailed analysis of the role of visualizability (Anschaulichkeit) in the competition between Schrödinger’s wave mechanics and Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, and in the discovery of electron spin. The contextual theory of understanding asserts that visualizability is one out of many possible tools for understanding, albeit one that has proved to be very effective in science. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the role of visualization in postwar quantum physics, especially via Feynman diagrams.
Prior to and into the first decade of Niels Bohr's 1913 atomic theory, physicists dealt with physical systems in which the usual space and time pictures of classical physics were assumed trustworthy and so could be extrapolated to any sort of matter in motion, for example, electrons move like billiard balls and light behaves analogously to water waves. In the German scientific milieu this visual imagery was accorded a reality status higher than viewing merely with the senses and was referred to as ‘ordinary intuition [ gewöhnliche Anschauung ]’. Ordinary intuition is the visual imagery abstracted from phenomena that we have actually witnessed in the world of sense perceptions. The concept of ordinary intuition was much debated during 1923–27 by physicists like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrödinger, all of whom used this term with proper Kantian overtones, and all of whom lamented its loss in the new quantum mechanics. Ordinary intuition is associated with the strong causality of classical mechanics. According to the law of causality, initial conditions (position and velocity or momentum and energy) can be ascertained with in-principle perfect accuracy. Consequently any system's continuous development in space and time can be traced with in-principle perfect accuracy using Newton's laws of motion and conservation of energy and momentum. Any limitations to the accuracy of measurements are assumed not to be intrinsic to the phenomena, that is they are interpreted to be systematic measurement errors that ideally can be made to vanish.
In the context of a new analysis of the notebooks of Erwin Schrödinger, the paper deals with the question of the relation between Schrödinger's creation of wave mechanics and the contemporary efforts by Werner Heisenberg and his colleagues to establish a new quantum mechanics. How can one explain, from a broader historical and epistemological perspective, the astonishing simultaneity and complementarity of these discoveries? The paper argues that neither the physical problems with which both approaches deal nor what ultimately turned out to be their common mathematical ground are sufficient to explain their complementarity. Instead, their closeness is explained by analyzing their common roots in classical mechanics and its transformation in the light of the most fundamental new quantum law, the relation between energy and frequency found by Planck. It is shown, in particular, that for both approaches a bridge between quantum and classical aspects involving this relation was crucial. In the case of Heisenberg, this bridge was given by Bohr’s correspondence principle. In the case of Schrödinger it was constituted by Hamilton’s optical-mechanical analogy.
Written for advanced undergraduates, physicists, and historians and philosophers of physics, this book tells the story of the development of our understanding of quantum phenomena through the extraordinary years of the first three decades of the twentieth century. Rather than following the standard axiomatic approach, this book adopts a historical perspective, explaining clearly and authoritatively how pioneers such as Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli and Dirac developed the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and merged them into a coherent theory, and why the mathematical infrastructure of quantum mechanics has to be as complex as it is. The author creates a compelling narrative, providing a remarkable example of how physics and mathematics work in practice. The book encourages an enhanced appreciation of the interaction between mathematics, theory and experiment, helping the reader gain a deeper understanding of the development and content of quantum mechanics than any other text at this level.
Abstract In addition to recounting some contemporary scientific history, Chapter 6 describes the hypothesis that matter, like light, can display wavelike properties, and the creation of the various formulations of quantum mechanics. That matter could have a wavelength was proposed in 1924 by Louis de Broglie, who presented a specific formula for calculating it, one that was verified experimentally in 1927. However, de Broglie’s hypothesis was overshadowed by the creation of three versions of quantum mechanics in 1925/26. The first, denoted matrix mechanics, was proposed by Werner Heisenberg. It was quickly and successfully applied by Wolfgang Pauli to the hydrogen atom. Paul Dirac introduced the next version, which was followed by that of Erwin Schrödinger via a wave equation whose solutions, denoted wave functions, were soon interpreted byMax Born to be related to the probability that certain outcomes or events will occur: classical-physics determinism was thereby removed from quantum mechanics.
This chapter begins with a brief outline of some of the key motivations for considering a quantum theory: the early attempts to determine the spectral distribution of energy density of black bodies; stability of atoms and molecules; specific heats of solids; interference and diffraction of light beams; polarization of photons. The experimental foundations of wave mechanics are then presented in detail, but in a logical order quite different from its historical development: photo-emission of electrons by metallic surfaces, X- and γ-ray scattering from gases, liquids and solids, interference experiments, atomic spectra and the Bohr hypotheses, the experiment of Franck and Hertz, the Bragg experiment, diffraction of electrons by a crystal of nickel (Davisson and Germer), and measurements of position and velocity of an electron. The need for a quantum theory In the second half of the nineteenth century it seemed that the laws of classical mechanics, developed by the genius of Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, Jacobi and Poincaré, the Maxwell theory of electromagnetic phenomena and the laws of classical statistical mechanics could account for all known physical phenomena. Still, it became gradually clear, after several decades of experimental and theoretical work, that one has to formulate a new kind of mechanics, which reduces to classical mechanics in a suitable limit, and makes it possible to obtain a consistent description of phenomena that cannot be understood within the classical framework. It is now appropriate to present a brief outline of this new class of phenomena, the systematic investigation of which is the object of the following sections and of chapters 4 and 14.
This book gives a detailed study of the development and the interpretation given to Niels Bohr's Principle of Correspondence. It also describes the role that this principle played in guiding Bohr's research over the critical period from 1920 to 1927. Quantum mechanics, developed in the 1920s and 1930s by Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Schrödinger and Dirac, represents one of the most profound turning points in science. This theory required a wholly new kind of physics in which many of the principles, concepts and models representing reality, that had formed the basis of classical physics since Galileo and Newton, had to be abandoned. This book re-examines the birth of quantum mechanics, in particular examining the development of crucial and original insights of Niels Bohr.