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.
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.
Abstract It is well known that the experimental facts of atomic physics necessitate a departure from the classical theory of electrodynamics in the description of atomic phenomena. This departure takes the form, in Bohr’s theory, of the special assumptions of the existence of stationary states of an atom, in which it does not radiate, and of certain rules, called quantum conditions, which fix the stationary states and the frequencies of the radiation emitted during transitions between them. These assumptions are quite foreign to the classical theory, but have been very successful in the interpretation of a restricted region of atomic phenomena. The only way in which the classical theory is used is through the assumption that the classical laws hold for the description of the motion in the stationary states, although they fail completely during transitions, and the assumption, called the Correspondence Principle, that the classical theory gives the right results in the limiting case when the action per cycle of the system is large compared to Planck’s constant h, and in certain other special cases. In a recent paper Heisenberg puts forward a new theory, which suggests that it is not the equations of classical mechanics that are in any way at fault, but that the mathematical operations by which physical results are deduced from them require modification. All the information supplied by the classical theory can thus be made use of in the new theory.
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.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Shakespeare , Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 4 The rise and fall of the old quantum theory The principles of the old quantum theory were first articulated by Niels Bohr in 1913 in a three-part paper titled “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules.” Bohr had adopted Ernest Rutherford's model of the atom, according to which the mass of the atom is concentrated in a small central nucleus, while the electrons orbit the nucleus in planetary trajectories. The key challenge facing Rutherford's model was that it was unstable: according to classical electrodynamics, the electron, which is a moving charged body, should radiate energy and so eventually collapse into the nucleus. Bohr's solution was to incorporate Max Planck's theory of radiation, according to which “the energy radiation from an atomic system does not take place in the continuous way assumed in ordinary electrodynamics, but that it, on the contrary, takes place in distinctly separated emissions” (Bohr 1913, p. 4; BCW 2, p. 164). In this early paper, and most subsequent accounts, Bohr summarized his quantum theory by means of two assumptions or postulates. According to the first postulate, electrons cannot travel in any path they like around the nucleus, rather atomic systems can only exist in a series of discrete “stationary states,” in which the electron is in a particular allowed stable periodic orbit and is not emitting radiation.
Abstract We provide an overview, as non‐technical as possible, of the contents of Vol. 1 of the book. Reflecting the structure of the volume, this overview consists of two parts. In the first part, we summarize the most important early contributions to quantum theory (covered in detail in Chs. 2–4). This part starts with Planck’s work on black‐body radiation culminating in the introduction of Planck’s constant in 1900. It then moves on to Einstein’s 1905 light‐quantum hypothesis, his theory of specific heats, and his formulas for energy and momentum fluctuations in black‐body radiation. After summarizing Bohr’s path to his quantum model of the atom, it concludes with Einstein’s 1916–17 radiation theory combining elements of Bohr’s model with his own light‐quantum hypothesis. In the second part we summarize our analysis of the old quantum theory (given in detail in Chs. 5–7). After a brief overview of the career of Sommerfeld, who together with Bohr took the lead in developing the old quantum theory, we review the three principles we have identified as the cornerstones of the theory (the quantization conditions, the adiabatic principle, and the correspondence principle). We then discuss three of the theory’s most notable successes (fine structure, Stark effect, X‐ray spectra) and, finally, three of its most notorious failures (multiplets, Zeeman effect, helium).
The use of classical mechanical analogs for quantum behavior holds a long and proud tradition in the development and application of quantum theory. In Bohr’s original formulation of quantum mechanics to explain the spectra of the hydrogen atom, Bohr used purely classical mechanical notions of angular momentum and rotation for the basic theory and imposed a quantization condition that the angular momentum should come in integer multiples of h¯. Bohr worked under the assumption that at some point the laws of quantum mechanics that govern atoms and molecules should correspond to the classical mechanical laws of ordinary objects like rocks and stones. Bohr’s Principle of Correspondence states that quantum mechanics is not completely separate from classical mechanics; rather, it incorporates classical theory.
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.