In Bohr's theory and its developments, there is a lacuna and there is
a difficulty. The lacuna has already been mentioned: we do not know in
the least why an electron chooses one moment rather than another to
jump from a larger to a[Pg 42] smaller orbit. The difficulty is that the jump
is usually regarded as sudden and discontinuous: it is suggested that
if it were continuous, the experimental facts in the regions concerned
would become inexplicable. Possibly this difficulty may be overcome,
and it may be found that the transition from one orbit to another can
be continuous. But it is as well to consider the other possibility,
that the transition is really discontinuous. I have emphasized how
little we really know about what goes on in the atom, because I
wished to keep open the possibility of something quite different from
what is usually supposed. Have we any good reason for thinking that
space-time is continuous? Do we know that, between one orbit and the
next, other orbits are geometrically possible? Einstein has led
us to think that the neighbourhood of matter makes space non-Euclidean;
might it not also make it discontinuous? It is certainly rash to
assume that the minute structure of the world resembles that which is
found to suit large-scale phenomena, which may be only statistical
averages. These considerations may serve as an introduction to the
most modern theory of quantum mechanics, to which we must now turn our
attention.[18]
In the new theory inaugurated by Heisenberg, we no longer have the
simplicity of the Rutherford-Bohr atom, in which electrons revolve
about a nucleus like separate planets.[Pg 43] Heisenberg points out that in
this theory there are many quantities which are not even theoretically
observable—namely, those representing processes supposed to be
occurring while the atom is in a steady state. In the new theory, as
Dirac says: "The variable quantities associated with a stationary state
on Bohr's theory, the amplitudes and frequencies of orbital motion,
have no physical meaning and are of no physical importance" (4, p.
652). Heisenberg, in first introducing his theory, pointed out that
the ordinary quantum theory uses unobservable quantities, such as the
position and time of revolution of an electron (1, p. 879), and that
the electron ought to be represented by measurable quantities such
as the frequencies of its radiation (1, p. 880). Now the observable
frequencies are always differences between two "terms," each of which
is represented by an integer. We thus arrive at a representation of the
state of an atom by means of an infinite array of numbers—i.e.
by a matrix. If and are two "terms," an observable
frequency (in theory) is , where:
It is such numbers as (of which there is a doubly infinite
series) that characterize the atom, so far as it is observable.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account