A few reactions to Bohr’s atomic theory appeared even before the publication of Part I of the trilogy. Of particular interest is a letter of 20 March 1913 in which Rutherford commented on Bohr’s manuscript for the Philosophical Magazine. Apart from some minor criticism, Rutherford complained that it was very difficult to form a physical idea of the basis of Bohr’s theory, a complaint that would soon be repeated by other British physicists. More specifically, Rutherford referred to what he called 'one grave difficulty', namely this: 'How does an electron decide what frequency it is going to vibrate at when it passes from one stationary state to the other? It seems to me that you would have to assume that the electron knows beforehand where it is going to stop.' Rutherford instinctly sensed the element of acausality associated with Bohr’s atom, a feature which would only move to the forefront of discussion several years later. Rutherford’s uneasiness was shared by Paul Ehrenfest, who in a letter to H. A. Lorentz of 25 August 1913 expressed his immediate reaction to Bohr’s theory of the atom in this way: 'Bohr’s work on the quantum theory of the Balmer formula (in the Phil. Mag.), has driven me to despair. If this is the way to reach the goal, I must give up doing physics.‛8 Ehrenfest was thoroughly familiar with quantum theory, but Bohr’s way of applying quantum concepts to atomic structure puzzled him. It did not appeal to him at all, and it took several years until he came to accept Bohr’s approach. As late as in the spring of 1916 he thought of the Bohr atomic model as 'completely monstrous'. (Helge Kragh - The early reception of Bohr’s atomic theory, 1913-1915. A preliminary investigation)
Posted on: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:27:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015