Indeed, … the absolute value of the so-called phase of the waves never comes into consideration when interpreting the experimental results. To cite Bohr: “The symbolic character … of the artifices also becomes apparent in that an exhaustive description of the electromagnetic wave fields leave no room for light quanta and in that, in using the conception of matter waves, there is never any question of a complete description similar to that of the classical theories. This is why these amplitudes are seen as “symbolic” by Bohr and Heisenberg, that is, as symbols borrowed from classical physics without having the physical meaning they have there. The latter amplitudes are complex quantities enabling us to predict the probabilities relating to the oscillations in question. However, these amplitudes (which are related to real measurable quantities) are not the same as the “symbolic” amplitudes in question. Jaeger for pointing out this aspect of the quantum-mechanical situation. In referring to this data, one could speak more intuitively, albeit still metaphorically, of “amplitudes” of these oscillations, just as one speaks of “interference” in referring to the (discrete) interference pattern observed in the double-slit experiment in the corresponding set-up (with both slits opens and no devices installed allowing one to establish through which slit each quantum object passes). It is true that quantum data may present itself in terms of interferometry, which is seen in the graphical representation of counting rates (proportional to the probabilities in question) that are typically oscillatory. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. 2.5, by way of a conclusion, reflects on the new relationships between mathematics and physics established by quantum mechanics in nonrealist, RWR-principle-based, interpretations.

2.2 considers some of the key aspects of Einstein’s and Bohr’s work in the old quantum theory, especially significant for the invention of quantum mechanics by Heisenberg and Schrödinger, discussed in Sects. After a general introduction given in Sect. At the same time, Schrödinger had implicitly used some of the same principles that were expressly used by Heisenberg, thus meeting Heisenberg’s program, against Schrödinger’s own grain. The chapter also considers Bohr’s 1913 atomic theory, a crucial development in the history of quantum theory ultimately leading to Heisenberg’s discovery, and Schrödinger’s discovery of wave mechanics, initially from very different physical principles. from Wikipedia.īy contrast, if the detector sees photons emitted directly from a glowing gas, then the detector often sees photons emitted in a narrow frequency range by quantum emission processes in atoms in the hot gas, resulting in an emission line.The conceptual core of this chapter is Heisenberg’s discovery of quantum mechanics, considered as arising from certain fundamental principles of quantum physics and as established by giving these principles a mathematical expression.

Dips are present at the Fraunhofer line wavelengths.

Bohr atomic theory