Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A test of differences in the literature history of four historical accounts of the quantum mechanics problem

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines four historical accounts of the quantum mechanics problem in physics. The purpose is to describe the litrature used by the histories quantitatively using frequency of date of publication. Additionally, one of the histories was tested against the other three to determine differences. A Moments Test and a t Test were employed. The results indicated the literature history of quantum mechanics, when plotted as a function of frequency of publication date is non-normal, negatively skewed, and is platykurtic. The test for difference between the one history and the cumulative histories was non-significant. Interpretations of the results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and References

  1. For a review of this literature, see: F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evalutation of Scientific Activity, Computer Horizons, Inc., Cherry Hill, New Jersey 1976; and F. NARIN, J. K. MOLL, Bibliometrics,Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 12 (1977) 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. J. COLES, N. B. EALES, The History of Comparative Anatomy,Science Progress 11 (1917) 578–596.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For a discussion of some of the problems with the quantitative method and the study of science, see: D. EDGE, Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Critical Review,History of Science 17 (1979) 102–134.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. S. PEARSON, H. O. HARTLEY,Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, volume 1. Cambridge University Press, New York 1929, p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  5. F. HUND,The History of Quantum Theory. Harrap, London 1974; M. JAMMER,The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York 1966; Bartel Leendert Van der WAERDEN,Sources of Quantum Mechanics, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1967; and T. S. KUHN, et al,Sources for Quantum Physics: An Inventory and Report. American Philosophical Society Philadelphia 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hagstrom's discussion is germaine to this point: W. HAGSTROM, Factors Related to the Use of Different Modes of Publishing research in Four Scientific Fields, in C. E. NELSON, D. K. POLLOCK, Eds,Communication Among Scientists and Engineers. Heath and Co. Lesington, Mass., 1970. See also R. MERTON,On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. S. KUHN,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1962.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. C. D. Hurt

    Present address: Graduate School of Library Science, McGill University, H3A 1Y1, Montreal, PQ, Canada, (Canada)

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Library School, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53713, Madison, Wisconsin, (USA)

    C. D. Hurt

Authors
  1. C. D. Hurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurt, C.D. A test of differences in the literature history of four historical accounts of the quantum mechanics problem. Scientometrics 3, 457–466 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017437

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017437

Keywords

Search

Navigation