Advertisement

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Historical magic in old quantum theory?

  • Peter VickersEmail author
Original paper in Philosophy of Science

Abstract

Two successes of old quantum theory are particularly notable: Bohr’s prediction of the spectral lines of ionised helium, and Sommerfeld’s prediction of the fine-structure of the hydrogen spectral lines. Many scientific realists would like to be able to explain these successes in terms of the truth or approximate truth of the assumptions which fuelled the relevant derivations. In this paper I argue that this will be difficult for the ionised helium success, and is almost certainly impossible for the fine-structure success. Thus I submit that the case against the realist’s thesis that success is indicative of truth is marginally strengthened.

Keywords

Old quantum theory Hydrogen Spectral lines Fine structure Bohr Sommerfeld Realism Spin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Juha Saatsi and John Norton for discussion and criticism, and also to three anonymous referees for helpful comments. Thanks also to audiences at the University of Leeds (2009), and at the 2nd biennial conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association in Amsterdam in 2009, where early versions of this paper were presented.

References

  1. Arabatzis, T. (2006). Representing electrons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Biedenharn, L. C. (1983). The “Sommerfeld Puzzle” revisited and resolved. Foundations of Physics, 13(1), 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohr, N. (1913a). On the constitution of atoms and molecules. Philosophical Magazine, 26(6), 1–25, 476–502 and 857–875.Google Scholar
  4. Bohr, N. (1913b). The spectra of helium and hydrogen. Nature, 92, 231–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohr, N. (1922). Theory of spectra and atomic constitution. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, L., Pais, A., & Pippard, A. (1995). Twentieth century physics. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burkhardt, C., Leventhal, J. L., & Leventhal, J. J. (2006): Topics in atomic physics. Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  8. Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Couvalis, G. (1997). The philosophy of science: Science and objectivity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Eisberg, R., & Resnick, R. (1985). Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, and particles (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Fowler, A. (1913). The spectra of helium and hyrogen. Nature, 92, 95–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heilbron, J., & Kuhn, T. (1969). The genesis of the Bohr atom. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1, 211–290.Google Scholar
  13. Jammer, M. (1966). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Jungnickel, C., & McCormmach, R. (1990). Intellectual mastery of nature. Theoretical physics from Ohm to Einstein, Volume 2: The now mighty theoretical physics 1870–1925. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kragh, H. (1985). The fine structure of hydrogen and the gross structure of the physics community, 1916–26. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 15, 67–125.Google Scholar
  17. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Letokhov, V. S., & Johansson, S. (2009). Astrophysical lasers. US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Morrison, M. (2004). History and metaphysics: On the reality of spin. In: J. Buchwald, & A. Warwick (Eds.). Histories of the electron: The birth of microphysics (pp. 425–449). MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nisio, S. (1973). The formation of the Sommerfeld Quantum Theory of 1916. Japanese Studies in the History of Science, 12, 39–78.Google Scholar
  21. Norton, J. (2000). How we know about electrons. In: R. Nola, & H. Sankey (Eds.). After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend, 2000 (pp. 67–97). Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Pais, A. (1986). Inward bound: Of matter and forces in the physical world. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  23. Pais, A. (1991). Niels Bohr’s times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Robotti, N. (1986). The hydrogen spectroscopy and the old quantum theory. Rivista di Storia Della Scienza, 3, 45–102.Google Scholar
  26. Saatsi, J. (2005). Reconsidering the Fresnel-Maxwell case study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36, 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saatsi, J., & Vickers, P. (2010). Miraculous Success? Inconsistency and untruth in Kirchhoff’s Diffraction Theory, forthcoming in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(4).Google Scholar
  28. Series, G. W. (1988). The spectrum of atomic hydrogen: Advances. World Scientific.Google Scholar
  29. Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stanford, P. K. (2009). ‘Author’s Response’, in ‘Grasping at Realist Straws’, a review symposium of Stanford (2006). Metascience, 18, 355–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vickers, P. (forthcoming). Theory flexibility and inconsistency in science. forthcoming in O. Bueno, & P. Vickers (Eds.). Is Science Inconsistent? Special issue of Synthese.Google Scholar
  32. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: the best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Postdoctoral Fellow in the Center for Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations