DOCSLIB.ORG

Heisenberg and the Early Days of Quantum Mechanics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Heisenberg and the Early Days of Quantum Mechanics +HLVHQEHUJDQGWKHHDUO\GD\VRITXDQWXPPHFKDQLFV )HOL[%ORFK &LWDWLRQ3K\V7RGD\ GRL 9LHZRQOLQHKWWSG[GRLRUJ 9LHZ7DEOHRI&RQWHQWVKWWSZZZSK\VLFVWRGD\RUJUHVRXUFH3+72$'YL 3XEOLVKHGE\WKH$PHULFDQ,QVWLWXWHRI3K\VLFV $GGLWLRQDOUHVRXUFHVIRU3K\VLFV7RGD\ +RPHSDJHKWWSZZZSK\VLFVWRGD\RUJ ,QIRUPDWLRQKWWSZZZSK\VLFVWRGD\RUJDERXWBXV 'DLO\(GLWLRQKWWSZZZSK\VLFVWRGD\RUJGDLO\BHGLWLRQ Downloaded 08 Jan 2013 to 130.113.174.170. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://www.physicstoday.org/about_us/terms REMINISCENCES OF Heisenberg and the early days of quantum mechanics Recollections of the days, 50 years ago, when a handful of students in the "entirely useless" field of physics heard of a strange new mechanics invented by Maurice de Broglie, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger. Felix Bloch It is appropriate in this year, when we could take, and there was nothing like the with firm authority by Debye, might have celebrate the 50th anniversary of quan- complete menu that is presented to the had an audience of as much as a couple of tum mechanics, and during which we have students nowadays. Once in a while, a dozen—on a good day. been saddened by the death of one of its professor would offer a special course on Physics was also taught at the Univer- leading founders, Werner Heisenberg, to a subject he just happened to be inter- sity of Zurich by a smaller and rather less reminisce about the formative years of the ested in, completely disregarding the illustrious faculty than that at the E. T. H. new mechanics. At the time when the tremendous gaps in our knowledge left by Theory there was in the hands of a certain foundations of physics were being re- this system. Anyway, there was only a Austrian of the name of Schrodinger, and placed with totally new concepts I was a handful of us foolish enough to study the colloquium was alternately held at student of physics. I sat in the collo- physics and it was evidently not thought both institutions. I apologize to my quium audience when Peter Debye made worthwhile to bother much about these friends who already have heard from me the suggestions to Erwin Schrodinger that "odd fellows." The only thing we could what I am going to tell you now. My ac- started him on the study of de Broglie do about it was to go to the library and count may not conform to the strictest waves and the search for their wave read some books, although nobody would standards of history, which accord valid- equation. It was from Heisenberg, as his advise us which ones to choose. ity only to written documents, nor will I first doctorate student, that I caught the Among the first I hit upon was Arnold be able to render the exact words I heard spirit of research, and that I received the Sommerfeld's Atomic Structure and on those occasions, but I can vouchsafe encouragement to make my own contri- Spectral Lines, which I found fascinating; that, in content, I shall report the truth butions. the only trouble was that I could not un- and only the truth. derstand most of it because I knew far too First inklings little of mechanics and electrodynamics. A wave equation is found Let me begin by going back to 1924, So at first I had to learn about these Once at the end of a colloquium I heard when I entered the Swiss Federal Insti- subjects from other books, to truly ap- Debye saying something like: "Schro- tute of Technology in my home town of preciate what Sommerfeld said; but then dinger, you are not working right now on Zurich. I began as a student of engi- it conveyed the good feeling that every- very important problems anyway. Why neering but after a year and good deal of thing about atoms was completely known don't you tell us some time about that soul searching I decided, against all good and understood. The fact that one really thesis of de Broglie, which seems to have sense, to switch over to the "entirely use- could handle only periodic systems and attracted some attention." less" field of physics. The E. T. H., as it only those that allowed a separation of So, in one of the next colloquia, Schro- is known from its German name, was an variables did not seem a great cause for dinger gave a beautifully clear account of institution of great international repute concern. Therefore, when I saw a paper how de Broglie associated a wave with a and in my newly chosen field of studies I in which somebody tried to squeeze the particle and how he could obtain the had heard of such famous men as Peter theory of the Compton Effect into that quantization rules of Niels Bohr and Debye and Hermann Weyl. In fact, the scheme, I was more impressed than dis- Sommerfeld by demanding that an inte- first introductory course of physics I took couraged by the complicated mathematics ger number of waves should be fitted was taught by Debye and, without know- spent in the effort. along a stationary orbit. When he had ing much about his scientific work, I re- The news that the foundations of a new finished, Debye casually remarked that he alized from the high quality of his lectures mechanics had already been laid by thought this way of talking was rather at the Institute that here was a great Maurice de Broglie and Heisenberg had childish. As a student of Sommerfeld he master of his field. hardly leaked to Zurich yet and certainly had learned that, to deal properly with There was a good deal less to be en- had not penetrated to our lower strata. waves, one had to have a wave equation. thusiastic about in the other courses one The first inklings of such a thing came to It sounded quite trivial and did not seem me in early 1926; I had by then started to to make a great impression, but Schro- attend the physics colloquium regularly, dinger evidently thought a bit more about Felix Bloch, winner (with E. M. Purcell) of the the idea afterwards. 1952 Nobel Prize in physics, is professor although most of what I heard there was emeritus of physics at Stanford University. far above my head. The colloquium, run Just a few weeks later he gave another PHYSICS TODAY / DECEMBER 1976 Downloaded 08 Jan 2013 to 130.113.174.170. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://www.physicstoday.org/about_us/terms 23 his assumption of the electron being originally at rest, one should take into account its motion on a stationary orbit in the atom. I thought this was such a good idea that I even had the incredible cour- age to go to Debye's office and tell it to him. It really wasn't all that wrong but he only said: "That's no way any more to talk about atoms; you better go and study Schrodinger's new wave mechanics." Well, you would not disobey the au- thorities and, of course, he was again quite right. So this is what I did; Schrodinger's next papers on wave mechanics appeared shortly, one after the other. I did not learn about the matrix formulation of quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Born and Pascual Jordan until I read that paper of Schrodinger's in which he showed the two formulations to lead to the same results. It did not take me too long to absorb these new methods, and I wish I could confer to the younger physi- cists who read this article the marvellous feeling we students experienced at that time in the sudden tremendous widening of our horizon. Since we were not bur- dened with much previous knowledge, the process was quite painless for us, and we were blissfully unaware of the deep HEISENBERG underlying change of fundamental con- cepts that the more experienced older talk in the colloquium which he started by "Gar Manches rechnet Erwin schon physicists had to struggle with. saying: "My colleague Debye suggested Mit seiner Wellenfunktion. Although I had already begun an ex- that one should have a wave equation; Nur wissen mocht' man gerne wohl periment in spectroscopy, I was now en- well, I have found one!" Was man sich dabei vorstell'n soil." tirely captured by theory and I felt the And then he told us essentially what he legal entrance into the guild to be con- was about to publish under the title In free translation: firmed through my acquaintance with "Quantization as Eigenvalue Problem" as Erwin with his psi can do Walter Heitler and Fritz London. They a first paper of a series in the Annalen der Calculations quite a few. had just obtained their PhD's and had Physik. I was still too green to really But one thing has not been seen: come to Schrodinger's Institute, where appreciate the significance of this talk, Just what does psi really mean? together they worked on their theory of but from the general reaction of the au- covalent bonds. I must have met them in dience I realized that something rather Well, the trouble was that Schrodinger a seminar, and it was a great thing for me important had happened, and I need not did not know it himself. Max Born's in- that they asked me to join them in some tell you what the name of Schrodinger has terpretation as probability amplitude of their walks through the forests around meant from then on. Many years later, came only later and, along with no less a Zurich. For us students the professors I reminded Debye of his remark about the company than Max Planck, Albert Ein- lived somewhere in the clouds, and that wave equation; interestingly enough he stein and de Broglie, he remained skep- two real theorists at the ripe age of almost claimed that he had forgotten about it and tical about it to the end of his life.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Autonomy and Automation Computational Modeling, Reduction, and Explanation in Quantum Chemistry Johannes Lenhard, Bielefeld Univ
    Autonomy and Automation Computational modeling, reduction, and explanation in quantum chemistry Johannes Lenhard, Bielefeld University preprint abstract This paper discusses how computational modeling combines the autonomy of models with the automation of computational procedures. In particular, the case of ab initio methods in quantum chemistry will be investigated to draw two lessons from the analysis of computational modeling. The first belongs to general philosophy of science: Computational modeling faces a trade-off and enlarges predictive force at the cost of explanatory force. The other lesson is about the philosophy of chemistry: The methodology of computational modeling puts into doubt claims about the reduction of chemistry to physics. 1. Introduction In philosophy of science, there is a lively debate about the role and characteristics of models. The present paper wants to make a contribution to this debate about computational modeling in particular.1 Although there is agreement about the importance of computers in recent science, often their part is seen as merely accelerating computations. Of course, speed is a critical issue in practices of computation, because it restricts or enlarges the range of tractability for computational strategies.2 However, it will be argued in this paper that the conception of computational modeling, is not merely a matter of speed, i.e., not only amplifying already existing approaches, but has much wider philosophical significance. 1 There may be considerable overlap with the issue of simulation, but the argumentation of this paper does not depend on this part of terminology. 2 This has been aptly expressed in the part of Paul Humphreys’ book (2004) that deals with computational science.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Mills Purcell (1912–1997)
    ARTICLE-IN-A-BOX Edward Mills Purcell (1912–1997) Edward Purcell grew up in a small town in the state of Illinois, USA. The telephone equipment which his father worked with professionally was an early inspiration. His first degree was thus in electrical engineering, from Purdue University in 1933. But it was in this period that he realized his true calling – physics. After a year in Germany – almost mandatory then for a young American interested in physics! – he enrolled in Harvard for a physics degree. His thesis quickly led to working on the Harvard cyclotron, building a feedback system to keep the radio frequency tuned to the right value for maximum acceleration. The story of how the Manhattan project brought together many of the best physicists to build the atom bomb has been told many times. Not so well-known but equally fascinating is the story of radar, first in Britain and then in the US. The MIT radiation laboratory was charged with developing better and better radar for use against enemy aircraft, which meant going to shorter and shorter wavelengths and detecting progressively weaker signals. This seems to have been a crucial formative period in Purcell’s life. His coauthors on the magnetic resonance paper, Torrey and Pound, were both from this lab. I I Rabi, the physicist who won the 1944 Nobel Prize for measuring nuclear magnetic moments by resonance methods in molecular beams, was the head of the lab and a major influence on Purcell. Interestingly, Felix Bloch (see article on p.956 in this issue) was at the nearby Radio Research lab but it appears that the two did not interact much.
    [Show full text]
  • I. I. Rabi Papers [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress. [PDF Rendered Tue Apr
    I. I. Rabi Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 1992 Revised 2010 March Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mss.contact Additional search options available at: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998009 LC Online Catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/mm89076467 Prepared by Joseph Sullivan with the assistance of Kathleen A. Kelly and John R. Monagle Collection Summary Title: I. I. Rabi Papers Span Dates: 1899-1989 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1945-1968) ID No.: MSS76467 Creator: Rabi, I. I. (Isador Isaac), 1898- Extent: 41,500 items ; 105 cartons plus 1 oversize plus 4 classified ; 42 linear feet Language: Collection material in English Location: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Summary: Physicist and educator. The collection documents Rabi's research in physics, particularly in the fields of radar and nuclear energy, leading to the development of lasers, atomic clocks, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to his 1944 Nobel Prize in physics; his work as a consultant to the atomic bomb project at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and as an advisor on science policy to the United States government, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during and after World War II; and his studies, research, and professorships in physics chiefly at Columbia University and also at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science
    Nuclear Science—A Guide to the Nuclear Science Wall Chart ©2018 Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP) Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science Many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for nuclear research and instrumentation. The field has spun off: particle physics, nuclear astrophysics, nuclear power reactors, nuclear medicine, and nuclear weapons. Understanding how the nucleus works and applying that knowledge to technology has been one of the most significant accomplishments of twentieth century scientific research. Each prize was awarded for physics unless otherwise noted. Name(s) Discovery Year Henri Becquerel, Pierre Discovered spontaneous radioactivity 1903 Curie, and Marie Curie Ernest Rutherford Work on the disintegration of the elements and 1908 chemistry of radioactive elements (chem) Marie Curie Discovery of radium and polonium 1911 (chem) Frederick Soddy Work on chemistry of radioactive substances 1921 including the origin and nature of radioactive (chem) isotopes Francis Aston Discovery of isotopes in many non-radioactive 1922 elements, also enunciated the whole-number rule of (chem) atomic masses Charles Wilson Development of the cloud chamber for detecting 1927 charged particles Harold Urey Discovery of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) 1934 (chem) Frederic Joliot and Synthesis of several new radioactive elements 1935 Irene Joliot-Curie (chem) James Chadwick Discovery of the neutron 1935 Carl David Anderson Discovery of the positron 1936 Enrico Fermi New radioactive elements produced by neutron 1938 irradiation Ernest Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • From Physical Chemistry to Chemical Physics, 1913-1941
    International Workshop on the History of Chemistry 2015 Tokyo From Physical Chemistry to Chemical Physics, 1913-1941 Jeremiah James Ludwig-Maximillian University, Munich, Germany There has never been one unique name for the intersection of chemistry and physics. Nor has it ever been defined by a single, stable set of methods. Nevertheless, it is possible and arguably rewarding to distinguish changes in the constellation of terms and techniques that have defined the intersection over the years. I will speak today about one such change, the advent and ascendancy of chemical physics in the interwar period. When the young Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald first began to formulate his campaign for “physical chemistry” in 1877, he used the term almost interchangeably with two others, “general chemistry” and “theoretical chemistry.” According to his vision of what would soon become a new chemical discipline, physical chemistry would investigate and formulate the general principles that underlie all chemical reactions and phenomena. The primary strategy that he and his allies used to generate these principles was to formulate mathematical “laws” or “rules” generalizing the results of numerous experiments, often performed using measuring apparatus borrowed from physics. Their main fields of inquiry were thermochemistry and solution theory, and they avoided and often openly maligned speculations regarding structures or mechanisms that might underlie the macroscopic regularities embodied in their laws.1 In the first decades of the 20th-century, the modern atomic theory was firmly established, and with only a slight delay, the methods of 19th-century physical chemistry lost a considerable proportion of their audience. Theories relying upon atomistic thinking began to reshape the disciplinary intersections of chemistry and physics, and by the end of the 1930s, cutting-edge research into the general principles of chemistry looked quite different than it had at the turn of the century.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution
    Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution expanded version of lecture presented at American Physical Society meeting, 2/14/10 (Abraham Pais History of Physics Prize for 2009) by Stephen G. Brush* Abstract Does new scientific knowledge come from theory (whose predictions are confirmed by experiment) or from experiment (whose results are explained by theory)? Either can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even when the predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations. Because of the two-stage development of both relativity (“special,” then “general”) and quantum theory (“old,” then “quantum mechanics”) in the period 1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by explanation. A curious anti- symmetry is revealed and discussed. _____________ *Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science, University of Maryland. Home address: 108 Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342. Comments welcome. 1 “Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment. ... Sometimes it is only one foot which is put forward first, sometimes the other, but continuous progress is only made by the use of both – by theorizing and then testing, or by finding new relations in the process of experimenting and then bringing the theoretical foot up and pushing it on beyond, and so on in unending alterations.” Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Government: a Nobel Profession
    The Federal Government: A Nobel Profession A Report on Pathbreaking Nobel Laureates in Government 1901 - 2002 INTRODUCTION The Nobel Prize is synonymous with greatness. A list of Nobel Prize winners offers a quick register of the world’s best and brightest, whose accomplishments in literature, economics, medicine, science and peace have enriched the lives of millions. Over the past century, 270 Americans have received the Nobel Prize for innovation and ingenuity. Approximately one-fourth of these distinguished individuals are, or were, federal employees. Their Nobel contributions have resulted in the eradication of polio, the mapping of the human genome, the harnessing of atomic energy, the achievement of peace between nations, and advances in medicine that not only prolong our lives, but “This report should serve improve their quality. as an inspiration and a During Public Employees Recognition Week (May 4-10, 2003), in an effort to recognize and honor the reminder to us all of the ideas and accomplishments of federal workers past and present, the Partnership for Public Service offers innovation and nobility of this report highlighting 50 American Nobel laureates the work civil servants do whose award-winning achievements occurred while they served in government or whose public service every day and its far- work had an impact on their career achievements. They were honored for their contributions in the fields reaching impact.” of Physiology or Medicine, Economic Sciences, and Physics and Chemistry. Also included are five Americans whose work merited the Peace Prize. Despite this legacy of accomplishment, too few Americans see the federal government as an incubator for innovation and discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Shoulders of Giants: a Brief History of Physics in Göttingen
    1 6 ON THE SHO UL DERS OF G I A NTS : A B RIEF HISTORY OF P HYSI C S IN G Ö TTIN G EN On the Shoulders of Giants: a brief History of Physics in Göttingen 18th and 19th centuries Georg Ch. Lichtenberg (1742-1799) may be considered the fore- under Emil Wiechert (1861-1928), where seismic methods for father of experimental physics in Göttingen. His lectures were the study of the Earth's interior were developed. An institute accompanied by many experiments with equipment which he for applied mathematics and mechanics under the joint direc- had bought privately. To the general public, he is better known torship of the mathematician Carl Runge (1856-1927) (Runge- for his thoughtful and witty aphorisms. Following Lichtenberg, Kutta method) and the pioneer of aerodynamics, or boundary the next physicist of world renown would be Wilhelm Weber layers, Ludwig Prandtl (1875-1953) complemented the range of (1804-1891), a student, coworker and colleague of the „prince institutions related to physics proper. In 1925, Prandtl became of mathematics“ C. F. Gauss, who not only excelled in electro- the director of a newly established Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute dynamics but fought for his constitutional rights against the for Fluid Dynamics. king of Hannover (1830). After his re-installment as a profes- A new and well-equipped physics building opened at the end sor in 1849, the two Göttingen physics chairs , W. Weber and B. of 1905. After the turn to the 20th century, Walter Kaufmann Listing, approximately corresponded to chairs of experimen- (1871-1947) did precision measurements on the velocity depen- tal and mathematical physics.
    [Show full text]
  • FELIX BLOCH October 23, 1905-September 10, 1983
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES F E L I X B L O C H 1905—1983 A Biographical Memoir by RO BE R T H OFSTADTER Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1994 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON D.C. FELIX BLOCH October 23, 1905-September 10, 1983 BY ROBERT HOFSTADTER ELIX BLOCH was a historic figure in the development of Fphysics in the twentieth century. He was one among the great innovators who first showed that quantum me- chanics was a valid instrument for understanding many physi- cal phenomena for which there had been no previous ex- planation. Among many contributions were his pioneering efforts in the quantum theory of metals and solids, which resulted in what are called "Bloch Waves" or "Bloch States" and, later, "Bloch Walls," which separate magnetic domains in ferromagnetic materials. His name is associated with the famous Bethe-Bloch formula, which describes the stopping of charged particles in matter. The theory of "Spin Waves" was also developed by Bloch. His early work on the mag- netic scattering of neutrons led to his famous experiment with Alvarez that determined the magnetic moment of the neutron. In carrying out this resonance experiment, Bloch realized that magnetic moments of nuclei in general could be measured by resonance methods. This idea led to the discovery of nuclear magnetic resonance, which Bloch origi- nally called nuclear induction. For this and the simulta- neous and independent work of E.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Mulliken and His Influence on Japanese Physical Chemistry
    International Workshop on the History of Chemistry 2015 Tokyo Robert Mulliken and His Influence on Japanese Physical Chemistry Noboru Hirota Kyoto University, Japan Introduction Physical Chemistry underwent a transformation from a science based on thermodynamics to one based on quantum mechanics in the 1920s and the early 1930s. Although quantum mechanics was born in Germany and first applied to a chemical problem, understanding of the 1 covalent bonding in H2, by two physicists, Walter Heitler and Fritz London , the transformation in physical chemistry was mainly made in the US; some young American physical chemists were very active in applying quantum mechanics to chemical problems. Most notable among them were three Nobel Prize winning physical chemists, Linus Pauling, Robert Mulliken and Harold Urey. In particular, Linus Pauling and Robert Mulliken played the most important roles in the development of quantum chemistry in the 1920s and the1930s. Both of them started as experimental physical chemists, Pauling as an X-ray crystallographer and Mulliken as a molecular spectroscopist, but they became pioneers in applying quantum mechanics to chemical problems. However, in their endeavors they took different approaches. Pauling advanced valence bond theory, applying it to explain a variety of chemical bonds. His famous book on the nature of chemical bonds was well received by chemists and became a classic.2 On the other hand, Mulliken advanced molecular orbital theory in connection with the interpretation of the electronic spectra of small molecules3. Before World War II Paulings’s valence bond theory was more popular and influential among chemists because of its appeal to chemical intuition.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Years of BCS Theory “A Family Tree” Ancestors BCS Descendants
    APS March Meeting 2007 50 Years of BCS Theory “A Family Tree” Ancestors BCS Descendants D. Scalapino: Ancestors and BCS J. Rowell : A “tunneling” branch of the family G. Baym: From Atoms and Nuclei to the Cosmos Supraconductivity 1911 H. Kamerlingh Onnes `(Gilles Holst) finds a sudden drop in the resistance of Hg at ~ 4.2K. R(ohms) T 1933 Meissner and Ochsenfeld discover that superconductors are perfect diamagnets --flux expulsion Robert Ochsenfeld 1901 - 1993 Phenomenolog` y • 1934 Casimir and Gorter ‘s two-fluid phenomenological model of thermodynamic properties. • 1934 Heinz and Fritz London’s phenomenological electrodynamics. F. London’s suggestion of the rigidity of the wave function. • 1948 Fritz London, “Quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale, long range order in momentum.” Fritz London (1900-1954) 1950 Ginzburg-Landau Theory n∗ ! e∗ β f(x) = Ψ(x) + A(x)Ψ(x) 2 + α Ψ(x) 2 + Ψ(x) 4 2m∗ | i ∇ c | | | 2 | | β +α Ψ(x) 2 + Ψ(x) 4 | | 2 | | V. Ginzburg L. Landau 1957 Type II Superconductivity Aleksei Abrikosov But the question remained: “How does it work?” R.P. Feynman ,1956 Seattle Conference But the question remained: “How does it work?” A long list of the leading theoretical physicists in the world had taken up the challenge of developing a microscopic theory of superconductivity. A.Einstein,“Theoretische Bemerkungen zur Supraleitung der Metalle” Gedenkboek Kamerlingh Onnes, p.435 ( 1922 ) translated by B. Schmekel cond-mat/050731 “...metallic conduction is caused by atoms exchanging their peripheral electrons. It seems unavoidable that supercurrents are carried by closed chains of molecules” “Given our ignorance of quantum mechanics of composite systems, we are far away from being able to convert these vague ideas into a theory.” Felix Bloch is said to have joked that ”superconductivity is impossible”.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Chapter 181KB
    Memorial Tributes: Volume 6 2 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 6 JOHN BARDEEN 3 John Bardeen 1908-1991 By Nick Holonyak, Jr. IN JOHN BARDEEN'S own words: In any field there are golden ages during which advances are made at a rapid pace. In solid-state physics, three stand out. One, the early years of the present century, followed the discoveries of x rays, the electron, Planck's quantum of energy, and the nuclear atom—the discoveries that ushered in the atomic era. The Drude-Lorentz electron theory of metals and Einstein's applications of the quantum principle to lattice vibrations in solids and to the photoelectric effect date from this period. Von Laue's suggestion in 1912 that a crystal lattice should act as a diffraction grating for x rays and research of the W. H. and W. L. Bragg [sic] opened up the vast field of x-ray structure determination. The foundations of the field were firmly established during a second very active period, from about 1928 until the mid-thirties, which followed the discovery of quantum mechanics. Many of the world's leading theorists were involved in this effort. The Bloch theory, based on the one-electron model, introduced the concept of energy bands and showed why solids, depending on the electronic structure, may be metals, insulators, or semiconductors. The fundamentals of the theory of transport of electricity and of heat in solids were established. In these same years, the importance for many crystal properties of the role of imperfections in the crystal lattice, such as vacant lattice sites, dislocations, and impurity atoms was beginning to be recognized.
    [Show full text]