February 3rd, 2025

When Bohr got it wrong: the impact of a little-known paper on quantum theory

In 1924, Niels Bohr and colleagues challenged the first law of thermodynamics, reflecting the turmoil of early quantum mechanics, marked by significant debates and cultural shifts in scientific understanding.

Read original articleLink Icon
When Bohr got it wrong: the impact of a little-known paper on quantum theory

In 1924, Niels Bohr, along with Hendrik Kramers and John Slater, published a paper proposing that the first law of thermodynamics might not hold true, reflecting the turmoil in physics as quantum mechanics was emerging. Their work, titled "The Quantum Theory of Radiation," suggested radical ideas that ultimately proved incorrect, yet highlighted the intense intellectual struggle of the time. This period was marked by significant developments, including Max Planck's quantization of energy and Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, which laid the groundwork for quantum theory. Bohr's earlier contributions, particularly his model of the atom, earned him the Nobel Prize in 1922, but he faced challenges in reconciling classical physics with quantum phenomena. The paper also foreshadowed the philosophical rift between Bohr and Einstein regarding the nature of quantum mechanics. The atmosphere in the early 1920s was charged with conflicting ideas, including Louis de Broglie's wave-particle duality concept, which further complicated the understanding of quantum behavior. The discussions and debates during this time were not just scientific but also reflected broader cultural shifts, as physicists began to question traditional notions of causality and materialism. This historical context underscores the complexity and dynamism of the early quantum revolution.

- Bohr's 1924 paper challenged the first law of thermodynamics but was quickly disproven.

- The paper illustrates the intellectual crisis in physics during the early development of quantum mechanics.

- Bohr's work laid the foundation for future quantum theories despite its initial failures.

- The period was characterized by significant debates between leading physicists, notably Bohr and Einstein.

- Cultural shifts influenced the scientific discourse, leading to radical rethinking of established principles.

Link Icon 5 comments
By @leephillips - 3 months
This is an interesting article due to the historical connections it makes. I mention the paper in question on p. 120 of my book about Noether’s Theorem (https://lee-phillips.org/noether) and quote Heisenberg on why violation of energy conservation, and therefore the paper, was unacceptable (something that the article doesn’t really discuss—after all, other conservation laws were abandoned or modified as needed): it’s because Noether’s Theorem shows that energy conservation is equivalent to invariance with regard to time translation, something that no one would be willing to give up. This means that energy must be conserved in every interaction, not just statistically.
By @ForOldHack - 3 months
Michelson–Morley got it wrong too, but getting things wrong, when you know its wrong, its an advancement.
By @gsf_emergency - 3 months
Sorry to come off as a crackpot, but pilot-wave theory did try to fix the problems of BKS by forcing the conservation of energy-momentum in their updated version of the "virtual field".

Of course, Bohm also tried to do a sleight of hand with causality

By @gsf_emergency - 3 months
By @naasking - 3 months
> “Its radically new approach paved the way for a greater understanding, that methods and concepts of classical physics could not be carried over in a future quantum mechanics.”

This is incorrect. The Hamiltonian in both statistical and quantum mechanics has the same basic structure. Quantization is the only real difference, but the other methods and concepts are structurally the same.

> It was also a crucial factor in Heisenberg’s argument that the probabilistic character of his matrix mechanics (and also of Schrödinger’s 1926 version of quantum mechanics, called wave mechanics) couldn’t be explained away as a statistical expression of our ignorance about the details, as it is in classical statistical mechanics.

Too bad that's an incorrect inference. Bohmian mechanics proves that this inference is incorrect, and it's not the only possibility either.