10.4 Impacts of the Phenomenological Theory

As is shown in the preceding section, the phenomenological theory uses sometimes most fantastic ideas to explain phenomenon otherwise difficult to explain. Therefore, there appeared strong counter reaction to those models from people trapped in the conventional frame of science at that time.

There are several proofs of this kind recorded in memoirs and diaries of scientists who made great contributions to science before or after the controversial period of the Bohr's model. Followings are some of them provided by Prof. S. Nishio of Nihon University (History of Science).

A Nobel prize laureate Dr. J.J. Thomson (in 1906) who discovered the electron and also proposed an atomic model with a structure like a water melon (its electrons as seeds and positive charge as flesh) responded as follows (not literally);

The stationary states of electron in the atom assumed in Bohr's theory is in contradiction with the classical electrodynamics. Furthermore, it is undetermined that the Coulomb's law of electric force is applicable to such a small range as in the atom. Therefore, it is nonsense to consider such model to explain phenomena related with atoms.

P. Ehrenfest born in Austria had studied in Holland as a Professor of Leiden University at the time when the Bohr's model was proposed. Attacked by the impact of Bohr's model, he wrote a letter to his friend H.A. Lorentz in August 1913¹³¹⁾:

"Bohr's work on the quantum theory of the Balmer formula (in the Phil. Mag.), has driven me to despair. If this is the way to reach the goal, I must give up doing physics."

However, "Once he met Bohr and absorbed the essence of his ideas and attitudes in direct conversation, Ehrenfest became an enthusiastic boost and close friend, but that had to wait for the end of the World War."

His most famous work may be "the Ehrenfest's theorem" stating that a quantum-mechanical wave packet obeys the equations of motion of the corresponding classical particle when the position, momentum, and force acting on the particle are replaced by the expectation values of these quantities.

E. Schrödinger had to say about the frequency condition of Bohr's, major objection was on this point at that time, in 1926¹³¹⁾:

"The frequency discrepancy in the Bohr model, on the other hand, seems to me, (and had indeed seemed to me since 1914), to be something so {\it monstrous}, that I should like to characterize the excitation of light in this way as really almost inconceivable."

On the other hand, A. Einstein was affirmative to Bohr's model. His reaction is recorded in C. Hevesy's letter¹³¹⁾:

"Then the frequency of the light does not depend at all on the frequency of the electron. And this is an enormous achievement. The theory of Bohr must be then right."

The examples of famous models in history illustrated above in this Chapter show clearly the essential character of the model in science: The value of a model is determined only by its power in explaining facts irrespective of validity of its premises in the conventional science. The meaning of the premises could be elucidated by following works establishing a new paradigm, in the meaning used by T. Kuhn¹³³⁾.