Correspondence principle versus Planck-type theory of the atom (Q461379)

Against the thesis, widely spread in the literature, that essential elements of the correspondence principle can already be found in Bohr's three 1913 papers [``On the constitution of atoms and molecules. I--III'', Phil. Mag. (6) 26, 1--25, 476--502, 857--875 (1913; JFM 44.0897.01)], the author argues that Bohr introduced this principle only in 1916 ``in opposition to a Planck-type theory of the atom''. According to the author's investigation, misunderstandings result from that Bohr in 1913 intensely discussed the limiting correspondence of the quantum to the classical description of the mechanics of the atom for great quantum numbers, while the genuine correspondence principle, first explicitly named by Bohr in 1920, has a more general meaning. To say it in Bohr's words, it is an assumption that even when the quantum numbers are small the possibility of transition between two stationary states of the electron moving around the atomic kernel is connected with the presence of a certain harmonic component in motion of the system. The paper is a carefully performed examination of Bohr's papers and letters concerning this point. It is not explicitly stated by the author, but his exposition shows that it is necessary to regard the two-fold role of classical theory: First, the classical theory is the limiting case of quantum physics for great quantum numbers or vanishing Planck constant (and of relativity theory for small velocities and weak gravitational fields). Second, since, in contrast to relativity theory, quantum theory does not employ the same concepts as the classical theory, it has to be related to classical physics by the correspondence principle since, again Bohr, ``our interpretation of the experimental material rests essentially on the classical concepts''.