Researcher profile

Michel Janssen

Michel Janssen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2014arXiv

The Stark effect in the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory and in Schrödinger's wave mechanics

The explanation of the first-order Stark effect in hydrogen by Epstein and Schwarzschild in 1916 was seen as a great success for the old quantum theory. Yet, it also revealed some serious limitations of the theory. To recover the experimentally found line splittings, one had to make some arbitrary assumptions in addition to the basic quantum conditions to rule out certain orbits. The calculation of intensities of lines on the basis of Bohr's correspondence principle likewise required arbitrary additional assumptions. Finally, the actual orbits predicted by the old quantum theory depend on the coordinates chosen to impose the quantum conditions. Both Sommerfeld and Epstein recognized this problem but offered no solution for it. All these problems were solved in 1926 when Schrödinger and Epstein explained the Stark effect on the basis of the new wave mechanics. The calculations in the two theories are similar. In particular, both the Schrödinger equation in the new theory and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in the old theory are separated in parabolic coordinates. The new quantum mechanics determines all allowed states and transitions without any additional assumptions. It also replaced the ambiguous guidelines based on the correspondence principle for calculating intensities by the straightforward prescription that intensities are given by the squares of the matrix elements of position, leading to results that agreed much better with the experimental data. Finally, the embarrassing non-uniqueness of orbits in the old quantum theory turned into the innocuous non-uniqueness of bases of eigenfunctions in wave mechanics. To this day, the Stark effect is remembered as one of the few qualified successes of the old quantum theory. We suspect that this is largely because after 1926 it became just one of the many unqualified successes of the new quantum theory.

preprint2014arXiv

The trouble with orbits: the Stark effect in the old and the new quantum theory

The old quantum theory and Schrödinger's wave mechanics (and other forms of quantum mechanics) give the same results for the line splittings in the first-order Stark effect in hydrogen, the leading terms in the splitting of the spectral lines emitted by a hydrogen atom in an external electric field. We examine the account of the effect in the old quantum theory, which was hailed as a major success of that theory, from the point of view of wave mechanics. First, we show how the new quantum mechanics solves a fundamental problem one runs into in the old quantum theory with the Stark effect. It turns out that, even without an external field, it depends on the coordinates in which the quantum conditions are imposed which electron orbits are allowed in a hydrogen atom. The allowed energy levels and hence the line splittings are independent of the coordinates used but the size and eccentricity of the orbits are not. In the new quantum theory, this worrisome non-uniqueness of orbits turns into the perfectly innocuous non-uniqueness of bases in Hilbert space. Second, we review how the so-called WKB (Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin) approximation method for solving the Schrödinger equation reproduces the quantum conditions of the old quantum theory amended by some additional half-integer terms. These extra terms remove the need for some arbitrary extra restrictions on the allowed orbits that the old quantum theory required over and above the basic quantum conditions

preprint2012arXiv

Kuhn Losses Regained: Van Vleck from Spectra to Susceptibilities

We follow the trajectory of John H. Van Vleck from his 1926 Bulletin for the National Research Council (NRC) on the old quantum theory to his 1932 book, The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities. We highlight the continuity of formalism and technique in the transition from dealing with spectra in the old quantum theory to dealing with susceptibilities in the new quantum mechanics. Our main focus is on the checkered history of a numerical factor in the Langevin-Debye formula for the electric susceptibility of gases. Classical theory predicts that this factor is equal to 1/3. The old quantum theory predicted values up to 14 times higher. Van Vleck showed that quantum mechanics does away with this "wonderful nonsense" (as Van Vleck called it) and restores the classical value 1/3. The Langevin-Debye formula thus provides an instructive example of a Kuhn loss in one paradigm shift that was regained in the next. In accordance with Kuhn's expectation that textbooks sweep Kuhn losses under the rug, Van Vleck did not mention this particular Kuhn loss anywhere in his 1926 NRC Bulletin (though he prominently did flag a Kuhn loss in dispersion theory that had recently been regained). Contrary to Kuhn's expectations, however, he put the regained Kuhn loss in susceptibility theory to good pedagogical use in his 1932 book. Kuhn claimed that textbooks must suppress, truncate, and/or distort the prehistory of their subject matter if they are to inculcate the exemplars of the new paradigm in their readers. This claim is not borne out in this case. Because of the continuity of formalism and technique that we draw attention to that Van Vleck could achieve his pedagogical objectives in his 1932 book even though he devoted about a third of it to the treatment of susceptibilities in classical theory and the old quantum theory in a way that matches the historical record reasonably well.