Who is the founder of quantum mechanics | How is the Born School different from the Boer School?

Author | Hou Yude

One

introduction

In 2017, the Science and Culture Review published an article by the author recalling Mr. Goege [1].

Later, Mr. Fan Dainian wrote an article pointing out: "I think that when Ge Geru is still alive, after reading Hou Yude's article, he will inevitably be furious and even break off his friendship with him. I agree with Goeer's assessment of Bohr. ”[2]

Mr. Fan said this because Mr. Goge was famous for his study of Niels Bohr, but as quoted in Mr. Fan's article, the author believes: "It is really regrettable that Goge's study of Bohr is comparable to a cattle knife killing a chicken." ”

Contrary to Mr. Goege's insights, the author asserts that "Bohr has little to do with the establishment of quantum mechanics." ([2], p. 119) In the article, Mr. Fan said that Hou Yude made this conclusion without "presenting any basis" ([2], p. 120).

This is both right and wrong.

I am right because I have already done some in-depth explanations of the conclusions in the relevant articles and books published by the author over the years, so there is no further elaboration in that article; in that commemorative article, this idea is only mentioned in passing (even hesitant to keep it when the article is finalized), so it is not too much ink.

It is not true because in order to argue and explain this conclusion, in the past ten years, the author has written and published dozens of related articles and many books on this topic, several of which are published in the recent "Scientific and Cultural Review", and in the article criticized by Mr. Fan, there is also a nearly one-page explanation of this conclusion.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the author "does not provide any basis" for this view.

Max Born is not gracious to the author, Bohr has no vendetta against the author; what the author says is not a reason to make up nonsense and deceive people; on the contrary, many works on the history of the development of quantum mechanics that are irresponsible to those who are unclear have been confused for almost a century.

Many things in the world are afraid of seriousness, but doing academics is to be more energetic and admit this.

Mr. Fan's article is a good reminder for the author: it is necessary to lay out the facts, be reasonable, and further comprehensively demonstrate why Bohr has nothing to do with the establishment of quantum mechanics.

Please ask Mr. Fan and other readers who pay attention to the history of quantum mechanics to make a judgment based on the literature provided by the author to see who is the real leader and founder of quantum mechanics between Born and Bohr.

Two

What is the difference between the Born School and the Bohr School?

If there is some understanding of the Born school and the Bohr school, it is not difficult to realize that quantum mechanics could not have been born from the Bohr school, but only from the School of Born.

The academic atmosphere, research style and research program of a scientific school are mainly determined by the personality, academic accumulation, academic vision and academic pursuit of the leaders of the school.

To understand the difference between the two schools, we must first compare the difference between Born and Bohr.

1. Born and his own business

Several scholars have roughly similar descriptions of Born's personality.

In 1970, Martin J. Klein compared Born with several other famous physicists: "Einstein is of course unique, Bohr is nowhere to be called 'father of theoretical physics', Dirac's unique approach and talent, Pauli's profound and hurtful, these have been the basis of the physicist's story for 45 years." But it's clear that Born lacks any of these various personal charms. ”[3]

J. Hel brown L. Heilbron) read Born's memoirs and considered him "timid, bleak, and unsure of his judgments". Hayle Brown also believed that Born was a "man of integrity, hard work, but a lack of humor" ([4], p. 741).

Heisenberg biographer David C. Cassidy said that "the quiet, restrained Born" often "pales" [5].

Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics and one of Born's former collaborators, said: "Born was always calm and gentle,...... Of all the scholars, he was the most humble. ”[6]

Japanese theoretical physicist Hideki Yukawa (H. Yukawa's description of Born's personality is the finishing touch, revealing the overall characteristics of Born's personality with the word "soft" and seeing Born as a model for his scholarship and life: "Scholars have different types, they can be divided into two categories of 'hard' and 'soft', max Born clearly belongs to the type with more 'soft' components. I think I'm a soft-type scholar myself, and maybe I'm unconsciously looking for someone with a personality similar to my own among the university scholars of my predecessors. ”[7]

Restraint, low-key, quiet, easy-going, not arrogant, not arrogant, not pursuing the core and focus of everyone's attention in public, this is the overall impression that Born left on people after his death.

Soft personality only means that people are not strong and aggressive, and it does not mean that Born is weak and incompetent and has no career pursuits.

[8] Heilbrom said Born worked hard, and Born's student and early collaborator, Alfred Landé, said that Born was "professionally ambitious, and if he couldn't write important articles for three months, he was depressed".

Round's words reveal that Born is both introverted, competitive with himself, and has a strong scientific pursuit. Born has no desire to lead the world, and his "soft" personality has no covetousness for many of the goals pursued by the world, and has no ambition to dominate the academic world.

As a scholar who enjoys a quiet state, the work of scientific research and the development of outstanding talents brings Bren the greatest pleasure, he said: the "fun of scientific research is a bit like the pleasure of people who solve cross puzzles." But it's a lot more interesting than that. ...... It's even more fun than doing creative work in other professions" ([9], p. 20).

When it comes to teaching and educating people, Born said: "I think teaching at a university is the most interesting. ([9], p. 21) Especially when directing graduate students: "Asking scientific questions in an attractive and inspiring way is an artistic work, similar to that of a novelist or even a dramatist." ([9], p. 21)

Born, with such a state of mind, led students to indulge in scientific research, advocating free discussion within his school, creating a relaxed academic atmosphere, and never bullying any colleagues and students.

Professor Wang Zhengxing of the Department of Applied Physics of Peking University once said: "It is no exaggeration to say that Göttingen (the school of physics) was the center and holy place of theoretical physics in the world at that time. It was only because of Born's modest, cautious, humble, competitive, and non-clique personality that it did not form a tight-knit, hegemonic, empty-eyed, and boastful Göttingen school. ”[10]

This is a very apt description of the Born School. The "soft" Born was actually broad-minded.

In an interview with Thomas Kuhn and Heyer Brown on February 20, 1963, the famous theoretical physicist Oskar Klein said: "I think Born's mind is very open-minded, and he is very imaginative. ”[11]

Soft but not weak, academically pursued and open-minded, Born is not a dominant scientific politician and cannot become a scientific activist, but driven by the heart of scientific exploration, Born can not only make first-class academic research himself, but also competently organize and lead an efficient scientific research team.

In his memoirs, he said that the seminar at the Department of Physics at the University of Göttingen, which centered on him, was "great and exciting".

The seminar was open to participants from other departments with closer professional interests, such as Ludwig Prandtl in the Department of Applied Mechanics, Gustav Tammann in the Department of Physical Chemistry, Emil Wiechert in the Department of Geophysics, Johannes Hartmann in the Department of Astronomy, and so on.

Mathematicians also frequent this seminar.

Born, adhering to the academic tradition of democracy and freedom at the University of Göttingen, led the team to carry out active research activities, and he soon established the Physics Department of the University of Göttingen as an international physics center.

"Many important results were first presented at such informal gatherings," Born said. James Franck, Robert Pohl and I took turns proposing topics and chairing the workshop. Speakers were interrupted and relentlessly criticized, something that was commonplace at seminars. Everyone enjoyed this extremely lively and interesting debate process. We even encouraged young people to participate in the discussion, and for that purpose we established a principle that not only stupid questions were allowed to be asked, but even that such questions were welcome. ([12], p. 211)

The good academic atmosphere of the Born School left an extremely deep impression on the disciples.

In an interview with Thomas Kuhn on February 20, 1962, Maria Goeppert Mayer, a Nobel laureate in physics and a disciple of Born, said that usually 20-30 people attended a seminar presided over by Born, "The seminar was always beautiful, and often after the seminar all those who attended the seminar went for a walk with Born and had dinner in a country tavern." ...... The spirit of Göttingen at that time was so different from other places. I remember Born willing to go for a walk with his students—with all the students, to discuss science and everything else" ([11], p. 356).

On March 18, 1963, one of Born's former assistants, the famous physicist Walter Heitler, said in an interview with Heyer Brown: "I must first say something about Göttingen. The atmosphere in Göttingen is pleasant; Born and Frank, as leaders, are simple and delightful figures, and many others there are also friendly. ...... There was a friendly atmosphere there where anything could be discussed. ([11], p. 123)

Quantum mechanics was conceived in seminars or discussions hosted by Born.

Werner Heisenberg established the important "one-man article" of matrix mechanics, and there was an important attempt to apply the concept of "transition amplitude".

In this regard, Born and Pascual Jordan have a clear recall: "We are impressed by the fact that the 'jump quantity' that appears in our formula always corresponds to the square of the vibration amplitude in classical theory. Therefore, it seems possible to write the concept of 'transition amplitude' as a formula. We discuss this view in our regular daily meetings, which Heisenberg regularly attends. I propose that these amplitudes may be the primary quantities and can be disposed of by multiplying them by some kind of symbol. Jordan affirmed the possibility that I had said this to him. ([12], p. 216)

Heisenberg creatively applied Born's idea to the article, and then Born realized after thinking that the "symbolic multiplication of symbols is just a matrix operation" in Heisenberg's paper ([12], p. 217), thus beginning his great cause of leading Jordan and Heisenberg to establish a theoretical system of matrix mechanics. I have two articles devoted to how Born nurtured physics talents [13, 14].

Both articles illustrate how Born instructed his students, how he taught them according to his aptitude, and what Born's students said about the important influences Born had had on them, all of which were illustrated in reliable literature.

The main disciples involved in Born were: Rand, Victor Weisskopf, Walter Elsasser, Fritz London, Heisenberg, Maria Gopert, and Robert Oppenheimer.

This is certainly not the whole descendant who was enlightened by Born. The important influence That Born gives to everyone is not a shadow catch, but a case.

The article also uses an independent link to describe The textbook work carefully created and written by Born, which has a profound impact on the future generations of physics. These include "Principles of Optics", "Lattice Dynamics Theory", "Atomic Mechanics", "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", "The Never-Ending Universe" and so on.

The Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa developed a keen interest in physics by reading Born's writings and began his scientific career by following Born's example.

As early as when Born was a professor at the University of Göttingen, a number of Chinese physicists and young scholars who studied physics and mathematics were taught by Born, and these witnesses also gave Born high praise.

In September 1930, Mr. Ye Qisun "took Siberia and Moscow to the University of Göttingen in Germany for further study." Ye Qisun listened to the thermodynamics taught by Born and the quantum electrodynamics taught by Hettler".

As a theoretical physicist, Born's style of attaching equal importance to theory and practice has left a profound impact on Mr. Ye Qisun, and 35 years later he described Born's academic style: "At the University of Göttingen, Born has a habit, in addition to presiding over theoretical physics seminars, he has always participated in experimental physics seminars hosted by Frank, and every time he goes to understand what problems to be explained in the experiment, what new ideas and new discoveries are available. ([15], p. 297)

The emphasis on physical experiments was also an important factor in the success of the theoretical physicist Born, which I have specifically discussed [16].

Professor Wei Shizhen went to the University of Göttingen in 1922 to study mathematics under Kuran, and received his doctorate in 1925. But he insisted on taking almost all of Born's courses for several years.

When he recalls his experience studying in Germany, he always emphasizes the deep impression that Born left on him: "Born's classes are very well taught, and he has taught more than 20 courses. ” [17]

Professor Lu Baida said: "In 1989 (Wei) Mr. Shi Zhen also said in a letter to me: 'I listened to his (referring to Born) theoretical physics for two and a half years, and I have never seen him say a wrong sentence or write a word. ([17], pp. 194—195)

As for how Born taught physics courses, Professor Wang Fushan was taught in Born's atomic physics and electromagnetics classes in those years, and some of his memories of the details of Born's lectures ([13], p. 62) and the memories of Mr. Ye Qisun and Mr. Wei Shizhen can make readers feel that Born is not only an outstanding researcher, but also a professor who has achieved excellence in teaching and educating people, and is especially good at cultivating students' scientific research ability in teaching.

2. Bohr's own business

According to Hideki Yukawa's physicist "soft-hard dichotomy", Bohr undoubtedly belongs to the "hard" faction.

Bohr is not only the supreme authority and ruler of the Bohr Institute, no matter what the occasion, Bohr has shown the style and powerful aura of the spokesman of theoretical physics.

As Martin Klein put it, Bohr "is nowhere to be called 'father of theoretical physics'" ([3], p. 360).

However, the author believes that many times when Bohr shows the powerful aura of the "father of theoretical physics", his real professional role is only an arbitrary supporting role or even half a layman.

If the reader therefore questions whether the history of Western science and technology interpreted by China's scientific and technological history circles so far is comprehensive and reliable, the author believes that this is completely normal, natural, very reasonable and very discerning.

What kind of person was Bohr, and how accomplished was his professional achievement in theoretical physics?

The memories and evaluations of physicists who had in-depth contact with Bohr are the most direct basis for answering such questions.

The American physicist Gino Segrè wrote a book entitled Faust in Copenhagen [18], which I first learned about through a book review written by Professor John S. Rigden of the Department of Physics at the University of Washington.

The author of the book interviewed a number of people who were familiar with Bohr, and through dialogue with them, found that in interpersonal communication, as friends and even elders, most people admired Bohr and thought that Bohr was a lovely and attractive person; but by the standards of physicists, Bohr's reputation was greatly reduced: "Bohr is very attractive as a person, but Bohr, as a great physicist, is a completely different thing. ”

This aspect of Bohr revealed by Gino Segerre and Professor Rigden is a great subversion of Bohr's previous image. However, I think their views are objective and pertinent, because there is more evidence to support this conclusion.

The famous physicist George Gamow, who was familiar with Bohr, wrote in his book: "Perhaps bohr's greatest characteristic is the slowness of his thinking and comprehension. ...... He also manifested himself as slow to respond at scientific meetings. Visiting young physicists often make macros about their latest calculations on a complex problem of quantum theory. Everyone who listens will understand the argument clearly, except Bohr. So everyone came to explain to Bohr the points he had not grasped..."[20]

Gamov shows bohr's passive, unsynchronized side of academic activity in Copenhagen, and it is difficult to conceive of him as a commander and leader in the construction of quantum mechanics.

Bohr brought almost no doctoral students, but only invited famous figures in physics and up-and-coming stars to his institute. It's not so much that he's mentoring these guests, but rather that he hopes to use this form of communication to learn something new from these young people.

If the establishment of quantum mechanics is likened to driving a car, Bohr is not a cart puller, and even an auxiliary cart puller, he is not able to do it.

When Professor Wang Zhengxing spoke highly of Born's humble ambitions and his school of not pulling gangs and gangs [10], he potentially established a negative example of being good at doing things, being empty-eyed, boasting, pulling gangs, and dominating the academic circles, and the author believes that he refers to Bohr and the so-called Copenhagen School with the mentality of King's Landing.

There are many literatures that show that in the period of establishing quantum mechanics, Bohr, who could not play a leading role in professional ability, has always shown the mentality and posture of pointing out the country and the country, and cannot do anything, resulting in a series of tragic events.

The physicist John C. Slater made no secret of his inability to forgive Bohr.

Sloter received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1923 and later to Copenhagen. In an interview with Kuhn, Sloter said he went to Copenhagen because he found that very few Americans went to Bohr at the time, so he thought it might be a good opportunity.

Before that, he wrote to his family about one of his academic ideas: "There are both waves and particles, and particles seem to be carried by waves, so that particles reach where the waves carry them, rather than just shooting out in a straight line, as others assume." ”[21]

After arriving in Copenhagen, Slott introduced his idea to Bohr and others, and based on the discussion of this idea, on January 20, 1924 Bohr personally finalized the BKS (Bohr-Cramers-Slott) paper.

Bohr acknowledges that the article was inspired by new Schlatter ideas ([21], p. 343). However, based on his own opinion, Bohr abandoned the concept of light quantum proposed by Einstein in 1905 and rejected the law of conservation of energy and momentum, which became a hard wound that was criticized later in this article.

During the writing of this article, the young Sloth was strongly suppressed by Bohr.

More than 40 years later, looking back, Slat said something like this: "I am inclined to the exact conservation ... Cramers always said 'yes' in front of Bohr... The changes they made were something I didn't like... I completely failed in establishing contact with Bohr. ([21], p. 348)

Instead of giving Slat valuable guidance, the strong and arbitrary Bohr inflicted intense damage on his psyche.

In his later years, he still could not let go of his feelings: "Since then, I no longer have any respect for those people. I had a terrible time in Copenhagen. ”[22]

Enrico Fermi was one of the outstanding leaders of Bohr's next generation of physicists, and is hailed as the last physicist of the 20th century to be a master of both theory and experimentation, founding the Roman School and then the Chicago School.

On July 31, 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote a page of transcript entitled "Fermi's Attitude Toward Bohr." Document a statement he heard from Fermi's former colleague Frank and Mrs. Meyer: Fermi looked down on Bohr.

After World War II, someone in the physics department of the University of Chicago suggested that Bohr be invited to give a lecture. Fermi was very opposed to this, and when the proponent persuaded Fermi on the grounds that "it would be beneficial for students to meet this great man", Fermi said that in fact Bohr's confused and confused thoughts could only hurt the students.

In addition to Fermi, there are many people who say that Bohr's thinking is confused, such as Born once said to Einstein: "Bohr's expression is often vague and incomprehensible." ”

Teller's biographer also said: "Bohr, though knowledgeable, could also be said to be a confused and eccentric teacher. His flaws sometimes put his students to the test. ” [23]

It should be noted that the "students" of Bohr referred to here refer to young people who were invited by Bohr to visit his institute, not students who he personally taught.

According to Frank and Mrs. Meyer, Kuhn couldn't be sure whether Fermi had been unaccustomed to Bohr for a while or had always denied Bohr. To this end, he sought confirmation from Emilio Segrè, a leading member of the Fermi Roman School and winner of the 1959 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Segereré confirmed that Fermi had always had a low opinion of Bohr, and that he was not accustomed to Bohr's obscure speech and aphoristic expressions.

Fermi even doubted Bohr's ability to think clearly, Segre said, and Fermi resented the mysterious and mysterious philosophical statements of the Copenhagen School and did everything in his power to oppose them.

Segre believes that Fermi's contempt for Bohr may have stemmed from an earlier incident.

In 1923 Fermi wrote a very good paper in which the "Williams-Weizacher method" was proposed.

Bohr did not read Fermi's paper, but made a negative evaluation of Fermi's important achievements. This directly led to the neglect of Fermi's contribution by the physics community. The relevant original literature is found in my previous article [24].

For those who do not know much about the inside story, Bohr and Heisenberg are models of good relations between teachers and friends in the physics community in the 20th century. But in fact, apart from the polite meaning, there is no real teacher-student relationship between the two.

Not only that, but if you look closely at the biographies of Heisenberg and Bohr written by David Cassidy and Abraham Pais, it is not difficult to find that the real interaction between the two is not as good as Heisenberg's early attempt to please Bohr.

Here is just one example.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was later highly admired by the Copenhagen School and Bohr himself, but Bohr was opposed to this idea in the early days, and Bohr did not approve of it until Heisenberg wrote it, and Bohr did not stop at not recognizing: "Bohr even tried to persuade Heisenberg not to publish this article... The argument between the two was quite sharp and unpleasant. Heisenberg later recalled: 'I remember the argument ending in tears in my eyes because I couldn't stand this pressure from Bohr. ’”[25]

At the end of March 1927, Heisenberg sent the manuscript despite Bohr's objections. Nevertheless, the sleek and sophisticated Heisenberg did not forget to express his gratitude to Bohr.

It is conceivable today that if Heisenberg had succumbed to Bohr, as will soon be mentioned, john Wheeler, this important article might have been stifled, or at least delayed.

To be sure, Bohr was not deliberately opposed to Heisenberg or his article, but the crux of the matter was that Bohr himself, when he could not understand the thoughts and achievements of young people, unknowingly intervened or even exercised the power of negation.

Johann Wheeler, who did postdoctoral research under Bohr in the 1930s, was a junior physicist who had no complaints about Bohr. But that doesn't mean Bohr didn't have a negative impact on Wheeler.

Wheeler collaborated with Milton Plesset to study the interaction of high-energy photons with atomic nuclei, writing a paper they were happy with. But Bohr advised them not to publish the paper publicly.

Wheeler said: "Although we are satisfied with this study, we still respect Bohr's judgment... As a result, the results of this study were never published. ”[26]

Wheeler did not blame Bohr: "The reader is likely to think that we are not a little dissatisfied with Bohr in this matter, and the answer is not only no, but none." We didn't think there was any complaint at all. ([26], p. 170)

From Wheeler's regretful recollection, it can be seen that Wheeler did not blame Bohr because Wheeler himself had a good temperament and could think openly, and it is not difficult to understand that if another person blames or even holds a grudge against Bohr.

Wheeler's experience once again illustrates the fact that bohr's consistent style of interfering forcefully in the research work of young people and often arbitrarily determining the fate of young people's research results, whether he really understands it or not (and in many cases does not understand it).

Bohr seems to be friendly and tolerant to everyone in his institute, but this is only a superficial phenomenon.

This is indirectly demonstrated in Wheeler's recollection": If another speaker in the seminar was giving a speech, Bohr would sit quietly for 15 minutes. Then if that theme catches his attention, he will gradually change from a passive listener role to an active participant... And the original speaker listened..." ([26], p. 165)

Young people such as Wheeler are simple, and in his positive praises of Bohr, it is not difficult to see bohr's private iron-fisted behavior in order to maintain his dominance: Bohr never spoke ill of anyone... Twice during my year there I saw researchers overly self-centered, bohr felt they were overly arrogant. In both cases, Bohr quietly arranged for the two men to take up positions at other institutes. ([26], p. 167)

The old bohr will quietly dispose of those who ignore his existence and despise his authority, and the means are so clever that the simple young man does not have the slightest understanding of Bohr's true intentions.

Even Wheeler, whom Bohr worshipped so much, did not experience the pleasures that Born's assistants and disciples enjoyed in the School of Born, saying, "Although the bondage between me and Bohr has affected our relationship..." ([26], pp. 185-186)

Why is Wheeler restrained? Judging from the situation of Sloth, Heisenberg and others, it is not Wheeler's own problem, but the power of the overlord Bohr.

Bohr's Copenhagen School did not have a truly democratic, relaxed academic atmosphere.

The incidents of young people being "abused" by Bohr are certainly not limited to these few cases.

In contrast to Bohr, the "soft" Born never treated any student or assistant in this way, and not only that, he also had a lot of experience of abusing young assistants or even doctoral students.

Pauli, Oppenheimer, and Hans Bethe, among other younger generations, have all abused Born, but Born has no resentment toward them, nor has he done any punishment or revenge.

Oppenheimer, for example, was arrogant when he was young, and his behavior was disrespectful and even offensive to many people, including Born.

He repeatedly interrupted, or even replaced, Born in class and occupied the lecture hall himself. Born was able to forgive and endure this, even if the other students could not stand to write a joint letter of protest, Born did not criticize Oppenheimer, but only tried to let Oppenheimer know the strong dissatisfaction of other students, so as to curb his behavior.

Once, when Born gave oppenheimer the paper he had written and asked him to check whether there were any errors in mathematical calculations and derivations, Oppenheimer actually said to Born: "I haven't found anything wrong,—— is this really written by you alone?" ”

Born was not upset about this either, saying, "Oppenheimer is the only one who has enough directness and recklessness and not the audacity to say these words out of joke." I didn't feel offended, but it actually made me more respectful of his outstanding personality. ([11], p. 365)

In a letter to a prominent member of american academia at the time, Born did not mention Oppenheimer's indecent words and deeds, but only praised him for being very good .[27]

Born's tolerance and generosity beyond ordinary people in Pauli, Oppenheimer and others deserves our deep consideration: if we regard this reaction of his as merely due to the weakness of his character, it is likely that we have seriously underestimated the realm of this great soul. It is even more incomprehensible to understand his heartfelt appreciation for these offspring under such circumstances.

Mr. Goege acknowledges the fact that Bohr, during the establishment of quantum mechanics, "for two or three years from 1925 to 1927 ... He has published relatively few papers".

During this period, Bohr not only had few scientific research results, but also did not directly contribute to the establishment of quantum mechanics, which is an indisputable fact in the physics community and the history of physics.

In this case, speaking of Bohr's great contribution to quantum mechanics, will the skin be attached without hair?

So there were people like P. Robertson. Robertson came up with another reason and excuse": although Bohr himself did not publish a single article that directly contributed to the establishment of quantum mechanics, he played a decisive role in guiding and inspiring the younger generation of physicists. ”[29]

However, is this really the case?

The reliable memories of Sloth, Fermi, Heisenberg, Wheeler and others mentioned above undoubtedly prove this statement to be absurd and completely contrary to historical facts!

Bohr was lackluster in influencing younger education. As a university professor, Bohr's actions are really difficult to compliment.

In terms of teaching and educating people, Born has produced more than 20 Doctorates in Physics during his tenure as a professor at the University of Göttingen alone, many of whom have won Nobel Prizes.

According to the current consensus in the history of science and technology, the only physics doctor who can be counted as Bohr's guidance is Cramers.

Some people call Bohr a great physics educator, even if not compared with Born, as a professor and the leader of a famous university and a famous research institute, he only directed one doctoral student in his lifetime, no matter how strange it is explained.

When it comes to teaching and educating people, we cannot fail to mention the classic textbooks and works we have written. What books did Bohr write that rivaled Born's Principles of Optics, Lattice Dynamics Theory, atomic physics, or books or textbooks that influenced generations?

Who has specifically described which physics course Professor Bohr taught? It can be seen that some people describe and recall how Professor Bohr specifically instructed students. Which of his disciples had sincerely thanked Bohr for what lessons had benefited him immensely?

If these questions are put on Born, we can give many answers and evidence, but there are no specific examples in Bohr's "glorious" deeds. If not even these real things have been done, how did Bohr's image as a great teacher come about?

There is no other explanation, it all stems from the wind and shadows or the highly exaggerated legend.

Mr. Goege argues that in the "exciting endeavours of quantum mechanics, Bohr in fact played the role of 'commander-in-chief'" ([28], p. 199). And "especially in the birth of the new quantum mechanics, Bohr's institute became the 'stronghold' and 'headquarters' of all expectations" ([28], p. 18).

Even if Professor Goege could not say the direct contribution of Bohr and the Bohr Institute in the establishment of quantum mechanics, he still did not change his original intention: "Quantitatively, many of them were completed by Göttingen and Munich in Germany, but from the general spirit and program, Copenhagen is the undisputed headquarters." ([28], p. 139)

The author has pointed out that these statements of Mr. Goge are still overwhelmingly erroneous statements in the field of physics and the history of science and technology.

But this argument is logically untenable: "It is hard to imagine nor evidence that Bohr, the 'commander-in-chief', had given orders to Professor Born, who had been trying for many years to establish a new theory to replace Bohr's old atomic theory; how could Bohr, who was not on the right path of establishing quantum mechanics, inspire Heisenberg?" How did Jodang, who knew Bohr before 1925 and had no correspondence, accept Bohr's guidance? There is no evidence that Bohr ever commanded the maverick E. Schrödinger to establish wave dynamics; much less that Bohr directed or directed the taciturn P. Dirac. And if Bohr is not commanding these key figures in the establishment of quantum mechanics, then what does the command of this 'commander-in-chief' have to do with the establishment of quantum mechanics? ([24], p. 67)

To prove that Bohr is the commander-in-chief of quantum mechanics, it is necessary to produce reliable evidence to answer these questions that the author has asked, otherwise it will only be empty words.

By comparing Born and Bohr, we will find that there are diametrically different ways of doing things for people, from the pattern and mind, Born has a real tolerance and grace, and down-to-earth training students; Bohr's strong mentality makes it difficult for him to tolerate scholars who dare to offend him, and he does not have enough professional ability to cultivate the talents needed to build quantum mechanics.

(To be continued)

About author:Hou Yude, born in 1963, Heilongjiang Mingshuiren, doctor of engineering, professor and doctoral supervisor of Shanxi University, whose research direction is the history of physics and physical culture.

bibliography

[1] Hou Yude . Professor Goge before the end of his life[J]. Review of Science and Culture, 2017, 14(5): 79—91.

[2] Fan DaiNian . If Goge is alive, he will inevitably be angry[J]. Review of Culture and Science, 2018, 15(2): 119—121.

[3] Klein, M.. Max Born on His Vocation[J]. Science. New Series, 1970, 169(3943): 360.

[4] Heilbron, J. L.. Max Born[J]. Science, New Series, 1979, 204(4394): 740.

[5] Cassidy . Heisenberg Biography (Volume 1)[M]. Translated by Gog . Beijing : The Commercial Press, 2002. 187.

Hardy, Wiener, Whitehead. The defense of scientists[M]. Mao Hong, Zhong Yuguang, Yu Xuegong translation. Nanjing: Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 1999. 121.

[7] Hideki Yukawa . Traveler: Memories of a Physicist [M]. Translated by Zhou Donglin, Shijiazhuang:Hebei Science and Technology Press,2010, 166.]

[8] HOU Yude , XING Hongfei . Born's character and destiny[J]. Review of Culture of Science, 2013, 10(6): 91.

[9] Born . My life and my views [M]. Translated by Li Baoheng . Beijing : The Commercial Press, 1979.

[10] Guan Hong . Appreciation of Scientific Masterpieces· Physical volumes [M]. Taiyuan : Shanxi Science and Technology Press, 2006. 230—231.

[11] Hou Yude . Born and the Göttingen School of Physics[M]. Beijing : China Science and Technology Press, 2017. 121.

[12] Born, M.. My Life[M]. London:Taylor& Francis Ltd., 1978. 211.

[13] Hou Yude . How Born cultivates physical talents ( Part 1 )[J]. University of Physics, 2015, 34(9): 59—65.

[14] Hou Yude . How Born cultivates physical talents ( Part 2 )[J]. University of Physics, 2015, 34(10): 60—65.

[15] Ye Minghan , Dai Nianzu , Li Yanping . Ye Qisun Wencun[M]. Beijing : Capital Normal University Press, 2013. 677.

[16] Hou Yude . Max P. Born's Experimental Complex[J]. Dialectics of Nature, 2009, (2): 82—86.

[17] Editorial Team of "Mr. Wei Shizhen Memorial Anthology" . Commemorative Essays of Mr. Wei Shizhen[C]. Chengdu : Chuanxin Chu Nei (93) Character No. 089 , 187.

[18] Segrè, G.. Faust in Copenhagen[M]. New York: Penguin Books, 2007.

[19] Rigden, J.. The Overestimation of Niels Bohr[Z].

http://www2.nysun.com/article. 2018-10-13.

[20] Gamov . History of Physics[M]. Translated by Coats. Beijing : The Commercial Press, 1981. 226.

[21] Pais. Biography of Nils Bohr [M]. Translated by Gog . Beijing : The Commercial Press, 2001. 342.

[22] Interview with John Clarke Slater by Thomas S. Kuhn and J. H. Van Vleck at Slater's Office, M. I. T; October 3, 1963[Z].

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4892_1.html. 2018-09-04.

[23] Bloomberg, Owens . Teller, the father of the American hydrogen bomb[M]. Hua Junduo, translated by Zhao Shuyun . Beijing : Atomic Energy Press, 1991. 58.

[24] HOU Yude , MA Guofang . Born and Bohr: Whose school created quantum mechanics? [J]. Review of Science and Culture, 2015, 12(4): 72—73.

[25] Guan Hong . A Generation of Myths: The Copenhagen School[M]. Wuhan : Wuhan Publishing House, 2002. 74—75.

[26] Wheeler . Fowler. The Autobiography of John Wheeler [M]. Translated by Cai Chengzhi . Shantou : Shantou University Press, 2004. 169.

[27] Smith, A. K., Weiner, C.. RobertOppenheimer Letters and Recollection[M]. Aerica: Harvard University Press,1980. 103.

[28] Goge . Shi Qing Shi Wen Broom[M]. Hong Kong : Tianma Books Limited, 2001. 143.

[29] Robertson . The early years of the Bohr Institute [M]. Yang Fujia , Zhuo Yizhong , Zeng Jianyan translation . Beijing : Science Press, 1985. 104.

This article was originally published in The Review of Science and Culture, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2019, originally titled "Old Sayings Revisited: Why Is Bohr Unrelated to the Establishment of Quantum Mechanics?" 》。 Published with the authorization of the Scientific and Cultural Review, with slight editing.

Cooperation matters: [email protected]

Submission: [email protected]