ABC's of Quantum Mechanics

Preface

by
V. Rydnik
ISBN: 0-89875-581-6
Copyright 2001 by University Press of the Pacific
Reprinted from the 1978 edition
University Press of the Pacific
Honolulu, Hawaii
http://www.universitypressofthepacific.com
All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce
this book, or portions thereof, in any form.

At the turn of the century, physics entered

into a new world, the invisible silent world of
atoms, atomic nuclei and elementary particles.
Our twentieth century then produced the theory
that has been serving physicists so faithfully for
over sixty years - quantum mechanics.
The landscape of the new world is quite unlike our own. So different that physicists frequently lack words to describe it. Quantum mechanics had to create new conceptions for the
world of the ultrasmall, bizarre conceptions
beyond the scope of pictorial imagery.
Customary physical laws cease to operate in
the new world. Particles lose their dimensions
and acquire the properties of waves. Then again,
waves begin to act like particles. Electrons and
the other building stones of matter can pass
through impenetrable barriers, or they can vanish altogether leaving only photons in their place.
Those are the things quantum mechanics dealt
with.
This book will tell you about the origin and
development of quantum mechanics, about its
5

-----------------new concepts. It will describe how the new theory deciphered the secrets of the structure of
atoms, molecules, crystals, atomic nuclei, and
how quantum mechanics is dealing with the problem of the most fundamental of all properties
of matter - the interaction of particles and the
relationships between fields and matter.

Contents

FROM CLASSICAL MECHANJC~

TO QUANTUM MECHANICS

In Lieu of an Introducucn . . .
The Outlines of the New World
The Temple of Classical Mechanics
The Temple Collapses.
.
How the New Theory was Named
Physicists BUild Models .
.
Not Everything Can be Modelled
The Invisible, Untouchable World
Difficult but Interesting

II
12

15
17
18
20
23
25
26

THE FIRST STEPS OF THE NEW THEORY

Heat and Light

Blacker than Black
Exact Laws, NOl Rough Approximauons
The Ultraviolet Catastrophe
.
Classical Physics at an Impasse
The Way out
Quanta of Energy
The Elusive Quanta
..,
An Unaccountable Phenomenon
Photons
.
What IS Light'!
The Visiting Cards of Atoms
Why do Bodies Emil Light?
..
I Bohr
The Biography of the Atom Written by ~le s
From Where do We Reckon the Energy
EXCited Atoms
The First Setbacks.

29
31
32
34
35
36
38
40
43
44
46
48
SO
S3
57
59
61
7

II

FROM BOHR'S THEORY 10 QUANTUM MECHANICS

A Remarkable Article
A Little about Ordmary Waves
Getting Acquainted with Mauer Waves
Why Can't We See de Broglie Waves?
The Wave IS Found
Two-Faced Parucles
Pilot Waves
Together or Separately?
A VISit to the'<Shootmg
Range
Waves of Probabrltty
Probability Enters Into PhySICS
Cauuous Predrcnons
Waves of Particles and Particles of Waves
On the Way to the Wave Law
Measurmg Instruments Take over
The Uncertainty Relation
What IS to Blame, the Instrument or the Electron?
An Attempt with Rather Faulty Tool,
Another Marvel
The Uncertainty Relation Once Agam
Matter Waves Again
The Wave Function
Waves and Quanta are United

THE INTERIOR OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS

65
66

67
68

71
75

76
78
80

83
84
87

90
91
95

98
101
103
106
109
112
114
116

ATOMS, MOLECULES, CRYSTALS

Clouds, In Place of Orbits

Monotony In Diversity
Another Marvel - But as Yet Unexplamed
The Atomic Architect at Work
Crazy Atoms
Atoms and Chemistry
The Birth of a Spectrum
Fat Lines and Double Lmcs
Atoms Get Married
Solid Bodies are Really Soltd
Skeletons and M ulnstorey Structures of Crystals
Insulators Can Conduct Current
How does Current Move m a Metal ')
Those Wonderful 'Seml.Thmg'i'
Useful 'Om'
Generous and Greedy Atoms
8

120
124
125
128

130
132
136
140
142

147
149
155
158
162
164
165

On the Threshold
The First Step
The Second Step
The Search for the Mysterious Meson
The Strongest Forces of All
Once Again about the Stability of Nuclei
Tunnels III Nuclei
?
Does the Nucleus Consist of Shells?
Where do Gamma Rays Come fr~m
The Nucleus as a Liquid Drop
The Liquid-Drop Nucleus Splits
The Secrets of Nuclear FISSion
H
M'
Nuclei Can There Be?
ow Nu~f:u~ as Shells and Liquid Drop Together:
Partrcles Fly out of the Nucleus that Were Never There
The Electron Has an Accomplice
Electrons are Born in Nuclei
The Hungry Nucleus

171
173
176
180
181
185
187

191
193
196
198
200
203
204
207
209
212
215

FROM ATOMIC NUCLEI TO ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

The Discovery of a New World

The InVISIble Drvtdmg Lme
A Bit More about the Theory of Relanviry
The First Dlfficultle~
An Unexpected Discovery
A Stili More Unexpected Discovery
The Birth of a 'Hole'
The Outlmes of Empnness
Complete Emptmess?
Emptiness Depends Oil Bodies I
Matter and Fields
There IS No Ernptmess '
What the Whales Rest on
Particles Change Their GUise
The Two-Faced PI Meson
A Clue to Meson Exchange
The Secret of Interaction
The Kingdom of Vmuahucs
The Virtual Becomes Real
In the Search for New Particles
Sorting the Booty

219
221
224
226
228

231
::!35
237
240
242
245
246
249
251
254
256
259
::!64
265
268
270
9

Antiparticles Come mto Action

Parucles Drsmtegrate
.
PhYSICiSts Classify Interactions
The Mystery of the K-Mesons
Is the Left Any Different from the Right?
A way out IS Found I
Worlds and Anttworlds
.
What Goes on Inside Particles?
The Mystenous
Resonances
The Curtain Rises
Resonances Get Citizenship
1 nplets, OctetsQuarks.
.
Old Ideas Hold One Back .
The Reverse of the Obvio~s
The Ubiquitous Quantum .
FROM QUANTUM

274
276
279

281
283
287
290

292
295
297
299

302
306
308
310

312

MECHANICS TO

Indeterminable Determmacies .
.
The Biography of Quantum Mechanics .
Quantum Mechanics Gets Its Second Wmd

From classical mechanics

to quantum mechanics

315
320
324

In Lieu of an Introduction
Atomic energy. Radioactive isotopes. Semiconductors.
Elementary particles. Masers. Lasers. All quite familiar
terms, yet the oldest IS hardly twenty-five years of age.
They are all children of twentieth-century
physics.
In this age, knowledge is advancing at a fantastic
rate, and every new step opens up fresh vistas.
The old sciences are going through a second youth.
PhySICS has pushed out ahead of all others and is
pioneering into the unknown. As the front broadens,
the attack slows up only to make renewed thrusts
forward.
To get at the secrets of nature, physics has had
to find powerful instruments, to devise precise and
convincing experiments. At the physics headquarters
are hundreds and thousands of theoreticians mapping
out the offensive and studying the trophies captured
in the experiments. This is no struggle in the dark.
The field of battle is lighted up with powerful physical
theories. The strongest searchlights of present-day
physics are the theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics.
Quantum mechamcs carne in with the twentieth
century. Date of birth: December 17, 1900. It was
II

F
on this day that the German physicist Max Planck
reported to a meeting of the Berlin Academy of
Sciences Physical Society on his attempt to overcome
one of the difficulties of the theory of thermal
radiation
Dlfnculhes are a common thmg in science. Every
day scientists come up against them. But Planck's
encounter had a very special significance, for it
foreshadowed the development of physics for many
years to come.
An enormous tree of new knowledge has grown
out of the seminal ideas expressed by Planck, which
served as a starung point for amazing discoveries
far beyond the unagmauon of the wildest sciencefiction writers. Out of Planck's concepts grew quantum
mechanics, which opened up an entirely new world the world of the ultrasmall, of atoms, atomic nuclei
and elementary parucles,

The Outlines of the New World

But didn't people know anything about this atom
before the twentieth century? In a way they did, that
is, they had guessed and conjectured.
The inquisiuve human mmd had speculated upon
these thmgs and had long rmagmed what became a real
thing only many centuries later.
In ancient times, long before the first travellers
laid therr paths of discovery, man had guessed that
there were people and animals and land beyond the
little area m which he hved.
In the same way, people felt that there existed
a world of the ultrasmall long before it was actually
discovered. One did not need to go far In search
12

of this new world, for it was fight at hand, lying

around him in all things.
In olden times, thinkers had meditated on the way
nature had produced the world around us out of
something quite formless. How was it, they queried,
that it came to be inhabited by its great diversity
of things. MIght it not be that nature worked like
a hutlder that makes large houses out of small stones?
Then what are these stones?
Enormous mountains arc weathered away by the
water, the wind, and mysterious volcanic forces. The
rocks that come away are In time broken down into
pieces. Hundreds and thousands of years pass, and
these are pulvenzed IOta dust.
Is there no limit to this dividing and subdivldmg
of matter? Are there particles so small that even
nature is no longer able 10 break them up? The
answer was YES. So said the ancient phIlosophers
EPICUruS, Democritus and others. These particles were
given the name 'atom'. Their chief property was that
no further division IS possible. The word 'atom' 10
Greek means 'nondivisible'.
What did an atom look like" In those times,
this questton remained unanswerable. Atoms might be
In the form of solid impenetrable
spheres, yet they
might not be. Then again: How many different vaneties
are there? Maybe a thousand, yet perhaps only one.
Some philosophers (the Greek Empedocles, for one)
beheved that there were probably four. They beheved
that the entire universe consisted of four elementswater, air, earth, and fire. In turn, these elements
were thought to consist of atoms.
One might now think that With mformation as
meagre as this there could be no talk of any progress.
True, yet the first steps of sctence are usually m
IJ

breadth and not in depth. So many things surround

man I The first job is to find out how they are
related to one another, and then, only later, how
they are constructed.
The conception of atoms in an age when science
was still in Its infancy was a conjecture of genius.
But it was only a conjecture which did not follow
from any kind of observations and was not supported
by any kind of experiments.
The atoms were forgotten for a very long time.
They were recalled, or rather they were invented once
again, only at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
And not by physicists, but by chemists.
The start of last century was an interesting time
both for the historian of society - Napoleon was
recarving the boundaries of European states - and
for the historian of science - in the quiet of the few
laboratories that existed in those days there was 10
progress a radical reevaluation of the nature of things.
ConceplIons that had appeared quite stable were being
reconsidered
Young m England and Fresnel in France had laid
the foundation of the wave theory of light. Abel
in Norway and Galois in France had put the first
stones in the mighty edifice of modern algebra.
The Frenchman Lavoisier and the Englishman Dalton
demonstrated that chemistry is capable of penetrating
deep into the essence of things. The chemists, physicists
and mathematicians of that time made a whole series of
outstanding discoveries that prepared the way for the
nourishing of the exact sciences in the latter half of the
nineteenth century.
An unknown English scholar, Prout, m 1815 expressed
the view that there exist minute particles which can
participate in the most diverse chemical reactions
14

without being destroyed and reconstructed. These were

obviously atoms.
Durmg those same years, the illustnous
French
SCientist Lagrange put classical mechanics 10 that
complete and elegant form in which - it was later
found - there was no place for atoms.

The Temple

of Classical

Mechanics

In SCience, nothing appears from nowhere.

And quantum mechanics may justly be called the
brain child of classical mechanics, which began WIth
Newton.
True, It is not entirely ngbt to attnbute the
creatIOn of classical mechanics to Newton alone.
Many great minds dunng the Renaissance were engaged
IU problems
that later formed the basis of classical
mechaniCS: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, the
Dutch mathematiCIan Simon Stevin and Frenchman
Blaise Pascal. Out of all the scattered studies of the
motions of bodies, Newton constructed a single Unified
and harmonious theory.
We know the exact date when classical mechanics
was born. It was the year 1687, when Newton's
book "Pmlosophra Naturalis Pnncipia Mathematica"
("The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy")
appreared
in London. In those days the natural
sciences still went by the name philosophy.
In his work, Newlon formulated for the first time
the three basic principles of classical mechanics. later
called Newton's three laws, which every schoolchild
studies.
The edifice of mechanics that Newton built goes
far beyond these three laws, and has long smce been
15

completed. From the vantage point of modern SCience,

it looks like this
In the enormous void of space mhabtted by numerous
and diverse objects, from giganuc stars to minute dust
particles, there was a point In the distant past when the
entire universe was without motion. In a state of
complete rest.
It was god, who regarding In amazement the fruit
of his creation, gave the first 'Impulse' and breathed
hfe into the world. ThIS exhausted god's duties. From
then on all the bodies In the universe began to move
and mteract according to defirute laws. The number
of such laws was great but In the final analysis they
could all be reduced to several baSIC laws, which
mcluded the three laws of Newton.
From this minute on there was never anything
accidental
Everything was predeterrruned.
Nothing
arbitrary was possible any more. From then on there
was perfect harmony in this symphony of the universe.
For more than a century after Newton this supreme
orderliness
of the universe based on Newtonian
mechanics was extremely sansfymg to all physicrsts.
They were pacified each time some new piece of the
universe was found to fit nicely into the theory.
And for quite some time nature allowed Itself to be
treated this way. But not for long SCientists were
soon convinced that there IS nothing less stable than
hardened dogmas Facts began to appear that simply
would not fit into the old framework
By the end of (he nineteenth century Newtonian
mechanics was In a Crisis. It gradually became clear that
this crisis signified the fall of universal determinism,
scienufically called the pnnciple of mechanical deterrnmIsm The Universe was not so Simple after all, and It
wasn't wound Up for all time.
16

Quantum mechanics brought with It not only new

knowledge. It gave a radically different interpretation
to the phenomena of the world. For the first time. SCience
gave full recogruuon to the accidental
And perhaps physrcrsts are not to blame for
being taken aback. Though It was only the eternal
deterrmmsm which they themselves had concocted that
gave way, phYSICiStS seemed to thmk that It was
determinism as such that was crumbling, that the
universe was governed by absolute anarchy. and that
thmgs no longer obeyed exact laws.
It took quue some lime before phySICS found Its
way out of the deep CflSIS.

The Temple Collapses

Cunosrty killed the cat The saying IS probably
applicable to theories as well Even If today the theory
appears quite correct and capable of explainmg all
the facts
A theory puts m Its appearance at a certain stage
10 the development
of SCience, when the latter has
made a study of a Wide range of phenomena. The
aim of the theory IS to give an explanation from
some one POlOt of view
But the very same theory proves insufficient and
even erroneous when fresh facts are discovered that
do not tit 1010 Its narrow framework.
Classical mechanics was entirely satisfactory as long
as phySICSwas confined to mechanics But the nmeteenth
century saw phySICS attack a new broad front thermal
processes, which gave nse to therrnodynarmcs , light,
which gave rise to optics: electnc and magnetic
phenomena.
which served as a startmg POlOt for
electrodynamics.
For a time. phySICS rern.nned III a
2-70

17

rather contented state. All new discovenes continued

to fit neatly Into the exisung moulds.
However. as the edifice of classical physics grew
upwards, ItS enormous front gave signs of fatigue,
Sinister cracks appeared. and finally the entire structure
began to crumble under the bombardment of new facts
One of these most fundamental facts was the remarkable constancy of the velocity of light. The most
careful and objective experiments demonstrated that the
behaviour of light IS radically different from what
had been observed 10 all other known areas.
To fit the behaviour of light into the framework
of classical phySICS,SCientists had to devise a medium
called the ether, which, by the rules of classical
phySICS. would possess SImply fantastic properties. We
shall come back to thrs ether later on and examine
It In more detail. But the new ether could not save
the old phySICS.
Another stumbling block to classical phySICS was
the thermal radrauon of heated bodies
Then, finally, the discovery of radioactivity. ThIS
had the most shattenng effect on classical pb ysics
dunng the last years of ItS undivided rule, for the
mysterious processes of radioacuvny not only smashed
atomic nuclei, but exploded the very baSISof phySICSthose pnncrples that had appeared so obvious from the
standpoint of common sense. Out of these cracks 10
the structure of classical mechanics grew the theory
of relativity and the quantum theory.

How the New Theory was Named

Quantum mechanics was born at the turn of the
cenlury. But why this name? Actually, the term but
feebly reflects the contents of the thrngs which the
new phySICS dealt WIth.
18

Probably not a single branch of phySICShas escaped

a certain vagueness 10 rerrmnology. There arc many
reasons for this. but they are primarily of a histoncal
nature.
First of all. why mechanics? There was nothing
mechJOlcal 10 the new theory. and as we shall see
later on, there couldn't be The word 'mechanics' is
Justified only 10 that It IS used 10 a general sense,
like we speak of the 'mechanics of a watch' meanmg
the prinCiple of operatIOn. The conceptual range of
quantum mechamcs IS better covered by the broad
definttlon of phySICS Itself.
Secondly. why quantum" Quantum 10 Latin means
'discrete portion or 'quantlty', Further on we shall
see that the new science does actually deal With
'discreteness' In the properties of the surrounding
world. That IS onc of ItS basic pnnclples. On the
other hand, as we shall sec, thrs discreteness IS not
at all general. and IS not found everywherc or at all
times.
What IS more, It IS only one Side of the medal
A no less peculiar aspect IS the duality of the
properties of matter. The dual nature of matter lies
10 the fact that one and the same entity (object)
comhlOcs the properties of particles and waves
The new science was relined to wave mechaOlcs'
But here again we have only half of It - there IS no
menuon of quanta
We conclude that none of the names of the new
phySical theory was satisfactory But couldn't somethlOg
be thought up more 10 keeping With the actual
contents of the subject'!
The Introduction or new terms 10 science ISa labonous
and thankless job New terms come 10 slowly and
l'h.lng~ ,,1111
more slowly. PhYSICistSundcrstand the new

,.

19

meamng that these terms carry and so It

learn them.

IS

for us to

Physicists Build Models

Imagine the monon of a ball along a rope that
you are whirling round your head. It IS obviously
quite simple because you can see everything with
your own eyes. That IS exactly how classical physics
developed - out of the observations of objects and
phenomena that surround us.
Roll a ball along a smooth honzontal
table It
continues to move after the action of the hand has
ceased, that IS, after the force has ceased to operate.
This and similar observations gave nse to the law of
mertia that was enunciated by Newton as the first
baSIClaw of mechanics.
A ball will not begin to move until pushed by the
hand or hit by another ball A ball moving over a
smooth table and a ball at rest have one thmg m
common: they are not acted upon by any forces,
On the rope, however, the ball IS all the time acted
upon by a force that deflects It from the reculmear
path inherent an free monon. That same ball at rest
on the table will, under the action of the force of
one's hand. begin to move and will acquire speed
(the greater, the bigger the force). ThIS observation
gave nse to Newton's second law.
But now the investigator - Newton again - leaves
the everyday world and looks to the heavens to seek
a clue to the 'harmony of the celestial spheres' which
had stumped the ancient philosophers. What makes the
planets move round the sun 10 the way they do and
not otherwise?
The word "harmony' suggests a system of order,
the operation of some law governing the monon of
20

the heavenly bodies. The matter is not one of 'spheres'

naturally. But there must be a law govermng the
laotion of the planets, and our earth too. about the
sun and the motion of the satellites about their planets.
One might recall the ball moving along a swmgmg
rope. The motion of the planets about the sun IS
indeed very much like the uniform motion of the ball,
though It IS slower and there IS no rope In short,
If in one case a force is operauve, It is reasonable
to suppose that It IS operative to another case too.
There is of course no way to perceive directly
the acuon of the force governIng planetary motions.
But the force IS there. And Newton discovered It
We know that It is the force of the reciprocal attractIOnof
bodies. Newton's genius hes in the fact that he
perceived what is common between the monon of a ball
and the orbttal motton of a planet.
The Important thmg for us, however, is that the ball
and rope was probably one of the f rst phySical
models. One gains an understandmg of such a grandiose
phenomenon of nature as planetary motion through
the study of things on a much smaller scale - on the
assumptiOn of course that both are governed by
similar laws
The question arises as to whether this IS Justifiable
everywhere and at all times. Is it nght to extend the
laws of one phenomenon to another one which IS
much larger or much smaller?
In Newton's urne the answer was Simple since
observation corroborates the development of some
large-scale phenomenon that has been calculated on the
baSISof some small-scale one, or vice versa, everythmg
holds true.
Roughly the same answer can be heard today as
well. True, the approach IS somewhat different. Newton
21

believed firstly, that the Universe was Unified and

secondly. that the laws goverrung Its hfe both at man's
level and in the big world of the planets and stars
are the same.
From the vantage pomt of modern science we are
in full agreement wrth the first.
'
Now for the second, we cannot of course draw the
conclusion that the inner workings of a phenomenon
follow from similar outer phenomena.
A parrot repeats human words, but it would be
naive to suppose that while pronouncing
a word
the brrd thinks.
The complexity of cognnion lies in the fact that
absolutely dl.lferent laws are operative m the hierarchy
of worlds ot things - m the ultrasmall. the ordinary,
the ultrabrg ; and that there are great lrrmtauons to
extending the laws of the ordinary world of thmgs to
other scales.
Physicrsts have been frustrated, when encountering
the unruly entities of the ultrasmatl.
due to a
misunderstandmg
of this Important conclusion. Once
convinced that microscopic particles refuse to fit IOta the
framework of ordinary concepts. these phystcrsts began
to speak of anarchy. of a nature without laws Yet
this was not the case at all. as we shall sec later on
Model representuuon has played. and contmues to
play. an Important role In the development of the
natural sciences. Some of the greatest discovenes have
been made wuh the mel of models constructed
by
human hands or. more often. existmg only In the mind.
since they cannot be built.
The ball supported by a rope was a very Simple
model As time went on. more soplusucated models
were developed.
They became more and more
complicated. bizarre, But exotic as these models might

"

become, they have one thing in common. They

are built out of the elements of the ordinary world
about us. the world we see and feel.
ThIS IS a peculIarity of the human rmnd. The most
fantastic abstractions and generahzanons always proceed from actuality,

Not Everything Can be Modelled

From the end of last century on. the farruhar model
approach to the investigatIon of new things in nature
was not always a success, For .nstance, the ether model.
Its creators saw It the saviour of classical phySICS,which
was unable to account for the remarkable constancy
of the velocity of light.
Let us try to picture this ether SomethlOg absolutely
solid and Just as absolutely transparent
Unbreakable
glass? And yet, despite Its hardness. the ether had to
allow for all kinds of bodies moving freely. What IS more,
these bodies should be able to entrain the ether.
buildlOg up something like a wmd. a truly ethereal
wtnd

For a number of years phySICists attempted to grasp

these fanlasllc properlles of the ether. But they failed
The ether proved to be a construct with no roots in rea hty
And the concept of ether was not the only rootless
entity. Not a single model of classical phySiCS for
the atom was able to account for the mysterious release
of energy by uranium. radium and other chemical
elements - a radiauon of energy that contlOues Without
1Oterruptlon for many thousands and rrulhons of years
Without any outside source.
Einstem's photon hypothesIs was yet another blow
to the old models. Through somewhat IOvolved. It IS
still possible to Ilt IOta the claSSical model the concept
23

I[

of light as electromagnetic
In

waves b

all directions from their source

We are accustomed
t
always
berng the mot 0
the water for ocean w Ion

atoms hke those of light earlier, could no longer be

emg propagated

ki

th

m~

In

of

visualized.

The Invisible, Untouchable World

wave as
medium:

PhysIcISts were hard put. Before, they had trodden

paths Into new worlds, all the while sure that only
the details would be dIfferent, not the essentials
But now they were In the shoes of explorers of old
when anything could be expected. from monsters to
half-beasts and hair-humans. There IS no limit to the
Imaginings of a feverish rrund.
Phystcists had It even worse than those explorers.
for the latter were always pleasantly disappomted to

of a material
wa:e:es~ the air for sound waves
a e capable of propagauon In

But electromagnetic
an absolute void.

dl~n :hlS sense It IS easier to picture light as Newton

s a stream of minute I ht
'

particles

are ermtted

Y mean
aenter
II d rrecnons,
and
th
. . stimulate thee
e eye. giving the sensation

no difficulty In'
in empty space. imaguung

how

But to picture Itght havm

properties at the same lime, as
we simply can't do.

In the model

d,g
particles These
escent bodies n
omi nerve when
Y
In
opuc
they
of Itght Th
.
.

ere

now
move

IS

particles

these

find normal beings and essentially

the same earth,
mountains and seas, only arranged dIfferently. In the
new world, sCientists saw such bizarre thmgs that no
name was suggestive
enough
Even the imagmation
did not suffice to picture this unusual new world of

~ms~;I~
w

~~ddcorpuscular
. IS something

of th

the atom.

But developing

~~~tl~~:h~r~f~~r:~s ~:~: a~~v~ei~~~~~r~~~~~rebYM~~~~

around a tiny nucleus
Th d ving In defirute orbits
are tens f h
.
e rmensrons of the orbits
electronso a~d
of limes greater than those of the

o~~:7~~

WIth a little more imag

.t

atom as a sort of 'em t ' ina Ion we ,can picture

live In a planetary
'electron'
(
1

science demanded

that some kind

of conceptions
be worked
out.
no matter
how
unconventional
they might be It was hard to construct
quantum mechanics but It had to be done
It surely would have been easier to build theones
based on vlsuahzable
models
of the surroundwg

the

world But what If the world of the ultrasmall was

constructed differently? What If no such models could

Syst~~w~~~~\~:'dtor

we ourselves
imensrons of the

than tho~e ~~ ih:n~~~,t~r~ ~ousahnd~ of limes smaller

H
a ut t e nucleus' (or sun)

serve?

conf~;.,~ve;h~us~,~t~er: y:ars later de Broglie completel;

Well. If It IS irnposstble to devise models that can

be made mto mental pIctures, then we Will have to work

~~~Ie~oar~: ;enera~ly

all y m~~:~,~r '~~~:dl~hgeb~:~~:?n~f

with models that cannot be pictured at all. Years

passed, not many though. and these models became

by Einstein ;ov: ;h~t~~~\:a~al,~y

t~S that Introduced
same trrne the pro e t'
f'
ey possess at the
(particles). As a res~ltr1~~r~c1e:av;s~nd corpuscles

so 'unvisualizable',
yet so dear to phySICists that no one
wants to give them up. Which IS too bad, because
the time WIll come very soon - If we run ahead 10 our

matter.

IOcludmg

2S

24

________

-----------.W----------story a bu - when all these models will have to be

jettisoned and replaced by still more unusual ones
that will be even harder to grasp. That IS how
science develops.
Therein hes the greatness of the physicists of this
century: they were able to reach their goal through a
maze of abstractions and models far removed from
everyday things, they succeeded 10 constructmg a farreach 109 theory of the new world of the ultrasmall.
What IS more, on this baSIS. physicists achieved some
of the greatest thmgs In the entire history of CIVilization
They discovered the secret of nuclear energy. the
JIO", that had been bottled up for so long.
The atomic power industry and electronrcs would
not be here today without the existence of quantum
mechanics.

Difficult but Interesting

The unusual nature of quantum mecharucal notions
and the fact that these concepts cannot be vrsuahzed
properly make the subject difficult to grasp. True.
some of the fault lies 10 quantum mechanics Itself.
Not only because ItS range IS continually expanding
and Its methods are constantly undergoing refinement.
we know that It IS always more difficult 10 wrne
about somethmg In a slate of nux and development.
and particularly such raptd development, than It IS
about firmly established theones. Not only tlus, but also
because physicists themselves are still, to thrs day.
arguing about the very meaning of quantum mechanics,
about the specific aspects of the minute world that
It descnbes.
We have now entered the space age, where again
physics IS called upon to pave the way. The physics
of cosmic space differs radically from 'terrestrial'
26

phySICS in that

the world

of the

ultrasmall

is of

prime Importance.

The ancient Idea of the great and the small meeting

finds Its confirmatIOn In outer space Enormous stars
and minute atoms not only converge but exist as an
Integral unit.
It IS almost imposstble to wnte popularly about
science without resorting to some kind of Visual
represenlalions And so with quantum mechanics we
shall try to find analogies, If not models, In nature.
However, such analogies are in no way exact or profound.
They simply help us to get a general grasp of things
For Instance. as we shall see. the phrase 'electrons
revolve around an atomic nucleus' hardly has more
meaning to us than the words 'snow IS somethmg
white. rather hke salt and falls from the sky' have
for the inhabitants of tropical Afnca. The motion of
an electron In an atom and the essence of the
electron as such ISImmeasurably more complicated than
what we know about them today and the way we
picture them And not only today, tomorrow and
a thousand years hence!
Indeed, the development of quantum mechanics IS
added proof of the hmitless drverstty. the .nexhausubrhty
of the properttes of the electron
And everything
else as well
We today still have rather fragmentary knowledge
of the world about us. We are only begmnlng to
penetrate into the earth's crust. IOtOthe oceans, the
atmosphere We have only Just started to understand
the hfe of the fields, the forests, the mountains,
the fivers and the deserts
If that IS so. how can we expect to know as much
about the world of atoms, atorruc nuclei and elementary
particles. which are sull more difficult to observe.
~7

The first steps

of the new theory

There is exploration ahead 10 this science for hundreds

and thousands of years. As yet we are only at the
source of a mighty nver of knowledge.
Even so, what amazing things are revealed to the
explorer of this recently discovered world. What
inspinng, truly fantastic horizons does this new science
open up for technology, industry, agriculture and
medrcme. Nuclear power stauons, radroactive isotopes,
solar batteries, to name a few We are on the threshold
of controlled thermonuclear reacuons and we are
penetrating IOta outer space All these great attamments
of the bnght present and the dazzhng future were
born 10 our century out of a small seed thrown
Sixty years ago, into the ferule soil of scientific
knowledge by Max Planck and, since, carefully
cultivated by a whole galaxy of bnlhant scientists.

Heat and Light

It's nice, on a cold winter evening, to Sit near
a hot stove and listen to the sputtenng flames inside
and feel the warmth of the fire. But why warmth?
Why IS It warm near a stove? Without even seeing
the fire inside, one can feel the heat at some distance
away.
A stove emits some kind of mvisiblc rays that
give the sensation of heat. These rays are called heat
rays, or Infrared rays.
A httle careful observing will show us that thermal
radiauon IS quite a common thing In nature. Both
heat and light are ermtted by a candle, a large fire,
and our enormous sun Even the fantastically distant
stars send heat rays to the earth.
If a heated body glows, It definuely IS emittmg
heat rays as well. The ermssion of hght and heat IS
actually one process. That IS why SCientists gave the
name thermal radiation to all errussions of a body
that appear to be due (0 a heating process - both
the errussron of hght and the thermal radiauon proper.
Last century, physicists had already discovered the
basic laws of thermal radranon They are familiar to
all of us. Let us recall two laws
29

II I

__b__

First, the more a body IS heated, the brighter It

glows. The quantity of radiation emitted per second
varies drastically with change of temperature of the body.
If the temperature IS Increased three times. the radration
will mcrease almost one hundredfold
~econd. the colour of the ermssron changes with
an Increase

In

temperature.

Observe a piece of Iron pipe

under the name of a torch. At first It IS quite dark,

but then a faint Crimson unge appears, this turns
red, then orange and yellow. And finally the heated
metal begins to emit a white light.
An .expenenced steelworker can gauge the temperature
of an incandescent pipe quite accurately by the colour of
lummescence. He wrll say that a famt crimson tinge means
a temperature of about 500 C, yellow IS about 800 C,
and bright white IS over 1,000 C
Physicists are not satisfied with this rough qualitative
descnpuon, they want exact figures. To a physicist.
'the day IS cold' means about as much as 'he had
a big face'. What one needs is the peculiar features
the nose, the lips, the forehead.
'
Physicists had encountered
a great diversity of
bodies

and conditions

an which

thermal

radiation

15

emitted. But this diversity of condiuons did not satisfy

them in the least. They wanted some kind of 'standard'
body. a cntenon to be used as a baSIS for establishing
the laws of radiauon of heated bodies. Then the
ermssion of light by other bodies could be regarded as
deviations from the 'standard'
Picture a description
like this: "The nose of the man was longer than the
standard nose, the forehead was narrower, the jaw more
extended, the eyes somewhat
greener and somewhat
smaller than normal." Rather strange to us, but the

phySICISt would be delighted

Here's why.

Blacker than Black

Take a number of objects of the same colour, as
close as possible. Now exarnme them and try to see how

they differ

10

colour

A careful examination
Will show that there are
differences. One has a faint tinge. another has a deep.

rich colour Th~ difference IS due to the fact that a

certain amount of light falling on the body IS
absorbed and a certain amount IS reflected. Naturally,
the relationships
of these two amounts can vary over
a tremendous
range. To take two extreme
cases,

a shmy metallic surface and a piece of black velvet

The metal reflects almost all the light that falls on It,
while the velvet absorbs most of the light and hardly
reflects

any.

Magicians make good use of this properly of velvet,

for If an object does not reflect much light. It is
practically
mvtsrble
On the stage, a box covered
WIth black velvet on a black background goes quue
unnoticed, and the magician can go through all krnds
of tricks with handkerchiefs. pigeons and even himself
appearing and drsappearmg.
Physicists also found this property of black bodies
very valuable. In the search for a standard body, they
decided on the black body. A black body absorbs the
most radiation and, hence, IS heated by thrs radiation to
a higher temperature than all other bodies.
Conversely, when a black body IS heated to a high
temperature and becomes a source of light, It radiates
more Intensely at the given temperature than any other
bodies. Tbts. then, IS a verv convenient
radiator for
establishing the quantitative "laws of thermal radrauon.
However, it was found that black bodies themselves
emit radiation
In different
ways. For example,
soot
3\

30

may be blacker or lighter than black velvet, depending

on the fuel it comes from. And velvet too can differ.
These dilTerences are not great, but It would be good
to get rid of them.
Then physicists thought up the 'blackest' body of all,
a box. A very special kind of box to hold thermal
radiation. It was ribbed With inner walls covered with
soot. A ray of light enters through a uny aperture and
never gets out again, caught for all lime. The physicist says
that ihis box absorbs all the radiant energy that enters It.
And now let us make the box a source of light;
actually, this IS what it was intended for. When heated
sufficiently, the walls become incandescent and begin to
ermt VISIble light. As we have already said, for a given
temperature the thermal and light radiauon of such
a box Will be greater than for any other bodies, which
are then called grey to disungutsh them from our box.
All the laws of thermal radiation were established
precisely for the 'very blackest' boxes, which were
given the generic name 'black bodies'. With slight
alterations, these laws apply also to the grey bodies.
Exact

Laws,

Not

Let us now redefine

Rough
our laws

Approximations
more

exactly,

In

the

language of phySICS.
The first states that the radiatmg capacity of a black
body, that is the energy It emits 10 the form of light
and heat every second, is proportional to the fourth
power of Its absolute
temperature. * This law was

Absolute temperature
degrees CelSIUS

32

IS

reckoned from 273 degrees below

discovered at the end of last century by the German

scientists Stefan and Boltzmann.
The second law states that as the temperature of
a black body increases, the wavelength corresponding
to maximum brightness of the light emitted by it
must become shorter, and IS shifted towards the violet
region of the spectrum. ThIS was called Wien's
displacement law In honour of the Austrian physicrst
W. Wien.
Physicists now had at their disposal two universal
laws of thermal radiation that could be applied to
all bodies without exception. The first gives a correct
description of increasing bnghtness of luminescence as
a body is heated. It rmght appear that Wien's law IS
in poor agreement with observations, since as the
temperature Increases, the body emits more and more
white light. White, not violet.
But let us take a closer look. The Wien law only
speaks of colour correspondmg to maximum bnghtness
of light radiation, and nothing else. It is tacitly
assumed that in addition to this radtanon there remain
the radiations of longer wavelengths (I. e., of a dilTerent
colour) that had started earlier at a lower temperature.
When a body is heated, ItS radrauon widens the spectral
range, opening up fresh regions of the spectrum. As
a result, if the temperature gets high enough, we have
a complete visible emission spectrum.
ThIS might be compared to an orchestra in which
more and more instruments come in with higher and
higher notes until the whole ensemble sounds in one
rrughty accord, from the deep 'red' base of the trombone,
to the highest shrill 'violet' of the piccolos. And white
light is the whole spectrum at once. Wien's law holds
true. But nature dealt a blow to the investigators of
thermal radiation from quite a different angle.
3-70

The Ultraviolet Catastrophe

Physicists

soon

as

a penchant for universal laws. As

is discovered that one and the same
is descn bed, In vanous aspects, by several

have

11

phenomenon
laws. an attempt

15

Immediately

made to combine

mto a smgle general law encompassing

them

all aspects at

once.

Such an attempt was made. with respect to the laws

of thermal radiation. by the English physicists Rayleigh
and Jeans. The unified law which they obtained stated
that the intensity of radration emitted by a hot body is
directly proportional to the absolute temperature and
Inversely proportional to the square of the wavelength
of the emitted light.
This law appeared to be in good agreement with
expenmental

findings.

But It was suddenly

discovered

that the agreement was good only for the long-wave

poruon of the vrsrble spectrum, the green. yellow and
red. The law broke down as the blue. VIOlet and
ultraviolet rays were approached.
From the Rayleigh-Jeans law It followed that the
shorter the wavelength. the greater should he the
Intensity of thermal radrauon. Experiment failed to
confirm thrs. What IS more. a very unpleasant
thrng
was that as we move to shorter and shorter wavelengths
the radiauon intensity was supposed to Increase without

bound!
Of course. this doesn't occur. There can never be
an unbounded growth m wave intensity.
If a physical
law leads to 'unboundedness',
It IS doomed.
Nature
has large things. very large. even umrnagmably
large
thmgs, but there IS nothing without bounds. except the
universe

This
34

Itself.
CUriOUS

situation

that arose

in the theory

of

radiation became known as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.

That was at the end of last century. At that time,
nobody could even Imagine that it was not simply
a catastrophe for one. rather special, law. It was the
collapse of the entire theory that gave birth to the
law - the catastrophe of classical physics!

Classical Physics at an Impasse

There were physicists in those days who did not
regard this radiatIOn-theory obstacle In the path of
classical physics as significant. But any hindrance IS
a grave matter. for everything In the theory ISinterrelated.
If some point ISfalse, we cannot rely on the description
it gives of other phenomena. If the theory is not
able to overcome a httle barner, what hope IS there for
big barriers'?
Physicists made heroic attempts to surmount the
difficulties of radrauon theory. Today, these attempts
seem logically mconsistent. Yet what can one expect?
When a theory gets Into a hot spot, It is like a cat
in a burning house with one way out - into the river.
The cat races from corner to corner, but It never
thinks to Jump Into the water, for that would be
against all the eat's instincts.
Sornethmg Similar happens to scientists who are
caught 'bur rung' In the house they have worked all
their lives. The house which IS so dear to them and
to which they are so accustomed. They try to put the
fire out, but they can't conceive of running away and
leaving it.
However. It became clear to the more acute scrennsts
that classical phySICShad reached an Impasse. And the
theory of thermal radration was not the only blind
alley. Those same years saw the ether theory collapse too

JS
].

The Ultraviolet Catastrophe

Physicists have a penchant for universal laws. As
soon as It is discovered that one and the same
phenomenon is described, In various aspects, by several
laws. an attempt IS Immediately made to combine them
Into a single general law encornpassmg all aspects at
once.

Such an attempt was made. with respect to the laws

of thermal radiation. by the English physicists Rayleigh
and Jeans. The unified law which they obtained stated
that the intensity of radiauon emitted by a hot body is
directly proportional

to the absolute temperature

and

Inversely proportional to the square of the wavelength

of the emitted light.
ThIS law appeared to be in good agreement wrth
experimental findings. But It was suddenly discovered
that the agreement was good only for the long-wave
portion of the vrsible spectrum, the green. yellow and
red. The law broke down as the blue, violet and
ultraviolet

rays were approached.

From the Rayleigh-Jeans law It followed that the

shorter the wavelength, the greater should he the
intensity of thermal radrauon, Experiment failed to
contirm thrs, What IS more. a very unpleasant thmg
was that as we move to shorter and shorter wavelengths
the radiation intensity was supposed to increase without
bound!
Of course, this doesn't occur. There can never be
an unbounded growth In wave Intensity. If a physical
law leads to 'unboundedness', It IS doomed. Nature
has large things. very large, even urumagmably large
things. but there IS nothing WIthout bounds, except the
uruverse Itself.
This cunous situation that arose in the theory of
34

radiation became known as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.

That was at the end of last century. At that time,
nobody could even Imagine that it was not simply
a catastrophe for one. rather special, law. It was the
collapse of the entire theory that gave birth to the
law - the catastrophe of classical physics!

Classical Physics at an Impasse

There were physicists in those days who did not
regard this radiation-theory
obstacle 10 the path of
classical physics as significant. But any hindrance IS
a grave matter. for everything 10 the theory IS interrelated.
If some point IS false. we cannot rely on the description
it gives of other phenomena. If the theory is not
able to overcome a little barrrer, what hope IS there for
big barriers '?
Physicists made heroic attempts to surmount the
difficulues of radiauon theory. Today, these attempts
seem logically mconststem. Yet what can one expect?
When a theory gets IOta a hot spot. It is like a cat
in a burning house with one way out - IOta the river.
The cat races from corner to corner, but It never
thinks to Jump into the water, for that would be
against all the eat's instincts.
Sornethmg Similar happens to scientists who are
caught 'burning' 10 the house they have worked all
their lives. The house which IS so dear to them and
to which they are so accustomed. They try to put the
lire out, but they can't conceive of running away and
leaving it.
However, It became clear to the more acute screnusts
that classical phySICS had reached an Impasse. And the
theory of thermal radiation was not the only bltnd
alley. Those same years saw the ether theory collapse too
]'

.15

The breakdown was so rapid that many were 10

complete despair. What was there left to do?
If the facts don't fit the theory, so much the worse
for the facts. Nature does not want to obey any laws.
"Nature is unknowable!" said some thinkers.
The reaction of the materialist-thinking scientists was
different. If the facts cannot be explained by the theory,
so much the worse for the theory. It will have to be
reconstructed on a new basis, and Imrnedrately.
History once again demonstrated that great necessity
gives btrth to great men. The way out of this cul-de-sac
of classical phySICSwith ItS immutable dogmas was found
by Max Planck, who in 1900 introduced the concept
of quanta, and by Albert Emstein, who in 1905 advanced
the theory of relanvity.
The Way out
What was Planck's discovery?
At first glance tl is hard to call It a discovery.
There were two laws dealing with the thermal radiation
of hot bodies. Separately, they held true very well, but
when Joined mto a single law it confronted the
"ultra~lOlet catastrophe'. Something like two men meeting
With Just about the same way of thinking; after a httle
diSCUSSIOnthey come up with absolutely "mad' ideas.
Planck at that lime was over forty. For many years
he had been studying thermal radiauon. Right before
his eyes the theory had come to an Impasse; like
hIS colleagues, he was seeking a way out. He checked
the entire chain of reasoning and was finally convinced
that there was no mistake. Planck then went further
and in a different direction.
In later years he recalled how he had never worked
so hard and with so much youthful energy and
36

inspiration as in those years at the turn of the century.

The most improbable things began to appear to him
quite possible, and with the persistence of the fanatic,
Planck went through one version of the theory after
another.
At first he was guided by a rather SImple Idea.
Rayleigh and Jeans had combined the two laws of
thermal radiation into one and had obtained an absurd
result for short wavelengths. Maybe It is possible to
ltnk up the laws of Wien and RayleIgh-Jeans in
a different way and get something reasonable.
For his expcTlmental material, Planck tned to find
some general formula that did not contradict the
material. After some search he found such a formula.
It was rather involved. It contained expressions that do
not have ObVIOUS physical meaning - just an accidental
combination of unrelated quantities. But strangely
enough, tbrs concocted formula was In excellent
argeement with experiment.
What IS more, from it Planck was able to derive
the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the Wien law. And taken
as a whole, the formula did not have any 'mfiruties'.
A correct formula, the physicist would say.
VIctory? A way out? Not exactly. Planck, a real
scientist, was inclined to doubt.
Hnung the keys of a piano twenty times at random
might yield a tune, but where IS the proof that tl
must produce a melody? The formula had to be
deduced from somethmg. SCience does not recognize the
rule whereby the winner IS not crtttcrzed. On the
contrary, he always IS, and very fundamentally. Until
the winner can prove every step JO hrs competition With
nature, victory is not recorded.
And It rs here that Planck failed The formula did
not want to be derived from the laws of classical
37

physics. Yet, it fit the expenmental data in miraculous

fashion.
That was the dramatic situauon in which Planck
found himself Would he take the view of classical
theory against the facts or would he stand by the
facts and fight the old theory? Planck took the side
of the facts.

Quanta of Energy
What was It in classical physics that made it
Impossible to denve Planck's formula? Nothing less than
one of Its most fundamental premises: the statement, so
common and unshakable to the physicists of those days,
that energy is continuous.
At first glance thts would seem to contradict the
spirit of classical physics, which from the very start
recognized the discontmuity of thmgs as an underlying
principle. It appeared quite ObVlOUS.If we have empty
space In the world, all objects have to be separated
from one another and have boundanes. Objects do not
pass one into another in connnuous fashion, each one
ends at some point.
Maybe the situanon IS different inside thmgs. No,
there doesn't seem to be any continuity here either.
Classical physics, at the end of the 19th century. was
forced to recognize the existence of molecules and of
empty space between them. The molecules had clear-cut
boundaries, and only the void between was conunuous.
Incidentally, molecules somehow managed to Interact
through this emptiness. Since the nme of Faraday,
classical physics had been trying to account for such
interaction by the existence of some sort of intermediate
medium, via which the mutual action effects of the
molecules were conveyed.
38

What about energy, though? It was held that when

molecules collided, energy was exchanged in every
imaginable quantity. This exchange followed exactly
the laws of brlhard balls. A moving molecule hits
a stationary one. gives up part of Its kmcuc energy,
and the two molecules then wove off In different
direction. In a head-on collision, the incident molecule
can even corne to a stop; then the struck molecule
will fly off WIth the speed of the first one (if their
masses are equal). Molecules are constantly exchangrng
energy.
Another form of energy was found, one not obviously
connected with molecular monon - the energy of wave
motion. Since Maxwell proved that light \S electromagnetic waves, the energy of hght radiaucn
(of
thermal ongin. for Instance) must follow the laws
obeyed by all waves.
Again, this energy IS continuous. It is propagated
together with the moving wave, flowing like water.
Any given quantity of energy IS consumed continuously
rn the same way that water continuously and indivisibly
fills a vessel.
When we cut off a piece of butter, we do not think
about the continuity of the piece. We assume that It
can be made as small as we please. When the concept
of molecules was introduced into science. it became
clear that there was no such thing as a piece of butter
smaller than a molecule of butter.
Now With regard to energy, there was no such
notion of discreteness. It appeared that the atomic
structure of matter did not demand that energy be
composed of 'pieces'.
It was enough to look around us to see that that
was so. The light from a candle filled a room with an
even flow of radiant energy, just as the sun kept up an
39

uninterrupted
stream of light. Or take the smooth
build-up of speed (and with it, energy) of a locomotive
moving downhill, of a falling stone.
Imagme for a moment that energy is acquired and
given up in httle portions. One calls to mind the
jerky movies of years ago. One pictures the candle
Oaring up and dying down, the sun shimng in bursts,
as it were, a nash of radiant energy, and then a lull
until the next flash. The train moving down a slope
10 Jerks, the stone bumping along through the air in its
plunge to earth.
"Sneer nonsense!" was the answer Planck most likely
got from his first suggestion that the energy of radiation
(like matter itself) IS atomistic and that It ts released
and acquired not continuously but III small portions,
quanta, as Planck called them, from the Latin 'quantum'
meaning quantity. If he had only known the quality that
would eventually grow out of such quantity!
For Planck's formula, quanta were vitally important.
Without them, ii would have failed miserably and would
have gone to the dusty archives of science along with
so many others that have found no substantiation.
These quanta of energy served as a firm foundation
for Planck's formula. But the foundation itself rested
on practically nothing since there was no place for It In
classical physics. That is exactly what troubled the
cautious Planck. It is no easy mailer to give up a lifetime
of habit.

The Elusive Quanta

A quantum of light is an extremely small portion
of energy. The most minute particle of dust has
thousands of millions of atoms. The radiant energy

released by a uny glow-worm contains thousands of

milhons of quanta.
Now we come to the magnitude of these separate
porttons of energy. Planck made the extremely important

discovery that such portions differ for different types

of radrauon. The shorter the wavelength of hght, that
is the higher its frequency (10 other words, the 'more
violet' rt is), the larger the poruon of energy.
Mathematically,
thts is expressed by means of the
well-known Planck relation between the frequency and
the energy of a quantum:
E = hv
Here, E IS the energy carried by the quantum: v IS the
frequency of the quantum;
h IS a proportionality
factor which turned out to be the same for all types
of energy that we know. It is known as 'Planck's
constant' or the 'quantum of action'. The value of
this number is Just as great to physics as Its magnitude is
small: 6x 10-27 erg per second!
It IS this insignificant magnitude of the quantum that
makes the hght of a candle or the sun appear to us to
burn with a constant glow. To illustrate, let us calculate
the number of quanta radiated by a 25-wall electric
light bulb per second. Takmg the emitted light to be
19
yellow, we find by Planck's relationship 6 x 10 , which
is 60 rmlhon million million portions of energy per
second. All of that is radiated by a small 25-wall bulb
every second!
Quite obviously, the human eye IS not sensitive to
such magnitudes of energy. Vet this is not so. The eye
is an extremely sensitive instrument, as was convincingly
demonstrated by the experiments of the Soviet physicist
S. Vavilov. An observer was kept in the dark for a certain
time (to increase the sensitivity of the eye) and then an
41

40

exceptionally weak source of light that yielded just

a few quanta per second was switched on. The eye
recorded them almost as separate entities!
The pomt is not the magnitude of the quanta but
the very high rate at which they follow one another.
We have already seen that even a small lamp emits
millions upon millions of millions every second. Now the
human eye, like any other Instrument, operates with a
time lag. It is not able to record events that proceed
in rapid succession. This inertia-like property of the eye
IS what makes moving pictures possible. We see the
screen as a continuous sequence of events, although
we know that the pictures are actually m the form of
separate frames. Energy quanta emitted by sources of
light follow one another much more rapidly, and so
the human eye sees light as one continuous flow.
Vavilov conducted his expenments in the 19305 when
Planck's notion of quanta was generally recognized.
Planck himself was not able to prove his discovery
by direct experiment.
The fact that a formula is corroborated by expenment
but does not follow from theory always appears at
first somewhat dubious. In this case, all the more so
since the formula was obtained from reasoning that
ran very much against the grain of accepted thought.
That was why there was not much enthusiasm in
scientific circles when Planck delivered his commumcanon at the Berlin Academy of SCiences. SCIentists are
human beings. too, and they require time to digest
something so out of the ordinary.
Planck himself was fully aware of the boldness of
his attack on classical physics and was eager to
Justify It. But of course he could never irnagme the
tremendous developments that revolutionized the whole
of phySICS Just a few years later.
42

The first years of the twentieth century, 1901, 1902,

1903, 1904, went by with hardly any auennon pard
to the theory of quanta. The number of scientific
papers that appeared could be counted on one's fingers.
An Unaccountable

Phenomenon

But then in 1905, a totally unkown member of the

Swiss Patent Office, Albert Emstem, publIshed his
theory of the photoelectnc
effect 10 metal; 10 the
German journal "Physjkalische Rundschau".
At the ume that Einstein took up this study, the
effect was well on In years. It had been discovered
in 1872 by A. Stoletov. professor of Moscow University.
Later on It was studied by the German physicists
Hertz and Lenard.
Stoletov had pumped the air out of a flask, put two
metallic plates inside and attached them to the poles
of an electnc battery. Naturally, there was no current
through the airless space. But when the light of a
mercury lamp was made to fall on one of the plates.
current Immediately began to flow In the electnc
curcuu. When the hght was turned off the current
stopped.
Stoletov drew the proper conclusion, that current
carriers (later found to be electrons) had appeared in the
flask and that they ongmated only when the plate
was rllummated.
It was qutte obvious that these electrons were ejected
from the ilium mated metal much like molecules Jump
into the arr from the surface of heated liquid. However,
the words 'much like' really mean 'quite differently
from'; the ejection of electrons from metal was fundamentally different and, what 1S more, was of an unknown
nature.
43

To begin with, hght IS an electromagnetic

wave.
It is difficult to imagine how a wave can knock
electrons out of metal. There IS no collision here of
energetic molecules, as a result of which one of them
IS ejected from the surface of a liquid.
Another Interesting Circumstance was noted. For each
metal studied, there appeared to be a certain limiting
wavelength of incident light. When the wavelength
was exceeded, the electrons m the flask disappeared
at once and the current ceased to now no matter how
strong the hght was.
This was altogether strange. It was clear that electrons
are ejected from the metal because the hght m some
way conveys energy to them. The bnghter the illurmnation, the stronger the current. The meta) receives
more energy and larger quantities of electrons can be
knocked out.
But no matter what the wavelength of the light.
the metal should be receiving energy all the same.
True, with increasing wavelength the energy diminishes
and fewer electrons are ejected from the metal, but
still there should be some kmd of current. Yet experiment
showed no current at all. One would think the electrons
ceased to accept the radiant energy.
Why were electrons so particular about the energy
food they were given? That was something that
physicists Just could not grasp

Photons
Einstein regarded the photoelectric effect from a
dilTerent angle. He attempted to picture the actual
process of the ejection of an electron from a metal
by hght.
44

In normal conditions, there IS no cloud of electrons

hovenng over the metal. Which would suggest that
the electrons are bound to the metal by some kmd of
force. To knock them out of the metal, a little
energy IS needed. In Stoletov's experiments this energy
was supplied by light waves.
But a light wave has a definite wavelength, something
of the order of a fraction of a micron, and ItS
energy is, as it were, concentrated in the minute
volume occupied by an electron. Thrs means that in
the photoelTect a ltght wave behaves like a tiny
'particle'. It strikes an electron and dislodges It from
the metal.
This must obviously be a particle of light: as
Newton would say,a corpuscle, because Newton regarded
light not as waves but as streams of particles. Then
what would the energy be of such a particle? Calculations show that It would be very small. Then why not
suppose that It would be exactly equal to the quantum
that Planck had conjured up five years before?
So Einstein sard that hght is simply a stream of
quanta of energy, all the quanta of a smgle wavelength
being exactly the same, which is to say that the
quanta carry Identical portions of energy. Later, these
quanta of light energy were given the name photon.
The explanation now was complete. A photon carrying
a small poruon of energy stnkes an electron With
sufficient force to knock it out of the metal.
On the other hand, obviously, If the photon energy
is insufficient to disrupt the electron bonds 10 the metal,
the electrons will not be knocked out and there Will
be no current. According to Planck's formula, the
energy of a quantum IS determined by Its frequency,
and the greater the wavelength of the light, the lower
the frequency. Hence it is quite obvIOUS that the
45

photoelectric effect has definite limits. It IS simply

this: If the wavelength of the light is too large, the
photons do not have energy enough to dislodge
electrons from the metal.
What is more, it doesn't make any difference how

strong the light IS, whether a thousand or only two

photons strike the metal and bombard its electrons:
the latter are indifferent.

The situation

changes

If the

photons have sufficient energy. In this case, the brighter

the light, the more photons enter the metal every
second, and the greater the number of electrons ejected,
thus producing a stronger current.
Thus, an explanation has been found. But, like the
Planck hypothesis, it undermmes the foundations of
classical physics, where hght is considered to be
electromagnetic

waves

and

under

no

circumstances

these new-fangled photons. Emstem's theory again started

up the two-century argument over the essence of light.

What is Light?
Actually,

there was never any let up in the argument.

The problem arose at the dawn of classical physics

and lived a tempestuous life. The dilemma was: what
IS light. waves or particles?
Both viewpoints appeared In physics at about the same
time. Bodies shine by ejecting streams of light particles,
corpuscles, said Newton. Bodies shine by pulsating and
forming waves III the surrounding ether. said Newton's
contemporary, Huygens, of Holland.
Each theory had its adherents, and they clashed from
the start. It was a fierce struggle that went on for over a
hundred years. first one side winning and then the other.

Finally, at the begmrnng of the nineteenth century

experiments of Young. Frensel and Fraunhofer

the

46

resulted In what would have seemed a decisive victory

for the wave theory of light. The newly discovered
phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of
light were in excellent accord with Huygens' theory
and quue incomprehensible from Newton's viewpoint.
Optics began to develop. Brilliant optical theories
were developed and complex optical Instruments were
constructed. Finally. Maxwell completed the structure of
optics by proving the electromagnetic nature of light
waves. The trtumph of the wave theory was complete and
mdisputable.
But less than fifty years passed and the corpuscular
theory of light was again revived The photoelectric
effect which the wave theory had failed to explamwhat an annoying blemish on an otherwise perfect
structure! - was accounted for in amazing fashion by the
opposing theory.
The century-old argument again flared up. But now
the fight was on a new level. Both adversanes were
tired out and ready for a compromise of some kind.
Gradually It dawned on physicists that the amazing
and mevuablc view had to be that light IS at the
same time both waves and particles!
But why IS It that light never manifests
itself
completely 10 this twofold manner? Sometimes it
appears only as particles, yet at other times it IS only
in the form of waves. We shall take that Important
question up later on.
The second question that came WIth Einstein's theory
was not Simple either. It appeared that in the photoelecnc
effect the electrons did not react to Just any portion
of energy offered them. The poruon of energy had to
be of a very definite magnuude or greater, otherwise
the light energy found no response.
It also turned out that an electron which IS not
47

bound by any forces to neighbouring ones ceases to be

particular and responds to all kinds or energy packets.
But if the electron should find itself in a metal, it gets
moody and demands specific portions of energy again.
Why this IS was explained some twenty years later.

The Visiting Cards of Atoms

Meanwhile, a young Danish physrcist, Niels Bohr,
tried to apply the new quantum concepts to the
respectable SCience of spectroscopy. By the twentieth
century, hundreds or papers had appeared dealing with
spectroscopy. Spectral analysis was moving ahead at
quite a pace doing great service in chemistry, astronomy,
metallurgy and other sciences.
Credit for the discovery of spectra goes to the
diversified genius of Newton. But spectral analysis
made its appearance only a century ago. In 1859, the
prominent German chemist Bunsen repeated Newton's
old experiment by placing a glass pnsm in the pathway
of the sun's rays and decomposing
the ltght into
a spectrum. In Bunsen's experiment. the role of the sun
was played by a burning rag dipped in a salt soluuon.
Newton had found that a ray of sunlight is expanded
into a band of many colours. Bunsen didn't see any
band' at all. When the rag had table salt [sodium
chlonde) on It, the spectrum exhibited only a few
narrow hnes, nothing else. One of the lines was a
bright yellow.
Bunsen got another well-known German SCientist,
Kirchhoff, Interested In this fact. Both or them correctly concluded that the role of the glass prism consisted only in sorting the incident rays of light into their
wavelengths. The extended band of the solar spectrum indicated that all the wavelengths or visible light
48

were present. The yellow line, which appeared when

the light source was a burning rag, indicated that the
spectrum of table salt had a smgle specific wavelength.
The formula of sodium chlonde IS Na'Cl. To which
element (sodium or chlonne) did the yellow line belong?
ThIS could be checked very simply. The sodium could be
replaced by hydrogen, giving us hydrogen chloride,
HCI, which, when dissolved 10 water, yields hydrochlonc
acid. The rag was dipped in hydrochloric acid and
placed 10 the flame of a Bunsen burner and the
spectrum was taken. The yellow line had disappeared
without a trace, which meant that It belonged to

sodium.

This was verified once again. The sodium was retarned,

and the chlonne was replaced (caustic soda, NaOH).
The Iarruhar line appeared in the spectrum immediately.
There was no longer any doubt. No matter what the
substance in which sodium appeared, It made its
whereabouts known by the bright yellow spectral line,
its visiting card.
Later, It was found that sodium is no exception in
this respect. Every chemical element has its own
characteristic spectrum. As a rule, some of the spectra
were much more complicated than that of sodium and
consisted at times of a very large number of lines.
But no matter what the compound or substance the
element appeared in, Its spectrum was always distinct,
like the photograph of a person.
One rmght look for a person 111 a crowd by
checking the identification card of each one, hke
chemists do when lookmg for elements in rock specimens
using chemical methods of analysis. But an easier way is
to have his photograph. Which IS precisely how the
search is done with the aid of spectral analysts. And
the elements are found in places where 'looking over
4-70

49

idenuficauon cards' would be out of the quesuon

on the sun, In distant stars, in the mferno of blast
furnaces and In plasma.
All that It needed IS the photographs of all the
parttcrpants. Today there are over a hundred chemical
elements, and nearly all of them have been classified
according to their charactensnc spectra.
c-

Why do Bodies Emit Light?

The successes of spectral analysis were colossal, but
there was a fundamental flaw. The edifice of spectroscopy
was erected on the [oundanon of the theory of thermal
radiauon and bore all the traces of the baSICshortcoming
of this theory The baSIC weakness lay In Its answer
to the quesuon: Why do bodies begin to emit hght
when heated?
How ISthis hght emitted? Obviously. by the component
parts of the bodies - atoms and molecules. lncreasmg
temperatures make the molecules move faster. Mutual
colhsions are more violent and more frequent. and the
molecules vibrate so fast that they begin to emit
light That was the view of the old physics But then
why do not bodies lummesce at room temperature, smce
the molecules are still In monon? No explanation was
then forthcoming.
When, In 1898, the English SCIentist Thomson created
the first model of the atom, the mystery of luminescence
seemed about to be solved. I n this model. atoms were
clouds of posmvc charge Within which floated negative
electrons In quantities sufficient to balance the charge.
The electrons were attracted by the positive clouds
and retarded in their monon.
But according to classical physics, charged particles
have to emit electromagnetic radration when they are
50

decelerated. Apparently, that radiation is the light

emitted when bodies are heated. At first glance. the
explanation was quite convtncmg. The more a body
IS heated. the faster the electrons move to the atoms
and the greater the deceleration due to the auracuon
of the clouds of positive charge, and hence the more
intense the radration.
That could be the case if electrons did not expend
energy when radiating. But when electrons radiate light,
they must decelerate with extreme rapidity. In just the
most minute fraction of a second they would have
bogged down in the posrttve clouds like raisins in
pudding.
Somethmg was wrong. Several years later it became
evident that the Thomson model of the atom would
not work In other respects as well. Too many questions
remained unanswered. And then why don't the electrons
simply merge with the posiuve cloud and neutralize
their charge? The few answers that are obtainable from
this model come IOta sharp conflict with expenment
in most cases.
In 1911. the eminent English physicist Ernest
Rutherford
proposed a new model of the atom.
Rutherford bombarded atoms of various substances with
the newly discovered alpha rays of radioactive material.
It was already known that these rays consist of
posiuvely charged particles.
Studying the scattering of alpha particles by atoms,
Rutherford was forced to a conclusion with farreaching consequences. The alpha particles were scattered
as If they were repulsed not by the entire positive
cloud of the Thomson atom, but by a very small
portion of the atom concentrated somewhere at the
centre The entire positive charge of the atom appeared
to be concentrated In this uny central part.
4'

51

r
Rutherford called this part of the atom the core
(nucleus). Then where are the electrons? The old view that
the electrons were bound to the posmve charge In the
atom by the electric forces of attraction was not In doubt.
But Since the electrons exist at a certain distance from the
core, there must be some force that counterbalances the
electric force of mutual attraction of electrons and
nucleus.
It was obvious that this force had to be operative
all the time. Atoms exist for a sufficiently long time,
and so the countering force would obviously have to be
Just as constant as the force of electrical attraction
between electrons and nucleus.
It seemed reasonable to thmk that this was a centnfugal
force. It appears tf electrons revolve about an atomic core.
It could be calculated whether the force IS sufficient to
keep the electrons from falhng into the nucleus.
Calculations showed that It IS quite sufficient If the
electrons revolving about the nucleus move at speeds
of many tens of thousands of kilometres per second
and at a distance from the nucleus of the order of
hundred millionths of a centimetre.
ThIS was the Rutherford model or the atom. A ball
swinging round at the end of a rope had mdirectly
suggested to Newton the Idea of planetary gravitation;
this same Idea now led Rutherford to the mgemous
and perfectly correct (as the future has shown) concept
of a planetary structure of the atom.
Now we can return to the problem of why bodies
ermt light and seek the answer m the new model of the
atom. The motion of electrons about the nucleus IS
accelerated motion (the electrons move along closed
curves). Hence, there must be electromagnetic radiation.
The classical laws are equally applicable to the Thomson
model and the Rutherford model of the atom. But,
5~

unfortunately. the success is also the same. In radiating

lrght, an electron uses up its energy. In doing so, It
slows down In millionths of a second and must
inevitably
fall onto the nucleus, Just like a satellite
decelerated in the earth's atmosphere falls to earth.
The fate of the electron should be the same as that
of the satellite. An atom, under such condtuons, would
very soon cease to exist.
But atoms live on. Electrons should not be grvmg
up energy and should not emit light. But bodies do
ermt light when heated!

The Biography of the Atom Written

by Niels Bohr
Classical phySICSwas again at an impasse. And a worse
one than mrgbt be supposed. It was not able to
account for the luminescence of heated bodies, and
It could not explam the existence of spectra.
You remember the rag with the sodium chloride
solution The spectrum of tbts salt consists of only
one yellow hne, which means that the radiat ion of Its
atoms consists of only one wavelength
Even If we assume that this line IS emitted by an
electron decelerated in the atom, we are Immediately
confronted by another difficulty. The laws or classical
phySICS state that such an electron should emit not
one line but a whole spectrum of lmes with all
wavelengths, and with no dlsconttnUities m the spectrum.
The spectrum of an electron should not differ from
the spectrum of the sun. Yet we have only one yellow line'
Bohr realized that somethmg was wrong. But what?
Maybe the Rutherford model of the atom was to blame'
No, It was too early to reject this model. And Bohr's
teacher, Ernest Rutherford, was of the same opmion. It
was thought an attempt should be made to modify
5.1

and Improve the model so that an electron 10 it could

revolve about the nucleus and emit light and yet not
fall onto the nucleus
The year was 1912. Fresh in the memones of all
phYSICIStSwas the sensation that Emstem had created with
hrs photons. And only three years before, It was Einstein
again who completed his theory of relauvrty - another
sensation. Naturally, all these attacks on classical physICS could not but stir up the young physicists and
add boldness to their mode of thmkmg.
Bohr conunued to mull over the problem and at
last got an Idea. Why should an electron In an atom
emit light connnuously? Because It IS always movmg
at an accelerated rate? Let's reject that and say that
an electron in an atom need not give ofT light even
when m accelerated monon.
And how IS this possible? The electron has to move
along a specific path about the nucleus. In an orbit.
and not Just any way. If the electron does not emit
light. It can live In the atom as long as It likes.
But there was no way m which classtcal physics
could countenance such a situation What IS more, It
didn't follow from any other theory. Bohr was not able
to prove it And so he modestly called It a postulate.
Bohr, mcidentally, was never able to prove It wnmn
the framework of lus theory. The proof came some ten
years later and was quite unexpected That we'll discuss
later on But how many possible orbits are there rn
which an electron can move without erruttmg light?
Bohr's calculations show that the number IS great, very
great. What's the distmgurshmg feature? The mean dIStance from the nucleus' there are close orbits and
distant orbits. Yet It IS not a question of distance,
but of the energy which the electron possesses m ItS
orbit. Which IS understandable, because the closer an

electron IS to the nucleus. the faster it has to move to

keep from falling onto the nucleus The reverse IS true
of a more distant electron, which IS not so strongly
attracted to the nucleus. and hence can move more
slowly. The conclusion, then. IS that the pathways
(orbits) of electrons differ as to electron energy. As long
as an electron stays m ItS orbit, there IS no ermssion of
light. Bohr at this point advanced a second postulate.
Let us suppose an electron in orbit suddenly jumps to
another orbit of less energy. Where has the excess
energy gone? Energy cannot simply vamsh away into
nothmg. Seek It outside the atom, says Bohr
The energy is ejected from the atom In the form of
a quantum, that same quantum of itght energy which
Emstem had mtroduccd
An electron that has emitted a photon takes up a
different orbit and does not errut light any more The
photon IS ejected dunng the rmnute fraction of time
when It jumps from one orbit to the other.
Meanwhile the photon IS making its way through
the other atoms and finally gets out of the substance.
It can enter our eye, It can be passed through a glass
pnsm In a spectroscope and photographed. The energy
contained In photons IS transformed many times before
we sec Its actual Image as n black line on a photographic plate
This hne has a lot to say for Itself By measuring us POSition on the plate we can lind the wavelength
of the photon and Its frequency. Then we take the
Planck relauonshrp between frequency and energy of
photons and determine the energy of the photon. Thrs
energy comes out as the exact difference 111 energy
between the old and new orbits 10 the atom The
blackness on the plate at the Site of the spectral lme
indicates the number of photons there' the more there
55

54

are, the blacker the line. The more photons, the brighter
the body that has emitted them.
What a simple and elegant explanation of spectra.
All the atoms of a certain substance are exactly
alike. Hence, the electrons all exist under the same conditions. And so the photons emitted during Jumps between two orbits are all the same. All transitions that
electrons make between two orbits yield, in the final
analysis. a smgle unique spectral line.
We have already mentioned that there

3fC

quite a

few such old and new orbits. An electron can reside

In

anyone

of them, in turn.

Every Jump from a higher-energy orbit to one of

lower energy IS accompamed by the birth of a photon.
But since there IS a difference of energy between different orbits, the photons WIll have different energies
and frequencies. A photographic plate WIll then exhibit
a senes of narrow spectral hnes. This IS exactly what
the spectrum of gaseous hydrogen looks like. It has
several tens of hnes with different wavelengths.
Generally speaking. such a SImple spectrum as that
of sodium consrstmg of only one line is a rarity. Spectra
usually have many tens of lines and frequently even
thousands of hnes. The spectral patterns of some chemical compounds are so intricate that there doesn't
seem to be any hope of disentanglmg them But there
are laws to go by which make the task easy.
Before Bohr's theory, physicists had racked their brains
In attempts to decipher some of the complicated spectra.
And when Bohr proved that the spectrum is the
biography of the atom, more precisely, of the atomic
electrons, the job was greatly SImplified. All one had
to do was to combine the various electron orbits in
an atom until he obtained the observed hnes of the
spectrum.

56

And conversely,
by examimng a spectrum, one can
draw all manner of conclusions
about the conditions
under which atomic electrons exist. This is very im-

portanl. Actually, Just about all that we know about

the electron shells of atoms has been acquired through
a painstaking
analysis of their spectra.

From Where do We Reckon the Energy?

Now that Bohr has explained how an atom emits
light. let us ask WHY. Why do bodies begin to emit
light only at high temperatures and why do they cease
to emit light at room temperature?
Before answering this question we shall have to digress
a bit. The very convincmg picture of the atom which
we have just drawn will have to be turned upside
down. Not that there is something wrong with it. No!
It is sunply the sequence of electron orbits that has
to be reversed.
We considered the close orbits to be the most energene ones, whence it followed that a photon was emitted
when an electron
nucleus. Actually,

jumped to an outer orbit from the

It is just the other way around.

Let us try to picture thrs business by digging a hole

in the ground. Put a ball at the bottom of the hole
and

put

another

one

on the ground

near the

hole.

Which of the two balls has the greater energy?

A knowledgeable person will immediately say: "The
quesuon IS not clear. First, what energy are you talking about, potential or kinetic? Second, from what
level do you reckon the potential energy? If the level
of the earth IS taken, then the potential energy of the
ball on the ground may be taken as zero, then the
ball in the hole will have a potential energy less than
zero, that

IS,

negative energy. But

If

we reckon the
57

potential energy from the bottom of the hole, then the

ball on the ground WIll have a potential energy greater
than zero. Since both balls are stationary. their kineuc
energy In both cases IS zero," Let's try the first frame
of reference.
But suppose the ball IS 10 monon. Then to ItS potential energy we add the kinetic energy. However, the
sum of both energies, called the total energy, will obviously remain negauve If the ball does not jump out
of the hole. On the contrary, It Will become posmve
If the ball Jumps up and rolls along the ground.
This lengthy explanation may be a bit urmg to the
reader but It will help to c1anfy many thmgs now and
later. The POlOt IS that from the viewpomt of energy.
an electron In an atom IS like the ball In the hole.
A free, mdependent. electron IS hke the ball on the
ground. Physrcists have agreed to reckon the energy
of such electrons taking for zero the total energy of

a free but stationary electron.

Of course, there Isn't very much In common between
an electron and a ball. Probably only that they are
both constrained In their movements The ball can't,
of itself, leave the hole. and an electron cannot leave
ItS

atom That IS precisely why atoms exist.

The closer the ball rs to the top of the hole, the

farther

It IS

from the bottom and the greater

Its

total

energy (which means. the lower the negative value of

energy). The same WIth the electron The farther It IS
from the nucleus. the higher Its total energy: the closer
It IS to the nucleus. the lower tlS energy (but the greater
Its negative value, naturally).
To summarize. then, when an electron Jumps to an
orbit closer to the nucleus. It diminishes Its energy. so
that photons are emitted ID Just such transitions. And
conversely. the farther the orbit IS from the nucleus.
58

the closer the electron IS to 'escaping' from the atom,

and the more energy the electron has. Now let us
return to our story.

Excited Atoms
Again we have to deal wrth our ball. Why doesn't
It fall? Which IS a silly quesuon, since there IS nowhere to fall.
We have a similar situation with an atomic electron
at low temperatures. There is nowhere to Jump to.
The electron is located In the orbit closest to the nucleus;
from here the only place to fall is onto the nucleus,
which is Just as impossible as for our ball to fall
through the earth.
The electron energy IS at ItS lowest. The electron has
nothing left to lose. Therefore, It cannot errut any light.
It IS evident that the electron must first be m an
orbit some distance from the nucleus so as to be able
to fall closer to the nucleus. The quesuon is: How
does the electron get into an outer orbit? The same
way that a ball can get to the top of a ladder, say:
by us puttmg It there, which IS to say, by giving It
some energy
The same thing goes for the electron. To put It IOta
a distant orbit, we must give It some energy More
specifically. we have to Impart to the electron a portion
of energy that IS at least as much as the energy dtfference between the two orbits.
There are different ways of del.vermg the energy. One
common way occurs 111 the thermal motion of atoms
when one atom with sufficient speed collides wuh another, giving up the fight amount of energy. At room
temperature, such collisions are common. but the energy
IStoo low. When the temperature reaches hundreds and
S9

thousands of degrees, collisions result in big exchanges

of energy, electrons Jump to new orbits, and light is
emitted.
Energy has been imparted, the electron IS In an outer
orbit. Then what happens? The nucleus does not allow
the electron to stay m the outer orbit for any length
of time. It pulls It back into an Inner orbit, and as
the electron Jumps Inwards, a photon is ejected. Our
eye perceives the photon and we say that the body
glows, or emits hght.
The body IS now emitting light. Let us raise the temperature and see what happens. The thermal motion
of the atoms becomes more energetic, collisions are
more frequent and violent. The electron spends only
a httle ume 10 Its innermost orbit. The atoms more
and more frequently go into a state which physicists
call "excited', then return to 'normal' only to leave It
again almost immediately.
At this point, photons are bemg generated by thousands and rrulhons every second. They build up avalanche-like as the temperature nses (recall the StefanBoltzmann law).
But it is not only the number of photons that is
Increasing. The lengths of the electron Jumps also increase
The first timid Jumps to neighbouring orbits and back
again give way to record leaps to distant orbits, far
away from the nucleus. Jumping back from such orbits
the electrons generate very strong photons. And we know
that the higher the energy of a photon, the greater
Its frequency and the smaller its wavelength. The emilted light becomes brighter and more 'violet' (recall
Wien's displacement law).
Bohr's theory was thus able to account at one stroke
for the basic laws of the theory of thermal radiation
and spectroscopy. After this great success, the quantum
60

nature of light and of atonuc processes was obvious.

In Just a little while this was recognized by most
scientists.

The First Setbacks

Yet It was still early to speak of a complete victory
for Bohr's theory. The next ten years saw a tremendous
development of the theory. There was a great expansion
In the range of phenomena that it embraced. These
included the most subtle processes of emission and
absorption of light by atoms, and the detailed structure
of atoms and molecules. In 1914, Kossel laid the
foundations of quantum chemistry now included in every
textbook on the subject. In 1916, Sommerfeld advanced
a more exact theory of the ongin of atomic spectra.
To this day it helps decipher cornphcated spectra. The
new theory was able to account for recently discovered
magneuc and electncal properties of atoms and molecules.
At the same time, the Bohr theory was encountering more and more difficulties. It was not capable of
explaining many new facts, some of which were the
ones that gave It birth.
The first was In the very spectra that Bohr's theory
helped to explain. The trouble was that the explanation
was not sufficient.
We have already mentioned that spectral lines are
characterized not only by wavelength but by brightness
too. From Bohr's theory we could find the distance
between the rungs of the energy ladder of electron
orbits (that is, the wavelengths of the photons generated
in electron Jumps from rung to rung, from orbit to
orbit). But the theory was helpless as far as accounting
for the brightness of the spectral hnes was concerned.
61

It was not clear how one could calculate the number

of photons In the spectrum.
It was obviously too early to speak of a victory
for the Bohr theory over classical physics. Though he
at first dispensed with the classics. he later had to revert
to them. ThIS was In the form of the so-called correspondence principle.
In a nutshell It was this Classical physics was able
to calculate the brightness of spectra, but could not
account for their ongm. Quantum rnechamcs was able
to explain the essence of spectra. but could not calculate the brightness of the spectral lines. Bohr concluded that both theones had to be used, and that they
should be harnessed together In areas where they more
or less coincided.
But where did this occur'! According to classical
physics. an electron in orbit about an atomic nucleus
would come closer and closer to rt and finally fall onto
It. In the process. it would emit a continuous spectrum
with no smgle hnes.
According to quantum mechanics. an electron in an
atom radiates separate hnes or. as we say. radiates a
discrete spectrum. What have the two spectra 10 common?
The rungs of the energy ladder of electron orbits
have different heights The height IS less, the farther
the orbit's from the nucleus The energy ladder in the
atom is somewhat like a long ladder looked at endwise. in perspective. so to speak: the rungs at the far
end appear close together. In the case of the ladder,
this is simply an optical illusion. while In the atom
It IS an actual fact.
But the height of the energy level corresponds to the
energy of the photon or the wavelength of its spectral
hne. Thus, long wavelength hnes of the spectrum, which

correspond to electron Jumps between orbits distant

from the nucleus, must be close to one another, which
makes It appear as an almost continuous spectrum.
Thus, the long wavelength section of the 'quantum'
spectrum should not differ materially from the very
same section of the 'classical' spectrum. In this region.
the bnghtness of the first spectrum could be calculated
on the baSIS of classical phySICS. And then we could
extend the calculation to the entire 'quantum' spectrum.
That is the correspondence principle.
It was a brilliant Idea, only 10 practice physicists
were disappointed. Experiment yielded Itne brightnesses
that dilTered from those of theory.
Generally speaking, it was hard to expect anything
else. A theory that has to resort to outside help IS
not very strong. And one that has to go for help to
ItS recent opponent IS weak indeed.
To introduce classical phySICSInto quantum mechanics
is, as the English physicist Bragg once said, Itke
preaching 'classical religion' on even days of the week and
'quantum rehgion' on odd days. Though science sometimes resorts to two gods and finds It useful. actually
It IS an indication of a weakness 10 the theory.
A closer look at the new theory WIll show that the
correspondence pnnciple was not the only lapse 10
Bohr's theory. Actually, from the very start all ItS basic
premises bore clear traces of classical phySICS.
Bohr rejected the classical views on electron motion,
yet Introduced the concept of electron orbits In the
atom. He was firmly convinced that electrons revolved
about the nucleus of the atom m the same way that
the earth moves round the sun.
Bohr 'prohibited' the electron from radratmg while
in orbit, but he could not find any good jusnficauon
for domg so. Bohr's theory gave a correct explanation
63

of the origin of photons 10 atoms, but the process as

such remained a mystery. It did not follow from any
of its postulates.
This dual nature of Bohr's theory was quick to marufest itself. New facts cropped up that did not fit into
the framework of the theory. Yet it had merits. Bohr's
theory was a tremendous step forward 10 understanding
the world of the atom. And it had Its hrrutauons. It
explained much that was incomprehensible and beyond
the means of classical physics. But almost as much
remained unaccounted for.
The time for new steps had come. And they were
soon made. The first was taken by the French physrcist Louis de Broglie.

From Bohr's theory

to quantum mechanics

A Remarkable Article
In \924, the September issue of the English "Philosophical Magazine" carried an article by an unknown
physicist, Louis de Broglie. The author described the
principal points of his dissertation, which was devoted
to the possible existence of matter waves.
Waves of matter? Weren't they the commonly known
sound, light and other such waves, which are qui te
material and which are perceived by our sense organs
or are recorded by instruments?
No, it turns out that de Broglie had in mind quite
different waves. The views expressed by de Broglie were
so unorthodox and paradoxical that they could easily
compete in originality with those put forward by Planck
a quarter of a century before concerning quanta of
energy. And not only as to their importance to physics, but also in the way they were received by very
many physicists: open incredulity.
What are these matter waves, anyway?
Before going into item, let us take a look at
'ordinary' waves, which had been thoroughly studied
hy that time.
5-70

65

A Little about Ordinary

Waves

Throw a stone into a pond and watch the waves

move over the surface of the water. Incidentally, surface waves are practically the only type of wave that
can be observed directly in motion.
It might appear that the water Itself moves with the
waves. But this IS not so. Watch any httle boy throw
stones behind his toy ship hoping In this way to move
It back to the shore. The waves move under the craft,
which Just bobs up and down In one place. This means
that the water does not move away, but Just up and
down. In big waves produced by big stones, there IS
a little movement of the water, but never for any great
distance.
This 'carrying' property of high surface waves IS made
use of in riding the surf, a sport common in Australia
and the Hawaiian Islands. The sportsman stands on
a large board and moves up and down with the big
regular waves moving In towards the shore. He gets
onto a wave and moves towards the shore at a tremen-

dous speed. But the slightest false move and he will

find himself In the trough of the wave Instead of on
the crest.
In this risky, exciting sport, the wave carries the
sportsman piloting him towards the shore. Remember
the term, pilot wave. We shall return to it later on.

Last century, physrcrsrs learned that sound was also

a wave motion. Sound waves were found to be propagated In the air, In water, and In solids. What IS
It that vibrates In sound waves? The particles of the
medium through which the sound IS propagated. Molecules of air. water, the atoms of solids.
Take away the air, water. matter generally, and sound
waves disappear. There IS no sound in a void. Future
66

astronauts will probably observe grandiose eruptions of

volcanoes on distant airless planets all In complete silence. Only the ground shaking under their feet will be
felt. On the moon, spacecraft wrll start up in absolute
silence. There will be no roar of rocket engines as we
know It here on earth.
The phYSICIStSof last century likewise learned about
the nature of electromagnetic waves produced by the
movement of elect TIC charges.
The light and radrowaves of distant stars and nebulae now arrivmg at the earth began their trip thousands
and millions of years ago. Their pathways lay mostly
through enormous and nearly empty interstellar spaces.
On the moon, astronauts in complete silence will watch
jets of dazzling fire eject from the bottom of their
space rocket.
In a vacuum, one can see and not hear. That is
the most fundamental difference between electromagnetic
waves and mechanical waves, mcluding sound waves.
No intermediate medium IS needed for the propaganon
of electromagnetic waves. On the contrary, a medium
only reduces their speed.

Getting Acquainted with Matter

Waves

Let us return to the matter waves.

De Broglie main tamed that these waves are generated
In the motion of any body, whether a planet, a stone,
a particle of dust or an electron. Like electromagnetic
waves, they are capable of propagatIOn 10 an absolute
void. Hence, they are not mechanical waves. But they
are produced in the motion of all bodies, including
those not charged electrically. Hence, they are not
electromagnetic waves.
At that time phYSICiStSdid not know of any other
5'

67

kinds of waves. So matter waves were indeed some

sort of new hitherto unknown waves. Utter nonsense,
said the older physicists with a shrug.
They were firmly convinced that all possible waves
had already been discovered. This young Louis de Broglie
speaks of waves of mailer; but are not mechanical
and electromagnetic waves, waves of matter? Without
matter there are no waves, in fact there is nothing at
all!
True, de Broglie didn't think up a very good name
for his waves. But what could he do? New things get
names before scientists have time to understand them
properly.
That is exactly what happened to de Broglie. Those
mailer waves of his proved so intricate that physicists
are still arguing about them. We shall have to take a
closer look at the de Broglie waves because they are
the foundation of present-day quantum mechanics.

Why Can't We See de Broglie

Waves?

That was probably one of the first questions that

physicists asked de Broglie. Well, how do we generally
perceive waves? Not only by means of our sense organs,
which are a rather poor instrument anyway. The human
ear perceives sound waves with frequencies between 20
and 16,000 vibrations per second. These frequencies correspond 10 sound wavelengths in air of about 17 metres
to 2 centimetres. The human eye reacts to light waves
of length from 0.4 to 0.8 micron. Those are nature's
'windows' as far as learnmg about waves goes (if, of
course, we leave out the surface waves of the sea).
Physicists use special instruments to transform waves
beyond the human range to lengths that lie within these
two 'windows'. This greatly extends our possibilities of
68

studying wave phenomena. Radio receiving sets pick

up and allow us to study radiowaves of the metre and
centimetre band that come to earth from the depths
of the universe. Scintillation counters enable us to
detect gamma rays emitted by atomic nuclei. These are
electromagnetic waves millionths of millionths of a millimetre long.
It is now clear that the range of wavelengths that
have been studied is very great. Why, then, haven't we
been able to detect the de Broglie waves?
The point is: How? Mechanical waves (sound waves,
for instanoe) metres In length can be detected by the
ear. But a radio, even when tuned to the given wavelength, cannot detect them. The radio responds only to
radiowaves. And.Iookmg at it from another angle, radiowaves are not perceived by the human ear or any
other mechanical instrument, even if they are several
metres in length.
Each type of receiver responds only to its specific
type of wave. The ear responds to sound waves, the
eye to electromagnetic waves. How does one detect de
Broglie waves, sinoe they don't belong to either class?
Actually, that is the answer to the question we started
out with. Later on we will learn more about this.
We get another answer if we try to determine the
wavelength of these matter waves. De Broglie obtained
a relationship connecting the length of the new waves
with the mass and velocity of moving bodies. Here's

Scmnllanon counters use special crystals for regrstenng

nuclear particles and gamma quanta. When a particle or
quantum of radiation rmpmges on such a crystal, a flash,
or scmtrllanon, IS emitted and recorded by sensmve instruments

69

what it looks hke:

A. = .-!!.-

mv

In this relation, lambda (A.) denotes the de Broghe

wavelength, and m and v are, respectively, the mass
and velocity of the body; h IS our old fnend, the
Planck constant.
This is sigmficant because It means that the de Broglie
waves are of a quantum nature. We shall take up this
question again later on. Meanwhile, let us find out what
wavelengths correspond, according to de Broghe, to the
motion of objects about us. Let us calculate bnefly for
a planet, a stone and an electron.
Just a glance will show that these wavelengths should
be extremely small, since the numerator is Planck's
constant, which IS exceedingly small: 6.6 x 10- 27 erg
per second.
Let us take the planet earth. It has a mass of
6 x 1027 grams and a velocity of orbital monon about
the sun roughly 3 x 10 cm/s. Putting these figures 10
the de Broglie relanon, we find the length of the earth
wave to be
,
6.6 X 10-27
"- 3.6 X 10-.1 em
- 6 x 1021 X 3 X 10
That IS fantastically small. No existing or foreseeable
instruments could record anything that small. There
Just doesn't seem to be any comparison to illustrate
Just how very small this figure IS.
Let us see what the wavelength of a stone IS like.
Take a stone of 100 grams travelling at a speed of
tOO cm a second. From de Broghe's formula we find
A. =
70

66x

10-27

I00 x I00

= 6.6 x 10-

31

cm

pz---------------

Not much better than the earth's de Broglie wavelength. Absolutely hopeless of ever being detected. It IS
a million, rnilhon, million times smaller than the atomic
nucleus, which itself is far beyond the range of any
microscope.
Now let us take the electron. It has a mass of about
10-27 gram. If an electron begins to move in an
electric field with a potential difference of one volt, It
Will acquire a velocity of 6 x 101 centimetres per second.
Puttmg these figures into the de Broglie relanon gives
us
6.6 X 10-27
10-7
6 X 10' x 10 27 =
cm
This is something quite different. 10-7 em corresponds
approximately to the wavelengths of x-rays. which can
be detected. Thus, 10 principle, we should be able to
detect a de Broglie electron wave.

The Wave is Found

But how? The de Broglie wave exists 10 theory and
there doesn't seem to be any way of detecting It
instrumentally. But a wave IS a wave and there must
be some phenomenon In which it Will manifest Itself
no matter what Its nature. An attempt was made to
catch the de Broglie wave In a diffracnon experiment. the
point being that diffracuon is so completely a wave
phenomenon. Diffracnon consists In the fact that when
a wave encounters some obstacle It passes round It.
In doing so, the wave IS slightly deflected from its
straight path and moves into the 'shadow' behmd the
obstacle.
The diffracuon pattern of waves from a round obstacle
or a round aperture In a screen opaque to waves is
71

x -ray pal/ern
Fi g. t

typically a system of. alternate dark and light rings.

Such a pattern is seen, for example, when one looks
at a street lamp through a dusty glass. On frosty nights,
the moon is surrounded by several light and dark rings:
the moon light has experienced diffraction on minute
ice crystals dancing 10 the air.
Diffraction is a definite indication of the existence of
waves. It was precisely the discovery of the diffraction
of light at the start of the nineteenth century that
served as a most convincing argument for the wave theory
of light.
But the wavelengths of light waves are hundreds and
even thousands of times greater than those of the de
Broglie waves of electrons. All the devices constructed
for producing diffraction of light - slits, screens, diffraction gratmgs - were much too crude. The dimensions
of the obstacles used to observe diffraction of a wave
must be comparable with or less than the wavelength.
72

Electron diffraction

pattern
Fig.2

What is possible with light waves, is utterly out of the

question when dealing with the de Broglie waves.
By 1924, it was known what objects to use in attempts to detect the diffraction of the de Broglie eleclron
waves. Twelve years before, the German scientist Laue
had noticed the diffraction of X-rays on crystals. Laue
noticed a series of dark and light dots on a photographic plate exposed to X-rays that had passed through
a crystal. Several years later, Debye and Scherer repeated
Laue's experiment on small-crystal samples of powders,
and obtained diffraction rings. In these cases, diffraction
was possible because the distances between the atoms in
the crystals (like slits in a 'screen' opaque to X-rays)
were of the same order of magnitude as the wavelength
of Xvrays: 10-8 centimetre.
But the lengths of the de Broghe waves lie precisely
within this range! Which means that if these waves do
really exist, then electrons, in passing through a crystal,
73

should produce the same diffraction pattern on a photographic plate as X-rays.

A few years after de Broghe advanced his new concept,
the American scientists Davisson and Germer and the
Soviet physicist

P. Tartakovsky

ment on the diffraction

verified

it

In

an experi-

or electrons by a crystal.

However, In Itself the analogy between the "electron

rays' and X-rays was not enough. The expenrnent
required great ingenuity.

X-rays passed through the crystal almost unimpeded,

while electrons were totally absorbed 10 a layer or crystal
only a fracuon or a milhmetre thick. What was needed,
therefore, was very thin crystal plates. or metal foils,
or maybe to work with obstacles and not apertures.
In this case, a beam of electrons was directed at a

small angle to the race or the crystal so that the

electrons sort or shd along It without go 109 deep into
the crystal and bouncing back. As a result, the electrons
experienced

diffraction

only on atoms

in the outermost

layers or the crystal. The electrons that had experienced

diffraction were recorded on photographic plates."
Tartakovsky sent a beam of electrons onto a thin
foil consisting of a multitude of minute crystals. The
exposure was several mmutes long.
When developed, the photograph exhrbrted the outhnes
or real diffraction nngs, These first plates - worth more
than their weight in gold - were sent to the largest
physical laboratories or the world. There they were
carefully scrutinized. There was no more doubt. De
Broglie's bold hypothesis concerning matter waves was
brilhantly confirmed by experiment. Electrons exhibit
the properties of particles and the properties of waves!
Electrons can fog a photographic
way that VISible hght or Xcrays do

plate

In

the same

74

Two-Faced Particles
Even before these decisive expenments,
trying

to get at the

real

meanmg

SCientists were

of the

de Broglie

waves. How was one to understand this dual nature

In the behaviour of parucles, of electrons?
In those days, physicists knew what an electron was.
A very

small

and

very

lrghtwerght

particle

of matter

carrying a minute electric charge. For a long time no

one

asked

what

curred Inside

It.

shape

this

particle

had

or what

oc-

There was no way of actually observing

an electron, to say nothing of trying

internal
structure.

to figure out Its

But If an electron IS a particle, then It obviously

must have the properties of a particle. How could an
electron have the properties of waves, something so
utterly

different?

The first attempt to Interpret matter waves was made

by de Broglie himself. It clearly indicated
that when
physicists
first entered the world of the ultrasmall
they
continued, from habit, to work With pictorial models.
In the Bohr-Rutherford
theory,
the atom
was like

a planeraty system In which the electron planets revolved

about a sun nucleus, the only difference being that,
unlike planets, electrons could frequently change their
orbits.
But then came the light quantum,
the photon.
As
Emstein had shown, It too possessed the properties
both
of waves and of particles. Obviously.
such a dual object
was beyond any pictorial representation.
Thus physics was confronted
by the first unrepresentable entrty. Now, With de Broglie's discovery, this uru-

magmableness had to be extended to particles of matter,

from the uny electron to enormous astronomical bodies.
This was truly something
to recoil from.
How could one even Imagine that an electron flymg
75

at an obstacle would, as a result of diffraction, move

round and get behind it. No, waves and particles were
two mutually exclusive entities. A thing was either a
wave or a particle!
And yet the de Broglie waves existed. It was not
'either or' but 'both'. Something had to be done to
connect the unconnectable. And not for the single specific
case of a diffracting electron. If an electron has wave
properties, then so inevitably do all the objects of our
world, from the smallest to the biggest.
De Broglie suggested beginning this unusual synthesis
with the concept of a pilot wave.

Pilot Waves
Let's go back to riding the surf. The rider gets on the
crest of a high wave that carries him to the shore. The
wave acts as a pilot.
De Broglie's idea is that matter waves pilot moving
particles of matter in a similar fashion. A particle,
as it were, sits on a wave and moves wherever the
matter wave carries it.
The length of this wave, de Broglie says, may be
very great. At small velocities of motion of an electron,
the length of the electron wave is many thousands of
times greater than the electron. As the velocity increases,
the particle, as it were, pulls the wave into itself, and
the wave becomes shorter. But even at high velocities
of motion the length of an electron wave is still greater
than the 'dimensions' of the electron itself.
It doesn't exactly matter who leads whom, the
electron the wave or the wave the electron. The important thing is that the wave is connected with
the electron intimately and for all time. The electron
wave disappears only when the electron stops. At this
76

instant the denominator in the de Broglie relationship

becomes zero and the wavelength, infinity. In other
words, the crest and trough of the wave move so far
apart that the electron wave ceases to be a wave.
The de Broglie picture rs quite vivid: an electron
riding its own wave. But where did the wave come
from? It exists with the particle even when the latter
is in motion in an absolute void. Which means that
the wave is generated only by the particle itself. And
how does that occur?
De Broglie's hypothesis has nothing to say on that
score. Well, maybe the hypothesis can explain what
interaction there is between a particle and its wave,
how the wave moves together with the particle, how
it shares the fate of the particle in the latter's interactions
with other particles and fields, for example, when
particles are incident on an obstacle or on a photographic plate. No, the hypothesis does not olfer
any convincing explanation.
In the search for a way out, de Broglie tried to
ehminate the particle altogether. Why not imagine the
wave itself to be the particle? In other words, picture
the particle as a compact formation of its waves,
a wave packet, as it was called by physicists. A packet was to consist of a small number of rather
short waves; when two or more packets collide they
ought to behave like particles - exactly like a shortwave photon when it ejects an electron from a metaL
But no matter how compact the packet, no matter
how much it resembles a particle, it consists of
waves. This surely means that there must be phenomena in which it will exhibit its primordial wave
nature.
But nature rejected this proposal as well. It turned
out that no matter how compact the wave packets
77

are, they cannot form a particle. Thrs IS fundamentally impossible. The point is that these packets
rapidly dismtegrate 10 time, even in a total vacuum
In negligible intervals of ume, a packet becomes so
smeared out 10 space that the formerly compact
particle IS diluted to homeopathic proportions. Yet we
know that particles are definitely stable, there is not
a trace of any kmd of spreading out In time.
ThIS model too had to be given up The mechameal combmmg
of two such mutually exclusive
entities as waves and particles IOta a stogie Image
was not a success, And It couldn't be But that came
later De Broglie, however, did not want to give up
hIS 'centaur' with the head of a particle and the body
of a wave.
Two years passed. In the summer of 1927, phYSICISts
from all over the world arnved 10 Brussels at the
Solvay Congress at which de Broglie's representauon
on the relauonship between waves and particles was
resoundingly rejected. For many years to come, a completely different representation of this relauonship led
the way It was presented at the congress by two
young German physicists, Werner Heisenberg and
Erwm Schrodmger

Together or Separately?
Heisenberg and Schrodrnger buned the de Broglie
concepnons. but spoke to doing so that this deterrruned the whole subsequent development of quantum
mechanics.
The prmcipal idea of de Broglie concerning waves
associated with the motion of bodies was quickly
taken up by scientists 10 a number of countries.
Hardly a year passed after de Broglie's first paper
78

appeared when the German phYSICIStMax Born proposed hIS own idea of the de Broglie waves.
Heisenberg, Born's pupil, who was Just begmnmg
his career In science, got interested m the problem.
De Broghe's research was heatedly discussed by another
group of physicists that included Schrodmger,
And then ... but we won't keep to the chronological order of events The concluding episodes of
a film shown at the begmnmg help to understand
what IS gomg on and heighten the dramatic effect.
Recall the expenrnent that proved the diffraction of
electrons. In it an electron beam impmged on a crystal
(or a very thin metal foil). The electrons of the beam
experienced diffraction on the atoms of the crystal and
impinged on a photographic
plate foggmg It and
leaving diffraction rings.
We may now add that the electron beam produced
by an Incandescent metallic filament was specially
formed. A diaphragm with a small Circular aperture
was inserted between the source and the crystal.
As a result, after the electron beam had passed
through the diaphragm It had definite cross-sectional
dimensions.
What would have happened If we had stopped the
expenment at the very start when there were only,
say, several tens of electrons? When the photographic pia te was developed we would see sornethmg hke
a target peppered Withshot by an mexperienced nfleman
The dark dots correspond to the hits of separate
electrons distributed over the plate quite at random.
Conunumg the experiment. we would see a gradually
emerging regularity In places where the electrons strike
the target After several thousand shots, the plate would
reveal c1earcut dark and light rings, which were actually
detected by SCientists.
79

This is an interesting fact. Obviously, as long as the

number of electrons participating in diffraction is small,
no wave properties are exhibited. These properties
appear only for large numbers of electrons. In other
words. the wave properties of particles seem to be
manifested only by large assemblies.
To find the answer, we experiment again. The same
experiment with diffraction of electrons but done
differently. We can take a powerful source of electrons
and expose a photographic
plate for a short time.
The diffraction pattern will then be formed quickly.
Or we can take a weak source of electrons and
lengthen the exposure time. But if in both cases the
same number of electrons impinge on the plate,
absolutely idenucal diffraction patterns will be produced.
This is very important.
In the first case, when
the electrons experience diffraction on the crystal all
at once, one can speak of something in the nature
of an assembly. But in the second case, when the
electrons impinge on the crystal individually, the concept of an assembly is hardly applicable. What kind
of a team of railway workers would you have if one
welded one day, another moved a bolt the next day, and
a third tightened it a month later?
The pattern is the same when the electrons undergo
diffraction thousands at a time, and when they do
it one at a time. The conclusion is obvious: each
of the electrons displays its unusual properties independently of the others as if no other electrons
existed at all.

A Visit to the Shooting Range

Let's take the target we spoiled. It was produced
by a small number of electrons. At first glance, it
80

would appear that the electrons rmpmged

on the plate

utterly at random.
But there IS one thing that attracts our attention.

We measure the aperture In the diaphragm from which

the electrons emerged and project the outline onto the
target. It would seem that all the electrons should fit
inside this outline, no matter how randomly they had
fallen on the photographic plate. Actually, however,
many of the hits are far outside the boundary hne.
And here IS another interesting thmg. If we examme
the target carefully. It will be noticed that the electrons
do not strike the plate In random fashion at all.
Even when the number of hits on the target IS
small, there are blank places with not a single hit
and there are closely bunched groups of hits. If a line
is drawn through these places, little rings appear.
True, they are not well deli ned, but they Improve
as the number of electrons stnkrng the plate Increases.
Let's playa trick. Take an ordinary nfle target and
punch holes where the electrons hit the photographic
plate. Then show the target to a real marksman and
see what his reaction IS.
"What a funny way to shoot. Look at all those hits
In number 10, and not a single one in 9 or 8. Was that done
on purpose? All 10 10, 7, 4 and I?"
We don't say anything, and after a short while
the chief marksman says, "Nonsense! No one could
ever shoot up a target that way. no matter how he
tried. And here's why. If the man rs a beginner, hIS hits will
he at random, more or less evenly distributed over
the whole target. The target of an experienced marksman looks quite different: a lot grouped around the
bull's eye and Just a few In the outer nngs. Let's
count the total number of hits In each nng of the
target and construct a graph.
6-70

81

Fig. 3

"On one axis we layoff

the numbers of the
nngs (or the distance from the bull's eye, which IS
the same thrng), on the other, the number of hits
between two nngs. We get a smooth curve downwards
as we move away to the edges of the target.
"And now take your target. The graph m this case
Will oscillate up and down from the centre to the Sides.
The way It descends differs from our curve.
"In the case of our expenenced marksmen the laws
of chance hold true. And the curve we gel IS what
IS known as the curve of random errors, or Gaussian
curve. There is something random 10 your case too.
But it obeys a different law, quite new to shooting
ranges."
Now let's return to our target.
82

Waves of Probability
True enough, the wave-like curve is never encountered
in shootmg. Electrons are not bullets. A bullet has
too big a mass for it to exhibit wave properties.
It was this distribution curve of electron tracks
on a photographic
plate after their reflection from
the crystal that Born proposed calling the de Broglie
wave.

Wait a minute! What connection is there between

the 'paper' wave and the real wave? The real wave
moves with the electron, while ours remains on paper:
However, they are related. The graph of electron hits on the photographic plate is not a figment
of the imagmation. It reflects the existence of a real wave
associated with a moving electron. But the meaning
of this wave is quite different from that which de Broglie
gave It.
Classical Newtonian physics says very definitely that
the electron emerging from the aperture of the
diaphragm should move m a straight hne until It hits
the crystal. Then the electron IS reflected from an
atom of the crystal just hke a billiard ball bounces
off the side of a table. Finally, the electron moves
from the crystal to the photographic plate and leaves
a track on It.

There is no human berng here with shaking hand

and tired eye. There is no wind or streams of
heated air coming up from the earth that could
affect the aiming process. These are ideal conditions,
and hence the accuracy should be Ideal - all into the
bull's eye. In other words, the electrons should reproduce
on the photographic
plate an exact outline of the
aperture in the diaphragm. If the opening IS a tiny
hole, the photograph should reproduce a small dot
and nothing more.
6'

83

But electrons refuse to follow the classical law.

In place of a small point, we have a whole group of
light and dark rings. ThIS ISn't due to inaccurate
shoonng. Even If we suppose it to be the case, the
electrons would be distnbuted according to the Gauss
law. In reahty, however, they scatter according to
a' 'wave' law. which IS quite different.
The distnbution curve of electrons on the photographic plate is wave-like In shape. The same waveform is exhibited by the intensity of the diffraction
pattern due to light, and to Xcrays, which are
definitely waves.
Thus, the wave properties of electrons manifest
themselves in a more subtle manner than de Broglie
ever imagined. An electron wave is not an aircraft
with an electron passenger. It determmes the probability of an electron irnpmging upon some point on
the photographic plate. A better name for It would
therefore be 'probability wave', as Max Born suggested.

Probability Enters into Physics

In classical physics we never come across the term
probability. The motion of every particle or body
is considered to be rigorously and exactly predetermined by the forces acnng upon It. We can predict
with absolute certainty the position and velocity of
a body for any Instant of lime, a second later or
a million years hence, If we know the forces acting
upon It and the position of the body at the reference
time from which we start reckoning.
But then in the middle of last century phYSICS
undertook the study of internal motion m gases. It
was evident almost immediately that one could not apply
84

Newton's equations directly to the monon of gas

molecules.
Judge for yourself
Even small volumes of gas
contain millions upon millions of millions of molecules.
Now to give an accurate picture of their monon would
require wrumg and solving the equations of motion
of each of the molecules The molecules are never at
rest, they are constantly colliding with other molecules, bouncing off some, running mto others; and
these events occur rmlhons of times every second
It 1S preposterous even to imagme wnung Newton's
equations for all the molecules. Millions of years
would be spent in Just wriung down the equations
More millions of millions of years in solvmg them.
Meanwhile, of course, all these mouons would have
long since been replaced by others
In the search for a reasonable way out, physicists
saw that they should not be Interested In the motion
of each indrvidual molecule of gas colliding with other
molecules wtth unbelievable rapidity Rather should
their Interest he In the state of the entire mass of
gas' Its temperature,
density. pressure and other
characteristics.
There IS no need to determine the velocities of the
separate molecules. All characteristics of the state of
the gas should refer to the whole system of molecules
as an assembly. Now these characteristics are determined
mamly by the mean velocity of the gas molecules.
The higher the velocity, the higher the temperature.
If, m the process, the gas does not change ItS
volume, then there will be an increase m pressure with nse
m temperature. But to learn these relationships accurately, one had to find some way to determine the
mean velocity of the molecules. Here was where the
theory of probabihty came In.
85

It stated: "It is hopeless to think that all the molecules of a gas have the same velocity at every
instant of time. On the contrary, they have different velocites and, what is more, the velocrues are constantly
undergoing change due to collisions. However, despite
the random nature of these changes in velocity, there
exists, at every instant of time, some mean, stable
molecular velocity under the given conditions. What
is random as concerns one molecule becomes a regulanty when applied to a large number of molecules.
Such IS the probabihty law of large numbers. And
the number of molecules 10 our volumes of gas is
indeed large, m fact so large that the law can be
apphed WIthout the slightest hesrtation or doubt."
Physicists began to calculate the behaviour of large
assembhes of molecules statistically. according to the
laws of probabihty theory. But in one respect they
did not want to agree with the theory of probability. They maintained that there was no randomness In molecular monon, that every collision, every
individual motion of a molecule could be descnbed
by Newtonian laws and that If one desired to solve
millions of millions of equations, he could express these
motions with absolute precision and without any
kind of mean values. We don't do that, of course;
but m pnnciple it could be done! We describe the
motion of a gas by means of probability laws, by the
laws of stausucs, but underlying them all are the
exact laws of Newtonian mechanics.
Classical physics was Just a little too sure of Itself;
there were simply no grounds for generalizing Newton's
laws to the monon of individual molecules. The subsequent development of phySICS proved this. Molecules are not billiard balls. They move and collide
and m doing so obey quite different laws.
86

Cautious Predictions
These were new laws, laws obeyed by electrons,
atoms, and molecules. The first to 'rebel' were the
electrons. They did not want to fit into the framework
of behaviour of classical phySICS. Instead of huung
the photographic plates where they should. they
"used their own free will and did what they wanted
to!" shouted some SCientists
shocked by the disobedience of electrons.
Physicists weak 10 philosophy were easily led astray.
Since the electron had a 'wnl of Its own', there were
no laws that it obeyed. a real anarchist. And If
that's the case, why do we need SCience, which seeks
laws, if there are no laws? God. they reasoned, had
made the electron (and hence all thmgs in the world)
free to behave as It wished, exempt from all laws except
one - the divme law of its existence. But science does not
investigate this law, 11 grasps It by sheer faith. QUIte
a simple matter, you see - from the 'free wtll" of the
electron to out-and-out idealism.
Matenahsts countered by saying that the new laws
hold where the laws of classical physics fall
ThIS was predicted by Lerun. Twenty years before
the time we are now describing he said that no matter
what unusual electron properties might be discovered.
they would mean only one thmg - a deeper and more
correct understanding of the surrounding world.
Electrons refused to follow the laws of classical
phYSICS.but they obeyed the laws of the new. quantum,
mecharucs.
What kmd of laws were they? First of all. they
were probability laws. What did the light nngs on
photographic plates (negatives) m the expenrnent with
the diffraction of electrons sigrnfy? Simply that electrons
87

did not strike these places on the plate. Obviously,

the electrons did not act of their own free WIll, but
were restricted III their behaviour.
Then we have the dark rings where most of the
electron hits are made. But not all of the electrons
Impinge here. There are certain greyish places between
the darkest and the hghtest sections. A 'mean' number
of electrons impinge on these portions. We see

this

very clearly on the distnbutron

shooung game.

our

curve of hits

In

We now come to the most important thmg,

An electron leaves Its source, passes through the
diaphragm, IS reflected from the crystal and IS moving
towards the photographic plate. Where will it hrt the
plate'!
Classical physics calculates the angles, distances and
velocities WIth great accuracy and says "Here" Which
IS usually not where It hits at all
Quantum mecharncs says. "I don't know exactly, but
the greatest probabiluy is that It WIll hit the dark
nngs, there is less probability that It WIll hit the grey
sections, and It IS hardly at all hkely that It WIll rrnpmge
on the hght rmgs."
Kind

of overcautious.

And

It

sounds strange for

a science that wants to be called 'exact' It doesn't

even sound like science. How much mcer the 'absolutely exact' predicnons
of classical physics. Yet,
If one begins to think about It, what arrogance In
such predicuons, what braggadocio and what Ignorance too

Indeed. what else can we say about a SCIence which

has Just begun to Investigate an infinitely complex
world and which hardly knows anything about the
events taking place In It, and at the same time
makes such categoncal statements.
88

But perhaps we are, after all, a httle too stnct

about classical physics In the world of everyday things
It does a very good Job And then again. It had
no inkling, until just recently, of such things as quanta,
the wave properties of particles, and many many other
startling things
True enough, every science alms at an exact and
comprehensive knowledge of the subject under study.
That IS obviously the baSIC aim and motto. But there
will never be a day when everythmg has been learned
and there IS nothing more for science to do.
That IS the meaning of all these cautious predictions 10 science. all these 'possibles' and 'probables'.
To speak of a probability means that our knowledge
about a phenomenon IS not absolutely complete and
exact.
One can easily imagine the silly picture the weatherman would cut if he said: "Expect hot weather
tomorrow, no ram, temperature at 9 AM, 238''C;
at 12 '00,29 6C, at 4 PM, 27.4"C. At 13 :00 clouds
Will appear over such and such an area covenng
so many square metres during so many minutes
At 5 PM the clouds Will move off m a northeasterly drrecuon at a velocity of 123 km per
hour. "
There are dozens of factors that enter into the
formation
of the weather. In Its present state,
meteorology cannot take into account and describe
With exactitude the many factors that make a perfect
weather forecast. Far from It!
So much more difficult 1$ the case of quantum
mechanics. which deals With the Immeasurably more
Involved world of the ultrasmal1

89

Waves of Particles and Particles of Waves

To get back to the de Broglie waves. They deterBut they determine It
In a probabilistic
manner, not with perfect exactitude. In experiments dealing with the diffracuon of
electrons, these waves indicate areas of a photographic plate where the electrons will impmge with
the greatest probabihty.
But wasn't Max Born mistaken when he took the
'waves of probability' for the de Broglie waves? Maybe
the de Broglie waves are something quite different?
If so, that's easy to check.
Let us recall the de Broglie relauonship. From thrs
relation we can see that as the velocity of an electron
Increases, Its wavelength should decrease. Physrcists
already knew that the harder the Xvrays, the shorter
their wavelength and the more compressed their
diffraction pattern. A study was made of the diffraction
of electrons having different velociucs. And here too,
a tightening of the diffraction rings. as the electron
velocities Increase, was established qune definitely
Now physicists could pass from the wavelength to
the distance between the nngs of a pattern, and
vice versa. Calculations showed that If one computed
the length of electron waves from the distance between nngs, the result was values that coincided exactly
WIth those found from the de Broglie relauonship.
There was no doubt any longer. The 'probabiluy
waves' were the same matter waves that de Broglie
had predicted. And they appear not only when electrons
are dilfracted by crystals, but are universal. They
are associated With the monon of electrons and other
particles of matter at all times
rrune the motion of electrons.

90

But it IS not always possible to detect them. The

wavelengths of the de Broglie waves rapidly fall olf
with Increasing mass and velocity of the particles. and
lie beyond the sensitivity of our Instruments. Then
only the corpuscular properties of particles remain.
Recall our discussion of wave properties. Up to a cerlam point. waves (for instance, electromagnetic waves)
do not exhibit any corpuscular properties and behave
as waves should: they experience interference, diffraction, and so forth. But as soon as their wavelengths
become small enough, they begin to act like particles
and are able to knock electrons out of metal.
The best example IS gamma rays, the shortest of
all known electromagneuc waves. With what ease they
dislodge particles of matter, exhibiting true corpuscular
properties.
De Broglie's discovery united the world of physical
phenomena into a coherent whole, bridging the gap
between two such Opposites and, what would appear
to be mutually exclusive entities, as particles and waves.
However, though the umty was discovered, there are
no grounds for thinking that the opposites have
disappeared.
They lie, as it were, deep within thmgs and determine the bizarre physiognomy or the rrucroworld,
which IS the world we shall be talking about very
much from now on. We shall learn about marvellous
things that are possible in the world of the ultrasmall and are very neatly described by 'waves of probability'.
On the Way

to the Wave

These waves describe the monon

and other particles or the microworld.

Law
of electrons
Now how IS
91

one to understand the word 'describe"? A thing or

phenomenon may be described both qualitauvely and
quanutauvely.
In ordinary hfe we usually do the
former When we hear "There'll be rain today", we
pick up the umbrella and we don't ordmanly ask at
what altitude the clouds WIll be.
But SCience, especially such an exact science as
physics, is rarely satisfied with such a qualitative
descnption. FIgures are needed, and exact ones too.
So far we have descnbed our diffraction pattern
produced by electrons on a photographic plate mainly
in a quahtauve fashion, as alternate dark and light
nngs. We can also descnbe it quantitatively, by measunng the degree of darkness at different places on
the plate and then plotting a curve, Just like the one
we made at the shooting range.
Now It would seem that we could produce a theory
about this phenomenon and rest at ease. But It
happens that there are other things that require an
explanation. SCience can't construct theones about
each one separately
In fact, therein lies the very strength of modern
science: It builds theones that embrace hundreds of
Interlinked phenomena. The best and most powerful
theones are those that are the broadest and most
ernbracmg,

In phySICSthe construction of new and large theones often begins With the search for a single Important
formula It is called the law of mollon. A farmhar
case IS Newton's second law. which connects the
acceleration of a body WIth the magnitude and direcnon of the force acting on the body. But we don't
actually see the force and accelerations. all we observe
is the translation of bodies in space and time under
the acuon of forces. It IS this motion that Newton's
92

law permits us to find. Acceleration IS change of

velocity of motion In time. And velocity IS change
of pOSItIOn of a body in lime. So finally Newton's
law relates a force to the actual translation of a body.
And so when solving Newton's equation we find the
type of monon of the body. It is expressed as
a certain curve descnbed by the body in a certain time.
ThIS curve IS called the trajectory.
There IS another very general and broad law m
phySICS that descnbes not the motion of bodies but
the propagation of waves. Mathematically, It is written
III the
form of the so-called wave equation,
or
d'Alembert's equation, after the noted French mathematician of the 18th century who discovered It.
Neither Newton's nor d'Alernbert's equation IS denved from any more general laws. They were not just
thought up out of the blue, but were distilled,
as It were, III a theoretical generahzauon of numerous
expenments and observations made by the predecessors
of Newton and d'Alembert.
A genius IS not one who simply contnves things
out of hrs head, rather IS he one who perceives
some hidden force. some Important law In an intricate
maze of events, one who shakes that law free from Its
encumbrances, from accidentals and insignificant details,
and polishes It clean as a compact formulation or
(as In the exact sciences) a formula The new law IS
now hke a Jewel of knowledge with elegant lines and
bnlltant facets.
What law was to serve as the cornerstone of the
edifice of quantum mechanics? Naturally, for the new
law of quantum mechanics to take the place of the
laws of Newton and d'Alembert In classrcal phySICS
It had to be at least as general and broad. What
is more, this new law had to descnbe, all by Itself,
93

the two-faced world of the ultrasmall, supplanting

the two earlier laws. This single law had to describe
both the motion of particles and the propagation of
waves!
No matter what you say, Newton had it easier.
He had experimental facts galore. whereas here was
a situation without a smgte experiment. The year
was 1925, and almost three years to go before the
decisive experiment on diffracnon of electrons. The de
Broglie relationship was there, but all It descnbed was
the wavelength of particles, and nothing about particle
motion.

However, theoretical physicists were so convinced that

they were on the right path that they began the construcnon of the new theory Without waiting for any
expenmental verification of de Broglie's hypothesis.
Maybe start by changing Newton's equation so as
to include the wave properties of particles? No,
history went differently. Physicists, following de Broglie,
attempted to modify the wave equation so that It
would reflect the corpuscular properties of waves.
That proved to be SImpler.
Schrodmger and Heisenberg were the first to achieve
success 10 this respect. Their approaches were quue
dilferent. What IS more, one probably didn't even know
what the other was doing. It was only some time
later, after their papers were published, that Schrodmger
was able to prove that both solutions of the problem
were physically identical despite the fact that outwardly
they had nothing in common.
Heisenberg invented the so-called matnx form of
quantum mechanics, which is very Involved and far
beyond the scope of this book. On the other hand,
Schrodinger altered the wave equation so that the
latter took Into account the corpuscular "taste' of the
94

de Broglie waves. The new equation was called

Schrodinger's equation and 15 the most popular equanon of quantum mechanics.
Thus the wave law became the basic law of quantum
mecharucs.

Measuring

Instruments Take over

Now let's get back to the de Broglie waves. According to the interpretation of Born and the final form
of the Schrodmger equation, these waves mamfest
themselves, for example, In the wave-like distribution
of electron Impacts on a photographic
plate. But,
as we have seen. one needs a lot of electrons to
produce a clear pattern.
But of what significance is a de Broglie wave for a single
electron? We know that too' It deflects the electron
from the classical trajectory. Without this deflection
there would not be any diffraction pattern at all.
That would seem to be clear. Yet there is sornethmg
not quite satisfactory.
After so much talk about
the strange world of the ultrasmall, one rather wants
the wave properties of the particles to be unusual
10 some way or another.
Well, let's see what the microworld has to say.
Suppose we want to take a measurement. We are not
interested in the specific type of measuring Instrument.
All it has to do IS to keep tabs on the electrons, measure
their velocities and' positions in space at every instant
of time.
The electron is a very small particle. It requires an
ultrastrong microscope. Imagine we have created a
microscope of the right power. Question number one:
How are we gomg to carry out the measurement?
To see an object, we have to illuminate it in some way.
95

The point IS: In what way? The illumination depends

on the dimensions of the object. The first condition
for a clear Image is that the wavelength of light be less
than the dimensions of the object. The ordinary light
microscope operates with wavelengths of from 0.4 to
8.0 micron, and therefore produces clear-cut images
of objects at least about two to three microns in size.
But if we now take something, say of half-micron
size, the image will be blurred. When the dimensions
of the objects are of the same order of magnitude
as the wavelength of light, we have a strong diffraction
of the light. Instead of a clear Image we get a diffraction
pattern, which consists of alternate dark and light
bands that reproduce the outlines of the object.
Now take a still smaller object. The light goes past
It as If the object didn't exist at all.
The electron is not a dust particle nor a bacterium;
Its size (later on we shall see that the term size is
hardly appropnate) IS roughly a thousand million times
smaller than the length of light waves. So how do we
Illuminate

It?

Luckily,

there

are

gamma

rays

with

extremely small wavelengths.

So we take an electron for observation and light
It up with a gamma ray, and we sec nothing. Just
nothmg at all - there was an electron and now there
isn't any. There aren't even any ditTraction rings.
No matter how we try to produce an Image of an
electron, we'll never be able to do it.
The point is that an electron is not a dust particle
and the gamma quantum IS not a photon of light.
The minute gram of dust has weight, and a photon
carries some energy and, hence, some momentum.
Where does the photon get its momentum? We know
that a photon can behave like a particle. This was
already demonstrated by Einstein in hrs theory of the
96

photoelectric effect. Judge for yourself: in empty space a

photon always has the same velocity, that of light, but
its wavelength can be different. We apply to the photon
the de Broglie relation:
A=~

mv

where the velocity v is made equal to the velocity of

light c. Then we can find the mass of the photon
(this is naturally the mass of a moving photon; the
rest mass of a photon is strictly equal to zero):
h

m=

Ie

Now the momentum of a photon is the product of its

mass by Its velocity:

p=mc=1:

Now just a little more mathematics.

From this formula

it is readily seen that as the wavelength of the photon

decreases, the momentum Increases rapidly.
When a light photon hits a dust particle, it imparts
to the latter

its momentum

and bounces

ofT into

the

optical system of the microscope and into your eye.

Our particle of dust doesn't even budge. If it was at
rest, it remains that way; if it was moving, it hardly
at all changes

its direction

of motion.

The electron is something quite different. Its mass is out

of all comparison with that of a particle of dust; and its
momentum
is small even for a very fast electron.
And so we fire a gamma photon at it with a momentum
almost a thousand million times greater than a photon

of light.
electron,

When

a gamma

forget about

images

photon

collides

or diffraction

with

an

rings. The

electron is knocked right out of the picture, you might say.

7-70

97

We're not getting very far, and to make things worse

we have to deal wrth velocity. Take an electron in
flight; it is moving in some direction but we can't say
with what velocity. We then Illuminate it with a ?~mlna
photon and the electron changes its speed. Or, say the
electron has zero velocity. It is at rest some place. But
we can't locate it, because Just as we Illuminate It the
electron IS knocked off in some direction.
It was so nice with the old microscope. You have
a dust particle or a bacterium, say, and you know
all the time where it is and how fast it's moving.
But try to locate an electron. We don't know its velocity,
but if we try to determine It, we lose the particle
altogether. Such are the tricks of the rmcroworld.

The Uncertainty Relation

What we have Just descnbed IS very close to actual
fact A little calculation with our dust particle and
electron WIll show this to be true.
Take a little piece of dust one micron (10-4 cm) across
consisung, say, of a substance With a density of to grams
per cubic centimetre (just a httle greater than the
density of iron) and let It be moving m tbe field of a
microscope With a small velocity of one micron per
second. Then it WIll have a weight of 10-11 gram and
a momentum of 10-15 gram per centimetre per second.
We throw hght onto It having a wavelength of, say,
half a micron (in the visible light spectrum, this IS
green), its photons have momenta of only 10-22, which
IS tens of rmlhons
of times less than the momentum
of our dust particle. It is clear as day that the photon
Impacts on the dust particle WIll not produce any etTect
whatsoever.
Now take the electron. Even If its velocity is close
to that of light - 1010 cmls - It WIll have a momentum
98

of only about 10- 17 g. cm/s, The gamma photon used for

illumination
has a very short wavelength
(say,
6 x 10- 13 em) and a momentum of 10-14, which is
thousands of times that of the electron. So when a
photon hits an electron.
it is like a railway train
smashing

into a baby-carriage.

By now It should

be clear that the possibiliues

of

measuring instruments
In the world of the ultrasmall
are limited, to say the least. They cannot measure
particle mouons WIth any degree of accuracy,
What are these inaccuracies, or, better still, uncertainties of measurement?
The answer IS given by the

uncertainty

relation denved by Heisenberg In 1927 from

laws of quantum mechanics. Here IS what
It looks like:
the general

.1x

(Actually, the quantity

x ~v.:c ~-

h
m

h/2T< stands

In

place of

n,

but

that is not significant,

since there is only a sixfold
difference between them.) Here, Ax IS the uncertainty
measurement of position (the coordinates) of a particle x;
Avx IS the uncertainty measurement .of Its velocity Vx
In a direction
x; m IS the mass of the particle. and
the sign;:: signifies that the product of these uncertainties

cannot be less than the quantity

the relauonship.

on the right side of

Here IS where the strangeness comes In. If we try to

measure the position of a parucle with absolute accuracy,
the uncertainty
of ItS coordinate
.6.x must, of course,
become
zero. But then, by the rigorous
laws of
mathematics,
the uncertainty of velocity becomes

.6.vx
7'

h/m
h/m
.6.x = -O-~00
99

- or infinity. Which means that the velocity of the

particle at the instant when its position is being
measured becomes absolutely indeterminate. Conversely,
if at some instant of time we measure the velocity of the
particle with absolute accuracy, we will have no way of
saying where the partrcle was located at that instant.
Then "!hat do we do? Perhaps compromise by
measuring both position and velocity of the electron with
a certain inaccuracy, which on the whole will not be
too great?
Let us see what the inaccuracies are for our dust
particle and electron. For the former, the quantity on the
right in Heisenberg's uncertainty relation comes out
roughly to IO-IS. Now let us take the compromise
values of uncertainty: Ax = 10-8 ern, Avx = 10-7 cmls
(multiplying them together we get, on the right, the
quantity 10- IS).
The ratio of Avx to Vx is 10-7:10-4=10-',
which is one-thousandth
part. Thrs should satisfy us
as an uncertainty in velocity measurements; few speedometers are capable of greater accuracy.
Now for the unoertainty in the position of the dust
particle. A x; its ratio to the dimensions of the particle
is 10-8 : 10-4 = 10-4, which in one ten-thousandth. This
inaccuracy corresponds to the dimensions of one atom
in the dust particle.
That is why, when we measure velocities and positions
of dust particles and more massive objects, we never
even imagine the existence of an uncertainty relationship.
But the electron otTers quite a ditTerent picture. Its
'dimensions' (we again point out that it is not
exactly correct to speak of the dimensions of an
electron in the spirit of classical physics, which looks
on the electron as a charged sphere) are approximately
10- 13 ern across, mass - 10- 2i g, and the velocity of
100

a medium-fast electron moving between a potential

difference of one volt is of the order of 10' centimetres
per second. The right-hand side of the uncertainty relation
comes out to about 10.
There are different ways of constructing this value
out of the quantities t! x and t! Vx. For instance, suppose
we want to measure the velocity of an electron with the
same accuracy as we did for the dust particle, or 10- 3
4
Then our uncertainties
will be: 6. Vx = 10 cmls
(10': 10' = 10-'), and ts x = 10-' ern. The uncertainty
in the position of the electron will be thousands of
millions of times (!) the size of the electron.
Let us try to get the accuracy in velocity measurement
up to 100 per cent, which is the actual velocity.
As physicists say, this would give the order of the
quantity being measured. Then !'J. Vx = 10' and !'J. x =
= 10-6 centimetre, which is still millions of times the
size of an electron.
No, there can be no compromise; the world of the
ultrasmall doesn't want it.

What is to Blame, the Instrument

or the Electron?
Classical physics never had to deal with dilemmas
like this. It always considered that the position and
velocity of any particle at any instant of time could
be measured with absolute accuracy (at least in principle).
This lies at the heart of the predictions of particle
movements on the basis of their positions and velocities
at some imtial point of time.
Now we find that even in principle there can be no
talk of absolute accuracy of measurements. Where's the
trouble? Maybe in the instrument?
True. no instrument is capable of measuring a quantity
101

with absolute accuracy. We rmght say that the history

of the development of rneasunng techniques has been
a history of constantly increasmg Instrumental accuracy.
Precisron measurements In many fields of science and
technology have today reached a fantastically high
degree, and they are getting better all the time.
But it would seem that the uncertainly relation puts
a hrmt, an upper limit, on the accuracy of instruments.

In this situation, Heisenberg (and other physicists

after him) sard that the trouble was In the Instrument.
The Instrument for the rrucroworld differs from the
telescope used to study the universe. Both Instruments
are needed, of course. Our sense organs, which we use to

study the world about

us, have their hmttations.

fact, that is what an instrument

IS for: to translate

In
the

phenomena withm Its range Into 'human' terms of feeling.

But whereas the telescope does not In any way alTect
the motions of the astronomical
bodies it observes, the
microworld IS quite a different proposition. There, OUf
Instrument (let us say our Ideal supermicroscope)
interferes directly With the phenomenon
under observation
and alters its natural course. Moreover, It changes It to
such an extent that we have no way of separating out the
phenomenon
m pure form. That IS what the uncertamty
relanon does, It puts an upper lrrmt on the 'purity'
of an observation.

Other

physicrsts sard: "The troubles he With the

And their argument was rather convincing.
The world of the ultrasmall hves according to Its
own laws and, generally speaking, does not require
measurements
for Its existence. When we say that an
electron:'

electron

has wave

properties,

Well, take the oscillauon

what

does

that

mean?

frequency of a pendulum:

to say that the frequency at a given Instant IS such

and such IS nonsense. To determme the frequency, one
102

has to observe the oscillations of the pendulum for some

time. Sirmlarly, one cannot say that the wavelength at
a given pomt IS such and such The very mearung of
wavelength IS that It IS a charactensuc
of a long
(strictly speaking, an mfimtely long) senes of waves.
No matter what the nature of these waves, then length
cannot depend on the position of anyone point In the
wave.
Let us take the de Broglie relation and wrtte It so
that we have the velocity of the particle on the left:
h
v = n1'A
We Immediately conclude that since the wavelength lIS Independent of the posiuon of any point 10 the wave
(for example, the POint at which we belteve the particle
to be), ItS velocity cannot be dependent on the position
of the particle.
The failure of the instrument 1S due precisely to
the wave properties of the electron.
So who IS right? Those who accuse the Instrument
of not being able to adjust itself to the rrucroworld,
or those who blame the rmcroworld as being inaccessible
to measurements?
It appears that both are to blame, but only half
and half. The truth of the matter IS that the Heisenberg
relation exhibits the 'guilt' of both Instrument and
electron. But that IS not all

An Attempt with Rather Faulty Tools

What do we require of an instrument? FIT',t of all,
that it should provide us with the mforrnauon that
we wish to know. An instrument, of course, has no
independence whatsoever, it only obeys the human wrll,
The instrument that we wish to use to Investigate
the rrucroworld has two aspects. or two ends: an
103

input and an output. At the input it deals with

phenomena that obey quantum laws, at the output it
releases information recorded in classical 'language',
for our sense organs don't understand any other language.
We asked our Instrument to inform us at every
instant of time about the position and velocity of our
electron. The instrument says very honestly that he
cannot do that. It says it can provide information
about velocities without indicating positions when the
velocity measurements are made, or about positions,
but with no information provided about velocities at
that instant.
If one gives it a little thought, it is obvious that
physicists themselves are to blame more than anyone
else. They demanded that the instrument report on
electron velocity versus location, but it turns out that
these two quantities are not related in any way.
Therein lies one of the wonders of the microworld,
one of the manifestations of the wave nature of particles.
In short, the old classical concepts and quantities that
physicists had manipulated with ease for hundreds of
years were no longer any good when dealing with the
world of the ultrasmall.
Well, not exactly 'no good'. The concepts remain
in the microworld as well, but they are in a way
circumsribed, limited. The limits to which they can
be used are established by the uncertainty relation.
The electron could be considered a point particle and
one could say definitely that It had an exact position
in space If it were not intimately associated with a wave.
The wave, as it were, smears out the position of the
electron: it can be located at any place of its own wave.
As a result, for an electron at rest its waves extend
to infinity, and any attempt to find It at any definite
place must fail. On the other hand, the faster an electron
104

moves, the more accurately it is 'localized' in its

wave. But even at the very highest velocities of motion
its 'smearedness' is still many times greater than its
own 'srze'.
Not only the classical concepts of position and velocity
of an electron are found to be insufficient in the world
of the ultrasmall. Even time, the energy of particles,
and many other notions undergo change in this new
world.
Why, you may ask, didn't physicists disregard the
old, classical concepts and quantities that don't function
normally in the microworld and replace them with
new ones more in accord with the unusual properties
of this world?
It is hard, at once, to see just how complicated this
problem is, for it concerns the very nature of the process
of human cognition. We shall come back once again to
this towards the end of the book. For the present, it
must be said that any change of conceptions and
notions in physics or in any other branch of science is
an unusually long, involved and trying process. Many
thousands of years passed before man's first naive ideas
about the universe, the essence of life, of nonliving
nature, and the structure of atoms underwent a change.
One can easily imagine how naive our own conceptions
will appear to the world hundreds of years hence.
In our age, human knowledge is advancing at a fantastic
rate. Still, the process of revealing new worlds, new
phenomena lags behind, becoming more and more
difficult and contradictory. As Einstein so aptly put it:
"A Drama of Ideas".
That IS exactly what happened when the classical
concepts were taken into the world of the ultrasmall.

105

Another Marvel
Kids will Jump over fences to get Into a cherry orchard.

And so the owner builds a higher fence. Now what

does Johnny do? He takes a running Jump, or he gets
a ladder, or climbs a tree and Jumps over, or ... well,
there are a lot of ways, really. Boys today don't believe
10 fairy tales any more, but If they dealt wuh the world
of the ultrasmall they certainly would have to imagine
parucles getting through 'solid' walls!
Let's take a closer look at this business of chmbing
or jumping over fences. From school we know that the
lower a body IS, the less Its potential energy. Standing
on the ground, you have less potential energy than when
sitting on a fence. And we know how much less: this
quantity IS given by the product of the weight of our
body by the difference 10 height of the centre of gravity
of the body 10 the two positions: the difference IS
roughly equal to the height of the fence rrunus one metre.
If you find the energy some place, you can get over
the fence. ThIS can be done by using your own muscles
or those of your companions to boost you up. In either
case, the work done goes to Increase your potential

energy and you can get over the fence.

The rest IS easy. Jumping down doesn't require any
elTort. On the contrary, It takes some elTort to soften the
descent against the force of gravity Now the potential
energy on the other SIde of the fence has dimmished
to what It was before the Jump upwards.
If we plot our potential energy as we go over the
fence, we get a nse In physics this IS called a potennal
barrier
In the atomic world

there are fences of this nature.

For example, a metal contains a multItude or almost

free electrons that are relatively feebly bound to their
106

I'~-""\

"

"'''
~

Q,)

.....

t:::::

0()

I"
I

I.:J...

'"

,......

Patentwl,'
well

-------_...

,/

t: \

I
_~ '"
.Sl

.... \

.~

II
\

\
\

~
~

\
' ....

--------

Fig.4

atoms. But, despite their freedom, no one ever heard

of electrons leaving the metal of their own free will
The point IS that the electrons are not completely free.
Though the bond IS weak, they are still attracted to
the IOnS that thus appear [thrs will be discussed in more
detail 10 the next chapter). The overall action of all the
IOns on all the electrons In a piece of metal may be
pictured 10 the form of a yard cut 01T from the
outside world by a high wall with electrons runnmg about
ins Ide the yard.
Electrons 10 a piece of metal resemble the balls In the
hole that we discussed In connection with Bohr's theory.
Inside the metal, the electrons move with ease, but they
can no more get out than our balls could leave the hole
they were In. For this reason, the conditions under
which the electrons lind themselves In a metal are termed
a potential well.
Stili, such electrons are not really 'chained' to the
metal for all time. Under certain conditions they can
Jump over the fence and get outside, as It were. For
Instance, this occurs when the metal is rllurrunated with
light of sufficiently short wavelength. An energetic photon
107

Fi g. 5

can knock an electron right over the potential barrier

and make the electron really free. This is the conventional,
classical way of getting over the potential barrier and
does not really differ from kids climbing over a fence.
You've probably already noticed that in the case of
electrons in a metal the barrier 15 not exactly like a fence:
it has a front part but no rear part. It is more like a step
than a fence. For the ball in the hole, we can make
a fence by digging up the ground around its edges.
In the case of electrons in a metal, this can be done
by applying to the piece of metal a strong electric
field.
Now both barriers - that of the ball 10 the hole and
the electron in metal - are very much alike. However,
their similarity ends here.
H we solve the Newton equation for the ball in the
hole, it will show that the ball will remain there for ever
if sufficient energy to overcome the barrier is not
imparted to it. We know that without any equations.
Balls don't just climb out of holes, neither do boys
get over fences without jumping.
108

Fig.6

Classical mechanics firmly states that the ball will

never get out of the hole, that the probability of this
'miracle' is zero, which means complete impossibility.
Now if we solve the Schrodinger equation for an
electron in a metal placed in an electric field, the
result will be quite unexpected. Here, the probability
of an electron getting out of the metal is not equal
to zero and, strictly speaking, never actually becomes
zero. It is very small, maybe negligibly small, but ;t
never vanishes!
The electrons would seem to be able to seep through
the potential barrier, as it were, and get to the
other side, in complete derision of the predictions of
classical physics. Mysterious forces would seem to have
cut a tunnel through the barrier to let the electron
through. Hence the name physicists gave to this amazing
phenomenon - the tunnel effect.

The Uncertainty Relation Once Again

While we wait for quantum mechanics to explain this
new 'wonder', our measuring instrument has been at
109

work, but the results are very discouraging. We asked

our mstrument to see how the electron seeps through
the potential barrier, since this violates the most
fundamental laws of classical phYSICS.We wanted to be
sure that this was nothing other than theoretical
nonsense.
We have already mentioned that the total energy of
the ball 10 the hole IS equal to the sum of ItS kineuc
and potential energies and IS negative. This IS because
the potential energy of the ball (which we reckon from
the top of the hole, that IS, from the highest POlOt
of the potential barrier) IS negative and exceeds (In
magmtude) the kinetic energy of the ball. It IS clear
also that wrthm the limits of the barner the total
energy of the ball should remain neganve, smce In the
process of seeping through It does not change 10
magnitude. But, on the other hand, the potential energy
decreases until at the uppermost point of the barner It
becomes zero.
The only conclusion IS that withm the hrruts of the
barrier the kmetic energy of the ball became negative.
But what kmd of a quantity IS that? Let us write It down:
1(1"=

mv2
-2-

The square of the velocity v IS always posiuve no

matter what ItS sign, the 2 In the denorrunator IS also
positive. Which means that the mass of the particle m
IS negative. But negative mass cannot be grasped or
irnagmed, Just picture to yourself a train gomg from
Moscow to Leningrad, while the cars are moving away
from the locomotive, from Lemngrad to Moscow!
Definite nonsense I And to make sure that it 1S, we
set upan Instrument to watch the electron. The instrument
has detected the electron and begun 1tS observations.
110

Fig. 7

Here's what happened. The electron approached the

boundary of the potential barrier. To catch the electron
when it IS seeping through the barner, It is not even
necessary to fix Its

location; make

sure

that

It IS located

somewhere within the limits of the barrier.

But that IS not all The instrument must find out
the velocity of the electron at that instant in order
to deterrnme whether Its kinetic energy mdeed becomes
negative. Here the instrument is helpless. Only the
Heisenberg uncertainty relanon can save the situation.
Now in order to fix the location of an electron within
the barner, the electron must be illummated by photons
of short wavelength, because It is required to determine
the posiuon of the electron with an accuracy not less
than the width of the barrier Itself and this width
IS small in the world of atoms. But the impact of a
photon on an electron will introduce mto Its velocity
an appreciable uncertainty. which will be such that the
uncertainty It causes In the kmetic energy of the electron
will be just enough to get over the highest po tnt of
the barrrer.
III

In other words, there is no way of detecting a particle

in a nonclassical passage under the barrier. In the
very process of 'detecting' it, an energy is imparted to the
particle sufficient for the latter to jump over the barrier
in a perfectly lawful and classical manner. Almost like
a policeman helping a criminal cover up evidence.
The foregoing is typical of many things that occiJr
10 the world of the ultras mall. From the viewpoint
of
classical physics, quantum mechanics can assert the most
fantastic things. And it is fundamentally impossible to
prove the falsity of these assertions by the use of classical
Instruments. Don't look for the particle under the barrier.
you won't find it. The very concept of a particle inside
a potential barner is Just as nonsensical in quantum
mechanics as in classical physics.
Yet the particle gets through the barrier! The clue
to this mystery lies, in the final analysis, in the wave
properties of the electron and of the other particles
of the microworld.

Matter Waves Again

As we have already seen, these wave properties result
in the particle velocities ceasing to depend on the
positions of the particles. There are no trajectories in
the world of the ultrasmall. But the position of a particle
affects its potential energy, and the velocity, Its kinetic
energy.
And so, strictly speaking, it is impossible at one and
the same time to measure accurately both the kinetic
and potential energies of a particle. They are independent
of each other at any given instant. Within the limits of
applicability of these classical concepts, energies in the
atomic world are given by the uncertainty relation.
All this means that a particle in a potential well has
112

a certain probability of getting outside the well, all by

itself. Which means also that there is a probability that
the particle will remain in the well. If, say, we have
a thousand electrons and ten of them get through the
barrier, then the probability of the tunnel elTect is 1 per
cent, and the probability of no tunnel effect is 99 per cent.
These probabilities are called, respectively, the penetrability and the reflecting power of the potential barrier.
Penetrability, or transparency, and reflecting power
are familiar terms. They describe substances with
respect to the passage of light waves. At the interface
of two dilTerent substances, light always partially passes
into the second medium, and is partly reflected. And
isn't the potential barrier a boundary between two media?
Simply not for electromagnetic (including light) waves,
but for the de Broglie waves.
This IS a very profound analogy. The laws of the
tunnel effect coincide remarkably with the laws of reflecnon and transmission of light waves between the boundaries of different substances.
The fact that we chose a fence, i. e., something of
a definite width, for our barrier is not accidental.
If this barrier has only a front wall, like the step of
a staircase, the tunnel effect disappears completely.
Particles cannot construct tunnels in infinitely long
(though very low) barriers. Here the prohibition of
classical physics is complete.
Indeed, OUf measuring instrument would be able to
celebrate something like a victory: it would be possible
to establish the location of a particle under the barrier
(if it got there) with complete assurance, no mailer how
great the uncertainty in the measurement of its position.
Which means that the uncertainty relation would yield
the exact speed and, hence, kinetic energy of the
particle. This energy would then definitely be negative.
8-70

t 13

But nature will not contradict itself. Negative kinetic

energy is an Impossibility. And so the tunnel elTect
disappears.
Yet, some readers may not be convinced by the
foregoing explanation. Can It be that everything we've
said is just abstract theoretical thmking? Well, judge
for yourself. Electrons leave a heated metallic filament
in large numbers - the thermal energy IS sufficient for
them to get over the barrrer at the boundary of the
metal, though this will never happen in the case of
a cold metal.
But put this piece of metal into a strong electnc
field and there will again be a flood of electrons out
of It. This IS called cold emission and marvellously
corroborates
the fact that the tunnel elTect is no
fictional fancy of theoretical phYSICiStS.

The Wave Function

Equations are not formed for the fun of It, but to
solve. And Schrodmger's equation IS no exception.
Equations are sometimes simple, sometimes Involved.
Schrodinger's equation IS definitely complicated. It is
known as a second-order partial differential equation.
To explain what all this means, IS much beyond the
scope of this book. Suffice It to say that equations
of this kind are used, for example, to descnbe quantines
that vary in space and in time,
The unknown quantity In these equations may be
disguised in all sorts of ways: it may be the form of
the surface of a liquid in a vessel, the coordinates
of a satellite in outer space, the strength of a radio signal
moving from transmitter to receiver, the cutting speed
of a machine tool, and many other things. The
solution of such an equation
yields directly the
114

dependence of the sought-for quantity on other quantuies

of interest to sciennsts. Mathematicians use the term
function to describe all of these relationships.
The unknown quantity in the Schriidinger equation
is called the wave function. Its exact meamng is still
not clear to scientists despite the fact that thousands
of elegant calculations have been made with it. We have
already
said that scientists
are still arguing
about it.
However, there is one thing that they all seem to be
agreed upon, that is that the square of the wave
function has the meaning of probability. Its dependence
on the coordinates and time yields the probability of
finding a particle at some place at a given time. More
precisely: the probability that a particle may be detected
in a given place at some time due to the action that It
performs there. For example, due to its interaction
with our measuring instrument. This probability is the
'wave of probability' that we described in the expenment
of diffraction of electrons.
To solve the Schrodmger equation in the general
case is an exceedingly difficult problem, even when we use
the most refined methods of modern mathematics. But
there is a broad range of phenomena that make this
solution easy. The so-called stationary problems In which
the desired wave function only oscillates about a definite
'mean' form while the form itself does not vary in time.
It is quite easy to see that such problems do not
refer to processes (non periodic, of course). In processes,
something is directed and varies in time. Stationary
problems refer to the structure of systems in which
processes can occur. It is very Important to know
the structure, smce one cannot say anything about
a process unless he knows under what conditions It
occurs.
8'

115

In the world of the ultrasmall, the elements of these

conditions consist of nuclei, atoms, molecules, crystals,

and many other things. We know that they all have

a remarkahly stable structure. The stationary Schrodinger equation was firstapplied preciselyto such elements.
Most interesting results were obtained. We shall discuss
them in the next chapter.

Waves and Quanta are United

Stationary problems in Quantum mechanics have yet

another remarkable property. To understand it, we recall

that the uncertainty relation embraces not only, say, the
position and velocity of a particle, but also its total
energy and the time.
In the latter case, the Heisenberg relation states
that the longer a measurement is made. the more accurate
will be the resulting energy of the particle. The form of
this relation is very similar to that given earlier:
t.Ex t.t:;>h
(again, in place of h it is more correct to write h/2n).
Here, I'. E is the uncertainty in the energy E of the
particle, and A r is the uncertainty as to the instant

of time t at which the particle had the exact energy E.

The sign:;> means that the product of these uncertainties
cannot be less than h, Planck's constant.
Now stationary means that the energy of a particle
does not vary with time. In principle therefore we
could measure for ever. Here, the indeterminacy

of

the time of measurement does not play any part.

So we calmly put I'. t ~ 00. But then, by the rules
of mathematics,
h
h
t.E=-=-=O
I'. t
00
116

Fig,8

which means that the uncertainty in measuring energy

is equal to zero. In other words, under stationary
conditions, the energy of a particle is determined with
absolute exactitude. This is the remarkable circumstance
that we just mentioned.
In the Schrodinger equation, the magnitude of this
energy is a very active participant. As long as E is
positive (and this, as we recall, corresponds to the free
motion of a particle), Schrodinger's
equation
has
a nonvanishing solution for all values of E.
And this means that the square of the solution (the
probability) is likewise nonzero for all values of E.
Translated into ordinary language, this means that
a free particle has the right to have any energy and
any velocity of motion (which, naturally, can never
exceed that of light) and be located at any place in
space.
Now when E becomes negative (this, as we recall
agam, corresponds to the bound state of a particle;
117

for instance, the ball in the hole, an electron in an

atom), the solution of the equation changes radically.
It appears that it does not vanish only for certain
specific values of the energy E.
These values of E are called allowed energy levels
of the particle. Take a look at the figure. The probability of the existence of a particle is nearly everywhere
close to zero, with the exception of states In which
It has allowed energy. Here, the probability is noticeably
different from zero. Physicists have termed this situation
the discreteness of energy levels.
Now take a closer look. Doesn't this picture in some
way resemble the allowed energy levels of the Bohr
model of the atom? It certainly does. What IS more,
it is the selfsame thing. The electron orbits of Bohr are
the very same energy states In which the probability
of an electron being there is substantially different from
zero!

Bohr simply conjectured these orbits, but he was not

able to prove why they should exist. It is quantum
mechanics that slipped the foundation
under lus
hypothesis.
Quantum mechanics also substantiates Bohr's second
postulate concerning the quantum nature of electron
jumps 10 atoms. As can be seen from the Schrodmger
equation,

an electron

10

an atom can

exist

only

10

states of allowed energy. Which means that when

transitions are made from one state to another, the
energy does not change at random but in very
specific quantines. It is Simply equal to the energy
difference between the states of a jump or transition.
This energy difference IS precisely the Planck quantum
that initiated the new physics! Quantum mechanics
united two bnlhant hypotheses - that of Planck on
118

energy quanta and that of de Broglie on matter waves and demonstrated their intimate interrelationship.
Without the de Broglie waves there would be no Planck
quanta!
Thus it was that these two rivulets merged into
a mighty stream of new knowledge. Let us follow
this broadening river and see what new landscapes
open up.

Atoms, molecules,
crystals

Clouds

in Place of Orbits

Hardly any other branch of physics has known

such rapid developments as quantum mechanics. In
something like five years following the birth of de
Broglie's ideas, the methods and mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics were worked out In every
essential detail, results of great scientific value were
obtained, and far-reaching attempts were made to assimilate these results.
By 1928, quantum mechanics was already a towering
edifice, a fully established, mature science with a diversified foundation and a nicely proportioned superstructure substantiated in no less degree than classical
mechanics. It took two hundred years for classical
mechanics to reach this stage of perfection, and only
five years for quantum mechamcs. Such was the pace
of the twentieth century!
And like a mountain torrent that breaks through
a dam and then peaceably spreads out over the
countryside. so quantum mechanics, after five years of
tempestuous development, settled down. Development
became more even as it drew into its sphere of
action new groups of phenomena, mastering them and
interpreting them afresh.
120

The first gain of quantum mechanics was the atom.

The new physics, under Planck and Bohr, began
with the atom. The atom was the first object of
interest to quantum mechanics.
Its first job was to reconsider the structure of the
atom in its new light. Bohr introduced the concept
of electron orbits. This, as we now know, was an
inconsistent step and savoured of classical physics.
Quantum mechanics does not deal in orbits, it rejects
them outfight. An orbit is actually a trajectory of
motion of an electron in an atom, while quantum
mechanics quite rightly maintains that the conception
of particle trajectories in the microworld is meaningless.
What supplants
the orbits then? Distributions
of the probability of an electron being located at some
place In the atom. We already know that the total
energy of an electron In an atom IS determined by its
distance from the nucleus. The set of allowed energies
corresponds to the set of permitted distances from
the nucleus.
Vet somehow we feel reluctant to give up the
orbits completely, they make It so easy to visualize
the atom. Quantum mechanics says: "All right, If you
like orbits, keep them. Draw a line through those
points where the probability of an electron with given
allowed energy is greatest. Consider this line to be
your orbit. But never forget that your electron
is not a point; its own wave smears it out, so that
your orbit IS actually a fiction."
O. K., we thank the quantum people and draw
our orbits. We are happy about our elegant system
of curves. Then a quantum man adds: "You know
what makes these orbits interesting? They are such
that an Integral number of the electron de Broglie
121

waves fit exactly onto each one of them. The first

orbit, closest to the nucleus, accommodates one wave,
the second, two waves, the third, three waves, and
so forth"
This is indeed very interesting
and serves as new
proof of the Universality of the de Broglie waves.
But then a quantum man says: "Your pictorial
orbits are pretty good. But don't get overenthusiastic, because they Just do not exist. Instead of an
electron In orbit, try to picture to yourself a 'cloud
of probability'. Which IS exactly what the electron In
the atom IS. The cloud IS denser where there IS more
probability of the electron exisung, and more rarefied
or transparent where the probability IS lower Take
a look at the photographs of these clouds."
Photographs? So they did finally succeed In catching
these elusive electrons after all? Well, not exactly:
there IS no way of getting around the uncertainty
relauon These are not photographs of atoms, but
of special smoke models which are outwardly Similar
to the density dismbution of 'clouds of probability'
of atomic electrons.
In these pictures we see that the electron clouds
have different shapes. Some of them are spherical,
others are oblong, Cigar-like This diversity IS due to
the fact that the electron energies In atoms depend
not only on the distance from the nucleus.
lncidentally, this IS true of the Simplest of atoms,
the hydrogen atom, where there IS only one electron
In the field of ItS nucleus. Their mteracuon
is that of
two charged particles of opposite sign but of the same
magnitude.
This Interaction IS described by the Coulomb law
The energy of the mteraction IS dependent solely
on the distance between the electron and the nucleus
122

Fi g. 9

It IS clear. then. why the electron cloud of the

hydrogen atom IS spherical m shape: all pornts of the
surface of a sphere are at the same distance from the
centre. which In our case IS the nucleus. Therefore,
all POints of the electron cloud correspond to the same
electron energy.
But when there are more electrons In the atom,
the picture of electrical Interactions among them and
also With the nucleus ceases to be so pnmitrve as In
the hydrogen atom, The electrons now are not only
attracted to the nucleus but are repulsed by each
other
123

Naturally, in the multielectron family of a complex

atom, all the electrons are particularly attracted to the
centre of the family -the
nucleus - although
they
quarrel among themselves. Nature very wisely plays
on these strained relations and brings order into
atomic families.
Just what this order is like we can see in the
photographs. The electron clouds have very intricate
shapes, which penetrate each other in involved ways.
If we could put this picture into three dimensions
and colour the different parts differently, we would
stand in wonder before the marvellous colorations.
Yes, quite unlike the prim picture of electron orbits.
Monotony

in Diversity

It may be pleasing to the eye, but it IS no mean

job to figure out where one cloud begins and where
the other ends in this maze of electrons.
Let us look into the workshop of the 'atomic
architect' - nature - and see how it constructs such
miniature marvels at these colourful tough structures
called atoms.
The matenal of construction In the hands of nature
consists of electrons and nuclei. The cement that
keeps them together is also known: the attractive
force of the electrons to the oppositely charged nucleus.
The first thing to catch our attention
in the
workshop of our architect is a huge sheet - the Periodic Table of elements of Mendeleyev. To date, 104 squares have been filled, 104 chemical elements are known.
These are the blueprints that nature uses to turn
out the myriad atomic structures of the Universe.
Over a hundred blueprints!
They look different only at first glance. Nature IS
124

more economical than the most rationalizing architect.

First of all, let us figure out the basic principle
which the atomic architect applies in placing his
bricks into the edifice of the atom. This principle
was discovered by the Austrian scientist Wolfgang
Pauli during the formative years of quantum mechanics
and was named in his honour.
It is applicable both to atoms and to many other
assemblies of particles of the microworld. The Pauh
principle states: in any assembly of microparticles,
each state of allowed energy can be occupied by
no more than one particle.
True, it was found later on that this principle is
not absolutely universal, and that for certain types
of microparticles it does not hold. We will not talk
about the excepuons, but will only say that as applied
to electrons, no matter what kind of assemblies they
form, the law never breaks down.
Here, the electron assembly is the atom. Another
atom forms a different assembly. But in all the atoms
of a given chemical element the electron families are
absolutely identical.

Another Marvel-But

as Yet Unexplained

We will have to digress for a moment to talk

about the spin of an electron. The meaning of spin
will be discussed later on, but one thing has to be
said, and that is that spin IS incomprehensible from the
standpoint
of classical physics. The discoverers of
spin naively believed that It meant the rotation proper
of the electron.
The earth revolves about the sun and It also
rotates on Its axis. The electron revolves round the
nucleus and it can also rotate on its axis.
125

Ne

Oxygen
Fig.
Exhibition

10

of projects of an atomic

architect

That IS clear, Isn't It? Now forget It.

Does the electron revolve about the nucleus? Definitely no The motion of an electron to an atom IS much
more complicated. To picture It to the 'classical' sense
of revolution
IS
to hand out a completely distorted view of actual thmgs
Does the electron rotate on Its axis? Nothmg could
be farther from the truth Just try to figure out what
t26

the 'axis' of an electron could be. Quantum mechanics

views the electron not as a sphere but as a pomt."
The 'axis' of a pomt has no meaning. Then add to
that the 'rotation'
of a po mt about Itself or on
Itself! That we certainly can't stomach.
The trouble we seem to have got ourselves Into
now is that there is no way to VIsualize this Spin.
True, we never got a very satisfying picture of the
particle wave (electron) and the wave particle (photon)
either
The existence of Spin In an atomic electron makes
itself known from the fact that to the angular
momentum (moment of momentum) of the electron,
which the latter has 10 Its motion 10 the atom about
the atomic nucleus, we add a certain quantity that
belongs to the monon proper of the electron. In other
words, this quantity has nothmg to do With the
electron being near the nucleus or far away In a
semifree state In a piece of metal, or practically one
hundred per cent free 10 the void of interstellar space.
The spin of an electron IS always the same and IS
always associated with the electron.
It appears that the spin of an electron in an atom
can either be added to the angular momentum of the
electron (which corresponds to electron monon aboutthe nucleus) or subtracted from It. We can express
this Idea 10 other words' both values of the total
angular momentum of an electron correspond, as It
were, to opposite proper motions of the electron,
which actually do not In any way differ one from
the other. The word 'actually' here has a very exact

Which IS not exactly true either, the reader will have

to walt trll the next chapter for a better explanation.
127

meaning: both these motions have the same energy in

an atom not affected by any external forces.
As a result, each level of allowed energy in the
atom may be occupied by two electrons (instead of
one) with spins directed in opposite senses.

The Atomic Architect at Work

Now let us take a closer look at the workshop
of our atomic architect and his display of blueprints
(Fig. 10).
Blueprint No. 1. The hydrogen atom. We pass it
up as being too simple, which is funny, seeing that
it took science centuries to understand that simplicity.
Blueprint No.2.
The helium atom. This one
doesn't appear to be very interesting either. We have
just found out that each electron cloud may be formed
by two electrons. This would suggest that the helium
atom is not very different from the hydrogen atom. A model bears this out. The electron cloud is twice as dense
and closer to the nucleus, that is all. There are two
electrons in place of one.
In the lithium atom (Blueprint No.3)
we notice
the formation of a second spherical electron cloud
containing within it the first one of helium. Which
is natural because the Pauli principle does not allow
more than two electrons in one atomic energy 'flat'.
The second tenant in the second-storey nat appears
in the atom following lithium - beryllium. So far the
atomic house is filling up in orderly fashion.
Now we come to Bluepnnt No.5,
boron. This
was a tough nut for our atomic architect. First of
all, he had to save space in the atomic house and
so place his new electron tenant so that he would
128

not come IOtacontact very often with the other tenants.

Atomic tenants, you recall, don't like each other, they
expenence mutual repulsion. They all try to move In
opposite directions
The solunon of our atomic architect was truly
modernistic: he knocked a flat fight through all the
stones of the atomic house and put the fifth tenant
10
Obviously he was satisfied because 10 the next
blueprint (the carbon atom) he added another tenant
to thrs vertrcal-hke
nat.
The following four blueprints don't have anything
new. Two new mterstorey flats at 120 degrees apart
were added to the first one,
That's how nature filled its small atomic house
With quarrelsome tenants. The Important thing IS that
they don't fight, which IS very essential If the house
IS to stand. And It must stand.
The meanmg of the foregoing is a general pnncrple followed by nature In the construction of atoms.
This IS a prmctple of the best distnbuuon of energy.
The mutual repulsion of electrons should greatly
Increase the potential energy of an atom. But In nature
a structure IS more stable If the potential energy IS
low. Falling off a chair IS no fun, but on the floor
you are more stable, no potential energy.
There IS Just such a stnving towards stability In
the world of atoms. The stablest atom IS the one with
the least possible potential energy. In working out the
atomic bluepnnts, nature spent qurte some effort to
overcome the mutual antipathies of the electrons by
deftly attracting them to the nucleus.
So far the energy pnnciple in atoms has to do only
With the intricate internal layout of atomic structures.
But that is not all There is a still more fanciful
distnbution of hvmg quarters in this atomic butldmg
9-70

129

Crazy Atoms
So far we have dealt with two basic principles
of the structure and filhng-m of atomic buildings:
the Pauli principle and the pnnciple of best energy
distribution.
How does

the wave nature of electrons

manifest
Itself? Well, first of all, tn place of electron orbits
we have charged clouds of probability. But that IS not
all. The de Broglie waves In an atom have yet another
property. They determme the 'capacity' of atonuc structures.
Recall that a feature of electron clouds IS that they
accommodate a whole number of de Broglie waves.
It turns out that this number deterrnmes not only the
'number' of the earlier orbit but also the density of
the electron cloud formed by all the electrons whose
clouds accommodate one and the same number of
their de Broglie waves
To this 'united' electron cloud (we already realize
that It consists of a number of pairs of clouds)
physicists gave the rather tnapt name 'shell'. Quantum
rnecharucs established also the relationshrp between
the capacity of the shell (that IS, the largest possible
number of electrons that It can accommodate, N) and
the senal number of the shell, which IS the number of
electron
waves
that fit into It, n Thrs relationship has a very SImple form:

2112.

Thus, the first shell (called K) accommodates

2 x J2 = 2 electrons, the second shell (called L),
2 x 22 = 8 electrons, the third (M), 2 x 32 = 18 electrons, the fourth (N), 2 x 42 = 32 electrons, the fifth
(0), 2 x 52 = 50 electrons, and so forth
130

Remember these numbers. Now let us go back to

atomic architecture. We see that the first to fill up lS
the smallest shell of lowest capacity, the K-shell. It is
already completely filled in the atom of helium. Actually. this shell is one storey with one flat for two.
The next shell IS more complicated.
It occupies
not only the second storey. but has three mterstorey
flats, each with two apiece. The end of the filling
comes in the atom of neon (Blueprint No 10). which
occupies the tenth square in the Periodic Table of
elements.
The thrrd shell accommodates 18 occupants. It fills
up to argon (No. 18) in the same fashion as the
preceding shell. The first to fill m IS the third storey.
and then three interstorey flats. But in the element
after argon, potassium, this strict order breaks down.
Here. five interstorey flats have to be filled. but the
layout is different. Unlike the first three, these are
narrower and more elongated. The new tenant refuses
to take up such an Inconvenient flat, and demands
better hving conditions.
Finally the architect puts him In a new flat on the
fourth floor. And to keep him comfort, another
electron is added In the next atom of calcium.
This certainly is a principle of the best energy
distribution. The pomt IS that If an electron takes up
residence m the next storey while the lower storey
is not yet completely filled. the result is a more stable
atom. The potential energy of repulsion of the electrons
in such an atom IS less.
But then nature goes back to the old system. In
rune atoms, from scandium (No. 21) to copper (No. 29),
the new tenants are stuck into those long, narrow
and uncomfortable flats,
These atoms With flats being taken upstairs and
9'

131

empty flats downstairs have acquired a number of

unusual properties. They are called 'anomalous', and
will be putting in an appearance now and then
Stnctly speaking, the third shell should fill up
completely in the case of DIckel (No. 28). But since
nature starts on the next shell before finishmg up the
preceding one, the third shell IS completely filled
only In the case of ZInC (No. 30).
There IS no Improvement later on either. A shell
doesn't get filled up completely before the succeeding
one starts up. What happened In the scandium-to-copper
group is repeated In the group of atoms from yttrium
(No. 39) to palladium (No 46), and from lanthanum
(No. 57) to ytterbium (No. 70). From then on, all
the atoms right up to the last one (104) have defective, so to speak, tenancy rules, where even two or three
shells await lodgers. The next chapter will tell us
why they never get their full complement of electrons.
There may seem to be some lack of symmetry
here but energy-wise It IS the best way.
Thus It appears that the wave law which determines the population and order of settling atomic
structures is not all-powerful. ThIS law is frequently
modified by a no less Important and powerful law of
the stability of atomic structures.

Atoms and Chemistry

Let us finish our excursion Into the workshop of
the atomic architect with a good look at the Periodic
Table of elements.
On the left are seven penods, 2 in the first, 8 in the
second. 8 again in the third, 18 In the fourth and
fifth, 32 in the SIxth (these include the rare earths,
132

the lanthanides, at the bottom of the Table), and 17 In

the seventh (the reasons for this will, as we have said,
be given in the next chapter).
Now let us go back to the figures that describe the
capacity of the electron shells: 2, 8, 18, 32, etc.
They are the same as In the Table. But then why are
some of the numbers repeated: 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32 (for
the urne being we disregard the last period). The
repeating numbers, it turns out, are the result of those
very breaks
In the
order In whrch the electrons
fill In the atom. And so the third penod ends with
argon (No. 18) instead of nickel (No. 28). From then
on, this shift (and other shifts due to violations of
the filling sequence) continues to the very end of the
Penodic Table
As

a result,

we

don't

get

an

exact

and

simple

correspondence
between the shells and the penods.
But the capacuy of any period does not exceed the
capacity of its corresponding shells. Thus the quantum
picture

gives a good

account

of one important

feature

of the Penodic System of elements.

Now take a look at the top of the Table. Here
we have Groups from I to VlII and then O. From school
chemistry we would say that they represent valence
Strictly speaking, this is not exact. First, these are
not simply valences,
but valences
with respect to

fluorine (or, as some say, with respect to hydrogen).

Secondly, what IS valence"
In school

we were

taught

that

valence

represents

the number of atoms that an element. ... Today this

pnrniuve understanding
belongs
to descriptive
chemistry with Its liquids poured into test-tubes
and
heated on Bunsen burners. Theoretical
chemistry has
long Since received a physical foundation.
Valence

- more

correctly,

valence

with

respect

to
I]]

fluorme - represents the number of electrons in the

outermost shell of the atom, the one farthest from the
nucleus. In this definition, valence coincides with the
number of the group, wrth the exception of the last
two columns of the Periodic Table. It would be more
correct to put VIII over the last column and the
numbers 0, I and 2 over the second to the last one.
There are some very solid grounds for domg this.
Another question is: Why does the outermost shell
of an atom never have more than eight electrons?
This immediately becomes clear when we recall the order
of distribution of 'livmg space' in atoms. The first shell
accommodates only 2 electrons, the second, 8; the
third should have 18, but the build-up stops for a time
at argon when there are 8 electrons. After this the
outermost shell became number four, and the third
shell (now an inner one) begins to fill up. The same
happens to the fourth shell, and so on.
As soon as the outer shell has accommodated eight
electrons. any further addition of electrons is disadvantageous. But then a new shell appears and the
unfilled one goes deeper into the atom. Now we
don't care whether it ever gets filled to a complete
complement of electrons because only the outermost
shell of the atom determines its chemical properties.
Thus there are eight possible types of chemical
behaviour of atoms in accord with the number of
electrons in their outer shell. Before going any further,
it is necessary to pomt out that a completely filled
eight-electron shell has a much smaller potential energy
than If it had empty or semrempty 'flats' in it. Which
means that an atom with such a shell is extra-stable,
chemically stable as well.
Atoms with full outer complements of electrons in their
shells are 'noble' to such an extent that they eschew
134

all contacts with the ordinary rank and file atoms. Whence
their name: noble, or inert. They make up the last
column 10 the Periodic Table.
The 'aristocrats' of the atomic world move about
among the 'common people', who try to copy them
in every way. The 'common' atoms make every attempt
to fill up their outermost shell to the eight-electron
set.
Since they are not able to do that by themselves,
they are on the constant look-out for partners This
results In what chemists call a reaction. Really,
it is a kmd of self-sacrifice: one gives up his attire to
the other and remains stark naked. Though not exactly,
and what is more, It refers only to atoms that come
after neon.
By way of

illustration,

let

between sodium and chlorine,

formation of sodium chloride.
The sodium atom has an extra
third shell. The chlorine atom

us

take

reaction

which leads to the

a molecule of Nael.
single

electron

has a handsome

in its

set

of seven electrons
in its outer shell. The sodium
graciously
sacrifices
Its sole
electron
and chlorine
then achieves a 'noble' eight-electron outer shell.
But sodium has gained as well. It now exhibits

a full complement
neon.

Two

'aristocrats'

of

of eight electrons of the noble gas

the

'common

people'

become

two

at one shot, but only If they go together

as a smgle molecule.
Atoms can, as we see, be divided into givers and
takers. Those with less than four electrons
in their
outer shell are givers. Those with more than four are
takers. Naturally, It IS easier to acquire two electrons,
say, than to give up six (that, by the way, is the situatron

in the case of the oxygen atom).

In Group IV we find a number of 'lazy bones'. WIth
135

four electrons 10 the outer shell, they don't know what

to do, they vacillate....
And they got the name
amphotenc. which means partly one and partly the
other. These elements are capable of almost any kind of
chemical behaviour.
Now in Group VIII we find our 'crazy' atoms
They shouldn't actually be there at all, for they
have only one or two electrons at the most In their
outer shell. The point IS that the underlying shell
exerts a substantial and extremely complex effect on
the behaviour of the electrons of the outer shell:
these atoms are capable of the most unpredictable
things. For instance, they have a vanable valence,
one in one reaction and quite a different one III
another They come 10 Group VIII simply because
their highest valence with respect to oxygen can
be 8, which means that each such atom can attach four
oxygen atoms to itself.
But don't thmk that the other 'crazy' atoms hidmg
10 other
squares of the Penodic Table behave any
better. Not 10 the least. The tricks they play are
Just ltke those of their companions from Group VIII.
Mendeleyev's Table of elements does not reflect
thrs, and one shouldn't expect It to, for the Table
was devised at a time when nobody knew how the
atom was constructed. SCientists today are not In
a hurry to alter the Table for there IS stili a great
deal that we do not understand 10 the behaviour
of the anomalous elements. When everything gets
straightened out, then ...

The Birth of a Spectrum

Now that we have seen the atom In the new light
of quantum mechanics wecan learn about how It radiates.
136

We recall that the Bohr theory explained the orrgin

of atomic spectra but could not give a correct
description of spectral laws. It was the Job of quantum
mechanics to fill out the picture

10

detail.

In accounting for the origin of spectra, quantum

mechanics fundamentally agrees with Bohr's theory.
In the Jumps of atomic electrons
from one energy
state to another. the difference of these energies is
embodied as a quantum of electromagnetic
energy,
the photon. This

IS

not all, however.

From where to where does the electron Jump?

As long as there were electron orbits, this was easy
to visualize
It were, to

If the energy

from one orbit or set of tracks, as

another orbit, another set of tracks.

dmumshes,

a photon

IS

born.

energy Increases, a photon or a quantum

If the

of energy

of any other field has been absorbed Just before

the jump.
But quantum mechamcs replaced the orbits with
electron clouds. Now It IS no easy thing to picture
the transition of electrons. We have to conceive it as
an Instantaneous change In the shape and attitude of
the electron cloud In the atom. The ermssion or
absorption of a photon shakes up the atomic 'Jelly',
producing a new overall form.
Quantum mechanics rejected the pictorial aspect for
describing electron Jumps, but acquired a new quality,
that of probabihty. In Bohr's theory, an electron Jump
from orbit to orbit IS always possible. and the
probabihty of such a Jump IS In no way dependent
on the kind of orbit. ThIS IS where the theory falls.
Quantum mechanics demonstrates that this IS an erroneous conclusion Electron jumps have a probability
that IS very appreciably dependent on the shape of the
electron clouds that correspond to the electron prior
137

to and after the Jump. In this situation, the probability of a jump is, roughly speaking, greater for a stronger overlapping

or a deeper interpenetration

of these

clouds.
Figuratively speaking, an electron can jump into
another state like a passenger can cross from one moving
train to another when one comes up alongside the
other. So, to push the analogy fight to the end, the
passenger must have energy enough for the jump,
the trams must be side by side, the longer the trains
(that is, the greater the range of space they will
be together) and the closer they are together, the
easier it will be for the passenger to make the transition.
Something quite similar occurs In the atom. Here,
the 'trams' are in the form of electron clouds, which,
we know, can be in diverse shapes. sphencal, cigarlike and others.
Studies of the shapes of electron clouds yield rather
simple (simple as far as words are concerned) relauonships. Two spherical clouds with a common centre
(the atomic nucleus) yield a very slight Interpenetration;

we have every nght

to say that they don't

even come In contact. Which means that there can be

no electron jump between the corresponding
states.
Now put a cigar in a sphere; the thicker and shorter
the cigar, the more they interpenetrate. Two cigars
can intersect too, but the calculations are more involved. One thing is clear, though, and that is that the short
thick and narrow long cigars Interpenetrate to greater
depths than the sphere and narrow Cigar.
Accordingly, we get the probabihues of electron Jumps
from a sphencal cloud Into an elongated one or between
two elongated clouds. The laws that divide electron
transitions In atoms into more probable and less pro138

bable have become known 10 quantum mechanics as

selection rules.
The quantum men have formulated these rules very
strictly: some jumps are allowed and others are forbidden, being less probable. But nature does not obey
this prohibition.
The selecnon rules are more or less carefully observed in the light atoms where there are few electrons, so that their clouds intersect rather infrequently.
But in the heavy, multielectron atoms with their terrible
confusion of clouds, the restrictions or prohibitions of
quantum mechanics largely break down.
It is in this jumping of electrons in the fanciful
and rapidly changing tremors of electron clouds that
photons are born. The photons enter a spectroscope, get sorted out into types and produce the spectral lmes of all the colours of the rainbow. The more
photons an atom emits in a second, the brighter
the hnes.
And if the number of atoms remains constant,
the brightness of the spectral lines can depend only
on one thing - the frequency of electron Jumps in atoms.
And this frequency, as we already know, is determined
by the probability of Jumps. Drfferent clouds have
different probabrhties,
some greater, some practically nil.
To every photon energy and spectral line there corresponds a probability and a brightness. That is how
an atomic spectrum consisting of a number of lines of
different brightness IS generated.
It is easy to descnbe this in words, but very difficult to calculate the penetration of electron clouds and,
on that basis, to compute the probabilities of electron
jumps. Yet quantum mechanics solved this problem
brilliantly and attained excellent agreement with the
139

observed spectra. The edifice of spectroscopy

definitely on a granite foundation.

IS

now

Fat Lines and Double Lines

It would seem that the spectroscope people should
now at long last be satisfied. But that's not what happened. The technique of spectral analysis developed rapidly and the Instruments became more powerful and
sensitive. Then spectroscopists came up with two new
queries for theoreticians.
Does a photon correspond to a line of one frequency,
to one wavelength? Yes, but then why do the hnes on
the photographic plate of a spectroscope come out
rather broadened, not slender?
Before quantum mechanics appeared, physicists could
have racked then brams over this naive question for
years. Now, only a bit of thinking was necessary. This
was due to the wave properties of the electron with
their constant attnbute, the uncertainty relations.
We have already said thai an electron in an atom
has a very definite energy. So where do the uncertainties come in? The initial energy IS definite, the final
energy 1S also definite; their difference, which corresponds to the energy of the photon, must also be an
absolutely exact quantity!
However, there is a little hitch here. We recall that
the exact energy levels refer to stationary states of the
electrons (otherwise called steady states) which never
change. Now an electron Jump is a violation of some
steady state. As soon as this occurs, the Heisenberg
relation takes over.
What is the lifetime of an electron between Jumps?
It varies, so let us designate It as .11. Now from the
formula on page 116 we Immediately get the uncertainty
140

of photon

energy:
h
tJ.E-~

Whence, using Planck's formula for energy quanta, it

is easy to pass on to uncertainty in the frequency of
the photon. It turns out to be very simply related to
the lime of 'settled life' of the electron In the atom:
1
8w--

81

In other words, the more 'settled' and quiescent the

life of an electron In an atom, the narrower the spectral
lmes (since these lines refer to transitions to other
states), and vice versa. That IS why at high temperatures and pressures, when many of the atomic electrons
are on the go, the spectral lines broaden out and become smeared.
The second question was connected with the fact
that many spectral hnes, which It would seem correspond
to a smgle wavelength, actually turned out to be the
states of a number of very close-lying lines. This fine
structure of spectral lmes was revealed only because
of recent advances In spectral techniques.
So electron Jumps between the same states could
give nse to photons With different (even ever so
slightly) energies. So It was only a boast that physrcrsts
could give exact dcrermmauons of the energy of an
electron In an atom.
Physicists rejected this suspicion With indignation,
but for this they had to conjure up Spin. Spm was
discovered precisely because of these 'fine qualities' In
spectra.
It turns out that when spectra are generated, the
common state of two electrons With opposite spins IS
141

not exactly 'common'. It would take us too far afield

here to describe the intricate interrelations
of the
angular momentum and spin of an electron; some of
this story wrll be told later on. But we can say that
this IS the reason why electrons with different spins have
slightly different energies. Whence the doubling of the
spectral lines: in place of one hne we have twin lines
with identical brightnesses.
True, such twms are usually born only when the
outer electron shell has one electron. If the number
of electrons in this shell Increases, we have triplets and
quadruplets and even bigger famihes of the former
spectral line. In the atomic world, unhke the human
family, this IS very common.
That is how quantum mechanics
answered two
difficult questions of the spectroscope men.
That completes our story about atoms. From now
on we will deal with the lives of atormc familiesmolecules and whole atorruc armies In the form of
crystals.

Atoms Get Married

Remember how the common atoms tried to Imitate the
aristocratic atoms of the inert elements. The rich clothes
were shared in pairs. At times, three. four and even
more partners participated.
From a distance this trick came off all right. A whole
molecule was sometimes able to pass through a crowd
of atoms Just as unperturbed
as the atom of an
Inert element. But at close hand, the cheating was
evident.
Instead of atoms, the molecule con tams overdressed
and underdressed bodies called negative and positive
Ions. In the redistribution of electron clothes, the atom
with garments taken from a partner won't let go of it
142

Fig.
And the underdressed

11

companion is not eager to be left

alone. This tie-up goes by the scientific

term ionic

molecule.
The adhesive forces In such molecules
are
mainly the forces of ordinary electric attraction between
ions with different charges. So far quantum mechanics

has hardly anything

There

to do.

is a great diversity

of Ionic

molecules.

Here,

atoms from the left-hand side of the Periodic Table

get married to atoms from the right-hand SIde. The
farther away they are in the Table. the more closely
knit IS the family. And when the atoms come from
close-lying groups In the Table, the marriage is not very
strong.

But there IS just as large a group of molecules

whose atoms marry for quite different reasons. The
simplest family of this kind IS the hydrogen molecule.
In this class of molecules, come all the single-element
molecules
chlonne)

(for Instance, molecules of oxygen, nitrogen,

and also the molecules
whose atoms all

belong either to the left-hand side or the right-hand side

of Mendeleyev's Table. These molecules came to be
known as covalent
Here quantum
mechanics
had to be called to to
account for their existence. Imagine a hydrogen atom
coming
up to another
hydrogen
atom.
Like the
bachelors they are, they envy those who have families,
143

and the first says: "GIve me your clothes and we'll

form a molecule,"

To wlucb the other

retorts

proudly,

"I have Just

as much fight to offer you the same."

"Then

maybe we ought to exchange clothes?"

"But where will that get us? OUf clothes

are exactly

the same."
Meanwhile,
our atomic architect
who has been
listening to the conversation steps In with a suggestion
(he is now hurldmg
molecules Instead of atoms):
"You might as well pool your resources, since you'll

never be able to produce an aristocratic eight-electron

sun. You haven't got enough material. Let one electron
live in one atom for a while.

of his partner
same."

and then in the atom

for a while, and the other can do the

"But that won't help,"

they cry

already proposed exchanging

10

unison.

"we've

electrons"

"There you're mistaken. You forgot that there will

be times when one atom will have the two electrons,
and the other won't have any Then you'll look like
two differently
charged IOns. Whereas In the iornc
molecule one atom gives up electrons and the other
acquires electrons so that the atoms In It are almost
all the time ionized, In your case there wtll only be an
exchange of electrons.
First, one will be surrounded

by electrons and the other WIll be naked, then the other

way around."
.. And how often will we have to exchange
ask the atoms, already grvmg In.

electrons?"

"Rather frequently," says the architect. "If I used the

'sermclassrca!' language of Bohr, I'd say that after
each
have

sixth orbit
to go over

like a figure eight"

144

the electron
of one atom would
to the other. We'd get something

Fig,

12

Fig,

13

"All right, let's try," said the atoms.

And the result was a good strong family. It was
only quantum mechanics that could figure out this
legerdernaine of nature. Quite rightly, the quantum
men called this mteracuon of Identical atoms that lead
to the formation of molecules 'exchange mteracuon'.
Classical phySICS would never have been able to think

up anything

like that.

Here's how quantum

10-70

mechamcs pictures this exchange

145

of electrons. As long as the atoms are some distance

apart, their electron clouds hardly at all overlap.
But when the atoms come close enough, the considerable
mutual mterpenetrauon
of the electron clouds make
perceptible the probabilny of an electron of each of the
atoms finding itself near the nucleus of the partner
atom, which amounts to a probability of exchange.
What is this probabihty?
About 15 per cent for
the hydrogen molecule. Put otherwise. during 10 minutes
of each hour both electrons come together m a smgle
atom of hydrogen, while the other atom has none.
Is thts enough to bond the atoms firmly into a
molecule? It IS, say the calculations earned out by the
Enghsh scientists Heitler and London by means of
quantum mecharucs. True enough, the theory here is in
excellent agreement with experiment.
In the world of molecules, thrs tearnmg up of
'rich' and 'poor' atoms via exchange of electrons IS
very common.
For example, the nitrogen atom (No 7) has only
seven electrons. Two 10 the inner shell do not participate
10 exchange actions. But 10 the outer shells 5 electrons
are marned off to other atoms.
The next atom following nitrogen IS oxygen, which
has SIX electrons for exchange purposes 10 each atom
These form a molecule of ordinary two-atomic oxygen
(Fig. 12). In three-atomic oxygen (ozone), a uruon of 18
electrons IS formed. And to Simplify the exchange, the
three form a triangle to cut down the distance the
electrons have to cover These three atoms toss their
electrons about like a nng of players in volleyball
practice (FIg. 13).
This molecular structure no longer resembles the
architecture of the constituent atoms. And the flats
together with the distnbunon of tenants differ too.
146

All of which
quite different
made up or.

makes the properties of molecules

from those of the atoms they are

Solid Bodies are Really Solid!

A turn of the path bnngs us to a new landscape,
one which we are most accustomed to: the solid
things everywhere about us. Familiar things all, but
possessing secrets and mystenes that still flout SCience.
By the turn of the century, phySICS had already
accumulated considerable rnatenal on the properties
of solids. We know that solids come In crystalline
and amorphous
form, that they conduct heat and
electricity in a variety of ways, and the transmission
of light and sound is different too. Vet solid-state
phySICS, as It IS called, has great difficulty in accounting
for any of these properties.
Yet this IS very important. for rapidly advancing
technologies are making use of new natural matenals.
The demands

are so great

that

arttfictnl

tnatertnls

are

pressed Into service.

We need materials that possess great hardness,
electrical conducuvuy, heat resistance and many other
properties. Where do we get them? One way IS by
cornbmmg all known materials and familiar methods
of working them, a sort of alchemy. There IS another
way but It requires the use of quantum mechanics.
Again, In just a few years, a breakthrough.
In the
beginnmg, the attempt was made to comprehend the
structure of crystals, primarily the crystals of metals.
Crystals are indeed the best thing to start with.
A crystal IS an ordered periodic distribution of atoms
10 space
in a lattice-like configuration.
Unlike the
ordinary lattice with ItS two dimensions, this one has
10'

147

three dimensions. In a lattice, the atoms of the

crystal are located at constant distances: this is called
lattice spacing. In the general case, there are three
spacings in accord with the three dimensions of the
lattice: length, width and height.
Pure elements are not common in nature, we more
often encounter their compounds. The lattices of such
crystals are made up of several types of atoms.
A simple case is the ice crystal which has hydrogen
and oxygen atoms; here, in accord with the formula
for water, the number of hydrogen atoms is twice
that of oxygen atoms.
Another case is the lattice of crystals of sodium
chloride, Na Cl. At the intersections of the elements
of the lattice (called nodes) we find Ions of sodium
that alternate with Ions of chlorme. Note that these
are ions and not atoms. It is very important that
when molecules of salt 'freeze into' a solid body the
ionic nature of their atomic bonds is retained.
But as such the molecule ceases to exist. It cannot
be Isolated. Indeed. each sodium Ion IS surrounded
by ions of chlorine. and each chlorine Ion IS surrounded
by sodium ions. Go and try to find the old molecule!
In a crystal like this, the forces acting between
IOns are ordinary electncal forces. A sodium IOn
attracts chlorine IOns to the immediate Vicinity. those
in turn attract other soduirn IOns, but repulse adjacent
chlorine Ions. The result of this interplay of forces
of attraction and repulsion is a certain equilibrium 10 the ion configurauon,
This IS the crystal
lattice.
Thrs arrangement ISindeed 10 equihbnurn and stable.
If one ion gets knocked out of position, ItS attractive
force towards IOns of a different kind IS diminished.
but ItS own ions repulse It more strongly. The
148

combined action of these forces compel the ion to

return to its onginal position.
Strictly speaking, an ion is all the time in oscillation
about its stable posinon due to the random knocks of
thermal motion, like a sphere attached to a system of
spnngs. The thermal vibrations of Ions in a lattice
determine many Important properties of solids.
As in the case of iomc molecules, quantum mechanics
hasn't much to do with ionic crystals. But then
physics turns to metallic crystals, the most important
in modern technology. Here the situauon is quite
different. Suppose that the entire lattice IS made up
of a single metal, that is, of atoms of one kind. Quite
naturally there wt!l be no difference in the charge of
the ions. If one atom readily gives up an electron, why
shouldn't all the rest do the same?
Maybe that IS the case? Quantum mechanics recalls
the ~ecent victory over the hydrogen molecule. What
if the metallic crystal is mdeed a gigantic covalent
molecule consisting of many millions upon millions upon
millions of atoms?
This mgernous idea proved correct. Nature was not
so mventrve and didn't come up With anything. The
tnck with electron exchange between two atoms came
off right and so nature extended the experiment to
more numerous electron assemblies.
Still and all, it IS indeed not so easy and simple.
Solid bodies will have opportunities enough to show
that they are tough nuts to crack, even for quantum
mechanics.

Skeletons and Multistorey

Structures of Crystals

When the atoms of metals join to form crystals,

they do actually make their outermost (valence) electrons
149

common to all. This results In a sort of skeleton

architecture of the crystals. At the lattice nodes are
slow-moving ions surrounded by a light and mobile
common cloud of electrons. ThIS cloud plays the part
of cement holding together hostile similarly charged
ions. In turn, the ions are the adhesive that keeps the
electrons from tlying off in all directions.
We have already had occasion to say that the
electrons in a metal are 'almost' free. Since every atom
makes its contribution
to the common weal, each
electron ceases to belong to some one atom and IS
simply one of the millions upon millions upon millions
of other servants of all the atoms. Such an electron
IS free to wander about In the crystal, a microscopic
Figaro. True, not all electrons are so free. Each of the
atoms gives up only one or two of Its outermost
electrons, the rest are held firmly m place within the
atom. Even so the army of free electrons IS colossal:
1022 to 1023 in every cubic centimetre of metal.
If one may say so, a metalltc crystal has a better
'social' organization than an IOOIC crystal, where we find
something like slavery with all the electrons chained in
their atoms. Metal IS closer to feudalism: the owner
lets his serfs out a bit to earn rent. Thrs Improvement
Immediately gave the metal new properties and the
opportumty to conduct electnc current.
If an ordinary elecmc field IS applted to an 100IC
crystal. there will only be a shght redistnbunon With
the electron clouds 10 their atoms somewhat elongated.
This Will result 10 what IS known as electnc polartzatton
of the crystal. Not a single electron Will get away
from ItS ion, and the Ions themselves will, as before,
remain firmly anchored at their nodes. And smce there
are no free earners of charge. there will be no electric
current. 10Dlc crystals are Insulators.
150

Forbidden band
lblence
band
Fi g. 14

Now in metals there are simply oodles of electrons

ready to carry charges and produce a good electrrc
current.
But where do the semiconductors come m ? We'll
find a place for them a little later on.
For the present we shall exarnme an Important fact
which was established by quantum mechanics for metals.
The question IS; What kmd of energies do the 'collecnvelike' electrons 111 the metal have? The answer IS
simple: electrons no longer tied to their atoms should,
It would seem, be able to have all kinds of energy.
As we recall, In the case of free electrons the quantum
nature of their energy levels disappears.
But let's not hurry with this conclusion. True, the
electrons have left their atoms, but they haven't left
the piece of metal. They no longer obey atomic laws
151

but there are general rules for the metal as a whole

that govern the hehavtour not of some one electron
but of the whole electronic ensemble.
About these laws. You recall that the atomic laws
were found from solvmg Schrodmger's equation. So m
the search for the rules of conduct of electrons in a metal
(metalhc crystals) physicists did the same. They solved
the Schrodmger equation for electron motion m a
periodic electnc field of positive ions spaced at regular
intervals at the nodes of the crystal lattice of a metal.
A shght drgressron is in place here. Up ull now,
when speakmg of the effect of one atom on another
close by, we have always had in view the external,
as it were, rnarufestations- Atoms attracted one another
and formed molecules.
But what, meanwhile, IS happening inside the atoms
themselves? It turns out that the electron clouds alter
their configurations. This was discovered by the German
physicist Stark before quantum mechanics had fully
developed. Stark found that when a strong electnc
field is applied to a substance, the hoes 10 the emission
spectrum are split.
This splunng has nothrng at all to do wtth the
twin hnes we discussed earlier. Yet there IS something
10 common,
which was demonstrated by quantum
mechamcs The sphtung of spectral lines corresponds to
a sphtttng 10 the energy levels of the atomic electrons.
To summarrze, then, an electric field applied to an
atom breaks up the energy levels or Its electrons.
The action of the electric field of an atom that has
approached close enough to another atom (the field
10 this case IS quite substanttal) does not differ in any
essential respects from what we have described.
True enough, when a molecule is formed, the energy
levels correspondmg to the constituent atoms disappear
152

'!~.:III!:~}:'' ' l...L,=--...lo...4_-1 ..:.:::::

:::
...
...
11~111!!!I.::::,:~..Q"---:~O:=---t=I

::::i:.:.:i::::I.,:.:
..:f.::::.::.:.:.:~::::[.:.::.:~.:.::::i:.:.:::~.::.i:::::1:::.::.;:.,::'::':'::::~:":;~::.:::.:.:;[

Fig.

15

They break Up. intermix. and shift Up and down the

energy scale to produce so-called molecular levels of
energy, which now correspond to the entire molecule.

But what relates to a molecule IS more clearly

expressed for a crystal where there are so many atoms
packed close together repeating thrs packing throughout
the crystal. Actually, a crystal IS simply a gigantic
'frozen'

molecule.

The joint elecinc field of all the atoms of the

'molecule' sphts up the energy levels of each one of
them into an enormous number of very closely lying
sublevels. The discreteness and distinctness of the
permitted energy levels of the outer electrons vamsh
almost

completely.

It would

seem

therefore

that

an

electron In a crystal can have any energy it wishes.

Then a remarkable thmg happened. Take a look at
the drawing (Fig. 14) The conclusion we have just
drawn about

an electron

having any energy It wants is

153

fulfilled, but with one very essenual exception. The blank

bands indicate energies which electrons 10 a metal
cannot have. To these energies there corresponds a zero
wave function and, accordingly, a zero probability of an
electron finding uself in such a state. These blank white
bands of energy were termed forbidden zones, or bands.
And even 10 the cross-hatched, so-called permitted
bands, an electron is not allowed to have Just any
energy. If we could reproduce the actual picture on
paper, we would sec that there are separate energy
levels In these bands as well. But each band has so many
of them (recall the stupendous numbers of electrons
in every cubic centimetre of metal) that they simply
merge mto a continuous

sequence.

Now about how the electrons reside on these levels

Not any which way, like birds on wires. The Paull
prmcrple doesn't allow that. This stnct Inspector watches
Just as carefully in the metal as he does In the atom.
Only two electrons are allowed on each energy level
of the permitted zone of a metal, states the Pauli
principle. There IS plenty of place. and more than
enough levels of energy. There IS always a lot of extra
'hvmg space' In a metal. Under normal conditions,
all the electrons of a metal can settle to the lowest
permitted zone, on the ground 1100r.
Under this 1S a 'basement', as It were, wah all the
noncollecuvized
electrons which belong to the tndrvrdual
atoms and not to the atoms of the metal as a whole.
The basement IS not Insulated au-tight from the ground
floor, there IS a ladder between them. It consists of a
Single rung equal In hesgbt to the first forbidden band.
If knocked hard enough. an electron can be boosted
from the basement to the ground 1100r. But It IS not
allowed to get stuck 10 the forbidden band due to
lack of energy.
154

To the energy basement physicists gave the name

valence zone, or valence band. And all the allowed
bands of energy are called by the generic name
conduction bands. The ongin of these terms IS clear: the
basement IS inhabited by Some of the outer electrons
that determine the valence (though these electrons are not
yet free), while the ground floor and the upper stones
are inhabited by electrons that participate
in the
conductIOn of electricny

Insulators Can Conduct Current!

Insulators, of course, keep all their electrons in the
basement. Under ordinary condttrong then- conductIOn
band is empty, the first forbidden band is too broad
for any of the electrons to find the energy needed to
Jump across it. But when the Insulator IS heated
properly, the OSCIllatIOn energy of its IOns at the lattice
nodes becomes very great. This energy can be imparted
to the electrons which occasionany become energetic
enough to Jump up into the conductIOn band. The
Insulator then begins to conduct current. This IS called
heat breakdown.
Actually, to account for this breakdown we don't need
quantum mechamcs, for it only means that the electron
has broken out of its narrow atomic world and has
got Into the conductIOn band and become practically
a free man. The energy required for Its release was simply
equal to the width of the forbidden band separating
the basement from the ground floor.
All thrs can be pictured as follows: a thermal
'knock' ejected the electron from lis atom, rontzmg the
latter, while the electron released from Its atom IS now
rnovmg freely but IS not yet able to leave the chunk of
Insulator.
/55

Fi g. 16

But It turns out that an Insulator also becomes a

conductor of electncrty when a very strong electric
field is apphed to It Wait a mmute, Isn't this Just
hke the cold emission of electrons from a metal that
we discussed in the previous chapter? But this isn't
a metal, it's an rome crystal! There, the electrons
escaped the metal altogether. whereas here they only
Jump from the valence band to the conducnon band.
Still, despite the differences, this is one and the same
phenomenon. The rruracle tn both instances IS the
tunnel effect. Indeed, what IS a forbidden zone if it
Isn't a potential barner?
Yes, It IS simply a potentral
barrier of practically infinite (for the electrons, naturally)
width. It's simply a step with only one 'front' SIde.
An electric field, as before, bends It and creates a "rear'
Side. As a result, the barner now has a finite width.
The rest IS all the same. The electrons begin to
seep through from the valence band across the barrier
into the conduction band First we get a small electric
156

Fi g. 17

current:

the probability

of penetration

is low and few

electrons get mto the conduction band. But this current,

as it moves through the crystal, heats It like the wire

in a hot-plate.

This

heating,

In

turn,

adds

fresh

armies of electrons to the conducuon band, and the

current In the insulator builds up of Its own accord
In just no time there IS an electnc
rupture of the
Insulator accompanied by a simultaneous thermal

breakdown - the insulator melts. It IS no good any more

and has to be thrown out.
But there IS a more peaceable manner of generating
electnc

currents

In

Insulators.

These

currents

are very

weak and absolutely harmless. They are produced

by tllummaung Ionic crystals. Photons stnke the crystal,
knocking electrons from the valence band mto the
conduction
band. This 15 a real photoelectnc
effect, but there IS no emission, It all takes place inside,
so to speak. There IS no harm done, and at the
same time It 15 Just the thing for practical

applications.
157

How Does Currenl Move in a Metal?

In this twentieth century, one feels ashamed even to
ask a question hke that. Don't electrons leave a source
of current, move along a wire driven by an electric
field"and enter the current source agam, like water
pumped into a pipe?
Yet we are not ashamed. Where does electric
resistance come from? A conductor is not a pipe.
the walls are not rough. Why does a metal filled
with so many current earners otTer resistance to the
flow of current?

ThIS is one of those naive questions whose answer

Electric currents have been known
for a hundred and fifty years, while the answer to
our query came to light only about thirty years ago.
Here IS how classical phySICS explained electrical
resistance. The directed movement of electrons - what
we call current - IS all the ume upset by the thermal
vrbrations of ions 10 the skeleton of the metal. These
vrbrauons Impede the monon of electrons. Electrons
begin to move like people 10 a buildmg dunng an
earthquake - walls and floors nsmg and falling and
swmgmg and shaking.
Obviously, the smaller the vibrations of walls and
floors, the easier It IS to walk about the building
At the absolute zero of temperature, when the thermal
vibrations of the IOns cease altogether. electncal
resistance should drop to zero, Which IS very close
to the truth as regards very pure metals almost devoid
of impuriues.
The whole trouble lies with these
rmpuritres.
As the temperature falls, the resistance
of such 'dirty' metals does not tend to zero, but
rather to some nonzero value which depends on the
content and type of rmpunues 10 the metal The
IS far from simple.

158

more irnpunues there are, the higher this residual resistance.

What does classical physics have to say on that
score? Just nothing. It doesn't drstinguish
an atom
of the metal from an atom of impurity: at the same
temperature they Vibrate m the same manner and
Impede the electron motion In exactly the same way.
Now quantum mechanics proved a little more
observant. These different atoms in the lattice are
distinguished very clearly, almost as if they were of
different colours. Then how do we account for the
electncal resistance?
First we'll have to recall the elegant experiment
dealing with electron diffraction on a crystal that we
started our talk With about quantum mechanics. There
the electrons which impinged on the outer layers of the
atoms of the crystal were partially reflected and
formed drffraction nngs on a photographic plate.
Couldn't we consider the electron current in a metal
as a beam of electrons? Well, yes. Here the electrons
stream along In one general direction, only the beam
ISWider occupying the whole cross-secnon of the piece
of metal. But then It inevitably follows that the passage
of electrons in a metal should be accompanied by an
'internal drffracuon', as It were, of electrons on the ions
of the lattice. If we could put a photographic plate
Inside the metal, we should be able to get a diffracuon
pattern.
Diffraction has an mteresting property: If there IS
the slightest deviation In the regulanty of the objects
scattenng the waves, the clearcut pattern vanishes and
the plate IS uniformly fogged As physicists say, the
scattenng of the waves has become homogeneous.
It is just such disorder that IS introduced into the
regular structure of a metallic crystal by Ionic VIbrations
159

and by the presence of Impurity atoms. As a result,

the waves of the electrons parucipatmg m the current
are scattered In all drrecuons.
As a rule, Impurity atoms have quue different
dimensions and electron shells than the atoms of the
metal The impurity atoms distort the lattrce. Pushing
the analogy further snll, we could say that the impunty
atoms twist the corndors, bend the walls and deform
the floor of our buildmg. It IS clear that such defects
remain even when the floor and walls cease to tremble.
Sure enough, the distorttons introduced into a metallic
lattice by Impurity atoms are independent of the
temperature and remain even at absolute zero. The
scattering of electron waves on these lattice Imperfections
IS the cause of the residual electrical resistance of
metals that was so Incomprehensible to classical physics.
Thus, It turns out that metals are far from perfect
as conductors of current. True, not all of them and not
at all times. Nature, feeling that It Just had to
produce sornethmg better, created superconductors.
A number of metals and alloys (as yet, just a few)
begin to behave very strangely at extremely low
temperatures. At Just ten or so degrees above absolute
zero, these substances suddenly lose practically all their
electrical resistance. This phenomenon, discovered half
a century ago, became known as superconductivity.
Classical physics could not find an explanation for It.
It IS mterestrng
to note that even the powerful
quantum mecharucs had to work hard for about thirty
years before It came up With anything reasonable.
The erugrna of superconductivity was resolved only a
few years ago. A big contnbunon
to drsentanglmg
thrs mystery was made by the Soviet phYSiCIStN. N. Bogolyubov and hIS pupils To talk about superconductivity
any more would take us too far afield We shall
160

confine ourselves to a bnef and rather crude but

pictorial analogy.
The superconductivity tnck is due to the fact that at
very low temperatures
close to absolute zero the
interaction of the electron cloud with the 100lC skeleton
In a number
of metals changes drastically due to
certain pecuhanties of structure. Whereas before, each
soldier of the electron army fought on hIS own, at the
low temperature of superconductivity the electrons form
into pairs.
The effect on the war between the electrons and ions
is immediate. Whereas before, each electron fought
separately with the Ions and could easily be put out
of commission, now these electron teams warded otT
the blows of mdrvidual ions without batting an eyelash.
The electrons ceased to notice the aggressive ioruc
encirclement, as It were. The difficulties of the electron
army were reduced, and finally the electrical resistance
of the metal fell off catastrophically.
In the language of physics, the new type of war
consists in the fact that now the wavelengths corresponding to electron motion III the metal are thousands and
tens of thousands of times greater than the distances
between Ions. The secret of these new tactics is quite
obvious if you have read this chapter with care: the
wavelength of an electron pair IS so much greater than
the dimensions of the IOnic obstacles III its path that
the scattering of individual electrons, which accompanies
the passage of current through a metal under ordinary
conditions, disappears - and with It, the resistance to
current.
This ideal orgamzation
of the electron army is
maintained only so long as the temperature IS sufficiently
low. As the temperature nses above a certain hmtt,
the clashes with ions break up the pairs into separate
11-70

161

soldiers. The balance of forces has changed and the

electrical resistance of the metal IS restored.
So It was worth asking how current flows In metals.

Those Wonderful 'Semi-Things'

You've probably already guessed what these semi's
are about. In nature, a great number of things belong
neither to conductors of electric current nor to insulators, but to semiconductors.
Their semi- or mterrnediate properties have proved
so valuable that semiconductors,
which made their
appearance just a few decades ago, have wrought a real
technological revolution. The properties they possess
are rather well known: unlike Insulators, semiconductors conduct

current

at room

temperature,

and

unlike conductors, their electrical resistance does not

increase with temperature, but falls off.
Nature did not make a sharp dividing line between Insulators, semiconductors and conductors.
Actually, we already know the gap that lies between them. It IS the first forbidden band between
the electron-filled valence band and the conduction
band With Its numerous unoccupied electron states.
In insulators, a great deal of energy is needed
for an electron to chmb out of the basement into
the ground floor because the step is high. This energy
may be obtained only at high temperatures
(recall
thermal rupture).
In semiconductors this step IS much smaller. The
energy the electrons require to make their way up
mto the ground floor is now obtainable at room
temperatures. That is why semiconductors begin to
conduct current at ordinary temperatures.
In other words, when even a weak electric field
162

is applied to a semiconductor,
a directed flow of
electrons IS set up In the conduction band. Now let us
see what is happening In the basement.
Things are developing there too. The point IS that
when an electron moves out of the basement into
the ground floor it leaves behind a vacant room.
The densely populated basement Immediately begms
a redivision of hving quarters. Now only one electron
is permitted to move mto the room; this is straightway done by one of the electrons close at hand.
But it In turn leaves behind an empty room, which
again, in turn, IS occupied by a fresh electron.
In Jumping from room to room, the basement
electrons imitate the freely moving electron on the
ground floor Something like a kangaroo copying
a human runner The runner takes small and fast
jumps, but from a distance it looks as if he were
smoothly building up speed; the kangaroo takes only
a few long Jumps.
If we take It that the first electron room W<.lS
vacated in the centre of the city, the resettlement of
electrons results In the room moving out to the city
limits
ThIS travelling electron room was given the rather
derogatory name of 'hole'. Its behaviour IS Just the
converse of that of the electron whtch left the holein an electric field It moves in the opposite direction,
like a posuively charged particle. Another difference
IS that It moves In slower and larger Jumps.
At low temperatures all the electrons are securely
trapped III the basement. As the temperature nses,
however, more and more of them are released, the
current increases and the resistance of the semiconductor diminishes -It is Just the other way around
for a metal conductor.
163

So far we have
conductors.

been

talking

about

The

pure

current mechanism
here
conductivity, Pure semiconductors,

intrinsic
are of little interest to technologists.
that semiconductors
IS called Impurities.

are capable

Useful

senu-

IS called
however.

All the marvels

of come

with

what

'Dirt'

Dirt, unpunty -ot's bad when It'S accidental but it's

really very good In definite proportions.
Semiconductors are no exception to the general run of things,

they get 'duty' too, All kmds of impurities get mto

their crystals, but these are accidental and unwanted,
Now there are some Impurities that are very usefulwhen applied in stnctly regulated doses, They are the
ones that produce the marvels.
What is sauce for the goose

IS

not always

sauce

for the gander. If you want a metal WIth a high

electrical conducuvity, all impurtties are detrimental.
And we already

know

the reason:

impurity

atoms

get

into the crystal lattice and distort it. These distoruons,

or imperfections.
scatter the waves of the electrons
carrying the current. As a result, the electrtcal conductivity of the metal decreases,
and the resistance

Increases.
Yet these very lattice imperfections are the key to
the success of semiconductors.
The fact of the matter

that the structure of the energy bands of a crystal

is exceedingly sensitive to the type of crystal lattice,
IS

Every crystal has Its own system of energy bands.

However, rmpunty atoms do not alter the shape of
the entire lattice but only In their Immediate VICInity.

The band pattern common to the whole crystal IS

appreciably modified In these areas, What happens is
this : addiuonal allowed electron-energy levels appear
164

In the forbidden
band that separates the valence band
from the conduction band. These levels originate only
where there are Impurity atoms. To distinguish them
from levels exrstmg In the whole crystal of the semiconductor, they are called local levels.
The amount of rrnpunues
In a metal also affects
the conducuvrty, but always In only one direction - the
more Impurities, the lower the conductivity. And the
range of variation IS relatively small. Now in semiconductors, the elect neal conductivity may be vaned
not only by the number of Impurity atoms but also
by the type of impurity atom, and the changes may
be thousandfold and nullionfold I

Generous and Greedy Atoms

The

most

common

impunty

semiconductors

are

presently based on the chemical elements of germanium

and Silicon. Take a look at the Periodic Table of
elements: Silicon IS No. 14 and gerrnamum, No. 32.
They are In the fourth group. You remember what we
called this group? Something intermediate. And that
IS exactly what It IS. Germaruurn
and srbcon are neither
conductors nor insulators, they are typical semiconductors.
The outermost shell of either atom contams four
electrons. When the atoms are brought into a crystal,
all these electrons go to form bonds with other atoms.
They are slaves in the basement. And so at low
temperatures, Silicon and germanium do not conduct
current.
But let us add to germanium a bit of one of the
nerghbounng atoms, say arsenic (No. 33) of the fifth
group. In places, the arsenic atoms will dislodge the
germanium atoms and occupy their places In the lattice.
165

Fig.

18

Fig.

19

In doing so, each arsenic atom will have to do the

job of the displaced atom of germanium.
An atom of arsenic has five electrons in the outer
shell. Four of these he gives up to take care of the
chemical bonds of the guy whose place he took In the
lattice - the germanium atom. Now the fifth electron IS
left unemployed.
Calculations show that the energy of this electron
exactly corresponds to the local level m the forbidden
band. but near the limit. Only a very httle energy is
needed to push this electron mto the conduction
band - 10 to 15 times less than the height of the
forbidden band itself.
The arsenic atom, which was so generous with its
extra electron and gave It to the crystal host, IS called
a donor. And the respective electron levels are called
donor ievels (Fig. 19).
Now let us take, in place of arsenic, some element
from the group to the left of germanium. let us say,
boron (No.5)
Boron is m Group 111, which means
166

that Its outer shell has only three electrons. When

boron takes the place of a germanium atom in the
crystal lattice, it can handle only three of the four
chemical bonds.
Here's what happens. The boron atom steals an
electron from a neighbounng germanium atom. This is
contagious. The atom of germanium then grabs an
electron from a close-Iying neighbour, who does the
same. The unoccupied electron room begins to move
farther and farther away from the germanium atom
that first stole from his neighbour (Fig. 20).
This is a familiar picture, exactly like the migrating hole. The only difference is that here It is not
temperature that ejects the electron from the valence
band, but the presence of an atom of boron.
In the process, we agam find the formation of local
energy levels in the forbidden band near the bottom.
And the difference is that holes, not electrons, can
occupy them.
These atoms, like the thief boron, came to be called
acceptors. The corresponding hole levels are known as
acceptor levels (see Fig. 20).
Hence we have two types of electrical conductivity - by electrons or by holes - in accord with the
type of atom that settles In the lattice of germanium
or silicon.
We again ask the reader to bear In mind that a
hole is simply a convenient convention to designate
electron motion. If you want to, picture the hole as
an electron jumping kangaroo-like from atom to atom
In the filled valence band. Then an electron
in the
conduction band will be more like a smoothly moving
human runner. takmg fast small steps. We have
already said that the electron levels in the conduction
band are also separated one from the other, but that
167

Acceplorl--

----J

Level
Fig. 20

these distances between levels are so Insignificant that

the levels actually merge.
Returning to our story. let us' try mixing boron
and arsenic atoms with germanium. What conductivity
168

will germanium have? This will obviously depend on

the ratio of the number of atoms of the two impurities.
If there IS more arsenic. the conduction will be mainly
electronic, If the other way around, It will be hole
conduction.
All this mixing makes for Important applications of
semiconductors. Semiconductors with such double sets
of impurities are capable of stopping the flow of
current in one direction and of passing It 10 the
opposite direcuon. Which means that semiconductors
are rectifiers.
Another thing semiconductors
can do is convert
small voltages into large voltages (again due to their
ability to regulate resistance). Which means that they
can operate as amplifiers
These small, compact, rugged and economical semiconductor devrces have long since won out over the
big, cumbersome electronic valves.
Photons striking a semiconductor knock electrons
from the valence band into the conduction band. When
illuminated, a semiconductor
m a CIrCUIt begms to
conduct current. Which means that semiconductors are
capable of transforming
hght energy directly into
electric energy. What is more, they are already doing
that and domg It more effectively than metals.
Ptoneenng work in this field was done by the Soviet
physicist A. Ioffe and hIS colleagues.
Silicon battencs in desert areas convert the bhstenng
streams of solar rays into clcctncny, which drives
motors In irrigauon systems to bring water to thirsty
corners of the earth. Semiconductor electric battenes
have found apphcatrons In space exploration.
Semiconductors also convert thermal energy directly
mto electncny. No longer needed are the unwieldy
systems of steam power stations where heat first
169

converts water into steam, and then the steam drives

a turbine connected to the rotor of a dynamo. This
IS already
obsolete and will disappear some day
altogether. Meanwhile semiconductors are working as
thermoelectric generators, converting the heat of kerosene lamps into electricity and as refrigerators with no
moving parts.
That is only the beginning. Ahead lies a bnlliant
future for these marvellous little crystals.

The interior
of the atomic nucleus

On the Threshold
Atoms, molecules, crystals, now what?
Quantum mechanics will now take us on a trip
deep into the interior of the atomic nucleus itself
There are still marvels to be uncovered.
In the twenties, no one could even Imagine what
this would lead to. the physicist was simply cuneus.
The atomic nucleus had much to offer. At that
time, quantum
mechanics was celebrating its first
victories in atomic combat, and hardly anything at
all was known about the deep inner core of the
atom.
We shall begin with what httle was known at
that time. At the very end of the nineteenth century, the Frenchman
Becquerel quite accidentally
noticed that some substances are capable of clouding
a photographic
plate. Following up this discovery,
Marie Sklodowska and Pierre Curie found that thrs
property is possessed by three chemical elements at
the end of the Periodic Table - radium. polonium
and uranium.
The phenomenon was called radioactivity. Theoreticians 10 those days were very embarrassed by the
171

fact that classical physics could not account for

radioactivity. Meanwhile fresh facts about the mysterious radiation were accumulated. There were, It
turned out, three kinds of radiation: alpha, beta and
gamma rays.
Further studies demonstrated that alpha rays consist of positively charged particles. An alpha particle
had a charge double that of the electron, while the
mass was roughly four times that of the hydrogen
atom. Beta rays were indistinguishable from electrons.
Gamma rays were, as the physicists said, extremely
hard electromagnetic radiation, With a penetrating
capacity many times that of the record-holder X-rays.
Another few years passed and the English physicist
Rutherford
working together With his pupil Bohr
expounded the planetary model of the atom m which
electrons, like planets, revolve about their central 'sun',
the atomic nucleus. It gradually became clear that the
generator of radioactivity was the nucleus.
With respect to alpha particles, this was obvIOUSfrom
the very start: there is no place In the atom for them
except the nucleus, which contains practically the
entire mass of the atom. On the other hand, electrons
eXISt in the outer atomic shells. We also frequently
find photons (quanta of electromagnetic energy) flying
out of these shells. Perhaps beta and gamma rays
originate in the electromagnetic structure of the atom.
No, this IS clearly Impossible. When an atom emits
beta rays it does not become 1000zed, it does not acquire
an electric charge. Which means that Its electronic
structure remains unchanged. Further calculations of
energy corresponding to photons of visible light and
X-rays associated with Jumps 10 electron shells demonstrated that this energy IS only a fraction of the photon
energy of gamma rays. Again, it was support for the
172

Idea that these two types of radioacuve

radiation on-

gmate m the atomic nucleus.

Several years passed and Rutherford gave theoretical

physicists some more food for thought. In the pathway of alpha rays emitted by radium he put nitrogen
nuclei, and photographic
plates that recorded collisions of alpha particles with nitrogen nuclei exhibited
traces of .. oxygen nuclei! The dream of the alchemist came true: a transformauon of chemical elements
had taken place, though not In chemical fashion.
That same year, Rutherford observed the first nuclear
transformation and found that the nuclei of atoms of
a single chemical element can have different masses.
Calculations showed that these masses differed by an
amount that was a multiple of, or very close to,
the mass of an atom of hydrogen Such nuclei became
known as Isotopes.
The First Step
Radioacnvrty and the transformauon of nuclei, then
Isotopes. Surely It IS now time to take the first step In
ccnstrucung
a theory of the atomic nucleus. The
starting facts are here and we have quantum mechanics,
which has already proved its worth.
But theoreticians were not In a hurry. They continued to stand on the outskirts of the primordial
forest hsterung to Its murmurings and partaking of its
odours, but they feared to enter They were not ready
to subject their new-born child, quantum mechanics,
to the ngours of new environments.
What they asked of experimentalists was to break
a path Into the forest Which was not long In the
doing: in 1932, the Enghshman Chadwick discovered
the neutron. Now they could start.
173

One basic thing was not clear: What particles did

the nucleus of the atom consist of? The fact that It
was a composite nucleus was ObVIOUS, for we had
radioactivrty - particles flymg out of the nucleus and
the nucleus conunumg to exist. Incidentally. one nuclear particle, the proton, was defimtely established.
We could now surmise that the nucleus consisted
of those particles that appear to radioactive disintegranon: alpha particles and electrons. But this IS too
simple a conjecture. Alpha particles seemed to have
the same properties as hehum nuclei. Yet there were
still lighter nuclei, those of hydrogen. Thus, the
hydrogen nucleus should be the smallest building stone
to the nuclear edifice. Since this was the most elementary particle, it got the Greek name proton.
Now we can begin building our model of the
nucleus. We must take into account the basic rulethe charge of the nucleus must be equal to the collective charge of all the electrons 10 the outer structure.
but WIth opposite Sign (positive). Otherwise the atom
would not be neutral the way it IS. We also know
the nuclear masses: they are roughly equal to the
masses of the corresponding atoms mmus the masses
of their electronic shells.
So we have our starting hypothesis: nuclei consist
of protons and electrons. The nucleus of hydrogen has
one proton. and there are no electrons at all The
helium nucleus has four protons and two electrons;
ItS charge IS thus +4-2= +2, ItS mass IS Just a little
bit more than four times the hydrogen nuclear mass.
We know that the electron IS almost 'werghtless' compared to the proton - nearly 2,000 times lighter!
We continue. The hthtum nucleus With mass 7 and
charge + 3 consists of 7 protons and 4 electrons,
the boron nucleus WIth mass II and charge + 5 consists
t74

of 11 protons and 6 electrons, nitrogen (14 and +7,

respectively) consists of 14 protons and 7 electrons;
oxygen (16 and + 8) consists of 16 protons and 8 electrons, and so forth.
Everything seems to be going normally. But it only
'seems' that way. As long as we confine our building,
activities to the light nuclei, everythmg is all right.
But as soon as we move into the region of medium
and large structures, agreement breaks down Judge
for yourself. Iron with nuclear mass 56 (this is more
correctly called the mass number of the nucleus; it
shows how many times the mass of the nucleus is
greater than the mass of a proton) and charge + 26
requires 56 protons and 30 electrons; for the uranium
nucleus with mass number 238 and charge + 92, we
must have 238 protons and 146 electrons.
It turns out that to each new nucleus nature adds
several protons, not one, as might be expected. If,
however, we reject this View, then trouble sets in with
the nuclear masses and charges. As a result, our regularity in nuclear construction breaks down. Then there
is difficulty in figuring out where isotopes come from.
Trouble with nuclear spms too sets in from the very
start. The total spm should be the sum of the
spins of the component particles. For instance, for
deutenum (the nucleus of heavy hydrogen), which m
this scheme consists of two protons and one electron,
the total spin should be at least equal to three proton
spins (proton and electron spins are the same). Actually,
it is equal to two proton spins! And this is not the
only case of discrepancy. Quite the contrary. It is rare
indeed when the computed and measured nuclear spins
coincide. There must be something wrong in our
method of building nuclei.
Sure enough! The nuclear electrons have the job
175

of building Up the charge of the nucleus so that it

corresponds to the experimentally observed value. But
they have a still more important function. Protons
repulse eacb other bemg of the same charge, just like
electrons in the shells of the atom. The electrons are
needed to hold the protons together.
A Simple calculation shows that the nucleus will
require much more electronic glue than we have 10 our
method of construction. There are stili other, more
convincing. objections to the presence of electrons in
nuclei. We shall speak of them later on.
At this point theoreticians had senous doubts about
nuclei consisting of protons and electrons. Then the
neutron made Its appearance. In that same 1932,
Werner Heisenberg and the Soviet physrcists D. Ivanenko and I. Tamm advanced a strong, mathematically
supported hypothesis according to which nuclei are
made up exclusively of protons and neutrons. The first
step was taken.
The Second Step
In the construction of atorruc nuclei, nature was
Just as economical as in the building of electromc
shells. The only difference was that in the nucleus
It had two building stones - the proton and the neutron.
Each time a new proton was added, nature saw to
it that the nucleus did not fly to pieces as the mutually
repulsive forces of the protons built up. In the light
elements (approximately up to calcium, No. 20), the
number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus was
about the same. After that, the number of neutrons
grew faster than the protons, and this continued - the
farther away, the greater the difference. In the uranium
176

nucleus, with mass number 238 and 92 protons, we

find 146 neutrons.
Seeing that the nuclear structure would stand, nature
began to diversify its architecture - a few neutrons
added here, a few taken away there. The result was
isotopes - variations of a single element. The nucleus of
tin, for instance, has ten stable isotopes.
It will readily be seen that the Heisenberg-IvanenkoTamm hypothesis is in excellent agreement with the
data on nuclear masses and charges. According to this
theory, the hydrogen nucleus consists of a single proton,
the helium nucleus of mass number 4 (helium-4) conSiStSof 2 protons and 2 neutrons, the lithium-7 nucleus
has 3 protons and 4 neutrons, the boron-Il nucleus
has 5 protons and 6 neutrons, the nitrogen-14 nucleus
is composed of 7 protons and 7 neutrons, the oxygen-16 nucleus is made up of 8 protons and 8 neutrons,
and so on and on.
And so on and on, right to the end of the Table
this time.
What do we know about the neutron? This particle
has a mass almost exactly equal to that of the proton
and true to ItS name is electncally neutral - it has no
electrical charge.
By what right does it occupy the place of the electron
in the nucleus? The electron at least could hold the protons together. How can an uncharged neutron do this?
At this point we find out that the electrical forces
of attraction are not enough to account for the stability of nuclei. Nuclei are real tough nuts. Not a single
attempt to disrupt the nucleus by chemical means,
by enormous pressures or temperatures or by fantastic
electric fields has succeeded, though all such weapons
have operated successfully against the electronic struclure outside the nucleus.
12-70

t77

Hence, physicists conclude, there IS a definite reason

for neutrons being in the nucleus. The neutron it is,
therefore, that plays the role of cement in holding
together the protons of the nucleus. But by what
force, we ask. It can't be electrical, for the neutron IS
neutral.
Theoreticians got to work on this problem and two
years after the discovery of the neutron, I. Tamm
and the Japanese physicist Yukawa put forward a
brilliant idea that there are very strong specific nuclear
forces, exchange forces of attraction, of very short
range operating between protons and neutrons.
Exchange forces? That's a familiar term. Those are
the forces that hold two hydrogen atoms together or
the atoms of nitrogen. oxygen and many others 10
rather stable molecules. In these molecules, the atoms
are continually exchanging their electrons. and this
holds the atoms together.
But what kind of exchange IS there In the atomic
nucleus? The proton and the neutron are two different
particles. The nucleus hasn't got any electrons. What
do protons and neutrons exchange? A calculation made
by I. Tamm showed that electron exchange yields too
small a cohesive force for nuclear particles.
There are two ways open to us: either retreat and
give up the exchange ideas as erroneous or strike out
audaciously and state that despite the outward dissimilanty of the proton and neutron, these particles
are actually not very dille-rent and have much in
common, that they can convert into one another:
the proton IOta the neutron and the neutron into
the proton.
ThIS idea IS bold indeed. In 1934, the year this
hypothesis was put forward, no mterconverston of the
elementary constuucnts of matter had yet been ob178

served. True, two years before, the transformation of

an electron and positron into gamma-ray photons had
been established. But this phenomenon
was of an
utterly different nature.
Reasoning further, physicists figured that if two
particles can convert into one another they should
exchange something in the process. The proton acquires
this 'something' and turns into a neutron; and when
a neutron loses it, a proton appears. Then again,
there could be a different kind of exchange m which
the neutron acquires something and the proton does
the losing.
Starting from the fact that nuclei are extremely
stable structures and also that the exchange forces
between protons and neutrons would have to operate
over the extremely small distances between particles.
Yukawa blocked out the portrait of thrs matenal particle, this 'something'. It could have either a positive
or a negative charge equal to the magnitude of the
proton charge (or electron charge) and a mass approximately 200 to 300 times greater than the electron
mass.
The proton and the neutron are roughly 1,800 limes
more massive than the electron. So the mysterious
particle would have a mass somewhere In between the
two. Whence the name: meson from the Greek meaning 'medium'
Then we get the following picture of nuclear exchange. A proton emits a positive meson. loses Its
positive electric charge and converts into a neutron.
A neutron picks up a meson and turns into a proton.
But a neutron may emil a negative meson and become
a proton m a different way. And this meson, when
captured by the proton will convert It into a neutron
in stili another way

,,'

179

The Search for the Mysterious Meson

But where are these mesons? Experiments with radioactive nuclei were repeated. The answer was a categoncal NO! Even if mesons did exist In nuclei, they
never left them. As if mesons preferred to carry on
their modest yet Important work and never show up.
Then phYSICIStSturned to that great source of information about nuclear particles, the cosmic rays. Within
the year the meson was discovered. In agreement with
Yukawa's calculations, the meson had a mass of
roughly 200 electron masses.
The theoreticians could celebrate. This amazingly
bold concept of protons and neutrons being related
particles and the discovery of the meson at the point
of a pencil. One of the most remarkable attainments
in physics ever!
But the elation was short-lived. The mesons refused to enter mto any contact with atomic nuclei,
were extremely indifferent to neutrons, and only bowed
to protons within the ordinary framework of elect neal
interaction. Physicists were stumped: Could this be the
particle that was to go between proton and neutron
and interact most energetically with them? Obviously,
they reasoned, it couldn't be - surely not this freak
of nature. The search must go on.
This time nature played hide and seek WIth scienttsts
for a real long tirne. Outstanding discoveries in nuclear
structure were made, the secret of nuclear energy release
was uncovered. the first atomic reactors and bombs
were constructed, and still the elusive particle escaped
detectton. Only in 1947 was the noted cosmic-ray
researcher Powell able to catch It.
This particle was again a meson, but a different
one, not 207 electron masses but 273. There was no
180

mistake this time. The new meson (called a pi-meson to

distinguish It from the Indifferent mu-rneson) Interacted
strongly with nuclear particles. When It had considerable energy in fhght, It could even break up nuclei
that it encountered.
To summarize, then, the supposition of quantum
mechanics that nuclear forces are due to a meson
exchange between protons and neutrons was brilliantly
corroborated. Incidentally, physicists were so sure of
themselves in this question that they had continued
pushing their way through the very thick of the nuclear
forest without the slightest evidence of the needed
meson even existing.

The Strongest Forces of All

Physicists immediately got down to a study of the
newly discovered nuclear forces. The first thing they
noticed was the extremely short range of acuon We
have already mentioned that. The exchange forces In
molecules begin to operate at mteratorruc distances of
the order of the dimensions of the atoms - hundred
millionths of a centimetre. Nuclear exchange forces have
a range tens of thousands of times shorter. They begin
to operate only at distances close to the dimensions
of the nuclear particles themselves. And so, qurte reasonably, they can exist only inside the nucleus and never
display action outside.
Nuclear forces are the strongest yet discovered. Not
only do they completely suppress the mutual antipathy
of the protons, which IS very great at such small
distances, but even hold them tight In a stable structure.
Physicrsts describe the nuclear strength or stability
in the same way they do for all bodies, molecules,
atoms, nuclei - by the binding energy, which IS the
18t

energy that must be Imparted to an assembly of particles III order to break it up 1010 its constituents
Naturally, the more particles there are in a system,
the greater this energy must be. To describe stability,
we usually take the binding energy per particle. ThIS
energy IS measured III special units called electronvolts. One electron-volt IS the energy acquired by an
electron when passing through a potential difference
of one volt III an electric field. In our world of big
things. this Unit is very small, but for the atomic
world it is quite appreciable.
The bonds between molecules of many substances
break up even at room temperature so that such substances exist as gases under ordinary conditions. The
binding energy between such molecules IS of the order
of hundredths of an electron-volt per molecule.
To break down these molecules into mdividual
atoms, a much bigger energy IS needed, roughly ten
electron-volts per atom. This corresponds to Impressive
temperatures ranging up to thousands and tens of thousands of degrees.
To decompose atoms into their constituent electrons
and bare core (nucleus) IS still more difficult. We know
that atomic electrons have different energies corresponding to their couphng with the nuclei. The energy
range IS from tens to thousands of electron-volts.
Nuclear particles have binding energies in the milhans of electron-volts! Now It is clear why nuclei are
unaffected by even the very strongest of nonnuclear
forces. Even If two nuclei collide With speeds of thermal
motion at thousand-degree temperatures, the ellect will
be hardly more than that of a rubber ball bouncing
against a wall of granite.
Studying the work of the nuclear architect. phYSICiStS
determined the stability of the various nuclei and
182

plotted their findings as a function of the mass numbers

of the nuclei. Take a look at the graph. The first
thing we note IS the tmy ups and downs, something
like a mountain range. The similarity is strengthened
by the fact that at first glance the peaks appear to
be quite at random.
But before going on let us take a look at the
lower curve. This IS a curve of the abundances of the
chemical elements in nature. To construct it, physicists
had to consult geologists, astronomers, and even biologists. Obviously, the abundance of an element corresponds to the occurrence. In nature, of its atomic nuclei.
By nature we mean, of course, not only the earth
but the universe at large, the Visible universe - as far
as the spectroscope of the astronomer will reach.
Let us compare the two curves (Fig. 21). What
have they In common? First, in the left-hand corner
we notice that the highest peaks of the upper curve
correspond to nuclei of helium-a. carbon-12, oxygen-16,
and a number of others. All these numbers are multiples of four, as if the nuclei consisted not of protons
and neutrons
separately,
but of alpha particles
straight off. The corresponding portions of the lower
curve indicate the highest relative abundances of these
elements In nature - close to 100 per cent.
Contmumg our trip along the mountain range, we see
that the most noticeable breaks In the upper curve
correspond to peaks in the lower curve. The more stable
the nuclei, the greater, generally speaking, are its
abundances In nature.
Thrs would lead us to conclude that In the world
of atorruc nuclei nature has set up Its own law of
natural selection. In the struggle for existence, only
the strongest survive The most abundant are those
whose neutron and proton numbers are 2, 8. 20, etc.
183

lJinding energy, million e/ectron-rotts

00
ao ~ O<i ao ee N
~ 0; <:>;

'" '" "" '"

'" '"

'"

""

'"::z

"0

-a'

""C:;~

'"

""~"
:t '"
<::> "

t:!

"''''
~~

~n~

C;:) .~

::::1:=
15~
~ .....

".i'l

i5'"
"c::: ~
~.C::lIOL

..

'" ..

~ V>

'<nx~~

"'"
~~

< ::,

~~

ce

.., l:l'~

~~

",,;s.
5;;;

",'"

'- 't

~\~~

"'-!\"E
~"
~ ~

S; .~
~

(,j~;:s;

,,~

III'-

'"

Vi

...
""~
""

~.~

" ....:t

..

.....

ll;

Sl]

0>

~
x

~.,

li'l S5
/felatiYe

-..
N

s~

~"
.... c:::"t:j

184

.s

~"'"

tl'"
""~

~.. x

SO>

~ ~

'"

abundance ;nZ

We shall discuss the reasons for this later on when

we talk about nuclear shells.
Here, we can point out that it is not exactly correct to say that nuclei consist of alpha particles. But
one thing is definite: groups of two protons and two
neutrons are indeed extremely stable even in the world
of atomic nuclei. Physicists say that the nuclear forces
operating between this number of particles become
saturated. We find it impossible to try to add an
extra proton or neutron to such a group. The helium
nucleus, for example, refuses to accept anyone else
Into the family. Sure enough, this nucleus IS the most
Inhospitable one of all: there aren't even any nuclei
with mass number 5 (two protons and three neutrons
or three protons and two neutrons).
By refusing guests, the helium family strengthens
itself. If we exclude the hydrogen nucleus (which consists of only one proton and therefore has no nuclear
forces operating in it at all), the helium nucleus IS the
most stable nucleus in nature.
Saturation is a new property peculiar only to nuclear
forces Just as new and unusual is their property of
charge independence. Nuclear forces simply don't care
about charge, they function Just as well between a
proton and a neutron as between a pair of protons or
a parr of neutrons. Why this IS so physicists don't
fully understand to this day.

Once Again about the Stability of Nuclei

The exchange forces that form these strong nuclear
structures are forces of attraction which bind protons
and neutrons together. To what degree can they pull
together? "There have to be limits, otherwise the particles would all merge into one.
185

Nature, naturally, does not allow this to happen;

and to counter the powerful forces of nuclear attracnon at extremely close encounters of nuclear particles
there are no less powerful forces of repulsion that do
not permit the particles to penetrate into one another.
This is the so-called lower limit to the range of
action of nuclear forces. We have already spoken of the
upper limit, which is obviously the greatest distance to
which nuclear particles may recede one from the other
and contiriue to expenence the constraining action of
nuclear forces. It is of the order of the dimensions
of the nuclear particles themselves.
This is an Interesting fact, for it can explain the
general trend of the binding-energy curve: the fact that
It falls with increase in mass number of the nuclei.
Indeed, in a hght nucleus that has few protons and
neutrons, each particle may be linked to all the others
by nuclear forces.
Now what about saturation, which indicates that
nuclear forces prefer binding only tetrads (fours) of
particles? The answer is simple. Nuclear particles are
mdisunguishable, and so there is no way to separate
out such 'fours', Try, in a crystal of sodium and
chlonne ions, to isolate pairs that correspond to
'former' molecules. The same ions of sodium and chlonne In the crystal lattice of sodium chloride can enter
mto ditlerent 'former' molecules of NaCl, as we have
already mentioned.
The more particles a nuc1eus has, the greater its
Size, naturally. Now each particle will be connected by
nuc1ear forces only with Its immediate neighbours.
In place of the 'general' bond we have a cham of
bonds, as it were. Such nuclei begin to lose their
stability, all the more so Since there IS a general
increase in the repulsive forces of the protons, which
186

act in opposition to the nuclear forces, as the number

of protons increases.
The largest and heaviest nuclei at the end of the
Periodic Table of elements are rather unstable. Nature
makes them become more stable of their own accord.
This can occur only if the nucleus gets rid of any
extra nuclear particles, just like a ship jettisons ballast
to maintain buoyancy. The extra particles which the
nuclei eject are radioactive radiations.
Incidentally, you probably know that there are also
a great number of radioactive nuclei both at the beginning and 10 the middle of the Periodic Table. However,
most of them are not the products of nature but of
humans. Bombarding
originally stable nuclei with
nuclear particles (mostly neutrons), physicists upset
their equilibrium by overloading them with particles.
These nuclei return to their stable state. but not by
the same route that they got there. What is more,
the final state is usually different from the original
state A nucleus is upset by an extra neutron and
it responds by ejecting electrons and gamma photons
until It gets transformed Into an entirely different
nucleus.
U nderlymg this phenomenon, called artificial radioactivity, is the tendency of all nuclei towards stability, at all costs. Unstable thmgs cannot exist for a long
nrne, Recall the graph of the abundance
of nuclei
10 nature.
It clearly states that the more stable the
nucleus, the longer It exists, and, hence, the more
abundant IS the element.

Tunnels in Nuclei
Very complex laws govern the stability of nuclei. They
have been under study by SCientists for over thirty years
187

and stili are not yet completely understood. However,

some of these laws afe giving up their secrets.
The first was alpha radioactivity, or the alpha decay
of nuclei, which was discovered even before the neutron
was, though science knew nothing of the underlying
cause of the stability of alpha particles.
So we have two problems: Why do alpha particles
fly out of nuclei, and why don't protons and neutrons
fly out separately?
Let us start with the more difficult second question.
Examining the curve of binding energy, we found that
nuclei consisting of tetrads, pairs of protons and neutrons
(for example, helium-4, carbon-I 2, oxygen-l 6), were
more stable than their neighbours, Now we find that
heavy radioactive nuclei decay precisely by means of
these tetrad particles. How do we account for this
ambivalent behaviour of alpha particles?
OUf difficulties increase still more when we recall
that nuclear forces In a tetrad reach saturauon and It is
impossible to add a fifth particle to the four. How, then,
do nuclei heavier than the helium nucleus exist at all?
To answer these questions, let us look more closely
at the existence of alpha particles, at the exchange of
mesons between them. We know that one of the posSible types of exchange consists In a neutron ejecting
a negatively charged pi-meson and convertmg into a
proton In the act. while the latter absorbs this meson
and in a minute fraction of time turns into a neutron.
Thus. on an average, a tetrad all the time has two
protons and two neutrons. But imagine for an instant
that a meson ejected by a neutron in some tetrad IS
captured by a proton of an adjacent tetrad. Then there
WIll be two 'crimes' committed at once the first tetrad
Will have three protons and one neutron, and the
neighbouring one Will have three neutrons and one pro188

ton. Why 'crime'? Well, because, says the Pauli principle,

protons and neutrons have the same spin as an electron
and so have to abide by all the restrictions imposed
on electrons. The Pauli principle forbids more than one
particle having a given sense of spin in a given state.
The alpha particle is extremely stable because the two
protons and two neutrons in it each occupy a single
energy level - the lowest possible. The two protons are
on one level, and the two neutrons are on the same
level. This is possible due to the fact that at each
instant of time a proton and neutron In the nucleus
appear in different guises, that is, are actually different
particles. Now if a tetrad has three protons, then one
of them will simply have to violate the stringent Pauli
exclusion pnnciple or will have to occupy a state of
higher energy, which is to say a lower bindmg energy.
Nuclear particles do not wish to commit 'crimes';
neither do they hke unstable state. What they do IS
immediately release the meson: we again find two
ordinary tetrads. But this instantaneous exchange between the tetrads establishes a mutual bond between them.
The tetrads become less Isolated from each other.
The farther we go away from the light nuclei, the
weaker are these effects of tetrads on stability. Yet the
heavy nuclei again exhibit a definite influence of tetrads.
Particles on the periphery of such nuclei, as we have
already pointed out, can interact only with their immediate neighbours because the nucleus has become so
large. Apparently, near the surface of nuclei we find
particles formmg into tetrads again, Since this IS the
most stable configuration.
That IS probably the reason why heavy nuclei eject
only tetrads (alpha parucles) and not protons or neutrons.
But how do they get out of the nucleus at all? The
nucleus is a connected assembly of particles or, as cal189

led by its other name, a potential well that is separated

from the free existence of particles by a high barner.
We know the depth of the well (or the height of the
r-arrier). It is equal to the binding energy.
We shall now see how the nuclear barrier differs
(rom those we have already dealt with: no effort IS
needed to jump over it. The nuclear barner is not a
step with no back wall to it, but a 'fence', as It were.
A fence not wide at all, but very high. To put It
crudely, the width of the barner is determined by the
range of action of the nuclear forces, while the height
Indicates the magnitude of these forces.
Now quantum mechanics again takes over. The ejection of an alpha particle from a radioactive nucleus IS
a tunnel effect, say the quantum people, and thrs effect
IS In no way different from the tunnel release of electrons from a metal or the tunnel penetration of electrons

into the conduction band in semiconductors and Insulators. At all times, wave properties are in operation;
in one case, for electrons, in the other, for alpha
particles.
Now we understand this 'double-deal' conduct of the
tetrads. Actually, there IS no double deal at all: everything is due to quantum probabilities. Theorencally, an
alpha particle can even fly out of an oxygen nucleus,
but the probability is negligible. In light nuclei the
height of the barrier for ejection of alpha particles IS
very great (a large binding energy), while In heavy nuclei
the barner is low (a considerably smaller binding energy).
Now the probability of the tunnel effect IS very largely
dependent on the height of the barrier, and falls off
rapidly as It Increases m height. Therein lies the whole
secret.
On the other hand, the barner height for ejection of
alpha particles in heavy nuclei IS much lower than that
190

for the 'individual' release of protons and neutrons.

That IS why only tetrads fly out and not individual
particles.

Does the Nucleus Consist of Shells?

Unlike the atom, the nucleus does not seem to have
a central body surrounded by electron-like clouds. For
some years after the discovery of the proton-neutron
structure of the nucleus, physrcists pictured the nucleus
as more or less evenly smeared out nuclear matter
filling this tiny volume of space in the form of a cloud
of protons and neutrons.
However, the discovery of the saturation of nuclear
forces and of the phenomenon of alpha disintegration
seemed to indicate that nuclear matter is not quite
formless and that we perceive the outlines of small cells,
so to speak, of alpha particles. As quantum mechanics
and expenmentation
forged deeper Into the nuclear
forest, It became clearer that there are whole groups
of trees, that it has shape and is not shapeless as when
viewed 'from a distance'.
We already know that the particle tetrad occupies
the lowest energy position in the nucleus and that it is
the most stable of all the nuclear blocks. To this position there corresponds a single general level of energy
at which we find two protons and two neutrons with
spins In opposite directions.
In the given nucleus, the second tetrad of particles
occupies a different energy level, the third. a third level,
etc. As the number of particle tetrads increases, higher
and higher energy levels In the nucleus are filled, very
much like the electrons in atoms
But not all nuclei consist of tetrads ~ True enough.
And this means that in nuclei with numbers of particles
191

that are not multiples of four, the corresponding energy

levels will not be fully occupied.
The nucleus is beginnmg to look very much like the
outer structure of the atom, where we found filled and
closed and stable electron shells (recall the inert gases).
Here we have filled and extremely stable nuclear 'shells'
made up of tetrads and larger numbers of nuclear particles.
Of course, an outward similarity in Itself is not enough.
We would like to have more tangible proof of the
existence of shells 10 the nucleus. Let us take a look
at our curves of stability and abundance of nuclei.
Take a few of the very highest peaks and calculate the
numbers of protons and neutrons In the nuclei that
correspond to each.
The first is helium-4; its nucleus IS an alpha particle
and consists of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Then comes
oxygen-16 with 8 protons and 8 neutrons. This is followed by calcium-en with 20 protons and 20 neutrons,
and so on. Finally, at the right-hand end of the curve
IS the last high peak that belongs to lead-208; here
the nucleus has 82 protons and 126 neutrons. (To these
we must add the tin nucleus with 50 protons, which is
so stable that nature devised ten stable Isotopes, whereas
other proton numbers have only 2 to 5 stable isotopes.)
So we now have the most stable nuclei with protonneutron numbers 2, 8, 20, 50, 82, and 126. Note that
these nuclei are sort of counterparts of the atoms of the
inert elements with 2, 10, 18, 36, 54, and 86 electrons.
Both - each In its own world - are record-holders of
stability.
These proton and neutron numbers were named 'magic

numbers'. And so it should be, for there is something

magic in the fact that the nuclei and electronic shells
of atoms - two worlds that live by entirely different
192

laws ~ should exhibit this common structural feature.

True, a comparison of the magic numbers with the
electron numbers in the most stable atoms shows up
a definite difference. These numbers coincide only for
helium, which holds all records of stability in beth
worlds. It IS no accident that these numbers diverge.
On the contrary, it would be rather too remarkable
If they coincided - so dtfferent are the living conditions
In the nucleus and in the outer electronic cloud.
Still, there is somethmg like a system of shells m the
nucleus There IS also expenmental corroboratton. Let
us take a look at the potassium atom (No. 19). It IS
univalent. which means that It has one electron outside
the Iilled and closed shell of the inert argon atom.
The total Spin of the electronic structure of the potassium
atom IS equal to the spin of this valence electron.
Which IS natural enough. since the spins of all the
other electrons are In pairs and In opposite directions
so that they cancel and the sum is zero.
Now compare that with the nucleus of the oxygen-I?
Isotope, which has one neutron over and above four
tetrads of particles. We should then expect that the
spin of the nucleus of oxygen should be equal to the
spin of this extra neutron. That IS exactly the case.
This IS not the only comcrdence. The expenmentally
measured spms of nuclei are In excellent agreement
With those predicted on the baSISof the model of nuclear
shells.

Where do Gamma Rays Come from?

Much more comes to light In the way of common
features m electron shells and nuclear shells when we
exarrune the ongm of the third type of radioactive radiation - gamma rays. PhYSICiStS
studying gamma rays were
13-70

193

able to establish Important facts about the lives of nuclear

families. A first fact to draw attention was spectra of
nuclear gamma rays; they were found to consist of
separate lines We already know what thrs means: that
nuclear particles can have only very stnctly definite
energies, which also means that they have to exist in
specific states. The transition of particles between such
states would then give nse to gamma rays.
What are these nuclear energy levels and how do
they fill up with nuclear particles? Here the map IS
mostly made up of blank spaces The fact that a nucleus
has definite energy levels should not cause any surpnse.
These levels are predicted by the Schrodmger equation
for all connected assemblies of particles. which naturally Include nuclear systems as well
In the case of an atom. the formula that describes
the mteracuon of particles IS well-known. It is Coulomb's
law for the mutual repulsion of electrons and their
attraction to the nucleus We put this law into the
Schrodmger equation. But the law of nuclear forces
IS stili unknown.
PhYSICiStSthen have to solve the reverse problem:
observe the spectra of gamma rays and calculate from
them the energy levels m nuclei, their fillmg sequence.
At one time. you remember, physicrsts busied themselves
With Just such a problem when combining the levels
of energy in atoms. Sciennsts Invoked rnforrnauon about
the brightnesses of tndrvrdual lines of gamma rays and
their charactenstics and attempted to denve a law that
would govern the mteracuon of particles In nuclei
It turned out a very tough nut to crack, and stili
Isn't fully solved. Obviously. It won't be until we know
somethmg about the nature of nuclear particles. Some of
the techniques now being used to approach this problem
Will be discussed In the next chapter.
194

Stili and all, the concept of energy levels In the

nucleus and of shells made up of proton and neutron
'clouds of probabihty' has been very frurtful. It has
enabled us to explain the orrgm of gamma rays and
the many mteresung peculiarities they exhibit.
FIrst of all. It IS clear that to emu a gamma photon
the nucleus has to pass from a stable state with least
possible energy to a state wrth more energy, which by
analogy with the atom IS called an excited state The
gamma photon IS emitted when the nucleus returns
to Its ongmal state or to some other stable state.
Nuclear forces are millions of umes stronger than
electrical forces. For thrs reason, the distances between
energy levels In the nucleus are usually much greater
than the energy distances In the clectroruc structure.
It IS natural to expect that gamma photons too have
to be Just as many tunes as energetic as photons of
light, which means they will have a correspondingly
smaller wavelength. That IS exactly what we observe.
Gamma rays have the shortest wavelength of all known
radiations.
Now It ISclear why gamma rays mvanably participate
In nearly all radioacuve transformauons of nuclei, for
these transformations are nothmg other than a transiuon
of the nuclei Into more stable states At times a smgle
readjustment of the nuclear house With a few extra
particles thrown out IS not enough for complete stability.
The new nucleus. though more stable than the origmal
one, IS stili In an exerted state Then the final stage
In the reshuffle
IS an emrssion of a gamma photon,
the nucleus then ceases to be radrcacuve,
The nucleus can also give up its surplus energy 10
a way that the electron shells of the atom have no idea
of Instead of shooting out a gamma photon, the nucleus
gives up ItS excitation energy on the sly directly to the
1J'

195

electron cloud But this energy IS so great that the

nuclear 'gift' is more like an earthquake for the atormc
building. True, the structure conunues to stand, but some
of the electrons are fired out with very considerable
velocities. This phenomenon competes very successfully
with the direct errussron of gamma rays and is called
Internal conversion.

The Nucleus as a Liquid Drop?

Nuclear shells. magic nuclei
. very pretty indeed. But
this appealmg picture could account for very many
experimental facts that did not fit into the framework
of the shell model. Which should not be surprismg,
First of all, if nuclear shells really existed, they would
have to be very different from their electronic counterparts. The very concept of a shell In a nucleus was
really farfetched The nucleus has no core that could
be surrounded by nuclear particles More, the closed
groups in the nucleus consist of quite different numbers
of particles than m the outer part of the atom. Finally,
nuclear shells would have to be of two kmds, proton
and neutron.
So what the term 'shell' actually means when transported from the outer atomic world IOta the inner
nuclear world IS simply a certam krnd of secludedness.
stabrhty, saturation of definite groups of nuclear particles
What is more, It does not occur all the time or at all
places.
There was some justrficatron m speaking of shells as
concerns only the light nuclei which consist of a few
nuclear particles. But as the nuclei increase In Size, the
separate energy states lose their mdrvidualny and the
nucleus becomes structurally more and more shapeless
There are so many nuclear particles and their clouds
196

overlap so much that there are no longer any defirute

particle motions and they cease, as It were, to obey
quantum laws
As a result, the nucleus loses all features of similanty
with the atom. The shell model has to be given up.
What new model can we devise for the nucleus?
Shortly before the outbreak of World War II. for
reasons which we shall mennon later on, scienusts
suggested the liquid-drop model of the nucleus. The
nucleus was pictured as an outwardly homogeneous
mass without any ordered structures In It (like, say,
alpha particles or shells). The separate nuclear particles the molecules of the nuclear hqurd - were supposed to
be In a state of constant random monon In the
liquid drop.
As a result, the nuclear liquid acquired a certain
fluidity. Like a liquid drop, the nucleus has boundanes,
but the boundaries are mobile, fluid. and can change
form due to various external and Internal causes. And
all this without rupturing the surface of the nucleus,
which IS kept Intact due to a certain surface tension
of the nuclear liquid on the boundary of the drop.
Thrs nuclear surface tension IS a complete analogy to
that ofordmary liquids: the nuclear paruclcs are bonded
by forces of attraction not countered by any other forces
outside the hquid drop. Nuclear forces hold the nuclear
hqurd m the drop
There the analogy stops. Let us compare the dcnsiues
of the two hqutds Sunple calculations show that the
particles of a nucleus are packed In thousands of milIrons of times more lightly than are the molecules or an
ordmary lrqurd A nuclear droplet the size of a drop
of water dnppmg from the tap would weigh a good
ten milhon tons I
Stupendous! Yet we know that the properties of
197

bodies are very greatly dependent on their densities.

Change the density of a gas one thousand ttrnes and
It becomes a crystal obeying utterly different laws. It
should be clear. then, that we cannot speak of any
kmd of Internal similarity between ordinary hqurds and
the nuclear hquid. There is too great a difference In
density - thousands of rrulhons of umes - and the forces
acting between nuclear particles differ radically from
those acung between molecules.
But let's take a look from the outside, here we find
an analogy. Put a droplet of mercury on a piece of
glass and tap 1l hghtly. The droplet shivers. ripples
of wavelets race across Its surface Hit the droplet
harder and It will break up into several smaller ones.
This may call to mind one of the biggest discovenes
of phySICS 10 recent times. In 1939, the scientific world
was hit by a sensation. the ormnous meaning of which
10 those pre-war days was fully comprehended
only by
physicists. The discovery of the fission, or break-up, of
uranium
nuclei
Theoreticians of different countnes hurrred to find
an explanation for thrs starthng phenomenon of the
world of atorruc nuclei Independently. Niels Bohr and
the Soviet phYSICIStYa Frenkel came up With a theory
They succeeded 10 accounting for the fiSSIOn of the
nuclei of uranium m their newly advanced hquid-drop
model of the nucleus.

The Liquid-Drop Nucleus Splits

Bohr and Frenkel reasoned somethmg like thrs Here
we have a nucleus In normal hfe, there is even some
order in the motion of the nuclear particles. If the
nuclear structure is stable, Its inhabuants carryon
an
even, secluded hfe.
t98

But then, all of a sudden, In comes an uninvited

'guest' - a particle from somewhere It plunges In and
ruffles everyone. In the tumble and jumble of greetmgs,
the nuclear house becomes pandemonium.
It IS very soon Impossible to distinguish the new
parttcle from the others The energy that It brought in
is rmmedrately distributed among all the nuclear particles,
so now neither the new particle nor any other panicle
of the nucleus can leave it. A new nucleus IS thus
formed. Bohr called It a compound nucleus.
But this state doesn't continue for long. One of the
particles finally gets a strong enough bump to knock
It across the potential barner at the boundary of the
nucleus, and leaves. If the ernergmg particle is differer-t from the one that entered, the whole sequence
of events IS called a nuclear reaction. The name is
justified
m that the rmtral nucleus differs from the
terrmnal nucleus Just hke In chemistry where the imual
substances differ from those produced 10 the chemical
reaction.
The tumble and jumble of particles m a compound
nucleus IS very reminiscent of the random thermal motion
of molecules In a liquid drop From time to time.
separate molecules evaporate from the drop Which is
much hke the 'evaporauon' of particles from a nucleus
heated up by the impact of an outside particle.
What actually takes place m the nucleus rn this case,
nobody knows exactly. But we can say that It behaves
as If It were a hot liquid drop. Let's take a look at
the surface of the drop. It is all the time in a state
of agitation. trembling, other molecules taking the place
of the one that escaped
It has long smce been observed that the amplitude
of oscillations on a hquid surface is very strongly
dependent on the surface tension of the liquid in the
199

drop, increasing as the latter dimimshes. As we have

already said, the surface tension m a nuclear hquid drop
IS due to the nuclear forces of attraction.
The larger
and more massive the nucleus, the weaker are these
forces and the more feeble IS tbeir hold on the nuclear
particles. In heavy nuclei, even relatively weak jolts can
build up dangerous oscillations on the surface.
A knock of this kind can be produced by a neutron
colliding with the massive and rather unstable nraruurn
nucleus (recall that due to their mstabihty such nuclei
are radioactive). At times, Just the slightest Jolt WIll
break up a uranium-235 nucleus. say in a collision with
a thermal neutron. which IS a neutron With an energy
hundreds of rrulhons of times less than that typical of
atomic nuclei.
How does an ordinary drop of water divide? Highspeed cinematography gives the answer. In the nght
type of colhsion, the droplet begins to resonate and
high waves appear on ItS surface. Then the droplet
stretches out into an elongated shape and finally breaks
at the waist.
\1ore complicated cases of the split-up of drops have
been observed when they divide into larger numbers
of smaller droplets. usually of different SIzes.
Bohr and Frenkel presumed that nuclear fission IS
due to a Similar deformation of the nuclear surface when
neutrons impmge on heavy unstable nuclei.

The Secrets of Nuclear Fission

But why IS the tission of nuclei due to neutrons?
And why do massive nuclei prefer to fall mto large
pieces and not evaporate out individual particles, as in
the case of artificial radioacuvity in nuclei of small and
mediurn mass?
200

In answer to the first questton, we can say that the

"fence' which separates the nucleus from the outer world
has, as we have already mentioned, two sides. But they
are not symmetncal.
On the Inner Side, the nuclear 'fence' IS more sloping
for protons than for neutrons. Its height IS due to the
nuclear forces and for protons is brought down because
of their mutual electrical repulsion. As a result of this
barrier. the particles under ordinary conditions do not
leave the nucleus. It IS relatively stable.
Now on the outside, the 'fence' IS somewhat different.
For protons the barrier remains. This reflects the fact
that the protons of the nucleus jointly repulse all unwanted guests of their own kind.
Now for neutrons there IS no outside barrier because
they are electncally neutral. On the contrary. there IS
a well Into which they can fall - when they fall Into
a nucleus, they usua lIy stay there
Therefore, if a proton wants to get into a nucleus,
especially IOta a heavy, multiproton nucleus, It has LO
have enormous energy rangmg up to hundreds of millions of electron-volts. Now a neutron doesn't need
any energy at all. That explains why neutrons of
very low energy (even thermal neutrons with energies of hundredths
of an electron-volt) can enter a
nucleus.
Now we can answer the second quest JOn. One might
thmk that the neutron entenng a nucleus of uranium235 overloads it to such an extent that the latter falls
to pieces However, the neutron is not the last drop.
Such a nucleus could, WIthout any danger to Its stability,
accommodate three more neutrons to form a nucleus
of uramum-238.
So what have we? The new neutron neither overloads
the nucleus nor adds appreciable energy, nor, finally,
201

does It give any kind of a 'kick" to the drop. Then how

come the uramum-235 fissions?
The situation 15 indeed complicated, and we again
come up against those quanta The POint IS that a
nucleus of uramum-235 IS lissronable by a neutron of
only a very definite energy The energy limits correspond
to the distance between the energy levels related to the
stable and close-lying exerted states of the uramum-235
nucleus. That is why neutrons whose energies correspond
to the energy difference of the two slates Just mentioned
are most effective In exciting uramurn nuclei
In the uranium-235 nucleus the energy distance between excited and stable states IS very small. Once 10
an excited state. thrs nucleus. It would seem, should
act like light weight nuclei and errut a gamma photon
and some particle. and then return to the same or some
other stable state But that IS not what happens
And here IS why We have already mentioned the fact
that heavy nuclei prefer to eject alpha particles (tetrads)
Instead of separate particles Thts IS due to the fact that
the potentia I barrier for the ermssion of alpha particles
IS considerably
lower than for the ejection of mdrvrdual
nuclear particles And It turns out that the barrier for
such large 'blocks' as nuclear fragments m the fission
process IS very low 10 the case of the uramum-235
nucleus
Once 10 the excited state, this nucleus IS able to wobble over the tiny fiSSIOn barner and break up IOta
fragments
A very Similar Situation IS found 10 the case of
molecules. The energy required to eject even one single
electron from a molecule IS rather substannal. But the
energy needed to spltt the molecule IOta separate atoms
IS much less. That IS precisely the reason why, In
chemical reactions. molecules do not break up IOta
202

electrons but into atoms or Into groups of atoms

(radicals)
The fission of uranlUm~238 nuclei by neutrons IS very
much hke that of uramum-235
But In this nucleus
the excited state IS separated from the stable initial
state by a rather broad energy range of a good million electron-volts. And so very fast and energetic
neutrons are needed to raise such nuclei to the excited
level

How Many Nuclei Can There Be?

You've probably guessed that the number IS definitely
limited. The heavier a nucleus. the less stable It IS.
But even a urarnum nucleus exists thousands of nullions of years on the average before spontaneously getting rid of ItS 'extra' alpha particles and reducing to a
more stable state. It IS not difficult to calculate that
heavier nuclei than uranium can live for quite some
time before ejecting an alpha particle
There IS another thing, however, that puts a hrmt
on 'weight categorres'. We have Just seen that With
respect to fiSSIOn Into large blocks. heavy nuclei put
up around themselves very low barners But thenyes. you've already guessed It ~ then a nucleus will
have a perceptible probability of passing under this
barner
No neutrons or any k md of excnauon will be needed.
the nucleus will split up spontaneously
and pass
through ItS own barner In tunnel fashion. Is that the
way it happens? In 1940, nature nodded yes. The spontaneous fission of heavy nuclei was discovered by the
Soviet physrcrsts Flerov and Petrzhak. It was no
conjecture of quantum mechanics but an established
fact.
203

The heavier the nucleus and the more particles there

are, the greater the probability of such fission. ThIS
IS very rare In uranium
nuclei, the probability IS practically zero. But for californium (No 98), the mean
lifetime of nuclei for spontaneous fission is Just a few
years. not thousands of rrulhons of years.
And finally we have d. nucleus where the barrier to
fission Simply vanishes. A nucleus of this kind should
have no resistance to fission Actually, It would never
get formed, for It would straight-way fall to pieces
The last number in our hst of 'standardized projects'
for building atoms IS 120. This means that nuclei (and
the atoms as well, naturally) cannot, under any encum stances, have more than about 120 protons.
It ISthe number of protons that decisively determmes
the stabrluy of nuclei to fission. In heavy nuclei the
forces of repulsion between protons increase drastically,
and the nuclear forces of attraction between distant
penpheral particles fall off rapidly.
As a result, near the nuclear surface we find raging
protons, while the neutrons stand aside in the shade.
Repulsive forces tear the surface to pieces and the
nucleus breaks up mto big blocks.

The Nucleus as Shells and Liquid Drop

Together!
We have Just discussed two models of the atomic
nucleus One of them ollers shell structure. somewhat
rermmscent of the atom. The other suggests the hquid
drop. Which one of these models IScloser to the truth?
The most reasonable answer IS that both are good,
but each 10 ItS own particular sphere of application.
The shell model does a better Job when descnbmg the
204

quiescent nucleus that has not been excited by any

external causes. The liquid-drop model handles the
situation best when the nucleus IS under stress, when
everything IS boihng and the particles are energetically
cothdmg with each other. when they evaporate out and
when thmgs get so bad that the nucleus splits to pieces.
Why not combine the two models into one that would
be equally good in describing both types of phenomena'
Well, we've already seen m the Planck theory of quanta
why this joming of theorres IS not a tailor's Job.
A generalized model of the nucleus, also called a
unified model, was advanced a decade ago by the son
of NIels Bohr, the noted Danish physicist Oge Bohr.
Of course, this theory Inherited certain of the features
of ItS progenitors, but stili was quite different from
them.
Underlying the generalized theory IS the contention
that the nucleus behaves In shell-hke manner when the
numbers of protons and neutrons In It are equal to the
magic numbers or close to them Otherwise, the nucleus
behaves hke a hqurd drop Moreover, this conduct IS
particularly evident when the number of particles outSIde the tilled and closed shells reaches about 2/) of the
number in the succeeding tilled shell.
It turns out that the particles outside the nuclear
filled shells are responsible for all the vaganes of the
nucleus, from the ejection of mdivrdual particles to the
drsrupuon of the whole thmg. Now the particles m the
n lied shells beha ve much more modestly, taking no
direct part 10 these activities of the nucleus
Again we feel compelled to go back to the electron
shells of the outer structure. You recall that the
electrons in the closed shells of the mert atoms were
snobbishly detached. At the same time, the electrons
In the unfilled shells were active striking up acquam205

tances with neighbounng

atoms to form molecules.
crystals and to participate ID chemical reactions.
Yet In the generalized model It ISconsidered that there
IS not very much direct mteractron of nuclear particles
and that the shell aspect IS not the most sigrnficant.
Besides particle interacuon ID parrs. there IS probably
also a collective-type. interaction of particles, which
would better be reflected 10 a hquid-drop model These
events are manifested In deformations of the nuclear
surface, as a result of which the nucleus does not have
a sphencal drstnbuuon of proton charge. and In a
number of other nuclear pecuhanues.
The electnc, magnetic and other properties of atomic
nuclei predicted on the basis of the generalized model
are 10 good agreement with expenment.
Enough about models and the way phYSICISts use
them to descnbe the properties of atomic nuclei These
are not the only ones, many more have been conjured up
Is It good to have so many models or IS It rather a disadvantage? Most likely It IS a disadvantage,
for despite the manysided nature of the nucleus. It
has, 10 reality, only one race. The mulupbcuy or models
each of which IS not bad, yet unsatisfactory 10 one
way or another, mdicates that though the nucleus IS
a unity. It IS a very difficult one to grasp and
comprehend.
It IS like a dozen photographs taken under different
hghung condruons and at different angles, but only or
tiny snatches of the whole picture. Naturally, from these
bits It IS hard to form an Image of the whole
In the case of atomic nuclei. the prmcrpal difficulty lies
In the fact that we do not yet know enough
about
nuclear forces
These forces don't bother about the charge or the
206

particles, they are operative only over short distances.

and are very strong. We may add that, like all
exchange forces. they depend on the mutual directions
of spin of the interacting particles.
We shall get to know the nuclear forces better when
physicists are able to peep Into the Interior of the
nuclear particles themselves and comprehend their
structure. Physics IS only Just approaching this problem,
which contains a whole new world of research, probably
even broader than that concerned with atomic nuclei
as such,

Particles

Fly out of the Nueleus that Were

Never There!

We already know how alpha particles and gamma

photons get out of the nucleus. How do bela particles,
ordinary electrons. come to be ejected?
When physicists attacked that problem some thirty
years ago they were full of opurmsm. Just recently
quantum mechanics had found the explanation of alpha
and gamma radroacuvity of nuclei, and It seemed that
beta radroacnvity wouldn't stand unresolved for long.
But nature was In no hurry to give up Its secrets
Even today, phYSICShas not fully conquered It.
The Impasse out of which quantum mechantcs can't
seem to find a way 1S all the more exasperaung since
beta radioactivity IS probably the most common form
of decay of atomic nuclei. Since 1934, when Irene
Curie and Fredenck Johot discovered artificial radroactivuy produced in the bombardment
of nuclei by
neutrons. and especially after the advent of nuclear
reactors made possible mass-scale bombardment, new
radioactive nuclei that had never been known on earth
before came Ilowmg Into the hands of physicists.
207

During the past quarter of a century. over a thousand

new radioactive isotopes have been artificially produced.
And the majority of them emit beta. not alpha. particles.
The first and pnncipal difficulty in accounting for
beta disintegration was that electrons cannot exist m
nuclei. Earlier, when we were discussing the protonneutron model of the nucleus we suggested why this was
so. Now we shall give the main reason why electrons
should not be found in atomic nuclei.
The point IS that the electron cannot fit into the
nucleus! An electron could be regarded as being in
the nucleus if we could somehow dnve m the whole
cloud of probabilIty. But even for excepnonally high
electron speeds when its energy IS of the order of nuclear
energies, the length of the de Broglie electron wave is
stili hundreds of times greater than the dimensions of
the nucleus. And the SIze of the electron cloud. as
we have already seen 10 the case of the hydrogen
atom, IS of the same order as the wavelength of the
electron.
There was no room for the electron m the nucleus
also because Its spin. cnmbinmg with the spins of the
nuclear particles, would have produced incorrect values
of nuclear spin.
Once convinced of this. physicrsts categoncally deprived the electron of a haven m the nucleus. But then
how does it happen that electrons come out of the
nucleus, when they were never there to begin with?
The nucleus has very massive particles that give birth
to this extremely light electron. LIke a little bullet
coming out of the muzzle of Big Bertha
A real wonder, this nucleus. What is more, an electron
flying out of a nucleus VIOlates two baSIC laws of
physics: that of the conservallon of energy and of
angular momentum.
208

The Electron Has an Accomplice

In physics there are laws so fundamental that the
enure edifice of science depends on them. These laws
hold for all worlds and all phenomena.
One IS that motion can neither be created nor destroyed. One type of motion can generate another type,
motion can change form, can even become Imperceptible.
But It never vanishes.
At the dawn of classical physics, science felt the need
for some measure of motion. One felt It necessary not
only to describe motion but also to measure and count
It. Two new quantities were Introduced Into phySICS:
energy and momentum.

And the proposition that motion IS neither born nor

dies found Its reflection in the mvariabrlity
of total
energy and momentum of bodies taking part in a common action. The recoil of a gun, the heating of a
working engme. pile dnvmg, and numberless other
Instances - all meticulously obey two great laws: the
conservation of energy and momentum. For rotational
motion, a no less fundamental law was the law of
conservation of angular momentum. Even figure skaters
make use of tlus law When they bnng their arms
together, rotation speeds up
We can well imagme the consternation of physicists
when It was found that the beta particles can have
any energy value from zero to a certain maximum.
The nucleus. It will be recalled - and It was clear to
all at that time - IS a quantum system and has definite
levels of energy.
In other words. any process In the nucleus (an
example of which IS the ejection of a beta particle)
can proceed only in such fashion that the nucleus
moves from one definite energy level to another one.
14-70

209

Which of course means that the energy difference and.

thus, the energy earned ofT by the beta particle had to
be Just as definite,
Yet the spectrum of electron energy In beta drsmtegration did not exhibit even the slightest suggestion of
hnes corresponding to definite energies. All this Signified
that either the nucleus, despite the evidence of all other
processes, did not in the final analysis obey the quantum
laws, or that beta decay of nuclei Violated the law of
conservation of energy!
And not only that law. The electron cames out of
the nucleus Its energy and Its spm. which IS intimately
bound up With the very essence of the electron. Then
we find that after the ejection of a beta particle the
nuclear spin rernams the same. But maybe the electron
leaves ItS spin an the nucleus after all. No. that IS
absolutely impossible That would be the same as an
electron Without charge. a plano Without keys. a scienust without his head!
The reactions to all this vaned. Some scientists had
so much faith In the quantum laws of nuclear life that
they proposed sacnficmg the law of conservation of
energy. They tned to dismiss It as being only 'classical'.
Others saw that that would not do at all. The Idea
was soon given up. yet there was stili no way out of
this cnucal snuanon. Then Wolfgang Pauh stated. "The
electron 'criminal' has an accomphcc " What's he like?
In beta dismtegration. the nucleus acquires an addmonal posnive charge ex.actly equal 10 magnitude to
the charge of the released electron. The nucleus becomes
IOnized, as it were. WhICh suggests that the accomplice
IS chargeless, electncally neutraL
The accomphce should have a spm equal 10 that of the
electron, but 10 the opposite sense. Both spans cancel.
210

Yielding zero. Then the spin of the nucleus. when an

electron and Its accomplice are ejected, rernams the same,
as required
Finally. the electron and its mate carry off an energy
equal to the maximum energy that electrons are capable
of In beta decay of the nucleus
This maximum energy IS quantized. that IS, It 15
exactly equal to the difference between the two energy
levels of the nucleus prtor to and Iollowmg beta decay
But this energy can be distributed between the electron
and Its accomplice 10 any way The drvtston process
IS not governed by quantum mechanics and no restncnons are Imposed on It.
Thus, quanuzanon of energy III nuclei is preserved
and the laws of conservation of energy and Spin are
not VIOlated QUite an mgenious way out of the Impasse
was found by Pauli
Vet there IS one more snag. The electron 'thief is
caught Immediately. while Its accomplice ISexasperatingly elusive. "Well, what did we tell you?" say the skeptics
And physrcrsts try their last card' mdrrectly they calculate the one remaining feature of the accomplice.
Its mass. An exact calculation IS Impossible, but It may
definitely be stated that It IS negligibly small, at least
a thousand times less than the electron mass
The phenomenal partner was at last found. but It
had no charge and the mass was practically zero. all
It had was energy and Spl11 The absence of charge
made It look hke the neutron, discovered just shortly
before Only It was lighter by a million umes So they
gave It the drmmuuve name 'neutnno, or hnlc neutron.
These two particles have norhmg In common Neutrons
actively interact with protons. collide With them and
form close-knit atomic nuclei, The neutrino? A body less
spmt Calculations say that a neutrino can pass through
14'

]1 J

the entire visible universe - milhons of hght-years - and

never give a sign of Its existence. It would appear never
to interact with anything.
Runmng ahead a bit, we might add that the neutnno
was finally and defirutely established by mdtrect evidence
just a few years ago. The suuauon In the theory of
beta decay was essentially the same as In the theory
of nuclear forces The latter hung in the balance for
ten years until proof was found m the form of PImesons. The theory of beta decay advanced by Paull
together wuh the italian phySICIStFermi was unresolved
for a quarter of a century!
Let us now return for a moment We've still got
to find out where the electrons come from that fly out
of the nucleus m beta decay.

Electrons are Born in Nuclei

We have already got used to the facl that marvels
occur at every step In the world of ultrasmall things.
In the next chapter we shall have 10 do with an
absolutely uruversa! event, the mterconversion of particles We see that for the rmcroworld, imerconversicn
IS Just as natural and commonplace as the relative
constancy and stability of thmgs in our big world.
Weare already acquainted with one such conversion the mutual transformatIOn of protons into neutrons and
of neutrons into protons that lies at the heart of
nuclear forces. In thrs process, a proton that has emitted
a POSitive pi-meson converts mto a neutron. while a
neutron converts into a proton upon captunng a meson
But, as we recall, the neutron may emit a negative
pi-meson and convert into a proton.
Maybe It IS this meson that comes out of the nucleus
10 beta disintegration
No. precise measurements of mass
212

have shown that this does not occur The nucleus

ejects not a pi-meson but a particle two hundred and
some times lighter, the electron. Under the conditions
of beta drsmtegrauon mesons never leave the nuclei.
We shall have to go ahead a bit once again. A few
years after the discovery of the neutron. physrcists
established that thrs cornerstone of atomic nuclei was
an unstable particle A free neutron outside the nucleus
converts Into a proton In an average of Just about 12
minutes after Its birth. It IS m this transformation that
an electron and a neutnno are ermtted
The soluuon to beta decay now seems close at hand.
Aren't these the two particles that come out of the
nucleus') They certainly are. But a neutron m the nucleus
is no free neutron. A nuclear neutron should turn into
a proton 111 quite a different way.
Stili. It seems a shame to give up this trail that took
so much effort and time to find In the maze of beta
decay Maybe the neutron in the nucleus can become
free for Just a moment or two.
No. not even for a moment. to say norhmg of twelve
minutes. But we recall that nuclei which emit beta
particles are either themselves unstable (for Instance,
the massive nuclei of elements towards the end of the
Penodic Table) or are put IOta an unstable slate by
neutron bombardment.
Now the ermssron of beta
particles IS nothmg other than an attempt of the nucleus
to pass from an unstable state to a more stable state
A leaning wall may be held up by outside supports
In the atomic nucleus everything IS done from withrn,
and much better too. We have had occasion to compare
protons With the buildmg stones of the nuclear edifice.
and neutrons with cement that holds them together in
a firm structure. But what do we do If the budd 109
Itself IS not so solidly constructed or If It experiences
21l

a strong blow from outside - for instance. the Impact of

a neutron?
Nature restores equihbnum by converting cement into
stones If there 1S toO much, and stones mto cement.
If they are m excess and threcltcn the nuclear house
These transformations
take place With the ejection
from the nucleus of "surpluses' or 'deficlts' of charge.
A proton brick changmg into neutron cement gets rid
of charge and ejects It 10 the form of a positron (the
postttvely charged rrurror Image of the electron). When
a neutron turns into a proton, It ejects an electron
and thus mcreases the total charge of the nucleus
How fast do these transformatIOns take place? Not
III 12 rnmutes
We have already said that the posiuon
of a neutron In the nucleus IS radically different from
the condtnons under which its free cousin lives Sometimes the condtnons In the nucleus are such that It
cannot stand the unstable state for even thousandths
of a second
Sometimes these conditions Inhibit the decay of a
neutron or proton Then the nucleus lives a long time
before beta decay starts up. a very long time, sometimes as long as hundreds and thousands of years on
the average Generally speaklllg. there IS nothing very
remarkable III that - the hvmg condltlon~ of the nuclear
parucles are Just as diverse as the number of different
standardized nuclear structures.
At present. quantum mecbamcs cannot predict accurately the mean lifetime of heta-radlOaclive nuclei.
This IS due not only to our very approximate knowledge of nuclear archItecture (which. in the final analysis.
amounts to a knowledge of nuclear forces) The potnt
IS that quantum mechanics IS not yet able 10 account
10 some reasonable
way for the very fact of dlsmtegration of a free neutron
214

p-----------Underlying this disintegration

are some marvellous
forces, the discovery of which 10 recent years has revoluuoruzed many concepts of physics. But we shall talk
about

them

in the next chapter.

The Hungry Nucleus

Let us come back
of bela decay. One

[0

of

some very interesting

them IS that nuclei

always eject only electrons.

It sometimes
happens that

electrons
electrons

the

mirror

features
do not

images

of

fly out of the nucleus. They differ from

In

only one way -

In

electnc

charge;

they are

positively charged. It IS even more difficult to account

for this type of beta decay (which. incidentally, is less
frequent than the ordinary electron-ejection
decay).
A neutron cannot throw out positive electrons.

A proton

could do this and turn mto a neutron. But, unlike

a neutron,

a proton

IS

absolutely

stable with regard to

bela dismtegration.
And agam we come up against the question:
How
can particles that were never in the nucleus come out
of It? The situanon now seems to be even more difficult. We can understand where electrons come from from the nuclear neutron. But where do the posiuve
electrons - positrons - come from?
The answer has been found, but we will have to put
this drscussion off till our next chapter. Just a little

more pauence. If

It

WIll help any, we can say that the

final stage is going to be really exciung. A little patience

all that is needed.

To pacify the reader we'll tell a little story about
how the nucleus eats electrons out of the atomic cloud.
PhYSICistS named this ferocious behavIOur 'electron cap-

IS

ture'.
::!IS

But how IS this possible? At the very beginning of

the book, we said that the quantum laws of atomic
life discovered by Bohr mdirectly reflect the impossibility of atormc 'suicide'. For this purpose orbits were
introduced so that electrons would not lose energy by
radiation and would not fall IOta the nucleus
In light atoms where the nuclear charge IS small
and there are few electrons, the prohibitions of quantum
mechamcs are smngently adhered to: the electron 'cloud
of probability' does not get IOta the region occupied
by the nucleus. But in heavy nuclei, the very deepestlying electrons (10 shells closest to the nucleus) find
themselves In quite different condmons.
On the outside they are repulsed by large numbers of
electrons, from the inside they are just as strongly
attracted by the heavy postttve nucleus. The electrons
can't stand that ambivalent acuon for long. Electron
clouds begm to push IOta the forbidden zone. A slight
probability appears of atomic electrons finding themselves 10 the nucleus. And If there is a probabIlity,
sooner or later In some atom nature Will realize It.
This IS the capture of an electron by a nucleus.
Now that we've got an electron in the nucleus, what
happens? The charge of the nucleus will dtmmtsh by
one unit, as rn the case of positron beta decay. And
the spm? The spin of the nucleus will remain the same.
even though it received an extra portion from the
electron
If that IS the case, then only one conclUSIOn is posSible: the spin brought In by the electron IS carried
out of the nucleus by another parttcle - the old partner
or our electron, the neutnno. The dIfference now IS
that It IS not released 10 a team With the electron but
appears when an electron disappears In the nucleus.
And so the only witness to the "murder' In the atomic
216

mtenor IS a neutnno, that elusive incorporeal spmt. As

we know, to interrogate this guy IS exceptionally drfficult, well nigh impossrble
Yet In recent years that has been done. And here's
how Our 'wuness' can collide with another nucleus and
convert a proton into a positive electron and a neutron,
which IS the Inverse process of what we are going to
discuss in the next chapter. It's called Inverse beta
decay.
To try to experiment with single neutnnos IS hopeless.
The only way IS to collect whole arrrues of them,
Then perhaps a few will be caught.
That IS exactly what was done when nuclear reactors
began producing powerful fluxes of neutrons. When
absorbed in the walls of the reactor, they mduce artificial radroacuvity. No small contribuuon IS made by
excited nuclei too. the fragments of disintegrating
nuclei.
This IS beta radioactivity. A nuclear reactor generates
enormous quantities of neutrinos every second; with
the greatest ease they pass through the reactor shielding
that holds In neutrons and gamma rays
Near our reactor was a very large scmtillation counter.
It was lilled with a hquid (toluene) which contained
an abundant supply of hydrogen nuclei and scmullated when gamma photons appeared. The positrons
generated m the capture of neutnnos quick I) combined
with electrons In the atoms of the liquid, yieldmg energetic
gamma photons where they merged (for more details
about this exciting event, see the following chapter).
That is when the counter produced ItS first scintillation
To facrhtate neutron capture. chemically pure cadmium, whose nuclei avidly absorb free neutrons, IS added to the liquid Here too, neutron capture IS ac2[7

compaOled by the emission of gamma photons and

produces scmtillanon.
Thus, two scmtlllatlons separated by an interval of
a millionth fraction of a second should give some clue
to the expected phenomenon.
And these double flashes (which are very mfrequent only a few dunng many hours of reactor operation}
were actually recorded There could be only one cause:
the collision of a neutrino and a proton to generate
a posttron and a neutron. Thus, a quarter of a century
after Paull advanced his nypotnesis one more particle
of the mrcroworld, born at the pomt of a pencil. was
rdenttfied.
Subsequent investigations showed that the neutnno
IS mdeed one of the most remarkable ofall microparucles. But that IS a later story.
This completes our Journey With quantum mechanics
into the nuclear world. There are still many tangles
and snags and pitfalls, 10 fact, no end of them.
We are now going into a still darker world, that of
the elementary particles of matter, a world which
maOifests most clearly the regulanues and laws that
have been reflected in the wave properhes of particles
of matter and the matenal properties of waves.

From atomic nuclei

to elementary particles

The Discovery of a New World

What, would It seem, could be more solid and stable
than an atomic nucleus? It IS unaffected by high pressures, extreme temperatures. enormous electric and magnetic fields The strongest buildmgs of nature arc nuclear
structures. That was what phystcrsts thought.
The development of SCience has Since modified that
Idea qune substanually. Most heavy nuclei have proved
to be very unstable. Even among the light and medium
nuclei there were quue a few feeble structures. Gradually, It emerged that as nature lays the bricks In nuclear
structures, the slightest deviations in the proportions of
protons and neutrons In the nucleus make for Instability.
At the same time, In order to account for the observed
ermssion from the nucleus (during disintegrations) of
particles that had never been mside it, science had to
presume that a neutron m the nucleus could convert
into a proton, and vice versa. ThIS led on to the Idea of
a neutrino.

The stability Itself of the nucleus was, It appeared,

due to a new particle called the pi-meson. In the search
for this particle, physicrsts discovered the mu-meson.
219

Gradually, It dawned on scienusts that the world of

building stones that make up atoms and the" nuclei
was not quue so invariable and stable as had been
thought. In the depths of the atom and 10 the snll
greater profundities of the atomic nucleus. investigators
encountered events that out marvelled all the predrcnons
of quantum mechanics.
But quantum mechanics coped with this new SItuation
too. Its remarkable capacity for predictrons flowered
III the new world of elementary
particles. Skeptics were
thunderstruck
as each new predrcnon was brilliantly

corroborated by experiment. This was all the more

remarkable because each new step In the ultrarrucroworld was a contradrcuon of common sense.
Common sense, indeed! SCience would still be crawling
along at a snail's pace If SCientists were guided solely
by everyday common sense.
The most extraordinary drscovenes are usually made
when common sense goes topsy-turvy. The true essence
of many things lies not on the surface but deep down
The commonplace and the obvious are frequently decepuve The word 'frequently' becomes <always'when science
delves into the fantastic world of the ulrasmall.
Let's go back to the year 1928. The new world IS
JUst beginning to unfold. We have learned of two particles,
the proton and the electron. Quantum mechanics IS
only three years old. True, It has been very successfully solving one enigma after the other We have at
last properly grasped the hydrogen atom, the formation
of hydrogen molecules, the tunnel effect has Just helped
us to understand the emission of alpha particles by
radioactive nuclei. We sull know practically nothing
about nuclear and other particles.
Then along comes a young Enghsh physicist, Paul
DIrac (how young Indeed they all are: Schrodinger 38,

no

Heisenberg

2H, and Dirac 25), and says that the suc-

cesses of quantum

mechanics

may turn out to be short-

lived, for this theory grew out of classical physics which

described only relatively slow motrons of bodies.
Yet, can we consider the motion of an electron
10
an atom slow even In the old Bohr theory, when an
electron orbits the nucleus millIOns of nullrons of urnes

every second? ln light nuclei, an electron has velocities

of the order of thousands of kilometres per second, In
the heavier nuclei velocities nse to hundreds of thousands of kilometres per second.
Defimtely

not slow!

mechanics
partrcles. But how?
quantum

Which means we've got to extend

to

these

fast

motions

of

atomic

About twenty years earher, a theory appeared which

dealt precisely with the fast rnouons of ordinary bodies.
It was called the special theory of relativity. The author
was Ai bert Einstern
Dirac

concluded

that

the

way

10 extend

quantum

mechamcs
to the fast motions of rmcroparucres
was
by comblnlllg
It with the special theory of relativity.

The Invisible Dividing Line

In this small book we cannot. of course, give a detailed
descnpnon of the theory of relanvuy. It would require
another whole book of its own, so we shall take a look
only at what IS directly connected with Our story.
First of all, let us figure out what IS to be termed
fast and slow monons, In ordinary hfe this IS fairly
clear: a snail's pace IS slow and a jet aircraft IS fast.
Subjective?
Yes. But the measure of slowness and
fastness was man's movements,
the way he walks or
runs.
221

But take a long look at a fast tram 10 the dIStance - how slow It moves Or a Jet plane far off In
the sky, again slow. Even an artificial satellite doesn't
seem to move fast. Fast and slow are relauve concepts,
very much so. In fact.
Physrcists were not satisfied
with such notions.
They needed some kind of constant measure of
velocity not connected with human beings. so that It
could be used to evaluate all other velociues of motion.
Maybe take the speed of the earth 10 Its orbital
progress about the sun? Not so bad, generally speaking.
But since man has penetrated telescopically deep into
space, It would be better to lind a measure not connected

with the earth or the sun or,

In

fact, with any

specific astronomical body. Something applicable to anythrng In the universe, universal.

Nature graciously offered the velocity of propagation
of electromagnetic waves In vacuum, the velocity of
light photons 10 empty space. ThIS speed IS roughly
300,000 kilometres per second and IS the greatest of
all known velocities.
There is nothing faster. all motions relative to that
of light are slower. Physrcrsts use the term 'fast' for
those motions which are close to the velocity of light.
This IS a rather arbitrary divrsion, actually only a convenuon, but there IS profound meaning In II

As velociues approach that of hght, the properues

of the bodies begin to change substantially
and
unexpectedly. especially objects consisung of large numbers of particles. Here. It IS easy to account for such
changes.
One obvIOUS change IS the increase 10 mass of a body

as u approaches the velocity of hgnt. The closer It

gets to this velocity. the greater the Increase In mass.
Outwardly, this IS seen 10 the fact the body beg ms to

resist the force that is Increasing Its speed. As a result,

a greater and greater force has to be applied In order
10 build up the speed of the body.
But there IS no force great enough to make it move
with the velocuy of light. The theory of relanvny slates
that no materia! body can be made to move at that
velocity. By materia! body we mean any body (or assembly of particles) that can be at rest. Photons, as
we shall see later on, cannot be at rest, and so the theory
of relativlly does nOI apply to them.
In the language of mathematics, thrs Idea IS expressed
by the famous equation
m(l') =

mo
-:r===~""

V I - v'le'

Here, II~V) is the mass the body has when moving with
a velocny of v; nto IS the so-called rest mass which the
body has when It IS not In motIOn, and C IS the velocity of light
From thrs relatJOnshlp It is clear thai as v approaches
c, the denommator diminishes, lirst slowly and then
faster and faster. Accordmgjy, m{v) Increases, Since mo
IS a constant quantny independent of the velocity. Finally,
when v equals r', the mass of the body m(e) becomes
mhnitely great. In other words, the body should have
an mfinltely great mass.
It is obvIOUS thai only an mfinllely great force could
do such a thmg. But nature knows no such mfimte mass
Orinfinae force. The urnverse as such is infimte, but there
are no other infimtles In a.
We have already said that this formula cannot be
applied to photons. Rather, II doesn't YIeld anything.
Photons cannot be at rest. We can say thrs differently:
the rest mass of a photon IS zero. Putting thrs value
for mo into Our relatIon, we find thai for a photon
223

velocity equal to c, the mass m(c) would be 0/0.

Mathematics says that this is indeterminate, which means
it can have any value whatsoever.
That IS exactly the case, as we shall see later on:
the mass or a photon can be anything, large or small.
But It exists only when II = c. All of this means that
photons can move only with the velocity or light.
That's the velocity or light, for you! No matenal
parucle can have it and at the same time no photon can
have any other velocity. And so the velocity or light
IS an unsurmountable
barrrer between material particles
and photons.
Why don't we notice the mass Increase predicted by
relativity theory In ordinary hfe? Let us exarnme the
escape velocity of a rocket moving at 11 kilometres
per second. We calculate the Increase in mass over the
rest mass It has on earth. If It weighed 100 kilograms
on earth. the 11 km/s velocity would mcrease its mass
by 0.35 milligram!
But If we get the speed up to 250,000 krn/s, Its
mass Will Increase more than twice over the rest mass.
That is what happens to charged atomic particles accelerated to high velociues m special machines called
particle accelerators. That IS what designers have to
keep in rmnd when constructing such devices.

A Bit More about the Theory of Relativity

Changes In velocity that bring bodies close to the
speed or light have other things in store for us. The
mass changes and the very course of time itself IS
altered. PhYSICiStScall It the proper time or the body.
Our bodies have their own 'clocks'. as It were. They
lick In step WIth the rhythm or the vital body proces-

ses.
224

On the other hand, we get up, go to work, and go

to bed in accordance
with the 'general' time, the time
of ordmary clocks, which are geared to the alternation
of day and night, to the rotation of the earth on Its
aXIS.

"How fast time IS Ilying", or "How lime drags on"that is OUf own time we are talking about, OUf subjective
tune geared to OUf bodily functions. Yet there IS an
objective side to this too. The faster the rhythm,

the

faster the time.

There IS a very definite

analogy of this In relativity

theory. Relativity theory states that the faster a body
IS moving,
the body

the slower Its proper lime flows. so that

'general' time as flowing faster.

VieWS

This 'clock paradox' is familiar talk today because

of interest in long-distance spaceflights. In science-fiction
stories, astronauts moving in photon rockets at velociues
close to that of light return to earth after a cosmic

voyage of, sal', 10 years, and find that their friends

have aged tremendously. "How the years new by," they
say. Which IS true. because
on the spaceship
the
proper

flowed

time

more slowly

that on the earth.

What

we have described about the time may be

expressed mathematically
as follows:
I(V) = 10

Here, I(V)

IS

V I - v'le'

the time proper of the astronaut's

watch,

to IS the time

reckoned on an earth clock. The other

quanuues 10 the equation have their ordinary meaning.
From this formula It follows that for photons moving
with the velocity of ltght, ume doesn't move at all!
If we could put a clock on a photon, time would stand

stili - the clock wouldn't

Relanve
15-7U

theory

go.

has other

paradoxes.

but we shan't
225

deal with them here. We have one more equation that

very Important role later on. ThIS is the
famous Einstein equation

will playa

Eo

moc2

Here, Eo is the energy of a stationary body with rest

mass mI). To distinguish it from the kineuc or potennal
energy. we call it the rest energy or the energy proper
of the body.
It will be seen that It is Independent of either the
velocity or the positron of the body. Classical phySICS
knows only two types of energy. ThIS new type has no
place In classical phySICS.It IS something very special
that WIll be taken up a bit later. For the present let
us return to relanvity theory and how It was introduced
into Quantum mechanics.
The First Difficulties
So we have Dirac trying to combine the two greatest
theones of the twentieth century. ThIS new 'alloy' should
strengthen the quantum theory In the face of an onslaught
of new facts from the world of the ultrasmall.
The Schrodinger equation was a quantum mechanical
passkey to all kmds of safes of nature. But certain facts
It couldn't handle, so ways were sought to Improve it.
It was soon found that to hnk this equation wah
the theory of relativity was no easy Job. The first thing
that Dirac thought was that the modi ned equatron
would yield relativrstically mvanant solutions. (The future
showed he was not exactly nght. But who knows, if
It hadn't been for tbis 'happy' error, DIrac might have
passed by a remarkable discovery ')
Relatrvrsucally
invariant - ternfymg words these. Actuallv, a frightenmg sentence to "II physical theories.
226

A theory with this label can be thrown out, it is simply

no good.
The gist of the matter IS this. Have you ever tried
playing ball on a boat? Try to imagine playing ball on an
airplane. Is there any difference from the game on the
ground? That's right, there isn't. True, with one proviso:
the boat or plane must be in uniform monon at a constant
velocity.
There is no way of distinguishing rest from uniform
motion, no matter what the speed. Without the alternation of day and night we wouldn't be able to perceive
the monon of the earth on its axis. Without the change
of seasons we wouldn't know the earth was moving
round the sun. Strictly speakmg, the latter two examples
are not exactly true, because rotation is always accelerated motion. But in Our case the accelerations are
so Insignificant that we can regard both motions as
uniform.
All the motions of bodies in a spaceship moving With
a velocity close to that of light should not differ from
those on the earth

(If,

of course, the gravitation

IS

the

same, that is, if it has been artificially produced In

some wayan the spaceship). And since the motions of
bodies do not depend on the velocity of the reference
system used to reckon their posiuons in space and time,
whether it IS the earth or a spaceship, the laws of motion
of these bodies must also be Independent of the system
of reference.
In all reference systems, no matter with what velocity
they are moving uniformly relative to one another, the
equations of the laws of monon must be the same. In
other words, these equations must be mvanable relative
to different velocities.
These words 'invariable relative to' are translated into
the language of physics as 'relativistically invariant',

'"

227

deal with them here. We have one more equation that

will playa very Important role later on. ThIS is the
famous Einstein equation

Eo =

ntoe2

Here, Eo is the energy of a stauonary body with rest

mass tnf). To disunguish it from the kineuc or potential
energy. we call it the rest energy or the energy proper
of the body.
It will be seen that It is independent of euher the
velocity or the position of the body. Classical phySICS
knows only two types of energy. ThIS new type has no
place 10 classical phySICS. It IS something very special
that wtll be taken up a brt later. For the present let
us return to relativity theory and how It was introduced
mto Quantum mechanics.

The First Difficulties

So we have Dirac trying to combine the two greatest
theones of the twentieth century. This new 'alloy' should
strengthen the quantum theory 10 the face of an onslaught
of new facts from the world of the ultras mall.
The Schrodinger equation was a quantum mechanical
passkey to all kinds of safes of nature. But certatn facts
It couldn't handle, so ways were sought to Improve it.
It was soon found that to lmk this equation with
the theory of relativity was no easy Job. The first thing
that Dirac thought was that the modified equation
would yield relativrsncally mvanant solutions. (The future
showed he was not exactly nght. But who knows, if
It hadn't been for this 'happy' error, DIrac might have
passed by a remarkable discoveryl)
Relauvrsucally invariant - ternfymg words these. Actually, a frightenmg sentence to all physical theories.
226

A theory with this label can be thrown out, it is simply

no good.
The gist of the matter IS this. Have you ever tried
playing ball on a boat? Try to imagine playing ball on an
airplane. Is there any difference from the game on the
ground? That's right, there isn't. True, with one proviso:
the boat or plane must be in uniform motion at a constant
velocity.
There is no way of distinguishing rest from uniform
motion, no matter what the speed. Without the alternation of day and night we wouldn't be able to perceive
the monon of the earth on its axis. Without the change
of seasons we wouldn't

know the earth was moving

round the sun. Strictly speaking, the latter two examples

are not exactly true, because rotation is always accelerated motion. But in our case the accelerations are
so Insignificant that we can regard both motions as

uniform.
All the motions of bodies in a spaceship moving With
a velocity close to that of light should not differ from
those on the earth (If, of course, the gravrtatron
IS the
same, that is, if it has been artificially produced In
some way on the spaceship). And since the motions of
bodies do not depend on the velocity of the reference
system used to reckon their positions in space and time,
whether it IS the earth or a spaceship, the laws of motion
of these bodies must also be independent of the system
of reference.
In all reference systems, no matter with what velocity
they are moving uniformly relative to one another, the
equations of the laws of motion must be the same. In
other words, these equations must be mvanable relative
to different velocities.
These words 'invariable relative to' are translated into
the language of physics as 'relativistically mvanant'.
IS'

227

Their grim meaning IS this: if an equation states that

In a spaceship moving with a velocity close to that of
light a ball describes a hyperbola, while on earth it
describes a parabola, then the equation is faulty and
has to be discarded.
That is what happened when attempts were made to
modify the SchrOdmger equauon.

An Unexpected Discovery
In his search for a way out, DIrac proposed an
unusual thing - he introduced into the Schrodinger
equatIOn four wave function in place of one. The resultmg equation was quite unlike the anginal one. But
the new equation yielded excellent relativIStIcally mvariant solutions.
There were four solutions, according to the number
of wave functions in the equation. But how are we to
comprehend four 'probabilIties' for an electron m place
of one?
The meaning of the first two solutions would probably
have remained obscure for many years If electron spm
had not been discovered three years before
So the first two solutions of the Dirac equatIOn correspond to the two possible senses of electron spm
relative to the direcuon of motion of the electron. The
spin was calculated from this solution and It proved
to be In excellent agreement with expenment!
Now we'll have to talk a little more about spin.
First of all, spin corresponds to some sort of monon
of the electron wrth a velocity close to that of light.
Indeed, if for a moment we try to mterpret spm as
the result of an electrOnIc "rotation on 11s own axis'
(we have already said that such a nonon IS completely
228

wrong), it will turn ou, that the velocity of the electron

in this 'rotation' is only the smallest fraction of a per
cent less than the speed of light.
It stands to reason that the motion which we have
in view when speaking of spin has nothing whatsoever
to do with the ordmary motion of an electron in
ordinary space. The spin of an electron is in no way
dependent on ordinary motion. It exists irrespective
of whether the electron IS moving fast or slow or is
at rest. The value of the spin is always the same.
The spin is Just as Intrinsic a property of particles
as, say, their rest energy. If we change the spin, we
change the type of particle. We'll be returning to this
agam.

How is spin manifested? A little was said about this

when we discussed atomic spectra. As far back as the
end of last century, It was found that if a substance
IS Introduced IOta a magnetic field, its spectral lines
get split into various numbers of fainter lines. It was
later estabhshed that a similar sphtrmg is expenenced
by the spectral lines of the atoms of all elements.
An understanding of the nature of this phenomenon
(called the Zeeman elTect) and especially the reason for
lme splitting Into different numbers of 'satellite' lines
was obtained only In 1925 when two young physicists
Uhlenbeck and Goudsrmt Introduced the notion of spin.
Subsequent reasoning went like this. The eJectron
has spin, that is, m the fmal analysis, angular momentum.
The ongm of it does not Interest us yet; the important
thing IS that It corresponds to some kind of motion
of the electron. But electron monon is electnc current current due to a single particle. 'Rear current IS
produced by the motion of large numbers of electrons.
Current, as has been known for over a century, IS
capable of magnetic action. Put otherwise, an electron
229

Their grim meaning IS this: if an equation states that

In a spaceship moving with a velocity close to that of
light a ball descnbes a hyperbola. while on earth it
describes a parabola, then the equation is faulty and
has to be discarded.
That is what happened when attempts were made to
modify the Schrodinger equation.

An Unexpected Discovery
In his search for a way out, Dirac proposed an
unusual thing - he introduced into the Schrodinger
equation four wave function in place of one. The resultmg equation was quite unlike the onginal one. But
the new equation yielded excellent relativistically Invariant solutions.
There were four solutions, according to the number
of wave functions in the equation. But how are we to
comprehend four 'probabrhttes' for an electron In place
of one?
The meaning of the first two solutions would probably
have remained obscure for many years If electron spin
had not been discovered three years before
So the first two solutions of the Dirac equation correspond to the two possible senses of electron spin
relative to the direction of motion of the electron. The
spin was calculated from this solution and It proved
to be 10 excellent agreement with experiment!
Now we'll have to talk a little more about spin.
First of all, Spin corresponds to some sort of motion
of the electron with a velocity close to that of light.
Indeed, if for a moment we try to Interpret spin as
the result of an electronic 'rotation on Its own axis'
(we have already said that such a notion IS completely
228

wrong), it will turn ou. that the velocity of the electron

in thrs 'rotation' is only the smallest fraction of a per
cent less than the speed of light.
It stands to reason that the motion which we have
in view when speaking of spin has nothing whatsoever
to do with

the ordinary

motion

of an electron

in

ordinary space. The spin of an electron is in no way

dependent on ordinary motion. It exists irrespective
of whether the electron IS moving fast or slow or is
at rest. The value of the spin is always the same.
The spin is Just as intrinsic a property of particles
as, say, their rest energy. If we change the spin, we
change the type of particle. We'll be returning to this
again.

How is spin manifested? A little was said about this

when we discussed atomic spectra. As far back as the
end of last century, It was found that if a substance
IS Introduced into a magnetic field, its spectral lines
get split into various numbers of fainter lines. It was
later established that a similar splntmg is experienced
by the spectral lines of the atoms of all elements.
An understanding of the nature of this phenomenon
(called the Zeeman effect) and especially the reason for
line spltttmg tnto different numbers of 'satellite' lines
was obtained only m 1925 when two young physicists
Uhlenbeck and Goudsrmt mtroduced the notion of spin.
Subsequent reasoning went hke this. The electron
has spin, that is, In the final analysis, angular momentum.
The ongm of it does not interest us yet; the important
thing IS that It corresponds to some kind of motion
of the electron. But electron motion is electnc current ~
current due to a single parucle. 'Real' current IS
produced by the motion of large numbers of electrons.
Current, as has been known for over a century, IS
capable of magnetic action. Put otherwise, an electron
229

may be pictured as a rmnute constant magnet. if an

elementary magnet of this kind IS Introduced into
a rnagneuc field, it will orient itself in the held.
In the simplest possible case we have t.wo onentauons:
one with the magnetic field [absounely siaole], and
the other counter to the field (absolutely unstable].
Now what tS stability? When a magnet aligns Itself
witn the Iielc, its potenual energy in the field is
a IIlll1l1ItUIIl. in the coumer-lield case, the energy is
a maximum.
What quanutauve
drlferencc IS there oetween the
energies? This call be easily calculated and converted
to a differenc...
e of wavelengths of pnotons euutted
In an atom by electrons with SpInS with and counter
to a magnetic field.
The" It appears that all doubled spectral hues are
spht exactly the number of times yielded by the two
opposite onentauons of eleccrun spin!
The next quesuon is about the "fat' hnes that have
spht up m10 three, four and larger numbers of satellites.
The two orientations of spin yield only a pair of
satellites! And there couldn't be any more because
the electronic magnets juu.p straignt through to the
most stable pos.tion.
At this POInt we recau tiiat the electron parucrpates
1I1 the new motion
that produces spin arid IS aiso
UI orbit about
the atomic nucleus. Actually, the orbital
mot1011
IS also a G:.I"SI n.ouon
of so .ts, The nouon
of a 'ciouo of j';uoaolhty' coes 110l pt.illlit us to trunk
up a n.ore picronal image of electron r; .Oi.l011 III the
atom.
Still, 11 1S monon, a kmu 01 unuary current. and
the acuon It produces resembles thal of a small n.agnet,
Things are now fairly complicated: all eiec.ron 111 all
atom IS hke a double magnet.
230

How does such a magnet behave In a rnagueuc held?

Strangely enough. In place of two Orientations we have
three, four and even larger numbers. As the eleineutary
magnet of the electron passes from a less stable
orientauon to a more stable orrentariun, it can come
to a stop at a nuruoer of intermediare posiuons,
The energies of these positrons are mregral fracuons
of the maXUHUII1energy between the extreme pOSHJOns
of the magnet. Which means that these are very definite
energies separated by quantum intervals of a specific
magnitude. Physrcists called this phenomenon of definite
onentauons of electron magnets 10 atoms 10 a magnetic
field 'space quantization'.
Now the rest becomes comprenensi ble, A spectral
liue splits Into Just as many satellite lines as there are
orrentatrons
that can be assumed by the electron
magnet. Calculations of differences of satellite wavelengths likewise exhibit excellent agreement
with
experiment.
For the tune being that is enougn about Spin, winch
came up so suddenly from DIrac's equation. The equation has two more solunons.
A

StHI More Unexpected Discovery

These two SOiUllOl1S are very much alike, just as

the first 1wo corresponded to opposite oneruanons of
electron Spin.
Here, too, we nave lWO opposites: one of the
onen.auous
corresponds
[0
posiuve total electron
energy and the other to negauve total electron energy.
Nothing surpnsing, you say, we have already seen that
the total energy can have either SIgn, depenoing on
whether the electron IS III free night or is associated
with other particles, as JI1 an atom.
231

But the Dirac equation

IS

wntten only for a free

electron!
"Hhm!" So the DIrac electron is free and bound
at the same time. Nonsense!
Dirac himself realized that this was nonsense.
The sImplest thmg, of course. would be to discard
what you don't need, Just like one does when he gets
20 square metres plus or mlOUS for the area of a room.
The negative value runs counter to common sense.
So we could reject the negative energy of a free
electron as bemg physically meamngless.
However, DIrac did not hurry to do this. Like
the Enghshman that he was, he may have been full
of common sense. But as a screnust he went to look
[or the ongin of the nonsense. For It might be that
even nonsense has some meamng.
Dirac finally came up With an excumg Idea. It might
be that the 'crazy' solution belongs not to an electron
but to some other particle with charge opposite to that
of the electron. The electron charge is negative, so this
particle should have a positive charge. Both should be
equal, however, III absolute value. Dirac thought that
the proton rmght do, but It was soon found that
the negative energy had to belong to a particle WIth
mass exactly equal to that o[ the electron. The proton
would definitely not do, [or It was nearly two thousand
times more massrve than the electron. The only
POSSibility was a mirror image of the electron.
However, this picture doesn't explam the negative
total energy of such a positive particle. H the energy
IS negative, that means the particle 15 bound to
something. The electron IS absolutely free, all other
particles, upon solution of the equation. are removed
so far away that electrical interaction can be disregarded.
The electron is alone in motion m a boundless and
232

absolute void. Where then do we get this second,

positive, particle, the mirror Image of the electron?
At this point Dirac got the craziest notton of all.
The void, the vacuum, which does not contam a single
particle except the sole electron, IS not empty at all!
QUite the contrary,
It IS filled to overflowing
with
electrons! The posmve mirror Image of the electron
is a hole in a filled empuness!
Madness, complete madness, yet there IS an audacity
here that saves things.
What do we call space In which no instrument, no
matter how sensinve, will ever be able to detect a single
particle? Empty!
Now take it easy. Suppose It contains particles that
cannot interact with the instrument. Then even if the
space is loaded with particles, you will continue to call
it empty space.
True enough, but how can particles be divested
of their ability to Interact? Doesn't that contradict
their very essence?
Conclusions can walt a bit. Let us first try to probe
the structure of a metal with a weak electnc Ireld.
We detect current and we say that the metal IS filled
with free electrons. However, If we confined ourselves
to this single experrrnent we would get a wrong concepnon of the metal. For there are stili atoms there
whose electrons cannot Interact with, say, an ammeter.
These electrons reside In atomic levels, in a 'well'.
And they are not able to get out so as to Interact
with the measurmg Instrument because they haven't
energy enough.
Of course you wilt say that with a different Instrument
and In a different expenment It should be possible
to find atoms and even atomic nuclei III the metal,
whereas a vacuum IS not detectable by any kind
233

of I11SBuinent. t1ellCe, tnere IS notnmg 10 It and there

can't be anytrnng.
So says common sense. Dirac says differently.
The vacuum is completely filled wtth electrons.
The entire universe takes part in the fonnauon of
a urufred vacuu.o of mnrute extent. Infuute quantuies
of elec.rous 10 It fill mfirutely
great numbers of
energy levels of tne vacuum, Ionmng a unthed and
interrelated assemoly of particles. In accord With Pauli's
pnucipie, each level can accommodate two eiectrons
with opposite S1JlOS, and no more.
The common 'universal well' 111 which tne electrons
are located is both capacious and deep. Its top energy
2
level lies at the energy distance of moc from the zero
of total energy downwards. And so all the electrons
In the vacuum must have negauve e.iergies.
No instruments can detect these vacuum electrons
unul tney Jump out of their well. Obviously, the first
2
thuig to do IS impart to them an energy of moe
Yet that is not enough. We have already seen that
every particle. whether at rest or 111 motion, has a proper
energy moc2
In order to get out of the vacuum, tile elec.ron must
2
not only overcome the barrier of height moc ; It also
2
has to acquire the rest energy moc to which it IS
entitled. Whence vie see tuat the total neight of the
barrier sq~ala~mg vacuum e~ec~rons from tneir interac2
tion wnh an mstrur.ient is 2ntoc
Tnat IS q.u,e a substannai energy. Suffice rt to say
rna, It IS on.y within the past trurty years that vTIySICIStS
have Leen able to impart to eiectroliS energIes of this
magnHude. When DIrac propused hIS 'overloaded'
vacuum, enei gles hke thIS weI e suB belllg dreamed
about.
Hut why can t electrOl'i.SInLei<tcl With the Instrument
234

t///

e
~

,"

Observable
particles
"'"loC2.

--

~I

- ---~~

P05lrrvn

,/

__________

L.

_.

,1

-==;~~t::;
=0-"-_

2111oC2

-h7oC2

Vacuum

,--3

Fi g. ~~
while III vacuu.n
rr.etars? Again

In

along ine ru.es

the Paull pnncrpie

ot wnat happens
gives tne answer.

Every m.eracuon of bodies IS a change of their

energy. It IS VIa this change that we detect the tn.eraction. By m.eracung with an ms.rurnent,
an electron In
vacuum could change its ene: gy and pass to some
other level.
the vacuum

BUl the trouble

IS that
ale filled to overflowing

ail the levels in

with electrons!

There simply IS no place.

That IS Wily vac.iura electrons cannot
Tae.y exist

In 1.1e

vacuum,

but they cannot

be detected.
interact with

eacii otner o, witn any mstruruent. These elecuo.,s can

coex.n wun us for any Ier.gtn of lime and we will
neve. SU.!.lJeCItnem, for they never make their whereabouts known In ar.y W<ly.

Let U3 suj.pcse lhai. ror some reason (wnai the actual

cause :5 1I11ir,ai.eJI31 <it th.s point] all elecu on Iii the
vacuum

acqu.res

enough

energy

to jump

OUL

Now
235

that it is free the total energy of the electron is

positive. What happens in the vacuum?
A hole is formed. The site In the vacuum where
the electron had been becomes, as it were, ionized;
it gets a positive charge equal in magnitude to the
charge of the electron.
Now a hole is something we remember from our
dealings with semiconductors.

There, an electron jumped

into the conduction band and left behind a hole

in the filled valence band, in which it had negative
energy. A remarkable analogy, which by the way, ends
fight there. In semiconductors, the hole IS indeed an
'empty site' introduced for the Simple convenience of
descnbmg different types of electron motion in the
valence band and the conduction band.
The hole in a vacuum is something quite different.
Here, it IS in no way different from the electron.
It is a real particle, Just as real as the electron. Like
the electron, the hole has a rest energy of rnoc2. which
IS an energy equal to the depth of the topmost energy
level in the vacuum well.
In other words, the electron and hole ongmate out
of their vacuum 'nonexistence' only in pans. The energy
expended in the production of each particle is rnoc2
[their masses are equal), or 21oc' altogether, as we
have already mentioned.
The electron can roam about the 'free world' and
then return to the vacuum. To do this, it has to meet
a hole and merge with the latter. Then it WIll he
nonobservable again. The hole vanishes too.
But that's not all. Before returning to the vacuum,
the electron has to give up the energy consumed
in ejecting it from the vacuum, or, to put It otherwise,
the energy used to generate It and the hole, that
same 2moc2.
236

In what form will the energy appear? As gamma

photons, which will Ily out of the site at which the
electron and hole merged and will carry ofT this
energy.
The last quesnon IS: Why is the energy taken up
by gamma photons? The SImple POint here IS that
the energy given up by the electron-hole parr before
It drops IOta nonexistence is high enough to correspond
to hard gamma rays. No tess than two (and rarely
more) gamma photons are generated because the merging electron and hole have opposite spins.
This is all very natural: since the total momentum
of the electron and hole In the vacuum is zero, the
momenta cancel when they merge. So a gamma photon
needs a partner with Opposite momentum so that their
total momentum Will be zero. Such are the requirements
of the ccnservanon laws which we mentioned earher.
If a third (say, a nucleus) happens to be near
the encounter of an electron and positron. It can take
up some of the energy and momentum of the colliding
particles. Then there will be one photon in place of two.

The Outlines of Emptiness

Physicists listened to Dirac and shook their heads.
Even the most devoted adherents of quantum mechamrs
refused to take Dirac's theory as anything more than
a good physical joke. Will power was needed to stand
by this 'crazy' hypothesis.
The day was not far ofT, however, when the skeptics
and scoffers had to retreat in disgrace. The day of
a discovery that brought triumph to the Dirac theory.
In 1932, the Englishman Blackett and the Italian
Occhralini exposed a photographic plate to cosrmc rays
and detected two tracks corresponding to an electron
237

,-r'
Gamma

Gamma
proton

photon

Fig.

23

and to an unknown particle of the same mass but with

posiuve charge. The tracks forked out from a single
point in different directions. Since the photograph was
made in a special chamber placed in a magnetIc field,
the different directions of the tracks defimtely indicated
opposite charges.
Thus the hole was recognized and given the name
positron. It was the first in a senes of micropartic1es
now called annparucles. We shall come back to them
a bit later.
The DIrac theory would have an honoured place
In physics even if It stopped with this single prediction
of the positron, But it didn't. Dirac opened the eyes
of phystctsts to utterly new asoects of the world
of the ultrasmalL
FIrst of all about the vacuum. According to Dirac,
it IS filled with electrons that do not interact wnh
particles in the 'above-vacuum' world. When an electron
leaves the vacuum, a positron is immediately generated.
These parncles are born and die only 10 pairs.
But then maybe we could say that the vacuum is
238

filled with positrons

when positrons

the Dirac

and that electrons

leave the vacuum.

theory

considered

appear

In its original

both

equally

only
form,

possible.

However, we give preference to a vacuum

filled with
particles
and not antiparticles.
The reason IS that
electrons are everywhere about us, while positrons are
indeed a rare guest In our world. From this we ought
to conclude that there are far fewer positrons In the
world than there are electrons. But the Dirac theory

states that one particle origmates only with the other,

its annparticle.
Which means that the
electrons and positrons in the world should

Strange!

Still stranger

IS

the fact that

number
of
the same.

be

our world

exists and we exist too, for there is nothing to prevent

all the electrons
from colhdmg with positrons and
falling into the vacuum, leaving behind a drsernbodred
trace 10 the form of gamma photons.
However, an electron doesn't often meet a positron,
in fact, rarely indeed. So there is no reason to get
worried about the world becorrung a vacuum. And so
there are more electrons than positrons! Pllt where do

they go to?
One might think that nature did her best to keep
the positrons
and electrons as far apart as possible.
This is a popular idea among science-fiction
writers
and certain scientists. They maintain that somewhere
in the universe are worlds made of antiparticles, so-called
mirror worlds. In those worlds, the positron is boss
and electrons are occasional
guests.
The next question
IS:
If the electron
has its
antiparticle,
why shouldn't the proton have an antiparticle as well? But then we should have a vacuum
of protons! And, generally, every particle should have
its antiparticle
and, hence, Its own vacuum.
Then

the vacuum

should

be filled (cornoletely

filled l) wrth
239

Fig.

24

neutrons, neutrinos, and mesons. Some void! Rather

like a lurutless repository (well) for all unborn and
dead particles.
Quite

Impressive,

but

somewhat

too

unwieldy.

In a little while, physicrsts gave up the Dirac vacuum

and replaced

It with

more elegant

conceptions.

which

we shall discuss later.

Particles can get out of the well only III pairs after
acquiring sufficient energy. The first to emerge are,
of course, the lightest particles, the neutrinos and
electrons.

For a proton and antiproton,

this energy
be at least two thousand times that for an
electron-positron
pair. The more massive and sluggish

should

the particle,

the more difficult

It is to get out of

the vacuum.

Complete Emptiness?
When an electron-positron
pair vanishes we know
that energetic photons of gamma rays are born. But

why precisely photons

we don't know yet.
240

and not something

else? That

When a billiard ball hits another one, we see the

interaction as one ball flies ofT In the direcnon, and
the other moves on. But try to move a stationary ball
by sending another ball by In a close miss without
touching It. Almost like a horse drawing a cart without
bemg harnessed to It.
In both these cases the bodies Interacted due
to contact: one ball hitting another, the horse pulling
the cart.
Now there is another type of mteracnon. An apple
falls to earth. A magnet attracts iron. Electrified
spheres attract and repel. The very word 'attract'
indicates that the bodies have begun to Interact at
a distance.
Maybe this mteraction IS transmitted through the air.
Experiment has long Since given a negative answer.
The earth attracts the moon, and the sun attracts both,
although they are all separated by a practical vacuum.
The atomic nucleus attracts electrons, although there
is an absolute void between them. All this signifies
that bodies can interact without any contact.
A century ago physicists had given the name 'field'
to regions of space in which such action at a distance
occurs. But they were not ready to accept the fact
that the space between them was empty.
Acuon cannot Occur without an Intermediate medium.
There Simply must be a medium. Accordingly, they
conjured up the 'ether' for the extremely tenuous
something that. permeated all void.
In the course of a number of years, physicists trred
to comprehend the properties of this ether, properties
which, as you recall our discussion at the begmmng
of the book, were truly fantastic, even contradictory.
FInally, expenrnents with light at the end of last century
put the quietus on the ether concept. Within another
16-70

241

few years, Einstein's

theory of relativity

had demon-

strated the complete

hopelessness
of reinstating
ether In any form or shape whatsoever.

the

The ether fell, but there was nothing to replace It.

Physicrsts finally gave In and accepted
action
at
a distance 10 empty space. But how ernpuness could
be the carrier of mteracuon was beyond the comprchenSIDn of even the greatest rrunds, Empty space was
a void, penod.
You certainly said It, the more common sense IS
relied on, the harder it IS to break away. Surely there
can be no doubt that space IS the repository of all
bodies. Isn't that self-evident? A portion of space
occupied by matter IS called a body, a particle, or
what have you. Then there IS space not occupied by
any matter. Thrs we call a void, empty space, a vacuum.
These two portions are not connected
in any way.
Emptiness

does not react on bodies neither do bodies

with the VOId. True, bodies
can interact
through empty space, but the VOid here IS of no concern:
the mteracuon IS due solely to the bodies themselves.

interact

Emptiness Depends on Bodies!

But then appeared

a person

who

not only

became

dubious about this, he reconsidered everything from

top to bottom. He was Albert Einstein and hrs theory
was called

the general

theory

of relanvity.

We have

already spoken of his first theory, the special theory

of relativrty, that has to do wrth fast-moving bodies.
The general theory of relauvity embraces a much
broader problem. In two words, It deals With the
relationship of bodies and space.
The principal Idea of this theory consists In the
statement that matter influences the space around It.
242

Space that is absolutely homogeneous In the absence

of bodies (this, of Course, IS only conceptual space)
loses such homogeneity when a body IS 'introduced'
Into it.
How does this happen and how do we measure
the inhomogeneity? Geometry does thejrrh The geometry
of empty space IS the ordmary geometry of OUf school
days, Euclidean geometry. In this geometry, the shonest
distance between two pornts J5 a straight Ime, parallel
iines never meet There are other 'obvious' statements
called axioms, which are prOpositIOns that are so
self-evident as not to require any proof (which, mcidentally, IS ImposSIble to obtain anyway).
Yet, at the begInning nf last century the Russian
geometer Lobachevsky saw a flaw in one of these
axioms (the parallel aXIOm). He demonstrated that it
was possible to construct a geometry just as noncontradictory, internally, as Euclidean geometry, but
quue contradictory to common sense, rf one gave up
this axiom.

So unusual,

paradoxical

was Lobachevsky's

geometry that no one understood H. For many years,

Lobachevsky's works collected dust on the shelves of
University libraries.
Lobachevsky's COnlemporanes were shocked by hrs
that there IS no such tbmg as a geometry
'In general', applicable to all worlds, that each geometry
IS determmed by the properties of the concrete bodies
that II deals wnh, that the geometry of a space depends
on the bodies and thIngs eXIStIng In that space and
on their configurations. SacrilegIous! Man trying
to change the god-given geometry of the world!
But 10 the works of E10stem these notions now
found a worthy place. Just as there IS no space
without bodies, there IS no Unified homogeneous space.
The shortest line between two POints in empty space
View

16

243

surrounding bodies is now, in the general case, no

longer a straight line but a curved line, called a geodesic.
The closer the two end-points of our curve are to bodies
and the more massive these bodies, the more 'curved'
IS the curve.
How do we know? LIght rays should help us.
The curvature of space due to bodies is very slight
and under ordinary conditions IS not noticeable. We'll
have to take the experiment out rnto interstellar space
and choose some massive object, like our sun, as the
'curving' body. It is naturally most convenient to observe
curvature in a line which we consider to be straight.
If we believe classical physics, this should be a line
produced by a ray of light. This IS what Einstem set
out to refute.
Let us point our telescope at some star and
photograph it. Then we photograph it again when its
light rays pass close to the sun. The first picture is
taken at night, the second, dunng a total eclipse
of the sun.
According to classical physics, both pictures should
show the star in one and the same place on the
photographic plate. Whether the light passes near the
sun or far away from it should make no difference.
According to the general theory of relanvity, however,
the path of light should curve as it passes close
to the sun. The photographic plate should exhibit thrs
curvature as a displacement relative to the first
picture of the star.
In August 1919, a special expedition set out for
the Arabian desert to observe a total solar eclipse.
One of Its tasks was to verify Ernstcm's predrcuon.
Sensational news! The photographs showed space to be
curved; what is more, the curvature was almost exactly
as predicted by Einstein!
244

From that time on, physiCIsts' concepts of empty

space have changed radically. Space has become
a repository not only of bodies, but also of fields.

Matter and Fields

What is a field? Physicists use this word to describe
space In which bodies manifest interaction. However,
there are no nonmteracting bodies; all bodies are
ultimately made up of particles, none of which are
'indifferent' to the others.
For this reason, fields exist everywhere and at all
nmea And not only between bodies, but within them
as well, for there, too, there are voids not filled with
matter. That is the first and most fundamental property
of a field. From this there immediately follows another
conclusion: fields are just as real and universal as is

matter.

A field is different

respect:

matter

from

is tangible,

matter

in one

Important

the field is not (say, an

electr-ic, nuclear, Or gravitational

field). But we cannot

say that it is ImpOSSIble to perceive a field. Take

an apple falling to the ground: the actiori of the
field IS evident from the motion of a body.
There is yet another phenomenon
displayed by
a field - this is light, 'by and of itself. As early as
last century It was established that light IS a special
so-called electromagnetic field.
In his theory of the photoelectric effect, Einstein
introduced the photon. This was an Important concept.
The eJectromagnetic
field was quantized, which is to say,
In the form of individual
particles, quanta

It existed

of the field. The photons were these field quanta.

The history of fields continued to develop. In 1872,
Stoletov found that light is capable of exerting material
245

action by ejecting electrons from metal. In 1900.

Lebedev discovered the pressure of light on bodiesJust as if light consisted
of 'real' particles possessing

mass.
These

two remarkable

of the photon

expenments

and the concept

inevitably

led to the conclusion that

field has rnatenal properties and

the electromagnetic
that field quanta can have the characteristics

of particles

of matter.
This was the first span III the bridge across the
gap between matter and fields. The de Broglie
hypothesis meanwhile was building the bndge from
the other end. Electrons could have wave properties.
Which meant that matter could behave in a field-like
manner.

The field, limitless

dimensions
ponderable.

and Imponderable,

could

have

and mass. Matter, limited In space and

could be depnved of dimensions and mass.

Should we now conclude that

In

place of the former

sharp distmctron between matter and field we must

merge them Into one mdistingurshable
entity? No!

The matenal properties of the field are obvious only

at large energies of ItS quanta. And the field properties
of matter come to life only at large energies of Its
particles.

And at low energies? The field

rna Her

IS

then a field. and

IS rna Her.

There is No Emptiness!
The

photographically

detected

Joint

birth

of an

electron and a positron IS not only the 'opening up'

of the vacuum. This was the first actual case of
a field converting
into matter. Confirmation
soon
came of the reverse prediction of Dirac's theory: the

246

Joint annlhiJatlOn of an electron and a positron upon

encounter, and the generatIon (at the same instant)
of two gamma photons.
Wait a mmute! The electron and positron didn't
turn into anything, they vanished unchanged into
the vacuum. And the energy they released look the
form of gamma photons. Exactly like in. say, an
atom Where an electron Jumps from a hIgher to
a lower energy level releasing Its energy in the
form of photon, but at least the electron remains an
electron!
Actually, however, this IS not qurte so. Here it IS
that the vacuum, the vord, appears In its fundamental
field-like aspect. In the atom, an electron does give
up energy, but only a part of It. It can even lose all
its kinetic energy in free motion, It can come to
a standstill; but the principal energy (the energy proper)
is never given up under any Circumstances _ that is,
If the electron wants to remain an electron. For if one
gives up an energy Eo = nJoc2, which is Intimately
bound up with the rest mass "ro. this JS tantamount
to losing the rest mass and hence the very essence of
being a particle! We have already menlloned the fact
that particles differ from the quanta of an electromagnetic field in that they can exist at rest and have
a mass not equal to zero.
This means that when an electron dives into the
vacuum giving up its joint positron-electron
energy
proper, it ceases to be an electron, Just as the positron
ceases to be a POsitron. Naturally, their mass does not
vanish without a trace, just as their energy does not
V301Shinto nothing. The mass changes its nature and
becomes nonmaterial.
field-like, while the energy
proper converts into the energy of field quanta,
gamma photons. So the vacuum doesn't have any
247

'real' electrons after all, they are there conceptually,

potentially, so to say.
The reason IS that vacuum or void or emptiness is
generally nonexistent. Only matter and fields fill all
of space. The vacuum that Dirac had in mind was
Simply a pictorial image to facilitate depicting the
processes of the mterconversion of particles of matter
and field quanta.
The author has not tned to lead the reader about
by the nose. He felt that one has to start with
ordinary emptiness and then take up unconventional
empty space, and only then cross out both. At any
rate, that was the natural path of development of
science.
An electron encounters a positron and they convert
into gamma-ray photons. If tlus IS possible, then
obviously the converse process should be possible:
gamma-ray photons converting into particle pairs.
H actually does take place provided the photons have
sufficient energy, at least 2moc2.
The photons may be observed, recorded and are
quite tangible. The vacuum, on the other hand, is
qurte intangible until an electron and positron Jump
out of It. How do we reconcile this suuauon?
Actually, nothing has to be reconciled Photons are
recorded as photons as long as their energy is not
great As soon as it becomes sufficient for the transformation of a pair of photons mto a pair of particles,
we begin to feel the 'vacuum' properties of photons.
Photons can vanish with an electron-positron pair
taking their place.
The term vacuum signifies the possibrlny of mutual
transformations of material particles into field quanta
and field quanta into particles That IS the fundamental point now. And that IS what we have been
248

talking about
ter.

from the very beginning

of the chap-

Apparently, everything is now relatively clear. Since

we have bridged the gap between matter and fields,
the traffic can move In both directions:
particles
becoming field quanta and field quanta becommg
particles. The important thing is to get up onto the
bndge, which IS rather high - the energy height measures
2
2moc , which for electrons srgrufies millions of electronvolts and for protons, thousands of millions of electronvolts.
To summarize, then, the vacuum has given way
to the field. We shall continue to use the term
vacuum because of Its pictorial nature. It IS convenient
to picture rt as a universal sea with dolphm-hke
particles Jumping in and out.
What

the Whales

Rest on

We can now, finally, explain one of the whales

on which the refined quantum
mechanics
rests.
Altogether, there are three whales, like of old Planck's
quantum hypothesis. Einstein's theory of relanvuy,
de Broglie's hypothesis of the wave nature of particles.
We shall discuss the latter hypothesis.
I wonder whether it didn't seem a httle mjustified what
we did Just a little while ago - Jumping from the general
theory of relativity constructed for worlds of astronomical dimensions to the quantum world of ultrasmall
things The POint IS we have time and again stressed
that laws which hold In the world of one scale are
at best inaccurate In worlds of other scales. What fight
had we to extend Emstcm's matter and space concepts
to the microworld? We have the tight, thanks to the
de Broghe hypothesis, which has been rehably verified
249

and confirmed Microparucles have wave properties

This duality of theirs exists everywhere and at all times
But what IS a wave? Judging by ItS properties of
mdetermmate
extension and eternal mobility. It IS
clearly a field entity. Thus, the de Broglie hypothesis
10
effect says that matenal particles have field
properties In. this sense It supplements the Einstein
hypothesis, which states that field quanta (photons)
have matenal properties
How do the field properties
of rmcroparucles
manifest themselves? We have already encountered
numerous instances. Most typical of these properties
is the smearedness of electrons and other particles
in space. As physicists say, they are nonlocahzed.
An electron is here, yet it is not here. In attempts
to measure its velocity of motion with exactitude we
cease to be able to say anythmg of ItS whereabouts.
Thrs is very typical of a field, It IS Impossible to
localize a field due to ItS being 'everywhere'.
If we increase the velocity of an electron, it becomes
heavier as we approach the velocity of light Where
does it get Its extra mass? Electrons are usually
accelerated by electric fields. Dunng acceleration. the
electnc field enters the electron, as it were. and
imparts to It a portion of its energy. Since the energy
of the electron is increasing, Emstem's relation (see
page 223) says that the electron velocity and mass
should also increase.
But this process of 'pumping' mass from the field
into the particle cannot go on endlessly. lhe mass
builds up with extreme rapidity and finally the kinetic
energy of the particle becomes equal to its energy
proper [this occurs when the velocity of the particle
reaches about 80 per cent of that of light). At this
point, a new process sets in, In which the wave, or
250

field-like, propenies of the panicles dominate, The

particles are now In a position to rid themselves
at a smgle stroke both of the accumulated energy and
their proper energy and to convert Into quanta of
the field.
The reason for the increase in mass of panicles with
growing velocity IS a sort of self-preservatIon instinct
Instilled In them by nature. The particles do not wish
to lose their individuality and furiously resist any
build-up of energy, and the resistance increases as they
approach transformation
Into the field
Particles can never move with the velocrty of propagation of the field. And the field can never
propagate with a different velocity

Particles Change Their Guise

Up tIll now, particle transformatIOns have dealt only
with the electron (and, of course, the positron). After
the discovery of the neutron, it was found that it too
IS capable of transformation,
but, unlike the electron,
not Into field quanta but into other particles.
The neutron can, first of all, convert into a proton,
an electron and a neutrino (in beta decay), to do this,
It has to be free. In the nucleus, the neutron IS converted
into a proton and a pi-meson It was found out later
on that the second transformation of the neutron IS
not very different from the first. A free pi-meson
decays mto a mu-meson (which is roughly one-fourth
as heavy) and a neutrino. In turn, the mu-meson
decays IOta an electron, a neutrmo and an nntineutrino
251

We thus have
decay of free neutron
neutron ......proton + electron
decay of 'nuclear'
neutron

-+

proton

+ neutnno

neutron

+ pi-meson

pi-meson -+ mu-meson + neutnno

mu-meson -+ electron + neutnuo
Result

neutron

--+

proton

+ electron + 2neutnnos +
+ antmeutrmo

However. this arithmetical

count of the similarity
of the two transformations
IS largely lost due to the
fact that the pi-meson in the nucleus does not decay,
We already know that the particles in the nucleus
are acted upon by electric forces and by the much
more powerful nuclear forces that ensure nucler their
stability.
If there IS a new type of force, that means there IS
a new field, And if there IS a new field, that SIgnifies
there must be new quanta. The carriers of electromagnetic mteractions 3fC photons. By analogy, the
earners of nuclear interactions must be pi-mesons (we
have already mentioned that mu-mesons
Interact with
nuclei weakly and therefore cannot be quanta of the
nuclear field).
Summarizing,

nuclear

then, pi-mesons

are the quanta

field, But unlike photons,

a rest mass,

of ultrasmall

which

IS

rather

things, for It

these quanta

substantial
IS

of the

have

tn the world

nearly three

hundred

times more massive than the electron! For this reason,

pi-mesons cannot move With the velocity of light.
Some quanta for you! More like particles than quanta,
yet they are quanta. The harmonious and proportioned

picture of the mterrelauonships of fields and matter that

physicists had Just described suddenly broke down,
252

PImesons turned out to be the very limit of

duality. They are matre- In that they have a nonzero
rest mass, they represent a field in that their spin
is zero.
Let's think about this for a moment. The point
JS that after the rise of quantum mechamcs physicists
established yet another sharp dlstmctlOn between
particles of rnaner and field quanta. The difference
is 10 the spin. It was found that 'true' particles of
mane- can have only a spin equal to one-half the
Planck constant h (more precisely, "/4,,), whereas field
quanta must have SPin equal to zero or to an integral
number of Planck constants (h/2,,).
There IS every reason why Spin should exhibit this
profound difference 10 the essence of particles and
quanta. It was found that the magmtude of spm exerts
an
ties.essential Influence On the behaViour of mlcroentl_
Recall the Paull princIple, which requIres that no two
electrons in an assembly can exist 10 exactly the same
states Thrs goes not only for electrons, but for
protons. neutrons, and generally any particles with
half-spin.
Now for particles With spin zero Or wuh Integral
this principle does not hold. For Instance, 10
the photon world (practically the Whole Untverse!)
there can be any number of photons in the same states,
that is, with the same frequency and the same direction
of SPin (photon spin IS equal to uruty].
Incidentally, it followed from thrs diVISion of spms
that the mu-meson thai physicists first stumbled over
could not be the quantum of the nuclear field. It has
half-spin. But the pi-mesons aJJ have Zero SPin and
hence can serve as field quanta. But their nonzero
rest mass! .
spm

253

The Two-Faced

Pi-Meson

ThIS was a real big surpnse to physicists.

figure

it

Maybe

Let's try to

out.

the neutron

IS Simply

a compressed

combi-

nation of a proton and a pi-meson. No, simple anthmetic

will convince us of this: the rest mass of the neutron
and that of the proton are, respectively, approximately
equal to 1,839 and 1,836 electron masses, while the rest
mass of the electrically charged pi-meson IS 273. Which
means that when a neutron emits a pi-meson the former

should reduce by 273 electron

masses and not 3. the

way It does.

When a free neutron dismtegratcs, this problem does

not arise. The neutron loses an electron - one electron
mass. In addiuon, tt imparts to the electron and neutnno
a double proper energy of the electron, after which It
acquires the mass of the proton. Now when a pi-meson
emitted, the neutron loses nearly a hundred times
more mass, yet for some reason we don 't notice it No
one has ever observed neutrons worn out and reduced

IS

after the birth of a pi-meson, How come?

But imagine the following picture. A neutron

pulls

out a negatively charged meson and throws It at a proton

which catches the meson and immediately converts into
a neutron. The neutron that kicked the meson became

a lightweight proton, while the proton that caught the

meson became an over heavy neutron. In Just no time,
the overhea vy neutron ejects the meson, again becoming
a normal proton, while the lightweight
proton picks
up this meson and turns IOtO.3 normal neutron. Thrs
ball game consists of two unequal stages. the first IS
defimtely forbidden by all known laws of phySICS and
the second IS quite permissible.
The prohibition IS due to the fact that no particle can
254

have mass less than the rest mass. whereas we had an

underweight proton. This can be expressed in other
words. the neutron forward cannot kick a ball heavier
than 3 electron masses. To emit a meson It would have
to find some place In ItS Interior the equivalent of 270
electron masses - quite a lot. But this is In direct VIOlatIOn
of the law of conservauon of energy. Taken as a whole,
the ball game does not flout the conservation law. but
the first stage of It would seem to.
When this was found to be the case, physrcists were
Inch ned to the Idea - a bad one Indeed - that the law
of conservation of energy holds only on the average
in the rmcroworld and can break down In mdrvrdual
events. However, subsequent development of science
demonstrated
that this law continues to stand tirm.
The secret of the ball game remains a mystery to classical
physics.
However, the fog hfts as soon as we recall that we
are dealing with quantum properties of particles.
Physicists gave the name virtual processes to those
which are forbidden by the canons of classical reason mg.
A system of particles or a single particle can convert
II1to another system or II1to another particle in different
ways. It IS possible that we do not know the routes
(which frequently IS actually the case), but we are
justified 111 descnhmg the transforrnanon any way we
Wish, uuhzmg such intermediate
processes as are
amenable to calculanon today. For the present, virtual
processes are converuent pictorial concepts.
Another quesuon: Can a meson be exchanged between
a proton and a neutron along the hnes of the electron
exchange III the hydrogen molecule? Thrs would be much
Simpler, since electrons do not experience any ktnd of
transformanom, yet a bond IS established between the
255

atoms. Maybe a negative pi-meson could circulate about

two protons.
No, this won't do at all, and here's why. SCientists
recently succeeded In hitching up a mu-rneson in the
atomic cloud In place of an electron, and the mu-rneson,
did the job Just as well. For one thing, it joined two
atoms of hydrogen into a single molecule (just like an
electron does), the so-called mesomolecule of hydrogen.
"Since the mu-meson IS approxImately two hundred
times more massive than the electron, ItS cloud of
probabthty IS Just that much closer to the nucleus, which
means that the mu-meson holds two atoms into a
molecule 200 times smaller In SIze.
However, this IS not a pi-meson but a mu-rneson.
And. agam, the forces operative In the mesomolecule
are not nuclear forces but electncal forces. The latter
are much weaker than nuclear forces.
A pi-meson cannot hold Its place 10 the atom like an
electron because It strongly and very specifically interacts
with the nucleus. The specificity here consists In the fact
that the pi-meson converts a neutron IOta a proton, and
a proton IOta a neutron.

A Clue to Meson Exchange

We can take it that the pi-meson circulates between
nuclear particles. However, this circulauon IS not about
the particles, but inside them - by means of the ermssron
of a meson by one particle and ItS capture by another.
But these processes of emission and capture conflict
WIth the laws we have just described. Vet the processes
exist. They proceed virtually
Generally speak 109. virtual processes are not new.
Recall how rmcroparucles penetrate through potential
barriers. From the standpoint of classical theory, the

256

appearance of a particle outside a barrier indicates

that it jumped over the barrier. Yet the Schrodinger
equation demonstrated the probability that a particle
in a well could get outside without acquiring any energy
at all. This too seems to conflict with the law of
conservation of energy. Actually, to get over the barrier
spontaneously, a particle would have to extract energy
from itself, and then that energy would have to vanish.
We explained that paradox earlier by invoking the
wave properties of the microparticle. Let us recall it
briefly,
According to the Heisenberg relation, every particle
has an uncertainty of measurement of the value both
of kinetic energy and potential energy. Any attempt
to catch a particle penetrating through the barrier, that
is, to detect it inside the barrier, renders the energy of
the particle indeterminate.
As a result, this energy
becomes such as to permit the particle to jump over
the barrier in a classically lawful fashion.
Strictly speaking, in the classical sense we have
a breach of the law of conservation of energy. But
quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is no
violation of the law.
In the very same manner we can explain the emission
and absorption of pi-mesons by nuclear particles. The
point is that the Heisenberg relation (the one between
energy and time) may be applied also to the energy
proper of the particle. Then the thinning out of a neutron
that has emitted a negative pi-meson, or the loss of a
proton upon ejection of a positive pi-meson. and also
the 'fattening' of particles that have absorbed mesons may
be regarded as a certain indeterminacy in the energy
proper of these particles associated with a certain
indeterminacy in their masses.
It is clear that this indeterminacy is no Jess in
17-70

257

\\e
oW

et\c

\a'~
,VI"g

259

charges. Since every interaction of charged particles is

associated with monon and is manifested in motion,
it may generally be stated that every interaction involves
the composite electromagnetic field.
For the sake of simplicity, let us disregard the magnetic
field for a moment and take a closer look at the
electric (more precisely, electrostatic) field. From our
school days we remember like charges repulse, unlike
charges attract. The textbook explained this mystery
as follows: an electric charge creates around it a field,
which repulses any like charge that comes into the field,
and attracts any unlike charge.
This explanation is no better than saying a person
died because some vital force left him.
In school, the word 'force' reduces to the term 'field'.
The new term was introduced but was not explained.
Field characteristics are also given (intensity, lines of
force, etc.) but nothing more is said.
Indeed, although classical physics introduced the
concept of field, It was not able to attach to it any
specific, exact meaning. The field proved to be so
complicated that even today 1\ IS largely beyond the
range of physicists.
But quantum mechanics has made quite considerable
advances here. Let us see Just what it has done.
Physics knows two kinds of electric charge - positrve
and negative. Protons have positive charge, electrons
have negative charge. These (and their antiparticles) are
the only absolutely stable carriers of charge. We shall
now discuss electrons. The proton, it appears, is more
complicated and will be taken up later on.
Thus, all negative charges belong to electrons. Let's
take two electrons and see how they fight. First of all,
they will have to 'learn' of the whereabouts of each
other.
260

The first thought is that each of the electrons will

curve the space around it, as Einstein requires of all
bodies, no matter how big or how small they are.
Then, each of the electrons will be in motion in a curved
line about the other. Just like a ball rolling along
a sheet of paper depressed by another ball at rest on it.
This curvature, however, is due to the mass, not the
charge. Accordingly, we have a different field, the field
of gravitation,
Second thought: the electron disrupts the homogeneity
of the vacuum about it, for jf one considers the
vacuum as being filled WIth not yet generated electrons,
then our 'epivacuum' electron should be repulsing the
vacuum electrons. When OUf electron gets a partner,
the latter will act on the vacuum in similar fashion.
But the repulsion of the real electrons and the
vacuum electrons is mutual. The vacuum electrons will
do the same with respect to the second electron. This
will find expression in the mutual repulsion of both
our electrons.
However, if we give it some thought, this reasoning
seems a Jmle faulty. We are trying to account for
repulsion, yet we introduce it for the real electrons
and the vacuum electrons without any explanation.
The horse was changed, but we still stand.
This IS true, but the concept of particle interaction
via vacuum is fruitful. The only thing we need to
assume is that an electron can spontaneously emit
photons.
An electron can emit photons. We saw thrs in electron
jumps in atomic clouds. But in the process the electron
changed ItS energy state. True, but what if a free and
stationary electron emits a photon and straightway
absorbs It back again? Then the energy of the electron
will remain the same. And the process Itself will be
261

forbidden as far as classical physics goes. But we have

seen that quantum mechanics allows such processes,
with one proviso: they have to fit into the framework
of the uncertainty relation.
The speed with which an electron emits a photon
and captures it again should depend solely on the
photon energy. The greater the energy of the photon,
the faster the electron will complete the operation.
However, during the time the photon IS outside the
electron It will have time to probe around a bit in the
vicinity of ItSparent. How far out does the neighbourhood
reach? To infinity. Remember that the electron can
emit photons of any energy, even the smallest. And such
photons can move away from their parent to any distance
conceivable. However, for photons of a very definite
frequency their range of action is of the order of the
wavelength of the photon. For photons of visible light,
this distance is of the order of a fraction of a micron.
Photons naturally do not confine themselves to the
role of observed. If photons emitted by another electron
are encountered, they clash. The result may be that
some of the photons will never return to their parents.
They may, for instance, be absorbed by a partner.
It would now seem that we have a definite, not
virtual, violation of the law of conservation of energy.
But no, we haven't. The electron energy WIll change by
exactly as much as IS contained in the nonreturning
photons, and both electrons WIll move apart. The farther
electrons are separated from each other, the smaller
the energy of their interacuon.
In the process, the total energy of the photons and
electrons remains unchanged, Just exactly what It was
in the beginning. But of course there never was any
beginning or end of the interaction of two electrons.
There is no turrung off or on of interacuon. No matter

how far away the electrons are from each other, there
will always be some kind of interaction between them.
Still and all, this explanation is not exactly satisfying.
The field is somehow attached to its creator, yet we
know that photons are extremely independent-acting
entities.
Of course, we can, for greater satisfaction, introduce
yet another virtual process. We have already mentIOned
this process, which is actually encountered. A sufficiently
energetic photon emitted by an electron can, during the
time of its very short permiued life, convert into an
electron-positron pair.
This way, in place of one electron we will for an
instant have two electrons and a positron. In another
instant, the electron will again be by itself. But
which one of the two electrons will vanish, merging
with the positron? That is impossible to say, since
the two electrons are identical.
Extremely interesting, yet too bad that we can't
observe this 'bouquet' of particles emergmg from a single
electron: everything takes place in too short a time.
But let's check, anyway. A simple calculation with
the 21Heisenberg relation shows that our instant lasts about
10second. During this time, the photon was able
to give birth to a pair consisting of a second electron
and a positron at a distance of about 10- II centimetre
from the first electron.
This is exactly the magnitude that is characteristic of
the smallest smearedness of an electron in space.
IO~ 11 em is the length of a de Broglie electron wave
moving with a velocity close to that of light.
A truly remarkable circumstance! It shows that at
the very heart of the wave properties of an electron
(and, naturally, of all other particles as well) is
interaction - the field of the electron. The electron is
263

smeared because it dives into the vacuum and emerges

from it near the same site numberless times every second.
Physicists called such strange electron behaviour the
'trembling electron'. The imagery is very close to reality.
In this process, an electron can oscillate while located
at any place within the locality appropriated
for it.
The locality is determined by the energy and, hence,
the wavelength of the photons that can generate electron.positron pairs.

The Kingdom of Virtualities

Thus, an electron emits photons virtually. The photons
in turn convert. virtually, into electron-positron pairs.
The pairs merge giving birth to photons. And the photons
are absorbed by the electron. The entire kaleidoscope of
transformations
takes place with fantastic rapiditymany millions of millions of millions of times every
second.
A photon emitted by some electron may be captured
by a ditTerent electron. But electrons are all alike, and
there is no way of finding out which one captured
the emitted photon.
Now the result of this exchange is not virtual, but
quite real: electrons strive to get away from each other
as far as possible. But even when the distance between
them exceeds many times over the degree of their
'vacuum smearedness', photons catch up with them and
push them apart still more. But the greater this distance,
the less the energetic photons can overcome it, which
means that less energy will be imparted to the electrons
in photon exchange and the electron repulsion will be
more feeble. Which is exactly what Coulomb's law states.
Electronic interaction is all-pervasive. We supposed,
for the sake of simplicity, the participation
of only
264

two electrons, while actually all the electrons in the

universe participate. We might say that the boundless
electromagnetic field is found in every corner of the
infinite world.
The interaction of an electron and positron, of an
electron and proton and, generally, of all differently
charged particles has the same virtual nature. But in
this case the consequence of photon exchange is not
mutual recession but mutual approach of the particles.
Nature is dual. It deals in the unity of opposites
and the opposites of unities, the contrasting of unities.
Two particles with opposite charges and the same masses,
mirror images, meet as they jump out of the mirror and
cancel their charges and convert into quanta of the
field that performs the interaction.

The Virtual Becomes Real

Physicists don't always hit upon the best terms for
naming things. 'Virtual' means being in essence but not in
fact, not exactly real. Yet a virtual vacuum can suddenly
become very real indeed.
Recall the electron transitions in atoms that originate
spectra. We have said that these transitions from one
state into another are possible only when the probability
clouds of the electrons in these states overlap in some
portion of space.
The hydrogen atom has two such stales whose clouds
merge completely. Both of them belong to the second
shell, which begins filling up only in the case of lithium.
Then there is another state in the first shell, the very
lowest, and most stable energy state in which we
ordinarily find the hydrogen electron.
To both stales (in the first and second stories of the
atomic building) there correspond spherical clouds that
265

never overlap. The third state that we have in mind

is an inconvenient interstorey flat connecting the first
and second stories.
But it becomes interstorey only in the case of
lithium, whereas in the hydrogen atom it has to coincide
with the nat on the second floor. And the electron
transition that could be observed in the case of lithium
should not be observed in the case of hydrogen. The
atomic inhabitants do not ordinarily jump directly
between stones, but prefer to get into interstorey flats
first.
Indeed, in the hydrogen atom nobody has ever
observed such transitions. If for some reason a resident
on the first floor is tossed up to the second, he will
remain there quite alone until some 'unlawful' circumstance returns him (the probability of such a transition
is utterly negligible).
But some fifteen years ago physicists noticed that the
electron had succeeded In getting around this very
stringent prohibrttcn and rather easily got back to the
first floor from the second. Almost like cornmg down
in a lift.
Trus violation was soon accounted for. A fertile
imagination was all that was needed. And physicists
are certainly Imaginative. Recall the virtual process in
which a real electron repulses the 'unborn' vacuum
electrons. At that time It seemed that the electron was
fighting Its shadow.
This is what happens. The interaction of electron
and vacuum, the 'trembling' of the electron imparts to
it a very real, though small, additional energy. But even
this negligibly small energy (much less than that of the
electron in the atom) is sufficient for the two merged
states in the hydrogen atom to separate, for the
electron to pass from one of these states into another, from
266

the second floor to the now real interstorey flat, and from
there into the fi rst storey.
True, It was possible actually to detect only the
transition from the second floor to the interstorey flat.
But that was enough since the rest goes by Itself.
What was the vacuum addition to the energy of the
hydrogen electron? If we use the Planck relation and
convert it into frequency, then It will come out not
among the gamma rays or even those of visible light,
but in the high-frequency radiowave band.
That was why this remarkable phenomena could not
be discovered by conventional spectral methods. But
when high-frequency radio oscillators were built after
World War II and hydrogen atoms were irradiated with
high frequencies, they immediately responded to the
frequency that fits the vacuum addition. A deep dip
appeared at the site of this frequency in the 'radiospectrum' of hydrogen - the hydrogen electron was
actively absorbing quanta on this frequency.
A little while later a second vacuum effect was
discovered. We have already spoken about the two
electron magnets. One of them was due to the motion
of the electron about the atomic nucleus, the other
was caused by the spin monon of the electron. In
a magnetic field, these two magnets combine into a sort
of unified magnet of a definite magnitude.
Physicists measured the force of this elementary
magnet with great exactitude. And it was found to be
Just a little bn greater than the sum of the two
together. Again that 'just a little bit'. The only thing
left for physicists was to acknowledge that this addition
in the magnitude of the magnet is due to the interaction
of electron and vacuum.
The explanation is again similar to what we have
already given. An electron moving in an atom repulses
267

the vacuum electrons all along its path, as it were,

like a stationary ship only displaces water, while a moving
vessel makes the water move as well. The transfer of
motion from the electron to the vacuum is what produces
in the latter a current of vacuum electrons. The magnetic
effects of virtual current are added to these that
correspond to the motion of the 'real' electron.
Quantum mechanics, which is permeated with
virtualities, was not only able to account for these
remarkable phenomena, but to calculate them, as well;
and the results coincided beautifully with experiment!
There you are, the physicist and his imagmation!
Virtual processes are something to be respected after all.

In the Search for New Particles

As soon as physicists accepted the unusual nature
of the world of microparticles, their interrelations among
themselves and with the field, a real hunt began for
new particles. Every new particle is a new aspect of
the microworld, a new discovery of its peculiarities, an
advance on the path of knowledge.
Whole expeditions were on the go, with intricate
gear, equipment and instrumentation. For a long time,
the cosmic rays - those streams of particles coming
to earth from deep space - were the only suppliers of
new particles. New instruments were invented, old
instruments were refined and fresh expeditions set out to
mountain peaks, up into the clear air closer to the sky,
others put out to sea, and still others sent up rockets
to new heights.
Then, in the early 19505, powerful accelerators were
built that speeded protons to hundreds of millions and,
lately, to tens of thousands of millions of electron volts.
The booty began coming in at a staggering pace.
268

Several new particles were discovered every year. Today

there are altogether thirty-three, if one discounts the
so-called "resonance" particles which we shall deal with
a little later. The resonance particles boost the list
of microentities to almost a hundred items.
The first to be captured were pi-mesons.
At the beginning of the fifties, particles were discovered
that were more massive than protons and neutrons;
they were called hyperons. Cosmic radiation presented
physicists with a very valuable gift, a group of
K-mesons (we will Soon see why it was so valuable).
And when a series of gigantic accelerating machines
were put into operation racing protons to close-optical
velocities, two new particles were discovered that
confirmed the predictions of Dirac's theory. They were
the antiproton and the antineutron.
Let us now take a closer look at what we have
found. The first striking thing is the broad range of
particle masses: from the zero mass of the neutrino
to the more than four thousand electron masses of the
resonance delta-hyperon.
Another point is that the
particles are quite irregularly distributed in mass. They
come In groups of two, three and even four, all with
relatively Similar masses.
The charges and spins of particles are not so
diverse by far. Confining ourselves to the "real" particles
(excluding all resonance objects), we find electnc charges
having only three values (+ I, 0 and -I, where _I
IS the electron charge); their spins are likewise confined
to three values (0, 1/2, 1).
Most of the particles In this list are unstable, living
on the average from a few thousand seconds (neutrons)
to 10- 24 of a second (resonance mesons and hyperons).
These are the limits. Ordinary mesons and hyperons
269

have mean lifetimes ranging from hundred-millionths

to tens of thousands of millionths of a second.
Don't make the mistake of confusing the lifetime of
a particle with the time of its existence in our world.
As an illustration, take the positron. It is stable in the
sense that it does not decay into any other particles,
Yet it doesn't live long in our world - as soon as it
meets an electron, it vanishes, as a rule. On the other
hand, pi-mesons which are unstable in the free state, never
decay within nuclei.
Look at the last column of the Table. What are the
particles that most often appear in the decay products
of their unstable brothers? These are electrons and
neutnnos for mesons and the neutron. And we always
find nucleons and pi-mesons among the decay debris
of hyperons.
Sorting

the Booty

These are the first preliminary conclusions that we

can draw from a census of the microworld. Now the
problem is to figure out what the living conditions of
particles are like in the microworld.
Why the great diversity in particle masses? What
is the limiting mass? Is it the heavy ,\ .-hyperon?
Why do particles exhibit groups of closely related masses
of two, three and four particles? Why do the charge
and spm of particles have only three values (if we
disregard the resonance particles)? Why are most particles
unstable? Why, again, are there stable particles? Why do
particles choose only one or two of a large variety
of possible decay schemes?
Before going any further it must be said that
quantum mechanics has left most of these questions
without answers. And where there are answers, most
270

of them describe 'how', but don't say 'why'. Which

is something at least.
The grouping by mass is clearly seen in the Table.
The particle masses in one group are very close to
one another if compared to the broad interval that
separates one group from the next. This has been
accounted for in an interesting way: a group of particles
is actually only a single particle that appears in
ditTerent guises.
By way of illustration, let us take the pi-mesons.
The masses of the pi-minus- and pi-plus-mesons are
equal and differ from the mass of the third, electrically
neutral, pi-zero-meson. Maybe the higher mass of the
charged particles is due to their having charge.
We have already mentioned the fact that the field
accounts for a portion of the mass of a particle.
Since pi-mesons are the quanta of the nuclear field,
and this field is very much stronger than the
electromagnetic field, It would be reasonable to suppose
that the bulk of the mass of pi-mesons is due to the
nuclear field, while any addinon
to it of the
electromagnetic field (associated with the presence of
charges) would make only a small contribution.
For
this reason, charged pi-mesons are more massive than
the neutral particle, which naturally should be of nuclear
origin entirely.
This would likewise appear to account for the fact that
lightweight particles do not form triplets. The nuclear
field differs in that its quanta have nonzero rest mass,
whereas the quanta of the electromagnetic
field are
photons with zero rest mass. The electron and positron
and both mu-rnesons are of a pronounced non-nuclear,

electromagnetic origin. That explains why they have no

neutral particle. This leaves two possibilites: a positive
and a negative particle, a doublet.
271

,,"
+

"+

,.
, ,
22
M~

"

, ,
22

MN

00

~Pll

Po c

~ ..

<::>

00

c>

00-000

<;>

00_000

-OS-O-O

00000<:>

00

urds JldolOSI

I I

-Jl'dllU\f

f------l---I-----4--+---------l---I-----+o
o

.:lStjDil

00

e
..:.-+---I
-4__ +-

" :5 ~ ~,

= ~'5

I'"

-JBdl~~

~1;)IIJlld

<:>

0<;>

00

0=

00

00

<;>

000000

<;>

000000

+---I

+_

000000
000

~:m
-J8dllUV

~1;)IIJBd

++

0I

o-

00
j

SSIIp.j 0

;)pll

-JPdnuy

..
eE"

z~
o

272

<;>

.,"

-~

.",~
"

+
o

uldS

";0":0":0

<;>

000
.0.0.0

e-'"

..
,,~

++

, +
+
~
,.;

+ +
+

++
+ 0 0

.',

+
~~~

00-

000

000

00

COCO

00

0000

000000

SUO,l;H'S

273

.-

This doesn't work for K -mesons. The neutral K -meson

is more massive than the charged particles. Here the
electromagnetic field would seem to be 'subtracted' from
the nuclear field.
To account in some way for the regularities of
parttcle grouping, physicists introduced the concept of
isotopic spin. The analogy with ordinary spm is quite
remote. Remember the tricky question spectroscopists
put to theoreticians: Why do spectral lines split up into
three (and more) close-lymg "satellite" lines? As you
wiIl recall, this was explained by spin. The slight
differences in electron energies in atoms for different spin
cnentaticn give rise to the compamon lines of the
principal spectral line.
By analogy, theoreticians pictured groupS of particles
With Similar masses as a single particle split up into
companion particles due to the existence of an
electromagnetic field.
The rules for isotopiC spin turned out, on the whole,
to be the same as those for ordmary spin. If the spin
is zero, the line is not spilt. the particle remains alone
with no other particles in the VIcinity. If the spin is
one-half, the line becomes a doublet; some particles,
the K-meson for example, form just such a doublet.
If the spin is equal to unity, the result is a threesome,
or triplet, of lines or particles, depending on what
we are talking about. ordinary spin or isotopiC spin.

Antiparticles

Come into Action

Up until 1955, the nucleon group consIsted only

of the proton and the neutron. This was quite a team:
a doublet made up of a charged particle and a neutral
particle! The mystery was resolved, so It appeared,
when the negatively charged antiproton was discovered,
274

for here was now a normal triplet like the group of

pi-mesons.
True, there was one inconvenience: the neutral neutron was heavier, not lighter, than the proton and its
antiparticle. Again the clectromagneuc field appeared
to be 'subtracted' from the nuclear field. Most important, however, was the fact that the proton and neutron
turned out to be a single particle in two forms. Incidentally, physicists had guessed as much when it was
clear that the two particles interconverted in the nucleus with equal ease.
But then a year after the discovery of the antiproton,
the antineutron was uncovered. A fourth particle in one
group. The antineutron didn't want to fit into the group
scheme. There was still one way out - the nucleon
group could be viewed as made up of two pairs: proton and neutron with their antiparticles.
Similar to this group are the four Kvmcsons. That
will be a special talk
Is there any law underlying this group structure of
particles? There very easily could be, but we don't
know it. The census of the microworld IS done and
over, distributions have been made as to occupation,
but no final conclusions can yet be drawn.
Now let us try to figure out the difference between
a particle and its antiparticle. As we know, the Dirac
theory in Its original form stated that the difference
was In the sign of electric charge, which IS true enough
for the electron and positron, the proton and antiproton, the two mu-mesons and, In general, for all charged
particles.
But how about the neutron and its antmeutron?
There is no electric charge and their masses are the
same, as in all particle-antiparticle pairs. The difference
here, it appears, is in the sense of the magnetic moment.
18'

275

Then this too can be an 'antiproperty'?

Well, we
know that electrons in atoms occupy energy states in
teams of two, which means they have opposite Spins.
Yet the particles remain electrons, not one of them
changes Into a positron. Also, nuclear neutrons, as we
recall from the shell model of the nucleus, can occupy
energy levels two at a time, and no antineutron IS born.
That the spins of atomic electrons are oppositely directed in pairs only means that the electrons themselves
are moving In opposite directions, If electrons are pICtured as 'clouds of probability', two opposite directions
are of course difficult to conceive. For a free atom,
they do not differ in energy. But electron spin is definitely orientated with respect to the direction of motion.
For instance, if an electron is moving to the right,
we may say that its spin is, for instance, directed at
some angle upwards; If the movement IS to the left,
then downwards. It may be shown that as the velocity
of the electron approaches that of light, the direction
of its spin comes closer and closer to that of its motion. In the case of the positron, the situation IS reversed. For a very fast positron, the spin is almost
counter to the direction of motion. That is the way
we understand the difference in direction of magnetic
moments in the case of the neutron and the antineutron.
The reader may be disappointed with 'differences'
of this kmd, but it seems to be enough to make the
particle and antiparticle vanish, upon encounter, into
field quanta.

Particles Disintegrate
How do particles originate and vamsh? Photographic
plates are the first to witness these events of the microworld which mean so much to scientists.
276

Here 10 the Corner of the plate is a thick mummus-meson track. Before even reaching the middle
of the plate it 'breaks' and goes off in a dashed line.
This portion of the track belongs to an electron. At the
breaking pomt, two particles Were born which carried
otT the energy and momentum of the mu-meson that
was not Imparted to the electron. These two particles
are a neutnno and an antineutrino.
As a rule, pi-mesons do not decay IOta electrons
directly. They first generate mu-mesons. Here, too, we
see that the nuclear field and the electromagnetic field
are not completely separate. A particle of nuclear origin
converts into a particle of electromagnetiC nature.
Why do pi-mesons disintegrate into two particles,
and mu-mesons decay into three? The answer ISsimple:
It'S a/l due to the spin. The sum of the spins of the
daughter particles must equal the spin of the parent
particle.
The mu-meson has half,splll, the electron also. But
since the electron cannot carry off the entire mass of
the mu-meson, a neutrino IS needed. which takes up
the residue of mass m the form of energy of motion.
But the neutrino SPIn is also one half, so that now
the total spin of the newly born particles is greater
than the spin of the parent. The neutnno must now
get rid of the extra spin. ThIS is the antineutnno with
opposite spin. The result: three particles.
In the decay of a pi-meson, one neutrino (or antineutnno) is enough with spin counter to that of the
parent mu-meson. These spins cancel, yielding zero,
whrch IS equal to the spin of the original pi-meson.
In the case of hyperons, the ultimate stable product
of their decay IS frequently the proton. In addnion,
hyperons emit pi-mesons, Two worlds and two limitmg
types of transformatIOns: the electron III the light par277

Fig. 25

ucles, the proton among the heavy particles. Two

worlds and two inevitable decay satellites: the neutrino
in the case of hght particles. and the pi-mesons In the
case of the heavy particles.
Now is there any law that states which one lor,
at most. two) of a number of decay schemes IS to be
uuhzed?
We have already noticed certam peculiarities of such
selectiveness By analogy with classical physics, let us
call them conservation laws. Observations show that
the total charge and total spin of a particle are conserved In decay. But still these laws leave a httle latitude In the choice of the decay scheme.
There ought to be some other decay laws that would
narrow down the pathways that unstable particles
can follow for conversion into the stable building stones
of matter - the proton and the electron.
278

Physicists Classify Interactions

Let's begin with an analogy. There are ditTerent ways
of destroymg a mountain. One is in an explosion, say
a volcanic eruption. Another, weaker and slower, is by
an earthquake. And, finally, the slowest of all is weathering - by the work of water, wind, heat and cold. The
explosion does the job in seconds, the earthquake in
hours, and the water and wind in many thousands
of years.
Studies of the processes of destruction of rrucropartieles showed up three types that proceed with ditTerent
strength and at different rates.
The first. the strongest, Occurs in collisions of nuclear
particles, in mteractions in the nucleus. Physicists called
these events strong interactions. They are typified by
large energies of the order of the energy proper of the
pi-meson and higher, and, accordingly (by the uncertainty relation) very short lifetimes. As we already
know, the time factor here is of the order of
10- 23 second.
The next

strength and duration IS electromagnetic

It is in this process that electron-positron
encounters produce two gamma photons. In this class
too IS the above-described decay of a neutral pi-zeromeson into gamma photons. This process has a duration of the order of 10-17 second.
Now, finally, the weakest and longest process of all.
Physicists call it weak rnteraction. It IS this process that
is responsible for the great majority of decays given
in the Table of microparticles. Weak interaction
accounts for the decay of rnu-, pi- and Kvmesons, the
neutron and hyperons. From the Table it may be seen
that the duration of this 'urnversal' destructive inIn

mteracuon.

279

teraction that affects particles in all groups is 10-10 second and more.
An interesting thing was noticed in these studies of
groups of particles. The K-mesons and hyperons grouped together in a different way from that of the other
particles.
These two groups did not want to fit into the classificauon of the other particles. "Strange," said physicists, and, chagrined, they, called these unruly objects
'strange particles'. They even introduced a special quantity to describe quantitatively the degree to which they
deviated from the properties that they should have had.
The quantity is known as 'strangeness'.
It was found that strange particles cannot decay into
ordinary particles other than by the slow weak interaction. In collisions of ordinary particles, strange particles
are born only in pairs, and only 10 such pairs whose
sum of strangenesses is equal to zero, like the original,
ordinary particles.
In other words, In strong and electromagnetic interactions the strangeness does not change. This became
known as the law of conservation of strangeness. But
in weak interactions this law does not hold.
Too many laws? Where is that single general law?
And how do we account for them all, anyway?
Unfortunately, the regulanties we have been talking
about do not as yet have any cogent explanation. Physicists cornbme the rules this way and that, but the deep
underlying essence is stili obscure. True. the arithmetic
of the conservation laws has enabled us to solve the
problem that we started out with. All the rules taken
together leave the particles actually only one, at most
two, schemes of decay.
Studies of the decay of K-mesons made possible one
of the biggest discoverres m the physics of micro280

particles after the detection of vacuum effects. The two

words that shook the scientific community of the world
are 'nonconservation
of parity'.

The Mystery of the K-Mesons

K-mesons were discovered In cosmic rays some ten
years ago. Among the mass of bizarre tracks that cosmic particles leave on photographic plates, the vigilant
eyes of physicists discerned the traces of certain new
particles with masses roughly a thousand times more
than the electron mass.
There turned out to be three kinds of K-meson: positive, negative, and neutral. The spin was determined and
came out equal to zero. At first the family of K-mesons
did not seem to differ much (with the exception of
mass) from the lighter family of pi-mesons: the same
zero spin, the same triplet of particles, only the neutral
K-mesons were heavier than their lighter cousins.
Physicists scrutinized the tracks left behind by K-mesons on photographic plates. The charged particles produced ordinary tracks that frequently terminated, giving
way to thin tracks. What this meant was that the
K-mesons had decayed into Itghter particles. A study
of the secondary tracks showed that they belonged to
pi-mesons.
The decay of the neutral K-mesons was more difficult.
Physicists were surprised to find two tracks, and sometimes three. coming out of the end-point of the K-meson night path. As before, all these tracks belonged
to pi-mesons.
Thus, neutral K-mesons sometimes decayed into three
and sometimes Into two pi-mesons, while all the other
particles always disintegrated into the same daughter
particles in one way only.
281

Fig. 26

Expenmenters were sure it couldn't be otherwise, and

so they decided to Introduce two different neutral
K-mesons. One of them was chnstened the tau-meson,
the other the theta-meson. Two different mesons for the
two distinct schemes of decay. That seemed to be clear
enough.
But physicists were not satisfied The most careful
measurements Invariably mdicated that the tau-meson
and the theta-meson had Identical masses Throughoul
the Table of particles this always meant one thmg:
identical particles. But one and the same particle cannot,
surely, decay first into two and then into three Identical
da ugh ter particles!
That was the mysterious particle of the physics of
the early 1950s. The famous 'tau-theta' enigma.
But what, after all, IS so strange? Why can't the
K-meson decay as descnbed? The law of conservation of energy does not forbid It, the conservation
282

laws of momentum and spin have nothing against it.

Yet it is forbidden by a law that we have not yet
mentioned. This prohrbruon was established by quantum mechanics and goes by the name of the law of
conservation of parity.

Is the Left Any Dilferent from the Right?

Recall the ernrssron of photons by excited atoms.
An electron was In one state, then it Jumped Into another, of less energy. At that time we were Interested
only 10 the energy and whether the 'clouds of probability' of the Initial and termmal states of the electron
overlapped.
This overlappmg seems to be very essentially related
to parity. If we could renumber the flats 10 the atom,
we would find that the inhabitants can only move from
even to odd flats and vice versa. To move from the
tenth nat, say to the eighth in a single jump, is impossrble.
This rule, which was expenmentally established as far
back as 1924, was later given a quantum.mechamcal
mterpretation. To do this. physicists introduced the notion of parity of the wave function. From there the
concept of parity was extended to the state itself as
described by the wave function.
The wave function we know: It IS the soluuon of
the Schrodmger equation. Panty now requires a little
more discussion.
How many people. when look 109 at their photograph,
say: "Oh, but that doesn't look like me at all." And
the photographer IS to blame. But quite often he really
shouldn't be.
283

Take a look at yourself in the mirror. What you see

is not an exact copy. If your nose bends slightly to
the right, the mirror will show it inclined to the left.
In a mirror, right and left change places.
When you have your picture taken, the front side
of the film shows your mirror Image. But this is not
all. The film is developed, and the negative is made
into a picture, which is actually another reflection of
you in a mirror. Sometimes, when the picture is made,
the negative IS turned upside down so that we then
get three mirror reflections. But sometimes the negative
remains in the same position as when the picture was
snapped, and then there are only two such reflections.
A person always looks hke he appears in a mirror.
But a photograph can make you the way you actually
are and not the way people see you.
The photographic and mirror Images would coincide
only m the ideal case of a person wuh an absolutely
symmetrical face. But that is rare indeed. Nature likes
pure cold symmetry, but never begrudges a bit of
variety.
The essential thing here is that a double reflection
always restores the onginal shape of an object, Irrespective of whether there is symmetry or not. Somethmg like
two minuses make a plus and two pluses make a plus.

In a double reflection

In

mirror,

the

'mmuses'

of

your face (asymmetry) do not distort the image.

Wave functions possess the same pecubanties. These
functions are ordinary mathematical functions, among
which we frequently find sines and cosines. Draw them
on paper and put them up to a mirror. The sine, m
the mirror, is upside down. Which IS notnmg new:
in school tngonometry we know that the sme of a negative angle is equal to the sine of a positive angle
with sign reversed. (Our mirror. as It were, extends the
284

,,
'-'

I
I

-+---+---\---jr--f---\--I

,I

Sine

o
Fig.

27

axis of angles In the direction of negative values.) Now

the cosine will not change In the mirror. And trigona.
metry confirms this.
Mathematicians called the cosine an even function
and the sine, an odd function. The mirror reflection
was also given a name: space mversron. And to drstingursh even functions from odd ones, they were given
signs: plus for even, minus for odd.
If a sine reflected In a mirror IS viewed In a second
mirror, the origmal shape will be restored, for a mInUS
times a minus Yields a plus. The cosine will of Course
remain unchanged.
An mvesugauon of the solutions of the Schrodinger
equation showed that for atomic electrons the parity
never changes In Jumps to new states. If the wave
funcnon of an electron was first even and then after
a Jump to another state became odd, this would sigmfy
only one thing - the wave function of the photon generated In the transition IS odd.
Later, the concept of panty was extended from atomic states to separate particles. The photon was the
first; later, labels appeared on the other particles as
285

,
\

I
I

\
I
_...- .,_+--\-_-II-_-\-_-I-_-\:-

\
\

\..,

I
I

Cosine

a
Fig.

28

well. The electron, for instance, proved to be an odd

particle.
We have had occasion to say that the spin of an
electron IS very definitely oriented relative to the direction of motion of the particle. If the electron IS In
motion rightwards, Its spin IS, say. upwards; If to the
left, then the spin \S downwards. Let us try, mentally,
to reflect an electron in a mirror. We see that as the
electron moves to the nght (to the left in the mirror),
Its Spin 10 the rrurror remains m the upward direction
because the mirror only mterchanges nght and left, but
does not turn the Image upside down The mirror electron has a drrecuon of spin that IS nonexistent in the
normal electron. Which means that the electron IS definitely an odd particle If It were even. the mirror
Image would not differ from the real thmg
The pi-meson IS an odd particle
Extending their classrficancn of parity to the unstable
particles, phystctsts, working by analogy WIth the errussion of a photon by an electron, established that the
parity of the mitial particle must be equal to the pro286

duct of the parities of all decay particles produced. So

far, particles have never violated this mjuncuon which
goes by the name of the law of conservation
of
panty.
And now we have the neutral K-meson! Judging by
the fact that it decays Into two pi-mesons, this is an
even particle (a minus and a minus produce a plus).
Yet its decay mto three pi-mesons indicates that this
particle is odd (a minus times a minus times a minus
yields a minus). What IS It in realuy. even or odd?
It is clear that we are dealmg with one and not two
particles: the masses of the tau- and theta-mesons coincide too closely. But then the K-meson IS a particle
with double panty' No, that would be too much to
presume. This K-meson has certainly got quantum
mechanics in a hole.

A Way out is Found!

What IS there to do" To say that panty breaks down
the decay of neutral Kvmesons would mean that nature uses a faulty mirror, where the left differs from
the right, where space Itself IS not symmetncal! That
would be a terrible conclusion.
During the long years of its existence, physics IS used
to the fact that space IS the same In all drrecuons.
Movement to the left, under identical conditions, IS In
no way different from movement to the nght. True
All the laws of physics POID! to the equivalence of directions. called the isotropy of space.
To give thrs up would mean rejecting all the most
baSIC and fundamental of physical laws Ternble even
to think about.
The young physicists Lee and Yang found a remarkable way out of thrs impasse. They boldly stated: yes,
In

287

panty can break down in the decay of K-mesons and,

generally, in all weak interactions (which give rise to
the decay of mesons and the beta decay of nuclear
neutrons) !
Lee and Yang pointed to experiments that would
unambiguously establish this amazing fact. They are
worth describing.
Calculations showed that if the parity did break
down, then 10 nuclear beta decay the electrons should
fly out mostly in a direction opposite that of nuclear
spin. Under ordinary conditions, the nuclei orient their
spins randomly and electrons come out in all direc-

tions.

So the first thrng that had to be done was to line

up the nuclei so that all their spins would be 10 one
direction. and then to keep them hned up during the
expenment. To do this, a piece of beta-radioactive rnaterral was put 10 a strong magnetic field that kept the
spin magnets of the nuclei aligned. Then the temperature was drastically lowered (to only five hundredths
of a degree above absolute zero) to eliminate the distorting effects of thermal motion of the nuclei.
Then a series of electron counters were arranged
around this set-up at a slight angle to the direction
of nuclear spin and in a mirrored direction to It. The
counters were SWitched on and it was soon found that
there were fewer electron counts 10 the forward direction than in the 'mirror' direction. The Lee-Yang predicnon was verified.
Did this mean that space was a distorted mirror of
nature? And the fundamental laws of physics go topsyturvy? Here, Lee and Yang, and, mdependently, the
Soviet physicist L. Landau made an Important statement: space had nothing to do with it, the fault was
with the particles themselves.
288

You remember how we reflected an electron in a rmrror and obtained a nonexistent electron with reversed
Spin. Now, it turns out, this particle does indeed exist,
but we have to 'reflect' (reverse) its electric charge as
well. Then we get an exact reflection of the electron _
the familiar positron!
Nature's mirror is all right, after all. But It is a sort
of a dual mirror: when a particle is reflected in it we
always get its antiparticle! The electron gives rise to
the positron, the neutral K-meson gives birth to the
neutral, but anti-K-meson.
The neutral K-mesons that were experimentally observed proved to be a mixture of two kinds. the K-zeromeson and Its antiparticle. But the K-zero-meson IS
odd, while Its antiparticle is even. That is the 'tautheta' mystery cleared up.
Credit for the discovery of this double type of reflection, called 'combined inversion' In scientific parlonce,
goes to Lee and Yang The same discovery was made
independently by Landau.
Thus It was defimnvely established that the spm of
a particle could be onented relative to the direction
of motion of the particle only In some definite way,
and It must be opposite to that of the antiparticle.
If we assume, for a moment, that the spin IS actual
self-rotation of the particle, then the picture IS hke
this. Tag the surface of the electron and follow It
during the monon of the particle by means of high-speed
mental cmematography. We Will see that the label describes a spiral: In the case of the electron, there Will
be a leftward twist, In the case of the positron. a nghtward tWISt.
Actually, the difference m 'sprralness'. or hehcuy,
is what drstingurshes
particles from their antiparticles.
Bear 10 mind, however, that the notion of right and
19-10

289

Spin

@
- ------------------------------=-=-=..
_---::zz:
----- ---=--=- --- ---t

~-=-@l--=

,=---

Spin
Fig.

left IS Just as relative

29

as that of positive

and negative.

We SImply agree to gIVIng particles left-hand

and antiparticles,
right-hand hehcity.

hehcity

Worlds and Antiworlds

We have already

mentioned

the fact thai

world positron are rare guests. This would

m our

suggest

that

the world of particles IS not symmetncal.

hetty being encountered

left-hand hemuch more often than nght-

hand hehcity.
ThIS should not be surpnsmg. Just take a closer look
at the world of big things The snail has left-hand he290

licity more often, the shell spirals leftwards. In chemistry we have stereoisomeric molecules, which are the
mirror Images of one another. And In their world, too.
we find either more left-hand or right-hand Isomers
Fmaily. In human beings the heart IS on the left,
though very occasionalty we find 'rmrror ' people with all
the Internal organs SWitched around Lefties arc rather
common, yet most people are fight-handed.
We shouldn't be sarpnsed, then, that In the bigger
world of space we might find anuworlds, In which everythmg IS reversed There, anuatoms would have annnuclei made up of antiprotons and antmeutrons surrounded by positrons. J 'here. hvmg organisms, If there
are any, would be the mirror Image of our earthly
beings
If both worlds hve under Identical condruons, the
laws of the anti world should nOI differ in any way
from those of our Own world but In each case the
sign would be reversed. That IS why we would never
know of the existence of an anuworld, even if It were
right next to us.
The only thing we could find out about would be
the boundary line between the ordinary world and the
antrworld Here the two meet, and there would never
be more hostIle encounters, for the particles would vanish into energetic gamma photons flyrng out In all drrecuons from the point of clash With the speed of light
or they would convert Into pr- and K-mesons that
would sort of belt off the two worlds indicating the
danger zone for any particle that mrghr be thinking of
dartmg over to the opposite world So far. SCientists
have no indications of any such boundary hne in our
solar system or In the much vaster stellar system, for
that matter.

'"

:29/

What Goes on Inside Particles?

We'll start with the question that was never answered: What are the exact dimensions of microparticles?
Do these particles have exact dimensions at all?
What a question! Surely everything has some kmd
of size. Well, not so surely, especially after what we've
gone through.
For a very long time physicists were not able to
attack this problem properly. Partly because the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics failed as soon
as particles were endowed with dimensions. On the
other hand, as we have already seen, there is no way
of actually measuring therr size. This is due to the wave
properties that smear out the particle In space.
These wave propertIes are an external manifestation
of the interrelations of particles with their fields. In
other words. an electron is smeared out due to Its interaction with other particles, including electrons.
We know what the modern picture of this interaction
is. An electron 10 virtual fashion emits photons and
interacts with photons emitted by other particles. The
result IS either mutual repulsion or attraction of the
particles. The electron is, as It were, wrapped up In
a cloud of virtual photons which it is emitting and absorbing. This cloud 's boundless: there will always be
low-energy photons such that the Heisenberg relation
Will allow them to go to any distance from the electron
that emitted them. It IS the photon cloud, which smears
the electron out 10 space, that does not allow us to
speak of exact dimensions.
Still, the cloud rapidly contracts as it approaches the
core. At distances where virtual photons have energy
enough to form electron-positron
pairs (It 1S of the
order of 10-11 em) we have what might be called
292

a 'trembling' electron. The electron IS still smeared out,

yet over a smaller region of space. Again there are no
exact dimensions.
Maybe It would be possible to measure exactly the
Size of a 'bare' electron, rid of its photon and electronpositron clouds. No, that IS impossible for there is no
such thing In nature as a nonmteractmg electron. It
simply does not and cannot exist. The particle and Its
interaction are two thmgs that form a unity, an inseparable uruty I The only thing left for us to suppose
IS that
mside all these clouds IS something in the
nature of a 'core', as physicists have termed it. But
today we know nothing definite about what this core
looks like and of what goes on inside it.
Physicists have tried to do a similar job 10 descnbing the structure of another fundamental particle, the
proton. The proton emits (10 Virtual manner) pi-mesons
with energies that are naturally not less than their rest
energies. That is why pi-mesons have very short
lifetimes. Which means that they cannot go far away
from the proton that produced them.
Indeed, as we remember, the dimensions of the pi-meson cloud about the proton are very small, of the order
of 10- 13 em. Unlike the electron, the proton is only
very slightly smeared out by pi-mesons. But we know
that protons are rather energetic 10 their mteracuons
with K-mesons as well. That explains why a proton
can also have a Virtual cloud corresponding to such
mteractmn, a K-meson cloud. Since the rest energy of
a K-meson IS some three times that of the pi-meson,
the K-meson cloud should be Just that number of times
smaller and should be located inside the pi-meson
cloud. Still deeper In the in tenor we should find the
concentrated 'trembling' proton that decays Virtually
into proton-antiproton pairs.
293

Physics thus arrives at the stanlmg and inevitable

conclusion that the structure of particles of the microworld IS a reflection of all their interactions with other
particles. The essence of rmcropartrclcs turns out to be
very fluid and mobile.
This conclusion ceases to be unusual If we grasp the
Idea that particles do not exist without their mteracnons All rrncroparticlcs are interrelated by Interactions
Interaction of particles IS not somethmg introduced
from the outside, but is an integral and natural part
of their structure.
Yes, the structure of a particle at any urne IS determmed by all of Its mteracuons.
Conversely,
the
character and degree of Interaction are determined by the
structure of the parttcle. That IS the dialecnc essence
of matter and the field, the properties proper of
particles and their interactions, and the Inseparable
generality of the mseverable commumty of the microparticle and the entire universe.
It must be recognized, however, that present methods
of scientific reasoning still depart in a number of respects
from dialectical logic. That which we have called a
mutual dialectical relationship between the structure of
particles and the mteracnons they experience, a link
between matter and field, physicists painfully descnbe
as a vicious circle.
Still and all, a way out of the Impasse will probably
be found sooner or later. So far, expenmentalists have
detected a minute crack and theoreticians, always Johnny-on-the-spot. have poked In their mquisitrve nose.
During the past few years quite a few thmgs have
been ferretted out; particle hunters are hot on the trail
With hopes of finally bnngmg some sort of order into
our conceptions of the world of particles.
294

The Mysterious Resonances

First things first. Among the nch findings of physicists
the early 19508 were an assortment of strange
structures. Particles, one wanted to say. yet somehow
SCientists couldn't make themselves call them particles.
Judge for yourself. Using an accelerating machine, a
researcher obtains an avalanche of very energetic protons.
He then throws them onto a target containing protons.
The target ejects a splatter of new, Just-born particles.
Among them are a great many pi-mesons.
The Investigator collects the pi-mesons into a separate
beam and, in turn, throws them onto a second target
that also contains protons. What will happen In a colltsron of pi-mesons and protons?
That we already know. In the incredibly bnef instant
of encounter, the pi-mesons and protons give life to a
whole range of new particles, including the heavier
K-mesons and hyperons. The bulk of the beam, however, is scattered.
Physrcists got Interested In this scattering, for it promised to clarify the nature of forces operating between
pi-mesons and protons. As has already been mentIOned,
these are nuclear forces.
At first the scattenng seemed to Ht into conventional
theory, yet physicists were shortly In for a surprise. At
a definite energy, the portion of scattered pi-mesons
suddenly increased drastically. ThIS was followed _ as
the meson energy continued to grow - by a return to
normal. In the curve of scattering cross-section versus
meson energy there was a slight hump. One of these
curves is given In the accompanying figure.
It was Enrico Fermi, in 1952, who saw the first
hump of this kind. Sendmg a beam of pi-mesons generated In the California University accelerator, Into a
10

295

~(IR8,3/2)

200
17~
150
125
100

75

50

IJ

25

f\\
\"-

j/
1000

./

""""
1200

1400

MeV
Fi g. 30

proton target, he noticed that at about 11/4 GeY electron

volts the mesons were suddenly and intensely scattered
by protons. This was very much like resonance.
That IS why the hump on the pi-meson scaltering
curve was christened resonance. At that ume the analogy
appeared to be purely external. And quite mysterious
too. Indeed, just what could this hump on the scattering curve signify? If a particle is strongly scattered,
It IS evident that It spends more time in the vicinity of the
proton. Kmd of slows down from near-light speed to
take a closer look at its old heavy fnend the proton.
Just how long does the meson slick around the proton? The hump on the graph enables one to gauge
296

this. But only roughly: no clock could ever measure

it. The proton IS approximately
10-13 centimetre in
size, a pi-meson has a velocity of the order of 1010
centimetres per second, which means that the pi-meson
flies past the proton 10 about 10-23 second.
This number we know: it is the order of magnitude
of the time of strong interacuons, So everything is the
way it should be. The mteracnon operating between
a proton and the nuclear-field quantum (pi-meson) is
precisely the strong interaction.
The POint JS this. A "resonance" pi-meson stays with
the proton for a time of the same order, about 10- 23
second; perhaps just a bit longer than a meson with
the adjacent "nonresonance" energy. So far there is no
way of determining this lime. The only thing we know
is the order of its magnitude.
The Important point here IS that a delay of sorts
does occur. Physicists query: What do the two particles
do in this minute interval of time, coalesce, become
attached?
Theoreticians say the matter is quite obscure, but for
some reason new pi-mesons appear. Incidentally, it might
be a case where the energy of the nuclear field is
materialized in the form of new field quanta. A virtual
process With very real consequences!

The Curtain Rises

Some time passed and the attitude towards "resonances" underwent a change. There was talk that the
resonance particles were actually no worse than any
other real particles.
Really, now, what is a particle? A material structure,
which. though It does not have strictly definite dimen20-70

297

sions, possesses a number of properties that differentiate

it from other particles: mass, charge, spin, hfetime.
The term lifetime requires some explanation. The proton, for Instance, ISabsolutely stable, ItSlifetime is indefinitely great. Now a charged pi-meson is quite another
matter, for It lives only some thousandth of a miIlionth
of a second; and its neutral brother has a lifetime
another thousand million times shorter. Unimaginably
brief though this lifetime is, we can still regard these
structures as particles.
The mass? A resonance entity has mass, which may
be computed from Einstein's equation relatmg mass and
energy. In the same way we can introduce charge and
spin for the resonance object of a system of momentarily
"attached" particles, or we can determine these properties
for the particles that fly out at the instant a resonance particle decays.
In other words, we can attribute to resonances all
the properties that "real" particles have. True, the new
particles appear to be unusual in the extreme. But
physicists are accustomed to the extraordinary. Nothing
surprises them any more. Actually, any system may be
described either In the language of material properties
or in the language of field properties. Quantum mechanics IS what makes this possible.
Essentially, the two descriptions are identical. So at
first glance a fresh approach does not yield anything
new. Now if we could utilize "resonances" to make
experimentally confirmable predictions, that would be a
different matter. In other words, call a "resonance"
anything you want to, picture it as a cluster of momentanly attached particles or a single new particle. invest
It with any kind of properties you like so long as the
new concepnon proves fruitful and leads to new discoveries.
298

As events demonstrated, it was this most valuable

property that the new view encompassed, a view that
gave resonance objects the right of citizenship in the
world of particles. Studies of the curves of pi-mesons
and, later, K-mesons scattered on protons suggested to
physicists that similar curves had been obtained before:
in the scattering of protons on atomic nuclei.
We have already discussed this. A nucleus struck by
a proton absorbs the latter and, with it, a considerable
portion of its energy. The nucleus becomes excited and
has several different ways of getting out of this state,
for Instance, it can eject a proton and a gamma quantum or some other particles and revert to the original
state. And when the proton energy is "just right", the
curve of proton scattering by a nucleus exhibits peaks,
which are very much like the humps we have been
speaking about.
That is how resonances came to be regarded as real
particles; though, of course, a very special type. They
are, as it were, excited states of other more stable particles
of the microworld - mesons, protons, hyperons.
The predictions made in the early 1960s and based
on this hypothesis were very SOon brilliantly corroborated.

Resonances

Get Citizenship

The new view played an important part in the classification of microworId residents. The Current census
of micropartrcles includes resonance entities as well
as conventional structures.
Their decay products? Again novelties. The resonance
particles had a way of decaying in many different ways.
Well, said physicists, that's good, we can interrogate
20'

299

the new-born particles and find out a few things about

their parents.
But theoreticians did not wait for experimenters to
lay everythmg out for them spick and span. They pushed
forward, making mistakes, going down blind alleys, erossmg difficult terrain; and fairly often they got out ahead
of the experimenters.
Recall isotoptC spin. It made possible the grouping
of particles with close-lying masses as varieties of one
and the same particle. This was the first step in bringing order to the multitude of microworld inhabitants.
The next job was to link these "isotopic multiplets"
into larger classes of "supermultiplets". The difficulty
was not only that the familiar relations among the
particles were still obscure, there was no information
about the number of members to a "family". But It was
clear from the very beginning that there are at least
three quite definite varieties of family: leptons, mesons
and baryons.
To this day, physicists don't really know anything
about the lepton families. The lepton group as a whole
is not at all so numerous as the enormous meson and
baryon clans. That would seem to make the Job of
figunng things out so much easier. But paradoXIcally
it wasn't easier. Physicists are sull trying to determine
why the group exists at all. None of the known laws
of the microworld can even justify its existence.

By

contrast, the other two multi-membered

groups

offer a good deal of prorruse today. True, the large

populations here, which increased still more with the
inclusion of the resonance particles, have not simplified
the tasks of theoreticians.
But there is hope in the new game physicists are
now playing. It consists in juggling member particles to
come up with fresh groupings. The new method of par300

ticle classification goes by the exotic name of the eightfold way.

We already

know about

ones, twos and threes - the

ordinary singlets, doublets, and triplets of particles in

groups with isotopic spin 0, 1/" and I, respectively.
Octets - groups of eight - will be the topic of a special
talk.
Up to now we have spoken of particle classificatron
as to mass, electric charge, ordinary and isotopic spin.
For a number of years this classification failed, for there
was always a particle that did not want to fit into
some pigeon-hole, thus dashing the current hopes of
theoreticians.
So in 1961 it was suggested that those were not the
proper characteristics to classify particles by. Such was
the conclusion of Gell-Mann, of the United States, and
Ne'eman, of Israel. They suggested rejecting all characteristics except isotopic spin and strangeness.
That
would leave four quantities. The point is that isotopic
spin is a complex entity consisting of three quantities.

The reader will just have to accept this on authority, for

the complexity of isotopic spin goes beyond the scope of a
book like this.
So theoreticians
have at their disposal four quantities. The question

IS what

to do with them.

Add another four!

That was a bold step indeed. Four are hard enough
to manage. and here are another four. They have meaning - similar in a way to ordinary and Isotopic spin _
but so far it is quite mysterious. The quartet of quanti.
ties are still lacking names.
Eight quantities! Theoreticians
appear to know what

they are doing, because these eight are no accidental

choice.

301

Triplets, OctetsThey form a very interesting group, these eight quantiunitary group for

ties. Mathematicians
call it a special
arrays of size 3 x 3.

This esoteric language

erty: the quantIties that
one into the other! In
10 the groups IS related

hides a most
make up the
other words,
to a certain

important propgroup can pass

If each quantity
particle, all the
particles can convert into one another. They will be
found to have a common origin!
That was what the whole job was about: not the
slightest bit of physics, just pure intricate mathematics.
Now
groups,

mathematicians
are very familiar with number
including the special unitary group of unitary

symmetry.
So here we have eight quantities or eight particles
in each group. What particles are they? This can be
established quite definitely. For instance the group of
mesons. Up until recently it contained three pi-mesons
and four K-mesons,

or a total of seven. But the meson

octet demands an eighth particle. The properties of this

eighth meson were predicted: ordinary spm, 0, as for
all mesons In this group, electnc charge absent, isotopic spin, naturally, again zero so that the particle
should be quite alone, and the mass approximately
1,100 electron masses.

In the very same year of 1961, when the prediction

was made,

Theoreticians

experimenters

detected

the lacking

meson.

had predicted a mass of 1,080, the disco-

vered mass was 1,100!

The new idea, Originally received so coaly by theoretical
workers, was now bandied about at every turn. In the
course of two years a second octet of mesons was burlt
up out of resonance particles. The familiar baryons, as
302

lal
AfUQn$ (tArl&o11y pntIutMJ

fY
I
I

(6'

Fig. 31

will be seen from the figure, filled neatly into their

octet without the slightest bit of coaxing.
Next in turn were the resonance hyperons with masses
nearly three thousand times the electron mass. Here
rheoreticrans found out that the group should accommodate not eight but ten particles, all with ordinary
spin 3/2. Incidentally, they were the first particles with
ordinary spin in excess of unity.
This group was to form a triangle, the first storey
of which consisted of four delta hyperons, the second,
303

Baryons (spin %)

I
I
I
I

If

Fig.

31. (continued)

of three resonance L-hyperons (more massive than

the L-hypero"s, but apparently their relatives: they are
denoted by the same letter with a bar on top to avoid
confusron), and the third storey, of two resonance
2-hyperons, and the roof - there was no roof! The house
of resonance hyperons was left uncompleted.
When Gell-Mann began investigatmg the decuplet
(tensorne) he was struck by this strange Circumstance
from the very start. He attempted to work out the
properties of the "roof", maintaining it should have spin
3/2, uke all the other dwellers. What is more, It should
have a negative electric charge, Isotopic spin zero, and like the earlier discovered eta-meson - a mass of 1,080.
Now the mass of the new hyperon, which Gell-Mann
christened omega-minus, should be nearly 3,300 electron
masses instead of 1,080. And a still more remarkable
304

K'

K~

""

"

"

, .."r

20

:JI,--=-----:n;;:-- -~

__

Path of omega-minus

particle

Fig. 32

thing - the new particle was to be a real one and not

a resonance entity. Yet the lifetime was to be the usual
thing for ordinary hyperons - roughly in the tenthousand millionths of a second.
But thrs meant that one could search for the omega
hyperon. DUring its lifetime it could leave a trace somewhere, say in a bubble chamber in the vicinity of its
birthplace
The experIment to capture an omega hyperon lasted
about a year and was finally found in the spring of
1964 after the exammation of nearly a hundred thousand
305

photographs taken in the bubble chamber of the Brookhaven National Laboratory accelerator in the United
States. One of them revealed the long-awaited event!
Take a look at the diagram: It WIll enable you to make
some sense out of the bewildering maze of tracks on
the photographIc plate.

Quarks
Playing around with the members of groups proved
to be a great success. The omega hyperon that was
discovered "at the point of a pencil" constitutes a whole;
era in particle physics.
For the first time we have a convincing system of
new particles. and for the first time the particle census
is beginning to make sense. It should play no less a
role than Mendeleyev's discovery of the periodic law of
the chemical elements.
Today, particle physics IS experiencing something very
similar. First singlets, doublets and triplets of isotopic
multiplets. Then the octets of supermultiplets.
What
next?
There is no need to ascribe any special sigOlficance
to the magic of numbers. From the fact that eight is
the key number in the periodic system of chemical
elements (eight types of valence) it does not at all follow that eight is Just as "magic" a number In the
world of particles.
It will be recalled that it was quantum mechanics
that explained the chemical significance of the eight.
It proved that no more than eight electrons can occupy
the outermost electron shell of the atom. And these
electrons are responsible for the chemical behaviour of
atoms. In the particle world quantum mechanics finds
it more difficult. The laws are utterly ditTerent from
306

those of the world of atoms. Here, as a rule, quantum

mechanics does not resolve problems in frontal attacks
but in roundabout ways, due to ignorance of the fundamemal laws. One of these circuitous approaches is
the utilization of groups in umtary symmetry.
Isotopic spin and unitary symmetry handle nearly
a hundred known particles. But where is the seed that
gave birth to this remarkable bouquet? Are there, among
them, certarn basic particles, generating particles that
produce all the others via the complicated, subtle
interplay of strong, electromagnetic and weak Interactions?
About fifteen years ago the Japanese physicist Sakata expressed the view that there are such generating
particles, And he named them: proton, neutron, and
lambda hyperon. For many reasons they were quue
filling in the role of baSIC, fundamental particles. This
idea and the choice of starting particles was, it seemed,
particularly confirmed by the discovery of nonconservation of parity and the study of weak interactions.
But as luck would have it, this triplet was supposed
to generate groups consisting of 6 and 15 particles.
However, experiment has not yeJlded any such groups.
That is why physicists put aside Sakata's suggestion;
alJ the more so since in the years that followed It was
obscured by whole groups of octets and decuplets of
particles. But history repeats itself.
Just recently a hypothesis about three fundamental
particles - three elephants holding up the microworld _
has come to the fore gripping physicists. But these are
no longer the particles advanced by Sakata. Particle
physics has not yet discovered them.
The authors of the new hypothesis, Gell-Mann and
Zweig, gave them the name "quarks". And what a
remarkable set of enunes they are! Their strangeness
307

number has to be fractional! Well, the reader may say,

nothing surprising in that if one considers that "strangeness" is a purely conventional concept without any
pictorial physical significance behind it.
But surely the reader will be amazed by the electric
charge, which also comes out fractional: 2/3 or 1/3' of
the electron charge. The electron charge has always
been the smallest charge of all indivisible. How indeed
can there be one third of such a charge?
But no quarks have yet been detected. Perhaps due
to the presumed great mass. They are believed to be
roughly 6,000 times more massive than the electron,
while the heaviest known resonance particles have masses that only approach 5,000 electron masses. But who
knows, they may yet be found. Anyway the hunt is on.

Old Ideas Hold One Back

This constant and ubiquitous relatedness of matter
and field confronted physicists with the task of interpreting it and generating new concepts to describe the
matter-field unity. Here, quantum mechanics with its
established notions was rather on the conservative side.
When quantum mechanics originated, it inherited from
its predecessor, classical phySICS,all the concepts used
10 respect to the world of ordinary things and carried
them over into the world of the ultrasmall. The Schrodinger equation was constructed along the lines of the
classical wave equation with the sole difference that It
described not ordinary waves but 'waves of probability',
which expressed the law of motion of microparticles
In space and time. At first the satisfacnon was complete.
the rmcroparticlcs wilhngly obeyed these laws.
True, from the very start of quantum mecharucs It
was found that these old concepts would not function
308

well in the new physics. The uncertainty relarion made

it evident that the earlier ideas of exact position and
velocity, particle energy and time could be applied in
the micro world on a very restricted scale.
This half-hearted satisfaction gave way to dissatisfaction as soon as the microparticles gamed energy sufficient
for mutual transformations. The above-described method
for establishing the laws of motion of particles in space
and urne broke down completely.
Just picture the situation: there IS one particle, then
we get another one, or several even, or JD place of
particles we have photons. Quite naturally, the wave
function was not m a position to describe conversion.
According to quantum mechanics, transformation should
take place at a single point of space and instantaneously.
As a result, we get another particle or a photon for
which the earlier wave function does not hold any
longer.
What did quantum mechanics do in that case? At
the site of conversion, it combined both laws of motion
(old and new) taking advantage of the familiar laws
of conservation of energy and momentum.
In this approach, the process of transformation itself
was left out of consideration. Firstly, because it occurs
at a single 'point' m space and also in time so that
at the instant of transformation the particle is not in
motion In the ordinary sense of the word. Secondly,
because one type of particle va DIshes and a different
type of particle appears, yet the equations of motion
referred always to a single invariable type of particle.
WhICh means that this classical approach to phenomena of the microworld carried over into quantum
mechanics by means of the space and time concepts
was clearly insufficient. It did not reflect the basic essense of this world, the transformations of particles into
309

one another and mto field quanta, and also the reverse
conversion of quanta into partic1es of matter. The
problem now was to determine the actual course of
transformation. But this required a radical change in
the mode of description.
Quantum mechanics did this by introducing the virtual processes that we' have spoken about. They too
fail and do not yield a final solution to the problem.
A still more profound approach is needed in which
the classical conceptions of space and time will probably
undergo fundamental change.

The Reverse of the Obvious

How to begin tltis new thing? Some say: give up
the notions of space and time as such.
Hardly! Physics would then find itself in difficult
straits, for the existmg concepts of the rmcroworld,
despite their unusual nature, are still based on our
customary notions about space and time. It is indeed
hard to reject such fundamental ideas which we are used to
from the first day of our life. On the other hand, space
and time are needed anyway to describe phenomena
in the microworld that are not associated with transformations of particles, for such concepts are very convenient here.
There is another, more realistic, approach: revise our
concepts of space and time. Einstein did this for the
first time half a century ago. Now we have to supplement Einstein's views, which apply to the world in
the large, with the peculiarities of the world of the
ultrasmall.
What is the true essence of space and lime? They
are so familiar that we never give them thought. To
our everyday mind, space is a repository of bodies.
310

Nothing more? Just think for a moment where the

concept of space comes from. From the very start,
man deals not with 'pure' space, but with the bodies
that fill it. Bodies, objects are perceived by sight.
Objects appear to us to be close if they occupy a
large field of view 10 our eye. Vet this is nothing other
than a large number of photons emitted by the body
and impinging on our eye. In other words, the stronger
the electromagnetic field (created by a body) in our eye,
the closer the object appears to us. And vice versa,
few photons entering OUf eye indicate that the object
IS either small [wtth few atoms emitting photons) or far
away (few photons of the total number reach our eye).
If man possessed only eyes from birth, he would never
be able to distinguish between small close-lying bodies
and distant but large objects. With the eye alone, that
IS, Without any other mental operations, It is impossible
to determine

dimensions
We touch

how far objects are from us and what their

are. We are aided by the sense of touch.
objects and learn about their dimensions

(relative, naturally - as compared with ourselves).

If there were no objects, we would have no conception
of space. At night, when we do not see objects, the
feeling of space is lost.
OUf sense organs that help us to build up conceptions
about

the world

around

us are actually

instruments.

They are even scnsiuve enough to register quantum

events. But the world IS so constructed
that many
thousands of millions of such events are registered at one
time. The result is that our sensations (and conceptions)

are 'averaged'

(or classical, as the physicists say). The

unusual nature of quantum laws IS displayed when these

events are studied singly.
Space is not the only thing of material origin In our
minds. If we found ourselves in a situation where nothing
311

changed around us (this occurs deep underground and

will probably be the case of future astronauts who will
be moving at great distances from astronomical bodies
and for many years at a time), we would lose all
perception of time, and hence any conception of it.
We have already mentioned the fact that there are
two kinds of time in pnnciple: the 'proper time' of a
body determined by the physical (and chemical) processes III that body, and the 'general time' determined by
large assemblies of bodies. As a result, just as there is
no space divorced of bodies, so there is no time divorced
of events.
The course of time is determined by events, concatenations of cause and effect. The more active the events
in a system of bodies, the faster they follow one another
(in other words, the more intense the interactions in
that system), the 'faster' time flows in the system.
It will be recalled that this conclusion is corroborated
even in our own experience. A day filled with events
flies by in 'no time', while one without any events
'drags along'. Underlying this subjective Impression is
a very profound objective foundation.

The Ubiquitous Quantum

These new conceptions of space and time are not yet
accepted by all physicists. What is more, they have
not yet been confirmed experimentally.
They appeared over thirty years ago, but have not
yet gained general currency. However, many scientists
believe that they contain some of the truth.
The basic proposition concerning the relationship of
space and time with the existence of bodies and their
motions in the microworld is something like this: since
microparticles and their motions have quantum pro312

perties, space and time should be quantized as well.

And if that is so, then the last stronghold of classical
conceptions will crumble. Space and time will lose their
contmuity and will break up into minute discrete
'portions' !
What this means IS that there should be special
kinds of 'cells', so to speak - the quanta of space and
lime. Their dimensions would perhaps be determined
by the masses, energies, momenta (and possibly other
characteristics) of microparticles. Quite naturally, these
cells would have to be the smallest of all possible
quantities.
But so far we have no knowledge of any such
'elementary length' or 'elementary interval of time'. Which
might mean that they lie beyond the sensitivity of the
most exact modern methods of measuring lengths and
times in the microworld. The lirrut of these techniques
is, for length, of the order of the range of nuclear
forces, or 10- 13 centimetre, and for time, of the order
of the 'nuclear time', i. e., 10- 23 second. Some scientists
believe that the 'length quantum', if It exists, should be
hundreds or even thousands of times shorter.
Very interesting conceptions. It is understandable why
we never notice the existence of quanta of space and
time. They are simply too small. No timepiece can
measure a fraction of time of, say. one millionth of a
rmllionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second.
And the same goes for lengths, the same fraction of a
centimetre!
But even if we could measure such fantastic fractions
of space and time, we would never be able to actually
do it. Instruments are crude things, they change the
microworld in the act of probing it. Recall, finally, that
our classical concepts of length and time in the microworld are limited and hold true only to a certain
21-70

.!

313

,
extent. Such limits become a dual matter-field aspect
of microparticles. And yet these very same limits are
the quanta of space and time that we have been talking
about.
Then is there any sense in introducing such cells or
quanta of time? For don't they continue to reflect our
everyday conceptions about space and time?
That is true enough. We have mentioned otT and on
that each new layer of knowledge makes its appearance
not in a void but on the foundation of earlier layers.
The extremely exacting process of developing new concepuons does not take place overnight, it is slow and
the new notions will always bear traces of their predecessors. The birth of new concepts is always a
travail.
So it was in the first years of quantum mechanics,
and so it continues to be now when quantum mechanics
is confronted with still greater barriers. Will it be victorious, or will it succumb, supplanted by a new and
more powerful theory?

From quantum

Indeterminable

mechanics to .. ,?

Determinacies

Mass, charge. Spin, parity. Give exact definiuons of

each of these particle characteristics! And make the definition independent, that is, do not express one quan-

tity in terms of another, say, mass In terms of the

force of weight, or charge in lerms of the force of
attraction

and repulsion.

You won't gel far if you do. We are always using

these concepts but not a single physicist in the world
today knows what they really mean 'deep down'.
That is the Situation with quantum mechanics as of
today. It makes extensive use of thmgs like mass,
charge and other ideas borrowed from classical physics.
And it discovered some new things of its own that
describe particles - spin and parity, for instance. But
it can say no more about the ongin of these
features than It can about the ongin of mass and
charge

Indeed, what

IS

mass? There are two answers. First:

mass is a measure of the quantity of matter In a body.

It may be understood as the quantity of atomic nuclei

",

3t5

(since they contain the bulk of the mass of atoms)

in a given volume of substance. In turn, the mass of
the nucleus may be interpreted as the quantity of nuclear particles, protons and neutrons.
But then what is the mass of a proton? Is it a measure of the quantity of matter in It, as before? What
measure? What matter? The very concept of measure
indicates that somethmg can be broken down into
smaller fractions. But it would appear that the proton
IS not divisible any further.
And we can only guess
what the matter in the proton is like.
When we say that the proton has a mass of approximately 10-24 gram, we only mean that one gram of
substance contains roughly 1024 protons. Thus, to define mass as a measure of substance for protons and
other microparncles is rather meaningless.
The second definition of mass is that mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, in other words, a measure
of the resistance the body offers to any change on its
state. In the most elementary case, mass determines
the resistance of a body to any alteration in its pOSItion In space.
Then, perhaps, we should understand the mass of a
proton as the measure of the reluctance with which it
is set into motion by forces due to other particles. This
definition IS not satisfactory either. Forces represent
interaction, in the final analysis the action of a field.
When a proton increases its speed, It acquires extra
mass from the field; when ItS speed dirmnishes, it returns the mass to the field. Small as these portions of
acquired and lost mass may be, they do exist. Hence,
mass is a variable quantity and thus loses its property
of a definite measure.
Thus we find on the microworld that mass itself has
to be measured With somethmg. In our case, the mass
316

of the proton, in accordance with the equations of

relativity theory, is determined by the rest mass of the
proton and the ratio of Its velocity of motion to the
velocity of light.
There seems to be a ray of hope. The rest mass is
indeed an invariable quantity for a given type of particle. If it is changed, the particle changes. Doesn't it
then follow that the rest mass is also a measure of
inertia? However not with respect to ordinary mechanical motion - translation in space, but with respect
to motion in the very broadest sense of the word _ to
the transformation
of particles.
ThIS would seem rather close to the truth. We recall that when the kinetic energy of particles is compared with thetr energy proper as determined precisely
by the rest mass, particles obtained the possibility of
actual transformations
into the quanta of its field.
But if this is so then the rest mass becomes a measure of the qualitative stability of particles. For some
particles thrs mass is not very great and conversion
tnto quanta can begin at rather low energies. In the
case of other particles, it is much greater, and accordmgly the particles are considerably more stable.
On the present view, particles experience actual transformations and also so-called virtual transformations
that underlie their interactions. Thus mass acquires yet
another aspect In determining the energy of the virtual quanta of fields.
All this makes mass a very intricate concept. On the
one hand, mass IS some kmd of characteristic of the
particle as such; on the other, mass IS a determining
factor in all interactions of the particle.
Undoubtedly, the other particle characteristics should
be just as complicated. Today, all the problems mvalved m determinmg the deep inner essence of entities
317

of the microworld come up against this greatest of

unconquered peaks of physics - the interrelation of the
two basic forms of matter, substance and the field.
Particles of substance possess properties of the field.
Field quanta have material properties ....
Which is the 'most fundamental', which is primary substance or the field?
A century ago, when physics had Just acquired the
concept of the field, the answer was obvious: substance
of course. The partrcles of a substance generate a field
about themselves. The field IS only an auxiliary tool
for handhng particle mteractions. There IS no field
Without matter.
But time passed, and it was found that a field could
generate particles, that particles could vanish and become a field. Not so auxiliary as might be supposed!
Then physicists went to the other extreme. Taking
Einstein's cue, they stated: the field is pnmary - the
unitary universal field In all of ItS multifanous manifestations. Particles of matter are simply 'blobs' of the
field. There is no matter WIthout the field.
Emstein spent many years workmg on a unified field
theory that would incorporate all known types of fields
and particles, but all his attempts failed. Physicists gradually came to the view that neither field nor substance
is primary, that both in equal measure are the fundamental and primary aspects of matter as such.
That, it turns out, is the correct view, and the argument between adherents of the unified field and unified
matter could cease. Yet physicists contmue to argue:
How correct IS their knowledge of the world of ultrasmall thmgs? Do their concepts correspond to the true
essence of these entities? Are they not mistaken in Imposing on nature theones thought up by the human
mind? And IS man - a representative of the world of
318

large things - at all capable of knowing things and

events that OCCur in the microworld of atoms, nuclei
and elementary particles?
Man is able to learn the laws of nature and get
closer and closer to the truth. But the process of cogmtion will never come to an end, no knowledge of the
world will ever be absolutely exact. Taking these
propositions as his foundatmn, the physicist approaches
the problem of how he should understand the interrelations of the two basic forms of matter.
First of all: Can there be a umfied field or a UnIfied substance? No. Field and substance are two opposed forms of the existence of matter and its development. One is impossible without the other. Two sides
of one medal. Though Opposite, they are unitary and
Inseparably connected: the field has the properties of
a substance, and a substance has the properties of the
field.
Do OUf notrons about the existence and mterconnection of these two forms of matter possess any degree
of truth? Yes, they defimrely do, Since these concepts,
though inexact, are nevertheless correct, on the whole
As a rule, observations fit Into their framework and
predictions based on them hold true
Then why do physicists contmue to argue as to how
one should interpret the results they obtam? First of
all, because not all physicists are acquainted with dialectical matenahsm
Hostile philosophies, especially the
most noxIOUStrend called subjective rdeahsm, main tam
that the world exists only In man's tmagmanon so that
the laws of nature are at best only the workings of
the human mind. With a philosophy lrke thrs, even
some promment scientists are not mchned to attach
much real stgntficance to the discoveries of physics.
These scientists regard the world as unknowable.
319

This is all the easier since the world of the ultrasmall cannot be observed directly, one cannot see it
so as to be convinced of ItS existence. And - still more
important - the properties of the microworJd ditTer radically from those of the customary world about us.
This difference IS so great that OUf everyday conceptions do not reflect the real essence of the microworld.
Science develops in such a way that new conceptions originate very slowly. After all, human beings live
In the world of ordinary things, common notions, and
their minds hold tenaciously to these notions. It IS very
difficult to make the transition to the 'unconceivable'
conceptions that make for a correct picture of the
microworld. But one has to. It IS so inconvement to
speak and think about a 'microparncle'
that is not
simply a particle, and to talk about a 'field' that is
something more than a field. The trouble here is not so
much In the words used, but rather in Imagery. in conceptions and notions .
.Quantum mechanics was able to combine the old

concepts into new particle-wave,

positron-hole

and me-

son-quantum Images. But In the mmds of physicists

these dual enuues have not fully merged into unified
actuality.
This merging is a matter for the near future.
The

Biography

of Quantum

Mechanics

During the sixty odd years of its existence, quantum

mechanics has passed through three stages of development.
The first stage IS from Planck to de Broglie, and
embraces 25 years - from the discovery of the material properties of light waves to the discovery of the wave
properties of material particles. During these years,
320

Einstein and Bohr developed the theory of particles of

light (photons), the first very imperfect theory of atomic structure and of atomic phenomena.
The second stage in the development of quantum
mechanics began with de Broglie's discovery in 1924.
Within the exceptionally short period of about 5 years
was created the basic 'working tool' of the new theory.
Dirac synthesized quantum mechanics and Einstein's
relativity theory. During the period up to the Second
World War, the theory of the atomic nucleus was created.
And, finally, the third period - after World War II _
quantum mechanics was extended to the elementary
particles and to the second basic form of matter,
the field.
During this third stage, quantum mechanics came up
against ever greater difficulties. After the brilliant victories of its early years carne a series of setbacks and
failures.
The impression is that, good as it is against atoms
and molecules, it is simply not strong enough for those
extrahard nuts - the structure of elementary particles
and their interactions.
Experiment today has gone out far ahead of theory.
Theory has yet to interpret processes in the deep interior of atomic nuclei. On the agenda are problems
dealing with the very essence of the concept of elementary particles.
Quantum mechanics has not yet succeeded in resolving these problems. Its limitations, which twenty
years ago had seemed so hazy and distant, are now
becoming ever clearer. The time is ripe for a rejuvenation of quantum mechanics.
Isn't this reminiscent of the situation at the turn of
the century with regard to classical mechanics?
321

On the one hand, there don't seem to be any facts

that run counter to the basic propositions of quantum
mechanics. It is only an inability to account for a number of phenomena, an inability of the theory as such,
not of the scientists behind it. Maybe what is needed
is an extension of the framework, perhaps new important noncontradictory
proposiuons need to be added
to give the theory strength.
Vet it may happen that these propositions will not jibe
wuh earlier ones. Then for a time we will be dIScouraged. There have never been all-powerful theories
and there never will be. Like life generally, each theory
has its shaky childhood, its strong youth when It resolves dozens of extrahard problems, its calm maturity
when forward

movement slows down and the theory

spreads out encompassing ever broader spheres of phenomena, moving into technology and industry and establishmg contacts with other disciplines, and finally old
age when it is powerless against the onslaught of fresh
facts, facts discovered by the theory itself.
Then a penod of stagna lion sets m, At least It would
seem so, yet that isn't the situation at all. New Ideas
are all the time cropping up that find the framework
of the old theory too narrow. One fine day these new
ideas will break the shell in which they have been confined, and science will then make a big Jump forward.
On the age scale we have just descnbed, quantum
mechanics today has reached Its peak of maturity and
old age is creeping up. It IS connected with numerous
important technical achievements, it has handled problems ranging from the structure of stellar systems to
that of atomic nuclei and the elementary particles,
Today quantum mechanics IS the strongest physical
theory of the rrucroworld.
There is no theory that can compete with It. but
322

there IS definite need of such a theory. SCientists at work

this field of physics are trying either to rejuvenate
it with new content that does not contradict Its basic
principles, or to change Its spirit and give It up for
more radical things. Let it be sacrificed, they say. Yet
none can boast of any Success
More and more physicists tend toward the view that
what is needed is something still more unusual, a 'erazier ' theory! No one is afraid of that word, for anything
fundamentally new encounters terrific resistance on the
part of the old. There are always those who suggest
psychiatric treatment for the author. It was the same
With quantum mechanics when it was born. It too was
called 'crazy' by many. But now there is probably not
a single SCIentist that does not accept it.
However all this may be, there is one thing that is
certain: physics is on the threshold of a new big advance. This leap IS not into the dark, for scientists see
very clearly the route which the new physics must
follow and the stations along the way.
Here are some of them. A rigorous Unified systematic arrangement of aU known and unknown elementary
particles. The structure and mrernal properties of particles of matter. The nature of the forces operating
in atomic nuclei. Exact laws of interrelationships between the two fundamental forms of matter - substance
and field. The mutual relationship and interdependence
of all the properties of moving matter: energy and time.
mass and space, and the specific essence of the microworld determined by this relationship.
We have descnbed m this book how quantum mechanics was born and how It grew up, how It became the
powerful weapon of science that It IS today. We have
told how quantum mechanics IS handling the present
problems of physics and how It is seeking ways Into
In

323

the still smaller world of things, the ultramicroworld.

This world of new smallness is the problem of today.

Quantum Mechanics Cets Its Second Wind

Every science has two Iifetimes. The first has to do
with ideas, conceptions. laws and formulas. The second
has to do with their translation into the hardware of
technology - tools and instruments
and machines.
No matter how abstract the gyrations of the scientific mind, there is always a return to the real world of
human beings and to their needs.
Marx' famous words that philosophers
only explained the world, the point however was to change
it, do not refer to philosophy alone. They contain the
true meaning of the existence and development of any

science.
Every new discovery IS an addition to the storehouse
of human knowledge. But it IS not only that. Man
becomes stronger in his struggle with nature. If one
traces discovery throughout history, he will see that in
each later period the gap between a big discovery and
its application to human needs becomes shorter and
shorter.

Science perceives future problems before human practice gets to them. This foresight is not a favour of the
gods or of gem uses, tt is objective reality, at the heart
of which lie the laws of development of society.
Science does not wait for a vitally important problem to mature. Whether scientists reahze it or not. they
attack fresh problems long before they have become
of vital importance.
Science is the most forward outpost of human society, the scout of the future and the most reliable defender of the present.
324

The discovery and development of quantum mechanics may serve as a good illustration. Let us take a look
at the second lifetime of quantum mechanics.
Atomic nuclei were conceived round about J912.
Twenty years later, that conception took on clear-cut
outlines. The particles that make up the nucleus
were defined and the forces operative between nuclear
particles were discovered and explained. The 'inaccessibility' of the atomic nucleus, both physrcajiy and conceptually, did not deter physicists. Thirteen years later
saw the advent of the atomic age. True, in the form
of ghastly atomic bombs which the Americans dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki bringing death and destruction instead of abundance. Then just a few more
years passed, and in 1954 the Soviet Union put into
operation the world's first atomic power station. The
Soviet scientists diverted the power of the atom from
war and destruction to peace and construction.
Quantum mechanics found its first technical application in the inferno of the atomic reactor, where
streams of neutrons split up the nuclei of heavy atoms
and generate heat and electricity.
Scientists then turned to the light nuclei, the isotopes
of hydrogen, in attempts to extract more energy. The
Soviet Union aims at the utilization of thermonuclear
reactions for peace, for generating electricity. This is
the noble aim of the Soviet scientists - to supply humamty with power for thousands of years to come.
Here, too, quantum mechanics has important things
to say. It calculates the course of fusion reactions
and predicts the energy that will be generated.
What next? Fresh problems. Problems that WIll be
much more difficult than what we know today. But then
scientists of the future will be better equipped than they
are today.
325

'~-------------""I'J
Up unttl recent times, researchers rarely gave thought
to the consequences of their discoveries. Young A. lotTe
who at the beginning of this century became interested
in so-called waste materials could hardly have imagined
the future of semiconductors.
But without quantum mechanics semiconductors
would be dead. Quantum mechanics not only explained
their remarkable properties, it suggested radical ways
of improving them. Today, the department of quantum
mechanics known as the band theory of solids has become the guiding star for many thousands of research
workers and engineers in electronics.
These minute yet powerful electronic devices have
wrought fundamental changes in industry and technology. Not a single factory or vehicle or communication
facility does without them. There is hardly a single
sphere of human activity that has not experienced the
effects of electronics.
Scientists are already working on one of the boldest
projects of all: the use of semiconductors to extract
electricity from the solar energy that falls so generously
on the earth, and thus take over from the nearly exhausted fossil-fuel sources of energy. The first semiconductor solar batteries are already functioning generating
electric energy out of the sun's rays. Designers are
workmg on projects for solar batteries to power the
first settlements on the moon and the planets of the
solar system.
An interesting feature in this respect IS that on the
earth semiconductor facilities covering huge areas (this
is necessary to catch a large enough portion of the
sun's rays) would interfere with plant growth and
livestock forming. On the moon there would be no such
problem
Then how would we transmit these enormous quan326

tities of energy to the earth? Transmission lines as we

know them here on earth would naturally be out of
the question. What is more, the losses are very great
in these conventional modes of transmitting power.
Some ten years ago a prominent Soviet phYSICIst
v. Fabrikant proposed a quantum amplifier of electromagnetic waves. And quantum mechanics, first translated into the hardware ofa quantum amplifier and later
Into a quantum oscillator, brought to life a whole series of devices - the masers (amplifiers and generators
of radiowaves) and the lasers (amplifiers and generators
of light beams). That is what we call science fiction
come to life.
At the beginning of the book we spoke about the
laws of quantum mechanics that govern the electromagnetic radiation of atoms. These laws were firmly established long ago, so long ago (nearly thirty years back quite some time In quantum mechanical history) and
so firmly that In the 1950s few people ever gave them
thought any more.
But then inquisiuve
researchers took a fresh look
from a new angle, and these laws scintillated quite
unexpectedly givmg birth to a new set of amazingly powerful Instruments.
We have touched on only a few of the more exceptional technical achievements due to ideas and conceptions about the world of uhrasmall things that came
with quantum mechanics. Quantum mecharucs conunues to make inroads into technology and industry.
The number of devices continues to grow. ThIS second
lifetime' of quantum mechanics is exceptionally rich
and diverse. We have witnessed ItS inception. The future should exceed the predictions of the wildest science fiction.
327

At the tum of the 20m century, physics entered into

a new world, the invisible silent world of atoms, atomic
nuclei and elementary particles. Our twentieth century
then produced the theory that has been serving physicists
so faithfully for over sixty years - quantum mechanics.
The landscape of the new world is quire unlike our
own. So different that physicists frequently lack words to
describe it. Quantum mechanics had to create new
conceptions for the world of the ultra-small, bizarre
conceptions beyond the scope of pictorial imagery.
Customary physical laws cease to operate in the
new world. Particles lose their dimensions and acquire
the properties of waves. Electrons and the other building
stones of matter can pass through impenetrable barriers,
or they can vanish altogether leaving only photons in their
place. Those are the things quantum mechanics dealt
with.
This book will tell you about the origin and
development of quantum mechanics, about its new
concepts. It will describe how the new theory deciphered
the secrets of the structure of atoms, molecules, crystals,
atomic nulei, and how quantum mechanics is dealing with
the problem of the most fundamental of all properties of
matter - the interaction of particles and the relationships
between fields and matter.