Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac

Bio: Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac is an academic researcher from Florida State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Quantization (physics) & Theory of relativity. The author has an hindex of 58, co-authored 144 publications receiving 41843 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac include Institute for Advanced Study & St. John's College.

The quantum theory of the electron

Abstract: The new quantum mechanics, when applied to the problem of the structure of the atom with point-charge electrons, does not give results in agreement with experiment. The discrepancies consist of “duplexity ” phenomena, the observed number of stationary states for an electron in an atom being twice the number given by the theory. To meet the difficulty, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck have introduced the idea of an electron with a spin angular momentum of half a quantum and a magnetic moment of one Bohr magneton. This model for the electron has been fitted into the new mechanics by Pauli,* and Darwin,† working with an equivalent theory, has shown that it gives results in agreement with experiment for hydrogen-like spectra to the first order of accuracy. The question remains as to why Nature should have chosen this particular model for the electron instead of being satisfied with the point-charge. One would like to find some incompleteness in the previous methods of applying quantum mechanics to the point-charge electron such that, when removed, the whole of the duplexity phenomena follow without arbitrary assumptions. In the present paper it is shown that this is the case, the incompleteness of the previous theories lying in their disagreement with relativity, or, alternatetively, with the general transformation theory of quantum mechanics. It appears that the simplest Hamiltonian for a point-charge electron satisfying the requirements of both relativity and the general transformation theory leads to an explanation of all duplexity phenomena without further assumption. All the same there is a great deal of truth in the spinning electron model, at least as a first approximation. The most important failure of the model seems to be that the magnitude of the resultant orbital angular momentum of an electron moving in an orbit in a central field of force is not a constant, as the model leads one to expect.

Quantised Singularities in the Electromagnetic Field

Abstract: The steady progress of physics requires for its theoretical formulation a mathematics that gets continually more advanced. This is only natural and to be expected. What, however, was not expected by the scientific workers of the last century was the particular form that the line of advancement of the mathematics would take, namely, it was expected that the mathematics would get more and more complicated, but would rest on a permanent basis of axioms and definitions, while actually the modern physical developments have required a mathematics that continually shifts its foundations and gets more abstract. Non-euclidean geometry and non-commutative algebra, which were at one time considered to be purely fictions of the mind and pastimes for logical thinkers, have now been found to be very necessary for the description of general facts of the physical world. It seems likely that this process of increasing abstraction will continue in the future and that advance in physics is to be associated with a continual modification and generalisation of the axioms at the base of the mathematics rather than with a logical development of any one mathematical scheme on a fixed foundation. There are at present fundamental problems in theoretical physics awaiting solution, e.g. , the relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics and the nature of atomic nuclei (to be followed by more difficult ones such as the problem of life), the solution of which problems will presumably require a more drastic revision of our fundamental concepts than any that have gone before. Quite likely these changes will be so great that it will be beyond the power of human intelligence to get the necessary new ideas by direct attempts to formulate the experimental data in mathematical terms. The theoretical worker in the future will therefore have to proceed in a more indirect way. The most powerful method of advance that can be suggested at present is to employ all the resources of pure mathematics in attempts to perfect and generalise the mathematical formalism that forms the existing basis of theoretical physics, and after each success in this direction, to try to interpret the new mathematical features in terms of physical entities (by a process like Eddington’s Principle of Identification).

Note on Exchange Phenomena in the Thomas Atom

Abstract: For dealing with atoms involving many electrons the accurate quantum theory, involving a solution of the wave equation in many-dimensional space, is far too complicated to be practicable. One must therefore resort to approximate methods. The best of these is Hartree's method of the self-consistent field. Even this, however, is hardly practicable when one has to deal with very many electrons, so that one then requires a still simpler and rougher method. Such a method is provided by Thomas' atomic model, in which the electrons are regarded as forming a perfect gas satisfying the Fermi statistics and occupying the region of phase space of lowest energy. This region of phase space is assumed to be saturated, with two electrons with opposite spins in each volume (2πh)3, and the remainder is assumed to be empty. Although this model hitherto has not been justified theoretically, it seems to be a plausible approximation for the interior of a heavy atom and one may expect it to give with some accuracy the distribution of electric charge there.

On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Abstract: THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality [2] In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty There have been attempts [3] to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no "hidden variable" interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible These attempts have been examined elsewhere [4] and found wanting Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory [5] has been explicitly constructed That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly nonlocal structure This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions

Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms

Abstract: One of the simplest, and most completely treated, fields of application of quantum mechanics is the theory of atoms with one or two electrons For hydrogen and the analcgous ions He+, Li++, etc, the calculations can be performed exactly, both in Schrodinger’s nonrelativistic wave mechanics and in Dirac’s relativistic theory of the electron More specifically, the calculations are exact for a single electron in a fixed Coulomb potential Hydrogen-like atoms thus furnish an excellent way of testing the validity of quantum mechanics For such atoms the correction terms due to the motion and structure of atomic nuclei and due to quantum electrodynamic effects are small and can be calculated with high accuracy Since the energy levels of hydrogen and similar atoms can be investigated experimentally to an astounding degree of accuracy, some accurate tests of the validity of quantum electrodynamics are also possible Finally, the theory of such atoms in an external electric or magnetic field has also been developed in detail and compared with experiment

Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

Abstract: For centuries knowledge meant proven knowledge — proven either by the power of the intellect or by the evidence of the senses. Wisdom and intellectual integrity demanded that one must desist from unproven utterances and minimize, even in thought, the gap between speculation and established knowledge. The proving power of the intellect or the senses was questioned by the sceptics more than two thousand years ago; but they were browbeaten into confusion by the glory of Newtonian physics. Einstein’s results again turned the tables and now very few philosophers or scientists still think that scientific knowledge is, or can be, proven knowledge. But few realize that with this the whole classical structure of intellectual values falls in ruins and has to be replaced: one cannot simply water down the ideal of proven truth - as some logical empiricists do — to the ideal of’probable truth’1 or — as some sociologists of knowledge do — to ‘truth by [changing] consensus’.2