Your Own Work
When and how did you first become interested in spectral intensity problems? How did you happen to collaborate with Goudsmit on them ? What did you think of the extension of the sum rules by Ornstein and Burger [Zs. f. Phys. 31 (1925): pp. 355-361] in which they claim that there is a "Nichtübereinstimmung" between experiment (the sum rules) and theory (the requirements of the Correspondence Principle) ? Was this conclusion accepted by many?
In your own important work on the extension of the sum rules [Zs. f. Phys. 31 (1925) : pp. 885-897; 33 (1925): pp. 261-272] you rely on vector models to apply the Correspondence Principle results of Sommerfeld and Heisenberg [Zs. f. Phys. 11 (1922): pp. 131] to the intensity problem. In the first of these you use Landé's version of the Rumpf model, and in the second, Heisenberg's new "third scheme" [Zs. f. Phys. 32 (1925) : pp. 841 ]. Did you think Heisenberg's explanation of the different term-systems convincing? In both cases you are obliged to assign a quantum number to the Rumpf. Was Pauli's observation that all quantum numbers must refer to the electron then not considered a serious objection, or was the Rumpf retained only as a pis aller? Did you make any effort to express either model in terms of your idea of the spinning electron?
Your very full and balanced account of the history of the discovery of electron spin in "The Turning Point" leaves us with only a few questions on this subject. First of all is the question of the effective nuclear charge-dependence of the optical doublet separation. Was it generally considered to be a serious objection against the foundations of the old quantum theory? Was Sommerfeld's relativistic explanation at all maintained after Landé's thorough criticism? Presumably it was your success in deriving the Z4 dependence on the basis of the spin-orbit interaction that impressed Landé.
Had you also worked out an application to the anomalous Zeeman effect? Did Pauli succeed in talking you out of the idea mainly on the basis of the celebrated "factor of two?" What did Landé think about your publishing your idea after the talk with Pauli? What had he thought before? What objections were raised in Copenhagen? When you spoke on the subject in Copenhagen in November, after the appearance of the Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck paper, you say you were received with "indifference." Did your talk cause no comment at all, or were the old objections again advanced?
Your experience in this matter also suggests questions of a more general nature. For example, how much "approval" (in the form of conversations and letters with authorities) did one seek before publishing a new idea? How limited a circle were the "authorities ?" What was the refereeing policy of the leading journals? Were new ideas fairly well known to most physicists before ever reaching print? Is the present situation significantly different in these respects from the 1920s?
In your own important work on the extension of the sum rules [Zs. f. Phys. 31 (1925) : pp. 885-897; 33 (1925): pp. 261-272] you rely on vector models to apply the Correspondence Principle results of Sommerfeld and Heisenberg [Zs. f. Phys. 11 (1922): pp. 131] to the intensity problem. In the first of these you use Landé's version of the Rumpf model, and in the second, Heisenberg's new "third scheme" [Zs. f. Phys. 32 (1925) : pp. 841 ]. Did you think Heisenberg's explanation of the different term-systems convincing? In both cases you are obliged to assign a quantum number to the Rumpf. Was Pauli's observation that all quantum numbers must refer to the electron then not considered a serious objection, or was the Rumpf retained only as a pis aller? Did you make any effort to express either model in terms of your idea of the spinning electron?
Your very full and balanced account of the history of the discovery of electron spin in "The Turning Point" leaves us with only a few questions on this subject. First of all is the question of the effective nuclear charge-dependence of the optical doublet separation. Was it generally considered to be a serious objection against the foundations of the old quantum theory? Was Sommerfeld's relativistic explanation at all maintained after Landé's thorough criticism? Presumably it was your success in deriving the Z4 dependence on the basis of the spin-orbit interaction that impressed Landé.
Had you also worked out an application to the anomalous Zeeman effect? Did Pauli succeed in talking you out of the idea mainly on the basis of the celebrated "factor of two?" What did Landé think about your publishing your idea after the talk with Pauli? What had he thought before? What objections were raised in Copenhagen? When you spoke on the subject in Copenhagen in November, after the appearance of the Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck paper, you say you were received with "indifference." Did your talk cause no comment at all, or were the old objections again advanced?
Your experience in this matter also suggests questions of a more general nature. For example, how much "approval" (in the form of conversations and letters with authorities) did one seek before publishing a new idea? How limited a circle were the "authorities ?" What was the refereeing policy of the leading journals? Were new ideas fairly well known to most physicists before ever reaching print? Is the present situation significantly different in these respects from the 1920s?
Comments