What do you think?
Rate this book
The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics
This book is a critical analysis, based on a broad physical, historical, and philosophical study, of how empirical phenomena led to the renunciation of classical physics and how experimental research -- combined with mathematical thought and philosophical speculation -- opened entirely novel perspective. It offers a thorough, detailed exposition of the various phases of the development of quantum theory, analyzes the logical dependence of each stage on those preceding it, and leads the reader from the very beginning of this intellectual process to the front line positions of current foundational research in physics. "... the only full history of the Quantum Theory." -- Dr. F. Hund, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Gottingen University.
436 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1966
2 people are currently reading
141 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 17, 2017
Obviously this is a must read for anyone interested in history of science and it is masterful in its sheer scope. However 1) you have to actually learn the stuff elsewhere since this is no substitute for a textbook with clear derivations and 2) even for the history, you will need more detailed sources to get a grasp of the story (Mehra and Rechenberg). Fortunately both are now available. Nevertheless I am learning a huge amount from this book, even if some of it is still over my head. I suppose the disappointing thing (not Jammer's fault of course) is that we know how to do quantum mechanics but we have very little idea about what it means or why it works. The foundations are still very, very obscure, both historically and conceptually. I mean OK, we have a mathematical framework for dealing with nature, but we are spoiled in the sense that we can manipulate expressions mathematically and get amazing results without the least clue about what we are doing, as if the equations are smarter than we are. This paradox bothered me before I ever knew anything about QM and now I suppose it is even worse.
May 19, 2022
Max Jammer in the present work, The conceptual development of quantum mechanics (first published in 1966), follows the method of the intellectual historian, for which he is professionally well equipped: post-Hegel, everyone recognizes that philosophy itself can be adequately understood only in light of its history while most scientists and philosophers of science adhere to an a-historical view of science: that it consists in a logical reconstruction of experience for which what people might have thought in past ages is irrelevant – which is not really true, as the historicist will be very well aware of. It remains of course instructive to know where concepts come from when pondering their real significance – how a theorist would proceed, as opposed to the stance of the technician who merely accepts them uncritically as a stable launching pad for model building. Here is why it is always intellectually compelling to reflect on the original literature of quantum mechanics as its architects were theorists in the genuine sense, after all, whereas practically everyone today must be deemed but a technician even though he puts himself out as a theorist.
In no sense can Jammer’s account substitute for the original papers! All the same, someone who has ventured into the original literature, or wishes to, will find his perspective invaluable, as he knows far more about related earlier work and the overall historical context than most every ordinary mortal can aspire to, unless perchance he himself be an historian of science who aims to compete with Jammer’s erudition.
Chapter one starts out with the early stage leading up to Planck’s quantum hypothesis and derivation of his blackbody radiation law, followed by Einstein’s photon hypothesis in his paper on the photoelectric effect and his work on specific heats at low temperatures. The latter is significant in that it established, prior to Bohr, the applicability of the quantum hypothesis beyond the domain of the interaction between matter and radiation and indicated thereby that the very foundations of mechanics itself would have to be revised to account for atomic-level phenomena. Jammer’s thorough and methodical approach becomes evident early on: for every advance, he recounts both the experimental situation and previous theoretical ideas leading up to it, in more than sufficient detail. His provisional summary:
In concluding this chapter, we should note that the first stage in the conceptual development of quantum theory, although devoid of any far-reaching or powerful theories, serves as an outstanding example of human ingenuity. For it showed how far man’s intellect can penetrate into the secrets of nature on the basis of comparatively inconspicuous evidence. Most of the concepts formed at this stage will be vindicated, as we shall see, by the later development of the theory, though on different grounds. [p. 61]
For instance, re. the correspondence principle, after reviewing the uses to which Bohr, Epstein, Sommerfeld, Schwarzschild inter alia put it, he closes with a summary observation:
It was due to this principle that the older quantum theory became as complete as classical physics. But a costly price had to be paid. For taking resort to classical physics in order to establish quantum-theoretic predictions, or in other words, constructing a theory whose corroboration depends on premises which conflict with the substance of the theory, is of course a serious inconsistency from the logical point of view. [p. 116]
Again, in discussing the precedents that motivated Heisenberg’s epochal invention of matrix mechanics and what was really at stake in this move, Jammer characterizes the developments as follows:
Heisenberg, influenced by both Sommerfeld and Bohr, considered now the possibility of ‘guessing’ – in accordance with the correspondence principle – not the solution of a particular quantum-theoretic problem but the very mathematical scheme for a new theory of mechanics. By integrating in this way the correspondence principle once and for all in the very foundations of the theory, he expected to eliminate the necessity of its recurrent application to every problem without jeopardizing its general validity. [pp. 199-200]
But we have just quoted two examples for the sake of illustration; the text is peppered throughout with similar aperçus. Thus, perusing Jammer shows up the distortion incurred by most historiography of physics which plays up the key discoveries in such a way as to obscure, indeed obliterate their background. Let us exemplify our remark with the Compton effect [pp. 157-165]. Although Compton’s experiment seeming to validate Einstein’s corpuscular light-hypothesis in its interaction with material particles (recoiling electrons) tends to be presented as a shot out of the blue, in fact Compton was aware of several experimental results indicating that Maxwellian electrodynamics, as developed by J.J. Thomson, was inadequate: the identity of gamma rays and x-rays, the dependence of the wavelength of secondary radiation on the angle of scattering, independence of the nature of the scatterer, along with failed theoretical attempts to explain the departure from Thomson’s formula at very short wavelengths. Thus, Jammer’s detailed portrait of the background to Compton’s experiment and of Compton’s own reasoning (as well as its reception) offers a more realistic view of what it is like actually to conduct scientific research which one normally misses in after-the-fact textbook caricatures.
A peculiarity of Jammer’s style is his penchant when taking up a major turn in the conceptual development to give a snapshot literature review of its remote origins – for instance, pp. 166-180 on philosophical precedents to quantum mechanics in Renouvier, Boutroux, Peirce, Exner, Poincaré, Kierkegaard, Høffding, William James and C.G. Darwin, whom Jammer credits with being one of the first to search for a logically consistent formulation of the theoretical foundations of quantum theory in 1919. His justification for such activity:
In fact, before the mid-twenties, philosophers of nature or of science regarded quantum theory as of no particular interest from their point of view; it was for them merely a particular branch of physics, just like, say, acoustics or electrochemistry. Nor did physicists recognize any need for philosophical analysis….It is the nature of science to obliterate its philosophical preconceptions, but it is the duty of the historian or philosopher of science to recover them under the superstructure of the scientific edifice. [p. 166]
While such excursions may be welcome to the mature reader seeking to fix the place of an idea in the intellectual firmament, the event can be uneven. For instance, a balanced assessment of Jordan’s transformation theory [p. 307] in contrast to a potted history of functional analysis [p. 299f] – on which subject this reviewer finds the French mathematician Jean Dieudonné to be more lucid (q.v., our review of the latter here). Even as capacious a mind as Jammer’s has its limits! Nevertheless, in what pertains directly to quantum physics itself his scholarship reigns supreme.
In conclusion, Jammer’s monograph turns out indeed to be good on what it advertises itself to be: a description of the conceptual development of quantum physics as it actually occurred. It will be most useful for someone familiar with the literature; this reviewer is not so sure about how to rate it for neophytes: it can be a little too schematic on any one topic, say the EPR paper and the issue of completeness. If one knows a lot about the subject already one can take in Jammer’s point of view quickly. Unfortunately concepts do not lend themselves to exhaustive denotation the way a mathematical formula does, hence the beginner might find himself disoriented. Another comment: but wouldn’t it be a worthwhile exercise inductively to reconstruct quantum mechanics directly from the phenomena without being diverted by the accidental course of its original discovery? Arno Bohm in fact does just about this in his advanced textbook (review to follow in a moment).
In no sense can Jammer’s account substitute for the original papers! All the same, someone who has ventured into the original literature, or wishes to, will find his perspective invaluable, as he knows far more about related earlier work and the overall historical context than most every ordinary mortal can aspire to, unless perchance he himself be an historian of science who aims to compete with Jammer’s erudition.
Chapter one starts out with the early stage leading up to Planck’s quantum hypothesis and derivation of his blackbody radiation law, followed by Einstein’s photon hypothesis in his paper on the photoelectric effect and his work on specific heats at low temperatures. The latter is significant in that it established, prior to Bohr, the applicability of the quantum hypothesis beyond the domain of the interaction between matter and radiation and indicated thereby that the very foundations of mechanics itself would have to be revised to account for atomic-level phenomena. Jammer’s thorough and methodical approach becomes evident early on: for every advance, he recounts both the experimental situation and previous theoretical ideas leading up to it, in more than sufficient detail. His provisional summary:
In concluding this chapter, we should note that the first stage in the conceptual development of quantum theory, although devoid of any far-reaching or powerful theories, serves as an outstanding example of human ingenuity. For it showed how far man’s intellect can penetrate into the secrets of nature on the basis of comparatively inconspicuous evidence. Most of the concepts formed at this stage will be vindicated, as we shall see, by the later development of the theory, though on different grounds. [p. 61]
For instance, re. the correspondence principle, after reviewing the uses to which Bohr, Epstein, Sommerfeld, Schwarzschild inter alia put it, he closes with a summary observation:
It was due to this principle that the older quantum theory became as complete as classical physics. But a costly price had to be paid. For taking resort to classical physics in order to establish quantum-theoretic predictions, or in other words, constructing a theory whose corroboration depends on premises which conflict with the substance of the theory, is of course a serious inconsistency from the logical point of view. [p. 116]
Again, in discussing the precedents that motivated Heisenberg’s epochal invention of matrix mechanics and what was really at stake in this move, Jammer characterizes the developments as follows:
Heisenberg, influenced by both Sommerfeld and Bohr, considered now the possibility of ‘guessing’ – in accordance with the correspondence principle – not the solution of a particular quantum-theoretic problem but the very mathematical scheme for a new theory of mechanics. By integrating in this way the correspondence principle once and for all in the very foundations of the theory, he expected to eliminate the necessity of its recurrent application to every problem without jeopardizing its general validity. [pp. 199-200]
But we have just quoted two examples for the sake of illustration; the text is peppered throughout with similar aperçus. Thus, perusing Jammer shows up the distortion incurred by most historiography of physics which plays up the key discoveries in such a way as to obscure, indeed obliterate their background. Let us exemplify our remark with the Compton effect [pp. 157-165]. Although Compton’s experiment seeming to validate Einstein’s corpuscular light-hypothesis in its interaction with material particles (recoiling electrons) tends to be presented as a shot out of the blue, in fact Compton was aware of several experimental results indicating that Maxwellian electrodynamics, as developed by J.J. Thomson, was inadequate: the identity of gamma rays and x-rays, the dependence of the wavelength of secondary radiation on the angle of scattering, independence of the nature of the scatterer, along with failed theoretical attempts to explain the departure from Thomson’s formula at very short wavelengths. Thus, Jammer’s detailed portrait of the background to Compton’s experiment and of Compton’s own reasoning (as well as its reception) offers a more realistic view of what it is like actually to conduct scientific research which one normally misses in after-the-fact textbook caricatures.
A peculiarity of Jammer’s style is his penchant when taking up a major turn in the conceptual development to give a snapshot literature review of its remote origins – for instance, pp. 166-180 on philosophical precedents to quantum mechanics in Renouvier, Boutroux, Peirce, Exner, Poincaré, Kierkegaard, Høffding, William James and C.G. Darwin, whom Jammer credits with being one of the first to search for a logically consistent formulation of the theoretical foundations of quantum theory in 1919. His justification for such activity:
In fact, before the mid-twenties, philosophers of nature or of science regarded quantum theory as of no particular interest from their point of view; it was for them merely a particular branch of physics, just like, say, acoustics or electrochemistry. Nor did physicists recognize any need for philosophical analysis….It is the nature of science to obliterate its philosophical preconceptions, but it is the duty of the historian or philosopher of science to recover them under the superstructure of the scientific edifice. [p. 166]
While such excursions may be welcome to the mature reader seeking to fix the place of an idea in the intellectual firmament, the event can be uneven. For instance, a balanced assessment of Jordan’s transformation theory [p. 307] in contrast to a potted history of functional analysis [p. 299f] – on which subject this reviewer finds the French mathematician Jean Dieudonné to be more lucid (q.v., our review of the latter here). Even as capacious a mind as Jammer’s has its limits! Nevertheless, in what pertains directly to quantum physics itself his scholarship reigns supreme.
In conclusion, Jammer’s monograph turns out indeed to be good on what it advertises itself to be: a description of the conceptual development of quantum physics as it actually occurred. It will be most useful for someone familiar with the literature; this reviewer is not so sure about how to rate it for neophytes: it can be a little too schematic on any one topic, say the EPR paper and the issue of completeness. If one knows a lot about the subject already one can take in Jammer’s point of view quickly. Unfortunately concepts do not lend themselves to exhaustive denotation the way a mathematical formula does, hence the beginner might find himself disoriented. Another comment: but wouldn’t it be a worthwhile exercise inductively to reconstruct quantum mechanics directly from the phenomena without being diverted by the accidental course of its original discovery? Arno Bohm in fact does just about this in his advanced textbook (review to follow in a moment).
January 9, 2016
A very well written book regarding to the conceptual development of quantum theory. I can safely say that this book is classified as "a must read" book to all physics students and researchers who are working in this field.
On the other hand, there is a remark that need to be aware by the readers. I suggest to those who are interested on reading this book, you must have a little background in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory in the first place. Because when you go through the contents of the book there are so many mathematical equations that you need to digest and comprehend. Well, at least the very basics mathematical backgrounds from undergraduate mathematics should be in your finger tips to make your reading more comprehensive.
Good luck!
On the other hand, there is a remark that need to be aware by the readers. I suggest to those who are interested on reading this book, you must have a little background in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory in the first place. Because when you go through the contents of the book there are so many mathematical equations that you need to digest and comprehend. Well, at least the very basics mathematical backgrounds from undergraduate mathematics should be in your finger tips to make your reading more comprehensive.
Good luck!
June 30, 2025
Historian of science Max Jammer wrote a book on the history of quantum mechanics in the non-relativistic regime that is astonishingly detailed yet comprehensible, at least to those who have had university training in physics. Although a number of typos exist here and there, the overall flow of the book is excellent. Jammer chose, wisely, to organize the materials into logical rather chronological themes. Nevertheless, the overarching organization of the book is chronological, as history books tend to be. Here, one sees quantum mechanics from its unexpected birth in 1900, its puberty in the 1920s, and its adulthood in the early 1930s. Primary sources, that is, the original research literature, can be found in the footnotes. This book dwells into the technical aspects of the subject and, despite what its title might suggest, also examines the development of the mathematical concepts used in the formulation of quantum mechanics, including Poisson brackets, Hermitian operators, and Hilbert spaces.
I learned of this book from the bibliography of a different one, "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" (1984) by John Gribbin, which I read as a teenager and reread some years ago. I am glad to have read both books. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history of quantum mechanics who has an undergraduate understanding of physics or better. You might be able to find it in your university library.
I learned of this book from the bibliography of a different one, "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" (1984) by John Gribbin, which I read as a teenager and reread some years ago. I am glad to have read both books. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history of quantum mechanics who has an undergraduate understanding of physics or better. You might be able to find it in your university library.
August 10, 2016
Excellent historical summary of the development of QM
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews