The precise position of a spectral line emitted by an atomic system depends on the mass of the atomic nucleus and is therefore different for isotopes belonging to the same element. The possible presence of an isotope effect followed from Bohr's atomic theory of 1913, but it took several years before it was confirmed experimentally. Its early history involves the childhood not only of the quantum atom, but also of the concept of isotopy. Bohr's prediction of the isotope effect was (...) apparently at odds with early attempts to distinguish between isotopes by means of their optical spectra. However, in 1920 the effect was discovered in HCl molecules, which gave rise to a fruitful development in molecular spectroscopy. The first detection of an atomic isotope effect was no less important, as it was by this means that the heavy hydrogen isotope deuterium was discovered in 1932. The early development of isotope spectroscopy led to successes as well as problems. At the end of the paper I briefly comment on the relationship between theory, experiment and prediction in this area of spectral physics. (shrink)

ArgumentThis paper discusses one aspect of the context in which atomic physics developed in Japan between 1905 and 1931. It argues that during this period, there was a social context in which atomic physics was valued as a study of the electron and was thus relevant to electrical engineering. To demonstrate this, I first show that after the Russo-Japanese War, electrical engineering was deemed a valuable and viable field of research in Japan. Second, I show that physicists wrote textbooks and (...) popular accounts about the electron, covering topics from both atomic physics and electrical engineering and presenting the former as relevant to the latter. Finally, as an example of how atomic physics partially emerged from this context, I discuss the group of Kujirai Tsunetarō, an electrical engineer who worked in the physics department of the Institute for Physical and Chemical Research. From Kujirai's group, Nishina Yoshio started his career and became the most important Japanese atomic and nuclear physicist of the 1930s. (shrink)

Once one of the main protagonists of history of science, the historiography on quantum theory has recently gone through a process of reconfiguration of methods, research questions and epistemological framework. In this paper, I review the recent developments and propose some reflections on its future evolution.

We discuss the early career of John H. Van Vleck, one of the earliest American quantum theorists who shared the 1977 Nobel prize with his student Philip W. Anderson and Sir Nevill Mott. In particular, we follow Van Vleck's trajectory from his 1926 Bulletin for the National Research Council on the old quantum theory to his 1932 book, The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities. We highlight the continuity of formalism and technique in the transition from dealing with spectra in (...) the old quantum theory to dealing with susceptibilities in the new quantum mechanics. Our main focus is on the checkered history of a numerical factor in the so-called Langevin-Debye formula for the electric susceptibility of gases. Classical theory predicts, under very general conditions, that this factor is equal to 1/3. The old quantum theory predicted values up to 14 times higher. Van Vleck showed that quantum mechanics does away with this "wonderful nonsense" and restores the classical value 1/3 under equally general conditions. The Langevin-Debye formula thus provides an instructive example of a Kuhn loss in one paradigm shift that was regained in the next. In accordance with the expectation of Thomas S. Kuhn that textbooks tend to sweep Kuhn losses under the rug, Van Vleck did not mention this particular Kuhn loss anywhere in his 1926 NRC Bulletin. Contrary to Kuhn's expectations, however, he put the regained Kuhn loss in susceptibility theory to good pedagogical use in his 1932 book. Kuhn claimed that textbooks must suppress, truncate, and/or distort the prehistory of their subject matter if they are to inculcate the exemplars of the new paradigm in their readers. This claim is not borne out in this case. We argue that it is ultimately because of the continuity of formalism and technique that we draw attention to that Van Vleck could achieve his pedagogical objectives in his 1932 book even though he devoted about a third of it to the treatment of susceptibilities in classical theory and the old quantum theory in a way that matches the historical record reasonably well. (shrink)