按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
dynamic theorydemanded that a flying electron should very quickly run out of energy—in only an instant orso—and spiral into the nucleus； with disastrous consequences for both。 there was also theproblem of how protons with their positive charges could bundle together inside the nucleuswithout blowing themselves and the rest of the atom apart。 clearly whatever was going ondown there in the world of the very small was not governed by the laws that applied in themacro world where our expectations reside。
as physicists began to delve into this subatomic realm； they realized that it wasn’t merelydifferent from anything we knew； but different from anything ever imagined。 “becauseatomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience；” richard feynman once observed； “it isvery difficult to get used to and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone； both to thenovice and to the experienced physicist。” when feynman made that ment； physicists hadhad half a century to adjust to the strangeness of atomic behavior。 so think how it must havefelt to rutherford and his colleagues in the early 1910s when it was all brand new。
one of the people working with rutherford was a mild and affable young dane namedniels bohr。 in 1913； while puzzling over the structure of the atom； bohr had an idea soexciting that he postponed his honeymoon to write what became a landmark paper。 becausephysicists couldn’t see anything so small as an atom； they had to try to work out its structurefrom how it behaved when they did things to it； as rutherford had done by firing alphaparticles at foil。 sometimes； not surprisingly； the results of these experiments were puzzling。
one puzzle that had been around for a long time had to do with spectrum readings of thewavelengths of hydrogen。 these produced patterns showing that hydrogen atoms emittedenergy at certain wavelengths but not others。 it was rather as if someone under surveillancekept turning up at particular locations but was never observed traveling between them。 no onecould understand why this should be。
it was while puzzling over this problem that bohr was struck by a solution and dashed offhis famous paper。 called “on the constitutions of atoms and molecules；” the paper explainedhow electrons could keep from falling into the nucleus by suggesting that they could occupyonly certain well…defined orbits。 according to the new theory； an electron moving betweenorbits would disappear from one and reappear instantaneously in another without visiting thespace between。 this idea—the famous “quantum leap”—is of course utterly strange； but itwas too good not to be true。 it not only kept electrons from spiraling catastrophically into thenucleus； it also explained hydrogen’s bewildering wavelengths。 the electrons only appearedin certain orbits because they only existed in certain orbits。 it was a dazzling insight； and itwon bohr the 1922 nobel prize in physics； the year after einstein received his。
meanwhile the tireless rutherford； now back at cambridge as j。 j。 thomson’s successor ashead of the cavendish laboratory； came up with a model that explained why the nuclei didn’tblow up。 he saw that they must be offset by some type of neutralizing particles； which hecalled neutrons。 the idea was simple and appealing； but not easy to prove。 rutherford’sassociate； james chadwick； devoted eleven intensive years to hunting for neutrons beforefinally succeeding in 1932。 he； too； was awarded with a nobel prize in physics； in 1935。 asboorse and his colleagues point out in their history of the subject； the delay in discovery wasprobably a very good thing as mastery of the neutron was essential to the development of theatomic bomb。 （because neutrons have no charge； they aren’t repelled by the electrical fields atthe heart of an atom and thus could be fired like tiny torpedoes into an atomic nucleus； settingoff the destructive process known as fission。） had the neutron been isolated in the 1920s； theynote； it is “very likely the atomic bomb would have been developed first in europe；undoubtedly by the germans。”
as it was； the europeans had their hands full trying to understand the strange behavior ofthe electron。 the principal problem they faced was that the electron sometimes behaved like aparticle and sometimes like a wave。 this impossible duality drove physicists nearly mad。 forthe next decade all across europe they furiously thought and scribbled and offered petinghypotheses。 in france； prince louis…victor de broglie； the scion of a ducal family； found thatcertain anomalies in the behavior of electrons disappeared when one regarded them as waves。
the observation excited the attention of the austrian erwin schr？dinger； who made some deftrefinements and devised a handy system called wave mechanics。 at almost the same time thegerman physicist werner heisenberg came up with a peting theory called matrixmechanics。 this was so mathematically plex that hardly anyone really understood it；including heisenberg himself （“i do not even know what a matrix is ；” heisenberg despairedto a friend at one point）； but it did seem to solve certain problems that schr？dinger’s wavesfailed to explain。 the upshot is that physics had two theories； based on conflicting premises；that produced the same results。 it was an impossible situation。
finally； in 1926； heisenberg came up with a celebrated promise； producing a newdiscipline that came to be known as quantum mechanics。 at the heart of it was heisenberg’suncertainty principle； which states that the electron is a particle but a particle that can bedescribed in terms of waves。 the uncertainty around which the theory is built is that we canknow the path an electron takes as it moves through a space or we can know where it is at agiven instant； but we cannot know both。
3any attempt to measure one will unavoidably3there is a little uncertainty about the use of the word uncertainty in regard to heisenbergs principle。 michaelfrayn； in an afterword to his play copenhagen； notes that several words in german…unsicherheit； unscharfe；unbestimmtheit…have been used by various translators； but that none quite equates to the english uncertainty。
frayn suggests that indeterminacy would be a better word for the principle and indeterminability would be betterstill。
disturb the other。 this isn’t a matter of simply needing more precise instruments； it is animmutable property of the universe。
what this means in practice is that you can never predict where an electron will be at anygiven moment。 you can only list its probability of being there。 in a sense； as dennis overbyehas put it； an electron doesn’t exist until it is observed。 or； put slightly differently； until it isobserved an electron must be regarded as being “at once everywhere and nowhere。”
if this seems confusing； you may take some fort in knowing that it was confusing tophysicists； too。 overbye notes： “bohr once mented that a person who wasn’t outraged onfirst hearing about quantum theory didn’t understand what had been said。” heisenberg； whenasked how one could envision an atom； replied： “don’t try。”
so the atom turned out to be quite unlike the image that most people had created。 theelectron doesn’t fly around the nucleus like a planet around its sun； but instead takes on themore amorphous aspect of a cloud。 the “shell” of an atom isn’t some hard shiny casing； asillustrations sometimes encourage us to suppose； but simply the outermost of these fuzzyelectron clouds。 the cloud itself is essentially just a zone of statistical probability marking thearea beyond which the electron only very seldom strays。 thus an atom； if you could see it；would look more like a very fuzzy tennis ball than a hard…edged metallic sphere （but not muchlike either or； indeed； like anything you’ve ever seen； we are； after all； dealing here with aworld very different from the one we see around us）。
it seemed as if there was no end of strangeness。 for the first time； as james trefil has put it；scientists had encountered “an area of the universe that our brains just aren’t wired tounderstand。” or as feynman expressed it； “things on a small scale behave nothing like thingson a large scale。” as physicists delved deeper； they