Borov Princip Korespondencije

pdf version of the entry
Bohr’ s Correspondence Principle

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/bohr-correspondence/ Bohr’s Correspondence Principle
from the Fall 2020 Edition of the First published Thu Oct 14, 2010; substantive revision Thu Aug 13, 2020
Stanford Encyclopedia Regarding Bohr’s correspondence principle, the historian of physics Max
Jammer writes, “[T]here was rarely in the history of physics a
of Philosophy comprehensive theory which owed so much to one principle as quantum
mechanics owed to Bohr’s correspondence principle” (Jammer 1966, p.
118). The correspondence principle not only played a pivotal role in the
discovery of quantum mechanics but was also the cornerstone of Bohr’s
philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics, being closely tied to
his better known thesis of complementarity and to the Copenhagen
Edward N. Zalta Uri Nodelman Colin Allen R. Lanier Anderson
interpretation.
Principal Editor Senior Editor Associate Editor Faculty Sponsor
Editorial Board
Although the importance of Bohr’s correspondence principle is largely
https://plato.stanford.edu/board.html
undisputed, there is far less agreement concerning how the correspondence
Library of Congress Catalog Data principle should be defined. It is important to distinguish between Bohr’s
ISSN: 1095-5054
own understanding of this principle and what it came to mean for the
Notice: This PDF version was distributed by request to mem- larger physics community. Even if one restricts oneself to Bohr’s writings,
bers of the Friends of the SEP Society and by courtesy to SEP however, there is still a disagreement among Bohr scholars regarding
content contributors. It is solely for their fair use. Unauthorized precisely which of the several relations between classical and quantum
distribution is prohibited. To learn how to join the Friends of the mechanics that Bohr discovered should be designated as the
SEP Society and obtain authorized PDF versions of SEP entries, correspondence principle. There are three primary candidate-definitions in
please visit https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/ . the literature. First, there is the frequency interpretation, according to
which the correspondence principle is a statistical asymptotic agreement
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Copyright c 2020 by the publisher between one component in the Fourier decomposition of the classical
The Metaphysics Research Lab frequency and the quantum frequency in the limit of large quantum
Center for the Study of Language and Information
numbers. Second, there is the intensity interpretation according to which it
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
is a statistical agreement in the limit of large quantum numbers between
Copyright c 2020 by the authors the quantum intensity, understood in terms of the probability of a quantum
Alisa Bokulich and Peter Bokulich transition, and the classical intensity, understood as the square of the
All rights reserved. amplitude of one component of the classical motion. Finally, there is the
Copyright policy: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/copyright/
1
Bohr’ s Correspondence Principle Alisa Bokulich and Peter Bokulich
selection rule interpretation, according to which the correspondence Related Entries

principle is the statement that each allowed quantum transition between
stationary states corresponds to one harmonic component of the classical
motion. 1. Background and Scientific Context
The correspondence principle was first articulated in 1913 in the context Niels Bohr was a Danish physicist who lived from 1885 until 1962; he
of the old quantum theory. Nonetheless, Bohr argued that this principle was born and died in Copenhagen. He is best known as one of the
survived the replacement of the old quantum theory by modern quantum founders of quantum theory and for his work on the structure of atoms,
mechanics. The correspondence principle is still referred to today in the which earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. In addition to his
physics literature as a subject of current research, though arguably with a scientific work, he devoted much of his career to the philosophical
meaning that is somewhat different from Bohr’s own understanding of this interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was involved in a famous long-
principle. A version of the correspondence principle also lives on in the standing debate with Albert Einstein over whether quantum mechanics
philosophical literature where it has been generalized into a broad was a complete description of atomic phenomena (the “Einstein-Bohr
methodological principle (the generalized correspondence principle) Debate”), and his lasting contributions to the philosophical interpretation
constraining the development of new scientific theories. of quantum theory include the Copenhagen interpretation, the thesis of
complementarity, and the correspondence principle.
1. Background and Scientific Context
2. The Correspondence Principle Defined The correspondence principle was first introduced in the context of the old
3. Bohr’s Writings on the Correspondence Principle (1918–1928) quantum theory, which was developed in the period between 1900 and
4. Early Responses 1925. The old quantum theory was an “interim” theory developed in
4.1 Sommerfeld response to the recognition that Newtonian mechanics and classical
4.2 Pauli electrodynamics are inadequate for the description of atomic systems.
4.3 Heisenberg Although the old quantum theory had remarkable empirical successes, it
5. Interpretations in the History and Philosophy Literature was criticized for having what many thought were inconsistent
6. Interpretations in the Current Physics Literature foundations. The old quantum theory was ultimately replaced by modern
7. Generalized Correspondence Principle quantum mechanics with Werner Heisenberg’s development of matrix
Bibliography mechanics in 1925 and Erwin Schrödinger’s development of wave
Works by Bohr mechanics in 1926.
Other Primary Literature
In order to understand the substance of the correspondence principle, it is
Secondary Literature
necessary to first understand the basic framework of the old quantum
Academic Tools
theory. Niels Bohr first articulated the postulates of the old quantum theory
Other Internet Resources
2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 3

En′ − En″
in 1913, in a three-part paper titled “On the Constitution of Atoms and (1) ν=
Molecules” (Bohr 1913). Bohr had adopted Ernest Rutherford’s model of h
the atom, according to which most of the mass of the atom is concentrated This formula is typically referred to as the “Bohr-Einstein frequency
in a small central nucleus, while the electrons orbit the nucleus in condition.” The second postulate constituted a significant break from
planetary trajectories. The key challenge facing Rutherford’s model was classical electrodynamics, according to which a variety of radiation
that it was unstable: according to classical electrodynamics, the electron, frequencies would be emitted and those frequencies would be determined
which is an accelerated charged body, should radiate energy and so rapidly solely by the motion of the source.
collapse into the nucleus. Bohr’s solution was to incorporate Max Planck’s
theory of radiation, which postulates that “the energy radiation from an It is important to note that while it is now accepted that this emitted
atomic system does not take place in the continuous way assumed in radiation is a photon, Bohr himself was surprisingly skeptical of the
ordinary electrodynamics, but that it, on the contrary, takes place in photon concept up until as late as the mid-1920s (Stachel 2009). Bohr
distinctly separated emissions” (Bohr 1913, p. 4; BCW 2, p. 164).[1] preferred to think of the emitted or absorbed radiation as a wave, rather
than as a particle. Bohr’s hesitation in accepting the existence of photons
Bohr summarized his quantum theory by means of two assumptions or during this period seems to arise from his concern that such a particle
postulates. According to the first postulate, electrons cannot travel in any conception of light would be irreconcilable with familiar interference
path around the nucleus; rather, atomic systems can only exist in one of a phenomena. For example, Bohr writes in 1921,
series of discrete “stationary states,” in which the electron is in a particular
allowed stable periodic orbit and is not emitting radiation. Intuitively, Thus according to this theory of light quanta, electromagnetic
these stationary states can be thought of as a series of concentric circular radiation from an atom should not spread as a system of spherical
orbits around the nucleus, along which the electron travels; these waves, but should be propagated in a definite direction as a
stationary states are labeled by means of the principal quantum number n, concentrated entity, containing within a very small volume the
with the lowest allowed orbit (the “normal” or ground state) labeled energy hν . On one hand such a conception seems to offer the only
n = 1, the next stationary state of higher energy n = 2 , and so on. Bohr simple possibility of accounting for the phenomena of
postulates that when the electron is in one of these stationary states, its photoelectric action, if we adhere to an unrestricted application of
motions can be adequately described by means of classical mechanics; the notions of conservation of energy and momentum. On the other
however, when the electron makes a transition from one stationary state to hand, it does not appear reconcilable with the phenomena of
another, the classical theory no longer applies. The second postulate of interference of light, which constitute our only means of analysing
Bohr’s old quantum theory is that, when there is a transition between radiation in its harmonic constituents and determining the
different stationary states, n′ and n″, the emitted radiation is of a single frequency and state of polarisation of each of these constituents.
frequency, ν, that is given by the difference in the energy of the two states, (Bohr 1921a unpublished; BCW 3, pp. 412–413)
(En′ − En″ ), divided by Planck’s constant.
E′ −E
ν=
″

It is interesting that Bohr’s initial rejection of the photon concept was also treatment of the radiative processes as transitions between allowed
tied to the importance of being able to analyze radiation into its harmonic motions subject to the Bohr frequency formula” (Jammer 1966, p. 90).
components, which was essential for the application of his correspondence The old quantum theory was a blending of classical and quantum ideas:
principle (discussed below). As John Stachel notes, “It was indeed, his while it is assumed that the motion of an electron within a particular
reliance on the correspondence principle that seems to have been a stationary state can still be described on the basis of the classical theory,
principal motive for Bohr’s distrust of the photon concept and his related the radiation given off in a transition between stationary states (the
willingness to give up energy-momentum conservation to save the “quantum jumps”) cannot.
classical electrodynamic picture of radiation” (Stachel 2009, p.72). Stachel
argues that it was, in part, the results of the Bothe-Geiger and Compton- In order to understand the substance of the correspondence principle it is
Simon experiments that finally led Bohr to embrace the concept of the helpful to consider a simplified model of the atom as a one-dimensional
photon. For these historical reasons, care needs to be exercised in invoking system, where the electron is undergoing simply periodic motion.
the photon concept when discussing Bohr’s early views; nonetheless the Classically the trajectory of the electron is given by x(t), which is the
concept of photons can be very helpful in understanding the physics solution to Newton’s equation of motion, and is periodic, which means it
behind the correspondence principle (as well as Bohr’s views after the simply retraces its steps over and over again with a frequency, ω, known
early-1920s), and hence, will be invoked in the following exposition. as the fundamental frequency. Because the motion is periodic, the position
of the electron can be represented by a Fourier series as follows:[3]
Returning to the outline of the old quantum theory, Bohr’s two postulates
were not yet enough to pick out, from all of the classically allowed orbits, (3) x(t) = C1 cos(ωt) + C2 cos(2ωt) + C3 cos(3ωt) + ⋯ .
those orbits corresponding to stationary states. In order to determine the Each of these terms in the sum is known as a harmonic, and the τth
stationary states, the following “quantum condition” also needs to be harmonic is given in terms of the time, t, an amplitude, Cτ , and a
introduced: frequency, ωτ , which is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency,
ωτ = τω (these multiples of the fundamental frequency are referred to as
∮
(2) pθ dθ = nh . the “overtones”). According to classical electrodynamics, the frequencies
of the radiation emitted by this atom should just be given by the
where the integral is taken over one period of the electron orbit, and pθ is frequencies in the harmonics of the motion: ω, 2ω, 3ω, etc.; hence the
the angular momentum, θ is the angle in the plane of the electron orbit, spectrum of this classical system should be a series of discrete evenly
and n is the quantum number.[2] As Max Jammer summarizes, applying spaced lines.
the old quantum theory consists of essentially three steps: “first, the
application of classical mechanics for the determination of the possible According to Bohr’s old quantum theory, by contrast, the radiation is not a
motions of the system; second, the imposition of certain quantum result of the accelerated motion of the electron in its orbit, but rather of the
conditions for the selection of the actual or allowed motions; and third, the electron jumping from one stationary state to another; and rather than
giving off all of the harmonic “overtones” together, only a single

frequency, ν, is emitted, and the value of that frequency is given by the from state n′ to n″ and the (classical) frequency (ωτ ) in the τ th harmonic
Bohr-Einstein frequency condition (Equation 1). The spectral lines are of the classical motion in the n′ stationary state, namely
built up by a whole ensemble of atoms undergoing transitions between
different stationary states, and these spectral lines, though they exhibit a (4) νn′ →n″ = ωτ = τω, for large n,
where, n′ − n″ = τ.
pattern of regularity, are not evenly spaced—except in the limit of large
quantum numbers.
Note that this equality between the quantum frequency and one component
Following Bohr, one can label the difference between the n′ stationary
of the classical frequency only holds in the limit of large quantum
state and the n″ stationary state by τ ; that is, if the electron jumps to the
numbers—not for low quantum-number transitions. Moreover there is
nearest stationary state, τ = 1 ; if it jumps two stationary states away,
only a statistical agreement since classically all the frequencies will be
τ = 2; and so on. Although according to the classical definition τ specifies
given off together, while quantum mechanically only a single photon is
a particular harmonic component of the classical motion, according to the
emitted with a single frequency in any given transition between stationary
quantum mechanical definition τ specifies the change in the quantum
states; hence, one must consider a statistical ensemble of atoms to
number in a particular jump.
compare with the classical spectrum.
2. The Correspondence Principle Defined According to the intensity interpretation, the correspondence principle is
defined as the agreement, in the limit of large quantum numbers, between
Among current Bohr scholars there is a consensus that Bohr did not intend the probability, Pn′ →n″ , of a transition between two stationary states
his correspondence principle to designate some sort of general separated by τ and the square of the amplitude, Cτ , of the τth harmonic
requirement that quantum mechanics recover the predictions of classical component of the classical motion:
mechanics in the classical limit, despite the prevalence of this
interpretation in the physics literature (see Section 6). There is far less (5) Pn′ →n″ ∝ |Cτ (n)|2 for large n.
agreement, however, concerning precisely which relation between
Thus in the limit of large n the amplitudes of the harmonic components of
classical and quantum mechanics Bohr intended to designate by the
the electron’s classical orbit can be used to calculate the intensities of the
correspondence principle. There are three prominent contenders in the
spectral lines. While classically the intensity of radiation is determined by
literature, all of which find support in Bohr’s writings. These three
its amplitude, quantum mechanically the intensity of a spectral line is
interpretations can be labeled: the frequency interpretation, the intensity
determined by how many photons are emitted at that particular frequency.
interpretation, and the selection rule interpretation.
Hence, the more probable a particular quantum transition is, the more
According to the frequency interpretation, the correspondence principle is photons will be given off, and the greater the intensity. Note that, as with
defined as a statistical asymptotic agreement between the (quantum) the frequency interpretation, this is a correspondence that holds only
frequency, νn′ →n″ , of radiation emitted in a quantum jump of difference τ statistically and only in the limit of large quantum numbers.[4]

According to the selection rule interpretation, Bohr’s correspondence present in the classical motion (Equation 6). According to Bohr’s selection
principle is best understood as the statement that each allowed quantum rule, this means that there can only be quantum jumps between stationary
transition between stationary states corresponds to one harmonic states that are one or three stationary states apart. So, for example, there
component of the classical motion. More precisely, Bohr’s selection rule can be transitions from the n = 100 stationary state to the n = 99 or
states that the transition from a stationary state n′ to another stationary n = 97 stationary states; but there cannot be transitions from the n = 100
state n″ is allowed if and only if there exists a τ th harmonic in the classical stationary state to the n = 98 stationary state, because there is no second
motion of the electron in the initial stationary state; if there is no τ th harmonic in the classical electron orbit.
harmonic in the classical motion, then transitions between stationary states
whose separation is τ are not allowed quantum mechanically. The essence Unlike the frequency and intensity interpretations of the correspondence
of Bohr’s correspondence principle is depicted in Figure 1. principle, the selection rule interpretation is not an asymptotic relation—it
applies to all quantum number transitions, including small n.
It is important to recognize that Bohr discovered and wrote about all these
correspondence relations; the disagreement among Bohr scholars is simply
which (if any) of these correspondence relations Bohr meant to designate
as the correspondence principle. Some scholars have even gone so far as
FIGURE 1. A classical periodic orbit, x(t), can be represented as a Fourier
to doubt whether Bohr ever had a well-defined and unvarying definition of
sum of “harmonics” which are integer multiples of the fundamental the correspondence principle at all. These and other interpretations of the
frequency, ω , representing the periodicity of the motion. According to the correspondence principle are elaborated in more detail in Section 5 below.
selection rule interpretation, the correspondence principle is Bohr’s insight
that each allowed transition between stationary states corresponds to one
harmonic component of the classical motion. (Based on Fig. 3 of Fedak 3. Bohr’s Writings on the Correspondence Principle
and Prentis 2002)
(1918–1928)
Bohr’s selection rule can be illustrated by the following simplified
example.[5] Suppose that the solution to Newton’s equation, Most of Bohr’s writings on the correspondence principle are collected in
F = md 2 x/dt 2 , and the quantum condition ∮ pdx = nh is[6] Volume 3 of Niels Bohr Collected Works (abbreviated here BCW), which
is titled The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923). As Bohr himself
(6) x(t, n) = n cos(n 2 t) + n 2 cos(3n 2 t),
1 1 1
reports (Bohr 1922), the first germ of the correspondence principle can be
found in his 1913 lecture “On the constitution of molecules and atoms,”
which is the Fourier decomposition of the classical periodic motion of the
although the term does not appear in his writings until 1920. In the years
electron in an allowed stationary state n. For this stationary state n, the
before Bohr adopted the expression “correspondence principle,” he
fundamental frequency (i.e., periodicity of the electron motion) is ω = n 2 .
1
described the relation as an analogy between classical and quantum

Note that there are only the first (τ = 1) and third (τ = 3) harmonics mechanics. For example, in his 1918 paper “On the Quantum Theory of

Line Spectra.” (which he refers to as “Q.o.L.”) Bohr writes, “It seems between the stationary states on the one hand and the various
possible to throw some light on the outstanding difficulties by trying to harmonic components of the motion on the other hand. This
trace the analogy between the quantum theory and the ordinary theory of correspondence is of such a nature, that the present theory of
radiation as closely as possible” (Bohr 1918, p. 4; BCW 3, p. 70). In his spectra is in a certain sense to be regarded as a rational
later writings, however, Bohr explicitly rejects this view that the generalization of the ordinary theory of radiation. (Bohr 1920, pp.
correspondence principle can be thought of as an analogy. He writes, 23–24; BCW 3, pp. 245–246)
In Q.o.L [Bohr 1918] this designation has not yet been used, but The correspondence Bohr describes here is between allowed transitions
the substance of the principle is referred to there as a formal from one stationary state to another and the harmonic components of the
analogy between the quantum theory and the classical theory. Such classical motion. Moreover, he takes this correspondence to be the ground
expressions might cause misunderstanding, since in fact—as we or justification for the view that quantum theory is a rational
shall see later on—this Correspondence Principle must be regarded generalization of classical mechanics (for a discussion of this latter view
purely as a law of the quantum theory, which can in no way see Bokulich and Bokulich 2005). A few pages later, in a section titled
diminish the contrast between the postulates and electrodynamic “The Correspondence Principle,” Bohr goes on to describe both the
theory. (Bohr [1923] 1924, fn. p. 22) frequency correspondence and the intensity correspondence:
Not only does Bohr reject the view that the correspondence principle is an This correspondence between frequencies determined by the two
analogy, but the fact that he refers to it as a law of quantum theory methods must have a deeper significance and we are led to
suggests, first, that he takes it to be a universal principle (not just anticipate that it will also apply to the intensities. This is equivalent
applicable in a limited domain), and, second, that it is an essential part of to the statement that, when the quantum numbers are large, the
quantum theory itself, not some sort of general methodological constraint relative probability of a particular transition is connected in a
coming from outside of quantum theory. simple manner with the amplitude of the corresponding harmonic
component in the motion. This peculiar relation suggests a general
In his 1920 paper where the terms “correspondence” and “correspondence law for the occurrence of transitions between stationary states.
principle” first appear (Nielsen 1976, p. 21), Bohr writes, Thus we shall assume that even when the quantum numbers are
small the possibility of transition between two stationary states is
[A]lthough the process of radiation can not be described on the
connected with the presence of a certain harmonic component in
basis of the ordinary theory of electrodynamics, according to
the motion of the system. (Bohr 1920, pp. 27–28; BCW 3, pp.
which the nature of the radiation emitted by an atom is directly
249–250)
related to the harmonic components occurring in the motion of the
system, there is found, nevertheless, to exist a far-reaching In typical Bohr style, he fails to come out and clearly say whether one, all,
correspondence between the various types of possible transitions or none of these correspondences is what he means to designate by “the

correspondence principle.” Correspondence Principle mentioned above, let it be once more

recalled that in the limiting region of large quantum numbers there
Bohr also argues that the correspondence principle is something which is no wise a question of a gradual diminution of the difference
explains why only certain spectral lines are observed in experiments. He between the description by the quantum theory of the phenomena
writes, of radiation and the ideas of classical electrodynamics, but only an
asymptotic agreement of the statistical results. (Bohr [1923] 1924,
The above view, which may be termed the correspondence
p. 23; BCW 3, p. 480)
principle … has offered an immediate interpretation of the
apparent capriciousness, involved in the application of the In this passage it is clear that Bohr takes quantum mechanics to be a
principle of combination of spectral lines, which consists in the universal theory. Despite the statistical agreement of results in this limit,
circumstance, that only a small part of the spectral lines, which the physics of the frequencies and intensities, for example, remains
might be anticipated from an unrestricted application of this different, and Bohr is insistent that it is the quantum account that is the
[Rydberg-Ritz combination] principle, are actually observed in the strictly correct one—even in this high n or “classical” limit. Hence, when
experiments. (Bohr 1921b unpublished; BCW 4, p. 150) Bohr discovered that the allowable quantum transitions are those for
which there is a corresponding harmonic in the classical motion, what he
Bokulich (2008, and 2009 [Other Internet Resources]) has argued that
had discovered was something about quantum theory.
interpreting the correspondence principle in terms of the selection rule not
only illuminates Bohr’s claim that it explains the capriciousness of the In his 1922 lectures on atomic theory in Göttingen, Bohr again emphasizes
spectral lines, but also his claim that the correspondence principle is a law that the correspondence principle holds even for low quantum number
of quantum theory. Indeed, the correspondence that he refers to as a “law” transitions. This can particularly be seen in his discussion of the well-
is the selection rule correspondence, which holds also for small quantum known red and green spectral lines of the Balmer series in the visible part
numbers, not just in the classical limit. It is a law because it is a universal of the hydrogen spectrum. The red spectral line (which really is red at a
(i.e., applying to all n) restriction on the allowed quantum transitions. To wavelength of around 656 nm) is typically labeled Hα, and is the result of
understand why it is a law of quantum theory (as opposed to a law of radiation emitted in the jump from the n = 3 to n = 2 stationary state. The
classical electrodynamics) it is helpful to consider Bohr’s following green line (labeled Hβ with a wavelength of around 486 nm) is a result of
remarks: the electron in a hydrogen atom jumping from the n = 4 to n = 2
stationary state.
[T]he occurrence of radiative transitions is conditioned by the
presence of the corresponding vibrations in the motion of the atom.
As to our right to regard the asymptotic relation obtained as the
intimation of a general law of the quantum theory for the
occurrence of radiation, as it is assumed to be in the

In other words, although the “frequency correspondence” does not hold

for these low quantum numbers (nor can the intensities of these lines be
calculated directly from the classical amplitudes via the “intensity
correspondence”), what Bohr is here calling the more general
correspondence principle does hold; specifically, these τ = 1 and τ = 2
transitions are allowed because there is, in the Fourier decomposition of
the electron’s classical orbit in the initial stationary state, a first and second
harmonic component. Such passages are a challenge for those who want to
interpret the correspondence principle as some sort of asymptotic relation
holding in the classical limit.
There is a remarkable continuity in Bohr’s statements on the

correspondence principle. In 1923 one again finds Bohr emphasizing that
the allowed or possible transitions between stationary states are connected
to the harmonic components present in the classical motion.
[T]he possibility of the occurrence of a transition, accompanied by

radiation, between two states of a multiply periodic system, of
quantum numbers for example n′1 , … , n′u and n″1 , … , n″u , is
FIGURE 2. Red and green spectral lines of the Balmer series in the visible
conditioned by the presence of certain harmonic components in the
part of the hydrogen atom expression given by [the Fourier series expansion of the classical
electron motion]. The frequencies τ1 ω1 + … + τu ωu of these
Regarding these low-quantum-number transitions Bohr writes,
harmonic components are given by the following equation
We may regard Hβ as the octave of Hα, since Hβ corresponds to a
τ1 = n1′ − n1″ … τu = nu′ − nu″.
jump of 2 and Hα to a quantum jump of 1. It is true that Hβ does
not have twice the frequency of Hα, but it corresponds to the We, therefore, call these the “corresponding” harmonic
octave. This relationship we call the ‘correspondence principle.’ To components in the motion, and the substance of the above
each transition there corresponds a harmonic component of the statement we designate as the “Correspondence Principle.” (Bohr
mechanical motion. (Bohr 1922 unpublished lecture; BCW4, p. [1923] 1924, p. 22; BCW 3, p. 479)
348)
In 1925 Werner Heisenberg published his famous “Umdeutung” paper
introducing matrix mechanics (Heisenberg 1925). This would be the

beginning of modern quantum mechanics, which replaced the old quantum What Bohr seems to be saying in this passage is that the new quantum
theory. In a supplement to Nature published in December of 1925, Bohr mechanics symbolizes the allowed transitions in conformity with his
describes what he takes to be the relationship of the new quantum selection rule.
mechanics to his correspondence principle. He begins with a statement of
the correspondence principle. Bohr continued to discuss the correspondence principle even after the
advent of modern quantum mechanics. In his 1928 Como lecture, for
The demonstration of the asymptotic agreement between spectrum example, he writes,
and motion gave rise to the formulation of the “correspondence
principle,” according to which the possibility of every transition The aim of regarding the quantum theory as a rational
process connected with emission of radiation is conditioned by the generalisation of the classical theories led to the formulation of the
presence of a corresponding harmonic component in the motion of so-called correspondence principle. The utilisation of this principle
the atom. Not only do the frequencies of the corresponding for the interpretation of spectroscopic results was based on a
harmonic components agree asymptotically with the values symbolical application of classical electrodynamics, in which the
obtained from the frequency condition in the limit where the individual transition processes were each associated with a
energies of the stationary states converge, but also the amplitudes harmonic in the motion of the atomic particles to be expected
of the mechanical oscillatory components give in this limit an according to ordinary mechanics. (Bohr 1928, p. 584; BCW 6, p.
asymptotic measure for the probabilities of the transition processes 152)
on which the intensities of the observable spectral lines depend.
Note that Bohr here speaks of a “symbolic” application of classical
(Bohr 1925, pp. 848–849; BCW 5, pp. 276–277)
electrodynamics—the electron trajectories in the stationary states, for
In this quotation Bohr notes all three correspondence relations: the example, are not to be interpreted literally or even “formally.” This shift in
selection rule correspondence, the asymptotic frequency correspondence, Bohr’s understanding of the status of the electron trajectories being
and the asymptotic intensity correspondence. Bohr then turns to a employed in the correspondence principle has been emphasized in
discussion of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics paper, arguing that particular by Olivier Darrigol (Darrigol 1997, p. 558).
It [the new matrix mechanics] operates with manifolds of Nonetheless, as in 1920 when he first introduced the term correspondence
quantities, which replace the harmonic oscillating components of principle, Bohr is here in 1928 (after the replacement of the old quantum
the motion and symbolise the possibilities of transitions between theory by modern quantum mechanics) interpreting the correspondence
stationary states in conformity with the correspondence principle… principle as a connection between transition processes and harmonics in
In brief, the whole apparatus of the quantum mechanics can be the classical motion of the particles. Moreover, just as in 1920, he is
regarded as a precise formulation of the tendencies embodied in explicitly tying the correspondence principle to his view that quantum
the correspondence principle. (Bohr 1925, p. 852; BCW 5, p. 280) mechanics is a rational generalization of classical mechanics. The

correspondence principle thus provided a conceptual link between form. (Bohr to Sommerfeld, April 30, 1922; BCW 3, p. 39)
classical mechanics (and electrodynamics), the old quantum theory, and
modern quantum mechanics. This rational generalization thesis in turn was Indeed one quickly sees a wide variety of different interpretations of the
the foundation of Bohr’s views on complementarity, and more broadly, his correspondence principle emerging in the physics literature—a variety of
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Thus the interpretations that persists to this day. Hence, it is important to distinguish
correspondence principle was not only technically important in the Bohr’s own views on the correspondence principle from what the
discovery of modern quantum mechanics, as Jammer (1966, p. 118) has correspondence principle came to mean to the broader physics community
emphasized, but it was also was the very foundation of Bohr’s philosophy. (for a detailed account of how the correspondence principle drove research
and discussions in this period, see Jähnert 2019). Both Hendrik Kramers
4. Early Responses and John van Vleck, for example, used and extended the term
“correspondence principle” to cover a wide range of correspondence-type
Early responders to Bohr’s correspondence principle can be roughly arguments that were important in the development of quantum mechanics
divided into three categories: those who misunderstood the principle (e.g., (see, for example, Duncan and Janssen 2007; 2019).
Born and Rosenfeld), those who embraced and developed it (e.g., Kramers
Among those who seemed to correctly understand the core of Bohr’s
and van Vleck), and those who seemed to understand it, but nevertheless
correspondence principle, even fewer embraced it. Indeed many of Bohr’s
mistrusted it (e.g., Sommerfeld, Pauli, and Heisenberg).
contemporaries were distrustful of the principle, despite their willingness
It is unclear how well many of Bohr’s contemporaries understood what he to opportunistically make use of it to obtain concrete results when other
meant by the correspondence principle. For example, even Léon methods failed. Into this third category fall three of the most important
Rosenfeld, one of Bohr’s closest students and collaborators, recalls Bohr’s contemporaneous critics of the correspondence principle: Arnold
annoyance over his failure to have correctly understood the substance of Sommerfeld, Wolfgang Pauli, and Werner Heisenberg.[7]
this principle (Rosenfeld [1973] 1979, p. 690). This is perhaps not entirely
surprising given the turbidity of Bohr’s writings. Bohr himself was quite 4.1 Sommerfeld
conscious of the fact that his dense writing style often led others to
misunderstand him. In a letter to Arnold Sommerfeld, Bohr laments, One of the earliest and most forceful critics of Bohr’s correspondence
principle was Arnold Sommerfeld (1868–1951). As Darrigol has
In the last few years I have often felt myself scientifically very recounted in detail, Sommerfeld was never comfortable with Bohr’s
lonesome, under the impression that my efforts to develop the correspondence principle, and only begrudgingly admitted its fertility
principles of the quantum theory systematically to the best of my (Darrigol 1992, pp. 138–145). Sommerfeld preferred to view quantum
ability have been received with very little understanding… I theory as a self-contained set of formal rules, and wanted to derive the
understand quite well how little the matters are clarified as yet, and selection rules “by a remarkably rigorous manner of deduction,
how helpless I am at expressing my thoughts in easily accessible reminiscent of the incontrovertible logic of numerical calculations”

(Sommerfeld [1919] 1923, pp. 265–266). In the first edition of his book ultimately satisfying on account of its mixing of quantum-
Atombau und Spektrallinen (Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines) theoretical and classical viewpoints. (Sommerfeld 1924, p. 1048;
Sommerfeld disparagingly refers to Bohr’s correspondence principle as a quoted also in Seth 2008, p. 345).
“magic wand”:
Sommerfeld’s critical attitude toward the correspondence principle would
Bohr has discovered in his principle of correspondence a magic prove influential on Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg, both of
wand (which he himself calls a formal principle), which allows us whom were his doctoral students.
immediately to make use of the results of the classical wave theory
in the quantum theory. (Sommereld [1919] 1923, p. 275)[8] 4.2 Pauli
In the second edition of Atombau Sommerfeld softens his criticism of the In his lecture accepting the Nobel Prize (which was awarded in 1945 for
correspondence principle, noting its great fertility. In a letter written to his discovery of the exclusion principle) Wolfgang Pauli describes the
Bohr in November of 1920 Sommerfeld writes, fundamental methodological differences between Bohr and Sommerfeld:
In the appendices of my book, you can see that I have taken some At that time there were two approaches to the difficult problems
pains to show the value of your correspondence principle better connected with the quantum of action. One was an effort to bring
than in the 1. edition… Nonetheless, I must confess that the origin abstract order to the new ideas by looking for a key to translate
of your principle, which is foreign to quantum theory, is still classical mechanics and electrodynamics into quantum language
distressing to me, however much I recognize that through it a most which would form a logical generalization of these. This was the
important connection between quantum th. and classical direction which was taken by Bohr’s “correspondence principle.”
electrodynamics is revealed. (Sommerfeld to Bohr, 11 November Sommerfeld, however, preferred, in view of the difficulties which
1920; BCW 3, p. 690) blocked the use of the concepts of kinematical models, a direct
interpretation, as independent of models as possible, of the laws of
Suman Seth (2008) has argued that Sommerfeld’s dissatisfaction with the
spectra in terms of integral numbers… (Pauli 1946, p. 27)
correspondence principle stemmed not so much from a commitment to
formal rules as Darrigol suggests, but more from his general distrust of Although in hindsight, Pauli claims that both methodologies influenced
analogical thinking and what he took to be an illegitimate mixing of him, in his correspondence dating from 1924 and 1925, one finds Pauli
quantum and classical concepts. We see this, for example, in almost exclusively defending a Sommerfeldian approach, dismissing both
Sommerfeld’s 1924 article on Bohr’s atomic models, where he writes, the correspondence principle and model-based reasoning more generally.
Pauli’s critical remarks about Bohr’s correspondence principle center on
The magic of the correspondence principle has proved itself
two issues. First, Pauli objected to the use of even a “formal” notion of an
generally through the selection rules of the quantum numbers, in
electron orbit, which is central to the application of the correspondence
the series and band spectra… Nonetheless I cannot view it as

principle (e.g., Pauli to Bohr, February 21st 1924). Second, Pauli doubted who need the crutch of the idea of unambiguously defined electron
that the correspondence principle would be able to explain the closing of orbits and mechanical models, the rule can be grounded as follows:
the electron shells as Bohr had hoped. In 1924 Pauli wrote to Bohr: ‘If more than one electron have the same quantum numbers in
strong fields, they would have the same orbits and would therefore
I have already often said to you that I am of the opinion that the collide… The justification of the exclusion of the above-mentioned
Correspondence Principle has in reality nothing to do with the cases in the H-atom by pointing to the collision with the nucleus
problem of the closing of the groups in the atom… The exclusion has never pleased me much. It would be much more satisfying if
of certain stationary states (not transitions), which is what is in we could understand directly on the grounds of a more general
question here, has more similarity in principle with the exclusion quantum mechanics (one that deviates from classical mechanics).
of the state m = 0 or k = 0 in the H-atom than, for example, with (Pauli to Bohr December 31st, 1924; quoted in Heilbron 1983, p.
the selection rule Δk = ±1. Do you still cling to your … 306 and Serwer 1977, p. 236)
application of the Correspondence Principle in this case? … There
is moreover no need whatever to talk of harmonic interplay. (Pauli In the above quotation we see Pauli siding with Sommerfeld, in his
to Bohr, December 12th, 1924; quoted in Serwer 1977, p. 235) distrust of the correspondence principle and model-based reasoning in
general, and in his preference for a “direct” interpretation in terms of a
Reading between the lines, Pauli seems to understand Bohr’s new quantum mechanics.
correspondence principle as a selection rule about transitions between
stationary states that are connected with harmonics in the classical motion. 4.3 Heisenberg
His objection is not to this correspondence principle, but rather with
attempts at extending this principle to explain the closing of electron As Jagdish Mehra and Helmut Rechenberg (1982) have recounted, when
groups in the atom—the sort of extension of the correspondence principle Werner Heisenberg first arrived in Copenhagen to work with Bohr in
that Pauli elsewhere referred to as “correspondence principle imperialism” 1924, he enthusiastically embraced the correspondence principle and took
(Imperialismus des Korrespondenzprinzips) (Pauli to Heisenberg, up the task of defending this principle to the broader physics community.
February 28th, 1925; quoted in Serwer 1977, p.233). The closing of This is especially clear in a letter Heisenberg wrote to Pauli on September
electron shells would ultimately be explained by Pauli’s exclusion 30th, 1924:
principle, though initially Pauli was dissatisfied with such an explanation
insofar as his exclusion rule could not be given a more general grounding Together with Bohr I have again examined the problem carefully,
and justification. When Bohr suggested that the correspondence principle and we arrived at the conclusion that it is not—as Sommerfeld says
might provide such a grounding for the exclusion principle, Pauli replied, —that the sum-rules cannot be understood with the help of the
correspondence principle; on the contrary they are a necessary
I personally do not believe, however, that the correspondence consequence of the correspondence principle… We are very happy
principle will lead to a foundation of the rule… For weak men, about this interpretation for now the attacks against the

correspondence principle are completely refuted… [S]ince recently together with a classical theory of radiation furnish quantitative
the correspondence principle has been blamed so much, it would values for the transition probabilities… Such a formulation of the
be good to publish it [your results confirming the correspondence radiation problem is far from satisfactory, however, and easily
principle] ad majorem correspondentiae principii gloriam [for the leads to false conclusions. (Heisenberg 1930, p. 82)
greater glory of the correspondence principle]. (Heisenberg to
Pauli, September 30th, 1924; quoted in Mehra and Rechenberg pp. While Heisenberg is willing to admit the limited utility of the principle, he
156–157) does not view it as a fundamental principle of quantum theory the way that
Bohr does. Instead Heisenberg argues that “[i]t must be emphasized that
By 1925, however, Heisenberg increasingly began to distance himself this [correspondence] is a purely formal result; it does not follow from any
from the correspondence principle. Daniel Serwer attributes this shift in of the physical principles of quantum theory” (Heisenberg 1930, p. 83). In
Heisenberg’s views to Pauli’s influence: other words, the correspondence is to be interpreted as a purely
mathematical result, not as revealing any deep connection between the
[I]n early March 1925, Pauli came to Copenhagen. This visit was quantum and classical theories, and certainly not as a principle of quantum
crucial to Heisenberg. Under pressure from Pauli, he began to theory itself. For Heisenberg, quantum mechanics is a closed theory
change his views on many issues…[including] the Correspondence [Abgeschlossene Theorie], an axiomatic system complete in itself, not one
Principle. …But until Pauli’s visit, Heisenberg had remained that in any way depends on classical mechanics.[11]
convinced that … the Correspondence Principle would bring
results. (Serwer 1977, p. 222) 5. Interpretations in the History and Philosophy
Despite the fact that Heisenberg relied heavily on the correspondence Literature
principle in developing matrix mechanics, he no longer publicly defended
Arguably any interpretation of the correspondence principle faces the
it.[9] Indeed as Mara Beller has noted, “Heisenberg does not cite Bohr’s
following four challenges: First, determining which (or which
work at all [in the 1925 matrix mechanics paper], despite the fact that the
combination) of the various analogies or relations between classical and
paper was built on Bohr’s correspondence principle in a fundamental
quantum mechanics Bohr intended to designate by the correspondence
way… Instead Heisenberg [inaccurately] presented his work as flowing
principle; second, determining the scope of the correspondence principle
from the positivist principle of elimination of unobservables” (Beller
(i.e., does it apply only to large quantum numbers or all quantum
1999, p. 140).[10] Heisenberg expresses his increasing ambivalence
numbers); third, offering an explanation for why Bohr thought that the
towards the correspondence principle in his book The Physical Principles
correspondence principle should be thought of as a law of quantum theory;
of the Quantum Theory:
and finally, offering an explanation for why Bohr thought that the
It is true that an ingenious combination of arguments based on the correspondence principle had been formalized, and hence preserved, in
correspondence principle can make the quantum theory of matter modern (matrix) quantum mechanics.

One of the most influential discussions of Bohr’s correspondence principle substance of the theory, is of course a serious inconsistency from
appears in Max Jammer’s 1966 book The Conceptual Development of the logical point of view. Being fully aware of this difficulty, Bohr
Quantum Mechanics. Jammer takes the correspondence principle to be a attempted repeatedly to show that ‘the correspondence principle
relation between the kinematics of the electron and the properties of the must be regarded purely as a law of the quantum theory’. (Jammer
emitted radiation. Like many interpreters of the correspondence principle, 1966, p. 116)
he focuses primarily on the frequency relation. He notes that Bohr also
found an asymptotic correspondence between the intensities of the spectral On Jammer’s view, Bohr’s claim that the correspondence principle is a
lines and the amplitudes in the classical harmonic components, as well as law is simply an attempt to cover up the inconsistent foundations of the
a correspondence between the polarization of the emitted radiation and the old quantum theory. In opposition to Bohr’s claim that quantum theory is a
character of the classical motion. Although Jammer notes these other rational generalization of classical mechanics, Jammer interprets Bohr as
correspondences, he seems to interpret the frequency correspondence as viewing quantum and classical mechanics as irreconcilable, and hence
the primary correspondence principle. Regarding the status of this interprets the correspondence principle as only a “formal analogy of
correspondence as a principle, Jammer writes, heuristic value.” At the end of his discussion of the correspondence
principle, Jammer concludes “his [Bohr’s] numerous and often somewhat
In the limit, therefore, the quantum-theoretic frequency νqu conflicting statements, made from 1920 to 1961, on the essence of the
coincides with the classical mechanical frequency νcl . By correspondence principle make it difficult, if not impossible, to ascribe to
demanding that this correspondence remain approximately valid Bohr a clear-cut unvarying conception of the principle” (Jammer 1966, p.
also for moderate and small quantum numbers, Bohr generalized 117).
and modified into a principle what in the limit may be regarded
formally as a theorem. (Jammer 1966, p. 111) It is perhaps for this reason that Jagdish Mehra and Helmut Rechenberg
(1982), in their comprehensive history of the development of quantum
According to Jammer, the correspondence principle, interpreted as the theory, make no concrete commitment as to which of the several
frequency relation, applies by fiat to all quantum numbers and hence correspondence relations discussed by Bohr should be designated as the
obtains the status of a “principle,” even though it is an “approximate” correspondence principle. Like Jammer they struggle to understand why
relation that is only exact for large quantum numbers. Bohr thought the correspondence principle applied to small quantum
numbers and why it should be considered a law of quantum theory. They
Jammer is rather dismissive of Bohr’s claim that the correspondence write, “[T]he extension of the analogy ‘in some way’ to small quantum
principle should be thought of as a law of quantum theory. He writes, numbers represented a most daring assumption… [Bohr] felt confident
that an extension of his relations for frequencies and intensities, which
For taking resort to classical physics in order to establish quantum-
were valid in the high quantum number limit, might eventually be justified
theoretic predictions, or in other words, constructing a theory
also when low quantum numbers were involved” (Mehra and Rechenberg
whose corroboration depends on premises which conflict with the
1982, p. 250). Although they offer one of the more technically detailed

discussions of the correspondence principle, they do not discuss either argues that Bohr is justified in calling it a law of quantum theory because
Bohr’s claim that it should be considered a law nor Bohr’s claim that the “[i]t was indeed a relation between two quantum theoretical concepts: the
correspondence principle is formalized into the new quantum mechanics. probability of a quantum jump, and atomic motion” (Darrigol 1997, p.
553). Moreover, Darrigol cogently argues that this correspondence was
An alternative interpretation of Bohr’s correspondence principle has been incorporated directly into matrix mechanics in Heisenberg’s 1925 paper,
defended by Olivier Darrigol in his excellent and highly readable history thus vindicating Bohr’s claim that the new quantum mechanics can be
of quantum theory From c -Numbers to q-Numbers. Instead of viewing the regarded as “a precise formulation of the tendencies embodied in the
correspondence principle as a statement about quantum and classical correspondence principle” (Bohr 1925, p. 852; BCW 5, p. 280).
frequencies, he interprets it as what was earlier called the intensity
correspondence: The quantum transition probability between two Despite this continuity, Darrigol argues that there was a fundamental,
stationary states separated by τ is proportional to the squared modulus of though implicit, shift in Bohr’s understanding of the correspondence
the classical amplitude of the τ th harmonic vibration, which classically is a principle:
measure of the intensity (see Equation 5).
Originally, the motion to which the ‘correspondence’ was applied
Darrigol writes, was the motion in stationary states, formally described by the
orbiting electrons. In the end, this motion had nothing to do with
Bohr assumed that, even for moderately excited states, the the description of stationary states, it was purely ‘symbolic.’
probability of a given quantum jump was approximately given by (Darrigol 1997, p. 558)
the intensity of the ‘corresponding’ harmonic component of the
motion in the initial stationary state. This is what Bohr called ‘the By ‘formally’ Darrigol means that the space-time relations and dynamical
correspondence principle’. (Darrigol 1997, p. 550; see also relations were retained in the description of the electron’s motion of the
Darrigol 1992, p. 126) atom, although it was recognized that there was no possibility of actually
observing this motion. Once it became a ‘symbolic’ relation, the space-
Strictly speaking this intensity correspondence is exact only in the limit of time description was lost completely.
large quantum numbers, and cannot be extended to small quantum
numbers. The one exception to this is when the classical amplitude is zero, Hans Radder has also argued that Bohr’s understanding of the
the quantum transition probability will also be zero (a special case of what correspondence principle evolved over his career. Radder (1991) identifies
was earlier called Bohr’s selection rule), which does hold for all quantum three different phases. In the first phase (from about 1913 to 1915) the
numbers. correspondence principle was merely a “numerical correspondence”; that
is, it concerned a numerical agreement of the values of certain quantities
Unlike some interpreters of the correspondence principle Darrigol does in classical mechanics (and electrodynamics) and the old quantum theory.
believe that there is a coherent and rational account of Bohr’s In the second phase, lasting between 1916 and 1922, the correspondence
correspondence principle in terms of the intensity correspondence. He

principle was not just a numerical agreement but involved a conceptual interpretation) is not the correspondence principle, but rather something
continuity as well: “The same fundamental concepts ωn,τ and Cn,τ , which that is justified and explained by the correspondence principle.
govern the motion of the electrons in their orbits, and the same function f
determining the transition probabilities are claimed to underlie both kinds Similarly, Scott Tanona (2004) rejects the view that Bohr’s
of theory” (Radder 1991, p. 206). In the third phase from 1923 until 1925 correspondence principle is about an asymptotic agreement of quantum
when the new matrix (quantum) mechanics was introduced, the conceptual and classical theories. He argues instead that Bohr’s correspondence
continuity was abandoned in favor of a “formal” correspondence. Radder principle should be understood primarily as a connection between spectra
means something different than Darrigol when he describes the (radiation) and orbital motion. More broadly, Tanona argues that the
correspondence principle as “formal.” He explains, correspondence principle should not be understood as a heuristic tool for
theory construction, but rather as an epistemological tool, whose “main
Now conceptual correspondence, linked as it was to the purpose within Bohr’s empirical approach was to bridge the
mechanical orbital model was rejected as a basis for atomic theory epistemological gap between empirical phenomena and the unknown
and the orbital model was provisionally replaced by the so-called atomic structure … by associating classical properties of spectra with
‘virtual field model’… [T]hese relations between terms are formal atomic properties” (Tanona 2004, p. 683).
(not conceptual) correspondences, expressing the existence of
certain relations of mathematical identity or substitution. (Radder More recently, Alisa Bokulich (2008, and 2009 [Other Internet
1991, p. 207) Resources]) has argued that Bohr’s correspondence principle should be
understood in terms of what she calls Bohr’s selection rule. This selection
Radder’s chief concern is relating the various incarnations of Bohr’s rule states that “the transition from a stationary state n′ to another
correspondence principle to the more general correspondence and stationary state n″ is allowed if and only if there exists a τ th harmonic in
heuristics arguments in the philosophy of science literature (see Section 7 the classical motion of the electron in the stationary state; if there is no τth
below). harmonic in the classical motion, then transitions between stationary states
whose separation is τ are not allowed quantum mechanically” (Bokulich
Other recent interpretations of Bohr’s correspondence principle include 2008, p. 85). Thus, the correspondence principle, on this reading of Bohr,
Robert Batterman’s, according to which “the CP is a statement to the is defined as the statement that each allowed quantum transition between
effect that the radiative processes to which the second postulate stationary states corresponds to one harmonic component of the classical
[hν = E ′ − E ″ ] applies are ‘correlated’ with, or ‘correspond’ to, motion. She argues that the asymptotic agreements of frequencies and
mechanical vibrations or periodic motions of the charged particles, the intensities emphasized by Jammer and Darrigol respectively are
electrons, in the atom” (Batterman 1991, p. 203). Batterman rightly notes applications or consequences of the correspondence principle, but not the
that the correspondence principle is not the claim that quantum mechanics correspondence principle itself. Moreover, she argues that the selection
must contain classical mechanics as a limiting case, and argues that the rule interpretation of Bohr’s correspondence principle best makes sense of
asymptotic agreement of classical and quantum frequencies (the frequency Bohr’s claims that the correspondence principle applies to small n, that it

is a law of quantum theory, and that it is formalized and preserved in first given by Bohr … states that the laws of quantum physics must be so
matrix mechanics. chosen that in the classical limit, where many quanta are involved, the
quantum laws lead to the classical equations as an average” (Bohm 1951,
6. Interpretations in the Current Physics Literature p. 31).
One typically finds a very different understanding of Bohr’s In his 1984 Physics Today article “The Correspondence Principle
correspondence principle in the current physics literature. Even as early as Revisited,” Richard Liboff argues that Bohr’s correspondence principle is
Max Born’s classic text on the new quantum theory,[12] first published in not a general claim about recovering classical mechanics from quantum
1933, one finds the correspondence principle defined as follows: mechanics, but the following more restricted claim: “the quantum
frequency spectrum of a periodic system approaches the classical
The leading idea (Bohr’s correspondence principle, 1923) may be spectrum in the limit of large n ” (Liboff 1984, p. 52). Liboff goes on to
stated broadly as follows. Judged by the test of experience, the note that even this restricted form of the correspondence principle is
laws of classical physics have brilliantly justified themselves in all violated for systems such as a particle in a box and a rigid rotor. He notes
processes of motion… It must therefore be laid down as an that “[i]n both of these cases, the limit h → 0 leads to frequency
unconditionally necessary postulate, that the new mechanics … correspondence, but the limit n → ∞ does not” (Liboff 1984, p. 52).
must in all these problems reach the same results as the classical
mechanics. In other words, it must be demanded that, for the Following on Liboff, Ghazi Hassoun and Donald Kobe (1989) have
limiting cases of large masses and of orbits of large dimensions, argued that in order to obtain a meaningful classical limit of quantum
the new mechanics passes over into classical mechanics. (Born mechanical eigenvalues it is necessary that “both formulations [of the
[1933] 1957, p. 103). correspondence principle] are used concurrently in the sense that the
Planck constant goes to zero and the appropriate quantum number goes to
There are two strands to Born’s rereading of Bohr’s correspondence infinity … subject to the constraint that nh = J, where J is the appropriate
principle that have become quite common in the physics literature: first, classical action” (Hassoun and Kobe 1989, p. 658). On this reading,
the correspondence principle as a very general requirement that quantum Bohr’s correspondence principle is construed simply as the limit n → ∞ .
mechanics ought to be able to recover the empirical successes of classical Although they call this limit “Bohr’s correspondence principle”, they note
mechanics; and, second, the more specific requirement that it recover the that Bohr was able to obtain the correct classical orbital frequency
predictions of classical mechanics in the limit of large masses and orbits of precisely “because he did not take the mathematical limit as the quantum
large dimension—this latter limit is typically expressed as n → ∞. number goes to infinity. Instead, Bohr considered that for large quantum
numbers the quantum result was very nearly the classical result. Thus the
quantum number n, say, was n ≫ 1, but was not infinite” (Hassoun and
In David Bohm’s classic textbook on standard quantum mechanics, the
correspondence principle is similarly interpreted as a general relation
Kobe 1989, p. 661). They conclude that the correspondence principle is
between the two theories: “[T]he correspondence principle, which was
“often thought to be imprecise because of Bohr’s use of large, but not

infinite, quantum numbers. However, when the Bohr and Planck predictions, Bohr emphatically protested and replied, “It is not the
formulations are synthesized, as shown in this article, the correspondence correspondence argument. The requirement that the quantum theory
principle has a precise mathematical form” (Hassoun and Kobe 1989, p. should go over to the classical description for low modes of frequency, is
661). The correspondence principle on this reading is understood broadly not at all a principle. It is an obvious requirement for the theory”
as the attempt to get a mathematically precise formulation of the classical (Rosenfeld 1973, p. 690).
limit.
7. Generalized Correspondence Principle
Much of the contemporary physics community’s interest in Bohr’s
correspondence principle (variously understood) is in prima facie Finally, it is important to distinguish between Bohr’s correspondence
violations of this principle by particular classes of physical systems. For principle and what some philosophers of science have referred to as the
example, Joseph Ford and Giorgio Mantica, in their article, “Does “generalized correspondence principle” (alternately the “general
Quantum Mechanics Obey the Correspondence Principle? Is It correspondence principle”).
Complete?” define the correspondence principle as requiring that “any two
valid physical theories which have an overlap in their domains of validity In his classic essay “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise
must, to relevant accuracy, yield the same predictions for physical of Conservative Induction” Heinz Post defines this principle as follows:
observations” (Ford and Mantica 1992, p. 1087). Their concern is whether
The most important heuristic restriction is the General
quantum mechanics can account for the behavior of chaotic classical
Correspondence Principle. Roughly speaking, this is the
systems. Similarly, Wojciech Zurek defines the correspondence principle
requirement that any acceptable new theory L should account for
as a demand for an agreement between the “quantum and classical
the success of its predecessor S by ‘degenerating’ into that theory
expectation values” (Habib et al. 1998), arguing that without the
under those conditions under which S has been well confirmed by
phenomenon of decoherence, the correspondence principle is violated.
tests. (Post 1971, p. 228)
While the contemporary physics literature’s understanding of the
The generalized correspondence principle here is seen both as a constraint
correspondence principle is largely in line with Max Born’s construal of
on the development of new theories and as an account of how successor
this principle (given above), it was not what Bohr himself meant by the
theories are related to their predecessors. Typically in physics, Post’s
correspondence principle. Although Bohr agreed that quantum mechanics
notion of ‘degenerating’ is cashed out as the limit of some parameter
ought to be able to recover the empirically confirmed predictions of
whereby the equations of a successor theory are recovered as the limit of
classical mechanics, he explicitly rejected this reading of the
the equations of predecessor theory. Regarding the specific case of the
correspondence principle. Indeed Léon Rosenfeld recounts Bohr’s
quantum-classical relation, Post argues that the general correspondence
frustration at the continued misunderstanding of his principle. When
principle fails:
Rosenfeld off-handedly suggested to Bohr that the correspondence
principle was about the asymptotic agreement of quantum and classical Paradoxically, the only counterexample we have been able to find

to the General Correspondence Principle is the paradigm example 1920, “On the series spectra of the elements,” Lecture before the German
of the relation of quantum mechanics to classical mechanics. Physical Society in Berlin (27 April 1920), translated by A. D.
Contrary to the impression that may be given in some textbooks, it Udden, in Bohr (1976), 241–282.
is not possible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics… This 1921a, “Application of the quantum theory to atomic problems in
failure to establish a general correspondence between quantum general,” unpublished manuscript in Bohr (1976), pp. 397–414.
mechanics and classical physics (in the limit where ΔPΔQ ≫ h 1921b, “Constitution of atoms,” unpublished manuscript in Bohr (1977),
should in our view be regarded as a shortcoming of quantum pp. 99–174.
mechanics … in its claim to the status of L -theory, rather than as a 1922, “Seven lectures on the theory of atomic structure,” unpublished, in
breakdown of the General Correspondence Principle. (Post 1971, Bohr (1977), pp. 341–419.
pp. 233–234)[13] [1923] 1924, “On the application of the quantum theory to atomic
structure,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
Although Post’s generalized correspondence principle bears some (supplement), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.
similarity to the physicist’s conception of Bohr’s correspondence First published in Zeitschrift für Physik, 13 (1923): 117. Reprinted in
principle, it is quite different from Bohr’s own understanding. Indeed, Bohr (1976), pp. 457–499.
according to Post, the generalized correspondence principle does not even 1925, “Atomic theory and mechanics,” Nature (Supplement), 116: 845–
hold for the specific theory pair that was Bohr’s subject. 852. Reprinted in Bohr (1984), pp. 273–280.
1928, “The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic
In contrast to Post, Radder (1991) has claimed that the generalized
theory,” Nature (Supplement), 121: 580–590. Reprinted Bohr (1985),
correspondence principle does apply to the case of the quantum-classical
pp. 148–158.
relation (p. 215), and that Bohr’s correspondence principle, which he
1976, Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 3: The Correspondence Principle
interprets largely as a heuristic tool, can be seen as an instance of the
(1918–1923), J. R. Nielsen (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland
generalized correspondence principle (p. 208).
Publishing.
1977, Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 4: The Periodic System (1920–
Bibliography
1923), J. R. Nielsen (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
1984, Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 5: The Emergence of Quantum
Works by Bohr
Mechanics (Mainly 1924–1926), K. Stolzenburg (ed.). Amsterdam:
1913, “On the constitution of atoms and molecules,” Philosophical North-Holland Publishing.
Magazine, 26: 1–25, 476–502, 857–75. 1985, Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum
1918, “The quantum theory of line-spectra,” Det kongelige Danske Physics I (1926–1932), J. Kalckar (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland
videnskabernes Selskab, Matematiske-fysike Meddelser, 4(1): 1–36; Publishing.
reprinted in Bohr (1976), pp. 67–102.

Other Primary Literature Secondary Literature
Born, M., 1924, “Über Quantenmechanik,” Zeitschrift für Physik, 26: Batterman, R., 1991, “Chaos, quantization, and the correspondence
379–395. principle,” Synthese, 89: 189–227.
–––, 1927 [1925], The Mechanics of the Atom, London: Bell; translation of Beller, M., 1999, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution,
Vorlesungen Über Atommechanik, Berlin: Springer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1957 [1933], Atomic Physics, 6th edition, J. Dougall and R. Blin- Bohm, D., 1951, Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice Hall. Reprinted by
Stoyle (trans.), New York: Hafner Publishing Co. Dover Publications, Inc.
Heisenberg, W., 1968 [1925], “Quantum-theoretical re-interpretation of Bokulich, A., 2004, “Open or closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation
kinematic and mechanical relations,” in B. van der Waerden (ed.), between classical and quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and
Sources of Quantum Mechanics, New York: Dover Publications, Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 377–396.
261–276; translation of “Über quantentheorische Umdeutung –––, 2006, “Heisenberg meets Kuhn: Closed theories and paradigms,”
kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen”, Zeitschrift für Philosophy of Science, 73: 90–107.
Physik, 33: 879–893. –––, 2008, Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond
–––, 1930, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, translated by Reductionism and Pluralism, Cambridge: Cambridge University
C. Eckart and F. C. Hoyt, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Press.
Pauli, W., 1946, “Exclusion Principle and Quantum Mechanics,” in Nobel Bokulich, P. and A. Bokulich, 2005, “Niels Bohr’s generalization of
Lectures, Physics 1942–1962, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Co., classical mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 35: 347–371.
1964. Darrigol, O., 1992, From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical
Sommerfeld, A., 1923 [1919], Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines, Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory, Berkeley: University of
translated by H. Brose, London: Methuen. California Press.
–––, 1924, “Grundlagen der Quantentheorie und des Bohrschen –––, 1997, “Classical concepts in Bohr’s atomic theory (1913–1925),”
Atommodelles,” Die Naturwissenschaften, 12(47): 1047–1049. Physis: Riv. Internaz. di Storia della Scienza, 34: 545–567.
Van Vleck, J. H., 1924a, “The Absorption of Radiation by Multiply Duncan, A. and M. Janssen, 2007, “On the verge of Umdeutung in
Periodic Orbits, and Its Relation to the Correspondence Principle and Minnesota: Van Vleck and the Correspondence Principle, Part One,”
the Rayleigh-Jeans law. Part I: Some Extensions of the Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 61(6): 553–624.
Correspondence Principle,” Physical Review, 24: 330–346. –––, 2019, Constructing Quantum Mechanics (Volume 1: The Scaffold
–––, 1924b, “The Absorption of Radiation by Multiply Periodic Orbits, 1900–1923), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
and Its Relation to the Correspondence Principle and the Rayleigh- Fedak, W. A. and J. J. Prentis, 2002, “Quantum jumps and classical
Jeans law. Part II. Calculation of Absorption by Multiply Periodic harmonics,” American Journal of Physics, 70: 332–344.
Orbits,” Physical Review, 24: 347–365. Ford, J. and G. Mantica, 1992, “Does quantum mechanics obey the

correspondence principle? Is it complete?” American Journal of 226.

Physics, 60: 1086–1098. Rynasiewicz, R., 2015, “The (?) Correspondence Principle,” in F. Aaserud
Habib, S., K. Shizume, and W. Zurek, 1998, “Decoherence, Chaos and the and H. Kragh (eds.), One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom.
Correspondence Principle,” Physical Review Letters, 80: 4361–4365. Proceedings from a Conference, Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske
Hassoun, G. and D. Kobe, 1989, “Synthesis of the Planck and Bohr Videnskabernes Selskab, 175–199.
formulations of the correspondence principle,”, American Journal of Rosenfeld, L., 1979 [1973], “The Wave-Particle Dilemma,” in R. Cohen
Physics, 57(7): 658–662. and J. Stachel (eds.), Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld (Boston
Heilbron, J., 1983, “The Origins of the Exclusion Principle,” Historical Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 21), Dordrecht: D.
Studies in the Physical Sciences, 13(2): 261–310. Reidel Publishing Co., 688–703; originally published in J. Mehra
Jähnert, M., 2019, Practicing the Correspondence Principle in the Old (ed.), The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Quantum Theory: A Transformation through Implementation, Publishing Co., pp. 251–263.
Archimedes 56, Cham: Springer. Serwer, D., 1977, “Unmechanischer Zwang: Pauli, Heisenberg, and the
Jammer, M., 1966, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, Rejection of the Mechanical Atom, 1923–1925,” Historical Studies in
New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. the Physical Sciences, 8: 189–256.
Liboff, R., 1984, “The correspondence principle revisited,” Physics Today, Seth, S., 2008, “Mystik and Technik: Arnold Sommerfeld and Early-
37: 50–55. Weimar Quantum Theory,” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte,
Mehra, J. and Rechenberg, H., 1982, The Historical Development of 31(4): 331–352.
Quantum Theory (Volume I: The Quantum Theory of Planck, Stachel, J., 2009, “Bohr and the Photon,” in W. Myrvold and J. Christian
Einstein, Bohr and Sommerfeld: Its Foundation and the Rise of Its (eds.), Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the
Difficulties 1900–1925; Volume II: The Discovery of Quantum Epistemic Circle (Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science,
Mechanics 1925), New York: Springer-Verlag. Volume 73), Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 69–83.
Nielsen, J. R., 1976, “Introduction to Niels Bohr Collected Works (Volume Tanona, S., 2004, “Idealization and Formalism in Bohr’s Approach to
3),” in Bohr (1976), pp. 3–46. Quantum Theory,” Philosophy of Science, 71: 683–695.
Post, H., 1971, “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise of
Conservative Induction,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Academic Tools
Science, 2: 213–255; reprinted in Correspondence, Invariance and
Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post (Boston Studies in the How to cite this entry.
Philosophy of Science, Volume 148), S. French and H. Kamminga Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP
Society.
(eds.), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, pp. 1–43.
Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology
Radder, H., 1991, “Heuristics and The Generalized Correspondence
Project (InPhO).
Principle,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42: 195–
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links

to its database. cosines).
Other Internet Resources 4. Regarding the statistical asymptotic agreement Bohr notes, “As far as
the frequencies are concerned we see therefore that in the limit where n is
Bokulich, A., 2009, “Three Puzzles about Bohr’s Correspondence large there exists a close relation between the ordinary theory of radiation
Principle,” manuscript at PhilSci Archive. and the theory of spectra based on [the quantum postulates]. It may be
Niels Bohr’s Nobel Prize Lecture and a brief biography noticed, however, that, while on the first theory radiations of the different
Niels Bohr Archive frequencies τω corresponding to different values of τ are emitted or
Niels Bohr Library and Archives absorbed at the same time, these frequencies will on the present theory …
Sources for the History of Quantum Physics (guide to the Archives be connected with entirely different processes … corresponding to the
for History of Quantum Physics) transition of the system from a given state to different neighbouring
stationary states” (Bohr 1918, p.15; BCW 3, p. 81; emphasis added). And
Related Entries as Darrigol adds, “Considering this distinction there could be no
agreement, even asymptotically between the spectrum of radiation emitted
physics: intertheory relations in | quantum mechanics: Copenhagen by a single atom and the one emitted by the corresponding classical
interpretation of | quantum mechanics: the role of decoherence in | system, since a single atom in a given state could emit only one line. But
quantum theory: the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument in | Uncertainty in the spirit of Einstein’s probabilistic treatment of radiation, one could
Principle still compare the spectrum of a statistical ensemble of such atoms with the
classical spectrum” (Darrigol 1992, p. 126; emphasis original).
Notes to Bohr’s Correspondence Principle
5. From Fedak and Prentis (2002, p. 337). Although Fedak and Prentis are
1. Throughout, ‘BCW’ refers to Niels Bohr Collected Works, where most not concerned with the historical question of what Bohr meant by “the
of Bohr’s papers can be readily found, followed by the relevant volume correspondence princple”, their presentation of the physics behind the
number. correspondence principle is pedagogically very useful.
2. This familiar way of expressing the quantum condition does not appear 6. One substitutes the Fourier series representation of the solution x(t) to
in Bohr (1913). For an excellent historical review of Bohr’s work on the Newton’s equation into the quantum condition to obtain a “quantized”
old quantum theory, including a discussion of Bohr’s quantum conditions, Fourier series representation of the solution x(t, n) of the following form:
see Darrigol (1992), Chapters V and VI.
∞
x(t, n) = ∑ Ck (n) cos(kω(n)t)
3. A Fourier series, recall, is a way of representing a function F(x) in
k=1
terms of a weighted sum of sinusoidal components (e.g., sines and
7. A complete survey of all important reactions to Bohr’s correspondence

principle is outside the scope of this encyclopedia entry. In the interest of

space I have just focused on these three important commentators.
8. Both this and the preceeding Sommerfeld quotations are given in

Darrigol (1992, p. 140).
9. For a discussion of how Heisenberg used the correspondence principle

in constructing matrix mechanics see, for example, Bokulich 2008, pp.
90–93.
10. Although one of Beller’s central arguments here is that reduction to

observables did not in fact play a role in Heisenberg’s discovery of matrix
mechanics, this does not come across clearly in this particular quotation of
hers; hence I have amended her quotation with “[inaccurately]” to reflect
the point she is making in the surrounding passages. For a further
argument that reduction to observables played no role in Heisenberg’s
discovery see Bokulich 2008, pp. 90–92.
11. For a discussion of Heisenberg’s closed theories see, for example,

Bokulich (2004; 2006).
12. Rynasiewicz (2015) identifies Kramers (1924) as the earliest

publication that describes the correspondence principle as the constraint
that quantum theory should match the classical account in the domain of
large quantum numbers.
13. One of the chief motivations for the view that the general
correspondence principle does not hold for quantum and classical
mechanics is the measurement problem (see entry on Measurement in
Quantum Theory)
Copyright © 2020 by the authors

Alisa Bokulich and Peter Bokulich
46 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Borov Princip Korespondencije

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borov Princip Korespondencije

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

pdf version of the entry

Bohr’ s Correspondence Principle

selection rule interpretation, according to which the correspondence Related Entries

2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 3

4 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 5

6 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 7

8 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 9

described the relation as an analogy between classical and quantum

10 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 11

12 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 13

correspondence principle.” Correspondence Principle mentioned above, let it be once more

14 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 15

In other words, although the “frequency correspondence” does not hold

There is a remarkable continuity in Bohr’s statements on the

[T]he possibility of the occurrence of a transition, accompanied by

16 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 17

18 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 19

20 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 21

22 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 23

24 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 25

26 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 27

28 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 29

30 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 31

32 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 33

34 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 35

36 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 37

38 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 39

Other Primary Literature Secondary Literature

40 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 41

correspondence principle? Is it complete?” American Journal of 226.

42 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 43

to its database. cosines).

44 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2020 Edition 45

principle is outside the scope of this encyclopedia entry. In the interest of

8. Both this and the preceeding Sommerfeld quotations are given in

9. For a discussion of how Heisenberg used the correspondence principle

10. Although one of Beller’s central arguments here is that reduction to

11. For a discussion of Heisenberg’s closed theories see, for example,

12. Rynasiewicz (2015) identifies Kramers (1924) as the earliest

Copyright © 2020 by the authors

46 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You might also like