Niels Bohr

Record year1913

M rationaleThe first paper explains the hydrogen spectrum using stationary states and transitions and addresses the spectrum of singly ionized helium. This is foundational knowledge in the discipline; later revisions and modern quantum mechanics are not included.

attribution rationaleThe frozen attribution budget is Bohr 60%, Rutherford 10%, earlier quantum work 12%, spectral observations 10%, and unallocated 8%; these are not measured proportions.

Record year1936

M rationaleExplains an incident neutron as forming a temporary compound state and its competing consequences; it is a bounded conceptual method for nuclear reactions and does not count experimental discovery or later applications.

attribution rationaleBohr proposed this explanation within its defined scope; experimental inputs are retained, and Kalckar's later collaboration on the liquid-drop model is not retroactively assigned a personal share in this outcome.

Record year1913

M rationaleReplaced arbitrary treatment with physically constrained electron response, creating a reusable method within a limited domain; later quantum stopping theory is not included.

attribution rationaleBohr independently developed the treatment of bound electrons, delivering this method of classical electron response within its limited scope. Charles Galton Darwin's earlier treatment and Rutherford's measurements and dissemination are retained as explicit inputs. Rutherford's share is attributed only once and is not also counted toward his 1911 scattering outcome. The pool of dispersion and measured inputs, support for research and publication, and unresolved remainder of the account are retained separately as prerequisites not apportioned to individuals, institutional conditions, and responsibilities not yet established.

Evidence gapsThis item relies on a reviewed collected-works introduction and a translation of the 1912 lecture; the full text of the 1913 original paper remains to be checked.

Record year1920

M rationaleThe selection/inference method across complex spectra approaches foundational disciplinary scale; the 1913 framework and complete later quantum theory are both excluded.

attribution rationaleBohr's 60% covers the synthesis of the general correspondence principle and its application across spectroscopy; Sommerfeld and his followers' 12% cover stationary-state conditions and prior work on complex spectra; Kramers's 6% covers quantitative development of spectral-line intensities. Epstein and Schwarzschild's 3% cover Stark-effect and polarization constraints; Rydberg and Ritz's 6% cover spectral-term regularities and the combination principle; prior-input pools for quanta, transitions, nuclear atoms, and atomic number account for 7%, the experimental and spectral-measurement chain for 3%, and unresolved shared formation for 3%. These are normative estimates in a common budget; group shares have not been arbitrarily divided among members.

Record year1939

M rationaleThe joint theoretical explanation provides an independent disciplinary mechanism, with only limited observational fit; it does not absorb the experimental discovery of fission, complete later theory, or wartime consequences.

attribution rationaleBohr and Wheeler's substantial joint theoretical shares are a normative tie, while discovery and explanatory inputs remain retained.

Record year1911

M rationaleConfirmed a specific failure of classical free/bound-electron descriptions; this is important conceptual negative knowledge and does not claim to explain all magnetism.

attribution rationaleAssigns only Bohr's narrow 1911 argument; classical prior work is retained, and later independent work is not retroactively assigned to Bohr.

Record year1927–1928

M rationaleThe seven-part public framework organizes observation, definition, and existing wave-particle descriptions; it remains disputed and does not claim the uniquely correct solution.

attribution rationaleRetain the existing full budget; Heisenberg's 4% counts only discussion input directly connected to the complementarity framework, while Bohr's synthesis, other contributors, publishing institutions, and the unallocated remainder are all retained; this round does not re-adjudicate it.

Evidence gapsRetain the originally adopted result; this round did not re-examine the complete original journal text, scope of dispute, or full budget.

Record year1921

M rationaleAdopts only chemical/spectral organizing knowledge effective for a limited period; textbook use proves delivery, not permanent correctness.

attribution rationaleBohr's 60% is for organizing synthesis; Sommerfeld, Kramers, observations, prior work, publication, and unallocated items are all retained.

Record year1927

M rationaleThe relation entered quantum science globally across generations and belongs at the M6 scale of globally significant scientific foundations; it is a foundational limiting relation, rather than complete quantum mechanics, the whole interpretation of measurement, or cross-domain civilizational infrastructure, so it does not rise to M7. The M value rests on the result's disciplinary coverage and enduring effect, not on whether the original paper currently lacks pages.

attribution rationaleHeisenberg receives 68% for the original proposal and paper delivery of the relation; Bohr's interpretive discussion, the existing formal frameworks of Born, Jordan, Dirac, and others, publishing institutions, and unresolved precursor inputs retain the remaining budget.

Evidence gapsThe 1927 original text has not yet been checked page by page; later rigorous forms, generalized relations, and the scope of cross-domain adoption are not developed in this candidate.

Record year1909

M rationaleThis is a specialized surface-measurement method with finite-amplitude corrections, not extrapolated to broad industrial capability.

attribution rationaleBohr delivered the correction and method; Rayleigh's jet theory is retained as a substantial input, with no invented credit for collaborators or later verification.

Record year1925

M rationaleM4.5 is used: it is an important theoretical method that entered international research and remains continuously named; Raman's contemporaneous discussion shows that this route entered explanation of actual problems. But Raman explicitly noted insufficient structural and quantitative understanding at the time, and the original paper body has not been checked, so it does not rise to a complete field transformation or a foundation of scattering theory.

attribution rationaleHeisenberg receives 30% and Kramers 45% for the joint formula; classical dispersion and old quantum theory, external dispersion inputs, and publishing support retain the remaining budget.

Evidence gapsThe body of the 1925 original paper, the internal division between the two authors, and the complete transmission chain from the formula to Raman's problem remain unclosed.