Science and quantum mechanics

Heisenberg : “ May be should it be possible to divide indefinitely matter, except that at the end it should not be really a division, but a transformation of energy into matter…” (See the part : “Discussion about language”)

For the structure of atom relatively to the one I will propose (Serge l’Eternel) :
Heisenberg : “Now, if a trajectory of electron does exist in a Wilson chamber, there must be one as well in atom. But I confess to already have had some doubts about it. Because if it is true that we calculate an electronic orbit following the classic Newtonian mechanics, we confer to it afterwards, with the help of the quantum conditions, a stability that it should never have in accordance with this same Newtonian mechanics ; and when the electron jumps (in the case of the emission of radiation) from an orbit to the other, we prefer to say nothing about this jump : is it a broad jump, a high jump or what else ? So in a certain sense, all the idea that we construct about the orbit of an electron inside atom has to be absurd. But then, what? (See the part : “The notion of “understand” in physics”)
Wolfgang (Pauli) approved. “All this is really extremely mysterious. If an orbit of electron does exist in atom, electron must obviously turn on this orbit in a periodic way, with a determined frequency. In that case, the laws of electrodynamics impose that the electrical oscillations come from the charge doing this periodic motion. In other words, some light has to be radiated with the same frequency. But in reality, this is not like this at all : the frequency of oscillation of the radiated light is in fact between the frequency of orbit which precedes the famous so mysterious jump and the one which follows. All this is basically pure madness.” (See the part : “The notion of “understand” in physics”)
Wolfgang : “…; with regard to both of us, honestly, we do even not believe in the electronic orbits…” (See the same part)
Heisenberg : “…Bohr must know, him also, that he begins with some hypotheses which contain some contradictions, which can not be right therefore in the considered form…” (See the same part)
Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize laureate in physics, and creator of the actual pattern for atom : “By stability, I mean that this is always the same substances, with the same properties, which appear…This is incomprehensible following the classic mechanics, especially if we admit that atom looks like a planetary system.” (See the same part)
He adds a bit further : “These images (of atoms), answered Bohr, have been deducted or rather if you prefer, “guessed” from experimental facts ; they are not the fruit of some sort of theoretical calculations. I Hope that these images describe the structure of atoms as good (but only as good) as possible in the visual language of the classic physics…”
Heisenberg : “But how will it be possible, in these conditions, to do some progresses? When all is said and done, has not it, physics, to be an exact science?” (See the same part)
“We must expect, said Bohr, that the paradoxes of the quantum theory, the incomprehensible aspects linked to the stability of matter, are going to be lighted in an always more distinct manner with every new experimental fact. If this is thus, we can hope that with time some new concepts will be formed, and that these new concepts will allow us to seize in a certain way even the not visual processes occurring in atom. But from that we are still very far.” (See the same part)

(From the same book as the previous post)