Diracs Theory & the Positron

PREDICTION AND THEORY EVALUATION:

SUBATOMIC PARTICLES
[Rivista di Storia della Scienza, Serie II, vol. 1, n. 2 (dicembre 1993), pp. 47-152]
STEPHEN G. BRUSH*
SUMMARY
It is often assumed that successful predictions of a new phenomenon encourages
the acceptance of the theory that led to the prediction, but few historians have
systematically collected evidence to test that assumption. This paper surveys the
response of physicists to three theories that predicted previously-unknown
particles: Diracs relativistic quantum theory of the electron (the positron),
Yukawas theory of nuclear forces (the meson), and Gell-Manns SU(3) symmetry-
group theory (the S ). The balance between this empirical evidence and other
-
arguments used to evaluate the theories is discussed.
"What did you expect to see--mermaids?"
Wolfgang Pauli to Carl Anderson
1
As part of an ongoing study of the role of prediction in the eval-
__________________________________________________________________
[Note added July 2010: the author is Distinguished University Professor of the
History of Science (Emeritus), University of Maryland. Address: 108
Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342.]
Diracs Theory & the Positron
48 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
uation of theories by scientists, this paper examines three episodes in the
2, 3
history of modern physics. In each case, a theoretical hypothesis led to the
prediction of the existence of a previously-unobserved particle with specified
properties, and a particle with those properties was subsequently discovered. By
examining the writings of physicists in the years following the discovery, I try to
determine whether the success of the prediction significantly increased the
acceptance of the theory by scientists doing research in that field (as distinct from
textbook writers and journalists), and more generally I attempt to determine the
role of empirical facts, whether predicted in advance or explained in retrospect, in
scientists' evaluation of theories. The three cases to be examined in this paper are
P. A. M. Dirac's prediction of the positron from his relativistic quantum theory of
the electron (supplemented by the "hole" hypothesis"), Hideki Yukawa's
prediction of the meson from his theory of forces between nucleons, and Murray
Gell-Mann's prediction of the S particle from his SU(3) symmetry-group model.
-
They were selected because they have been widely celebrated as examples of
successful prediction and a substantial technical literature is available for each
case.
As in other cases, I am especially interested in determining the role of
novelty: what difference did it make to the evaluation of the theory, that the
prediction came before the discovery? Here are three views on this point
expressed by modern particle theorists.
Diracs Theory & the Positron
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 49
Sheldon Glashow asserts: "to be valid, a theory must not simply
explain the results of experiments that have already been done, but must
point the way to new ideas and new observations." Thus Einstein's
prediction of gravitational light bending was "more impressive" because it
was an "absolutely new and unexpected effect."
4
Frank Wilczek states that "In most fields of science, theories get
judged by their ability to predict the results of new experiments and
observations" but admits that in fields like cosmology we may have to be
satisfied with "postdiction" of earlier events, based on the time-reversal
invariance of the laws of nature.
5
Yuval Ne'eman, who independently proposed the SU(3) theory
discussed in this article, and has written extensively about its history, says:
the importance attached to a successful prediction is associated with human psychology
rather than with the scientific methodology. It would not have detracted at all from the
effectiveness of the eightfold way if the S had been discovered before the theory was
-
proposed. But human nature stands in great awe when a prophecy comes true,
Diracs Theory & the Positron
4
50 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
and regards the realization of a theoretical prediction as an irrefutable proof of the
validity of the theory.
6
According to Glashow "you cannot predict something that has already been measured,"
but unfortunately many other scientists do use the word "prediction" ambiguously, to mean either
the deduction of a known fact or the forecast of a new fact. This ambiguity in itself suggests
7
that scientists do not attach as much importance to temporal novelty as Glashow, Wilczek, and
Ne'eman imply. In order to maintain the distinction, I will use the term "forecast" when I want to
specify a novel prediction. A statement like "successful prediction" cannot be taken to mean
"successful forecast" unless the element of temporal novelty is explicitly mentioned.
According to some philosophers of science, the essence of the scientific method is to use
hypotheses to make predictions and test them by empirical observations. One should then favor
those hypotheses that are best confirmed by successful predictions. (There should also be some
penalty for unsuccessful predictions to discourage the proliferation of irresponsible predictions
by those who merely hope that at least one will come true and the rest will be forgotten.) In
recent writings on "scientific realism," it is argued that successful predictions provide strong
evidence for the truth of theories, since otherwise such successes would be miraculous. Some
8
educators believe that the proper role of history of science in science education is to illustrate the
operation of the scientific method by describing incidents "where successful predictions were
made to establish a
Diracs Theory & the Positron
5
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 51
new model." Does the history of science actually support these pronouncements of philosophers
9
and educators?
1.1 DIRAC'S HOLE THEORY AND THE POSITRON
The development of Dirac's relativistic wave equation and the discovery of the positron have
been extensively discussed by historians of science, so only a brief summary is necessary here.
10
In order to obtain an equation that would treat space and time coordinates in the same way (to
satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity) and would also be linear (for
mathematical convenience), Dirac found it necessary to introduce a four-component wave
function. This had the immediate advantage of allowing electron spin (previously inserted on an
ad hoc basis) to be incorporated into the theory in a natural way, but the disadvantage that two
components correspond to states with negative energy. Then, in order to prevent the electrons
from falling immediately into states of indefinitely large negative energy, Dirac invoked the Pauli
exclusion principle and postulated that all the negative-energy states are normally filled. He
suggested that an electron in a negative-energy state could occasionally absorb enough energy by
the combination of two high-energy photons to jump to a positive-energy state. The resulting
"hole" in the sea of negative-energy electrons would then behave like a particle of positive energy
but
Diracs Theory & the Positron
6
52 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
opposite (i.e. positive) electric charge. From the viewpoint of the observer who is not
11
directly aware of the sea of negative-energy electrons, two particles have been created
from energy in accordance with Einstein's formula E = mc .
2
Although it might seem that the positively-charged particles created in this model
would have the same mass as the electron, Dirac was clearly reluctant to predict the
existence of a previously-unobserved particle. Instead, he preferred to identify this
particle with the proton, even though the proton has much greater mass than the electron.
Eventually he was persuaded by the arguments of Hermann Weyl and J. Robert
Oppenheimer that his theory would be logically inconsistent unless the positively-charged
particle had the same mass as the electron. In May 1931, Dirac concluded:
12
It thus appears that we must abandon the identification of the holes with protons and must find some other
interpretation for them. Following Oppenheimer, we can assume that in the world as we know it, all, and
13
not merely nearly all, of the negative-energy states for electrons are occupied. A hole, if there were one,
would be a new kind of particle, unknown to experimental physics, having the same mass and opposite
charge to an electron. We may call such a particle
Diracs Theory & the Positron
7
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 53
an anti-electron. We should not expect to find any of them in nature, on account of their rapid rate of
recombination with electrons, but if they could be produced experimentally in high vacuum they would be
quite stable and amenable to observation. An encounter between two hard -rays (of energy at least half a
million volts) could lead to the creation simultaneously of an electron and anti-electron, the probability of
occurrence of this process being of the same order of magnitude as that of the collision of the two ( -rays
on the assumption that they are spheres of the same size as classical electrons. This probability is
negligible, however, with the intensities of (-rays at present available.
The protons on the above view are quite unconnected with electrons. Presumably the protons will have
their own negative-energy states, all of which normally are occupied, an unoccupied one appearing as an
anti-proton.
13
The main purpose of this paper was not to predict the anti-electron and the anti-
proton (both subsequently discovered) but to develop a theory that predicts the existence
of the magnetic monopole (which has not yet been discovered). Yet according to
14
Dirac's later recollections, physicists at that time were very reluctant to postulate new
particles -- "it was considered practically self-evident that there could not be any particles
other than electrons and protons."
15
Diracs Theory & the Positron
8
54 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Physicists in 1931 were less interested in testing the prediction of a new particle
than in modifying Dirac's theory to eliminate the negative-energy states, or at least to
prevent them from having any physical significance. R. M. Langer, then at M.I.T.,
remarked that Dirac's equation predicted some properties "so strange that no one even
thought of testing them out. The unbelievable properties referred to were all connected
with" the negative energy states. Following Schrdinger's suggestions, Langer thought
the theory could be revised so as to :leave the matter of the negative energy states a
harmless and uninteresting question." But he was uneasy about "the baldness of the
assertion that just because we dislike the negative energies" we can ban certain kinds of
operators from quantum theory, and conceded that there might be "systems (e. g. protons
or photons) susceptible to observation which can be described by" the negative-energy
solutions.
16
Dirac recalled in 1972 that the anti-electron was "actually first observed" by P. M.
S. Blackett "but he was rather cautious and did not want to publish his result without
confirmation." In 1978 he told Luis Alvarez that Blackett had evidence for the positron
17
a year before Anderson published his discovery paper. In 1984 he repeated his
18
statement that Blackett was overcautious, with the further elaboration:
Diracs Theory & the Positron
9
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 55
I was quite intimate with Blackett at the time and had told him about my relativistic theory of the electron.
[...] I discussed this theory with Blackett and we wondered whether the theory was correct and whether
positrons really existed. [ ...] In looking over many of Blackett's photographs and assuming a likely
direction for the motion of the particle from the circumstances of the experiment, one seemed to have plenty
of evidence for positrons. But one could not be sure, and Blackett would not publish such uncertain
evidence.
19
Thus (in Dirac's view) Blackett allowed himself to be scooped on the discovery of the
positron because he would not take seriously enough Dirac's prediction. Blackett's own
account in his Nobel Lecture (1948), does not mention any discussions with Dirac prior to
the discovery.
20
Prior to Dirac's prediction there had been speculations about the possible existence
of positively-charged electrons, and reports of observations that could have been
interpreted as evidence for such particles. Nevertheless it is generally agreed that the
21
"discovery of the positron" occurred in August 1932 when Carl D. Anderson decided that
some of his cosmic ray tracks whose curvature indicated a positive charge must have been
made by particles with masses comparable to that of the electron rather than the proton.
22
He later gave it the name
Diracs Theory & the Positron
10
56 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
"positron," though his proposed renaming of the negatively-charged electron as the
"negatron" was not accepted by other physicists.
23
According to Anderson's account of this discovery written in 1961:
24
it has often been stated in the literature that the discovery of the positron was a consequence of its
theoretical prediction by Dirac, but this is not true. The discovery of the positron was wholly accidental.
Despite the fact that Dirac's relativistic theory of the electron was an adequate theory of the positron, and
despite the fact that the existence of this theory was well known to nearly all physicists, including myself, it
played no part whatsoever in the discovery of the positron.
The reason for this circumstance, according to Anderson, was that
the Dirac theory, in spite of its successes, carried with it so many novel and seemingly unphysical ideas,
such as negative mass, negative energy, infinite charge density, etc. Its highly esoteric character was
apparently not in tune with most of the scientific thinking of that day. ... This kind of thinking prevented
most experimenters from accepting the Dirac theory wholeheartedly and relating it to the real physical
world until after the existence of the positron was established on an experimental basis.
24
If Dirac's theory played no part in Anderson's discovery, did it nevertheless, as Anderson
states, gain acceptance because of that discovery? Anderson himself published 5 papers on the
positron in 1933, in none of which did he even mention Dirac's theory by name. In an address
25
to the American Physical Soci
Diracs Theory & the Positron
11
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 57
ety on December 27, 1933, Anderson first took public notice of "Dirac's theory of the
creation of pairs out of the incident photon" -- only to point out that while the maximum
energy of positron-electron pairs is "in good accord with that to be expected on the Dirac
picture," the observed asymmetry in the numbers of positive and negative electrons
produced in showers is "only with some difficulty reconciled" with that theory. The
secondary radiation produced by annihilation, predicted by the theory, was observed in
some cases but not in others.
26
In a major paper published early in 1934, Anderson and his colleagues ignored
Dirac's theory until the last paragraph, where they stated that "the large, and the, in
general uneven number of positrons and negatrons ... seem difficult to reconcile with the
Dirac theory..." By the fall of that year his opinion had become more favorable; he
27
told the International Conference on Physics in London that his results on photon
absorption for energies up to 12 MeV "are in good agreement with theoretical
predictions" and the results "combine to show the success of the Dirac theory as
developed by Oppenheimer and Plesset and by Heitler and Sauter" for photon energies of
2.6 MeV. In his Nobel Lecture (December 1936), Anderson stated that "the
28
experimental results on the production of positrons out of radiation have been shown to
be in approximate agreement" with the Dirac theory, and even then he added the
qualification, "where the quantum energies are not too high."
29
Diracs Theory & the Positron
12
58 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Another kind of evidence that Anderson did not take seriously Dirac's theory, even
after the discovery of the positron, is his statement that he refused to consider the
24
possibility that the highly-penetrating particles discovered in 1936 (subsequently known
as : mesons) could be negatively-charged protons, even though Dirac had predicted the
existence of such particles at the same he predicted the positron.
12
The first published suggestion that the positron could be the particle postulated in
Dirac's hole theory came from R. M. Langer, now Anderson's colleague at Caltech, just
three weeks after the publication of Anderson's discovery paper. "The fact that [Dirac's]
theory has resisted so stubbornly the efforts to dispose of the negative energy electron or
to distort the positive electron into a proton causes us to regard it now with increased
respect." Together with Dirac's assumption that the negative energy states are almost
entirely filled, the theory leads inevitably to a positive electron with the same mass.
30
But Langer did not follow up this suggestion, and it was P. M. S. Blackett and G.
P. S. Occhialini, Dirac's colleagues at Cambridge University, who subsequently received
all the credit for showing that the positron was the particle predicted by Dirac. They
published their own confirmation of Anderson's discovery (somewhat tardily, according
to Dirac ) and pointed to the relevance of Dirac's theory. They credited that theory at
17,18,19
first with the prediction, not of the existence or creation of the positive electron, but only
its annihilation by combi
Diracs Theory & the Positron
13
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 59
nation with the electron. They noted that Dirac had calculated the mean free path of the
positive electron, and that it should soon be possible to test this prediction. "There
appears to be no evidence as yet against its [the Dirac theory's] validity, and in its favour
is the fact that it predicts a time of life for the positive electron that is long enough for it
to be observed in the cloud chamber but short enough to explain why it had not been
discovered by other methods." In a report at the Solvay Congress in October 1933, and
31
in an article in Nature two months later, Blackett stated more explicitly that the Dirac
theory had predicted the existence of particles having the same properties as the positive
electron, and that the experimental results thus support the essence of the Dirac theory.
32,33
In later publications Blackett repeated the assertion that the discovery of the positron
confirmed the validity of Dirac's hole theory.
34
Diracs Theory & the Positron
14
60 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Oppenheimer's role in the history of Dirac's theory has been mentioned by
historians but not given the attention it deserves. Oppenheimer had first met Dirac in
1926, and soon became a close friend, as well as an advocate of his relativistic electron
theory in the American physics community. As mentioned above, he had helped
26
convince Dirac that the hypothetical positive particles must have the same mass as the
electron.
12,13
After Anderson's discovery, Oppenheimer worked with Milton Plesset, a National
Research Council fellow at Caltech, to apply Dirac's theory to calculate the probability of
pair creation by radiation impinging on nuclei, as a function of the atomic number of the
nucleus. Their paper begins: "The experimental discovery of the positive electron gives
us a striking confirmation of Dirac's theory of the electron, and of his most recent
attempts to give a consistent interpretation of the formalism of that theory." What some
36
physicists considered the most striking confirmation of the theory was not so much the
37
existence of the positron as the fact that it was created out of radiation -- an hypothesis
sometimes ascribed to Blackett and Occhialini rather than to Dirac -- at a rate roughly in
agreement with the Oppenheimer-Plesset formula.
Oppenheimer was also one of a handful of theorists who offered an alternative
interpretation of Dirac's theory, avoiding the unsatisfactory negative-energy states. With
Wendell Furry, a postdoctoral fellow at Berkeley, he developed a quantized-field version
of the relativistic electron theory. Their paper began with the assertion that the discovery
of the positron gave exper
Diracs Theory & the Positron
15
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 61
imental support to "one of the most curious and radical predictions of Dirac's theory of
the electron" yet rejected the concept of negative energy states.
38
1.2. THE RECEPTION OF DIRAC'S THEORY
Gregor Wentzel (a well-known quantum theorist who succeeded Schrdinger at
the University of Zurich in 1928) recalled in 1960 that "the hole theory was given much
credit for the prediction" of the positron. I have tried to collect all the contemporary
39
evidence for this statement -- which is found in much of the secondary literature -- and
report the results here.
In his characteristically restrained way, Dirac indicated that he was pleased by the
support his theory gained from the discovery of the positron. But, as we know from his
40
famous Scientific American article and other remarks, he did not consider empirical
support the primary criterion for accepting a theory: a beautiful theory, even if it does not
entirely agree with experiment, is preferable to an ugly theory that perfectly fits the data.
41
While Dirac's relativistic wave equation itself apparently
Diracs Theory & the Positron
16
62 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
satisfied his aesthetic criterion, the hole theory was somewhat defective since it
introduced an asymmetry between positive and negative charges, as well as implying an
infinite charge density which had to be ignored or subtracted away. Thus Dirac's opinion
of his own theory was ambiguous; on one hand he continued to use or refer to the hole
theory, yet he admitted that it was not completely satisfactory.
42
In examining the reaction of other physicists to the empirical confirmation of
Dirac's theory, we must first recall that this theory had already been favorably received
before 1932, and indeed, according to Helge Kragh and Friedrich Hund, was regarded as
one of the cornerstones of physics. It had been successfully used to calculate more
43
accurate wavelengths for the spectral lines of hydrogen, and to compute the Compton
scattering of photons by electrons (Klein-Nishina formula). In particular, it had been
shown that one gets the correct low-energy limit for Compton scattering from the Dirac
equation only if the negative-energy states are included. So we need to find evidence
44
that specifically links the acceptance of the Dirac theory with the discovery and properties
of the positron.
For convenience I have divided my survey of the initial reception of hole theory
and the positron into two parts: first, the reactions of a few physicists who had established
their reputations by 1932 and whose views would therefore be likely to in-
Diracs Theory & the Positron
17
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 63
fluence others; second, a more systematic analysis of a large number of references to the
Dirac theory and/or positrons in selected journals, before and after Anderson announced
his discovery. Obviously the division of physicists into two categories -- "influential" and
"other" -- is arbitrary, but since the "others" are named in the notes, the reader who wants
to transfer any of them to the "influential" category may do so. In the following section I
discuss the subsequent fate of the hole theory.
The decision to award the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics to Dirac reflects the
judgment of the most influential physicists. Dirac was 31 when he received the prize (as
was Anderson when he won it 3 years later), younger than any winners before 1933. In
45
his presentation speech, the chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences twice mentioned the discovery of the positron as a
"brilliant confirmation" of Dirac's theory, and in view of the Committee's notorious
reluctance to award the Prize for purely theoretical work, we may assume that this
confirmation did considerably enhance the importance of the theory in their eyes.
46
Several leaders of the quantum revolution, including Niels Bohr, Louis de
47
Broglie, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, H. A. Kramers, Wolfgang Pauli, Jr.,
48 49 50 51 52
and Erwin Schrdinger, were actively studying and discussing Dirac's equation in the
53
years 1930-32; they were aware of its defects and paradoxes but considered it a promising
starting point for
Diracs Theory & the Positron
18
64 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
research. Their initial reaction to the positron discovery was a mixture of delight in the
success of Dirac's theory and insistence that the search for a more satisfactory theory must
continue.
Heisenberg and Pauli were especially fascinated by the positron because of its
impact on their own research programs. According to Heisenberg's later recollections, the
discovery of the positron was significant not so much as a confirmation of Dirac's theory,
which had already been established by other experiments, but rather because of its
implications for the relations between protons and neutrons and for the concept of an
elementary particle. Previously the neutron had been conceived as a combination of
proton + electron, yet there was no evidence that it was larger or more complex than the
proton. Now the proton could just as well be imagined as a compound of neutron +
positron, thus restoring the symmetry between the neutron and the proton and making it
no longer necessary to assume that either electrons or positrons are actually present in the
nucleus; each can be created from energy in accordance with Dirac's ideas.
54
Pauli overlooked the positron in a paper published in late 1932, but on April 19,
55
1933, he wrote to Blackett, suggesting that "if the positive and the negative electron both
existe[sic], it is not so phantastic to assume a neutral particle [his own "neutrino"],
consisting of both together." Nevertheless, "I dont believe in the Dirac-"holes", even if
the positive electron exist."
56
Diracs Theory & the Positron
19
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 65
On May 1, at the end of a letter to Dirac, he wrote "I do not believe on your perception of
"holes", even if the existence of the "antielectron" is proved. On May 22 Pauli wrote
57
to Peierls that Walter Elsasser's proposal, that the positron obeys Bose-Einstein
58
statistics, was attractive precisely because it contradicted Dirac's theory, and he
59
expressed a similar view to Heisenberg on June 16; he wanted the laws of nature to be
asymmetric between positive and negative charges, and not merely to ascribe this
asymmetry to the initial state of the world. Pauli continued to struggle with the charge-
60
symmetry problem, and his July 14 letter to Heisenberg suggests greater willingness to
accept symmetry, even though the hole theory seems to threaten Heisenberg's and
Majorana's hypotheses of an exchange force between neutron and proton. Pauli wanted to
eliminate the infinities and negative energy states in a revised theory that would still allow
the creation of positron-electron pairs.
Where did this leave the explanation of forces between neutrons and protons?
Perhaps the proton and neutron contain a not-yet-isolated lighter particle.
61
Diracs Theory & the Positron
20
66 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Pauli continued to discuss the hole theory by correspondence with Heisenberg and
Peierls through the summer of 1933. He also wanted to maximize opportunities for
leading physicists to thrash out these problems face to face. The political situation in
Germany was already beginning to intrude on Heisenberg's plans to travel abroad. The
62
Solvay Congress scheduled for October of that year was, as it turned out, the last such
meeting before the oncoming world war. Pauli urged Paul Langevin to invite Dirac to
speak at this Congress, because
"the discovery of the positive electron once again reactualized Dirac's old idea of so-called holes
... Calculations not yet published have recently been made on this in Cambridge by Peierls and
others (and overseas by Oppenheimer in America): Calculations which are very important for the
general discussion of the theory of nuclei. That is why it would be very desirable to compose for
the Solvay Congress, as a supplement to the theoretical report of Heisenberg, another shorter
report on the development of the hole theory and its relationship with the positive electron.
(Heisenberg has written to tell me himself that he finds the complemetary report desirable.)"
63
The positron and Dirac's theory did get considerable publicity and discussion at the
1933 Solvay Congress even though that meeting was officially devoted to nuclear
structure and properties. Blackett gave a report on the positron as well as a longer survey
of research on cosmic rays; both stated that Dirac's theory was supported by empirical
data. Dirac, thanks to Pauli's intervention, did present a paper reminding the
32
distinguished audience that his theory was now a "theory of the positron." Pauli, having
40
put Dirac's theory on the agenda for the meeting, could now point out again that it
suffered from defects such as infinite self-energy and vacuum polarisation. Bohr,
64
Diracs Theory & the Positron
21
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 67
previously skeptical, hailed the "marvellous confirmation" of Dirac's theory, but urged his
colleagues to try to explain the behavior of positrons without using that theory. (Later
65
he called it the high point of the development of quantum mechanics. ) George
66
Gamow, who had introduced the term "donkey electron" for Dirac's negative energy
particle, alluded briefly in his report on nuclear energy levels to the possibility of
67
positron-electron annihilation but didn't mention Dirac's theory.
68
The most striking opinion voiced at the Solvay Congress was Rutherford's: "It
seems to a certain degree regrettable that we had a theory of the positive electron before
the beginning of experiments. ... I would be more pleased if the theory had appeared after
the establishment of the experimental facts." Per
69
Diracs Theory & the Positron
22
68 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
haps he was aware of the tendency of experimentalists to observe what theorists said they
should observe. His hostility to theory emerged a year later in his address to the
70
International Conference on Physics in London, where he noted the discovery of the
positron but did not mention Dirac.
71
Louis de Broglie, H. A. Kramers, Lise Meitner, and Schrdinger attended the 1933
Solvay Congress but the published proceedings do not record any comments by them on
the positron or on Dirac's theory. The following month, de Broglie in a lecture at Geneva
acknowledged that, in spite of doubts about whether negative energy states can exist in
nature, the discovery of the positron may force us to accept them. A few months later,
72
de Broglie incorporated the anti-particle concept into his own theory of the photon, and
73
he praised Dirac's theory for its successful prediction of the positron in a popular book
published in 1937. Kramers "was continually surprised
74
Diracs Theory & the Positron
23
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 69
and at times exasperated by the success of Dirac's physics" but remained critical of the
Dirac electron through the 1940s. Meitner, with Kurt Philipp, had confirmed the
75
observations of Anderson and of Blackett and Occhialini, and found results on the
76
production of positrons by gamma rays from ThC" in agreement with Dirac's theory.
77
Schrdinger asserted in 1935 that the discovery of the positron "can leave no doubt as to
the essential correctness of Dirac's theory." But such statements left open the question
78
of whether one had to accept the "hole" interpretation of the theory.
Among those physicists who did not attend the 1933 Solvay Congress, Max Born,
Einstein and Robert A. Millikan were the most prominent. Born was not enthusiastic
about Dirac's approach to electron theory and seems not to have taken advantage of his
visit to Cambridge in 1934 to discuss positrons with Dirac, being preoccupied instead
with an attempt to develop, with Leopold Infeld, a semi-classical theory of the electron.
79
In a paper completed at the end of that year Born and Infeld remarked scornfully that "the
value of Dirac's theory lies more in mathematical advantages than in its physical
significance" since it doesn't give the correct magnetic moment for the proton.
80
Diracs Theory & the Positron
24
70 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Born included hole theory in his widely used text but insisted that it was "far from
satisfactory."
81
Einstein, who had discussed the possibility of including both positively and
negatively charged electrons in general relativity a decade earlier, mentioned the positron
in a 1933 paper with Walther Mayer, presenting a general-relativistic version of Dirac's
equation which, they suggested, could account for the existence of two oppositely-
charged particles of different masses, as well as for the positron.
82
Millikan, who had resisted Anderson's conclusion that his positively-charged
particles had a mass comparable to that of the electron rather than the proton, was also
reluctant to admit that Anderson's particles was the one predicted by Dirac's hole theory.
In June, 1933, he claimed to be on the verge of refuting Dirac's theory, and by
83
November he had rejected it in favor of the idea that positrons were ejected from the
nucleus rather than being created out of photons. Millikan continued to downgrade
84
Dirac's theory for another decade even though he eventually accepted the idea of pair
creation, which he attributed to Blackett and Occhialini.
85

Diracs Theory & the Positron
25
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 71
Finally, I report the responses of a few other leading scientists to the discovery of
the positron: Walther Bothe stated in a review article that the observed energies of gamma
rays and positron-electron pairs agree with those computed from the Dirac theory;
86
Arthur Holly Compton ignored Dirac's contribution; Edward U. Condon strongly
87
supported Dirac's theory; Arthur Stanley Eddington revised Dirac's hole theory to
88
include protons as well as electrons; Enrico Fermi acclaimed the discovery as a
89
confirmation of Dirac's theory; Vladimir Fock proposed to replace hole theory by a
90,91
second-quantized theory, as was done more elaborately the following year by Furry and
Oppenheimer; Jacob Frenkel said Dirac "may perhaps be credited with predicting" it
92
even though the infinite density entailed by the theory is hard to accept; Jean Perrin
93
ignored Dirac's prediction; and J. J. Thomson proposed to explain
94
Diracs Theory & the Positron
26
72 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
positron-electron pair creation with his own ether-vortex theory, giving no credit to
Dirac.
95
Returning to the two most active theorists, Heisenberg and Pauli, we find in their
correspondence and publications a continuing struggle to eliminate the defects of the hole
theory. Heisenberg agreed with Pauli that Dirac's 1934 attempt to improve his theory was
unsatisfactory; he called it "erudite nonsense, which no human being can take
seriously." Heisenberg tried to reformulate Dirac's theory to avoid negative energy
96
states, replacing the homogeneous equation by an inhomogeneous one that gave the same
results in most situations. In later years he valued Dirac's theory more highly, and said
97
in 1973 that his "discovery of antimatter was perhaps the biggest jump of all the big
jumps in physics of our century."
98
Pauli attacked the problem from another angle: instead of revising Dirac's theory,
he tried to show that one could obtain at least some of its results without relying on its
objectionable assumptions. With the help of his new assistant, V. F. Weisskopf, Pauli
demonstrated that the existence of antiparticles could be deduced by quantizing the
relativistic wave equation for particles obeying Bose-Einstein statistics, avoiding the use
of negative energy states. Although the Pauli-Weisskopf theory was not directly
applicable to electrons and positrons, it did satisfy Pauli's desire to show at least in
principle that the hole theory
Diracs Theory & the Positron
27
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 73
was not essential to explain antiparticles. Weisskopf recalls that Pauli called this his
99
"anti-Dirac" paper. It also led Pauli in a new direction of research, culminating in his
100
work on the relation between spin and statistics.
101
To discover the response of the physics community as a whole, I have examined
272 articles on the Dirac equation
Diracs Theory & the Positron
28
74 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
and/or the positron, published in scientific journals in the year before Anderson
announced his discovery and the three years following. The number of papers on
102
electron theory that discussed Dirac's relativistic wave equation during the 12 months
before October 1932 gives an indication of the acceptance of Dirac's theory within the
physics community, which can serve as base line for comparison with its standing after
the discovery. The identification of papers on electron theory that don't mention Dirac's
103
equation is ambiguous since there is no clearcut way to distinguish between the more
abstract papers that could have been expected to include relativistic effects, and those
where such effects are clearly irrelevant.
Diracs Theory & the Positron
29
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 75
Of the papers published in the three years after Anderson's discovery of the
positron, only 27 (or 24 if we don't count Dirac himself) explicitly stated that Dirac's
theory was confirmed or supported by that discovery: Beck, Blackett & Occhialini,
104 31
Blackett, Bohr, Bothe, Bronstein, Derenzini, Dirac, Fermi, Fermi
32,33 65 86 105 106 107,108,109 91
and Uhlenbeck, Frenkel, Furry and Oppenheimer, Gamow, Halpern,
90 93 38 110 111
Joliot, Mandel, Oppenheimer and Plesset, Peierls, Schrdinger,
112,113,114 115 36 116 78
Thibaud, and Zaycoff.
117 118,119
None of these 27 papers stated that Dirac's theory should receive any more credit
because of the novelty of its prediction of the positron. The closest any of them came to
saying that was a single phrase in Tullio Derenzini's paper: "L'ipotesi di Dirac
dell'antielettrone stata, si pu dire, profetica ch dopo circa tre anni venica trovati il
cosidetto elettrone positivo o positrone. On the other hand, we can glean some
120
indication that Dirac's theory would have gained just as much credit if the prediction had
not been novel from a statement by Temple. Not realizing that Dirac had changed the
identification of his holes from protons to
Diracs Theory & the Positron
30
76 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
positrons before 1932, Temple said that Dirac's hypothesis was "actually a prediction of
the existence of the positron" even though (Temple erroneously assumed) it had not been
stated as such until after the discovery.
121
In the three-year period following the positron discovery, Dirac's relativistic wave
equation was discussed in 72 papers that did not mention the positron, and the positron
122
was discussed in 63 papers that did not mention Dirac's equation. Fi-
123
Diracs Theory & the Positron
31
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 77
nally, there were 77 papers that mentioned both Dirac's equation and the positron but did
not state that the latter confirmed the former. The results are summarized in the
124
following table:
Previous First Second Third Total
positron confirms Dirac -- 7 19 1 27
both positron & Dirac -- 15 38 24 77
Dirac but not positron 35 27 23 23 108
positron but not Dirac 24 34 6 64
total 35 71 114 54 276
Thus by the second year after the discovery of the positron, a clear majority of
those physicists who discussed the Dirac
Diracs Theory & the Positron
32
78 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
equation associated it with the new particle, even though they did not choose to make a
clear statement that the theory had gained empirical support. At the same time, many
experimental papers on the positron that ignored the Dirac theory were appearing. It was
not until the third year, after the initial phase of excitement about the discovery had
passed, that a majority of papers on the positron mentioned Dirac. By the third year,
however, some theorists had gone back to arguing about the difficulties of Dirac's hole
theory as if they had never heard of the positron.
125
1.3. THE TRANSFORMATION OF DIRAC'S THEORY
Despite or perhaps because of the discovery of the positron, it was clear to the
leading theorists that the hole theory had to be revised. One could not simply say that the
discovery confirmed Dirac's equation without giving support to the objectionable hole
concept, because the prediction had been directly based on that concept. Aside from the
paradoxes and infinities associated with the sea of negative-energy states, it was now
clear, both from the basic postulates of the Dirac theory itself and from the observed
properties of positrons and electrons, that positive and negative charges had to be treated
symmetrically. As Dirac himself pointed out in the 1935 edition of his monograph on
quantum mechanics, there was no more reason to postulate a sea of negative-energy
electrons than a sea of negative-energy positrons, so that negatively-charged electrons
could just as well be interpreted as holes in the sea of positrons.
126
It was also obvious to the experts that as soon as you introduced a sea of negative-
energy particles in your model, you no
Diracs Theory & the Positron
33
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 79
longer had a one-particle system but a many-particle system. It was well known that in
such a system, even if there are no inter-particle forces, a single particle could not be
accurately described by the solution of a single-particle wave equation.
From the viewpoint of the quantum field theorists of the next generation, the
natural way to resolve those difficulties was "second quantization," as proposed by Fock,
Furry & Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, and Pauli & Weisskopf. The Dirac wave function
becomes an "operator field unifying the electron and positron as two alternative states of
a single particle [...] With this formalism the vacuum becomes again a physically
reasonable state with no particles in evidence. The picture of an infinite sea of negative
energy electrons is now best regarded as an historical curiosity, and forgotten." From
127
this point of view, Furry & Oppenheimer and Pauli & Weisskopf "showed how quantum
field theory naturally incorporates the idea of antimatter, without introducing unobserved
particles of negative energy" and thus "settled the matter."
128
Indeed, most modern textbooks do accept the second quantization approach as the
solution to the problem. Dirac's hole theory is still praised as an important step toward
129
the modern theory, but nevertheless as a hypothesis that ultimately had to be discarded.
130
Diracs Theory & the Positron
34
80 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
The folk history of the field theorists fails to acknowledge, much less explain, one
curious fact: Dirac's hole theory survived in the physics literature, long after it was
supposedly replaced by second quantization, and despite its failure to account for other
data from scattering experiments and spectroscopy.
131
Diracs Theory & the Positron
35
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 81
Pauli, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer and their associates did pursue the second-quantization
approach in the period 1935-1949. In some of these calculations the hole concept
survived, often with holes in a sea of negative-energy positrons being included on an
equal basis with holes in a sea of negative-energy electrons.
132
Full acceptance of the second-quantized field theory as a replacement for the hole
hypothesis had to wait for mid-century, when Schwinger, Tomonaga and Feynman
showed that a refined, renormalized quantum electrodynamics could give a more accurate
description than Dirac's theory of empirical facts such as the Lamb shift in the hydrogen
spectrum. Even then there was some resistance to completely abandoning the hole
theory. Perhaps this was because the new quantum electrodynamics did not seem to
predict antiparticles in the sense that Dirac's hole theory did; it simply postulated their
existence. This perception is not entirely accurate, since some theorists did deduce the
existence of antiparticles from general principles such as relativistic invariance.
133
In addition to the disturbing feature that one must subtract infinite quantities in
order to get a finite answer (renormalization), the new quantum electrodynamics did not
provide an intuitively understandable mechanism for the creation and annihilation of
antiparticles in the sense that Dirac's hole theory did. The major exception is John
Wheeler and Richard Feynman's proposal to regard positrons as electrons moving
backward in time, an elaboration of suggestions made earlier by De Donder and
Stueckelberg. Though widely publicized in popular books
134
Diracs Theory & the Positron
36
82 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
on modern science, the Wheeler-Feynman proposal was not taken seriously by other
physicists except as a convenient way to label terms in a calculation. Similarly, the
abstract proof of the existence of antiparticles from relativistic invariance, while tacitly
accepted by physicists, is not given much prominence in modern treatments of the subject.
In this case the ability to predict a new particle was not the most important
criterion in choosing a theory; it could not override the strong theoretical objections to
Dirac's hypothesis. (According to Jagdish Mehra, Dirac considered the fact that his
equation gave a natural explanation of spin more important than the fact that it predicted a
new particle. ) Yet the successful prediction did force theorists to seek, and eventually
135
to find, satisfactory ways to overcome those objections. The improved theory was not
completely developed and accepted by the community until new empirical data (the Lamb
shift) showed that Dirac's theory was not quantitatively accurate. Physicists reluctantly
gave up a theory that had made a sensationally successful prediction of a completely new
phenomenon (antiparticles) in favor of a more consistent (though still imperfect) theory
which could provide a more accurate non-novel prediction of the details of the hydrogen
spectrum and other aspects of the interaction of charged particles with radiation.

Nuclear Forces & Meson

37
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 83
2.1. YUKAWAS THEORY OF NUCLEAR FORCES
Yukawa's proposal of a new intermediate-mass particle to carry the force
between protons and neutrons, and the subsequent discovery of the :
meson, are generally considered milestones in the history of nuclear and
elementary-particle physics; there is thus a large amount of historical
research available, as well as a number of personal recollections by the
136
scientists involved. But one finds in this literature only brief and
137
conflicting answers to the question I want to ask: to what extent did the
discovery of the predicted particle lead physicists to accept the theory on
which the prediction was based? The problem here is that historians and
physicists writing after 1950 about the events of the 1930s are unavoidably
influenced by their knowledge of events of the 1940s, which showed that
the : meson is not the particle that transmits the nuclear force, although the
B meson, discovered in 1947, may play a role. In this paper I focus
primarily on the reception of the Yukawa theory during the three years after
the discovery of the : meson. Discussion of nuclear forces in physics
journals ceased shortly after the beginning of World War II, as did open
communication among scientists in Japan, Germany, France, Britain and the
U. S., so it is reasonable to terminate the historical period at that point.
Nuclear Forces & Meson

38
84 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
To review briefly the origin of the prediction: following the discovery of
the neutron and the establishment of the proton-neutron model for the
nucleus, physicists wanted to understand the nature of the forces between
138,139
protons and neutrons. Presumably there must be some kind of short-range
attraction, strong enough to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of protons within
a nucleus, but not so strong as to make the nucleus collapse to a point.
Quantum mechanics offered the example of the "exchange force" based on
Heisenberg's concept of "resonance" of an atomic system between two states. In
1927 Walter Heitler and Fritz London used this idea to calculate the long-range
force between two hydrogen atoms: each atom by itself can be considered to have
a single electron associated with a proton, but if the two atoms are a finite distance
apart, the wave function for the system has to include terms corresponding to
electron #2 near proton #1 and electron #1 near proton #2, as well as those for
electron #1 near proton #1 and electron #2 near proton #2. The reason is that a
particle like an electron does not have "individuality" -- it is meaningless (though
convenient in doing calculations) to put labels on different electrons, and the
physical properties of the system must be unchanged if the labels are permuted.
140
In his theory of the nucleus, Heisenberg suggested that the neutron and
proton might be regarded as two states of the same particle, differing by a
quantum number (later called "isotopic spin" by analogy with ordinary spin).
139
However, for the most part he treated the neutron as a compound particle and
proposed to describe the force between a proton and a neutron in
Nuclear Forces & Meson

39
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 85
terms of the exchange of an electron between two protons. (In a significant
aside, he remarked that, strictly speaking, the particle to be exchanged
might better be considered an electron without spin obeying Bose-Einstein
2
statistics.) The proton-neutron system would thus be similar to the H + ion
as treated in the Heitler-London theory. But, according to Arthur I. Miller,
the "exchange" concept was now beginning to change into a "migration"
concept involving the actual motion of the light particle from one nucleon
to the other.
141
Heisenberg's ideas were developed further by Fermi in his theory of
decay, incorporating Pauli's proposed neutrino. According to Fermi's
142
theory, a neutron could decay to a proton, emitting an electron and a
neutrino. But this process was found to be quantitatively inadequate to
account for the forces needed to hold protons and neutrons together in a
nucleus.
143
Hideki Yukawa was a careful student of Heisenberg's work and
144
had translated his 1932 nuclear structure papers into Japanese, with an
introduction pointing out the ambiguity about whether neutrons contain
electrons. In October 1934, after thinking about the Heisenberg and
145
Fermi theories, he hit upon the idea of proposing a new particle to carry the
proton-neutron force. Using the standard differential equation for the
electromagnetic potential with an additional term 1/R depending on
2
Nuclear Forces & Meson

40
86 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
the range R of the force, Yukawa obtained a neutron-proton potential in
which the classical Coulomb potential e /r is multiplied by an exponential
2
function e . The new factor would go rapidly to zero for distances r >> R.
-r/R
The force constant e is replaced by a new parameter g, measuring the
strength of the nuclear force. When interpreted in terms of quantum field
theory, the potential corresponds to a quantum whose mass is inversely
proportional to R. Assuming R . 2 x 10 cm, he found that the mass
-13
should be approximately 200 times the mass of the electron.
146
Yukawa notes that since such a particle has never been observed, the
theory might seem to be wrong; however, he argues that "in the ordinary
nuclear transformation, such a quantum can not be emitted into outer space"
because the energy difference between proton and neutron is less than the
rest-mass energy of the particle. But, he suggests, "the massive quanta may
also have some bearing on the shower produced by cosmic rays."
147
Yukawa's theory initially attracted little attention and less support,
even in Japan. According to Mituo Taketani, "in Japan, no people accepted
the Yukawa theory, except Nishina and Tomonaga," and neither Nishina
148
nor Tomonaga mentioned it in their own publications. According to
149
Toyoki Koga, Yukawa's paper was initially rejected for publication in the
Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan, and was
eventually published only when the famous physicist Hantaro Nagaoka
intervened "and gave a strong advice, or perhaps an order, to the editor" to
accept it. Yukawa's attempts
150
Nuclear Forces & Meson

41
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 87
to call attention to his theory and its relevance to cosmic ray observations in
1937 were rebuffed by the editors of Nature and Physical Review.
151
It is usually stated that Yukawa's theory was completely ignored by
Western physicists before the discovery of the muon. I have confirmed
152
this statement by my own search of papers on nuclear forces; 41 papers on
nuclear forces published in the 12 months preceding the publication of the
Neddermeyer-Anderson discovery do not mention Yukawa.
153

Nuclear Forces & Meson

42
88 STEPHEN G. BRUS
2.2 DISCOVERY OF THE MUON
While there is some dispute as to when the muon was discovered,
and indeed that may be historiographically a meaningless question,
154
physicists in the late 1930s most often cited the paper published by Seth H.
Neddermeyer and Carl D. Anderson (Caltech) in the May 15, 1937 issue of
Physical Review. In a note added in proof, they stated that evidence for a
similar particle has been presented by J. C. Street and E. C. Stevenson
(Harvard) on April 29 at a meeting of the American Physical Society (after
the Neddermeyer-Anderson paper was submitted). An earlier
155
announcement by Anderson and later reports by Nishina, Takeuchi and
Ichimiya (Tokyo) and by Corson and Brode were occasionally mentioned.
156
Nuclear Forces & Meson

43
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 89
None of these initial reports mentioned Yukawa's theory.
Anderson wrote in 1961 that the discovery of muons "was based on purely
experimental measurements and procedures, with no guide from any
theoretical considerations." Yukawa's theory was "unknown to the workers
engaged in the experiments on the muon until after the muon's existence
was established. ... he published it in a Japanese journal which did not have
a general circulation in this country." Anderson stated that it would have
had a significant influence if known, because
for a period of almost two years there was strong and accumulating
evidence for the muon's existence, and it was only the caution of the
experimental workers that prevented an earlier announcement of its
existence. I believe that a theoretical idea like Yukawa's would have
appealed to the people carrying out the experiments and would have
provided them with a belief that maybe after all there is some need for a
particle as strange as a muon, especially if it could help explain
something as interesting as the enigmatic nuclear forces.
157
This supposed reluctance to admit the existence of a new particle is a
curious feature of standard accounts of both the positron and the meson
cases. Andrew Pickering argues that it "does not ring true," especially
when used to explain the behavior of those theorists who had swallowed
much more improbable ideas during the establishment of quantum
mechanics in the previous decade. A more plausible reason for their lack of
enthusiasm may be sim-
Nuclear Forces & Meson

44
90 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
ply that they want to build new theoretical systems, and new particles were
"at most tangential to their enterprise."
158
As it happened, Yukawa's theory did become widely known to
physicists almost immediately after the publication of the Neddermeyer-
Anderson discovery. His hypothetical particle was often called the
"yukon," even in papers that did not mention Yukawa by name. The
159
question was: is the yukon identical to the "meson" (the name that was
generally adopted by 1941)? As with Dirac's theory of the positron, it was
Oppenheimer who played the role of publicist, though not initially that of
advocate. According to Robert Serber, who was working with him at that
time, Oppenheimer received a reprint of Yukawa's 1935 paper directly from
the author. If so, one might conjecture that Yukawa also sent reprints to
160
other physicists in the U. S. and Europe, but (with one possible exception,
see below) no one except Oppenheimer was interested. While
Oppenheimer in his work with Carlson had recognized the possible
existence of new particles in cosmic rays, his attitude was gener-
161
Nuclear Forces & Meson

45
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 91
ally hostile, according to the recollections of Neddermeyer, who told Laurie
Brown in 1978 that
Oppenheimer had argued so strongly against particles of intermediate
mass that Anderson and he were delayed for nearly two years; they
published the existence of the particles only after Oppenheimer, on a trip
to Cambridge, Mass., told J. C. Street of MIT about their results, and on
returning to California told the Caltech physicists that Street had similar
results which he was about to publish.
162
But according to Oppenheimer's own recollections, he took
Yukawa's conjecture "quite seriously" because of his work on cosmic rays,
and was ready to believe that the penetrating component is a new particle.
162
On June 1, 1937 (just after the Neddermeyer-Anderson paper was
published) Oppenheimer and Serber sent a letter to Physical Review,
pointing out the connection between the range of nuclear forces and the
mass of the recently discovered particle. "In fact," they said, "it has been
suggested by Yukawa that the possibility of exchanging such particles of
intermediate mass would offer a more natural explanation of the range and
magnitude of the exchange forces between proton and neutron than the
Fermi theory of the electron-neutrino field." But then, rather than arguing
that the discovery of the new particle pro-
Nuclear Forces & Meson

46
92 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
vided evidence in favor of Yukawa's theory, they criticized the theory on
the grounds that it did not reconcile the "saturation character of nuclear
forces with the apparent equality of like and unlike particle forces and with
the magnetic moments of neutron and proton." Yukawa's ideas "cannot be
regarded as the elements of a correct theory, nor serve as any argument
whatever for the existence of the particles," although they might ultimately
"prove relevant to an understanding of nuclear forces."
163
The reason for Oppenheimer and Serber's negative attitude toward
Yukawa's theory is unclear; in fact Serber does not agree that it was a
negative attitude. At the 1980 Fermilab symposium philosopher Dudley
Shapere, after quoting this passage, asked the physicists whether Yukawa's
theory was really so radical that it provoked resistance, or was it merely an
"analogical extension" of previously-accepted ideas? Serber's answer, in
effect, was "both" -- "It was an 'analogical extension,' but it did produce
something radically new, namely a heavy boson. It seems to me that
pointing this out was the intent of the statement by Oppenheimer and
myself."
164
Physicists in Zrich (Pauli, Wentzel, Stueckelberg) apparently
learned of Yukawa's theory independently of Oppen-
Nuclear Forces & Meson

47
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 93
heimer. The fact that the Pauli reprint collection includes Yukawa's 1935
paper is consistent with the suggestion that Yukawa sent reprints to several
physicists, even though the date of receipt is not recorded. Nicholas
165
Kemmer recalled in 1965 that "Following the Anderson discovery Zrich
[i.e. one of his teachers, Pauli or Wentzel] alerted me to Yukawa's paper."
166
The second published reference to Yukawa's paper was by E. C. G.
Stueckelberg, who thought it "highly probable" that the new particle was
the one predicted by Yukawa's theory. Stueckelberg had already started to
work on a similar theory of nuclear forces, but according to legend was
discouraged by Pauli from pursuing this line of research.
167
Kemmer, who had just moved from Zrich to Cambridge, was one of
the first European physicists to develop Yukawa's theory. "Although it is
premature to draw definite theoretical conclusions from the present
experimental knowledge," he wrote in December 1937, "it is certainly
suggestive that a Yukawa particle with a mass of the observed order of
el
magnitude (100m ) does indeed give nuclear forces of the correct range."
But he immediately rejected the specific theory proposed by Yukawa, based
on a scalar wave equation, because it could not correctly account for the
lowest energy level of the deuteron; instead he proposed to use a vector
wave function of the kind
Nuclear Forces & Meson

48
94 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
studied by Alexander Proca. Two months later he used a phrase that was
168
to become standard: the discovery of the meson had "aroused considerable
interest in Yukawa's suggestion" but no claim was made that the
confirmation of Yukawa's prediction was to be considered evidence in favor
of his theory. The most he would say is that the Yukawa meson exchange
169
process "can account for the nuclear forces in a reasonable way."
170
The Indian physicist Homi Bhabha, who probably learned about
Yukawa's theory from Heitler, was also an early enthusiast for meson
theory. He was the first to point out that the lifetime of the new particle
should be longer when in motion than when at rest because of the Lorentz
time-dilation effect; observations on the meson thus offered one of the first
direct experimental tests of the special theory of relativity. This new
171
support for relativity was welcome, especially in Germany where Einstein's
theory was still under attack.
172
Nuclear Forces & Meson

49
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 95
In January 1938 Bhabha and Kemmer visited Zrich, where they
tried to sell Pauli on the virtues of Yukawa's theory. But Pauli, as usual,
was skeptical; he complained to Weisskopf and Heisenberg that the new
theory still didn't solve the fundamental difficulties of the older theories of
quantum electrodynamics and -decay because it still suffered from
divergences. But meson theory nevertheless fascinated him and he
173
eventually devoted considerable time to it, even though he was never
satisfied that it agreed with experimental results.
174
Heisenberg (not surprisingly in view of the origin of Yukawa's ideas)
quickly became a public advocate of the meson theory of nuclear forces,
even though he admitted its shortcomings in correspondence with Pauli.
175
He mentioned it favorably in 8 papers published in 1938 and 1939,
including a long review article with Hans Euler that was frequently cited
during the next two years.
176
In their review, Euler and Heisenberg stated that while Yukawa had
predicted the existence of a particle like the meson, it would be premature
to speak of a definitive confirmation
Nuclear Forces & Meson

50
96 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
of his theory; nevertheless it seemed natural to analyze the experimental
results in terms of the Yukawa theory.
177
Heisenberg's statements grew gradually stronger. He told the
Physikalisches Colloquium at Hamburg, on December 1, 1938, that it is
reasonable ("es liegt nun nahe") to identify the meson with Yukawa's
hypothetical particle. Two months later he told an audience in the
178
Netherlands that Yukawa's theory, formerly hypothetical, now has an
experimental basis. In mid-1939 his paper in Zeitschrift fr Physik
179
asserted that the discovery of the meson and the proof of its decay have led
to a far-reaching confirmation ("weitgehenden Besttigung") of Yukawa's
theory, so that this theory can hardly be doubted as far as its general
principles are concerned ("an den allgemeinen Grundlagen dieser Theorie
kaum mehr gezweifelt werden kann"). The impact of Heisenberg's
180
endorsement should not be underestimated; recall that other physicists
regarded him so highly that many of them devoted several years to
developing the atomic bomb, in large part because they feared Heisenberg
would develop it for Hitler.
Early in 1938 Heisenberg asked Bohr "what do you really think of
the now so fashionable Yukawa theory?" We know that Bohr's attitude
181
had been negative the previous year when he heard Yukawa's presentation
of the theory in person. Two weeks after Heisenberg asked his question,
182
Bohr sent a paper on the quantum of action and the atomic nucleus for the
Planck
Nuclear Forces & Meson

51
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 97
Festschrift in which he ignored Yukawa's contribution to that subject.
183
Later that year, however, Bohr wrote to Millikan: "I do not know whether
one shall admire most the ingenuity and foresight of Yukawa or the
tenaciousness with which the group in your Institute kept on in tracing the
indications of the new effects." But Bohr continued to overlook
184
Yukawa's theory in his publications on nuclear physics. Its advocate in
185
Copenhagen was not Bohr but Lon Rosenfeld, who was converted by G.
C. Wick.
186
When Bohr and John Wheeler wrote their famous paper on the
theory of nuclear fission, they presented a liquid-drop model which made no
use of the forces between individual particles and thus ignored Yukawa's
theory. Wheeler was, by his own (1977) (Wheeler 1979) account, the
187
only nuclear theorist at that time who dissented from the "Standard Strong-
Force Credo: (1) the nucleus contains no electrons; (2) the force that binds
nucleons has nothing to do with electromagnetism and constitutes a new
'strong force'; this force is transmitted by mesons. A single miracle could
be laid to the credit of this Strong-Force Credo: the correlation between the
mass of the meson and the range of nuclear force. Was it impressive
enough to justify the stilling of all doubt?" His skepticism led him back to
electrodynamics and the absorber theory of radiation which he developed
with his student Richard Feynman.
188
Nuclear Forces & Meson

52
98 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
But Yukawa's theory soon had more than a "single miracle" to its credit.
In his 1935 paper he suggested that his heavy quantum could be absorbed by a
neutrino in a Dirac sea of negative-energy neutrinos, kicking it up to an electron
state of positive energy and leaving behind a hole, i.e. an antineutrino. (The
process would be analogous to the creation of a positron-electron pair from a
photon in Dirac's theory.) Thus the theory could also account for -decay in a
manner consistent with Fermi's theory. Oppenheimer and Serber initially planned
to discuss meson decay in their paper but Millikan discouraged them from doing
so, apparently because it would undermine his account of the absorption rays in
air. Bhabha revived the proposal in a note published at the beginning of
189
1938, and shortly thereafter Yukawa and his colleagues estimated the life-time
171
for decay of the free meson. Their result was 5 10 seconds for a meson at
190 -7
rest. Observations interpreted as the decay of a meson to an electron were soon
reported, and the life-time seemed to be of the predicted magnitude. Less
191
dramatic than the discovery of a new particle or its spontaneous decay, but also
effective in persuading physicists of the value of Yukawa's theory, was the
explanation of the electric and magnetic moments of nuclear particles. By 1937 it
was known that both the proton and the neutron had magnetic moments too large
to be explained by Dirac's theory. The Yukawa theory offered the opportunity to
explain the anomalous moments by invoking the virtual emission and
reabsorption of charged heavy quanta. Then in 1939 Kellogg, Rabi, Ramsey
192
and Zacharias discovered that the deuteron has an electric quadrupole moment.
193
Inglis in the U.S., and Mller and
Nuclear Forces & Meson

53
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 99
Rosenfeld in Denmark, pointed out that this shows the proton-neutron
forces must depend on the spatial orientation of the spins, a property that
can be explained by the vector meson theory.
194
Was the discovery of the meson considered to be a confirmation of
Yukawa's theory of nuclear forces? As in the case of Dirac's prediction of
the positron, one finds relatively few explicit statements of this kind. In the
three years following the discovery of the meson, there are only nine
statements that it confirms Yukawa's prediction and thus supports his
theory: Brillouin, Heisenberg, Heitler, Mller et al., Nahmias,
195 180 196 197 198
Peierls, A. H. Wilson. Two of these statements are in review
199,200,201 202
articles by R. E. Peierls addressed to chemists, and one is in his popular
lecture at the Royal Institution; in a review written for physicists at the same
time, he adopted Yukawa's theory as a basis for discussion but refrained
from saying explicitly that it had been confirmed by the meson prediction.
203
None of these nine articles states that Yukawa's prediction is more
important because it came before rather than after the discovery of the
muon. Only one, a review by Heitler, makes a point of reminding the
reader that the prediction came before the discovery.
196
Nuclear Forces & Meson

54
100 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Yukawa's own claim was somewhat weaker: his hypothesis "seems
to contradict with none of the experimental results so far obtained," and
thus offers a "possible explanation" of the meson. Neddermeyer and
204
Anderson did not mention Yukawa in their publications during the first two
years after their discovery report, even though they were aware that the
205
name "yukon" had been proposed for the new particle. At the Chicago
206
Cosmic-Ray Symposium in June 1939 their reference to Yukawa was
somewhat unfavorable: the mean life of the particle is 15 to 20 times as
great as that estimated from his theory, and more observations are needed
"to find out whether the mesotrons can be identified with the particles
postulated by Yukawa to account for nuclear forces."
207
As in the case of Dirac's prediction of the positron, we can measure
the extent to which scientists "voted with their feet" without explicitly
stating that the meson's discovery provided evidence for Yukawa's theory.
There are two indicators, which I have used in analyzing a total of 298
papers during a 4-year period (one before and three after the Neddermeyer-
Anderson announcement in May 1937). Nuclear forces were discussed,
without mentioning Yukawa's theory, in 78 papers, as compared to 30
208
papers in which that connection was
Nuclear Forces & Meson

55
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 101
made. But 41 of those 78 were in the year before the meson discovery,
209
leaving only 38 in the three years after -- still a majority for those years.
There is a third alternative: 30 papers that discussed meson theory but
without mentioning Yukawa by name. (These papers often cited papers
210
by Euler &
Nuclear Forces & Meson

56
102 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Heisenberg, Bhabha, Bethe, Heitler, or Kemmer.) Second, 75 papers on
mesons did not mention its possible connection with the particle postulated
by Yukawa, while 57 papers did (but only 8 of those actually stated that
211
this connection confirmed Yukawa's theory). In principle there is also a
212
third alterna
Nuclear Forces & Meson

57
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 103
tive here, since some experimentalists cited papers by other meson-theorists
in analyzing their data, but I did not find it possible in most cases to
establish that they acknowledged a connection the cosmic-ray particle and
the quantum proposed to carry nuclear forces, so these papers have all been
included in the "not Yukawa" category.
____________________________________________________________
Previous First Second Third Total
meson confirms Yukawa -- 2 4 2 8
nuclear forces, not Yukawa 41 21 10 7 79
nuclear forces and Yukawa 0 28 34 16 78
meson theory, not Yukawa 0 2 7 21 30
mesons, not Yukawa 2 29 23 21 75
mesons and Yukawa 0 18 26 13 57
total 43 85 94 76 298
213
____________________________________________________________
To summarize: by the third year after the discovery of the meson, most papers on
nuclear forces (37 out of 44) associated them with mesons even if they did not explicitly
credit Yukawa's theory. But, while a majority of papers on mesons mentioned Yukawa in
the second year after the discovery, the proportion slipped below half in the third year.
While there is not an exact correspondence between "papers on nuclear forces" and
theoretical papers, or between "papers
Nuclear Forces & Meson

58
104 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
on mesons" and "experimental papers," the above statistics do suggest that theorists were
significantly more enthusiastic about Yukawa's theory than experimentalists.
What was the status of Yukawa's theory around 1940? Some theorists considered
it "natural" to identify mesons with a particle that carries nuclear forces, even though it
was generally admitted that Yukawa's 1935 theory would have to be substantially
modified in order to give an accurate description of those forces. Others accepted the
214
qualitative idea that nuclear forces are carried by an intermediate-mass particle, but
concluded that the meson could not be that particle because it does not have the
quantitative properties predicted by theory; in particular, its lifetime is too long. Since
215
the forces between nucleons seemed to be independent of electric charge, apart from the
Coulomb force itself, a more satisfactory theory might be based on a neutral yukon, so
that the charged meson might have no role in nuclear forces. If so, Peierls pointed out,
216
"it would detract from the success of Yukawa's theory in predicting the existence of the
meson from nuclear forces, since the mesons found in cosmic rays would then have little
connection with those reponsible for the nuclear forces."
217
Among observers, the most favorable assessment came from E. J. Williams and G.
E. Roberts, in connection with their observations of the decay of mesons, which they
regarded as additional evidence for "the remarkable parallel between the meson and the
Yukawa particle." But other experimentalists, and those theorists primarily interested
218
in fitting scattering data with
Nuclear Forces & Meson

59
104 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
nuclear force laws, suggested that there may be a more massive particle responsible for
nuclear forces, since the meson's mass is significantly smaller than that estimated for the
yukon.
219
Looking back from the perspective of later decades, some physicists asserted that
the discovery of the muon "appeared to be a remarkable verification of the correctness of
Yukawa's speculations" and that the identity of the meson with the yukon was
220
"universally adopted" for the next decade despite the quantitative discrepancies between
their properties. This was later contradicted by R. E. Marshak, who said in 1989 that
221
despite the apparent spectacular confirmation of Yukawa's hypothesis by the meson
discovery, "the pre-World War II period ended with great frustration on the meson-
theoretic front." Yukawa recalled that "already in 1941, the identification of the
222
cosmic-ray mesons with the meson, which was supposed to be responsible for nuclear
forces, became doubtful" and lamented that "the intervention of the mu meson completely
destroyed the picture which I had had in mind" and Neddermeyer insisted that "from an
223
experimental point of view the identification of the original mesons with the Yukawa
particle was at least regarded as something that had yet to be proved rather than accepted
as obvious."
224
Nuclear Forces & Meson

60
106 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
Perhaps I can best describe the situation of Yukawa's theory by comparing it with
that of Dirac's hole theory in the mid-1930s. A major difference is that Dirac's theory was
well known to theorists before the discovery of the positron so we can compare their
attitudes before and after the discovery, whereas Yukawa's theory was known to very few
theorists until after the discovery of the muon. Both theories encountered serious
mathematical difficulties because infinite quantities frequently arose in calculations
involving perturbation expansions in powers of the coupling constant. These problems
were more serious for meson theory because the force constant g, when expressed in
appropriate dimensionless units, is greater than 1, whereas the corresponding
electromagnetic constant is less than 1. Neither Yukawa's original 1935 model nor any
225
of its modifications achieved quantitatively accurate predictions, whereas Dirac's theory
did give fairly accurate results if one ignored or subtracted away the infinite terms. On
the other hand, the qualitative idea that nuclear forces are transmitted by the exchange of
an intermediate-mass particle was intuitively plausible to physicists in the 1930s,
141
whereas the idea of negative-mass particles was not.
While physicists often do not state explicitly that a successful prediction confirms
or supports a theory (but simply use or don't use the theory), they were relatively more
likely to say that about Dirac's theory than about Yukawa's. Finally, in each case the
number of papers linking the new particle with the theorist who predicted it reached a
maximum in the second year and declined thereafter.
Nuclear Forces & Meson

61
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 107
2.3 THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE YUKON
After the discovery of the B meson in 1947, many physicists concluded that this particle
226
is in fact the yukon. Yukawa was quickly awarded the 1949 Nobel Prize "for his
227
prediction of the existence of mesons on the basis of theoretical work on nuclear forces";
the pion has about the right mass and lifetime and its discovery was therefore considered
"a brilliant vindication of Yukawa's fundamental ideas" despite the fact that "it has not yet
been possible to give a theory for the nuclear forces, which yields results that are in good
quantitative agreement with the experiments."
228
Strenuous efforts by theoretical physicists to develop a satisfactory meson field
theory of nuclear forces, comparable to quantum electrodynamics, did not succeed.
Yukawa's theory remains valid as a semi-empirical approximation which is still useful in
describing nuclear forces. Since B mesons themselves, as well as nucleons, are now
229
believed to consist of quarks, the forces acting between nucleons may in principle be
reducible to the exchange of "gluons" between quarks.
230
Omega Minus
62
108 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
3.1 The Last Particle
One of the most sensational events in elementary-particle physics in the early
1960s was the prediction and subsequent discovery of the S hyperon. It has even been
-
called "one of the greatest achievements of human endeavour in the quarter century since
the end of the Second World War." The prediction, based on the "eight-fold way"
231
version of the symmetry group known as SU(3), was announced by Murray Gell-Mann at
a conference in July 1962; the discovery was announced by a group at Brookhaven
National Laboratory in February 1964. This event is often credited with bringing about
232
a major change in the thinking of theoretical physicists: persuading them to use the
abstract mathematical methods of group theory in a creative way to uncover the secrets of
nature, rather than merely as a way of systematizing facts already discovered by other
methods. The discovery of the S is also associated with the
233 -
Omega Minus
63
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 109
introduction of the "quark" model that has dominated elementary-particle theory for the past 25
years.
234
Since this episode is relatively recent, we do not yet have available the wealth of
historical studies and participant recollections that could be used for the electron and muon
discoveries. I will therefore cover it fairly briefly, leaving open the possibility that future
research may alter some of the conclusions.
2.2 GELL-MANNS PREDICTION AND THE DISCOVERY OF S
-
An important feature of the theoretical prediction was a quantitative description of the
235
properties of the new particle. Gell-Mann proposed a multiplet consisting of 10 hyperons
(sometimes called a "decimet" or "decuplet"), nine of which had already been discovered. The
last particle, which he called S (presumably because S, omega, is the last letter in the Greek
-
alphabet), should have, in addition to negative electric charge, an isotopic spin value of 0 and
strangeness of -3. Its spin should be 3/2 and its parity positive. There seemed to be a regular
sequence of mass values within the multiplet, accurately described by a rule subsequently known
as the "Gell-Mann -- Okubo mass formula." If the sequence continued with equal mass
236
spacing, then S should have a mass of 1685 MeV. It would be produced by a beam of K
- -
particles hitting protons, provided the energy was sufficient to make two K mesons together with
the S. The new particle should be metastable and decay by weak interactions to K + 7, B +
- - -
= , or B + = .
0 0 -
At this point Gell-Mann inserted a remark suggesting that his prediction was not a pure
forecast after all: "Perhaps it would explain the old Eisenberg event." In fact Eisenberg in
Omega Minus
64
110 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
1954 and Fry, Schneps and Swami in 1955 had reported decay events that were later
established to be examples of the production of S. One could argue that these events
- 237
did not provide enough information about the particle to affect Gell-Mann's detailed
prediction. Nevertheless, the fact that he mentioned a possible earlier observation of his
particle places the burden of proof on those who claim that his theory was not designed to
predict a known fact.
There is no doubt that the prediction stimulated the search for the particle, which
might not have been discovered until much later if Gell-Mann had not suggested its
existence and mode of production. In this respect, at least, a correct forecast can
contribute to the progress of science.
On the other hand, we know from the example of Alfvn that a correct forecast
3
may earn no credit at all for your theory and may be completely ignored by the scientific
community if the theory itself is considered unsatisfactory. In 1963, the prominent
physicist C. N. Yang published, with R. J. Oakes, a severe critique of Gell-Mann's theory.
They declared: "if the S is found and if it does satisfy the equal-spacing [mass] rule, it
-
can hardly be interpreted as giving support to the octet symmetry model, at least not
without the introduction of drastically new physical principles." But that proved to be a
238
minority view.
In their discovery report, the Brookhaven group presented an event which they
232
interpreted as the production of an S (and a K and K ) by scattering of K mesons from
- + 0 -
protons. The S then decayed to a = and a B . They concluded that its mass was 1686
- 0 -
12 MeV, its charge -1, its strangeness -3, its spin 3/2 and its parity positive -- all in
precise agreement with Gell-Mann's prediction. Subsequent research confirmed this
agreement.
239
Omega Minus
65
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 111
The immediate reaction of physicists was that the discovery provided strong
evidence for a connection between the symmetry group SU(3) and the nature of
elementary particles. But most of the published statements do not clearly indicate
whether the evidence would have been any weaker if the particle had been discovered
before the prediction was made. In a few cases, where S simply appears in a list of
240 -
particles and is not distinguished from those that were previously known, one can infer
that its novelty has no special value.
241
The following quotations comprise the only unambiguous evidence I have found
so far in the technical physics literature to suggest that novelty counts:
242
3
The discovery of the S was hailed as a triumph for the SU classification scheme, since its
-
existence as a member of the decuplet had been predicted before the actual experimental
discovery was made. -- D. B. Lichtenberg
3
The first really striking success for SU came when the first nine elements of the decuplet were
known and Gell-Mann was able to predict the existence and properties of the tenth -- the S . -- J.
-
L. Emmerson
There is also one such statement, by leaders of the discovery team, in an article in
Scientific American:
It is one thing [...] to devise a scheme describing a set of known facts and quite
another to create a generalization that will bring to light new
Omega Minus
66
112 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
phenomena previously undreamed of. The test of any grandscale theory is its
ability to predict what was previously unpredictable and to lead to new
knowledge [as Gell-Mann's prediction did] -- W. B. Fowler and N. P. Samios.
Yet at the same time other physicists were comparing new
"predictions" of SU(3) with data previously published, showing that novelty
was not essential.
244

3.3 WHAT THEORY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED?
In spite of the copious evidence that physicists judged the discovery of S
240 -
to be highly favorable to SU(3), it is not clear just what this means. It could
imply that a Platonic/Pythagorean approach to physics has been vindicated:
nature is simply a concrete realization of a system of mathematical forms.
245
In particular, it could signify a defeat for the atomistic worldview, or rather
the doctrine that physicists should seek the smallest fundamental particles
of matter, and that any evidence of pattern or structure in those particles is
to be explained by looking for still-smaller constituents.
One argument in favor of that interpretation is that the Eight-Fold
Way grew out of but ultimately displaced another theory which did attempt
to explain particles in terms of smaller constituents: this was the "Sakata
model" developed by Yukawa's collaborator Shoichi Sakata and his
colleagues in
Omega Minus
67
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 113
Japan. Sakata proposed that all hadrons are combinations of six known
particles: the neutron, the proton, the lambda particle and their
corresponding anti-particles. Sakata's physics was frankly based on
246
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, in particular the doctrine that there exist in
nature an infinite number of strata, and his expositions often had a strong
anti-West bias. After the success of the Eightfold Way began to be
247
publicized, Sakata denounced the exaggerated reliance of particle theorists
on group theory and attacked their attempt to place the "logic of form" over
substance. He also pointed out that a theory based on the Sakata model,
248
proposed in 1959, had used SU(3) to predict the eta meson, although the
physics community refused to give the Sakata model due credit for this
success. The Sakata model has been rejected by most Western particle
249
physicists; does this mean that the approach of seeking composite
250
Omega Minus
68
114 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
models of particles has been abandoned in favor of the abstract group-
theory approach?
Clearly that has not happened. Some of the earliest comments on the
success of SU(3) point out that it is not really a proper "dynamical theory,"
only a useful classification scheme that may point the way to a fundamental
theory. Even the success of the Gell-Mann--Okubo mass formula was too
251
good to be true; the accuracy of what was supposed to be only a crude
approximation became itself a puzzle.
252
The outcome was the proposal of a new composite model, based on a
hypothetical new kind of particle: the "ace" or (much better) the "quark."
253
Of course the popularity of the quark model does not mean that the group
theory approach has been ungratefully discarded; on the contrary, the two
go hand in hand in the new theories. But if we ask why the quark model
was introduced, one answer we get is: it led to the prediction of the S
-
particle! Even though most physicists who were involved in elementary
particle research in the early 1960s seem to be quite clear on the fact that
SU(3) came before the S discovery while quarks
-
Omega Minus
69
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 115
came after (or at least their public appearance came after the announcements of
the prediction and discovery of S), several books and articles give credit only to
-
the quark model for the prediction. This revised (incorrect) version of the
254
history of the subject received the stamp of approval of the National Academy of
Science's Elementary Particle Physics Panel.
255
Finally, the SU(3) hypothesis, despite its confirmation by the discovery of
the S particle, was soon superseded by other theories which successfully
-
predicted more new particles. In most of these theories the quark concept plays
256
an important role; like elementary particles, the number of different kinds (now
called "flavors" or "colors") of quarks has to be increased to satisfy the needs of
theory and observation.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In all three cases studied here, the discovery of the predicted particle had a
major impact on theoretical and experimental research. There was a significant
increase in publications on the theory that led to the prediction, whether that
theory had previously been well known (Dirac's relativistic wave equation for the
electron) or almost completely unknown (Yukawa's meson theory of nuclear
forces). Thus our results support the claims of Karl Popper and others that
empirical confirmation of a prediction provides "corroboration" of the hypothesis
that yielded the prediction -- provided one does not confuse corroboration with
"verification." As I interpret Popper's use of the term, cor
257
Omega Minus
70
116 STEPHEN G. BRUSH
roboration does not increase the probability that a hypothesis is true; it merely
makes it more reasonable to pursue that hypothesis than one that has not been
corroborated. In this minimalist sense, all three theories were certainly
corroborated by the discovery of the particles they predicted.
Despite his careful restriction of the meaning of "corroboration," Popper
(like other philosophers) still argues that successful predictions are essential for
the progress of science, and specifically mentions Dirac's prediction of anti-
particles and Yukawa's meson theory as examples.
258
But the three cases studied here provide little or no evidence for the claim
of Popper and others that novelty increases the importance of a prediction.
Because of the ambiguous use of the term "prediction" by scientists, it is
impossible to determine how much weight they intended to give to novelty in
saying, for example, that Dirac's electron theory was confirmed by his successful
prediction of the positron, unless the novelty was explicitly mentioned.
In a case previously studied, it was possible to show that novelty was
clearly not a factor. The non-novel phenomenon of Mercury's perihelion motion
and the novel phenomenon of gravitational light bending were generally
enumerated, without distinction, as predictions of Einstein's general theory of
relativity. Unfortunately there is no such "control" easily available here.
2
Although Dirac's theory had also made non-novel predictions about the properties
of electrons, the most spectacular being the existence of spin, those had already
been absorbed into the mainstream of theoretical understanding; they were not
usually enumerated along with the positron as "predictions of Dirac's theory." As
for Yukawa's meson theory, we do not even know how physicists would have
assessed it before they became aware of the discovery of the muon, since they
hadn't heard of the theory; on the other hand we do know that -- as of 1940 --
Omega Minus
71
Prediction and theory evaluation: subatomic particles 117
whatever credit it had gained by this novel prediction was largely cancelled by its
quantitative difficulties in accounting for known properties of nuclear forces, as
well as by the failure of its predictions about the lifetime of the muon. In the case
of S as for the positron and the muon, physicists may make statements to a non-
-
physicist or lay audience about the importance of novel prediction that do not
reflect their actual practice in evaluating theories.
It is also clear that the confirmation of a prediction, whether novel or not,
is only one factor governing the response to a theory. The case of the positron
(and to a lesser extent the other two cases) shows that theoretical objections to a
hypothesis can prevent its full acceptance despite the strongest empirical support.
The idea that positrons are holes in a sea of negative-energy electrons was
undermined not only by severe problems of inconsistency with principles accepted
before the idea was proposed, but also by the new idea of particle-antiparticle
symmetry that entered physics aa a result of the discovery itself.
In each of the three cases discussed here, the hypothesis that postulated a
new particle was either abandoned or substantially revised within two decades of
its apparent confirmation by the discovery of that particle. Dirac's hole theory of
the electron, Yukawa's meson theory of nuclear forces, and the Gell-Mann--
Ne'eman SU(3) model are all regarded as major steps forward in our
understanding of elementary particles; none of them is now considered an
established truth about the world.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
72
NOTES AND REFERENCES
The following abbreviations are used:
AC = Angewandte Chemie
ACFN = Atti del Convegno di Fisica Nucleare della "Fondazione Alessandro Volta," Ottobre 1931
(Rome, 1932)
AER = Atomic Energy Review
AHES = Archive for History of exact Sciences
AJP = American Journal of Physics
AP = Annalen der Physik, series 5
APhPo = Acta Physica Polonica
APP = Advances in Particle Physics
ARPC = Annual Reports of the Progress of Chemistry, issued by the Chemical Society (London)
AS = Archives des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles, series 5
BJHS = British Journal for the History of Science
BSTJ = Bell System Technical Journal
CR = Acadmie des Sciences, Paris, Comptes Rendus
CR CIE = Comptes Rendus du Congrs International d'lectricit, Paris, 1932
CR URSS = Academie des Sciences, U.R.S.S., Comptes Rendus (Doklady)
EeN = Ergebnisse der exakten Naturwissenschaften
EJP = European Journal of Physics
FP = Foundations of Physics
FS = Fundamenta Scientiae
HEP = High Energy Physics
HPA = Helvetica Physica Acta
Hsc = Historia Scientiarum, International Journal of the History of Science Society of Japan (formerly
Japanese Studies in the History of Science)
HSPS = Historical Studies in the Physical [and Biological] Sciences
ICP = International Conference on Physics, London, 1934, Awbery, J. H. (Ed.), Papers and Discussions,
vol. 1, London, Physical Society (1935)
Dirac & Positron/Notes
73
Abbreviations, cont.
IJP = Indian Journal of Physics
JApP = Journal of Applied Physics
JFI = Journal of the Franklin Institute
JMP = Journal of Mathematics and Physics (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
JPR = Journal de Physique et le Radium
JWAS = Journal of the Washington Academy of Science
KDVSMFM = Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Mat.-Fys. Medd.
MNRAS = Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices
MRAI = Memorie della Reale Accademia d'Italia
NC = Il Nuovo Cimento
NP = Nuclear Physics
Nt = Nature (London)
NTN = Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Natuurkunde
NTP = New Theories in Physics, Conference at Warsaw, May 30-June 3, 1938 (Paris, 1939)
Nw = Naturwissenschaften
NTM = NTM, Zeitschrift fr Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Medizin
Pa = Physica
Ph = Die Physik
PL = Physics Letters
PM = Philosophical Magazine
PR = Physical Review (second series)
PRL = Physical Review Letters
PrCPS = Cambridge Philosophical Society, Proceedings
PrInAS = Indian Academy of Science, Proceedings
PrIsASH = Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Sciences, Proceedings
PrKNAW = Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, Proceedings
PrNAS = National Academy of Sciences, USA, Proceedings
PRp = Physics Reports
Dirac & Positron/Notes
74
Abbreviations, cont.
PrPMSJ = Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan, Proceedings = Nippon Sugaku-buturigakkwai Kizi
PrRS = Royal Society of London, Proceedings
PrTP = Progress of Theoretical Physics
PrTPS = Progress of Theoretical Physics, Supplement
PT = Physics Today
PZ = Physikalische Zeitschrift
PZSu = Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion
QJMetS = Royal Meteorological Society, Quarterly Journal
RGE = Revue Gnrale d'lectricit
RMP = Reviews of Modern Physics
RPP = Reports on Progress in Physics
RSI = Review of Scientific Instruments
SbAWB = Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Sitzungsberichte
Sc = Science
ScA = Scientific American
ScM = Scientific Monthly
SHPS = Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
SPIPCR = Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Tokyo, Scientific Papers
SPNA = Structure et Proprits des Noyaux Atomiques, Rapports et Discussions du Septime Conseil de
Physique tenu a Bruxelles du 22 au 29 Octobre 1933 sous les Auspices de lInstitut International
de Physique Solvay, Paris, Gauthier-Villars (1934)
SR TBD = Science Reports of the Tokyo Bunrika Daigaku, Section A
VDPG = Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, Verhandlungen
ZNf = Zeitschrift fr Naturforschung
ZP = Zeitschrift fr Physik
Dirac & Positron/Notes
75
NOTES
1. Quoted by R. Oppenheimer, "Thirty years of mesons," PT, 19, no. 11 (Nov. 1966), 51-58, on
55.
2. S. G. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending," Science, 246
(1989), 1124-1129. In this case, the explanation of a previously-known fact (advance of the perihelion of
Mercury) was given as much weight in the evaluation of general relativity theory by physicists as the
prediction of a new fact (light bending); and for some scientists the internal coherence and beauty of the
theory was more convincing than any empirical test. See also the discussion of this case by Steven
Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon, 1992), 90-106, 288).
3. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Alfvn on Space Plasma Phenomena," Eos, 71
(1990), 19-33. In this case, the scientific community was reluctant to accept Hannes Alfvns theories in
spite of his track record of (mostly-successful) predictions.
4. S. L. Glashow and B. Bova, Interactions: A Journey through the Mind of a Particle Physicist
and the Matter of this World (New York: Warner, 1988), 121, 79. In a popular article about predictions
by the theorist Dimitry Nanopoulos we read: A skillful theorist can wring almost any answer out of a
complex-enough theory, and Nanopoulos has a reputation for coming up with numbers that just happen
to fit the latest experimental data. According to Glashow, As soon as any new experiment comes out
that is in the least believable, Dimitri will leap up and say he predicted it. Then when the experiment
turns out to be wrong, he forgets about his prediction (D. H. Freedman, The New Theory of
Everything, Discover 12, no. 8 (August 1991), 54-61, on p. 61). As I showed in "Prediction" (ref. 2),
the novelty of light bending may have made it more impressive to the public but did not count much in
the evaluation of general relativity by other physicists.
5. F. Wilczek and B. Devine, Longing for the Harmonies: Themes and Variations from modern
Physics (New York, 1988), 41. Lambourne says the job of the particle physicist is to explain and
predict the behaviour of elementary particles but the only criterion he mentions for distinguishing good
theories from bad is whether one can cancel their infinities to get a finite result. Lambourne,
Predicting the Physics of Particles, Physics Education, 27 (1992): 71-75, on pp. 71, 75.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
76
6. Y. Ne'eman and Y. Kirsh, The Particle Hunters (New York, 1986), 202. Steven Weinberg
suggestes that prediction has been overrated, and reports that his own electroweak theory was accepted
by most physicists for theoretical reasons before its novel predictions had been confirmed (pp. 120-122).
7. Glashow and Bova, Interactions (ref. 4), 164. Brush, "Prediction" (ref. 2). H. Pietschmann,
"The rules of scientific discovery demonstrated from examples of the physics of elementary particles,"
FP, 8 (1978), 905-919, on 906.
8. Some of the philosophical literature is cited in Brush, "Prediction" (ref. 2). See also J. Leplin,
ed., Scientific Realism (Berkeley, 1984); M. Carrier, "What is wrong with the miracle argument?" SHPS,
22 (1991), 23-36.
9. (UK) Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, Science in the National
Curriculum (London, 1989), 36, quoted by S. Pumfrey, "History of science in the National Science
Curriculum: a critical review of resources and their aims," BJHS, 24 (1991), 61-78, on 63.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
77
10. E. Amaldi, "From the discovery of the neutron to the discovery of nuclear Fission," Physics
Reports, 111 (1984) 1-331. J. Bromberg, "Remarks on hole theory and Dirac's methodology,"
Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of History of Science, 1974 (Tokyo, 1975), 2, 233-236;
"The concept of particle creation before and after Quantum mechanics," HSPS, 7 (1976), 161-191. D. C.
Cassidy, "Cosmic ray showers, high energy physics, and quantum field theories: Programmatic
interactions in the 1930s," HSPS, 12 (1981), 1-39. I. V. Dorman, "Die Theorie Diracs und die
Entdeckung des Positrons in der kosmischen Strahlung," NTM, 18 (1981), 50-57. H. Kragh, "The
genesis of Dirac's relativistic theory of electrons," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 24 (1981), 31-
67; Dirac: A Scientific Biography (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990). M. De Maria and A.
Russo, "The discovery of the positron," Rivista di storia della scienza, 2 (1985), 237-286. D. F. Moyer,
"Origins of Dirac's electron, 1925-1928," American Journal of Physics, 49 (1981), 944-949; "Evaluations
of Dirac's electron, 1928-1932," ibid., 1055-1062; "Vindications of Dirac's electron, 1932-1934," ibid.
1120-1125 N. R. Hanson, The Concept of the Positron (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1963).
A. Pais, "Playing with Equations, the Dirac way," in B. N. Kursunoglu and E. P. Wigner, eds.,
Reminiscences about a great Physicist: Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1987), 93-116; "On the Dirac theory of the electron (1930-1936)," in Werner Heisenberg,
Gesammelte Werke, ed. S. Blum et al., Series A, Part II (New York, Springer Verlag, 1989), 95-105. S.
S. Schweber, "Some chapters for a history of quantum field theory: 1938-1952," in B. S. DeWitt and R.
Storer, eds., Relativity, Groups and Topology II (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1984), 37-220. I have not
seen the articles on the positron by I. V. Dorman and I. Iu. Kobzarev in Pol' Dirak i fizika XX veka:
Sbornik nauchnykh trudov (Moscow, 1990), listed in the Isis Current Bibliography (1991), item no. 3130.
An early proposal of the anti-matter concept was by Arthur Schuster, Potential Matter A Holiday
Dream, Nt, 58 (August 18, 1898), 367, 618. For additional references see R. C. Hovis and H. Kragh,
"Resource Letter HEPP-1: History of Elementary-Particle Physics," AJP, 59 (1991), 779-807.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
78
11. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 104-105, suggests a possible connection with the "holes" used in
solid-state theory at this time. Se also H. B. G. Casimir, Haphazard Reality (New York, Harper & Row,
1983), 325. Dirac himself says he got the idea from the theory of chemical bonds: electrons in closed
shells don't contribute to valency but there is a contribution from a missing electron in a closed shell.
Dirac, The Development of Quantum Theory (New York, Gordon & Breach, 1971), 50.
12. Dirac cites J. R. Oppenheimer, "On the Theory of Electrons and Protons," PR, 35 (1930),
562-563. But he does not completely "follow" Oppenheimer, who concludes in this paper that all states
of negative energy are filled and therefore no transitions to such states can occur. Dirac seems to change
his mind in the middle of the paragraph when he suggests that one might be able to produce anti-
electrons in the laboratory with (-rays of sufficiently high energy and intensity. This would, according
to his theory, produce empty negative-energy states and the subsequent annihilation of the anti-electron
by combination with an electron would amount to a transition to a negative-energy state, contradicting
Oppenheimer's conclusion.
13. P. A. M. Dirac, "Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field," PrRS, A133 (1931),
60-72 (received May 29, 1931), on 61. On Weyl's influence see Bromberg, "Concept of particle
creation" (ref. 10), n. 63 on 180.
14. H. Kragh, "The concept of the monopole. A historical and analytical case-study," SHPS, 12
(1981), 141-172; Dirac (ref. 10), Chapter 10. For more recent attempts to detect magnetic monopoles,
see B. Cabrera and W. P. Trower, "Magnetic Monopoles: Evidence since the Dirac conjecture," in A. O.
Barut et al., eds., Quantum, space and time: The Quest continues (New York, Cambridge University
Press, 1984), 449-469; also a news report, "Still at large," Scientific American, 249, no. 1 (July 1983),
62-64. Strictly speaking, as Kragh notes, Dirac did not predict the magnetic monopole as being required
by quantum theory in the same sense that the existence of the positron is required, but showed only that
the existence of the monopole is not precluded by quantum theory. One needs the additional
metaphysical "principle of plenitude": whatever is not forbidden is required. On the antiproton see J. L.
Heilbron, "The detection of the antiproton," in M. de Maria et al., eds., The Restructuring of Physical
Science in Europe and the United States, 1945-1960 (Singapore, World Scientific, 1989), 161-217.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
79
15. Dirac, "Recollections of an exciting era," lecture at the International School of Physics
"Enrico Fermi" in 1972, published in C. Weiner, ed., History of Twentieth Century Physics (New York,
Academic Press, 1977), 109-146, on 146. See also Dirac, "Development of the physicist's conception of
nature," in J. Mehra, ed., The Physicist's Conception of Nature (Boston, Reidel, 1973), 1-14, on 12,
where he states: "it was rather inconceivable to me that there should be a new particle with a positive
charge and the mass of the electron. I reasoned that if such particles did exist, the experimentalists would
certainly have seen them. Why did the experimentalists not see them? Because they were prejudiced
against them [...] " See also his 1978 lecture quoted by L. Brown, "Yukawa's prediction of the meson,"
Centaurus, 25 (1981), 71-132, on 111. V. Mukherji and S. K. Roy, "Particle physics since 1930: A
history of evolving notions of nature's simplicity and uniformity," AJP, 50 (1982), 1100-1103. Cf.
Pickering's remarks quoted below (ref. 158).
16. R. M. Langer, "The Schrdinger potential function," PR, 38 (Aug. 15, 1931), 779-796
(received June 30, 1931), on 786-787. He credits W. M. Cady of Harvard University with suggesting
that protons could be described by the negative-energy solutions. Langer was one of several physicists
who had called for the discovery of the neutron; see Langer & N. Rosen, "The neutron," PR, 37 (1931),
1579-1582.
17. Dirac, "Recollections" (ref. 15), on 146. See also Development (ref. 11), 60; Directions in
Physics (New York, Wiley, 1978), on 18.
18. Letter dated February 3, 1978, published by Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 220.
19. Dirac, "Blackett and the positron," in J. Hendry, ed., Cambridge physics in the thirties
(Bristol, Hilger, 1984), 61-62.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
80
20. Blackett, "Cloud chamber researches in nuclear physics and cosmic radiation" (Nobel
Lecture, December 13, 1948), in Nobel Lectures -- Physics, 1942-1962 (New York: Elsevier, 1964), 97-
119. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 352, says Dirac's recollection is not confirmed by other sources. The only
support I have found for Dirac's version is a brief statement by N. F. Mott, who was in Cambridge from
1930 to 1933; see his "Reminiscences of Paul Dirac," in Kursunoglu & Wigner, eds., Reminiscences (ref.
10), 230-233. It is consistent with the vague description of "... P. M. S. Blackett (in 1932) [...] not quite
so authoritative as usual, because it seemed too good to be true, showing plates which demonstrated the
existence of the positive electron" given by C. P. Snow, "Rutherford and the Cavendish," in J. Raymond,
ed., The Baldwin Age (London, Eyre & Spottiswood, 1960), 235-248, on 235. (I owe this quotation to
David Wilson.)
21. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 108; "Concept and controversy: Jean Becquerel and the positive
electron," Centaurus, 32 (1989), 203-240. Hanson, Concept (ref. 10), 136-39; Hanson discusses the
possibility that Dirac was familiar with some of these observations. See also Bromberg, "Concept of
particle creation" (ref. 10).
22. C. D. Anderson, "The apparent existence of easily deflectable positives," Sc, 76 (September
9, 1932), 238-239 (submitted September 1, 1932); A. Pais, Inward Bound: Of Matter and Forces in the
Physical World (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986), 361-352. For a brief biography see W. A.
Fowler & E. W. Cowan, Carl David Anderson (September 3, 1905 January 11, 1991), Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society 136 (June 1992), 273-278.
23. Anderson, "The positive electron," PR, 43 (March 15, 1933), 491-494 (received February 28,
1933), on 493.
24. Anderson, "Early work on the positron and muon," American Journal of Physics, 29 (1961),
825-830, on 825. A similar passage, with "excellent" substituted for "adequate" in the description of
Dirac's theory, is in C. D. Anderson, with H. L. Anderson, "Unraveling the particle content of cosmic
rays," in L. M. Brown and L. Hoddeson, eds., The Birth of Particle Physics (New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1983), 131-154, on 140 and 141. Cf. I. S. Bowen, R. A. Millikan and H. V. Neher,
"New evidence as to the nature of the incoming cosmic rays, their absorbability in the atmosphere, and
the secondary character of the penetrating rays found in such abundance at sea level and below," PR, 53
(Feb. 1, 1938), 217-223 (received Nov. 29, 1937), footnote on p. 219.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
81
25. Four of these papers (including an abstract of a paper presented at a meeting) were in
Physical Review and one was in Science. He did, however, state that his data are consistent with the
view of Blackett and Occhialini, that positrons and electrons are formed by radiation -- a view based on
the Dirac theory; see Anderson, "Positrons from gamma-rays," PR, 43 (June 15, 1933), 1034 (submitted
May 18, 1933).
26. Anderson, "The positron," Nt, 133 (March 3, 1934), 313-316, quotation from 314 and 315.
27. C. D. Anderson, R. A. Millikan, S. Neddermeyer, and W. Pickering, "The mechanism of
cosmic-ray counter action," PR, 45 (March 15, 1934), 352-363 (received December 26, 1933), on 363.
28. C. D. Anderson and S. H. Neddermeyer, "Fundamental processes in the absorption of
cosmic-ray electrons and photons," ICP, 171-187, on 183.
29. Anderson, "The production and properties of positrons" (Nobel Lecture, December 12,
1936), in Nobel Lectures -- Physics, 1922-1941 (New York: Elsevier, 1965), 365-376, on 371. The
presentation speech by H. Pleijel asserts, much more definitely than Anderson would at that time, that
"the positron Dirac had been searching for was thus found" (ibid., 358). In a paper published earlier that
year, Anderson and Seth D. Neddermeyer stated that the total average specific energy loss (including that
due to pair creation) observed in their experiments was in agreement with that calculated theoretically by
H. A. Bethe and W. Heitler ["On the stopping of fast particles and on the creation of positive electrons,"
PrRS, 146 (Aug. 1, 1934), 83-112 (received February 27, 1934)] but did not give Dirac any credit for that
theory: "Cloud chamber observations of cosmic rays at 4300 meters elevation and near sea-level," PR, 50
(August 15, 1936), 263-271 (received June 9, 1936).
30. R. M. Langer, "The fundamental particles," Sc, 76 (September 30, 1932), 294-295, on 295.
A report for Science Service, dated 18 May 1933, on Niels Bohrs speech at Caltech, stated that Bohr
said that after listening to the evidence it was scarcely possible to doubt the reality of the positron see
F. Aaserud, Redirecting Science: Niels Bohr, Philanthropy, and the Rise of Nuclear Physics (New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1990), on 58.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
82
31. P. M. S. Blackett and G. P. S. Occhialini, "Some photographs of the tracks of penetrating
radiation," PrRS, 139 (March 3, 1933), 699-726 (received February 7, 1933), on 714. A summary of this
paper, "Wilson photographs of cosmic ray phenomena" [Nt 131 (April 22, 1933), 589-590] indicated that
the positive and negative electron "may perhaps be identified with the "quantum states of negative kinetic
energy unoccupied by electrons"" postulated by Dirac.
32. "La thorie de l'lectron de Dirac avait prdit l'existence de particules ayant exactement ces
mme proprits, de sorte que les rsultats de l'experience apportent un puissant appui en faveur de
l'exactitude de la thorie de Dirac quant son essence." Blackett, "Sur l'electron positif," Structure et
proprits des noyaux atomiques, Rapports et discussions du septime Conseil de Physique tenu a
Bruxelles du 22 au 29 octobre 1933 sous les auspices de l'Institut International de Physique Solvay
(Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1934), 169-174, on 172. See also a longer report, "Rayons cosmiques," ibid.,
189-201, in which Blackett again reported that his results agree with the Dirac theory and in particular
with the Oppenheimer-Plesset formula for pair production (cited below, ref. 36).
33. "That Dirac's theory of the electron predicts the existence of particles with just these
properties, gives strong reason to believe in the essential correctness of his theory." Blackett, "The
positive electron," Nt, 133 (December 16, 1933), 917-919, on 918.
34. Blackett, "Cosmic rays," (Friday evening discourse at the Royal Institution, April 20, 1934),
summary in Nature, 133 (April 28, 1934), 640-41. The text of this lecture published in The Royal
Institution Library of Science -- Physical Sciences, vol. 10, edited by W. L. Bragg and G. Porter (New
York: American Elsevier, 1976), 28-44 does not include this statement about the Dirac theory. At a
conference in October 1934 he asserted: "the only existing theory for dealing with fast electrons and
photons, that of Dirac, is only valid for energies less than 137mc" -- Blackett, "The absorption of cosmic
rays," ICP, 1, 199-205, on 200. In his Nobel Lecture ("Cloud chamber," ref. 20) Blackett reverted to his
initial version: Dirac's hole theory predicted the annihilation of positrons by combining with electrons,
with no mention of the prediction of the existence or creation of the positron.
35. A. K. Smith and C. Weiner, eds., Robert Oppenheimer: Letters and Recollections
(Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1980), 96, 109-111, 124, 159-160, 164. S. S. Schweber,
"The empiricist temper regnant: Theoretical physics in the United States 1920-1950," HSPS, 17 (1986),
55-98, 4. K. R. Sopka, Quantum physics in America: The years through 1935 (New York,
Tomash/American Institute of Physics, 1988), 282. R. Serber, "The early years," in I. I. Rabi et al.,
Dirac & Positron/Notes
83
Note 35, continued
Oppenheimer (New York, Scribners Sons, 1969), 9-20; "Particle physics in the 1930s: a view from
Berkeley," in L. M. Brown and L. Hoddeson, eds., The birth of particle physics (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1983), 206-221. M. G. Doncel, "Quantum mechanics settles in America: The
Oppenheimer school," in L. Navarro Veguillas, ed., Historia de la Fisica (Barcelona, CIRIT, 1988), 143-
154.
36. J. R. Oppenheimer and M. S. Plesset, "On the production of the positive electron," PR, 44
(July 1, 1933), 53-55 (submitted June 9, 1933), on 53. Smith and Weiner, Robert Oppenheimer (ref. 35),
161-162. The formula was subsequently revised somewhat by the addition of a logarithmic factor; see
W. Heitler and F. Sauter, "Stopping of fast particles with emission of radiation and the birth of positive
electrons," Nt, 132 (December 9, 1933), 892. Serber recalls that Oppenheimer was initially reluctant to
accept the reality of the positron because of a (mistaken) calculation with Hall on the relativistic
photoeffect. Serber, "Early years" (ref. 35), 13.
37. G. Thomson, The Atom, 6th ed. (Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press, 1962), 150-
151.
38. W. H. Furry and J. R. Oppenheimer, "On the theory of the electron and positive," PR, 45
(February 15, 1934), 245-262, 343-344 (received December 1, 1933), on 245. Smith and Weiner, Robert
Oppenheimer (ref. 26), 149.
39. G. Wentzel, "Quantum theory of fields (until 1947)," in M. Fierz & V. F. Weisskopf, eds.,
Theoretical physics in the twentieth century (New York, Interscience,1960), 48-77, on 58. On Wentzel's
career see the article by S. S. Schweber, Wentzel, Gregor, in F. L. Holmes (ed), Dictionary of
Scientific Biography, vol. 18 (New York, Scribners Sons, 1990), Supplement II, 986-988.
40. In his address to the Solvay Congress in October 1933 he noted that the discovery of the
positron had brought attention back to the theory of negative energy states of the electron, and "... les
rsultats exprimentaux obtenus jusqu'ici se trouvent d'accord avec les prvisions de cette thorie."
Dirac, "Thorie du positron," in Structure (ref. 32), 203-212, on 203. The paper is discussed in detail by
Schweber, "Some chapters" (ref. 10), 86-89. In his Nobel Lecture (December 12, 1933) he stated that the
hole theory "has already been roughly confirmed by experiment." Dirac, "Theory of electrons and
positrons," Nobel Lectures -- Physics, 1922-1941 (New York, Elsevier, 1965), 320-325, on 324. "It
Dirac & Positron/Notes
84
note 40, continued
seems reasonable and in agreement with all the facts known at present to identify these holes with the
recently discovered positrons and thus to obtain a theory of the positron." Dirac, "Discussion of the
infinite distribution of electrons in the theory of the positron," PrCPS, 30 (April 30, 1934), 150-163
(received February 2, 1934), on 150. "... we have the theory of the positron -- a theory in agreement with
experiment so far as is known -- in which positive and negative values for the mass of an electron play
symmetrical roles" -- Dirac, "Classical theory of radiating electrons," PrRS, A167 (1938), 148-169 on
148.
41. Dirac, "The evolution of the physicist's picture of nature," ScA, 208, no. 5 (May 1963), 45-
53. J. W. McAllister, "Dirac and the aesthetic evaluation of theories," Methodology and Science, 23, no.
2 (1990) 87-102.
42. Kragh says that intellectual despair led Dirac to consider abandoning the achievements on
which much of his own reputation rested [Dirac (ref. 10), 170]. But Dirac later endorsed his earlier
hypothesis: "You know that in applying the second quantization theory to electrons you have to suppose
that the physical vacuum is the state for which all the positive-energy electron states are unoccupied and
all the negative-energy states are occupied." Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Field Theory (New York,
1966), 39. Positrons are identified with holes on page 57. For a general survey of the problem of
infinities in quantum electrodynamics see A. Rueger, Attitudes toward Infinities: Responses to
Anomalies in Quantum Electrodynamics, 1927-1947, HSPS, 22, part 2 (1992) 309-337.
43. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 64-65. Moyer, "Evaluations" (ref. 10). F. Hund, The History of
Quantum Theory (New York, Barnes and Noble, 1974), 200.
44. Moyer, "Evaluations" (ref. 10). I. Waller, "Bemerkungen ber die Rolle der Eigenenergie
des Elektrons in der Quantentheorie der Strahlung," ZP, 62 (1930), 673-676. E. G. Harris, A pedestrian
Approach to Quantum Field Theory (New York, 1972), 71.
45. J. MacLachlan, "Defining Physics: The Nobel Prize selection process, 1901-1937," AJP, 59
(1991), 160-174.
46. H. Pleijel, "Physics 1932 and 1933," Nobel Lectures -- Physics, 1922-1941 (New York,
Elsevier, 1965), 283-289, on 287 and 289.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
85
47. N. Bohr, "Atomic stability and conservation laws," ACFN, 119-130, reprinted in Bohr's
Collected Works, vol. 9 (New York, Elsevier, 1986), 103-114, on 123.
48. L. de Broglie, "Sur les densits de valeurs moyennes dans le thorie de Dirac," CR, 194
(March 21, 1932), 1062-1063; "Sur une analogie entre l'lectron de Dirac et l'onde lectromagnetique,"
CR, 195 (Sept. 19, 1932), 536-537; "Remarques sur le moment magntique et le moment de rotation de
l'lectron," CR, 195 (October 3, 1932), 577-578 (read October 3); "Sur la densit de l'nergie dans la
thorie de la lumire," CR, 197 (December 4, 1933), 1377-1380 (read November 27).
49. Einstein and Mayer, "Diracgleichungen fuer Semivecktoren," PrKNAW, 36 (1933), 497-516
(communicated May 27, 1933), on 516.
50. W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 1930), 101-102.
51. M. Dresden, H. A. Kramers: Between Tradition and Revolution (New York, Springer-
Verlag, 1987).
52. K. von Meyenn, ed., Wolfgang Pauli, Wissenschaftliche Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein,
Heisenberg, u. a., Band II: 1930-1030 (Berlin, Springer, 1985)), see index entries under Diracgleichung,
etc.; Pauli, "Diracs Wellengleichung des Elektrons und geometrische Optik," HPA, 5(1932), 179-199;
Collected Scientific Papers, ed. R. Kronig and V. F. Weisskopf, vol. 2 (New York, Interscience/Wiley,
1964), 467, 472, 480, 482, 484, 494, 500-501, 552, 562-564; "Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der
Wellenmechanik," Handbuch der Physik, zweite Auflage, hrsg. H. Geiger & K. Scheel, Bd. XXIV, 1.
Teil (Berlin, Springer, 1933), Kap. 2.
53. W. T. Scott, Erwin Schrdinger: An introduction to his writings (Amherst, University of
Massachusetts Press, 1967), 64-66. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 3), 111. Schrdinger, Gesammelte
Abhandlungen (Vienna, Verlag der Oesterreischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984-), Bd. III, 357-
460, 470-480.
54. Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations (New York, Harper & Row,
1971), pp. 128-133. "Carl F. von Weizscker recalls being told by Heisenberg that the problem of
relativity and quantum theory and the electron had been solved by a young Englishman by the name of
Dirac, who was so clever that it did not pay to compete with him." Archive for History of Quantum
Physics, 1963 interview, quoted by L. Brown, "Yukawa's prediction" (ref. 8), 125, note 34.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
86
55. W. Pauli and J. Solomon, "La theorie unitaire d'Einstein et Mayer et les quations de Dirac,"
JPR, 3 (October 1932), 452-463; ibid., part II, JPR, 3 (December 1932), 582-589 (received November
30).
56. Meyenn, Pauli Briefwechsel (ref. 52), 158.
57. Ibid., 159. In 1980 Dirac recalled that Pauli "was very much opposed to the positron idea to
begin with, for about three months, or was it six months?" Discussion remark in Brown & Hoddeson,
Birth (ref. 35), p. 268.
58. W. Elsasser, "A possible property of the positive electron," Nt, 131 (May 27, 1933), 764
(submitted April 25).
59. Meyenn, Pauli Briefwechsel (ref. 52), 164.
60. "Ich glaube nicht an die Lchertheorie, da ich Asymmetrie in den Naturgesetzen zwischen
positiver und negativer Elektrizitt haben mchte (es befriedigt mich nicht, die empirisch festgestellte
Asymmetrie in eine solche im Anfangszustand der Welt zu schieben)." Ibid., 169. Similarly, as a
teenager, he had seen charge asymmetry as a defect in Weyl's theory: Pauli, "Zur Theorie der Gravitation
und der Elektrizitt von Hermann Weyl," PZ, 20 (1919), 457-467. See also K. v. Meyenn, "Pauli's belief
in exact symmetries," in M. G. Doncel et al., eds., Symmetries in physics (1600-1980) (Singapore, World
Scientific, 1983), 329-358.
61. Meyenn, Pauli Briefwechsel, 185-187. At the same time Pauli submitted a long paper on
the Dirac equation in 5-dimensional space, in which he cautioned the reader that this equation leads to
negative energy states contrary to experience (ignoring the positron): "ber die Formulierung der
Naturgesetze mit fnf homogenen Koordinaten. Teil II. Die Diracschen Gleichungen fr die
Materiewellen," AP, 18 (October 1933), 337-372 (received July 15, 1933). Pauli also suggested to
Heisenberg (letter dated 29 September 1933) that if one does accept charge symmetry, then not only must
a negatively charged proton exist, but even the neutron must have two states, in which the magnetic
moment has opposite directions relative to the mechanical moment. Briefwechsel (ref. 52), 213.
62. Editorial notes in Meyenn, Pauli Briefwechsel, pp. 203-204, 207.
63. August 26, 1933, quoted in Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 146.
64. Pauli, discussion remarks, in SPNA (ref. 32), 213-214.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
87
65. Bohr, "Sur la mthode de correspondance dans la theorie de l'lectron," in SPNA (ref. 23),
216-228, on 216; discussion remark, ibid., 175. Bohr's earlier opposition to the hole concept was
expressed in a letter to Dirac, December 5, 1929, quoted by E. MacKinnon, "Bohr on the foundations of
quantum theory," in Niels Bohr, A Centenary Volume, ed. A. P. French and P. J. Kennedy (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press, 1985), 101-120, on 114. According to Guido Beck (as recalled in an
interview with L. M. Brown), "at a meeting in Copenhagen in 1931 Bohr took every possible occasion to
make fun of Dirac's hole theory; but he felt bad about it six months later when positrons were discovered
and called a special press conference to make amends." L. M. Brown et al.,, eds., Particle Physics in
Japan, 1930-1950, Vol. II (Kyoto, Research Institute for Fundamental Physics, 1980), 51.
Rudolf Peierls recalls Bohr's reluctance to accept hole theory even after the positron discovery, in
his autobiography, Bird of Passage: Recollections of a Physicist (Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1985), 58. According to Max Delbruck's 1962 recollections, Bohr at first insisted that Anderson's
particle had nothing to do with Dirac's holes; see Schweber, "Some chapters" (ref. 10), 86.
66. N. Bohr, "Wirkungsquantum und Atomkern," Annalen der Physik (series 5), 32 (1938), 5-19;
translation quoted from Bohr's Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 319. See also Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 174
(translation of a 1936 lecture) and p. 125 (unpublished manuscript, 1933-34).
67. If a particle has negative inertial mass, then when you push it one way it moves the opposite
way. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 112. G. Gamow, Biography of Physics (New York, Harper, 1961), 263-
265; Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory (Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday,
1966), 127-129, 206, 217.
68. Gamow, "L'Origine des Rayons et les Niveaux d'nergie Nucleaires," in SPNA (ref. 22),
231-260. Later he did acknowledge that the positron had been predicted by Dirac's theory and discussed
the possibility that negative protons might also exist. G. Gamow, "Negative protons and nuclear
structure," PR, 45 (May 15, 1934), 728-729 (submitted April 1.) But he soon concluded that the Dirac
equation does not apply to them; see "The negative proton," Nt, 135 (May 25, 1935), 858-861.
69. Rutherford, SPNA (ref. 32), 177-178; English translation quoted from D. V. Skobeltzyn,
"The early stage of cosmic ray particle research," in Y. Sekido and H. Elliot, eds., Early History of
Cosmic Ray Studies (Dordrecht, Reidel, 1985), 47-52, on 50. In two later papers he mentions electron-
positron pair creation and annihilation but ignores Dirac: "Atomic physics," Nt, 135 (May 4, 1935), 683-
685; "The transformation of energy," Nt, 137 (Jan. 25, 1936), 135-137.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
88
70. Cf. Brush, "Prediction" (ref. 2), 1127 and publications cited in note 86 therein; S. Weinberg,
Dreams of a Final Theory (New York, Pantheon, 1992), pp. 95-96. Rutherford was not immune from this
tendency himself, having suggested about the same time that a Japanese experiment on the interaction of
gamma rays with nuclei should be reinterpreted as evidence of electron-positron pair creation. See E.
Rutherford, comment on a paper by C. Y. Chao and T. T. Kung in Nature, 132 (November 4, 1933), 709.
71. E. Rutherford, "Opening survey," in ICP, 4-16.
72. L. de Broglie, "Quelques remarques sur la thorie de l'lectron magntique de Dirac," AS, 15
(Nov.-Dec. 1933), 465-483 (lecture delivered November 16, 1933).
73. L. de Broglie, "Sur la nature du photon," CR, 198 (January 8, 1934), 135-138 (read January
3), 135-138, on 137. According to Abraham Pais this paper contains the first use of the word
"antiparticle" (i.e., anticorpuscle). Jordan worked on a similar theory, using neutrinos; Pais quotes a
satirical song about this theory (A. Pais, Inward bound: Of matter and forces in the physical world
(Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986), 418. See also L. de Broglie, "L'equation d'ondes du photon,"
CR, 199 (August 13, 1934), 445-448 (read August 6). His book L'lectron magntique (Paris, Hermann,
1934) was apparently written before he learned of the positron discovery, since he treated the holes in
Dirac's negative-energy sea as protons.
74. L. de Broglie, Matire et Lumire (Paris, Michel, 1937), 150-152. His brother Maurice de
Broglie was more skeptical, writing that while Dirac's ideas are very ingenious and constitute important
progress, the assumption of negative energy states is somewhat artificial; "Si nous avons insist quelque
peu sur les ides de M. Dirac, c'est parce que beaucoup de physiciens, sduits par d'autres rsultats
importants de cette mme thorie, comptent au nombre de ses succs, l'explication des lectrons positifs.
Mais il ne faut pas oublier que c'est au contraire la difficult d'observation et la raret des positrons qui
est surprenante." Atomes, Radioactivit, Transmutations (Paris, Flammarion, 1939), p. 196.
75. Dresden, H. A. Kramers: Between Tradition and Revolution (New York, Springer-Verlag,
1987), 335-339, 375 (quotation from 335).
76. L. Meitner and K. Philipp, "Die bei Neutronanregung auftretenden Elektronenbahnen," Nw,
21 (April 14, 1933), 286-287 (submitted March 25).
77. L. Meitner and K. Philipp, "Die Anregung positiver Elektronen durch -Strahlen von ThC ,"
11
Nw, 21 (June 16, 1933), 468 (submitted May 18).
Dirac & Positron/Notes
89
78. E. Schrdinger, "Die gegenwrtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik," Nw, 23 (1935), 807-
812, 823-828, 844-849; quoted from J. D. Trimmer, "The present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A
translation of Schrdinger's "cat paradox" paper," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
124 (1980), 323-338, on 338. In an undated letter he wrote: "Dirac's relativistic wave equation still
stands out as the great success that has been scored in this whole subject." Schrdinger, Gesammelte
Abhandlungen (ref. 53), Bd. 3, 727.
79. "The attempts to combine Maxwell's equations with the quantum theory (Pauli, Heisenberg,
Dirac) have not succeeded" -- Born, "Modified field equation with a finite radius of the electron," Nature,
132 (August 19, 1933), 282 (submitted July 20, 1933). Neither positron nor Dirac's equation is
mentioned in M. Born, "On the quantum theory of the electromagnetic field," Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, A243 (January 1, 1934), 410-437 (received August 9, 1933).
80. M. Born and L. Infeld, "On the quantization of the new field equations," PrRS, 150A (May
1, 1935), 141-166, on 157. See also Born, "A suggestion for unifying quantum theory and relativity,"
PrRS, A165 (April 5, 1938), 291-303. Born, My Life and Views (New York, Charles Scribners Sons,
1968), 39. The Born-Einstein Letters, with commentaries by Max Born (New York, Walker, 1971), 120-
121.
81. Born, Atomic Physics, 4th ed. (New York, Hafner, 1946), 41, 185; ibid., 5th ed. (London,
Blackie, 1951), 44, 190. The 6th ed. (New York, Hafner, 1957), retains the same statements but adds (p.
193) that the discovery of the anti-proton and anti-neutron "have added further support to the basic ideas
of Dirac's theory," and notes the recent work on removal of infinities by renormalization.
82. A. Einstein, "Elektron und allgemeine Relativittstheorie," Pa, 5 (1925), 330-334 [I owe this
reference to A. Pais]. A, Einstein & W. Mayer, "Diracgleichungen fr Semivektoren, PrKNAW, 36
(1933), 487-516 (communicated May 27, 1933). Abraham Pais calls this "bizarre" in his biography
'Subtle is the Lord...': The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (New York, 1982), 452. Pais notes
that Einstein had previously found particle-like solutions with positive and negative charge for his
gravitational-electromagnetic field equations; see Einstein, "Elektron und allgemeine Relativittstheorie,"
Physica, 5 (1925), 330-334; Pais, "Einstein and the quantum theory," Reviews of Modern Physics, 51
(1979), 861-914.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
90
83. R. A. Millikan, "Cosmic-ray light on nuclear physics," Sc, 78 (August 25, 1933), 153-158
(address delivered in Chicago, June 21).
84. W. Kaempffert, "Light on cosmic rays. Millikan denies Dirac theory of composition of
universe," New York Times, November 26, 1933, part 8, p. 6. This is a report on a meeting of the
National Academy of Sciences.
85. R. A. Millikan, Cosmic Rays (New York, Macmillan, 1939), 32; Electrons (+ and -)
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1935) Chapter XIV. In addition to the fact that more positrons
than electrons are observed in situations where he believes the Dirac theory predicts equal numbers, the
fact that low energy photons can produce showers is not explained by pair-formation theory, according to
Oppenheimer. In the 1947 edition he added, after this statement: "(No longer true in 1946)" (p. 342).
For insight into the reasons for Millikan's views see P. Galison, "The Discovery of the Muon and the
failed Revolution against Quantum Electrodynamics," Centaurus, 26 (1983), 262-316.
86. W. Bothe, "Das Neutron und das Positron," Nw, 21 (November 24, 1933), 825-831.
87. L. Alvarez and A. H. Compton, "A positively charged Component of Cosmic Rays," PR, 43
(May 15, 1933), 835-836; A. H. Compton and H. A. Bethe, "Composition of Cosmic Rays," Nt, 134
(November 10, 1934), 734-735 (submitted October 29).
88. E. U. Condon and J. Mack, "An Interpretation of Pauli's Exclusion Principle," PR, 35 (1930),
579-582. Kragh, Dirac, p. 112. E. U. Condon and G. H. Shortley, The theory of atomic spectra
(Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge University Press, 1935), 125. E. U. Condon, "What are Positrons?" ScA,
153, no. 2 (August 1935), 70-72, on 72.
89. A. S. Eddington, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1936), 90, 264-265. See also New Pathways in Science (New York, Macmillan, 1935),
216, in which he briefly mentions Dirac's theory of the positron. In an unpublished manuscript on the
"transfer problem," he asserts that the positron is "the compensation introduced into the object system on
account of a missing electron in the comparison fluid." See C. W. Kilmister, Sir Arthur Eddington
(Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1966), 261.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
91
90. E. Fermi and G. E. Uhlenbeck, "On the Recombination of Electrons and Positrons," PR, 44
(September 15, 1933), 510-511 (submitted August 18), on 510. In his famous paper on -decay, Fermi
notes that one must distinguish between the creation and annihilation operators in quantized field theory
and the actual creation and annihilation of electrons and positrons in Dirac's hole theory. "Versuch einer
Theorie der -Strahlen. I" ZP, 88 (March 19, 1934), 161-177. See L. Brown, "Yukawa's prediction" (ref.
15), 93-94.
91. E. Fermi, "Le ultime particelle costitutive della materia," Atti Soc. It. Progr. Sci., 22
a
Riunione, Bari 1933-XI, 2, 7-14; Scientia, 55 (1934), 21-28; The Collected Papers of Enrico Fermi, vol. 1
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1952), 553-558. In discussion remarks at the Solvay Congress in
October 1933, Fermi noted that Joliot's results on the energies of electrons and positrons do not
contradict Dirac's theory; see SPNA, 175.
92. V. Fock, "Zur Theorie der Positronen," CR URSS, 1 (1933), 267-271 (submitted November
22, 1933). Cf. Furry & Oppenheimer, "Theory," ref. 38.
93. J. Frenkel, Wave Mechanics: Advanced General Theory (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1934),
347.
94. J. Perrin, "Remarques au sujet des Neutrons," CR, 197 (25 September 1933), 628-631.
95. J. J. Thomson, "On Models of the Electric Field and of the Photon," PM, 16 (October 1933),
809-845; "Note on the paper "On Models of the Electric Field and of the Fhoton" (Phil. Mag., Oct.
1933)," PM, 17 (1934), 197-198.
96. Kragh, Dirac (ref. 10), 149. Meyenn, Pauli Briefwechsel (ref. 52), 279.
97. Heisenberg, "Bemerkungen zur Diracsche Theorie der Positron," ZP, 90 (August 10, 1934),
209-231 (received June 21). See A. Pais, "On the Dirac theory" (ref. 10).
98. Heisenberg, "Development of concepts in the history of quantum theory," in J. Mehra, ed.,
The Physicist's Conception of Nature (Boston, Reidel, 1973), 264-274, on 271. See also "Cosmic
radiation and fundamental problems in physics," Nw, 63 (1976), 63-67. Kosmische Strahlung (Berlin,
Springer-Verlag, 1943), reprinted in his Gesammelte Werke, Series B (Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1984),
361-412; Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science (New York, Fawcett. 1966), 58. In a report
originally prepared for the planned but cancelled 1939 Solvay Congress, Heisenberg discussed the use of
Dirac's density matrix: "so kann man die physikalisch unbefriedigende Vorstellung der Diracschen
"Lcher" vermeiden und die Theorie von vornherein symmetrisch in Bezug auf das Ladungsvorzeichen
Dirac & Positron/Notes
92
note 98, continued
formulieren. (Fr praktische Zwecke wird allerdings die "Lcher" Vorstellung manchmal geeigneter
sein.)" "Bericht ber die allgemeinen Eigenschaften der Elementarteilchen," in his Gesammelte Werke,
Series B, 346-358, on 348.
99. W. Pauli and V. F. Weisskopf, "Ueber die Quantisierung der skalaren relativistischen
Wellengleichung," HPA, 7 (1934), 709-731 (submitted July 27, 1934). They were observed writing their
paper during a seminar, in great excitement because they hope to "introduce spin by tacking it on to the
Klein-Gordon equation by some mechanism with 2x2 matrices and so get rid of the Dirac business of
holes. For a little while they tried to do it that way and this is what I saw happening over their shoulders!
This was discarded at once they found they could not do it and they reported that it is impossible. But
the hole theory with its subtraction of infinities and so on still appeared a very unpleasant thing at the
time -- and it was worth a try to get over it." N. Kemmer, "Some recollections from the early days of
particle physics," in J. Cumming and H. Osborn, eds., Hadronic Interactions of Electrons and Photons
(New York, Academic Press, 1971), 1-16, on 7. In a review article published the next year, Weisskopf
outlined the hole theory, emphasizing its difficulties but ignoring its successful prediction of the positron.
A casual reader of this article would get the impression that the Pauli-Weisskopf theory first explained
the existence of antiparticles, but unfortunately did not include spin, so Dirac's theory was then
introduced for that purpose. "Probleme der neueren Quantentheorie des Elektrons," Nw, 23 (Sept. 13,
1935), 631-637; (Sept. 20, 1937), 647-653; (Sept. 27, 1935), 669-674.
100. V. F. Weisskopf, "Growing up with Field Theory: The Development of Quantum
Electrodynamics," in L. M. Brown and L. Hoddeson, eds., The birth of particle physics (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1983), 56-81, on 70. See also Weisskopf, Physics in the Twentieth Century
(Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1972), 11-12; "Personal memories of Pauli," Physics Today, 38, no. 12
(December 1985), 36-41; The Joy of Insight: Passions of a Physicist (New York, Basic Books 1991), 80-
83. According to A. S. Wightman, Pauli used the phrase "anti-Dirac theory" in a seminar at the Institute
for Advanced Study in 1935-36; "For reasons that now appear a bit incomprehensible since, as Pauli
himself showed, the theories can be constructed in parallel, he regarded the treatment of subtractions in
the Pauli-Weisskopf theory as natural, and he dubbed it the anti-Dirac theory." Wightman, "The Dirac
equation," in A. Salam and E. P. Wigner, eds., Aspects of Quantum Theory (Cambridge, Eng.,
Dirac & Positron/Notes
93
Note 100, contin ued
Cambridge University Press, 1972), 95-115, on 102. At this seminar Pauli also said: "Success seems to
have been on the side of Dirac rather than of logic" [quoted by Pais, "Playing" (ref. 10), 102]. A 1936
paper alluded to "the formalism of the positron theory which is accepted at present and which
unfortunately is not yet substituted by a more satisfactory one" -- W. Pauli and M. E. Rose, "Remarks on
the polarisation effects in the positron theory," PR, 49 (March 15, 1936), 462-465, on p. 463. When he
revised his Handbuch article in the last year of his life, Pauli removed the criticisms of hole theory and
indicated that the theory had been confirmed by the discovery of the positron. He concluded the section
with the sentence: "Field quantisation enables us to give a more elegant formulation of the "hole theory"
based on the exact symmetry of quantum electrodynamics (QED) with respect to the sign of the electrical
charge (charge conjugation)." General Principles of Quantum Mechanics, trans. P. Achuthan and K.
Venkatesan (Berlin, Springer Verlag, 1980), 176. See also K. von Meyenn, "Physics in the making in
Pauli's Zrich," in M. A. Sarlemijn and M. J. Sparnay, eds., Physics in the Making (Amsterdam, North-
Holland, 1989), 93-130.
101. C. P. Enz, "W. Pauli's scientific work," in J. Mehra, ed., The Physicist's Conception of
Nature (Boston, 1973), 766-799.
102. Since Anderson's paper appeared in the September 9 issue of Science, which probably did
not reach most European subscribers until October, I have counted as the "first year" papers submitted or
received from October 1932 through September 1933, and as the "second year" papers submitted or
received in October 1933 through September 1934. Most of them were actually published in 1933 and
1934, respectively. Langer's paper (ref. 20) is counted in the first year. In addition to checking almost all
the papers indexed under electron, positron, and quantum theory in Physics Abstracts, I made a
systematic search of the major journals that published physics research in the U. S., U. K., France, and
Germany: CR, JPR, PM, PR, PrRS, and ZP. It should be noted that a citation index, even if it were
available for this period, would not be much use since after the first year most papers did not give a
specific citation to the positron discovery papers, and hardly any gave a specific citation to Dirac's paper.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
94
103. Since these papers are listed only for statistical purposes, I have not given complete
citations, but they can easily be retrieved from the indicated journals. When the same person published
more than one paper in that journal in the same one-year period, this is indicated by a numeral after the
journal abbreviation.
Bethe & Fermi, ZP; Bohr, ACFN; Breit, PR; Broglie, CR (2); Carlson & Oppenheimer, PR;
Darwin, PrRS; Einaudi, MRAI; Elsasser, ZP; Fock & Podolsky PZSu; Infeld, PZ; McVittie, MNRAS;
Meksyn, PM; Pauli, HPA; Plesset, PR; Proca, CR (3); Proca, JPR; Prunier, RGE; Rosen & Vallarta, PR;
Rosenfeld, ZP; Sauter, ZP; Schouten, JMP; Schouten & van Dantzig, PrKNAW (2); Schouten & van
Dantzig, ZP; Schrdinger, SbAWB; Schrdinger, CR CIE; Seyfarth, AP; Solomon, CR; Szczeniowski,
ZP; Umeda, SRTBD; Wessel, ZP.
104. G. Beck, "Hat das negative Energiespektrum einen Einfluss auf Kernphnomene?" ZP, 83
(June 28, 1933), 498-511 (received May 2, 1933).
105. M. Bronstein, "All Union Conference on the Nucleus," PZSu, 5 (1934), 178-182.
106. T. Derenzini, "La teoria relativistica dell' elettrone," NC, 11 (Maggio 1934), 309-328.
107. Dirac, "Theorie du Positron" (ref. 40).
108. Dirac, "Theory of Electrons and Positrons" (ref. 40).
109. Dirac, "Discussion of the infinite distribution" (ref. 40).
110. Gamow, "Negative Protons" (ref. 68).
111. O. Halpern, "Scattering Processes produced by Electrons in Negative Energy States," PR,
44 (November 15, 1933), 855-856 (submitted October 26).
112. F. Joliot, "Preuve exprimentale de l'annihilation des lectrons positifs," CR, 197
(December 18, 1933), 1622-1625.
113. F. Joliot, "Sur la dmatrialisation de paires d'lectrons," CR, 198 (January 3, 1934), 81-83.
114. F. Joliot, "Preuves exprimentales de l'annihilation des lectrons positifs," JPR, 5 (July
1934), 299-303 (received May 23).
115. H. Mandel, "Positive electrons and the existence of protons," PZSu, 3 (1933), 551-553
(submitted March 1933).
116. R. Peierls, "The vacuum in Dirac's theory of the positive electron," PrRS, 146 (1934), 420-
441 (received March 24, 1934).
Dirac & Positron/Notes
95
117. J. Thibaud, "tude des proprits physiques du positron," CR, 197 (October 23, 1933), 915-
917; "Les proprits physiques de l'lectron positif. Annihilation de la matire et radiation de
dmatrialisation," Annales, Societe Scientifique de Bruxelles, series B, 54 (March 20, 1934), 36-52.
118. R. Zaycoff, "Zur Erweiterung der Wellenmechanik (II. Mitteilung)," ZP, 84 (1933), 264-
267 (received May 31, 1933).
119. R. Zacoff, "Thorie gnrale des lectrons magntiques," JPR (August, 1934), 431-435
(received June 22).
120. Derenzini, "Teoria" (ref. 106), 326-327 (emphasis added).
121. G. Temple, "Quantum and wave mechanics," RPP, 1 (1934), 1-23, on 18.
122. First year: L. de Broglie, CR (2); Einstein & Mayer, PrAmst; Flint, PrRS; Flgge, ZP;
Frster, ZP; Gupta, ZP; Houston & Hsieh, PR; Infeld & van der Waerden, SbAWB; Klein, ZP; Lanczos,
PR (2); Lees, Nt; Milner, PrRS; Nikolsky, PrRS; Pauli & Solomon, JPR (2); Pauli, AP; Pauli,
Handbuch (ref. 52); Placinteau, CR; Scherzer, ZP; Sen, Nt; Solomon, JPR; Wentzel, ZP; Wessel, ZP;
Zaycoff, ZP.
Second year: L. de Broglie, CR; Taub, Veblen & von Neumann, PrNAS; Dymond, PrRS; Flint,
PrRS; Gheniau, CR; Glaser & Sitte, ZP; Goldstein, CR (3); Infeld, APhPo; Kar & Mukherjee, PM;
Laue, SbAWB; Madelung & Flgge, ZP; Margenau, PR; Meizner, ZP; Proca, JPR (2); Rupp, ZP; Sauter,
ZP; Solomon, JPR; Temple, PrRS; Weisskopf, ZP. A paper by Weizscker in ZP discusses the
Oppenheimer & Plesset calculation and negative-energy states but mentions neither Dirac nor the
positron.
Third year: Born & Infeld, PrRS; Destouches, JPR; Flint, PrRS; Franz, ZP; Goldstein, JPR (2);
Halpern & Heller, PR; Kemmer, AP; Lees, PrCPS; Nikolsky, CR URSS; Nikolsky, CR; Nikolsky, PrRS;
Peierls, Pa; Schrdinger, PrRS; Sommerfeld & Mave, AP; Stueckelberg, HPA; Swirles, PrRS; Veblen,
Sc; Veblen, PrNAS; Volkov, CR URSS; Wessel, ZP; Zacoff, JPR (2).
123. First year: Alvarez & Compton, PR; Anderson, PR (3), Sc; Anderson & Neddermeyer, PR;
Becke & Sitte, ZP; Blackett, QJMetS; Chadwick, Blackett & Occhialini, Nt; Chadwick, PrRS; Compton
& Bethe, Nt; I. Curie & F. Joliot, CR (3); I. Curie & F. Joliot, JPR; Darrow, RSI; Frth, ZP; Grinberg,
CR; Kunze, AP; Meitner & Philipp, Nw; Thibaud, CR; Thibaud, Nt; Thon, Nt; Todd, Nt; J. J. Thomson,
PM.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
96
Note 123, cotinued
Second year: Alichanow, Alichanian & Dvhelepow, Nt (2); Auger, ZP; Banerji, Nt; Beck &
Sitte, Nt; Beck & Sitte, ZP; Bethe, PrCPS; Bewilogua & Dixit, PZ; Bramley, JFI; Bramley, PR; Curie &
Joliot, CR; Curie & Joliot, JPR; Darrow, RSI; Fermi, ZP; Gapon, ZP; Gilbert, PrRS; Iwanenko, Nt;
Joliot[-Curie], F & I., SPNA; Newman & Walke, Nt; Nishina, Sagane & Takeuchi, SPIPCR; Perrin, F.
CR; Petiau, CR; Posejpal, CR; Skobeltzyn & Stepanowa, Nt (2); Thibaud, CR (2); Thomson, J. J., PM;
Walke, PM (2); Wataghin, PM; Williams, PR; Williams, Nt; Wolfe & Uhlenbeck, PR.
Third year: Benedetti, CR; Crane & Lauritsen, ICP; Japolsky, PM; Joliot [-Curie], F. & I., ICP;
Lifshitz, PZSu; Rupp, PZ.
124. First year: Becke & Sitte, ZP; Blackett & Occhialini, PrRs; Blackett & Occhialini, Nt;
Darrow, BSTJ; Darrow, RSI; Elsasser, Nt; Furry & Carlson, PR; Heitler, ZP; Kunze, PZ; Meitner &
Philipp, Nw; Millikan, Sc; Placinteau, CR; Placinteau, ZP; Sexl, Nt; Zaycoff, ZP.
Second year: Alichanow & Kosadaew, ZP; Anderson, Nt; Anderson, Millikan, Nedermeyer &
Pickering, PR; Beck, Nt; Bhabha & Hulme, PrRS; Broglie, L., CR; Bramley, Nt; Brinkman, Pa;
Bronstein, CRURSS; Brunnings, Pa; Chadwick, Blackett & Occhialini, PrRS; Darrow, ScM; De Donder,
SPNA; Destouches, CR; Fermi, ZP; Flint, PrRS; Fock, CRURSS; Furry, PR; Furry & Oppenheimer, PR;
Heisenberg, ZP; Heitler & Nordheim, JPR; Heitler & Sauter, Nt; Klemperer, PrCPS; Landau & Lifshitz,
PJSU; Pauli & Weisskopf, HPA; Posejpal, CR; Racah, NC; Skobeltzyn, Nt; Stueckelberg, AP; Tamm,
PZSu; Thibaud, CR; Thibaud, PR; Waller, ZP; Wataghin, ZP (2); Wentzel, ZP. The paper by Bethe &
Heitler, PrRS (ref. 29), uses the Dirac theory to discuss positrons but does not mention Dirac's name.
The paper by Becker, Ph, refers to the theoretical papers by Oppenheimer & Plesset and Fermi &
Uhlenbeck, but does not mention Dirac.
Third year: Beck, ICP; Bethe, PrRS; Bhabha, PrRS; Blackett, ICP; Breit & Wheeler, PR;
Chandraskehar & Rosenfeld, Nt; Condon, ScA; Destouches, CR; Gamow, Nt; Jaeger & Hulme, PrRS;
Jordan, ZP; Mandel, ZP; Nikolsky, CR URSS; Nishina, Tomonaga & Kobayasi, SPIPCR; Nordheim,
JPR; Oppenheimer, PR; Solomon, JPR; Sterne, PrCPS; Uehling, PR; Wataghn, ZP; Weisskopf, Nw;
Wentzel, Ph; Wessel, ZP; Williams, Nt.
125. N. Kemmer, "ber die elektromagnetische Masse des Diracelektrons," AP, 22 (May 1935,
674-712 (Recd. Feb. 28, 1935). R. Peierls, "Die Diracsche Lchertheorie und die Lichtgeschwindigkeit,"
Pa, 2 (1935), 399-402 (recd. Feb. 21, 1935).
Dirac & Positron/Notes
97
126. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, second edition (Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1935), 272.
127. J. Schwinger, "A report on quantum electrodynamics," in J. Mehra, ed., The Physicist's
Conception of Nature (Boston, Reidel, 1973), 413-426, on 415.
128. S. Weinberg, "The search for unity: Notes for a history of quantum field theory," Daedalus,
106, no. 4 (Fall 1977), 17-35, on 24. See also Weinberg, The discovery of subatomic particles (New
York, Freeman, 1984), 162. The mere fact that the negative-energy states are unobservable was not a
decisive objection, contrary to the view of H. Margenau, "Methodology of modern physics," Philosophy
of Science, 2 (1935), 48-72, 164-187.
129. J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The theory of photons and electrons, (Cambridge, Mass.,
Addison-Wesley, 1955). L. L. Foldy, "Relativistic wave equations," in D. R. Bates, ed., Quantum
Theory (New York, Academic Press, 1962), 1-46. F. Mandl & G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory (New
York, Wiley, 1984). W. P. Healy, "Electrodynamics, quantum," in R. A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of
Modern Physics (New York, Academic Press, 1990), 149-170.
130. Mandl & Shaw, ref. 129, 66. According to P. T. Matthews, the formulation of the correct
field-theory treatment "was considerably delayed by Dirac's ingenious hole theory ideas, and the elegance
of an overtly relativistic quantum electrodynamics [...] was not fully appreciated until nearly twenty years
later." Matthews, "Dirac and the foundation of quantum mechanics," in Kursunoglu, B. N. & Wigner, E.
P. eds., Reminiscences about a great Physicist: Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1987), 199-224, on p. 222. Similarly, Steven Weinberg writes that the Dirac theory
gained an enormous prestige from the discovery of the positron, but we know today that Diracs point
of view was largely wrong; it almost by accident gave the same result as quantum field theory for
certain processes Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 70), pp. 151-152. Gamow states, in a striking
departure from his usual lucidity of exposition, that the positron does not any longer have to be
considered as a hole in an infinite sea of negative-energy electrons but simply as a hole in empty space!
(Biography of Physics, ref. 67), p. 267. For a better explanation see Gamow, Mr. Tompkins in paperback
(Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge University Press, 1965), ch. 14. Another interpretation, which seems quite
misleading to me, is that the change to second quantization was purely linguistic, not substantive: "By
redefining terms, Oppenheimer and Furry were able to eliminate talk of an infinite sea of negative
energy electrons and replace it with talk of the creation and destruction of electrons and positrons. The
Dirac & Positron/Notes
98
note 130, continued
mathematical theory remained the same; only the way physicists talked about the theory changed" -- B.
Gregory, Inventing reality: Physics as language (New York, Wiley, 1988), p. 107. This plays on the
confusion between "creation and annihilation operators" in quantized field theory and the actual creation
and annihilation of electrons and positrons. Fermi stressed the distinction long ago in his "Versuch" (ref.
90). For further discussion of this point see P. Teller, "Prolegomenon to a proper interpretation of
quantum field theory," Philosophy of Science, 57 (1990), 594-618.
131. Schweber, "Some chapters" (ref. 10), 108 says: "throughout the thirties almost all
calculations were done using the hole-theoretic formalism." My own survey confirms this; I cite here
only some later publications: G. Briegler, Atome und Ionen (Leipzig, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft,
1940), 137. R. E. Marshak, "Heavy electron pair theory of nuclear forces," PR, 57 (June 15, 1940),
1101-1106 (received April 1, 1940). W. Heisenberg, Kosmische Strahlung (Berlin, Springer-Verlag,
1943), 13f. G. Wentzel, Einfuhrung in die Quantentheorie der Wellenfelder (Vienna, Deuticke, 1943),
170f.; translation, Quantum Theory of Fields (New York, Interscience, 1949), 180f; "Quantum theory of
fields (until 1947), in M. Fierz & V. F. Weisskopf, eds., Theoretical Physics in the Twentieth Century
(New York, Interscience, 1960), 58-62. R. E. Peierls, "Fundamental particles," Nt, 158 (1946), 773-775.
W. Heitler, The Quantum Theory of Radiation, 2d ed. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1944), 86, 186-190. H.
A. Bethe, "The electromagnetic shift of energy levels," PR, 72 (1947), 339-341. A. Pais, "On the theory
of elementary particles," Verhandelingen der K. Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd.
Natuurkunde, eerste Sectie, Deel XIX, no. 1 (1947). V. F. Weisskopf, "Recent developments in the
theory of the electron," RMP, 21 (1949), 305-328. E. Fermi. Elementary Particles (New Haven, 1951),
15, 26, 73. W. Heitler, "The penetration of gamma-rays through matter and the development of radiation
theory," in O. R. Frisch et al., eds., Beitrge zur Physik und Chemie des 20. Jahrhunderts (Braunschweig,
Vieweg,1959), 23-27. C. S. Cook, Modern atomic and nuclear physics (Princeton, N.J., Van Nostrand,
1961), 229-230. R. M. Eisberg, Fundamentals of Modern Physics (New York, Wiley, 1961), 514-516.
M. Born, Atomic Physics, 7th ed. (New York, Hafner, 1962), 195-198. J. G. Cuninghame, Introduction
to the Atomic Nucleus (Amsterdam, Elsevier,1964), 158. J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic
Quantum fields (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1965), 58-59. K. Nishijima, Fields and Particles (New York,
Benjamin, 1969). E. G. Harris, A pedestrian approach to quantum field theory (New York, Wiley,
Dirac & Positron/Notes
99
note 131, continued
1972), 64-75.
The only theorist who seems to have recognized this phenomenon is A. S. Wightman; while "the
infinite sea of negative energy electrons has vanished from the theory except as a poetic description of
the prescription for forming the electromagnetic current," "The new way of looking at the Dirac equation
did not arouse the widespread satisfaction one might have expected." Wightman, "The Dirac equation,"
in A. Salam and E. P. Wigner, eds., Aspects of Quantum Theory (Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge
University Press, 1972), 95-115, on 100 and 102.
On the discrepancies between Dirac's theory and hydrogen spectral data in the 1930s, see
Margaret Morrison, "More on the relationship between technically good and conceptually important
experiments," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37 (1986), 101-115. Allan Franklin notes
that Dirac's theory survived the apparent refutation of N. F. Mott's prediction of the expected forward-
backward asymmetry in double scattering of electrons from heavy nuclei, because of its success in
predicting the positron and in atomic spectroscopy; "Experiment, theory choice, and the Duhem-Quine
problem," in D. Batens and J. P. van Bendegem, eds., Theory and Experiment (Boston, Reidel, 1988),
141-155. See also Franklin, Experiment, right or wrong (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990),
157 and 198-200 (the latter is a Bayesian analysis of the confirmation of Dirac's theory by the positron
discovery).
132. Pais, Inward (ref. 73), 377-388. R. Serber, "Linear Modifications in the Maxwell field
equations," PR, 48 (July 1, 1935), 49-54; "A note on Positron Theory and proper energies," PR, 48 (April
1, 1936), 545-550. W. H. Furry, "A symmetry theorem in the positron theory," PR, 51 (October 26,
1936), 125-129. V. B. Berestetskii and L. D. Landau, "On the electron-positron interaction," ZETF, 19
(1949), 673ff., translation in D. ter Haar, ed., Collected Papers of L. D. Landau (Oxford, Pergamon Press,
1965), 532-539. W. Pauli, "Relativistic field theories of elementary particles," RMP, 13 (1941), 203-232.
N. M. Kroll and W. E. Lamb, Jr., "On the self-energy of a bound electron," PR, 75 (1949), 388-398. W.
Pauli, Lectures on Physics, vol. 6, Selected topics in field quantization [based on lectures given in 1950-
51] (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1973). L. I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics, 2d ed. (New York,
McGraw-Hill,1955), 365.
Dirac & Positron/Notes
100
133. J. Schwinger, ed., Quantum Electrodynamics (New York, Dover, 1958). S. S. Schweber,
"Shelter Island, Pocono, and Oldstone: The emergence of American quantum electrodynamics after
World War II," Osiris, series 2, 2 (1986), 265-302; "Feynman and the visualization of space-time
processes," RMP, 58 (1986), 449-508. Pais, Inward (ref. 73), 447-470. M. Sachs, The field concept in
contemporary science (Springfield, IL, Thomas, 1973), 96-105.
For deduction of antiparticles from general principles see: H. J. Bhabha, "On the postulational
basis of the theory of elementary particles," RMP, 21 (1949), 451-462; J. Schwinger, "The theory of
quantized fields. I" PR, 82 (1951), 914-927; G. Lders, "TCP theorem and related problems," in E. R.
Caianiello, ed., Lectures on field theory and the many-body problem (New York, Academic Press, 1961),
1-26.
134. T. De Donder, "Sur la thorie du positron," SPNA; E. C. G. Stckelberg, "Remarque
propos de la cration de paires de particules en thorie de relativit," HPA, 14 (1941), 588-594; "La
mcanique du point matriel en thorie de relativit et en thorie des quanta," HPA, 15, No. 1 (1942), 23-
37.
Feynman's proposal was presented in "The theory of positrons," PR, 76 (1949), 749-759; here he
calls the method equivalent to hole theory. He attributed it to Wheeler in his Nobel Lecture; see "The
development of the space-time view of quantum electrodynamics," PT, 19, no. 8 (Aug. 1966), 31-44. (I
thank A. E. Levin for pointing out this reference.) Wheeler recalled in 1977 that the idea, "unbeknownst
to me, had been put forward by Stueckelberg" -- J. A. Wheeler, "Some men and moments in the history
of nuclear physics: The interplay of colleagues and motivations," in R. H. Stuewer, ed., Nuclear Physics
in Retrospect (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1979), 213-322, on 258. See also Schweber,
"Feynman and the Visualization of Space-Time Processes, RMP, 58 (1986), 460, 485, 503. For more
systematic justification of representation of positrons as electrons going backward in time, see Feynman,
"The reason for antiparticles," in R. P. Feynman and S. Weinberg, Elementary Particles and the Laws of
Physics (Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1-59. At the end of his Nobel Lecture,
Feynman remarked that the idea "was very convenient, but not strictly necessary."
Eugene Wigner was reported by Oppenheimer in 1943 to have called Feynman "a second Dirac,
only this time human," letter to R. T. Birge quoted in Smith & Weiner, Robert Oppenheimer (ref. 35),
269.
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
101
135. J. Mehra, "Dirac's contribution to the early development of quantum mechanics," in J. G.
Taylor, ed., Tributes to Paul Dirac (Philadelphia, Taylor & Francis, 1987), 63-75.
136. L. M. Brown, "Yukawa's Prediction" (ref. 15); "Hideki Yukawa and the Meson Theory,"
Physics Today, 39, no. 12 (Dec. 1986), 55-62; "Yukawa in the 1930s: A gentle Revolutionary," HSc, 36
(1989), 1-21. L. M. Brown and L. Hoddeson, "The birth of elementary-particle physics: 1930-1950," PT,
35, no. 4 (April 1982), 36-43, also in Brown & Hoddeson book cited in following note. L. M. Brown and
H. Rechenberg, "The origin of the concept of nuclear forces," in press. Brown and Rechenberg, "The
Development of the Vector Meson Theory in Britain and Japan (1937-38)," BJHS, 24 (1991), 405-433.
Cassidy, "Cosmic ray showers" (ref. 10). O. Darrigol, "The quantum electrodynamical analogy in early
nuclear theory or the roots of Yukawa's theory," Revue d'histoire des sciences, 41 (1988), 225-297. I. V.
Dorman, "History of the discovery of elementary particles in cosmic rays," Acta historiae rerum
naturalium necnon technicarum, special issue 18 (1982), 369-406; "Otkrytie mezonov," Voprosy istorii
estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, 1 (1982), 53-60. Galison, "Discovery of the muon" (ref. 85). M. F. Low,
"Accounting for science: The impact of social and political factors on Japanese elementary particle
physics," HSc, 36 (1989), 43-65. A. I. Miller, "Werner Heisenberg and the beginning of nuclear
physics," PT, 38, no. 11 (Nov. 1985), 60-68. Miller, "Imagery, metaphor, and physical reality," in
Psychology of science, contributions to metascience, ed. B. Gholson et al. (New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1989), 326-341. V. Mukherjee, "A short history of the meson theory from 1935 to
1943," Indian Journal of the History of Science, 6 (1971), 75-101, 117-134; "An historical note: The
meson mass value in the history of the Yukawa theory," ibid., 7 (1972), 146-152; "A history of the meson
theory of nuclear forces from 1935 to 1952," AHES, 13 (1974), 27-102. A. Pais, Inward Bound (ref. 73),
Chapter 17. H. Rechenberg, "Yukawa's heavy quantum and the mesotron," Centaurus, 33 (1990, pub.
1991), 214-252. Rechenberg and L. M. Brown, "On the origin of the concept of nuclear forces
(Fundamental theories of nuclear forces). IV. Yukawa's heavy quantum and the mesotron (1935-1937),"
Centaurus (in press, 1992). S. S. Schweber, "Some chapters for a history of quantum field theory" (ref.
10). J. L. Spradley, "Yukawa and the birth of meson theory," Physics Teacher, 23 (1985), 283-289;
"Particle physics in prewar Japan," American Scientist, 73 (1985), 563-569.
For an outline of the history of particle discoveries and reprints of the key experimental papers
see R. N. Cahn and G. Goldhaber, The experimental foundations of particle physics (New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
102
137. Anderson, "Early work" and "Unraveling" (ref. 24). H. A. Bethe, "Mesons and nuclear
forces," PT, 7, no. 2 (Feb. 1954) 5-11. Bowen et al., "New evidence" (ref. 24), note 7. L. M. Brown,
M. Konuma and Z. Maki, eds., Particle physics in Japan, 1930-1950, Vol. II (Kyoto, Research Institute
for Fundamental Physics, 1980). L. M. Brown and L. Hoddeson, eds., The birth of particle physics
(Cambridge,Eng., Cambridge University Press, 1983). L. M. Brown, R. Kawabe, M. Konuma, and Z.
Maki, eds., Elementary particle theory in Japan, 1935-1960 (Proceedings of the Japan-USA Collaborative
Workshops on the History of Particle Theory in Japan, 1935-1960, Japan-USA Collaboration, Second
Phase) (Kyoto, Research Institute for Fundamental Physics, 1988). B. Foster and P. H. Fowler, eds., 40
years of particle physics (Bristol, Adam Hilger, 1988). N. Kemmer, "The impact of Yukawa's meson
theory on workers in Europe -- a reminiscence," PTPS, extra no. (1965), 602-608; "Some recollections"
(ref. 83); "Isospin," in Colloque international sur l'histoire de la physique des particules (July 1982),
Supplement to Journal de physique, Colloque No. 8, Fasc. 12, 43 (1982), 359-389. J. Leite Lopes,
"Point-counterpoint in physics,: Theoretical prediction and experimental discovery of elementary
particles," FS, 6 (1984), 166-177. J. R. Oppenheimer, "Thirty years of mesons," PT, 19, no. 11 (Nov.
1966), 51-58. L. Rosenfeld, "The conception of the meson field: Some reminiscences and
epistemological comments," SPTP, 41 (1968), C1-C7. B. Rossi, Cosmic rays, (New York, McGraw-Hill,
1964); Moments in the life of a scientist (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990). Y. Sekido and
H. Elliot, eds., Early history of cosmic ray studies (Dordrecht, Reidel, 1985). M. Taketani,
"Methodological approaches in the development of the meson theory of Yukawa in Japan," SPTP, 50
(1971), 12-24; also in S. Nakayama, D. L. Swain and E. Yagi, eds., Science and society in modern Japan
(Tokyo, University of Tokyo Press, 1974), 24-38. R. H. Stuewer, ed., Nuclear Physics in Retrospect
(Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1979). C. Weiner and E. Hart, eds., Exploring the History
of Nuclear Physics (New York, American Institute of Physics, 1972). G. Wentzel, "Quantum theory of
fields (until 1947)," in M. Fierz and V. F. Weisskopf, eds., Theoretical Physics in the Twentieth Century
(New York, Interscience, 1960), 48-77. H. Yukawa, "Meson theory in its developments" (Nobel Lecture,
12 December 1949), in Nobel Lectures - Physics 1942-1962 (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1964), 128-134;
"Tabibito" (The Traveler) (Singapore, World Scientifiic, 1982).
138. D. Iwanenko, "The neutron hypothesis," Nt, 129 (May 28, 1932), 798 (submitted April 21,
1932); "Neutronen und Kernelektronen," PZSu, 1 (1932), 820-822 (received May 16, 1932); "Sur la
constitution des noyaux atomiques," CR, 195 (Aug. 17, 1932), 439-441 (read Aug. 8, 1932).
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
103
139. W. Heisenberg, "ber den Bau der Atomkerne," ZP, 77 (July 19, 1932), 1-11 (received
June 7, 1932); 78 (Sept. 21, 1932), 156-64 (received July 30, 1932); 80 (Feb. 16, 1933), 587-596
(received Dec. 22, 1932). For more detailed historical analysis see J. Bromberg, "The impact of the
neutron: Bohr and Heisenberg," HSPS, 3 (1971), 307-341; L. M. Brown, "Remarks on the history of
isospin," in K. Winter, ed., Festi-Val, Festschrift for Val Telegdi (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1988), 39-
47; L. M. Brown and H. Rechenberg, "Nuclear structure and beta decay (1932-1933)," AJP, 56 (1988),
982-988; G. Rasche, "Zur Geschichte des Begriffes 'Isospin,'" AHES, 7 (1971), 257-276.
140. For details and references see S. G. Brush, Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of
Matter (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1983), 222-226. Schrdinger gives an extensive
discussion of indistinguishability in his article "What is an elementary particle," Endeavour, 9, no. 35
(July 1950), 109-116.
141. Miller, "Heisenberg" (ref. 136), 65-66. See the discussion by L. M. Brown and A. I. Miller,
"Heisenberg and nuclear physics," PT, 39, no. 6 (June 1986), 116-118, 118-122.
142. E. Fermi, "Tentativo di una teoria dell'emissione dei raggi 'beta'," Ricerca scientifica, 4
(1933, 491-495; For historical discussion see Brown and Rechenberg, "Nuclear structure" (ref. 139);
"Quantum field theories, nuclear forces, and the cosmic rays (1934-1938)," AJP, 59 (1991), 595 On
the relation between Fermi's theory and Dirac's hole theory, see Brown, "Yukawa's Prediction of the
Meson," Centaurus, 25, Nos. 1-2 (1981), 71-132, on pp. 93-94, 109.
143. I. Tamm, "Exchange forces between neutrons and protons, and Fermi's theory," Nt, 133
(June 30, 1934), 981. D. Iwanenko, "Interaction of neutrons and protons," Nt, 133 (June 30, 1934), 981-
982. Pais, Inward Bound (ref. 73), 426. Brown, "Yukawa's prediction" (ref. 142), 129, n. 82.
144. Born Hideki Ogawa in 1907, he adopted the surname of his wife's family when he married
Sumi Yukawa in 1932, thus joining the small group of famous scientists whose names were acquired
from women (James Clerk Maxwell, Frederic Joliot-Curie, James Edward Lennard-Jones). His works
demonstrate that the Japanese are creative, contrary to the Western stereotyped view; see J.
Bartholomew, "Physics: A view of the Japanese milieu," Science, 220 (1983), 822-824.
145. Brown, "Yukawa's prediction" (ref. 142), 121-122.
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
104
146. H. Yukawa, "On the interaction of elementary particles. I," PrPMSJ, 17 (1935), 48-57
(received Nov. 30, 1934). Reprinted in PTPS, 1 (1955), 1-10; in R. T. Beyer, ed., Foundations of
Nuclear Physics (New York, 1949)139-148. Beyer's book contains an extensive bibliography on
theories of nuclear structure (pp. 226-239) and related topics.
147. Yukawa, "Interaction" (ref. 146), 53, 57.
148. Taketani, "Methodological approaches" (ref. 137), 18.
149. Rechenberg and Brown, "Origin" (ref. 136), 11.
150. T. Koga, Memoranda on Modern Physics (Pasadena, Wood and Jones, 1989), 69.
151. R. Kawabe, "Two unpublished manuscripts of Yukawa on the meson theory -- Hideki
Yukawa in 1937," in L. M. Brown et al., Elementary Particle Theory (ref. 137), 175-193.
152. At a 1969 symposium on the history of nuclear physics, historian Charles Weiner asked the
physicists whether they were enthusiastic about Yukawa's theory immediately or only after the discovery
of the muon. Weisskopf first said that he had felt immediately that it was the "wave of the future ... the
beginning of something great" but, after Serber, Bethe, and Uhlenbeck remarked that they had not been
influenced by the theory until after the discovery of the muon, Weisskopf changed his mind and
admitted: "I just cannot remember the time of Yukawa before the discovery of the meson." This
provoked a "Collective chorus: Neither can I." (Weiner and Hart, Exploring (ref. 137), 124, 128). In
1960 Wentzel recalled that Yukawa's theory was not received with immediate consent or sympathy but
two years later became the focus of universal attention; "Quantum theory" (ref. 137), 70. In his obituary
of Yukawa, Kemmer recalled that when Yukawa's paper appeared he "was completing my Ph. D. work in
Zrich with the benefit of regular interaction with G. Wentzel, W. Pauli and V. Weisskopf. I have
absolutely no memory of the paper's being given even a passing mention, either in the famous Zrich
Colloquium or in private discussion." Yet Pauli and Wentzel had "aroused considerable interest among
theorists in the West by discussing, purely as an academic exercise, the field theory of a massive charged
boson!" Kemmer, "Hideki Yukawa, 23 January 1907 -- 8 September 1981," Biographical Memoirs of
Fellows of the Royal Society of London, 29 (1983), 661-676, on 663. Bethe recalled in 1977 that in
preparing his series of review articles on nuclear physics, published in RMP in 1936 and 1937, he relied
on Stanley Livingston's card file, supposedly including all papers "relevant to nuclear physics" but
omitting Yukawa's. "So I never paid any attention to that paper and didn't even read it, until much later
when the meson was discovered. Bethe, "The happy thirties," in Stuewer, Nuclear Physics (ref. 137), 9-
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
105
note 152, continued
31, on 30.
153. The Neddermeyer-Anderson paper, usually cited as the discovery announcement, appeared
in the May 15, 1937 issue of Physical Review; taking into account the time for that issue to reach Europe,
I define "papers in the preceding 12 months" as those submitted in the period July 1, 1936 through June
30, 1937. Papers that do not mention Yukawa are: Bethe, RMP; Breit, Condon & Present, PR; Breit &
Feenberg, PR; Breit & Stehn, PR; Camp, PR; Cassen & Condon, PR; Dee & Gilbert, PR; Dmitrieff,
PZSu; Eddington, PrRS; Euler, ZP; Feenberg, PR; Fisk, Schiff & Shockley, PR; Flgge, ZP; Flgge &
Krebs, PZ; Furry, PR; Harkins & Kamen, PR; Hund, ZP; Inglis, PR; Jordan, Nw; Kahan, CR; Kahan, Pa;
Kemmer, HPA; Kemmer, Nt; March, ZP; Massey & Mohr, PrRS; Massey & Buckingham, PrRS;
Nordheim, Nordheim, Oppenheimer & Serber [!], PR; Present, PR (2); Schiff, PR; Schwinger & Teller,
PR; Share & Stehn, PR; Tamm, PZSu; Tuve, Heydenburg & Hafstad, PR; Volz, ZP; Way & Wheeler,
PR; Weisskopf, PR; Weizscker, ZP; Wentzel, ZP (2); Wheeler, PR. The two known exceptions are the
Oppenheimer-Serber [J. R. Oppenheimer & R. Serber, Note on the Nature of Cosmic-Ray Particles,
PR, 51, June 15, 1937, p. 1113, submitted June 1, 1937] and Stueckelberg [E. C. G. Stckelberg, On the
Existence of Heavy Electrons, PR, 52, July 1, 1937, pp. 41-42papers], both submitted early in June
1937. A different kind of exception is Niels Bohr, who visited Japan in the spring of 1937 and "was not
attracted" to the meson theory when told about it by Yukawa and Nishina; he asked Yukawa "Why do
you want to create such a new particle?" -- M. Taketani, "Methodological approaches in the Development
of the Meson Theory of Yukawa in Japan, PrTPS, 50, 12-24; also in S. Nakayama, D. L. Swain & E.
Yage, eds., Science and Society in Modern Japan (Tokyo, University of Tokyo Press, pp. 24-38.
154. Galison, "Discovery of the muon" (ref. 85).
155. S. H. Neddermeyer and C. D. Anderson, "Note on the nature of cosmic-ray particles," PR,
51 (May 15, 1937), 884-886 (received March 30, 1937). J. C. Street and E. C. Stevenson, "Penetrating
corpuscular component of the cosmic radiation," PR, 51 (June 1, 1937), 1005 (abstract of paper presented
at APS Washington meeting, April 29-May 1, 1937); "New evidence for the existence of a particle of
mass intermediate between the proton and electron," PR, 52 (Nov. 1, 1937), 1003-1004 (submitted
October 6, 1937). For a brief biography of Neddermeyer see R. Geballe, J. J. Lord & J. F. Streib, Seth
H. Neddermeyer, PT, 41, no. 11 (November 1988), 109.
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
106
156. Watson Davis, Science Service report, November 13, 1936, quoted by Rechenberg and
Brown, "On the Origin" (ref. 136), 14. Science Service, "Particles in cosmic rays similar to but different
from the electron," Sc, 84 (Nov. 20, 1936), Supplement, 9. Y. Nishina, M. Takeuchi, and T. Ichimiya,
"On the nature of cosmic-ray particles," PR, 52 (Dec. 1, 1937), 1198-1199 (received Aug. 28, 1937).
[For Takeuchi's recollections, which do not mention Yukawa's theory, see "Cosmic ray study in Nishina
laboratory" in Sekido and Elliot, Early history (ref. 137), pp. 137-143.] D. R. Corson and R. B. Brode,
"Evidence for a cosmic-ray particle of intermediate mass," PR, 53 (Jan. 15, 1938), 215 (abstract of paper
at Stanford APS meeting, Dec. 18, 1937); "The specific ionization and mass of cosmic-ray particles,"
PR, 53 (May 15, 1938), 773-777 (received March 25, 1938). The work of the Blackett group in London
is described by J. G. Wilson, "The 'magnet house' and the muon," in Sekido and Elliot, Early history (ref.
137), 145-160. See also the papers cited by Neddermeyer and Anderson, "Cosmic-ray particles of
intermediate mass," PR, 54 (July 1, 1938), 88-89 (submitted June 16, 1938), note 2.
157. C. D. Anderson, "Early work on the Positron and Muon," AJP, 29, (1961), 825-830, on p.
829. This contradicts the account of Max Born (among others) who wrote: "Probably the meson would
not have been discovered until some time later had its existence not been predicted before on theoretical
grounds." Born, Atomic Physics, 4th ed. (New York, Hafner, 1946), p. 45; similar statement in the 7th
ed. (1962), p. 49. It is somewhat difficult to believe that Oppenheimer (who was spending half his time
at Caltech) never mentioned Yukawa's theory to Anderson before May 1937, in the light of
Neddermeyer's recollections quoted below and Oppenheimer's earlier activities in developing positron
theory.
158. A. Pickering, "Particle Physics in its early Decades," Sc, 226 (1984), 38-39, on 39.
159. E. E. Witmer and M. A. Pomerantz, "Evidence for the Existence of a new elementary
Particle," JApP, 9 (Dec. 1938), 746-753.
160. At a conference in 1969, Robert Serber said: "People weren't used to looking at the
Japanese journals at that time. In fact, it was Oppenheimer and I who wrote a letter to the Physical
Review to point out Yukawa's contribution, and we were especially impressed because we knew about
the hard component [of cosmic rays]. It either meant that high energy electrons didn't interact in the way
they were supposed to, or else Yukawa opened up another explanation which seemed to us very
convincing at the time." When Charles Weiner asked, "How was it that you happened to be looking at
Japanese journals?" V. F. Weisskopf interjected, "That was typically Oppenheimer," alluding to
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
107
note 160, continued
Oppenheimer's well-known infatuation with Eastern culture. But Serber responded, "I don't know how it
happened. It had probably been mailed and we happened to look at it." Maurice Goldhaber got in one
more dig: "Wasn't he disappointed that it was written in English?" Weiner and Hart, Exploring (ref.
137), 128-129. In 1986 Serber told Abraham Pais that "Oppenheimer knew of Yukawa's paper because
the latter had sent him a reprint." Pais, Inward (ref. 73), 433.
161. " [...] in addition to primary electrons and perhaps (-rays which are able to produce
multiplicative showers directly, there is another cosmic-ray component, slowly absorbed, which is
responsible for the continuation of the showers under thicknesses of absorber to which no electron or
photon can itself penetrate." J. F. Carlson and J. R. Oppenheimer, "Multiplicative showers," PR, 51
(Feb. 15, 1937), 220-231 (received Dec. 8, 1936), on 231. As noted by Galison, "Discovery" (ref. 85), J.
C. Street retrospectively read this as an argument for an intermediate-mass particle, in his paper read at
the Chicago cosmic ray symposium in June 1938, published as "Cloud chamber studies of cosmic ray
showers and penetrating particles," JFI, 227 (June 1939), 765-788, on 778. Serber, "Early years" (ref.
35) also recalls that Oppenheimer had concluded at the end of 1936 that the success of shower theory
proved the validity of electron theory and "required the existence of a new type of particle in cosmic
rays" (p. 15). But if Oppenheimer really meant that, and if he already knew about Yukawa's theory as
Serber's other recollections imply, why didn't he mention it in a discussion of nuclear forces written a
month later? See G. Nordheim, L. W. Nordheim, J. R. Oppenheimer and R. Serber, "The disintegration
of high energy protons," PR, 51 (June 15, 1937), 1037-1045 (received March 22, 1937).
162. Rechenberg & Brown, "Origin" (ref. 136), 36, note 66.
163. J. R. Oppenheimer and R. Serber, "Note on the nature of cosmic-ray particles," PR, 51
(June 15, 1937), 1113 (submitted June 1, 1937). At a symposium in 1980, Serber recalled that the
conclusion of this paper was "the particles discovered by Anderson and Neddermeyer and Street and
Stevenson are those postulated by Hideki Yukawa to explain nuclear forces" and said that "a very
conscious purpose of our paper was to call attention to Yukawa's idea." Serber, "Particle physics" (ref.
35), pp. 211-212. Rechenberg and Brown suggest that Serber may have been responsible for the
rejection of Yukawa's October 1937 note by Physical Review [Kawabe, "Two unpublished manuscripts"
(ref. 151)]; see "Origin" (ref. 136), 25-27, and Brown et al., Particle Physics in Japan (ref. 137), 2, 52.
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
108
Note 163, continued
Serber reiterated his view that it is "not possible to obtain a satisfactory description of nuclear forces"
from Yukawa's theory in a paper presented at the APS Stanford meeting in December 1937, "On the
dynaton theory of nuclear forces," PR, 53 (Jan. 15, 1938), 211.
164. Brown and Hoddeson, Birth (ref. 137), 289. Historian Spencer Weart then addressed a
similar question to Satio Hayakawa about opinions in Japan, and got a similar answer.
165. Catalogue of Reprints of Scientific Papers in the Pauli Collection (Geneva, 1969), 451.
166. Kemmer, "Impact" (ref. 137), 606. Kemmer also asserted that Yukawa's paper should have
been known to any serious student since at that time it was still possible to read all the physics journals
as they came out (ibid., 604). In 1984 Kemmer told Laurie Brown that his attention had been drawn to
Yukawa's paper by a letter from Wentzel, who had been developing a theory of nuclear forces based on
the exchange of virtual particles with mass comparable to that of the proton. Rechenberg & Brown,
"Origin" (ref. 136), 20.
167. E. C. G. Stueckelberg, "On the Existence of heavy Electrons," PR, 52 (July 1, 1937), 41-42
(submitted June 6, 1937); "Austauschkrfte zwischen Elementarteilchen und Fermi'schen Theorie des -
Zerfalls als Konzequenzen einer mglichen Feldtheorie der Materie," HPA, 9 (1936), 389-404 (received
May 11, 1936). The rumor about Pauli and Stueckelberg is discussed by V. Telegdi in Weiner and Hart,
Exploring (ref. 137), 135. Stueckelberg's claim that he had anticipated Yukawa's work is disputed by
Rechenberg and Brown, "Origin" (ref. 136), 24.
168. N. Kemmer, "Nature of the nuclear field," Nt, 141 (Jan. 15, 1938), 116-117 (submitted
December 8, 1937). Cassidy, "Cosmic ray showers" (ref. 10), 26-27.
169. N. Kemmer, "Quantum theory of Einstein-Bose particles and nuclear interaction," PrRS,
A166 (May 4, 1938), 127-153 (received February 9, 1938).
170. H. Frhlich, W. Heitler, and N. Kemmer, "On the nuclear forces and the magnetic moments
of the neutron and the proton," PrRS, A166 (May 4, 1938), 154-177 (received February 1, 1938), on 155.
171. H. J. Bhabha, "Nuclear forces, heavy electrons and the -decay," Nt, 141 (Jan. 15, 1938),
117-118 (submitted December 13, 1937). He mentions his conversation with Heitler about Yukawa's
theory in note 5. (Bhabha had not mentioned Yukawa at all in a long paper on mesons submitted two
months earlier: "On the penetrating component of cosmic radiation," PrRS, 164 (January 21, 1938), 257-
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
109
note 171, continued
294 (received October 4, 1937). Heitler did not mention Yukawa in his own publications until early
1938; see Frhlich et al., "Nuclear forces" (ref. 170). In another paper Heitler uses the letter Y to denote
the meson but doesn't mention Yukawa's full name or cite his paper; see W. Heitler, "Showers produced
by the penetrating cosmic radiation," PrRS, A166 (June 16, 1938), 529-543 (received March 7, 1938).
172. "In our country just before the war the theory of relativity was not accepted by the political
power, and it was especially the dilatation of time in moving bodies, which was criticized as absurd and
pure theoretical speculation. There were even trials concerning the question of whether the theory of
relativity could be taught at Universities. In one of these discussions I could point out that the decay time
of muons should depend on their velocity; muons which move almost with the velocity of light decay
more slowly than those with smaller velocities;-- this was the prediction of the theory of relativity. The
experimental results confirmed this prediction; the dilatation of time could be observed directly and the
way was open for courses on relativity. So I felt always grateful to the muons." W. Heisenberg, "Cosmic
radiation and fundamental problems in physics," Nw, 63 (1976), 63-67, on 64.
173. Pauli, letter to Weisskopf, 13 January 1938, and postcard to Heisenberg, 22 February 1938,
both in Paulis Briefwechsel (ref. 52), 547-552.
174. Pauli, letters to Kemmer, 28 February 1938 and 5 March 1938; letters to Heisenberg, 10
March 1938, 11 April 1938; 21 April 1938; 10 May 1938, all in Paulis Briefwechsel (ref. 52), 552-574.
Letter to Kemmer, February 3, 1940, quoted in Cassidy, "Cosmic ray showers" (ref. 10), 30. He wrote a
report on meson theory for the planned (but cancelled) 1939 Solvay Congress, published as "Relativistic
field theories of elementary particles," RMP, 13 (1941), 203-232 (received May 8, 1941). His lectures at
MIT in 1944 were published as Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces (New York, 1946, 2d ed. 1948).
Several papers on meson theory published in the 1940s are reprinted in Pauli's Collected Scientific
Papers, vol. 2, 953-993, 1034-1046, 1053-1072.
175. Heisenberg to Pauli, 12 March 1938, 4 April 1938, 14 April 1938, 4 May 1938, all in
Pauli's Briefwechsel (ref. 39), 558-560, 563-564, 566, 571-572. Heisenberg wrote to Bohr in July 1937
about the "unstable 'heavy electron' that Anderson claims to have found," a discovery which Heisenberg
did not yet know whether to believe; quoted in Rechenberg and Brown, "Origin ...IV" (ref. 136), 27.
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
110
176. Heisenberg, "ber die in der Theorie der Elementarteilchen auftretende universelle Lnge,"
AP, 32 (May 1938), 20-33 (received January 14, 1938); "Die Absorption der durchdringenden
Komponente der Hhenstrahlung," AP, 33 (Dec. 1938), 594-599 (received October 11, 1938);
"Elementarteilchen und die kosmische Strahlung," VDPG, 20 (1939), 9; "Das schwere Elektron
(Mesotron) und seine Rolle in der Hhenstrahlung," AC, 52 (Jan. 7, 1939), 41-42 (presented at
colloquium in Hamburg, Dec. 1, 1938); "De atoomkern en harte samenstellung," NTN (1939), 89-98
(lecture, 27 January 1939); "Zur Theorie der explosionsartigen Schauer in der kosmische Strahlung. II"
ZP, 113 (June 16, 1939), 61-86 (received May 5, 1939); "On the theory of explosion showers in cosmic
rays," RMP, 11 (1939), 241. H. Euler and W. Heisenberg, "Theoretische Gesichtspunkte zur Deutung
der kosmische Strahlung," EeN, 17 (1938), 1-69.
177. Euler and Heisenberg, "Theoretische Gesichtspunkte" (ref. 176), 24.
178. Heisenberg, "Schwere Elektron" (ref. 176).
179. Heisenberg, "Atoomkern" (ref. 176).
180. Heisenberg, "Theorie der explosionsartigen Schauer" (ref. 176), 61.
181. "Was hltst Du eigentlich von der jetzt so modernen Yukawa-Theorie?" Letter from
Heisenberg to Born, February 9, 1938, in Bohr's Collected Works, vol. 9 (Amsterdam, 1986), 586;
translation, 587. No reply is included in this volume.
182. See Taketani's account, quoted in ref. 153. Recall that Bohr was strongly opposed to
granting particle status to the photon, even after the discovery of the Compton effect; see, e.g., Dresden,
Kramers (ref. 51).
183. Bohr, "Wirkungsquantum und Atomkern," AP, 32 (1938), 5-19 (received February 27,
1938).
184. Letter from Bohr to Millikan (date not given), in reply to Millikan's letter of September 28,
1938. R. A. Millikan, Electrons (ref. 85), 510.
185. In his letter to Ebbe Rasmussen (March 10, 1939) Bohr said that neither Rosenfeld or he
believed there is any chance that mesons could be emitted in nuclear fission; Bohr, Collected Works, 9,
633-637.
186. Rosenfeld, "Conception" (ref. 138).
187. N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission," PR, 56 (Sept. 1, 1939),
426-50 (received June 28, 1939).
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
111
188. J. A. Wheeler, "Some men and moments" (ref. 134), 255. See also his comments in Weiner
& Hart, Exploring (ref. 137), 148; he agreed with Bethe that this was an isolated opinion.
189. Smith and Weiner, Robert Oppenheimer (ref. 35), 205-206.
190. H. Yukawa, S. Sakata, and M. Taketani, "On the interaction of elementary particles. III,"
PrPMSJ, 20 (1938), 720-745 (received March 15, 1938).
191. J. G. Wilson, "Production of secondary electrons by cosmic ray particles," Nt, 142 (1938),
73 (submitted June 3, 1938). P. M. S. Blackett, "On the instability of the barytron and the temperature
effects of cosmic rays," PR, 54 (Dec. 1, 1938), 973-974 (submitted Oct. 10, 1938); "Further evidence for
the radioactive decay of mesotrons," Nt, 142 (Dec. 3, 1938), 992. P. Ehrenfest, Jr., and A. Fron,
"Dsintgration spontane des msotons, particules composant le rayonnement cosmique pntrant," CR,
207 (Nov. 7, 1938), 853-855. B. Rossi, "Further evidence for the radioactive decay of mesons," Nt, 142
(Dec. 3, 1938), 993 (submitted Nov. 4, 1938); "The disintegration of mesotrons," RMP, 11 (July-Oct.
1939), 296-303 (presented at symposium in Chicago, June 1939), and later papers; Cosmic Rays (ref.
137), 114-124. E. J. Williams and G. E. Roberts, "Evidence for transformation of mesotrons into
electrons," Nt, 145 (Jan. 20, 1940), 102-103 (submitted Dec. 21, 1939).
192. Brown and Rechenberg, "Origin" (ref. 136), 19f.
193. J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey and J. R. Zacharias, "An electric quadrupole
moment of the deuteron," PR, 55 (Feb. 1, 1939), 318-319 (submitted Jan. 15, 1939).
194. D. R. Inglis, "Angle dependence and range of nuclear forces," PR, 55 (May 15, 1939), 988
(submitted April 22, 1939). C. Moller and L. Rosenfeld, "The electric quadrupole moment of the
deuteron and the field theory of nuclear forces," Nt, 144 (Sept. 9, 1939), 476-477 (submitted July 31,
1939). R. Peierls, "The theory of nuclear forces," ARPC (1939), 24-32 (pub. 1940); "The theory of
nuclear forces," Nt, 145 (May 4, 1940), 687-690 (lectures at Royal Institution, January 1940).
195. L. Brillouin, "Individuality of elementary particles. Quantum statistics. Pauli's Principle," in
NTP, 119-156. Brillouin's paper was followed by a discussion of the meson and nuclear force theory in
which Klein, Gamow, Destouches, Goudsmit and Wigner participated.
196. W. Heitler, "Cosmic rays," RPP, 5 (1938), 361-389 (published 1939).
197. C. Moller, L. Rosenfeld, and S. Rozental, "Connexion between the life-time of the meson
and the beta-decay of light elements," Nt, 144 (Oct. 7, 1939), 629 (submitted Aug. 11, 1939).
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
112
198. M. Nahmias, "mission probable de msotrons dans certaines catastrophes nuclaires," CR,
208 (Jan. 30, 1939), 339-340.
199. R. F. Peierls, "The mesotron," ARPC (1938), 16-21 (pub. 1939).
200. R. Peierls, "The theory of nuclear forces," ARPC (1939), 24-32 (pub. 1940).
201. R. Peierls, "The theory of nuclear forces," Nt, 145 (May 4, 1940), 687-690 (lectures at the
Royal Institution, London, January 1940).
202. A. H. Wilson, "The binding energies of the hydrogen isotopes," PrCPS, 34 (July 1938),
365-374 (received April 4, 1938).
203. R. Peierls, "The meson," RPP, 6 (1939), 78-94.
204. H. Yukawa, "On a possible interpretation of the penetrating component of the cosmic ray,"
PrPMSJ, 19 (1937), 712-713 (received July 5, 1937), p. 713.
205. S. H. Neddermeyer, "The penetrating cosmic-ray particles," PR 53 (Jan. 1, 1938), 102-103
(submitted Dec. 14, 1937). S. H. Neddermeyer and C. D. Anderson, "Cosmic- ray particles" (ref. 156).
206. C. D. Anderson and S. H. Neddermeyer, "Mesotron (intermediate particle) as a name for
the new particles of intermediate mass," Nt, 142 (Nov. 12, 1938), 878 (submitted Sept. 30, 1938).
207. S. H. Neddermeyer and C. D. Anderson, "Nature of cosmic-ray particles," RMP, 11 (July-
Oct. 1939), 191-207.
208. For the previous year, see ref. 153.
First year: Bethe & Critchfield, PR; Breit & Wigner, PR; Feenberg, PR; Gamow, NTP; Hafstad,
Heydenburg & Tuve, PR; Heisenberg, NC; Hund, PZ; Hylleraas, ZP; Kapur, PrRS; Kay & Basu, PM;
Kemmer, PR; Margenau & Warren, PR; Margenau & Tyrrell, PR; Marshak & Bethe, PR; Massey &
Mohr, PrCPS; Ochai, PR; Primakoff, PR; Sen, IJP; Siegert, PR; Stueckelberg, HPA; Warren &
Margenau, PR.
Second year: Kay & Basu, PM; Libby & Long, PR; Margenau & Carroll, PR; Margenau, PR;
Rarita & Slawsky, PR; Schwinger, PR; Tyrell, Carroll & Margenau, PR; Tyrell, PR; Watanabe, ZP; Way,
PR.
Third year: Creutz, PR; Critchfield, PR; Fuchs, PrRS; Motz & Schwinger, PR; Thaxton &
Hoisington, PR; Thaxton & Monroe, PR; Wigner, Critchfield & Teller, PR.
209. First year: Bethe, PR; Bhabha, Nt; Bhabha, PrRS; Born, PrRS; Brillouin, NTP; Euler &
Heisenberg, EeN; Frhlich, Heitler & Kemmer, PrRS; Heisenberg, AP; Kemmer, Nt; Kemmer, PrRS;
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
113
note 208, continued
Kemmer, PrCPS; Klein, NTP; Lamb & Schiff, PR; Nordheim & Teller, PR; Nordheim & Nordheim, PR;
Primakoff, PR; Sachs & Goeppert-Mayer, PR; Serber, PR; Stueckelberg, HPA (2); Tamm, CR URSS;
Tamm, PR; Wentzel, Nw; Wheeler, PR; A. H. Wilson, PrCPS; Yukawa, PrPMSJ; Yukawa & Sakata,
PrPMSJ; Yukawa, Sakata & Taketani, PrPMSJ. Note that I am including Serber in this list even though
he concluded that the Yukawa theory is not a satisfactory explanation of nuclear forces (ref. 223).
Likewise Tamm wrote: "Youkawa's [sic] hypothesis of a spinless heavy electron seems to lead to
difficulties and will not be considered by us." I. Tamm, "The penetrating cosmic rays particles and the
nuclear forces," CR URSS, 19 (April/June, 1938), 475-478 (received April 20, 1938), and a similar
statement in his "The transmutations of the cosmic-ray electrons and the nuclear forces," PR, 53 (June
15, 1938), 1016-1017 (submitted May 3, 1938), citing Serber's Stanford paper.
Second year: Bagge, AP; Bhabha, PrRS; Breit, Thaxton & Eisenbud, PR; Christy & Kusaka, PR;
Fierz, HPA; Flgge, ZP; Frhlich, Heitler & Kahn, PrRS; Ghniau, CR; Heisenberg, AP; Heisenberg,
NTN; Heitler, RPP; Inglis, PR; Iwanenko, Nt; Kobayasi & Okayama, PrPMSJ; Laporte, PR; Johnson,
JWAS; Kemmer, PrRS; Massey & Corben, PrCPS; Moller, Nt; Moller & Rosenfeld, Nt; Nahmias, CR;
Neddermeyer & Anderson, RMP; Peierls, ARPC; Peierls, RPP; Primakoff & Holstein, PR; Proca &
Goudsmit, CR; Sakata & Tanikawa, PrPMSJ; Stueckelberg, PR; Stueckelberg, CR; Stueckelberg & Patry,
HPA; Watanabe, ZP; Wick, Nt; Yukawa & Sakata, Nt; Yukawa, Sakata, Kobayasi & Taketani, PrPMSJ.
Third year: Belinfante, Pa (2); Bethe, PR; Bhabha, Carmichael & Chou, PrIAS; Grnblum, PR;
Heitler, Nt; Jnossy, PrCPS; Kemmer, PrRS; Moller & Rosenfeld, KDVSMFM; Peierls, Nt; Peierls,
ARPC; Richtmyer, PR; Sakata & Tanikawa, PR; Schnberg, PR; Serber, PR; Wentzel, HPA.
210. Previous year: none.
First year: Durandin & Erschow, PZSu; Frhlich & Heitler, Nt.
Second year: Bethe, PR; Bhabha, Nt; Breit, Hoisington, Share & Thaxton, PR; Inglis, PR; Proca,
CR; Stueckelberg, Nt; Taub, PR.
Third year: Bethe, PR; Bose & Chowdhry, Nt; Breit, Kittel & Thaxton, PR; Brown & Plesset,
PR; Critchfield & Lamb, PR; Frhlch, Heitler & Kahn, PR; Hoisington, Share & Breit, PR; Inglis, PR;
Kittel, PR; Lamb, PR (2); Marshak, PR; Miyazima, PrPMSJ; Moller & Rosenfeld, Nt; Rose, PR; Schiff,
Snider & Weinberg, PR; Solomon, CR (2); Swann & Ramsey, PR; Wigner, PR; A. H. Wilson & Booth,
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
114
note 210, continued
Nt; J. G. Wilson, PrRS.
211. Previous year: Neddermeyer & Anderson, PR; Street & Stevenson, PR.
First year: Anderson & Neddermeyer, PR; Auger, CR; Auger, Maze & Grivet-Meyer, CR;
Barnthy & Forr, PR; Bhabha, PrRS; Blackett, PrRS; Blackett & Wilson, PrRS; Corson & Brode, PR
(2); Destouches, CR (2); Ehrenfest, CR; Freeman, PR; Frhlich & Heitler, Nt [!]; Jauncey, PR (2);
Langer, PR; Neddermeyer, PR;Nishinia, Takeuchi & Ichimiya, PR; Ruhlig & Crane, PR; Street &
Stevenson, PR; Street, JFI [pub. 1939]; Swann, PR; Veksler & Dobrotin, CR URSS; Williams, PR;
Williams & Pickup, Nt; J. G. Wilson, PrRS; J. G. Wilson, Nt; V. C. Wilson, PR.
Second year: Anderson & Neddermeyer, Nt; Blackett, PR; Blackett, Nt; Blackett, RMP; Bruins,
PrKNAW; Clay & Duverg, Pa; Clay, Jonker & Wiersma, Pa; Clay & Gemert, Pa; Clay, Gemert & Clay,
Pa; Ehmert, ZP; Jones, RMP; Lovell, PrRS; Maier-Leibnitz, ZP; Montgomery, Ramsey, Cowie &
Montgomery, PR; Schein & Wilson, PR; Schein & Wilson, RMP; Schmeiser, ZP; Takeuchi & Ogawa,
PrPMSJ; Trumpy, ZP; Weisz, PR; Williams, PrRS; Wilson, PR; Witmer & Pomerantz, JApP.
Third year: Ageno, Bernardini, Cacciapuoti, Ferretti & Wick, PR; Auger & Daudin, CR; Bose &
Chowdhry, Nt; Braddick & Hensby, Nt; Bruins, PrKNAW; Dymond, Nt; Ehmert, ZP; Freeman, Nt;
Kothari, Nt; Migdal & Pomeranchuk, PR; C. G. Montgomery, Ramsey, Cowie & D. D. Montgomery,
PR; Nielson, Ryerson, Nordheim & Morgan, PR; Rossi, PR; Rossi, Hilberry & Hoag, PR (2); Schein,
Jesse & Wollan, PR; Schein, Jesse, & Wollan, PR; Swann & Ramsey, PR (2); Williams & Evans, Nt;
Williams, PrCPS.
212. First year: Arnot, PR; Beck, Nt; Bethe, PR; Bhabha, Nt; Corben, Nt; Kemmer, Nt;
Kemmer, PrRS; Klein, NTP; Nordheim & Teller, PR; G. Nordheim & L. W. Nordheim, PR;
Oppenheimer & Serber, PR; Serber, PR; Tamm, CR URSS; Tamm, PR; Wentzel, Nw; Yukawa, PrPMSJ;
Yukawa & Sakata, PrPMSJ; Yukawa, Sakata & Taketani, PrPMSJ.
Second year: Blackett, Nt; Bothe, RMP; Ehrenfest & Fron, CR; Euler, ZP; Heisenberg, VDPG;
Heisenberg, AC; Heisenberg, AP; Heisenberg, ZP; Heisenberg, RMP; Heitler, RPP; Johnson, JWAS;
Johnson & Pomerantz, PR; Jorsan, ZP; Kohlhrster & Matthes, PZ; Majumdar & Kothari, Nt; Nahmias,
CR; Neddermeyer & Anderson, RMP; Nishina, Takeuchi & Ichimiya, PR; Nordheim, PR; Peierls, ARPC;
Peierls, RPP; Rossi, Nt; Rossi, RMP; Wentzel, PR; Yukawa & Sakata, Nt; Yukawa, Sakata, Kobayasi &
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
115
Note 212, contin ued
Taketani, PrPMSJ.
Third year: Barnthy, ZP; Bethe, PR; Bethe & Nordheim, PR; Eddington, PrRS; Kapur, Nt;
Moller & Rosenfeld, KDVSMFM; Moller, Rosenfeld & Rozental, Nt; Nordheim & Hebb, PR; Nordheim,
PR; Oppenheimer, Snyder & Serber, PR; Peierls, ARPC; Pomerantz, PR; Williams & Roberts, Nt. I
include Eddington's paper although he states that mesons have no connection with Yukawa's particles.
213. Columns do not sum to "total" since several papers mention both nuclear forces and
mesons.
214. H. J. Bhabha, H. Carmichael and C. N. Chou, "Production of bursts and the spin of the
meson," PrInAS, A10 (Oct. 1939), 221-223 (read Oct. 5, 1939). L. Landau and I. Tamm, "On the nature
of the nuclear forces," PR, 58 (Dec. 1, 1940), 1006 (submitted Sept. 25, 1940).
215. H. A. Bethe and L. W. Nordheim, "On the theory of meson decay," PR, 57 (1940), 998-
1006 (received April 1, 1940). Moller, Rosenfeld & Rosenthal, "Connexion" (ref. 197).
216. R. E. Peierls, "Theory of nuclear forces" (ref. 200); "Theory of nuclear forces" (ref. 201).
A. Eddington, "The masses of the neutron and mesotron," PrRS, A174 (Jan. 12, 1940), 41-49 (received
Oct. 10, 1939). Mukherji, "History" (ref. 136), 49-50.
217. R. Peierls, "Theory of nuclear forces" (ref. 200), 31. C. G. Montgomery, W. E. Ramsey, D.
B. Cowie, and D. D. Montgomery, "Slow mesons in the cosmic radiation," PR, 56 (Oct. 1, 1939), 635-
639 (received August 9, 1939).
218. E. J. Williams and G. E. Roberts, "Evidence for the transformation of mesotrons into
electrons," Nt, 145 (Jan. 20, 1940), 102-103 (submitted Dec. 21, 1939), 102.
219. G. Breit, C. Kittel, and H. M. Thaxton, "Note on p-wave anomalies in proton-proton
scattering," PR, 57 (Feb. 15, 1940), 255-259 (received Dec. 12, 1939). L. E. Hoisington, S. S. Share, and
G. Breit, "Effects of shape of potential energy wells detectable by experiments on proton-proton
scattering," PR, 56 (Nov. 1, 1939(, 884-890 (received Sept. 5, 1939). R. E. Marshak, "Heavy electron
pair theory of nuclear forces," PR, 57 (June 15, 1940), 1101-1106. C. G. Montgomery, W. E. Ramsey,
D. B. Cowie, and D. D. Montgomery, "Slow mesons in the cosmic radiation," PR, 56 (Oct. 1, 1939), 635-
639.
220. C. F. Powell, "Mesons," RPP, 13 (1950), 350-424, on 353.
Nuclear Forces & The Meson/Notes
116
221. Heitler, "Personal recollections of early theoretical cosmic ray work" in Sekido & Elliot,
Early History (ref. 137), 209-211. J. N. Snyder, "On the changing status of mesons," AJP, 18 (1950),
41-49, phrase quoted from p. 44. H. A. Bethe, "Mesons" (ref. 202). W. O. Lock, "Origins and early
days of the Bristol school of cosmic-ray physics," EJP, 11 (1990), 193-202. L. Alvarez, "Recent
developments in particle physics," Sc, 165 (Sept. 12, 1969), 1071-1091 (Nobel Lecture, Jan. 1969).
222. R. E. Marshak, "Scientific and sociological contributions of the first decade of the
"Rochester" conferences to the restructuring of particle physics (1950-1960)," in M. de Maria et al., eds.,
Restructing (ref. 14), 745-786, on 747. Despite the fact that the existence of the meson was first
predicted theoretically and that some initial successes were obtained with meson theory, the theory has,
in effect, stagnated in recent years due to [the lack of] a deeper understanding of the fundamental
problems involved W. O. Lock and H. Muirhead, Mesons, Experientia, 7 (1951), 321-336, on p.
336.
223. H. Yukawa, "Meson theory in its Developments" (Nobel Lecture, 12 December 1949), in
Nobel Lectures - Physics 1942-1962 (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1964), 128-134, on p. 131; H. Yukawa,
"Introductory remarks on meson theory," RMP, 29 (April 1957), 213-215, on 214.
224. R. F. Deery and S. H. Neddermeyer, "Cloud-chamber study of hard collisions of cosmic-ray
muons with electrons," PR, 121 (March 15, 1961), 1803-1814 (received Nov. 1, 1960), "Appendix" by
Neddermeyer, 1814. This comment was provoked by "a curious and misleading statement by Marshak":
"One of the most surprising developments in the field of meson physics during the past few years has
been the dethroning of the : meson ... from its former exalted position of supreme interest for an
understanding of nuclear forces and cosmic-ray phenomena to its present subsidiary position with hardly
any apparent reason for existing at all." R. E. Marshak, Meson Physics (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1952),
202.
225. [...] From mesons all manner of forces you get/ The infinite part you simply forget/ The
divergence is large, the divergence is small/In the mesin field quanta there is no sense at all/ What, no
sense at all?/ No, no sense at all/ Or, if there is some sense/ Its exceedingly small The Meson Song
(Solvay version) by Dr. And Mrs. H. C. Childs, Dr. and Mrs. R. Marshak, Dr. And Mrs. R. L. McCreary,
Dr. And Mrs. J. B. Platt, Dr. and Mrs. S. N. Voorhis, and G. E. Valley, sung by Edward Teller at the 8
th
Solvay Conference in 1948. In Les Particules Elementaires, Rapports et Discussions, Huitieme Conseil
de Physique, 1948, (Bruxelles, Stoops, 1950, p. 382.
Omega Minus/Notes
113
226. C. M. G. Lattes, H. Muirhead, G. P. S. Occhialini, and C. F. Powell, "Processes involving
charged Mesons," Nt, 159 (1947), 694. The event subsequently attributed to a B meson was first noticed
by a scanner, Marietta Kurz, who is not credited in the paper; see C. M. G. Lattes, "My work in meson
physics with nuclear emulsions," in Brown & Hoddeson, Birth (ref. 137), 307-310; Lock, "Origins" (ref.
221), 196.
227. H. Bethe, "What holds the nucleus together," ScA, 189, no. 3 (Sept. 1953), 58-63. R. E.
Marshak, "Pions" ScA, 196, no. 1 (Jan. 1957), 84-92. Powell, "Cosmic radiation" in Nobel Lectures --
Physics, 1942-1962 (Amsterdam, Elsevier,1964), 144-157 (delivered Dec. 11, 1950)' "Mesons," RPP, 13
(1950), 350-424. G. Wentzel, "Nuclear saturation phenomena deducible from pair theories," PTP, 5
(July-Aug. 1950), 584. L. Rosenfeld, "Problems of nuclear forces," in Les particules elementaires
(Huitime Conseil de Physique Solvay, 1948) (Bruxelles, Stoops, 1950), 181, 184; Rosenfeld, "Meson
fields and nuclear forces," PrTP, 5 (1950), 519-522. H. L. Friedman and J. Rainwater, "Experimental
search for the beta-decay of the B meson," PR, 84 (Nov. 15, 1951), 684-690 (received July 30, 1951).
+
228. I. Waller, "Physics 1949" in Nobel Lectures -- Physics, 1942-1962 (Amsterdam, Elsevier,
1964), 125-127, on 126 and 127 (presentation speech, December 12, 1949).
229. H. A. Bethe and F. De Hoffman, Mesons and Fields, vol. II, Mesons (Ervanston, IL, Row,
Peterson, )1955, pp. 303, 309; M. Moravcsik, The Two-nucleon interaction (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1963), 75; letter to J. T. Cushing, 16 December 1985, quoted in Cushing, Theory Construction and
selection in modern physics: The S matrix (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 279-280.
A. Pais, discussion remark in Brown & Hoddeson, Birth of Particle Physics (ref. 137), 291. S. Weinberg,
Discovery of subatomic particles (New York, Freeman, 1984), 165.
230. D. C. Fries and B. Zeitnitz, eds., Quarks and nuclear forces (Berlin, Springer-Verlag,1982).
D. H. Perkins, "The birth of pion physics," in de Maria et al., Restructuring (ref. 14), 585-603, on 601.
231. P. T. Matthews, The nuclear apple (New York, St. Martins Press, 1971), p. 103. A
particle physicist at the University of Maryland remarks: "This seems a gross exaggeration now"
(private communication). Several popular and reasonably accurate accounts are available, e.g.,
Y. Ne'eman and Y. Kirsh, The particle hunters (New York, Cambridge University Press,1986),
chap. 9; R. P. Crease and C. C. Mann, The second creation (New York, Macmillan, 1986), Part
IV; J. Bernstein, The tenth dimension, An informal history of high energy physics (New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1989), Chap. 4. The race between the Brookhaven and CERN groups to discover
Omega Minus/Notes
114
note 231, continued
the predicted particle is described by J. Gaston, Originality and competition in science (Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 83-88.
232. M. Gell-Mann, discussion remark at the session on "Strange particle physics. Strong
interactions II," July 10, 1962, in J. Prentki, ed., Proceedings of the International Conference on
High Energy Physics at CERN, Geneva, 4th-11th July 1962 (Geneva, CERN, 1962), p. 805. The
general theory on which the prediction was based was presented by Gell-Mann in an unpublished
but widely-circulated report, The Eightfold Way (California Institute of Technology Laboratory
Report CTSL-20 (Pasadena, 1961) and by Y. Ne'eman, "Derivation of strong interactions from a
gauge invariance," NP, 26 (1961), 222-229, received February 13, 1961; see also S. Okubo,
"Note on unitary symmetry in strong interactions," PTP, 27 (1962), 949-966, received December
6, 1961. The discovery of S was reported by V. E. Barnes, P. L. Connolly, D. J. Crennell, B. B.
-
Culwick, W. C. Delaney, W. B. Fowler, P. E. Hagerty, E. L. Hart, N. Horwitz, P. V. C. Hough, J.
E. Jensen, J. K. Kopp, K. W. Lai, J. Leitner, G. W. London, T. W. Morris, Y. Oren, R. B.
Palmer, A. G. Prodell, D. Radojicic, D. C. Rahm, C. R. Richardson, N. P. Samios, J. R. Sanford,
R. P. Shutt, J. R. Smith, D. L. Stonehill, R. C. Strand, A. M. Thorndike, M. S. Webster, W. J.
Willis, and S. S. Yamamoto, "Observation of a hyperon with strangeness minus three," PRL, 12
(February 24, 1964), 204-206, received February 11, 1964. All of these papers are reprinted in
M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne'eman, eds., The Eightfold Way (New York, Benjamin,1964), with
separate introductory comments by each editor. For a brief biography of Gell-Mann see J.
Horgan, Profile: Murray Gell-Mann, ScA, 266, no. 3 (march 1992), 30-32. Ne'eman intended
to announce the same prediction at the 1962 meeting, but Gell-Mann was recognized first by the
chairman (Ne'eman, "Patterns, structure, and then dynamics: Discovering unitary symmetry and
conceiving quarks," PrIsASH, 21 (1983), 1-26; G. Goldhaber, The Encounter on the Bus, in E.
Gotsman & G. Tauber (eds.), From SU(3) to Gravity (Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge University
Press, 1985). According to Crease and Mann, Second Creation (ref. 231), pp. 272-273, the
chairman, Yoshio Yamaguchi, was an "ardent proponent of the Sakata model" and refused to
recognize Ne'eman because he thought Ne'eman was going to talk about a rival model.
Omega Minus/Notes
115
233. J. M. Charap, R. B. Jones, and P. G. Williams, "Unitary symmetry," RPP, 30
(1967), 227-283, pp. 228, 254. M. S. Livingston, Particle physics: The high-energy frontier
(New York, McGraw-Hill, 1968), p. 128. A. Pais, Inward (ref. 73), p. 566. B. Falkenburg, "The
unifying role of symmetry principles in particle physics, Ratio, n.s., 1 (1988), 113-134.
234. A. Pickering, Constructing Quarks (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1984).
Crease and Mann, Second Creation (ref. 231). M. Riordan, The Discovery of Quarks, Sc, 256
(May 29, 1992), 1287-1293.
235. Gell-Mann, discussion remark (ref. 232).
236. Okubo, "Note on unitary symmetry" (ref. 232).
237. Y. Eisenberg, "Possible existence of a new hyperon," PR, 96 (1954), 541-543. W.
F. Fry, J. Schneps, and M. S. Swami, "K-mesonic decay of a slow secondary particle," PR, 97
(1955), 1189-1190"; "Further evidence for the existence of a heavy K-meson or heavy hyperon,"
NC, 2 (1955), 346-347. L. W. Alvarez, "Certification of three old cosmic-ray events as S decays
-
and interactions," PR, D8 (1973), 702-711.
238. R. J. Oakes and C. N. Yang, "Meson-baryon resonances and the mass formula,"
PRL, 11 (15 Aug. 1963), 174-178 (recd. July 15, 1963). I thank G. Snow for this reference.
239. V. E. Barnes et al. (presented by N. P. Samios), "The S: Production and mass," in
-
Ya. A. Smorodinsky et al., eds., XII International Conference on High Energy Physics, Dubna,
August 5-15, 1964 (Moscow, Atomizdat, 1966), 1, 665-667.
240. L. W. Alvarez, "Recent developments" (ref. 221). A. Barbaro-Galtieri, "Baryon
resonances," APP, 2 (1968), 175-381, on 368. J. Bernstein, Tenth Dimension (ref. 231), p. 73.
Cahn and Goldhaber, Experimental foundations (ref. 136), 116-117. W. F. Frazer, Elementary
particles (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1966), p. 97. S. Gasiorowicz, Elementary
particle physics (New York, Wiley, 1966), pp. 288, 309. Glashow and Bova, Interactions (ref.
4), p. 174. R. Gouiran, Particles and accelerators (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967), 164 [this
author uses "prediction" in both senses in the same paragraph]. D. B. Lichtenberg, The strongly
interacting particles: An introduction to some recent developments (New York, City College,
1965), p. 81; Lectures on unitary symmetry and elementary particles (Lincoln, Neb., Department
Omega Minus/Notes
116
note 240, continued
of Physics, University of Nebraska, 1965), p. 75. S. J. Lindenbaum, Particle interaction physics
at high energies (New York, Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 270. H. J. Lipkin, "Symmetries
and resonances (theoretical)," in M. Bander and G. L. Shaw, eds., Particle Physics, 30-66 (New
York, American Institute of Physics, 1972), p. 58. D. H. Miller, "The elementary particles with
strong interactions," HEP, 4 (1969), 1-236, on 92. A. Pais, "Particles," PT, 21, no. 5 (May
1968), 24-28. J. J. Sakurai, Currents and mesons (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1969),
p. 5. L. Ryder, Elementary Particles and Symmetries (New York, Gordon & Breach, 1975), 186.
241. J. Bernstein, Elementary particles and their currents (San Francisco, Freeman,
1968), pp. xi, 237. N. Brene and B. Hellesen, Lectures on the application of unitary groups in
particle physics with particular emphasis on SU6 (Copenhagen, NORDITA, 1965), 1. R. H.
Dalitz, "Hadron spectroscopy," in S. Pakvasa and S. F. Tuan, eds., Proceedings of the Second
Hawaii Topical Conference in Particle Physics (1967) (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press,
1968), 325-465, on pp. 329, 336. F. E. Low, "Symmetries and elementary particles," in M.
Chretien and S. Deser, eds., Particle symmetries and axiomatic field theory (New York, Gordon
& Breach, 1966), 2, 473-593, on p. 572. J. L. Rosner, "The classification and decays of resonant
particles," PRp, 11c (1974), 189-326, on 215. B. Sakita, "Higher symmetries of hadrons," APP,
1 (1968), 219-294, on 240. N. P. Samios, M. Goldberg, and B. T. Meadows, "Hadrons and
SU(3): A critical review," RMP, 46 (1974), 49-81.
242. D. B. Lichtenberg, "Spectroscopy of the strongly interacting particles," in S. Deser
and K. W. Ford, eds., Lectures on particles and field theory, Brandeis Summer Institute in
Theoretical Physics, 1964 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1965), 2, 77-143, on 135. J. L.
Emmerson, Symmetry principles in particle physics (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 129.
243. W. B. Fowler and N. P. Samios, "The omega-minus experiment," ScA, 211, no. 4
(Oct. 1964), 36-45, on 39.
Omega Minus/Notes
117
3
244. S. Meshkov, G. A. Snow, and G. B. Yodh, "Comparison of a new SU prediction
with experiment," PRL, 12 (1964), 87-92. One of the authors, Snow, says that he regards novel
predictions as somewhat more important than non-novel ones even though the word prediction
may be used in both cases (private communication).
245. "I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favour of Plato. In fact these
smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which
can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language" -- W. Heisenberg, Natural law
and the structure of matter (London, Rebel Press, 1970), pp. 32-33. (Lecture given in Athens,
1964).
246. S. Sakata, "On a composite model for the new particles," PTP, 16 (1956), 686-688.
Brown et al., eds., Elementary Particle Theory (ref. 137), 11-14, 85-147. Y. Kaneseki, "The
elementary particle theory group (1950)," in Nakayama et al., eds. Science (ref. 137), 221-252. Z.
Maki, "The development of elementary particle theory in Japan -- Methodological aspects of the
formation of the Sakata and Nagoya models," HSc, 36 (1989), 83-95. S. Hirokawa and S.
Ogawa, "Shichi Sakata -- His physics and methodology," HSc, 36 (1989), 67-81. Ne'eman and
Kirsh, Particle Hunters (ref. 6), 195, note that this is a generalization of a proposal by E. Fermi
and C. N. Yang in 1949, to regard the B mesons as composed of nucleons and anti-nucleons.
247. Y. Ne'eman, "Concrete versus abstract theoretical models," in Y. Elkana, ed., The
Interaction between science and philosophy (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, Humanities Press, 1974), 1-
25, on p. 15. S. Sakata, "Theory of elementary particles and philosophy," PrTPS, 50 (1971), 199-
207, translated from Kagaku, 35 (1965), 202-205.
248. Sakata, "Theory" (ref. 247), p. 205. See also Z. Maki, Y. Ohnuki and S. Sakata,
"Remarks on a new concept of elementary particles and the method of the composite model,"
PrTPS (1965), 406-415.
249. Sakata, "Theory" (ref. 247), p. 204. Maki et al., "Remarks" (ref. 248). The
prediction was published by M. Ikeda, S. Ogawa, and Y. Ohnuki, "A possible symmetry in
Sakata's model for bosons-baryons systems," PTP, 22 (1959), 715-724. Some physicists did give
credit to the Sakata model: A. Salam, "Symmetry of strong interactions," XII International
Omega Minus/Notes
118
note 249, continued
Conference on High Energy Physics, Dubna, August 1964 (Moscow, Atomizdat,1966), 799-812;
P. T. Matthews, "Unitary symmetry," HEP, 1 (1967), 391-481, on p. 412; Gasiorowicz,
Elementary particle physics (ref. 240), p. 276. The report of the discovery of the eta meson says
"many authors have speculated on the existence" of such a particle but does not include Ikeda et
al. (1959) in the list of references; see A. Pevsner, R. Kraemer, M. Nussbaum, C. Richardson, P.
Schlein, R. Strand, T. Toohig, M. Block, A. Engler, R. Gessaroli, and C. Meltzer, "Evidence for
a three-pion resonance near 550 MeV," PRL, 7 (1961), 421-423. Crease and Mann say that this
failure to mention Ikeda et al. is "a sign of the lack of favor met by Sakata's school" -- Second
Creation (ref. 231), 448. Other physicists came to regard the eta meson as a successful prediction
of the Eightfold Way: H. Pilkun, The Interactions of Hadrons (New York, Wiley, 1967), p. 134;
M. J. Longo, Fundamentals of elementary Particle Physics (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1973),
175; Frazer, Elementary particles (ref. 240), p. 93. The citation for the award of the Nobel Prize
to Gell-Mann stated that the existence of the eta meson was "suspected already by some of the
Japanese physicists" but nevertheless its discovery "strongly supported" Gell-Mann's theory -- I.
Waller, "Physics 1969," in Nobel Lectures -- Physics 1963-1970 (Amsterdam, Elsevier 1972),
295-298, on 297.
250. R. H. Dalitz, "Quark models for the 'elementary particles'," in C. DeWitt and M.
Jacob, eds., Physique des hautes energies -- High energy physics (New York, Gordon & Breach,
1965), 251-323, on 258. Charap et al., "Unitary symmetry" (ref. 233), 253. Ya. B. Zeldovich,
"Quarks," AER, 5, no. 2 (1967), 3-58, on 12-13. Gasiorowicz, Elementary particle physics (ref.
240), 276.
Only a handful of physicists maintain that the quark model retrospectively validates
Sakata's approach; see for example, A. N. Mitra, "Phenomenological hadron couplings," in H. H.
Aly, ed., Lectures on particles and fields (New York, Gordon & Breach, 1970), 125-211, on 130.
Omega Minus/Notes
119
251. V. F. Weisskopf, "The place of elementary particle research in the development of
modern physics," PT, 16, no. 6 (June 1963), 26-34, on 32. M. De Maria and B. Taglienti,
"Meson-baryon scattering: Corrections to the bootstrap pole approximations," NC, 42A (1966),
1012-1014. L. Ryder, Elementary particles (ref. 240), 188.
252. R. Omns, Introduction to particle physics (New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1971),
pp. 336-337.
253. M. Gell-Mann, "A schematic model of baryons and mesons," PL, 8 (1964), 214-
215. Gell-Mann here attributes the word to James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake (New York, Viking
Press, 1939), 383. The entry "Quark" in the Oxford English Dictionary, ed. J. A. Simpson and E.
S. C. Weiner, 2nd ed., 12 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989), 984, quotes a 1978 letter from Gell-
Mann and gives several other citations. Crease & Mann, Second Creation (ref. 231), 280-285.
E. L. Epstein, letter to editor, ScA, 219, no. 1 (July 1968), 8. "Quark" means "curd" or "turd" in
German; it may also refer to the cry of a bird, interpreted as "bombs away!" -- Crease & Mann,
Second Creation (ref. 231), 280.
254. B. H. Bransden, D. Evans, and J. V. Major, The fundamental particles (New York,
Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1973), 155-160. H. Fritzsch, Quarks: The stuff of matter (New York,
Basic Books, 1983), 99-100. Matthews, Nuclear Apple (ref. 231). D. Park, Introduction to
strong interactions (New York, Benjamin, 1966), 237-238. P. A. Rowlatt, Group theory and
elementary particles (New York, 1966), ix. V. F. Weisskopf, "Quantum theory and elementary
particles," HEP, 1 (1967), 1-19, on 13.
255. M. L. Perl et al., Physics through the 1990s: Elementary-particle physics
(Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1986), 50.
256. Crease & Mann, Second Creation (ref. 231), 293-409. J. L. Rosner, "Resource
Letter NP-1: New Particles," AJP, 48 (1980), 90-103; Rosner, ed., New Particles: Selected
Reprints (Stony Brook, NY, American Association of Physics Teachers, 1981). Hovis and
Kragh, "Resource Letter" (ref. 10).
257. K. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London, Hutchinson, 1959), pp.
251f, 387f.
Omega Minus/Notes
120
258. K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (New York, Basic Books, 1962), p. 243.