Elementary particles

References

1. 1. J. J. Thomson, Phil. Mag. 46, 528 (1898). https://doi.org/PHMAA4
   An interesting and personal account of this discovery was given by Thomson in his book Recollections and Reflections (G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1936).

2. 2. A. Einstein, Ann. phys. 17, 132 (1905).https://doi.org/ANPYA2

3. 3. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A126, 360 (1929).

4. 4. J. R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev. 35, 562 (1930).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

5. 5. H. Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik (1931), 2nd ed., p. 234.

6. 6. I. Tamm, Z. Physik 62, 545 (1930). https://doi.org/ZEPYAA
   See also P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 26, 361 (1930); https://doi.org/PCPSA4
   P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A133, 60 (1931).

7. 7. C. D. Anderson, Science 76, 238 (1932); https://doi.org/SCIEAS
   C. D. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 43, 491 (1933). https://doi.org/PHRVAO
   Compare also Blackett and Occhialini, Proc. Roy. Soc. A139, 699 (1933).

8. 8. J. Chadwick, Proc. Roy. Soc. A136, 692 (1932).

9. 9. The antiproton was first observed by Chamberlain, Segrè, Wiegand, and Ypsilantis, Phys. Rev. 100, 947 (1955). https://doi.org/PHRVAO
   The antineutron was first observed by Cork, Lambertson, Piccioni, and Wenzel, Phys. Rev. 104, 1193 (1956).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

10. 10. Proceedings of Solvay Congress, Brussels (1933). While the possible existence of a neutral particle in beta decay was first suggested by Pauli at the American Physical Society Meeting in Pasadena in 1931, serious discussions of its existence and its properties did not appear in any literature until 1933.

11. 11. E. Fermi, Z. Physik 88, 161 (1934).https://doi.org/ZEPYAA

12. 12. For a detailed discussion of these experiments see, e.g., C. S. Wu, The Neutrino, Memorial Volume to Wolfgang Pauli (Pergamon Press, 1960)
    and J. S. Allen, The Neutrino (Princeton University Press, 1958).

13. 13. Cowan, Reines, Harrison, Kruse, and McGuire, Science 124, 103 (1956).https://doi.org/SCIEAS

14. 14. H. Yukawa, Proc. Phys.‐Math. Soc. Japan 17, 48 (1935).https://doi.org/PPMJAJ

15. 15. Anderson and Neddermeyer, Phys. Rev. 51, 884 (1937).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

16. 16. Street and Stevenson, Phys. Rev. 51, 1005 (1937).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

17. 17. Convincing evidence of this was given by the experiment done by Conversi, Pancini, and Piccioni, Phys. Rev. 71, 209 (1947); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    and by the theoretical analysis made by Fermi, Teller, and Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. 71, 314 (1947) https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    and by Fermi and Teller, Phys. Rev. 72, 399 (1947).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

18. 18. Lattes, Occhialini, and Powell, Nature 160, 453 (1947).https://doi.org/NATUAS

19. 19. Such possibilities have been discussed theoretically, prior to the discovery of π meson, by Sakata and Ionue, Progr. Theoret. Physics (Kyoto) 1, 143 (1946)
    and by Marshak and Bethe, Phys. Rev. 72, 506 (1947).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

20. 20. Bjorklund, Crandall, Moyer, and York, Phys. Rev. 77, 213 (1950); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    Steinberger, Panofsky, and Steller, Phys. Rev. 78, 802 (1950).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

21. 21. Rochester and Butler, Nature 160, 855 (1947).https://doi.org/NATUAS

22. 22. Brown, Camerini, Fowler, Muirhead, Powell, and Ritson, Nature 163, 47 (1949).https://doi.org/NATUAS

23. 23. For a detailed list of references of these discoveries see e.g., Franzinetti and Morpurgo, Nuovo cimento Supplement 6, No. 2, 469 (1957).https://doi.org/NUCUAF

24. 24. A. Pais, Phys. Rev. 86, 633 (1952).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

25. 25. M. Gell‐Mann, Phys. Rev. 93, 933 (1953).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

26. 26. Nakano and Nishijima, Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 10, 581 (1953).https://doi.org/PTPKAV

27. 27. D. A. Glaser, Phys. Rev. 87, 665 (1952).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

28. 28. Alvarez, Eberhard, Good, Grazino, Ticko, and Wojcicki, Phys. Rev. Letters 2, 215 (1959).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

29. 29. The λ̄ particle was first observed by Prowse and Baldo Ceolin, Nuovo cimento 10, 635 (1958).https://doi.org/NUCIAD

30. 30. In Fig. 3 (and also in Table 2) it is shown that, unlike the neutral π meson, the K ° particle is different from its antiparticle K̄ °. This was first predicted by Gell‐Mann and Pais, Phys. Rev. 97, 1387 (1955). https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    Furthermore, it can be shown that these two neutral particles, K ° and K̄ °, possess some extremely interesting properties. For example, a K ° particle once produced may later change automatically into its antiparticle K̄ °. Such unusual conversions have recently been observed by Muller, Birge, Fowler, Good, Hirsch, Matsen, Oswald, Powell, White, and Piccioni, Phys. Rev. Letters 4, 418 (1960).https://doi.org/PRLTAO

31. 31. R. H. Dalitz, Phil. Mag. 44, 1068 (1953); https://doi.org/PHMAA4
    R. H. Dalitz, Phys. Rev. 94, 1046 (1954). https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    E. Fabri, Nuovo cimento 11, 479 (1954).https://doi.org/NUCIAD

32. 32. Lee and Yang, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

33. 33. Wu, Ambler, Hayward, Hoppes, and Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

34. 34. Garwin, Lederman, and Weinrich, Phys. Rev. 105, 1415 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

35. 35. Friedman and Telegdi, Phys. Rev. 105, 1681 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

36. 36. The possibility of a two‐component relativistic theory of a spin 12 particle was first discussed by H. Weyl, Z. Physik 56, 330 (1929). https://doi.org/ZEPYAA
    However, in such a theory parity is not manifestly conserved; therefore it was always rejected before the discovery of right‐left asymmetry. (Cf. W. Pauli, Handbuch der Physik, Verlag Julius Springer, Berlin, 1933, Vol. 24, pp. 226–7.)
    The possible use of this two‐component theory for expressing the nonconservation property of parity in neutrino processes was independently considered by Lee and Yang, Phys. Rev. 105, 1671 (1957); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    A. Salam, Nuovo cimento 5, 299 (1957); https://doi.org/NUCIAD
    and L. Landau, Nuclear Phys. 3, 127 (1957).https://doi.org/NUPHA7

37. 37. The first conclusive proof that neutrino behayes like a left‐hand screw (and not like a right‐hand screw) was given by Goldhaber, Grodzins, and Sunyar, Phys. Rev. 109, 1015 (1958).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

38. 38. Lee, Oehme, and Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 340 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

39. 39. C. N. Yang, International Congress on Theoretical Physics, Seattle, 1956, Revs. Modern Phys. 29, 231 (1957); https://doi.org/RMPHAT
    Lee and Yang, Phys. Rev. 105, 1671 (1957). https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    This possibility was also considered by L. Landau, Nuclear Phys. 3, 127 (1957), https://doi.org/NUPHA7
    and by E. P. Wigner, Revs. Modern Phys. 29, 255 (1957). https://doi.org/RMPHAT
    See also footnote (9) of an earlier paper by Wick, Wightman, and Wigner, Phys. Rev. 88, 101 (1952).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

40. 40. G. Puppi, Nuovo cimento 5, 587 (1948); https://doi.org/NUCIAD
    O. Klein, Nature 161, 897 (1948); https://doi.org/NATUAS
    Lee, Rosenbluth, and Yang, Phys. Rev. 75, 905 (1949); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    Tiomno and Wheeler, Revs. Modern Phys. 21, 144 (1949). https://doi.org/RMPHAT
    See also the discussions by Serber and Oppenheimer in the Proceedings of Solvay Congress, Brussels (1948).

41. 41. More recent analysis on Universal Fermi Interactions were made by Feynman and Gell‐Mann, Phys. Rev. 109, 193 (1958); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    Sudarshan and Marshak, Phys. Rev. 109, 1860 (1958); https://doi.org/PHRVAO
    J. J. Sakurai, Nuovo cimento 7, 649 (1958).https://doi.org/NUCIAD

42. 42. See, specially Feynman and Gell‐Mann, Phys. Rev. 109, 193 (1958).https://doi.org/PHRVAO

43. 43. Laotse, Tao Té Chin, p. 1 (about 550 B. C.).