Elementary particles
DOI: 10.1063/1.3062766
The urge and the interest to find those ultimate elements in terms of which everything else is made of are almost as old as the human civilization. However, as our knowledge increases what were thought to be elementary may turn out to be composites. Consequently, the class of these supposedly fundamental elements changes with time. Such was, for example, the periodic table of atoms in the last century. Today we know that all different molecules, atoms, and nuclei are complexes resulting from the existence and the interactions of some thirty particles which are called “elementary particles”.
This article is only available in PDF format
References
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. A. Einstein, Ann. phys. 17, 132 (1905).https://doi.org/ANPYA2
3. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A126, 360 (1929).
4. J. R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev. 35, 562 (1930).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
5. H. Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik (1931), 2nd ed., p. 234.
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. 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. J. Chadwick, Proc. Roy. Soc. A136, 692 (1932).
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/PHRVAO10. 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. E. Fermi, Z. Physik 88, 161 (1934).https://doi.org/ZEPYAA
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. Cowan, Reines, Harrison, Kruse, and McGuire, Science 124, 103 (1956).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
14. H. Yukawa, Proc. Phys.‐Math. Soc. Japan 17, 48 (1935).https://doi.org/PPMJAJ
15. Anderson and Neddermeyer, Phys. Rev. 51, 884 (1937).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
16. Street and Stevenson, Phys. Rev. 51, 1005 (1937).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
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/PHRVAO18. Lattes, Occhialini, and Powell, Nature 160, 453 (1947).https://doi.org/NATUAS
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/PHRVAO20. 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/PHRVAO21. Rochester and Butler, Nature 160, 855 (1947).https://doi.org/NATUAS
22. Brown, Camerini, Fowler, Muirhead, Powell, and Ritson, Nature 163, 47 (1949).https://doi.org/NATUAS
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. A. Pais, Phys. Rev. 86, 633 (1952).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
25. M. Gell‐Mann, Phys. Rev. 93, 933 (1953).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
26. Nakano and Nishijima, Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 10, 581 (1953).https://doi.org/PTPKAV
27. D. A. Glaser, Phys. Rev. 87, 665 (1952).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
28. Alvarez, Eberhard, Good, Grazino, Ticko, and Wojcicki, Phys. Rev. Letters 2, 215 (1959).https://doi.org/PRLTAO
29. The λ̄ particle was first observed by Prowse and Baldo Ceolin, Nuovo cimento 10, 635 (1958).https://doi.org/NUCIAD
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/PRLTAO31. 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/NUCIAD32. Lee and Yang, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
33. Wu, Ambler, Hayward, Hoppes, and Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
34. Garwin, Lederman, and Weinrich, Phys. Rev. 105, 1415 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
35. Friedman and Telegdi, Phys. Rev. 105, 1681 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
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/NUPHA737. 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. Lee, Oehme, and Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 340 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
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/PHRVAO40. 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. 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/NUCIAD42. See, specially Feynman and Gell‐Mann, Phys. Rev. 109, 193 (1958).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
43. Laotse, Tao Té Chin, p. 1 (about 550 B. C.).
More about the Authors
T. D. Lee. Columbia University.
