SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1110.6878

Searching for an equation: Dirac, Majorana and the others

Abstract

We review the non-trivial issue of the relativistic description of a quantum mechanical system that, contrary to a common belief, kept theoreticians busy from the end of 1920s to (at least) mid 1940s. Starting by the well-known works by Klein-Gordon and Dirac, we then give an account of the main results achieved by a variety of different authors, ranging from de Broglie to Proca, Majorana, Fierz-Pauli, Kemmer, Rarita-Schwinger and many others. A particular interest comes out for the general problem of the description of particles with \textit{arbitrary} spin, introduced (and solved) by Majorana as early as 1932, and later reconsidered, within a different approach, by Dirac in 1936 and by Fierz-Pauli in 1939. The final settlement of the problem in 1945 by Bhabha, who came back to the general ideas introduced by Majorana in 1932, is discussed as well, and, by making recourse also to unpublished documents by Majorana, we are able to reconstruct the line of reasoning behind the Majorana and the Bhabha equations, as well as its evolution. Intriguingly enough, such an evolution was \textit{identical} in the two authors, the difference being just the period of time required for that: probably few weeks in one case (Majorana), while more than ten years in the other one (Bhabha), with the contribution of several intermediate authors. Majorana's paper of 1932, in fact, contrary to the more complicated Dirac-Fierz-Pauli formalism, resulted to be very difficult to fully understand (probably for its pregnant meaning and latent physical and mathematical content): as is clear from his letters, even Pauli (who suggested its reading to Bhabha) took about one year in 1940-1 to understand it. This just testifies for the difficulty of the problem, and for the depth of Majorana's reasoning and results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

S. Esposito. 2011-10-31. Searching for an equation: Dirac, Majorana and the others. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2012.02.016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph