The Beginning of Chiral Symmetry

G. Kramer; H. Rollnik; B. Stech

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · physics/0510128

The Beginning of Chiral Symmetry

G. Kramer·H. Rollnik·B. Stech

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

For readers interested in the history of chiral symmetry we present the translation of two papaers from 1955 and 1959 from German to English, in which chiral symmetry properties for weak and strong interactions have been postulated and discussed.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-ph hep-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

G. Kramer, H. Rollnik, B. Stech. 2005-10-14. The Beginning of Chiral Symmetry. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510128

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A Personal History in Quantum Foundations: an Oral History Interview

This oral history interview provides Yakir Aharonov's personal and conceptual recollections from the 1950s to the 2000s, focusing on his academic trajectory, some of his major contributions to quantum foundations, and his perspective on the development of the field. The interview traces Aharonov's academic career through the Technion, University of Bristol, Brandeis University, Yeshiva University, University of South Carolina, Tel Aviv University, George Mason University, and Chapman University. The interview also traces the development of Aharonov's work and collaborations on the EPR paradox, time-energy uncertainty relations, quantum measurement theory, quantum frames of reference, the two-state vector formalism, weak values, protective measurements, and several other contributions. It includes recollections of meetings and discussions with David Bohm, Niels Bohr, John Clauser, Paul Dirac, Rudolf Peierls, Aage Petersen, and Abner Shimony. Also mentioned: David Albert, Jeeva Anandan, Peter Bergmann, Gideon Carmi, Avshalom Elitzur, Dave Finkelstein, Vladimir Fock, Itzhak Kalugai, Ed Lerner, Joel Lebowitz, Stanley Mandelstam, Yuval Ne'eman, Sandu Popescu, Maurice Pryce, Daniel Rohrlich, Nathan Rosen, Joseph Safko, Paul Singer, Daniele Struppa, Leonard Susskind, Lev Vaidman, Chien-Shiung Wu.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Distributional Counterfactual Dependence in the Special Sciences

Special-science explanations often concern distributions rather than individual outcomes. Since higher-level states depend on lower-level processes, what would make a higher-level explanation redundant? I argue that redundancy requires replacement without loss, not merely a reconstruction of individual outcomes. Distributional counterfactual dependence (DCD) identifies how changes in higher-level conditions alter an outcome distribution or a relevant feature of it. Against the background of stochastic supervenience, I distinguish this explanatory role from the dependence of higher-level states on lower-level bases. A replacement must be specified independently of the distribution to be explained and preserve the same counterfactual pattern at the grain and across the conditions relevant to the question. Applications to wage distributions, cognitive load, and selection clarify this requirement. A hypothetical comparison shows how a lower-level model can preserve the explanation and why matching selected outcome statistics may not suffice. DCD thus describes one form of non-reductive explanation that depends on counterfactual organization rather than additional higher-level productive powers.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Temporal rhythms of uncertainty: Evaluating Mars claims in the Australian colonial press

Favourable oppositions of Mars gave nineteenth-century astronomers recurring opportunities to test claims about the planet, while telegraphic news and newspaper reprinting carried those claims well beyond the professional observatories. Historians have established the importance of these events to the development of mass-media astronomy. Here, I examine a related question in the Australian colonial press: how did the standing of particular claims change as brief reports, local responses and fuller accounts appeared at different times? Drawing on colonial newspaper coverage from 1875 to 1899, I follow episodes surrounding the major Mars oppositions of 1892 and 1894. Reports of observations attributed to "Professor Pickering" in 1892 prompted both rapid circulation and immediate scrutiny. In 1894, a cable about William W. Campbell's spectroscopic work provoked local disagreement before more detailed accounts became available. These sequences show that a Mars opposition concentrated attention without imposing a uniform progression from anticipation to discovery and subsequent caution. Newspapers carried assessments and renewed speculation at the same time. The Australian case extends work on event astronomy by showing how the timing and form of information arriving in a colonial press network affected the public evaluation of astronomical claims.

physics.hist-ph↗