Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Insights from the History for Teaching Antimatter

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Majorana's 1937 field quantization is, in a strict sense, the modern canonical quantization of fermions, and that antimatter can therefore be taught without the Dirac sea.

desk verdict A genuinely useful teaching resource undercut by an overstated historical priority claim that the derivation in Section 4.1 cannot actually support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04958 v1 pith:OOHZGXUT submitted 2025-06-05 physics.ed-ph

Francesco Vissani This is my paper
classification physics.ed-ph
keywords antimatterMajoranafieldscanonicalquantizationoffermionsDiracequationseapositronphysicseducationwavemechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Antimatter is usually taught either as a passing remark in particle physics or as the payoff of a long quantum field theory course. The paper proposes a middle path built from history: first reinterpret the negative-energy solutions of Dirac's equation as oppositely charged states, then follow Dirac's hole theory as a historical detour, and finally arrive at Majorana's 1937 quantization, in which requiring the Heisenberg equation of motion to reproduce the Dirac equation forces the fields to anticommute. The paper's central claim is that this last construction is the modern canonical quantization of spin-1/2 fields and gives the first fully satisfactory conceptual framework for antimatter, because Fermi-Dirac statistics and the absence of a Dirac sea follow from the quantization rule itself. If the paper is right, a student who knows non-relativistic quantum mechanics can meet the core of fermionic field quantization before facing the full apparatus of quantum field theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hermitian quantized field $\psi(x)$ satisfying the real Dirac equation, combined with the consistency condition that the field's Heisenberg equation of motion reproduce that same Dirac equation. This condition fixes the algebra of the fields: they must satisfy the anticommutation relation $\{\psi_b(y),\psi_a(x)\}=\delta^3(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\delta_{ba}$, which is the defining property of a fermionic field. The same machinery yields the oscillator anticommutators $\{a_s,a^\dagger_{s'}\}=\delta_{ss'}$ and, through the two-Hermitian-field combination for a charged electron, distinguishes particle from antiparticle by electric charge.

What would settle it

Open Majorana's 1937 paper and check whether the anticommutation relation $\{\psi_b(y),\psi_a(x)\}=\delta^3(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\delta_{ba}$ is derived from requiring consistency with the Heisenberg equation, rather than assumed as an extra postulate; if the original derivation takes a different route, the paper's central historical claim would need substantial revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Majorana's 1937 treatment of the electron and positron is not a historical curiosity but the genuine precursor of the canonical quantization of fermions. Writing the Dirac field as a Hermitian operator in the representation where the equation is real, and demanding that the field obey the Heisenberg equation of motion $i\hbar\,d\psi(y)/dt=[\psi(y),H]$ with the Hamiltonian $H=\frac{1}{2}\int\psi^t(\Delta\psi)\,d^3x$, consistency forces the equal-time anticommutator $\{\psi_b(y),\psi_a(x)\}=\delta^3(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\delta_{ba}$. From this one anticommutation relation the Fock-space relations $\{a_s,a^\dagger_{s'}\}=\delta_{ss'}$ follow, so the exclusion principle and Fermi-Dirac statistics are consequences of the quantization procedure rather than extra assumptions. The paper argues that this removes the need for the Dirac sea and its negative-energy states, and that the electron-positron distinction is recovered by building the non-Hermitian field as $\psi=(\lambda+i\chi)/\sqrt{2}$ from two Hermitian Majorana fields.

Load-bearing premise

The proposal assumes that a student who knows non-relativistic quantum mechanics but not quantum field theory can follow the quick operator manipulations in Section 4.1, including the fermionic anti-commutation rule and the many-particle state language introduced there; if students cannot handle these, the teaching path fails even though the underlying physics is correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the Dirac sea becomes dispensable in teaching: the anticommutation relation itself supplies the fermionic statistics that the hole theory obtained by postulating an occupied negative-energy sea.
  • The wave-mechanics reinterpretation of negative-energy solutions can be used early in a course as a legitimate introduction to antiparticles, as long as the instructor notes that it does not explain why matter particles are fermions.
  • The standard textbook expression for the quantized fermion field is, on this reading, a dressed-up version of Majorana's construction, so following the original argument clarifies why the field is built from one creation and one annihilation operator set.
  • For neutral fermions the Hermitian-field case applies naturally, connecting the argument to neutrinos and to the Majorana-neutrino hypothesis, while Racah's observation that such particles must lack a magnetic moment blocks the neutron case.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an editorial extension, the same consistency argument could be replayed for other spin fields as a classroom route into the general spin-statistics connection, since the paper only applies it to spin-1/2 fermions.
  • As an editorial inference, the paper's reconstruction predicts that a controlled teaching comparison, Majorana's path versus the standard field-theory path at the same student level, should show students able to derive the anticommutator and the field expansion more readily; the paper reports no such study.
  • As an editorial extension, the derivation of anticommutation may well be presentation-independent, with the Majorana representation simply making the Hermitian-field step visible; the paper emphasizes the representation but does not claim the result depends on it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a university-level teaching path for antimatter that retraces historical developments, moving from a wave-mechanical reinterpretation of Dirac negative-energy solutions (Sec. 2), through Dirac's hole theory and second quantization (Sec. 3), to Majorana's 1937 quantization of fermion fields (Sec. 4), with a discussion of neutral fermions (Sec. 5) and a historical synopsis (Sec. 6). The paper's central claim is that Majorana was the first to reach the modern canonical quantization of spin-1/2 fields: Section 4.1 presents a derivation of the anticommutation relation from the Heisenberg equation, and Sections 1.4 and 6 assert that this construction 'corresponds in a strict sense' to modern canonical fermion quantization and eliminates the Dirac sea. A didactic argument is made that this path is more gradual and less obstructed than the standard presentation (Sec. 7.2).

Significance. If the historical claim is accepted, the paper gives Majorana's work a central place in the pedagogy and historiography of antimatter, supported by a transparent, parameter-free derivation in Sec. 4.1 and a useful historical table (Table 3). The paper is also valuable for its explicit discussion of the prerequisites and the conceptual costs of the standard field-theoretic presentation (Sec. 7.2) and for the worked Majorana representation in Appendix B. However, the priority claim is load-bearing and is not established by the derivation as written, which presents the anticommutation relation as an ansatz rather than a consequence; this weakens the main historical thesis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eqs. (21)–(23)] The derivation of the anticommutator is presented as a consistency condition, not as a deduction. The text states that the coherence condition 'può essere immediatamente implementata ponendo' Eq. (23), which is the language of an ansatz. One can verify that the equal-time object C_ab(x,y) in Eq. (21) is not uniquely determined by the requirement that the Heisenberg equation reproduce the Dirac equation; derivative-of-delta or non-local kernels would also satisfy the displayed operator identity, and nothing in the derivation explains why the anticommutator, rather than some other braiding relation, is selected. Since §1.4 and §6 claim that Majorana 'dimostra che i campi anti-commutano' and 'per primo pervenne' to modern canonical quantization, this is a load-bearing point. Either a uniqueness proof must be supplied, or the historical claim must be tempered to say that Majorana exhibited a consistent canonical quantization with anticommuting fields, not that he derived anticommutation from more primitive assumptions.
  2. [§3.2 and §6] The priority claim 'first to reach the modern formalism' is in tension with the manuscript's own account. Section 3.2 describes Fermi's 1933 use of anticommuting annihilation/creation operators (Eq. (10)) and attributes the underlying formalism to Jordan, Wigner, Klein, Heisenberg, and Fock, with anticommutation assumed as an additional hypothesis. Section 6 also lists Pauli–Weisskopf 1934 and other earlier treatments. If 'first' is meant as 'first to derive anticommutation from the Heisenberg equation,' the derivation must be shown to be both novel and unique; if it is meant as 'first to use,' it is contradicted by the text. The phrase in §1.4 should be qualified accordingly, and the paper should engage the earlier Jordan–Wigner anticommutation rules more explicitly.
  3. [§1.1 and §4.1–4.2] The didactic path assumes a student who has completed a standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics course but not QFT. Section 1.1 lists only atomic-physics/QM concepts; yet Section 4.1 introduces Heisenberg-picture operators and anticommutators, and Section 4.2 uses Fock-space normalization and creation/annihilation operators effectively without scaffolding. Section 7.2 rightly complains about the many prerequisites of the standard expression (32), but the proposed alternative, as written, silently assumes a comparable set of operator-algebraic tools. The paper should either add a pedagogical bridge for these tools or narrow its claim about which audience can follow the path without prior QFT exposure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (10)] The sentence on Born normalization states '∫ψ†ψ d3x = 0'; the right-hand side should presumably be 1.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (26)] The final Kronecker delta in Eq. (26) is written as δ_{s′s′}; it should be δ_{ss′}.
  3. [Footnote 9] The claim that Pauli 'ripete l'osservazione di Majorana' without giving credit is a historical assertion that deserves a supporting reference or more detailed evidence.
  4. [Abstract and §1.4] The terminology for the central historical claim is inconsistent: the abstract says 'primo pervenne al moderno formalismo della quantizzazione canonica,' while §1.4 says 'primo quadro concettuale nel quale si descrive in modo del tutto soddisfacente l'anti-materia'; these are different claims and should be unified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The anticommutation relation is installed as Eq. (23), then reported in Sec. 6 as something Majorana 'demonstrated'; the central historical claim reduces a postulate to a deduction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, Eqs. (21)-(23); echoed in Section 6 bullet on Majorana 1937]
    "La condizione di coerenza può essere immediatamente implementata ponendo {ψb(y), ψa(x)} = δ3(⃗x−⃗y) δba (23) che mostra come i campi introdotti da Majorana e regolati dall’equazione di Dirac sono anti-commutanti. ... Egli dimostra che i campi anti-commutano, dunque tali particelle devono obbedire alla statistica di Fermi Dirac e rispettare il principio di esclusione."

    The derivation chain stops at a consistency condition: Eq. (21) contains the anticommutator C_ab, and Eq. (23) is then 'implemented' by setting that anticommutator equal to a delta function. The text presents no uniqueness argument and no independent derivation excluding other equal-time kernels; 'ponendo' is the language of a postulate. The later sentence that Majorana 'demonstrated' that the fields anticommute, and the broader claim that the construction explains the fermionic character, therefore convert the assumed input into the announced result. Eq. (26) merely projects Eq. (23) onto oscillator modes, so the fermionic oscillator algebra is inherited from the same input.

full rationale

The paper's didactic physics core—Hermitian field, Heisenberg equation, mode expansion, charge conjugation, Majorana representation—is internally consistent and is not fitted to any data; there is no numerical or statistical circularity. The circularity is logical and historical. The central novelty claim ('primo quadro concettuale... primo ... quantizzazione canonica dei fermioni'; Sec. 6 'dimostra che i campi anti-commutano') rests on treating Eq. (23) as a derived consequence, whereas the displayed argument only 'implements' the anticommutator as a consistency condition. The self-citations ([12], [19], [28]) support the historical-priority interpretation but are not the only basis; the original Majorana abstract and secondary literature are external evidence. Still, because the claimed demonstration of Fermi-Dirac statistics is exactly the assumed relation, the historical thesis is partially circular: a postulate is presented as a deduction. The algebraic consequences (oscillator algebra, charge conjugation) remain independent content, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new physical entities. It relies on standard mathematical and physical background: the Dirac equation and gamma matrix algebra, the Heisenberg equation of motion, minimal coupling, Fock-space quantization, and the physical reinterpretation of negative-energy states as antiparticles. The only debatable input is the definitional choice that 'canonical quantization' means a Hermitian-field construction without a Dirac sea, which is a historical-interpretive assumption rather than a mathematical axiom.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Dirac equation and the algebra of the gamma matrices, including the Majorana representation (Eq. 3, Appendix B).
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 4 as the starting point for the field equation and the explicit matrix construction.
  • standard math Heisenberg equation of motion for operators, iℏ dO/dt = [O,H].
    Invoked in Section 4.1 (Eq. 19) to derive the anticommutation relation; the paper assumes this quantization postulate without proof.
  • domain assumption Minimal coupling to the electromagnetic field, replacing P by P - qA/c.
    Used in Section 2.2 (Eq. 7) to discuss charge conjugation and antiparticle charge; this is a standard physical postulate.
  • domain assumption The reinterpretation of negative-energy electron emission as the absorption of a positron (Section 1.3), formalized by charge conjugation.
    This conceptual equivalence is the basis for the wave-mechanics presentation of antimatter in Section 2.
  • standard math Fock-space construction and the existence of creation and annihilation operators with canonical (anti)commutation relations.
    Presupposed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2 for the quantized fields, including the projection formula Eq. 14.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insights from the History for Teaching Antimatter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOHZGXUT

@misc{pith2026250604958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insights from the History for Teaching Antimatter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOHZGXUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04958}
}
read the original abstract

The concept of antimatter is extremely important, but not always discussed as it deserves, balancing ideas and formalism. In this note, we gather some insights to present it effectively, following certain steps taken in the history of knowledge; although rarely remembered, they can serve to enrich standard teaching materials. In addition to the well-known contributions of Dirac, which we place in their original context, the contributions of Pauli and especially Majorana stand out, the latter being the first to reach the modern formalism of canonical quantization. The importance of the point of view of wave mechanics emerges, which still shows its limitations, requiring some adjustments to constitute an acceptable interpretation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    neutrino di Dirac

    Nella teoria di Fermi del decadimento β (1933) si ipotizza l’emissione associata di elettroni e neutrini relativistici, descritti seguendo le idee proposte da Dirac (sez. 5). Dunque, Fermi si trova a postulare che esista un mare di Dirac per gli elettroni, ed uno per i neutrini. Cos ` ı facendo, fermioni e anti-fermioni risultano ben distinti tra di loro;...

    work page 1933

  2. [2]

    Mentre una particella dotata di carica elettrica deve essere ben distinta dalla sua anti-particella (e quindi richiede un campo non-hermitiano come quello descritto in sez

    La teoria di Majorana offre possibilit` a nuove. Mentre una particella dotata di carica elettrica deve essere ben distinta dalla sua anti-particella (e quindi richiede un campo non-hermitiano come quello descritto in sez. 4.3) nel caso di fermioni neutri esiste una possibilit` a pi` u semplice: quella che siano descritti da un campo hermitiano, come quell...

    work page

  3. [3]

    seconda quantizzazione

    Consideriamo infine il trattamento di particelle ed antiparticelle, che tra quelli qui considerati ` e l’ultimo ad essere proposto, e che si basa su una re-interpretazione dell’equazione di Dirac. Pur non essendo del tutto soddisfacente, esso ha il vantaggio di essere molto semplice (sez. 2). Inoltre, esso ` ecompatibile con la proposta di Majorana: usand...

    work page 1931

  4. [4]

    Paul A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the electron, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 117, 610-624 (1928)

    work page 1928

  5. [5]

    Paul A. M. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 133, no.821, 60-72 (1931)

    work page 1931

  6. [6]

    Anderson, The apparent existence of easily deflectable positives, Science 76, 238-239 (1932) e anche The positive electron, Phys

    Carl D. Anderson, The apparent existence of easily deflectable positives, Science 76, 238-239 (1932) e anche The positive electron, Phys. Rev. 43, 491-494 (1933)

    work page 1932

  7. [7]

    Wolfgang Pauli, Victor Frederick Weisskopf, ¨Uber die Quantisierung der skalaren relativistischen Wellenglei- chung, Helv. Phys. Acta 7, 709 (1934). In inglese suEarly Quantum Electrodynamics di Arthur I. Miller Cambridge U. Press, 188 (1994)

    work page 1934

  8. [8]

    14 171 (1937)

    Ettore Majorana, Teoria simmetrica dell’elettrone e del positrone,Nuovo Cim. 14 171 (1937). Tradotto in inglese da Luciano Maiani in Ettore Majorana Scientific Papers, a cura di Giuseppe Franco Bassani (ed.) Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2006)

    work page 1937

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Wolfgang Pauli, Relativistic field theories of elementary particles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 13, 203-232 (1941)

    1941

  2. [10]

    Ernst C. G. Stueckelberg, La signification du temps propre en m´ ecanique ondulatoire, e anche Remarque ` a propos de la cr´ eation de paires de particules en th´ eorie de relativit´ e,Helv. Phys. Acta 14 322 e 588 (1941)

    1941

  3. [11]

    Ernst C. G. Stueckelberg, La m´ ecanique du point mat´ eriel en th´ eorie de relativit´ e et en la th´ eorie des quants, Helv. Phys. Acta 15 23 (1942)

    1942

  4. [12]

    Feynman, Space-time approach to quantum electrodynamics, Phys

    Richard P. Feynman, Space-time approach to quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. 76, 769-789 (1949)

    1949

  5. [13]

    Enrico Fermi, Tentativo di una teoria dell’emissione dei raggi ≪beta≫, Ric. Sci. 4, 491 (1933); Tentativo di una teoria dei raggi β, Nuovo Cim. 11, 1 (1934); Versuch einer Theorie der β-Strahlen. I, Z. Phys. 88, 161 (1934); Fermi’s theory of β decay, tradotto da Fred Lee Wilso...

    1933

  6. [14]

    Appunti e riflessioni su eventi e protagonisti, Springer Nature, 336 pp., ISBN 9783031766213 (2025)

    Francesco Vissani, L’evoluzione del pensiero scientifico dall’antica Grecia ai giorni nostri. Appunti e riflessioni su eventi e protagonisti, Springer Nature, 336 pp., ISBN 9783031766213 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    C 47 (6), 351 (2024)

    Francesco Vissani, Majorana and the bridge between matter and anti-matter, Nuovo Cim. C 47 (6), 351 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Helge Kragh, Dirac: A scientific biography , Cambridge U. Pr. (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    LTD (1993)

    Guruswamy Rajasekaran, The discovery of Dirac equation and its impact on present-day physics, in Dirac and Feynman: Pioneers in Quantum Mechanics, a cura di Ranabir Duff e Asim K Ray (eds.), Wiley East. LTD (1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    Maurice Jacob, Antimatter, in Paul Dirac the man and his work, Cambridge U. Pr. (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    Quantum Year!

    Angela Bracco, Benvenuto al “Quantum Year!”, SIF Prima pagina N. 133 (2025) 20

    2025

  12. [20]

    Nel 2025, i principali articoli pubblicati sul Nuovo Cimento sulla meccanica quantistica sono disponibili al pubblico da questo sito https://www.sif.it/attivita/cimentoqm accompagnati da utili schede di presentazione e commento https://static.sif.it/SIF/resources/public/images...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Hermann Weyl, Gravitation and the electron, PNAS 15 (4), 323-334 (1929)

    1929

  14. [22]

    Francesco Vissani, What is matter according to particle physics, and why try to observe its creation in a lab?, Universe 7, no.3, 61 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Wolfgang Pauli, Contributions math´ ematiques ` a la th´ eorie des matrices de Dirac,Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e 6, 109-136 (1936)

    1936

  16. [24]

    Markus Fierz, Wolfgang Pauli, On Relativistic Field Equations of Particles With Arbitrary Spin in an Electromagnetic Field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 173, 212-232 (1939)

    1939

  17. [25]

    Jackson, Lev B

    John D. Jackson, Lev B. Okun, Historical roots of gauge invariance, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 663 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Paul A. M. Dirac, A theory of electrons and protons, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 126, no.801, 360-365 (1930)

    1930

  19. [27]

    Pascual Jordan, Oskar Klein, Zum Mehrk¨ orperproblem der Quantentheorie, Z. Phys. 45, 751 (1927)

    1927

  20. [28]

    Pascual Jordan, Eugene Wigner, ¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 42 (1928)

    1928

  21. [29]

    Werner Heisenberg, Zum Paulischen Ausschließungsprinzip, 402 (7) 888-904 (1931)

    1931

  22. [30]

    Vladimir Aleksandrovich Fock, Konfigurationsraum und zweite Quantelung , Z. Phys. 75, 622 (1932); En- glish translation: V.A. Fock - Selected works: Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, a cura di Ludvig Dmitrievich Faddeev, Leonid Aleksandrovich Khalfin, Igor V. Komarov...

    1932

  23. [31]

    A tribute to Enrico Fermi on the 90th anniversary of the beta decay model, Quad

    Francesco Vissani, First steps towards understanding neutrinos. A tribute to Enrico Fermi on the 90th anniversary of the beta decay model, Quad. Storia della Fisica 31 (1), 109-143 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Joliot e I

    Gian Carlo Wick, Sugli elementi radioattivi di F. Joliot e I. Curie , presentato da Enrico Fermi, Atti della R. Acc. Naz. Lincei, serie 6, Rendiconti Classe di Scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali, Vol 19, pag 319 (1934)

    1934

  25. [33]

    14, 322 (1937)

    Giulio Racah, Sulla simmetria tra particelle e antiparticelle , Nuovo Cim. 14, 322 (1937)

    1937

  26. [34]

    Bruno Pontecorvo, Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov. Phys. JETP 6, 429 (1957)

    1957

  27. [35]

    Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless ββ decay, Rev

    Matteo Agostini et al. Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless ββ decay, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 no.2, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Oskar Klein, Yoshio Nishina, ¨Uber die Streuung von Strahlung durch freie Elektronen nach der neuen relativistischen Quantendynamik von Dirac, Z. Phys. 52, no.11, 853-868 (1929)

    1929

  29. [37]

    Viktor Weisskopf, Probleme der neueren Quantentheorie des Elektrons, Naturwissenschaften 23, 631-637 (1935)

    1935

  30. [38]

    Wolfgang Pauli, Th´ eorie quantique des particules ob´ eissant ` a la statistique de Einstein-Bose,Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e 6, 137-152 (1936)

    1936

  31. [39]

    Erasmo Recami, Il caso Majorana: epistolario, documenti, testimonianze , Di Renzo, Rome (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Salvatore Esposito, Erasmo Recami, Alwyn van der Merwe, Roberto Battiston, Ettore Majorana: Unpublished research notes on theoretical physics, Springer (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Leslie Lawrance Foldy, Siegfried Adolf Wouthuysen, On the Dirac theory of spin 1/2 particle and its nonrelativistic limit, Phys. Rev. 78, 29-36 (1950)

    1950

  34. [42]

    Paul A. M. Dirac, The principles of quantum mechanics, Clarendon Pr./Oxford U. Pr., quarta edizione (1958)

    1958

  35. [43]

    KNA W, 40, 814 (1937)

    Hendrik Anthony “Hans” Kramers, The use of charge-conjugated wave-functions in the hole-theory of the electron, Proc. KNA W, 40, 814 (1937)

    1937

  36. [44]

    Walter Heitler, The quantum theory of radiation, Oxford U. Pr. (1936)

    1936

  37. [45]

    Deuticke (1943)

    Gregor Wentzel, Einf¨ uhrung in die Quantentheorie der Wellenfelder,F. Deuticke (1943)

    1943

  38. [46]

    Schweber, An introduction to relativistic quantun field theory, Row, & Peterson (1961)

    Silvan S. Schweber, An introduction to relativistic quantun field theory, Row, & Peterson (1961)

    1961

  39. [47]

    Bjorken, Sidney D

    James D. Bjorken, Sidney D. Drell, Relativistic quantum fields McGraw-Hill College (1965)

    1965

  40. [48]

    Press (1983)

    Laurie Mark Brown, Lilian Hoddeson, The birth of particle physics, Cambridge U. Press (1983)

    1983

  41. [49]

    Abraham Pais, Inward bound: Of matter and forces in the physical world, Clarendon Pr./Oxford U. Pr. (1986)

    1986

  42. [50]

    Schweber, QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, Princeton Series in Physics (1994) 21

    Silvan S. Schweber, QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, Princeton Series in Physics (1994) 21

    1994

  43. [51]

    Wolfgang Pauli, The connection between spin and statistics, Phys. Rev. 58, 716-722 (1940)

    1940

  44. [52]

    Guido Fantini, Andrea Gallo Rosso, Francesco Vissani, Vanessa Zema, Introduction to the formalism of neutrino oscillations, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 28, 37-119 (2018) Indice 1 Introduzione 1 1.1 Assunzioni sulle conoscenze gi` a acquisite e terminologia . . . . . . ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.