Elementary Kinematics

G I.
Kopylov
Elementary Kinematics of
Elementary Particles
Translated from the Russian
by Nicholas Weinstein
Mir
Publishers
Moscow
First published 1983

Revised from the 1981 Russian edition
Ha
anaAUUCKOM neuxe
HaYKa. JIaBRaH peAaK~HH

~H3HKo-MaTeMaTlIlIeCKOH aareparypu, 1981
H3AaTeJIbCTDO
@ English translation, Mir Publishers, 1983
Preface to the Second

Russian Edition
Elementary Kinematics of Elementary Particles
(It's Only Kinematics is the literal translation
of the Russian title) is the first book written
for the layman on the relativistic kinematics of
elementary particle interaction. The book begins
where books for the general reader on relativity
theory usually end. First the author explains,
by means of examples, the formulr s and concepts of the theory of relativity that will be
required in the subsequent discussion. Next
he acquaints the reader with a series of problems
that are solvable by using the methods of contemporary particle physics. The topics discussed
really do concern present-day physics and the
problems are ones that are being solved today or
were solved only yesterday. These include the
discovery of new particles, determination of the
quantum numbers of resonance particles, and
many others.
The author, Dr. G.I. Kopylov (now deceased),
was a prominent scientist in the field of elementary particle kinematics. In this work he skilfully selected from the abundant available material topics that are of general interest, and that
can be clearly expounded without oversimplifying their essence. The book was written for
persons having a secondary sixth-form (or USA
high-school) education and requires a knowledge
of only elementary algebra and geometry.
It is very difficul t to bring some scientific field
or a portion of one wi thin 1he reach of nonspecialized readers without losing some essential
details. The task is frequently considered to be
Preface to the Second Russian Edition
entirely impracticable, but such an extreme

viewpoint is evidently erroneous for the author
of the present book has, in our opinion, successfully overcome this problem.
In the preface to the first Russian edition the
hope was expressed that the book "would attract.
the attention of a wide range of readers interested
in nuclear physics and, in particular, school
students, students of universities and institutes,
and teachers". This indeed happened and the
book was quickly sold out.
Dr. G.I. Kopylov died some years ago and

therefore, in preparing a second edition, we decided to limit ourselves to only a minimal and
most necessary revision, which, to a certain
extent, takes account of the spectacular development of particle physics in recent years. A considerable part of the revision was done by his son,
Dr. G.G. Kopylov, a physicist.
M.I. Podgoretsky
Contents
Preface to the Second Russian Edition
Kinematics for the Lyrical
Part One
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Part Two
What It's All About

9
Mores in the Subatomic W orl d
13
Energy and Momentum of Fast
Particles
26
More on Energy and Momentum
41
Conservation of Energy and Momentum
63
Kinematics in the World of Accelerators
82
How Particles Are Discovered
92
How Resonance Particles Are Discovered
112
Kinematics for the Schoolboy
Chapter 9 The Momenta Hedgehog

Chapter 10 What Colour Are Elementary
Particles?
135
145
Chapter 11 Relativistic Transformations of the
154
of If ow the nO Meson
Was Found in Cosmic Rays
178
Momenta Hedgehog
Chapter 12 The Story

Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
2
3 ~ 23
200
Three-Photon Cone
216
" ... With a Faint Wave of the
Hand ..."
228
To Our Regret, the Last Chapter 246
Conclusions
263
Index
268
Part One
Kinematics for tho Lyrical

... and, since he had such a strong
inclination for reasoning, he wanted to
divine how such a tiny utero moves
about, and whether it is endowed with
ideas, will-power and freed em.
- V ()LTA IRE
"M icr orncg as"
Chapter 1
What It's All About

Our aim in this book is to show that much C:lD be
made clear in one of the leading fields of modern
physics-elementary particle physics-even to a
reader who has mastered only school mathematics.
Particle, or high-energy, physics is the science
of the properties, special features and laws of
interaction of the tiniest particles of matter.
Much here is strange, astonishing and unusual.
In fact, everything seems incredible in our first
encounter with the world of elementary particles.
We meet particles a hundred thousand times
smaller than an atom, which is itself as many
times smaller than an apple as the apple is
smaller than the earth ("How can that be possible? What can we conceivably discern?"). And
their velocity is onl y just less than that-of light
("How can we possibly follow such swift motion?")
And their lifespan: some particles exist no longer
than 10- 23 second. Others, disappearing after
10-8 s (one hundred millionth of a second), are
said in this science to be "long-lived" ("IIow can
we detect such particles? What kind of clock
10
Kinema tics for the Lyrical
can measure such infinitesimally short lengths

of tilme ?")
..
What about their imperceptihility? There are
particles so elusive that they leave barely a
trace of their existence on the earth. They appear
unnoticed, speed past atoms like incorporeal
spirits and then disappear, leaving no trail
("How can we then investigate their properties?").
We have, nevertheless, not only detected all
this, but have classified the particles into families, weighed the members of each family, indicated which are related to which, which are
transformed into which (and how frequently),
which appear the same from all sides and which
are not, and much, much more. "How can that
be feasible?" the legitimate question is posed.
"And if it is (and there is no reason not to hel ieve
the people who produced nuclear energy and
the laser out of nothing) then what brain waves,
what ingenuity of the mind is required to convince oneself that it is so; what intelligence is
required to accommodate all this knowledge!"
Well, all in all, such amazement is quite
natural. Also understandable is the desire to
look into all these marvels. Unfortunately, there
is much in this branch of science that does not
lend itself to simple explanation. The theoretical
ideas are extremely unusual; it proves impossible
to hastily explain the principles of the instruments used in nuclear physics to observe fast
particles and to measure their direction, velocity,
mass, momentum and energy.
But there is one field in this branch of science
that the layman can attempt to understand. In
this field the complications of the experiment
What It's All About
11
have come to an end and the theoretical complications have not yet begun. This field, in which
the scientist is engaged in primary processing
of experimental data, is called the kinematics of
elementary particle interaction, i.e, their collisions
and decays. This is a highly interesting field.
There is no instrument capable of observing the
tracks of uncharged particles, but kinematics
enables such particles to be readily noted. So
far no instruments can directly measure lengths
of time shorter than 10- 18 s. But kinematics
enables lengths of time of the order of 10-23 s
to be estimated. And all this is achieved without
any profound hypotheses, using only a pencil,
paper and some simple calculations. Kinematics
has to its credit certain quite important feats,
including the discovery of such a marvel of
nature as the neutrino, a particle that readily
pierces the sun; such short-lived tenants of the
earth as the neutral pi meson; such strange particles as hyperons and K mesons; such ephemeral
structures as the neutral omega meson, and
other resonance particles. In short, kinematics
was applied in the discovery of all the elementary
particles with the exception of the proton and
certain charged mesons. *
Of course, these discoveries were not made by
kinematics alone; the main role was played by
the ingenious instruments that are used in highenergy physics. Still it is indisputable that
without kinematics we would be able to makeout
In recent years particles have been discovered with

entirely novel properties, 'which arc called charmed
particles ("charm" being a strictly scientific term). They
also were found with the aid of kinematics,
12
much, much less using these instruments. Kinematics helps us to see what is beyond the power
of apparatus and thereby appropriately concludes
the succession of accelerators, targets, bending
magnets, electrostatic separators, bubble and
spark chambers, and camera lenses aimed Iat the
particle.
We stress the word "concludes" Kinematics
sets itself no far-reaching aims of unravelling the
mysterious interrelations of particles or the
symmetry of nature. It only tries to fill in what
has not been observed by the instruments, thereby
making them more sharp-sighted without altering them or taking any interest in their design.
Just as Sherlock Holmes by simply looking at
a person saw ten times more than other people
would, a physicist, equipped with a knowledge of
kinematics, sees many times more than one without such knowledge.
True, one cannot manage here by only one's
imagination. Kinematics is hased on precise and
careful calculations, rather than considerations of
the following kind: "The particle turned this
way: t.hat indicates that something pushed it
from there. Now what could that be?" Even
though the calculations may sometimes be quite
complex, they are always based on one and the
same simple, well-known principle: in all interactions (decays and" collisions) of elementary
particles, their total energy and total momentum
remain unchanged. If the" instruments show that
there is less energy or momentum after an interaction, this means that one or perhaps several
unobserved particles carried away t he deficit.
Then other, just as simple, Iaws may he resorted
Mores in the Subatomic World
13
to that sometimes enable us to identify what

has carried away the shortage.
A great many significant conclusions in kinematics are reached, essentially, by means of
school algebra. vVe therefore believe that even
an inquisitive sixth former (or high-school student) or a person versed in algebra to the extent
taught in the sixth form, having some idea of
what vectors are, and having heard of antiparticles and that at high velocities the mass of
a body increases with its velocity, can under..
stand the essence of rnany pred ict ious of kinematics.
The aim of this hook is to take the reader into
the "kitchen" where many vital discoveries in
the physics of elementary particles are made.
If you now pluck up courage and read to the
end, and if you take the trouble to try to grasp
the essence of the calculations and conclusions,
you will find that you have understood the mechanism of many discoveries. True, the laws of
kinematics are only the first and easiest step into
the world of elementary particles. But every
journey begins with the first step.
Chapter 2

Sometimes we speak of levels and sometimes of
worlds. We begin with the social level and then
bound up down the levels like the steps of a
staircase: biological, cellular, molecular, atomic,
nuclear and the level of elementary particles.
We can likewise speak of worlds: the world of
14
the stars, the world of man, the world of bacteria, the world of the atom, etc. Each world has
its own laws, its own problems, and has, in
general, no concern for the problems of some
adjacent world.
Nature evidently acted wisely in establishing
.,dch order, separating the differen t worlds by an
invisible and almost impenetrable boundary,
endowing each with its own laws. Perhaps this
achieves succession, the continuity of development: a catastrophe in one world is unnoticed
in other worlds, everything takes its normal
course. But it may be that Nature simply wanted
to demonstrate its lack of banality.
People, however, unwillingly admit the nontriviality of Nature. All other worlds, those of
the atom, the stars and others, they order in
accordance with familiar patterns or models. They
named the magnet aimant in French, which
means loving, or devoted; they saw gods in the
planets. Then there is a more subtle likening of
certain worlds to others: the atom, they contended, resembles the solar system; a man resembles a heat engine and light waves resemble ocean
waves. They believed that the laws for the falling of an electron into the nucleus could be derived
from the laws for the falling of an apple to the
earth, and that the whole world in its entirety might be deduced from the head of a philosopher.
Even now, when we seem to understand that
each world has its own problems and laws, the
inertia of human reasoning greatly hinders specific penetration of specific worlds. Knowledge is
acquired by overcoming habitual conceptions,
is
by rejection of the self-evident in favour of

something incomprehensible and unusual (as new
laws appear now and then upon first acquaintance).
The farther thesetwo worlds are from each other,
meaning the world of the investigator and the
world of the item being investigated in a certain
science, the more difficult the development of
this science and the more the scientist must coerce
his imagination and his habitual logic to accept
the new4\.concepts. From this point of view, the
most difficult sciences are elementary particle
physics and astronomy. In this case, it is hard
to say why they have leaped ahead, overtaking
other sciences studied by mankind.
Either the humanities could not take advantage of their privileged position, or the world of
one person differs from that of another person
to a greater extent than from that of the atom.
A book for the layman on the tkinematics of
elementary particle interactions should evidently
begin by acquainting the reader with the world
of these particles. I t will very likely be best to
select the most typical inhabitant of this world
and to tell about its habits and faculties. This
shouldillustrate the characteristic metamorphoses
that elementary particles are subject to, and
how the range of these interactions can be restricted (in principle, without knowing the laws
governing these interactions) only on the basis
of the laws of the conservation of energy and
momentum. A more detailed understanding of
the metamorphoses and their general laws will
be gained later as the reader forges ahead in this
book.
One of Many
The most estimable status in tho subatomic world

is enjoyed by the proton. In the first place, it is
very massive. Formerly, the proton was thought
to be the only massive particle, but later it
became necessary to admit that it has a host of
relatives. They all have the same family namebaryon-but different first names: neutron, lambda, sigma, xi, isobar, etc. Though they are all
more massive than the proton, the proton (and
the neutron) retains its previous superiority in
number. If you take a walk in the subatomic
world, the baryons you will most frequently
meet are the proton and the neutron. You will
run across all the other members of the family,
but only from time to time. Together with the
neutron the proton enters into the composition of
the atomic nucleus, I.e, it forms the basis for all
other more complex worlds.
Secondly t the proton is stable. This means that
it has a guarantee of personal immortality. If
care is taken to prevent all the rest of the world
from having any effect Of, at least, only a weak
effect on the proton, it is capable of existing
forever, of outliving both the stars and the
galaxies. All of its brother particles perish
sooner or later: a free neutron in 16 minutes on
an average, a lambda or xi particle in 10-10 s
and an isobar even much sooner, in 10- 23 s.
This takes place in the following way. A member
of tho baryon family disappears all of a sudden
without any apparent cause, and in its place
another baryon, but not as massive, appears.
This is accompanied by the appearance of several
11
(one or two) members of other particle families,

such as mesons, leptons or photons. 'The newborn
baryon should also decay, following the same
rule. Since the lightest of the baryons is the
proton, any heavier baryon is converted, sooner
or later, into a pro ton and, in this guise, finally
calms down and acquires the right to immortality.
But what is of especial interest is that all
baryons, taken as a whole, are an immortal kinsfolk. Nature decreed that the total number of
baryons in the world, in the whole world and in
each separate interaction, should remain constant forever . Hence, for instance, when a baryon
decays it must produce from itself another baryon
(and something else that is not a baryon). From
two colliding baryons, t\VO baryons are produced
again, maybe of tho same kind and maybe not
(and, for example, some nonbaryon). To be more
exact, in the collision of two protons, for instance, sometimes even three protons may be
produced, but then only together with one antiproton (or other antibaryon). Four protons may
also be produced, but only with two antiprotons.
In short, it is not simply the number of baryons
that is conserved, but the number of baryons
minus the number of antibaryons. In the simultaneous creation of particles and antiparticles,
they compensate one another and this is not
considered to be a violation of the conservation
law.
It follows that in establishing a constant number of baryons in the world, Nature did not bar
the way to their enrichment by new reserves of
matter; she simply stipulated that an equal
number of new antibaryons are also created. All
2-1920
18
of our world cannot perish primarily because the

baryons, which constitute its main building
material, will not disappear. But this does not
imply that our uni verse wi ll exist forever. If
some day it is approached by an antiuniverse
and the whole conglomeration is converted into
a cloud of mesons or photons, this will not
contradict any laws of nature.
In exactly the same way, the law of conservation of baryons does not imply that our universe
could not have emerged, at some instant in the
dim past, out of nothing, or that it has existed
from time eternal. We can picture, instead of our
universe, a huge reservoir of fast mesons or energetic photons that existed once upon a time.
From this reservoir emerged a world-antiworld
pair, which then flew asunder in opposite directions. This question is still an open one: some
prefer to believe that our part of the universe
has existed forever, others like the idea of catastrophes. The law of conservation of the number
of baryons is no obstacle to either hypothesis;
the question will be answered by other laws and
facts.
But let us return to our baryons. The proton
stands out among them by the fact that it readily
lends itself to outside influence; it is, in particular, especially obedient to man. A proton is
electrically charged, and an electric voltage (or
field) is capable of accelerating it, repulsing it,
deflecting it or supplying it with energy. In
short, a proton can be manipulated as one pleases.
In exactly the same manner, a constant magnetic
field can affect a stream of protons as if it was an
ordinary electric current. Such a field cannot
19
accelerate the proton but it can deflect it. These

factors make the proton a valuable tool in investigating the subatomic world. By accelerating
protons with an electric field they can be supplied
with extremely high energy. At this point the
proton appears in a new capacity: as a transformer
of nature. Incident on another proton, it can
produce a considerable number of new particles.
'I'hat is how new specimens of mesons and baryons
are produced. These particles do not exist forever
and would have become extinct long ago if they
were not created again and again by fast protons.
We could very likely sLop here and sum up
all that wi ll be needed subsequently. We found
that there are two kinds of processes in which
elementary particles participate. The first are
ones in which the particle itself decays, i ,e.
disintegrates, into several new particles, and the
second are ones where, in the collision of two
particles, they are either simply deflected from
their previous paths or they create several more
new particles.
Experimental physicists have various techniques for registering colliding particles and the
results of the collision, as well as decaying particles and into what they decay. They are capable
of determining the direction and velocity of
particles. Theory sets itself the task of describing
.the chain of observed events, revealing their
mechanism, understanding the causes that impelled the particles to behave as they did and
not in some other way, i ,e. to determine the
principal habits of the particles and their place
in the general picture of the world.
The baryon number conservation law that we
2
20
mentioned above is only one of the simplest laws

of the subatomic world. Other laws are more
complex and, above all, they are unusual. Sometimes they resemble nothing that happens in
other worlds, not to us, not to molecules, not to
the stars.
The problem facing the author is to tell about
the world of elementary particles, saying almost
nothing about the incomprehensible laws. This
proves to be possible. I t is possible because a
law well known to us, the conservation of energy
and momentum, concerns the world of elementary
particles in full measure. It is just as inconceivable to build a perpetual motion machine out of
elementary particles as it is out of spheres, chains
and wheels.
If two particles had a store of energy before
their interaction, a t the ins tan t of in teraction
this store can neither be depleted nor increased.
The same is true of the momentum (recall that
the momentum is the product of the mass of a
body by its velocity; it is also known as the
linear momentum). Its store in some isolated
group of particles is also constant. If, for instance, the centre of gravity of two particles is
first at rest, then, whatever transformations these
particles undergo, the centre of gravity of what
they are changed into should also be at rest.
"Bookkeepers" of the Subatomic World
The conservation laws wei e established for large,
readily visible bodies. But they did their job
so carefully and accurately, they so unerringly
squared the accounts of gains and losses, that there
21
was no reason to fire them when physicists began

to deal with elementary particles. They were accepted conditionally, up to the first mistake
they make. As of today, over three decades of
their term of probation has passed, and there has
never been any occasion to accuse them of careless
bookkeeping in their "ledger"; there has never
been even a single case in which the debits and
credits did not tally. True, at the beginning of
their new career, back in the thirties, they were
involved in a controversy. But then they brilliantly proved they were in no way implicated
in violating the balance of the accounts, and
helped to unmask the true culprit behind the
scandal. This turned out to be the young neutrino, who had only then embarked on its career
(a shifty rascal an d sl y boots).
The law of conservation of energy in the decays
and collisions of elementary particles looks even
simpler than in our world of large-scale phenomena. In our world energy is an entry in many items
of the budget: in- electricity, in heat, in mechanical motions, in elasticity, in chemistry, and
others. But in the subatomic world, when a freely
travelling proton collides with a particle, creating
several new particles, we can manage by taking
into account only two forms of energy: the energy
of motion, or kinetic energy, and the so-called
rest energy.. i.e. the energy consumed in creating
the particle itself. It is sufficient to include only
these two components in the total energy of the
particles.
\\tl'hy can \\T8 neglect other forms of energy?
In some cases, because these energies are extremely low, We can, for instance, forget about_the
22
Kinematics h;' the Lyrical
energy mgh of fast-moving particles. I t i~: exceptionally low; the particles are only weakly attracted by the earth. * The energy of a proton
in an electric field must be taken into account,
but only as long as it is in the field, i.e. as long
as it circuits the accelerator. As soon as it emerges
into free travel, this energy is entered into
the balance account under the item "kinetic
energy" Of course, we ought not to ignore the
energy transformations that accompany the collision processes of particles. But these processes
occur only upon close approach of the particles,
take place extremely rapidly, and we are incapable and haven't sufficient time to observe the
details of t.he process and to measure the energy of
strong interaction at the very height of the
event. Therefore (though against our will) we do
not write out the energy balance at that cardinal
instant when large sums are transferred frorn one
item of the account to another. But when all is
over and the particles leave in different directions,
again only two items remain: the rest energy and
the energy of motion, and these easily tally.
Thus, though we cannot observe and at times
* When the particles themselves have low energy, we

must consider the gravitational force. Physicists have
a technique for obtaining so-called ultracold neutrons ,
i.e. ones with extremely low energy. The energy of ultracold neutrons is so low they can be stored in vessels or
made to flow along pipes. They are reflected by copper
walls instead of simply piercing them as do ordinary
part.icles that leave an accelerator. Hence , if the pipe
is directed upward, the ultracold neutrons cannot, in
some cases, reach the top; they haven't sufficient energy
to overcome t.he gravitational force. Here, however,
we are encroaching on the realm of exotic phenomena.
mfores in the Subatomic World
23
,do not even understand the mechanism by means

'of which nuclear forces act, we can still predict
the results of their action sometimes. The conservation laws restrict the action of any other
laws; all others are obliged to accommodate
themselves within the limits of the conservation
laws. These limits are sometimes so narrow that
there is simply nowhere for other laws to display
themselves.
When You Know the Mass,
You Know the Particle
Another property of elementary particles, their
indivisibility, is of prime importance for the
successful application of kinematics.
The mass of a large body, as is known, can
have any value because the body consists of
atoms and can be divided into parts. Now imagine
for a moment that there are no atoms and that
the energy produced by SOIne special device is
accumulated in some kind of reservoirs, remaining imperceptible and shapeless. Then, all of a
sudden, after reaching a certain amount, it is
instantly transformed into something: a frying
pan, a flatiron or a ball. Besides, all the frying
pans are absolutely identical and have the same
mass, all the flatirons also differ in no way from
one another, etc. Imagine that these things
would be indivisible: if we banged the frying
pan against the flatiron it would not break into
two or more pieces, but would remain intact
and unimpaired, or would disappear without a
trace into the energy reservoir; or, for instance,
it would turn into two balls, with the excess
24
energy returning to the reservoir. We would soon

get used to such things and would never ask
ourselves: "What does a half frying pan look
like?". This would sound the same to us as "two
and two-thirds wood-cutters".
This, roughly, is the state of affairs as concerns elementary particles. They do not grow
from a nucleus as a crystal, they are not built
of blocks like a house, they cannot be divided
into pieces like a bar of chocolate. They are born
all ready, in finished form and of full size. The
particles of one kind are all alike, so much so
that they cannot be distinguished from one another. The mass is exactly the same for all the
particles of one kind and can serve, therefore, as
a tag or calling card of the particle. This is what
indivisibility of particles leads to.
There remains only a single difficulty: how are
we to measure the mass? We could, for example,
weigh the particle. But suitable scales have not
yet been devised and, what is of most importance,
to weigh the particle we first have to stop it.
How would we go about doing that? Therefore,
the mass of a particle has to be determined in
motion as it speeds past atoms and molecules.
At this instant, physicists contrive to measure
its momentum from how sharply its path is bent
in a magnetic field; its energy is measured from
the extent of the destruction it brings on, and
from other phenomena. These factors are quite
sufficient to identify the particle. On the face
of it, this seems impossible or, at any rate, highly
unusual. I t is understandable when the velocity
or the temperature or the altitude to which a
particle rises is determined from its energy. But
25
to definitely recognize the nature of a body from

its energy is something hard to believe; any
body can have 8 given energy, or a given temperature, or a given velocity! Well, what of it?
As a matter of fact, this is not so impossible as
much as unusual. Why should we judge an article
by its energy and momentum when a dozen better
methods are available, when we can simply stop
the article and look at it? But a particle cannot
always be stopped and physicists are obliged to
devise more subtle means.
How to Weigh a Bullet in Flight

If necessary, even the mass of a bullet in flight
can be determined . You fire the bullet pointblank from a rifle into a box of sand placed in
a calorimeter. A t the instant the shot is fired
you measure the momentum p acquired by the
bullet. This can be found, for example, from the
recoil of the rifle, i.e. by multiplying the mass
of the rifle by its velocity at t he instant the shot
is fired (owing to the equality of action and
reaction, the bullet will have the same momentum). All the energy T, acquired by the bullet
is converted into heat when the bullet is brought
to a stop by the sand, and can be measured by
the calorimeter. What then is the mass m of the
bullet? From the formula for the momentum p=mv
it follows that the velocity of the bullet is v =
= plm, Substituting into the formula T = mv 2 /2
for the kinetic energy, we obtain T = p 2 /2m ,
from which it follows that the mass of the bullet is
p2
m= 2T.
26
Hence, the mass of a body engaged in mechanical

motion can be determined from its store of momentum and energy. This cannot be done, of
course, if only its energy or only its momentum
is measured.
In the physics of the subatomic world, where
visible motion is only of the mechanical kind,
there also exists a relation between the mass,
total energy and momentum of a particle. Affairs
are simplified here because the tiniest particles
cannot have any mass; each kind of particle
can have only its own mass and no other. Hence,
as sooniaswe have determined the mass of a
particle (by the energy and momentum it carries
away), we can immediately identify the particle.
Very- convenient. This couldn'f.' have been done
with the bullet. Knowing only its weight, could
you determine whether yon are dealing with
a bullet or with buckshot from a shotgun?
Chapter 3
Energy and Momentum

of Fast Particles
In expounding something new it is necessary to
base our explanation on something that is already known, We shall assume that the reader
is familiar with the formula: E == Mc 2
This formula was" discovered by Albert Einstein. V\T e are indebted to him f~r enabling us
to calculate the energy of fast particles and for
the knowledge that there are incalculable, unclaimed stores of energy concealed even in a rock
Energy and Momentum of Fast Particles
27
half-buried in a vast plane. He derived this formula long before it was required in practice
(long before 1919 when the first nuclear transformation was observed). As far back as 1905 Einstein proved that the energy and momentum of
a very fast body cannot be calculated by the
familiar formulas E == mv 2 /2 and p = mu. He
also proved much, much more; he literally upset
our usual ideas on all the basic things in our
world: motion, space, time, light and mass. Of
importance to us for the time being is only what
he said about energy and momentum.
The essence of Einstein's discovery can be
expounded roughly as follows.
Mass and Velocity
Nothing in the world is faster than light. No kind
of light can be faster than any other kind. Any
kind of light always travels (in vacuum or, as
they now say, in free space) at the same velocity.
Therefore, it proves convenient to take the
velocity of light equal to unity. All other motion,
for instance, that of some body, cannot be faster
than the propagation of light, i.e. the velocity
of any body is always less than unity. But what
about a body that is accelerated by some force
for a very long time? "'-7 e know that any force
causes acceleration, and that acceleration increases the velocity. Will not the time come
when the velocity of the accelerated body exceeds
our unity? But this is impossible; hence, the
acceleration must gradually decrease with an
increase in velocity. The acceleration must de-
28
crease at a rate that prevents the velocity of the

body from reaching unity. But what does it
signify if the acceleration of a body decreases
even though it is subject to the action of a constant force? How can that be? We know another
property of motion: the acceleration is inversely
proportional to the mass of the body; the heavier
the body, the harder it is to accelerate it with
the same force. We come to the conclusion then
that th.e acceleration is reduced because the
mass of the body increases. In this way both
ends meet; as the velocity increases the body
becomes heavier, and the previous force can no
longer provide the previous acceleration. The
acceleration drops and the velocity remains
almost constant. Einstein derived the formula
indicating the increase in mass as the velocity v
of the body approaches unity:
ll!f~
_~
1/ 1- v 2
(3.1)
I-Iere m denotes the mass of the body when it is

stationary, i.e. when v === O. At a velocity v
approaching unity, the denominator of the fraction becomes smaller and small er, and t he fraction becomes larger and larger.
Mass and Energy
Let us now Approach the problem from the other
side. Evidently, the force that acted for so long
must have been applied by some person or by
some kind of engine. Assume that it was an engine. This eugine operated for a certain length
29
of time, consuming fuel and expending energy.

But energy, as we know, cannot be lost or cannot
vanish without leaving a trace. It is evidently
transferred to the body being accelerated, and the
longer the engine is in operation, the more the
energy absorbed by the body. But how can it be
absorbed when the velocity of the body cannot
in any case exceed unity? This question is
simply answered. The energy is spent in increasing
the mass of the body. The increase in mass represents the increase in energy. Again everything
tallies: the force does work on the body, increasing its energy; the energy is accumulated
in the body, increasing its mass. The origin of
the famous formula E === Mc 2 becomes clear now.
We shall write it in the form
E
==
M,
(3.2)
because we took the velocity of light c to be

unity. But do not think that we have derived
the formula E == ~11c2. It was obtained on the
basis of entirely different considerations, and all
that we did was to explain its meaning in the
simplest possible way.
Let us summariz ~ what has been said, but
express these ideas in another manner. Why
are new formulas required for the mass and the
energy when a body travels at a very high velocity? If the mass of the body did not increase
when it is accelerated, then its velocity would
continue to increase until, finally, the body
would overtake light, but this would contradict
experiments. If the energy of an accelerated
body would not increase, where would the work
done in accelerating it go to?
30
Answers to Your Questions

"That is all very fine," you say, "but why has
nobody ever noticed that accelerated bodies
become heavier?"
This really is hard to observe: all that surrounds us travels too slow. Slow in comparison
to the velocity of light, i.e. to unity. The accumulation of mass in a body becomes observable
only as the velocity of the body approaches the
limiting value, whereas the velocity of the fastest
rocket is less than ilia 000. So high is the vel ocity of light. If the veloci ty of light was, let us
say, 10 km/s, the rocket engineers would have
to apply Einstein's formula in their calculations,
thereby taking into account the increase in the
inertia of the rocket as it approaches this velocity. But if the velocity of light was still lower,
for instance 1 km/s, a great many phenomena in
the world would take place in a different way
and Einstein's mechanics would seem to us to be
just as natural as Newton's mechanics do now.
"Just a minute," you ask another question,
"don't they contradict each other at our low,
customary velocities?"
No, they do not. Einstein took care in his
reasoning not to upset the repeatedly tested
laws of Newton at low velocities. If the velocity v
is very low, the fraction 1/V 1 - vt. becomes
equal to 1
v2 /2 to a high degree of accuracy
(you can check this by substituting, for instance,
v ~ 0.0001). The formula for the increase in
mass is then transformed to
M = m+
~ mo".
(3.3)
31
When a rocket flies with the velocity of 30 km/s,

then v = 0.0001, i.e. its mass is increased by
one two-hundred-millionth. I t is practically impossible to measure SUCll a change in mass.
We can, instead of equation (3.3), write an
equivalent equation, recalling that the mass of
a body and its store of energy are the same thing:
E=m+
~ mi:
(3.4)
Hence, at low velocities the energy of any

freely travelling body consists of _two parts: of
the part m which does not depend upon the
velocity of the body, and the part mv 2 /2 which
increases with the square of the velocity. Just
a minute: but mv 2 /2 is the kinetic energy of the
body! This means that Einstein discovered that
the kinetic energy (which we usually assume to
be the energy of a body in free flight, not subject
to the action of any forces) is only a part of the
'store of energy possessed by the body, and it is
only a very small part. The main energy is in
the term m, which is the mass that is not affected
by the velocity and that the body has even when
it is stationary. This could be called the energy
of existence.
If a new grain of matter comes into being somewhere, some kind of work must have been done
to create it. A stock of energy must have been
acquired from some other body or decanted
from some source in order to construct the new
grain of mat ter. This energy is in the grain
even when it is at rest. This may sound frivolous
when we think of ordinary large bodies made up
of atoms. We always produce them of ready-made
32
building material (atoms) and expend no energy

in creating the atoms. Hence, the energy of
existence is of no particular importance in this
case; all that is required already exists. The
problem of creating matter simply does not
arise.
But the transformations due to decay and
collision processes of the tiniest particles are
quite another matter. Here new kinds of particles are actually created out of previous kinds
and the energy they have accumulated, or even
out of light alone. Like Ibsen's Button-Moulder,
we remelt all the old stuff with no scraps left,
and nobody allows us to neglect the energy m.
And the Elephant Was Overlooked
The presence of the term m in the energy equation
is so vital that it is worth a more detailed discussion. Why don't we notice this component?
Why is it that before Einstein nobody had noticed
such vast reserves, "at hand" one might say,
that exceed all the energy available at that time
by millions and thousands of millions of times?
Does that not imply that Einstein was wrong?
No, it does not. The fact is that we perceive the
change in energy, rather than the energy itself.
When kinetic energy changes into potential
energy we Immediately notice the change because the velocity of the body decreases. If it
changes into thermal energy, again we notice it
because the body gets hotter. But if the energy
is not converted, how can we perceive it? Take
the earth, for example. I ts kinetic energy is
enormous. It whirls around the sun at the mad
33
pace of 30 km/s and its mass is 6

10 2 7 g.
This is a stupendous store of energy, exceeding
our powers of imagination. But who takes any
notice? In what way does it reveal itself? Should
it be taken into account and entered into the
energy balance of conversions that take place
with terrestrial bodies? Of course not; it does not
change in such conversions of energy; it is dead stock
and leads to no change in the balance of energy.
The same is true of the energy m. It remains
unchanged in all mechanical, electrical and
chemical processes; it is a silent partner on both
sides of the energy balance equation and is not
worth a rap to anybody. But if we could find
some forces capable of pinching off even a piece
of m, then m would immediately make itself
felt. At first nothing was known about such forces.
It's a good thing that the formula
E == m
+ mv /2
2
suggested, at least, that such forces are worth

looking for. They were found many years later;
they turned out to be nuclear forces. In nuclear
power plants and in ships propelled by nuclear
power, such forces are engaged in nipping off
tiny parts from m and converting them into
electrical or mechanical energy.
In decay and collision processes involving
elementary particles, forces, similar in nature
but incomparably greater in magnitude, no longer
pinch off piece by piece of the rest mass m. Their
activity drastically reconstructs certain building
bricks of matter into others, which, at times, in
no way resemble the first ones, neither in properties nor in purpose.
3-1920
Momentum and Velocity

But we have digressed from our direct goal. Now
we know how the mass of a body depends upon
its velocity:
III
11 1- v
The energy of the body depends upon its velocity in exactly the same way:
E==M==
11 1- v2
What, then, is to be done with the quantity

= Mv, called the momentum of a body?
Maybe it also has to be replaced by some other
equation?
This turned out to be unnecessary. The momentum is expressed, as previously, by the equation
p
==
Mu,
but now M is a quantity depending upon the

velocity. This implies that the momentum, like
the mass of a body and its energy, can increase
without limit as the body accelerates. Hence
Newton's statement still holds that the increase
in the linear momentum of a body due to the
action of a force is proportional to the magnitude
of the force and the length of time it acts. * If
* The most general form of Newton's second law is

applicable in this case as well:
F==!!-==: d(Mv)
dt
dt'
i.e. the force is equal to the rate of change of the momentUITI. Schoolboys use a part icular esse of this formula
35
the force acts for a sufficiently long time (and in

the required direction), the momentum may reach
any unlimited high value.
It follows that the formula for the momentum
can be written in any of three forms:
p
==
Mv
Ev
(3.5)
n~v
p == 1/ 1- v 2
and applied as required.
These are the transformed expressions of the
energy and momentum that must be used for
any body if its velocity is to some extent cornparable to the velocity of light, i.e. unity.
Now is just the time to foresee the questions
that an inquisitive reader might ask. You may
in which the mass 0 f the hod y is constant and onl y
its velocity varies. Hencc, the force is equal to the
mass multiplied by the rate of change of the velocity,
i.e, by the acceleration:
dv
F=m. F=lna.
The general Iorm of the equation is applied, of course, not
only in describing the mot.ion of fast part.icles , but in
general in solving problems on the mot.ion of bodies or
variable mass, for instance, a rocket. This is exactly what
Tsiolkovsky did in deriving his famous formula
v=V In JIll0
m
where M 0 is the initial (launching) mass of the rocket,

11 is the velocity of the exhaust gases ejected Irom the
engine nozzle, and v is the velocity of the rocket when
its mass is equal to In.
3*
SG
ask: "How can we calculate the kinetic energy

now if the formula
ntv 2
T==-2-
has turned out to be incorrect at high velocities?"

The answer is that the kinetic energy of a
particle is the difference between the total energy
of a particle, calculated by the formula
Em
- 1/1-v2
'
and its rest energy m, i.e.
T ==-=
1/1-- v2
m,
At low values of v the quantity calculated by

this last equation differs only very slightly from
that obtained by the ordinary equation mv 2 /2.
Another question is: how can the mass equal
the energy with the mass being measured in
grams and the energy, for instance, in kilowatthours?
But after it has been explained that mass is
equivalent to energy, we, knowing the mass of
a body, also know its stock of energy. It becomes
natural, then, to select units of mass and energy
that reveal this equivalence at once. Different
units for mass and energy are tolerable only
where this equivalence is of no importance, i.e,
almost in all phenomena on a terrestrial scale.
But where the difference between energy and
mass is simply the difference between two aspects
of motion (the word "energy" sets off the "store
37
of creative power" of a particle, whereas the

word "mass" sets off its inertia properties, its
unyielding nature, and one cannot exist without
the other), it would be sinful to measure them
differently. Hence, in the subatomic world, the
unit of measurement is selected so that the energy
of a particle is numerically equal to its mass.
But can this be done? Of course. If E == M
at c == 1, then E and M are naturally to be
measured in the same units. In exactly the same
manner, if p == Ev and the velocity of a particle
is taken as its ratio to the velocity of light, then
the momentum p can also be measured in the
same units. So long as the processes in the subatomic world do not affect our world, this agreement-to measure energy, momentum and mass
by the same unit of measurement-will not
lead to any inconveniences; quite the opposite.
What is this unit of measurement? It is called
the electron volt (eV). At first this was only
a uni t of energy and represented the energy acquired
by an electron when it passes through a potential difference of one volt in vacuum. One thousand million electron volts (10 9 eV) is equal to
one giga electron volts (1 GeV). Measured in these
units arc both the mass and the momentum, not
of large bodies, of course; only of the tiniest
ones. This unit is convenient because the mass
and energy of a particle are expressed by a small
number. The mass of the proton, for instance, is
0.94 GeV and the momentum acquired by protons in the large Dubna accelerator is 10 GeV,
etc.
And you might ask this final question: "Is it
true that the new mechanics with its new defini-
38
tions of mass, energy and momentum is required

only in the subatomic world, and is of no account in our ordinary world?" No, because among
our large machines we have some that cannot be
designed according to the laws of Newton's
mechanics. These are the particle accelerators
(Fig. 1). Their purpose is to accelerate particles,
for instance, protons, to velocities near to that
of light. At this the proton, according to Einstein's teaching, becomes much more massive.
Fig. 1. A run-of-the-mill accelerator.
Its mass grows larger and larger in each revolution along its circular path. With each revolution it becomes more and more difficult to hold
the particle in this annular chamber. The forces
of the magnetic field are already insufficient to
conduct such a massive particle around the circle.
It becomes necessary to supply higher and higher
current to the electromagnet. In the large Dubna
accelerator, for example, where the velocity of
the proton does not differ, practically, from that
of light, the mass ill of the proton at the end
of the acceleration period becomes 10 GeV. At
the beginning it was equal to 0.94 GeV This
means that in 3 s (the length of time required
for acceleration), the prot-oil becomes over ten
times more massive. By the end of acceleration,
Energy and olomentum of Fast Particles
39
the power consumed by the electromagnet increases by a great many times. If you wish to be
convinced of the validity of Einstein's formula,
watch the wattmeters on the central switchboard
to see how reactive load increases.
"Just a minute, just a minute!" exclaims the
alert reader. "What is happening here? Electrical
power is vanishing at the power station, and
ten-fold heavier protons are appearing in the
accelerator. Do you mean to say that energy has
been converted into mass?"
"What is there so alarming about that?"
"Because that is an erroneous philosophical
thesis. Besides, you yourself contended that
energy and mass are simply two different shades
of the same physical concept."
"In physics, yes; but in common practice an
increase in energy does not mean an increase in
mass. A teapot does not become heavier because
it is heated. Hence, in the everyday sense, there
is a huge difference between energy and mass.
And when you become a witness to the fact that
the power supplied to the accelerator input turns
into exceptionally heavy protons at the outlet,
you have the right to exclaim in astonishment:
'Electrical energy has turned into the mass of
a proton! '"
"Or into its energy ..."
"Or into its energy if we wish to underline the
'store of power' or 'creative potential' of the
proton, rather than its 'unyielding nature'. We
must get used to the fact that the 'unyielding
nature' and the 'store of creative power' of a
particle are synonyms. When we get accustomed
to this fact, an ineradicable desire arises to
40
banish one of the words, 'energy' or 'mass', and

manage with only one. Such attempts are being
made by the writers of textbooks and monographs
in physics. But in our book, in which the lack
of mathematical equations has to be compensated
for by verbal expressiveness, we shall employ
both synonyms: energy and mass."
"But what about the philosophers?"
"Philosophers differ. Wh y look for problems
where they do not exist? Why pay so much attention to the use of words, where the true meaning
is not in words, but in exact relations?"
People with a practical turn of mind are int.erested in an entirely different matter: "Is it
true that the energy evolved in the decay of
elementary particles greatly exceeds nuclear
energy?"
"Yes, it does. For example, one of the cycles of
nuclear reactions that provide the energy of the
stars consists in the transformation of four
protons into a helium nucleus. Their mass is
0.94 X 4 == 3.76 GeV, whereas the mass of
helium is 3.73 GeV. Consequently, 0.03 GeV is
released, which is less than one percent of the
total energy. But in the decay of the neutral pi
meson (n" meson) into photons the whole mass
(100%) of the meson is converted into energy."
"Y ou mean to say we have here a source of
energy more powerful than a thermonuclear
reaction?"
"By no means. An obstacle is the rareness and
instability of such mesons; they cannot be accumulated , And, what is of primary importance,
they must be created by expending an amount of
energy that is exactly equal to that evolved in
41
their decay. Complete protons, on the other hand,

are always available; they are the nuclei of
hydrogen. In a thermonuclear reaction we. squander stores of energy accumulated by nature;
neutral pi meson decay at best only returns the
energy spent in creating the mesons."
"Then of what use are they?"
"Mesons, hyperons and their ilk are of use to
us for an entirely different reason. They provide
clues to the structure of the world."
Chapter 4

By now, I hope, the opposition of the reader has
been broken down, and he is ready to get accustomed to the new and revised concepts of energy,
momentum and mass. We found out that a
particle becomes heavier as it is accelerated, that
a particle (and any body) cannot acquire additional energy without increasing its mass (inertia)
and that at high velocities the increase in momentum is inevitably accompanied by an appreciable
increase in mass and energy, because the velocity
does not practically increase.
New aspects of the in trod uced concepts shall
appear before the reader in this chapter. We shall
find that in acceleration the mass, momen tum
and energy of a particle increase, that the particle has one (at least one) kinematic characteristic that nothing can change. We shall also find
out one astonishing- fact: that the mass also
depends upon the motion of the instrument that
measures this mass . We shall find that there are
42
particles that cannot be at rest, and much, much

more.
To begin with let us recall the experiment that
we performed in Chap. 2. There we fired a bullet
point-blank into a box of sand in order to measure the mass of the bullet, and to write the formula In == p2/2T, which relates the mass of the
bullet to its energy and momentum.
By Far the Most Important Equation

Let us see whether such a relation is valid for
rapid motion as well. The essence of our calculations in Chap. 2 consisted in the Iollowing:
\VC determined the velocity v from one equation
and then substituted the obtained quantity into
another equation. As a result, the quantity v
was eliminated from the equations. Now let us
try to get rid of v in the new equations for E
and p. This can most easily be done by squaring
both sides of the equation for the momentum to
obtain
and then doing the same to the equation for the

energy:
Ii"'"}. =-=
_n_!_
1-v 2
Next we subtract the first equation from the

second:
E2. _ p2, --=--=
ln 2
1 _. v2
m. 2v 2
1-
~,2
==-
ln 2 -
"~2V2
-:~--:--_
1- v2
1n 2
(1-
v 2)
1- v 2
43
I n final form
E2 _
p2
==
m2
(4.1)
This, then, is tho required relation between

the energy, momenlUln and rest mass of a par-
If in acceleration
Fig. 2. The Pythagorean theorem in the relativistic"

sense.
ticle. I t can also be wri l.t.en as
E2 ==
p2
+m
2,
(4.2)
in which case it reminds us of the well-known

Pythagorean theorem. If we draw a right triangle
(Fig. 2) in which the length of the horizontal
side is equal to the rest mass m of a particle,
and the length of the vertical side to its momentum p, then the length of the hypotenuse is
equal to the total energy E. As long as the par-
The word "relativistic'' means "of or having to do with
the theory of relativity".
44
ticle is stationary, the whole triangle is merged

into the horizontal length m, the momentum is
equal to zero, and the energy to the rest mass m
of the particle. As the particle is accelerated, its
momentum begins to increase and, together with
the momentum, its energy. At first the change
in energy is very slight because in a low triangle
the hypotenuse is almost equal to the horizontal
side. This is the case of motion at our ordinary
everyday velocities and it obeys ordinary Newtonian mechanics. As the velocities become higher
and higher, the energy increases faster and faster.
At extremely high velocities almost equal to that
of light, the triangle is drastically extended upward. In such a high narrow triangle, the hypotenuse is almost equal to the vertical side, i.e. at
extremely high veloci ties the difference between
the momentum and the energy of a particle
(and, consequently, the mass) is almost obliterated:
E ~!J
(at
v ~ 1).
(4.3)
Almost, but never completely. No matter how

high the triangle is, the momentum is nevertheless
always less than the energy, and less by exactly
the amount required so that E2 - p2 is equal
to nL 2
In Einsteinian mechanics, which shows especial
interest in the way that various quantities vary
with the velocity, the rest mass m is frequently
called the invariant of motion. Then the difference
E2 - p2 is said to be constant (equal to m 2 ) and
that it is the invariant of motion. No matter how
a body is accelerat.ed its momentum and energy
45
grow simultaneously and in unison so that the

difference E2 - p2 does not change.
The formula m 2 ==== E2 - p2 can be used to
find the rest mass of a pari icle if i ts energy and
momentum are known.
The rest masses of all known particles, together with other properties, are listed in special
tables. To determine whether a particle observed
in an experiment is a new item or belongs to the
number of particles that have been investigated
long ago, it is necessary to measure its energy E
and (independently) its momentum p. Then we
calculate the difference E2 - p2, find its square
root, and look it up in the table. If there is such
a value, fine and good, but it is even better if
there is not. This means that you have discovered
a new particle. Such a discovery is a tremendous
event. It is believed that the whole assortment
of existing particles is a manifestation of some
kinds of fundamental properties of nature. I t is
therefore of vital importance to know whether
we have already seen all of the elementary particles or whether we have missed any. Attempts
are made to classify the known particles to find
some definite order in them.
The masses of the particles do not differ greatly
in magnitude. The heaviest of terrestrial objects,
the earth itself, is about 1025 times heavier than
an apple. One of the heaviest elementary particles, the omega-minus hyperon, is only 3300
times more massive than one of the lightest, the
common electron. *
Today much heavier particles are known. The upsilon,
for instance, is approximately 20 000 times heavier than
the electron.
4G
I t can be seen from formula E2 - p2 == ln 2

that the rest mass of any particle determines by
how much the increase in its momentum lags
behind the increase in its energy. At not very
high energies, E and p differ very greatly for
heavy particles, but almost not at all for light
particles. As the energy increases the three characteristics of the particle merge into one. A proton with a momentum of 10 GeV has an energy
of 10.044 GeV and, consequently, its effective
mass is also 10.044 (]-eV But its rest mass is
only 0.94 GeV. The remaining 9.104 GeV of
mass is the mass of motion (we can also say that
the remaining 9.104 GeV of energy is the kinetic
energy of the proton).
Unstoppable Particles
Among the elementary particles there are some
with a rest mass equal to zero. These are the
photon and the two kinds of neutrino, electronlike and muon-like*. When the rest mass of a
particle is equal to zero, it is said to simply have
none: the particle has no rest mass.
Let us consider the consequences of zero rest
mass. \Ve shall begin at the end. The relation
E2 - p2 == m 2 is converted into E2 - p2 === 0,
or p == E. The energy of such a particle numerically coincides with the momentum and also with
the kinetic energy (no rest massl), and with the
mass. Yes, and with the mass! The formula
These neutrinos are denoted by the symbols
Ve
and
Yu- The existence of a third neutrino, v't' also wi th
zero rest mass, has been predicted. It has not yet been
detected experimentally.
47
E ==: M continues to shine in all its splendor.

A particle having no rest mass nevertheless has
mass, but it is the mass of motion. Do not
imagine that this is mere wordplay, that, from
force of habit, we are parroting concepts that
have no significance. No, the photon really has
mass, which is manifested like ordinary mass.
The photon has inertia; it is attracted to other
bodies according to the law of gravitation. For
example, in passing near the sun or the stars, its
path is deflected; in approaching the earth vertically the energy of the photon increases as does
that of any falling stone. The energy of a photon
is proportional to its frequency: E
h, where
h is the famous Planck constant, equal to
4.14 X 10- 24 GeV-s. This means that its frequency is also increased. It is precisely this
change in frequency that can be recorded in an
experiment. How this is done is described on
page 154. As long as the photon is in motion,
everything is in perfect order, just the same as
for other particles. But, as soon as we make up
our mind to stop, or simply to slow down, or, on
the contrary, to accelerate the photon, we find
that something is wrong with it. A photon cannot be slowed down, and it cannot be speeded up.
I ts velocity is always equal to unity (as we saw
at the end of Chap. 3, in equation (3.5), the
momentum is equal to the energy multiplied by
the velocity, from which the velocity v == pl E,
and for the photon p == E). I t always travels
with the velocity of light; it is simply a portion
of electromagnetic radiation, a particle of light
having the energy E and momentum p. And tho
velocity of light, with which we began our ac-
48
count in Chap. 3, is constant in free space; we

took it to be equal to unity. There, we took it
equal to unity and now we obtain unity for the
velocity of light because m == O. Again everything tallies, and that is very pleasant.
Thus, apart from ordinary ones, particles are
conceivable (and actually observed) with zero
rest mass, particles that cannot be stopped. For
these particles the formula
(4.4)
is inapplicable (it becomes E == 0/0, and you
cannot calculate anything with such an equation).
This is what indicates the impossibili ty of raising
the question of the dependence of any characteristics of the photon on its velocity. For the photon
its velocity is the same kind of internal and innate characteristic as the mass or charge for
other particles.
Do not infer, however, that since photons and
neutrinos are incapable of standing stock-still,
being slowed down or speeded up, they are not
subject to any influence or action. Photons can
be diverted; they can disappear, reappear again,
and be converted into photons of lower energies,
but only in such a way that their velocity remains unchanged. The direction of their velocity
can change, however, and this turns out to be
sufficient to prevent a photon in motion being
distinguished from other particles. Moreover, at
superhigh energies, other particles begin to resemble the photon. Their energy, as we could see
in using a proton with the energy 10 GeV as an
example, becomes closer and closer to their
momentum, their velocity differs only slightly
E===m/V1-v 2
49
from unity, and instruments no longer distinguish them from photons and from one another
with respect to these characLeristics (though
they may greatly differ wit.h respect to other
properties) .
In Chap. 3 we became acquainted with an
extraordinary concept: the energy m of existence
of a body. It was stated that any body possesses
energy simply because the body exists and is
made up of something. It becomes clear now
that this term, the energy of existence, is not
always convenient and can lead into error if we
understand it too literally. Photons really exist
(as a matter of fact, we exist owing to solar
photons).
But their energy of existence m equals zero.
I t is more convenient, therefore, to speak of
rest energy.
Here the reader may take offence: was it worthwhile to introduce a concept that does not always
make sense? It was. The term was not long-lived,
but it served its purpose. I t helped to store in
our consciousness the concept that, in the first
place, energy is required (or was required) at
some time in the past to create particles, and,
in the second place, any existing body is a potential source of energy, even when it rests calmI y
in one spot. Whereas the term "rest mass" excites
no harmful illusions, neither does it arouse our
fantasy. It is better not to be angry, but to thank
"energy of existence" for its faithful service and
to retire it with an honourable discharge. The
term has done its duty, let it go.
-1920
50
A New Concept
To fill the empty place, we shall introduce a new
concept; we shall run across it frequently in the
future. It is the relativistic* factor y (it is also
called the Lorentz factor). This factor indicates
by how many times the mass of a particle has
increased at a given velocity compared to its
mass at rest:
__ 114
"r--
,
__ E
m , or "r- m , or v>
Vl-v 2
(4.5)
a particle at rest y == 1; as the velocity increases to unity, "( increases without Iimit , just
as E and p , but, in contrast to them, is a dimensionless quantity, independent of the chosen
units of measurement, and therefore very convenien t. I n the mechanics of ul traf'ast motion,
the velocity is no longer the essential feature of
motion it is in mechanics on a terrestrial scale.
This is crystal clear: when the velocity of bodies
is close to that of light anyway, what is the
point of asking what the velocity of this or that
particle is? The answer is predetermined: v ~ 1.
Factor y is quite another matter: two bodies
having almost the same velocities (VI ~ V2) may
ha ve qu i te d i fferen t relati vistic factors 1'1 and Y2
even when VI ~ 1 and V 2 ~ 1.
Though we defined the relativistic factor l'
in terms of the dynamic characteristics of the
particle (its energy and rest mass), 'Y actually
(as shown by the third equation in (4.5)) depends
only on the velocity of a body. lIenee the quantity
FOL'
See the footnote to Fig. 2.
51
'V can be used to characterize the motion not only

of particles, but also of objects whose material
nature has not been stipulated. A problem, for
instance, that frequently arises in physics is the
measurement of the properties of a body in
various frames of reference, both stationary and
moving ones. In such cases, there is no sense in
speaking of the energy and momentum of the
frame of reference (coordinate system): only its
velocity is of importance. But, together with the
velocity of the reference frame, we determine 1',
which, like the velocity, also characterizes the
motion of the frame.
After writing out the conservation laws, the
aforesaid is quite sufficient to begin our acquaintance with kinematics proper of particle decay
and interaction. But there is one more important
concept in Einstein's theory that may come in
handy. It reflects the meditations of Einstein and
his forerunners on space and time; it concerns
the changes in momentum and energy of a body
upon changes in the motion of the instruments
measuring these quantities; it pertains to the
so-called Lorentz transformations.
An Exceptionally Important Problem
We are looking at a body travelling at high
velocity and, in some way, measure its momentum and energy. Then we ask ourselves: if we
ourselves started off in pursuit of the body, would
there be any changes in the energy and momentum
that we had previously measured? Or if somebody shouts to us that we are not at all stationary,
but are travelling in the same direction as the
4*
52
body whose characteristics we had measured,

but do not realize that we are, whereas he, an
unbiassed observer, took notice, stopped, measured the energy of the same body and obtained an
entirely different result, would we believe him?
P'
p ....---~-
0'
(a)
.0'
(b)
Fig. 3. The simplest Lorentz transformation:

(a) Observer 0 thinks t ha t par ticl o P has t.he momcn turn ]J, W}lfJ'('Cl.S
observer 0' is of the op inion tha t ohserver U is travcl l ing at vr loci ty
v in the same direction as par ticlr- P (I From t he point or view
of observer 0', particle P has the momentum p'
Yes, evidently, we would have to believe him.

In what way is the energy any better than the
velocity? But, there is no doubt that the velocity
would be different if the instrument measuring
it travels in different ways. The energy of a
particle is related to its velocity. But even withou t this fact it is clear that the particle will
affect the instrument measuring its energy in
different ways, depending on whether this instrument is at rest with respect to the particle or
is in motion, and whether, in the latter case,
this motion is slow or fast. And if the particle
53
affects the instrument in different ways, its

readings will also differ. When we specify the
energy of a particle we must first make clear
how, at what velocity and in which direction the
instrument that measured the energy was travelling at the time.
This poses the following question. If the energy
(or momentum) of a particle was measured by two
instruments (two observers) travelling at different velocities, in what way should the readings
of the two instruments be related to each other?
What is the relation between the energies of
one and the same particle measured, as they say,
in different frames of reference? Or, in the language we have been employing, if the reference
frame, in which measurements yielded the energy
and momentum values E and p for a particle, is
itself in motion with respect to some new frame
(in the same direction as the particle) at the
velocity v, what are the energy and momentum
of the particle in the new reference frame (Fig. 3)?
The Lorentz Transformations
Let us denote the new energy and new momentum
of the particle by E' and p', and characterize the
motion of the previous reference frame with
respect to the new one by the velocity v and the
factor y == 11V1 - v 2 Then it turns out that
E' and p' can be expressed linearly in terms of E
and p, i.e. they equal the sum of the old energy
and momentum multiplied by certain coefficients:
E: ~~ yE + wr,
p ---l'P-1" ~vE.
(4.6)
54
As we can see, the coefficients depend only upon
the velocity of the old reference frame with

respect to the new one. It is evident from these
equations (they are called Lorentz transformations) that the energy and, of course, the momen-
p'
p .............-
0'
.0'
Fig. 4. A Lorentz transformation.

In contrast to Fig. 3, observer 0, according to observer 0',
speeding along at velocity v in the opposite direction.
tum in the new reference frame are greater than

in the old frame.
It is quite another matter if the previous reference frame, in which the values E and p were
measured, travels (as discovered by the observers
in the new reference frame) in the direction
opposite to the motion of the bod y (Fig. 4).
Then a minus sign will have to be put before
the velocity u and the Lorentz transformation
equations take the form
E' yE - vv
p' = yp-yvE.
tzz:
}
(4.7)
Well, and what if we find that the direction

of the particle and the direction of motion of the
55
previous reference frame have nothing whatsoever

in common? Assume that we thought we were at
rest and measured the energy E and the momentum fJ of some particle. But while we were busy
with our measurements somehod y else noticed
p ....- - - -
-0
"<.
-0'
Fig. 5. The general case
of Lorentz transfurmations.
FrOIn the poin t of view of observer 0', the direc t ions of travel of
observer 0 and of particle P Iorm the ang lc e; t ho 1I1011IPntlun p'
of particle P, from the poin t of view of observer 0', is shown at
the right.
that we were moving, not in the direction of the

particle, but toward one side, off at the angle 0
with the velocity v (Fig. 5). What do the energy
E' and the momentum p' of the parlicle seem to
be to this somebody else?
Travelling Obliquely
The rule here is also simple. \\TC represent the
momentum p by a vector, i.e. an arrow that
points in the direction in which the particle
travelled and is of a length conditionally equal
to the magnitude of the momentum, If the mo-
56
mentum is 5 (~e V, for instance, we can take one

centimetre equal to 1 GeV, and draw an arrow
5 em long. The greater the momentum, the
longer (in a given scale) the vector. Then, on the
same drawing, we represent our own direction
/
/
Fig. 6. A Lorentz transformation (stage one).
and our own velocity. Since velocity and mornentum are different quantities, we can take any
velocity scale we like. Next, W?: project the
momentum vector on the velocity vector by
dropping a perpendicular from the head of the
momentum vector onto the velocity arrow (or on
its extension) and onto the direction perpendicular
to the velocity (Fig. 6). We thereby obtain two
new vectors. They are called the longitudinal
component of the momentum (denoted by PH'
and equal Lo p cos 8) and the transverse component (denoted by p J.. and equal to P sin 8).
I t turned out that the previous rule, equation
57
(4.6), concerns only the longitudinal component

of the momentum (there the momentum p was
in the direction along v and simply coincided
with its longitudinal component}, i.e. the rule
for transforming the longitudinal componenl PII
<,
<,
.......
....."
<,
<,
"
----------7"'p
&'
I)'
<,
<,
....
Fig. 7. A Lorentz transformation (stage two).

Observer 0 passes on tho baton to observer 0'; this does not. alter
the transverse componen t of any ITlOJII('Il turn, whereas the lonui tud inal component is changed hy a two-member equation; observer 0'
has to com hine the momen turn from its two componen ts ,
and the energy E is as follows:
E'
==
l' E --1 .. l' vP II,
PII =--= '\' P II - 'Y V E.
(4.8)
This means that we should first calculate

y == 1/V 1 - v 2 , and then we can determine the
energy of the particle from the first equation of
(4.8) and the longitudinal (again the longitudinal)
component of the momentum from the second
equation. After recalculating, it becomes, for
example, equal to 8 GoV. We draw this vector
58
in Fig. 7. What is to be done wi th the transverse

component? It does not change. This means that
arrow Fs: is to be carefully transferred, without
being turned in any direction, from Fig. 6 to
Fig. 7 and put with its tail at the head of vector
PI'. The head of the particle's new momentum
vector will be at the head of vector P.1. Next we
measure the length of the arrow representing
vector p' in the previous seale (1 em = 1 GeV)
and obtain the magnitude of the momentum.
How about its direction? This arrow gives the
direction as well, i.e. it shows in which direction, in the opinion of the stationary observer
(as the observer that ascertained in which direction and how we are moving is conditionally
called), the particle is travelling. Recalling the
properties of right triangles, we can write the
equations for the new angle 8' and the new mornentum p'
Hence, in the general form, the Lorentz transformation equations are: *
+ yvPH' }
+"(vE,
E' ==~ 1'E

P,~I = "l'Pu
P.1==Pl.
(4.9)
If in these equations (4.9) the energy E is replaced

throughout by the time t, and the momentum vector
p is replaced by the position vector r, we obtain the transformation equations for calculating the location and
time of any possible event in going over from one frame
of reference to another. This is exactly the form (i.e. with
rand t) in which Lorentz first wrote the transformation
equations. But we shall have no need for the equations
with rand t, and by the Lorentz transformations we
shall imply equations (4.9).
59
Naturally, before employing these equations

it is necessary to resolve the momentum vector
into its longitudinal and transverse components
and, after carrying out the calculations, to piece
together again the complete momentum from
the new longitudinal and the new (actually the
former) transverse component. When p and v
coincide in direction, we obtain equations (4.6);
when p and v are in opposite directions, we
obtain equations (4.7) (the longitudinal momentum is equal to momentum p preceded by a minus
sign). And again everything tallies.
Again the Most Important Equation
Just a minute; not everything tallies! There
was a rigid relation, E2 - p2 = m 2 , between
the previous energy and momentum of the
particle; the difference of their squares yielded
the square of the rest mass. And now, in the
new reference frame, is this equation still valid?
It would be too bad if it was not. That would
imply that there is one best frame of some kind
in which we obtain m 2 after subtracting, and
other, worse systems in which something else
is obtained instead of m". But Einstein pointed
out that there were freedom and equality among
the frames of reference, and no preferences of
some over others. More exactly he said (on the
basis of experiments conducted by physicists)
that in any frames of reference, moving with
respect to one another in straight lines and at
constant velocities, all the laws of nature apply
equally well. Among others, the law stating that
the difference E2 - p2 is constant in the motion
60
of a particle and is equal to m 2 at all times should

hold strictly everywhere. Let us check this
statement.
We are to calculate the difference E'2 - p'2.
According to the Pythagorean theorem (see
7)'2
'2
F or E' ,PH, an d Fs.
'
F19.
,p = PI!'2 + P 1...
we suhsti tute the expressions from equations
(4.9) and begin our calculations:
E'2 -- p'2 ~ E'2 -
Plr -- P'l.
== (1'E + "(V PlI)2 - (1' PII + "(VE)2 - Pl

== (1'2E2 - 2y2vE PiI + y2 v2p ll)
- ("(2 p il-l- 2"12 vE PiI - '- "(2v 2E'2) - Pl.
So far we have only applied the rule for squaring the sum of two quantities. Next, grouping
the terms containing the factors E'2, PrJ and EPII
separately, we obtain for the right-hand side of
the equation
E2 ()'2 - v 2y2) -l- PII (1'2 v2 -1'2)
+ 2EpII (1'2 V -1' 2v) -
pi.
The expression within the third set of parentheses is identically equal to zero. That within the
firs t se t of paren theses equals 1'2 (1 - v 2 ) an d ,
since "1 2
1/(1 - v 2 ) according to equation (4.5),
the expression is simply equal to unity. For the
same reason, the expression within the second
set of parentheses is equal to -1. I t follows that
there is almost nothing left:
E'l-- PIt _.. Pl == E2 --~ (Pll + P}.)
Next we look again at Fig. 6. Again the same
61
immortal theorem of Pythagoras convinces us

that the expression in parentheses is simply the
square of the momentum.
Thus, we have proved (see the beginning of
the calculations) that
(4.10)
The last difference is familiar: we became acquainted with it at the beginning of the chapter and
made certain that it equals ni", i ,e,
This is an especially significant result. The

difference of the squares of the energy and momen tum of a particle is, consequently, invariant,
i .e. it remains constant not only when the
particle is accelerated, but in varying the motion
of the instruments measuring the energy and
momentum, and in varying the motion of the
observer. Various observers, rushing past the
particle, will not agree in speaking of its energy
or momentum; each observer will insist on his
own values, which will be related pairwise by
equations (4.9). But all arguments will cease as
soon as we ask the observers only a single question: what is the difference of the squares of
your particle energy and momentum values?
Here they obtain one and the same quantity: m",
Beautiful, isn't it?
When you master the Lorentz transformations,
you can solve a great many interesting problems.
Some of them will be solved in the following
sections. For the time being, try to sol ve the
following two simple problems.
62
1. It is obvious that if we increase our velocity

from zero to that of a particle, we see that the
particle stands stock-still , its momentum becomes
zero and its energy is equal to the rest mass.
Try, then, to obtain this result by applying the
Lorentz transformations. Consider your motion
at the velocity of the particle to be the motion
of a new frame of reference. Then your prior
stationary state will look like motion in the
reverse direction at a velocity equal to that of
the particle. But the velocity of the particle is
equal to the ratio of its momentum to its energy
(this equation is given above). Thus, substitute
the fraction -piE into the Lorenlz transformation equations for v, calculate "( and then
calculate the new energy and momentum. In
your calculations do not forget what the invariant
difference E2 - p2 is equal to.
2. '1'he Lorentz transformations relate the
energy and momentum of a particle in a new
reference frame (E' and p') to their values in
the previous reference frame (E and p). Assume
that the velocity of the previous frame is v with
respect to the new frame. The equations express
E' and p' in terms of E and p. Quantities E
and p arc considered to be known and E' and p'
to be unknown. Now just imagine that E' and p'
are known and E and p are unknown. We obtain
two equations with two unknowns. Try to solve
them and express E and p in terms of E' and p'.
You will see that you again obtain the Lorentz
transformation equations, but everywhere with
a -v instead of a v. Why did this happen
and could you have guessed the result beforehand?
63
Chapter 5
Conservation of Energy
and Momentum
It has already been mentioned that on the
microstage where the actors are elementary
particles, plays with either of two plots are
most frequently performed. The first narrates the
story of the decay of what is old, obsolete and
corpulent, and the birth of what is new, young
and agile. The second plot has to do with the
clashes between heroes that are impetuous and
striving to be in action and other characters
that are stiff and fixed, and the collisions that
occur in these encounters. In other, perhaps more
appropriate words, these are the spontaneous
decay of heavy particles into lighter ones and
the scattering of fast particles by stationary ones.
Scattering is frequently accompanied by the
appearance of new particles*
Forbiddance, the Fundamental Principle
\Ve have previously mentioned that the laws
governing these processes are intricate and difficult to explain. In any case, particles cannot
be conceived in the form of sacks: of peas or
in the form of matryoshkas** which fall apart
* In recent years our persistent playwrights have been

intensely working on a new plot: the collision of t\VO
energetic heroes and its consequences. 'Ve are referring
here to the technique of colliding beams of elementary
particles.
* * Hollow wooden dolls painted in Russian peasant dress
with successively smaller dolls fitted into them. - Tr.
64
from a collision (in scattering) or from old age

(in decay) and their contents spill out (peas or
smaller matryoshkas). A better concept is to
imagine that the elementary particles live in
a society reigned by a police state, and that all
relations between the citizens and all changes
in the society are governed by a number of
prohibitive regulations. The citizens are excepl.ionally conscientious and strictly obey all the
prohibitions. Before committing themselves to
any transformation (decay or interaction), they
take pains to find out whether there is a law
forbidding it. If there is, there is nothing more
to be said; no transformation takes place. But
if there is no such law, the transformation may
occur.
For example, the decay of a heavy neutral KO
meson with a mass of 0.498 GeV into a positively
charged n+ meson (with the mass 0.140 GeV)
and the-neutral nO meson (with the mass 0.135 Ge V)
cannot" occur because the total electric charge
of n + and nO is positive, whereas the initial
meson was neutral, and there is a law that
strictly forbids any change in the total charge in
decay processes. Hence, the decay KO ~ n +
nO
is impossible. But the decay KO ~ n+
n- is
not forbidden because one of the pi mesons is
charged positively and the other negatively, so
that as a whole Jt +Jt - is neutral. Also unforbidden
by this Iaw is the decay into a K + meson and
a K - meson (their masses are slightly less than
that of the KO meson), i.e. the decay KO ~ K+
-1- K -. N either are the decay processes KO ~
-+n++n-+no, K-+[(++Ko+n- and
many, many others. Which of these decay pro-
85
cesses actually occur depends on whether or not

they violate other forbidden transformations.
We find, for instance, that the decay processes
KO -+ K+
1(- and KO ~ K+ -t- KO
n- are
forbidden by the Iol lowing law: the total rest
mass of the particles produced in a decay must
not exceed the rest mass oj the initial particle.
This directly follows from the law of conservation of energy.
As to the decays KO ~ n+
n- and K-+
~ n+
n- + n", they do not violate any laws
in force in this world. As a matter of fact, the
first decay is sometimes encountered, and sometimes the second. Which will occur in each specific case is impossible to predict beforehand.
There is No God, but Forbiddance

Ponder again, Dear Reader, over the essence of
what has been said. It is contended that the
fundamental principle ruling the morals and
manners of the subatomic world is the following:
everyth ing that is not forb idden is allowed. This
is neither a truism nor empty wordplay. In fact,
matters could stand so that a process A is not
forbidden by any general laws, but still is not
observed simply because it is process A.
In the subatomic world, you can be sure that
if there is a law, then it concerns everybody.
I t can be readily understood that this is a feature
of genuine science, i.e. the absence of exceptions,
incompatible facts, allowances for the circumstances, uncontrollable likes and dislikes, etc.
Physicists wishing to apprehend which processes
occur in one or another case must look over and
5-1920
66
sort out all the possibilities that are not forbidden

by known laws. It is quite another matter that
the majority of them..taare unlikely. Unlikely,
but not forbidden and some day, if we are patient, we shall see that they do occur. The skill
of a physicist consists, among other matters, in
the ability to pick out, first of all, the most
probable process among .the possible ones.
Of the great many forbidding laws existing
in the subatomic world, there is one that is of
especial interest to us. You probably guess which
one; it is the law of conservation of energy and
momentum. It can he stated jas follows: in all
collision processes (and in decays), the initial
energy of the colliding particles (or decaying
particles) is equal to the total final energy of the
newly formed particles. The same is true of the
momentum. In this form, this law does not seem
to forbid anything, but simply states a fact.

Do not, however, permit this to lead you into
error. Do you know of no laws that at first sight
seem to be inoffensive, but are automatically
converted into prohibitions owing to the impossibility of breaking them? It is the same here.
As an experimental fact, this is a law like all
other laws. But if you attempt to base any
theoretical predictions on this law, it immediately shows its teeth.
I t is impossible for the total final energy of the
remaining particles, after a collision (or decay)
process, not to be equal to the initial energy of the
colliding particles (or decaying particle). The
same is true for the momentum.
In this form the law is immediately converted

into an implement of research, forbidding cer-
61
lain processes, flinging the doors wide open to

others, and predicting the formation of invisible
particles in a third group of processes. N evertheless, we shall not set off one statement of
the law against the other. The affirmative statement, so to speak, is quite sufficient at times.
We will be applying the law of conservation
of energy and momentum in what follows. Let
us write it in the form of equations separately
for the decay of a particle and for the collision
of two particles. True, we could manage without equations because these laws are so simple.
But mathematics organizes our train of thought
in some manner, and this should never be ignored.
Decay
Imagine that some kind of particle 0, having
the energy Eo and momentum Po, decayed to
several particles, for example, three. We shall
denote them by the numbers 1, 2 and 3, their
energies by E I , E 2 and E 3 , and their momenta
by PI' P2 and P3' Then the conservation of energy
can be expressed by the equation
E1
+E +E
2
Eo,
(5.1)
and the conservation of momentum by the equation
P:
+ P2 + P3 =
Po-
(5.2)
"Just a minute," you say, "something is wrong

here. The momentum has lost an essential feature, its direction. The momentum is proportional to the velocity of the particle. To speak
6*
68
of the velocity without mentioning its direction

means to say nothing of any significance. I t is
clear that Po === PI +- P2 + P3 only when the
particles 1, 2 and 3 have the same direction
as the particle 0 had. What if that is not the
P3
Fig. 8. Vector addition.

Vector p is the sum of the three ve :
case? If, for instance, particle 3 is emitted

counter Lo the first t\VO particles? Then PI +
P2 - P3 == Po or P3 - Pl-]J2 === Po- And what
if the first particle travels to the right, the
second upwards and the third to the left; what
do we do in this case? Do we write a new equation
again?" We have simply forgotten that the
momentum is a vector, i.e. a quantity characterized by its direction, and that it can and must
be represented by an arrow. In order not to
write a new equation each time, let us recall
the rule for vector addition . \Ve place the tail
of one vector at the head of another (the vector
must be carefully transferred to iLs new position,
without changing its direction) and draw a new
arrow with its tail at the tail of the first vector
and its head at the head of the second vector.
It will then be unnecessary to replace the plus
sign by a minus sign when the vectors point
in different directions. Subtraction is obtained
automatically (Fig. 8) .
69
Vector Arithmetic
Hence, if we conceive of the sum ])1 -~ P2 + P3'
in the equation PI + P2 -r" P3 == Po, as having
been determined by the rule of vector addition,
there is no need to write an equation for each
new set PI' P2 and P3. 'I'o avoid confusion (in the
equation E 1
E2
E 3 == Eo, for example, addition is carried out according to the well-tested
Fig. 9. Vector addition (the sum of the three momenta

equals zero).
rule 2 -~ 2 == 4), it proves simplest to have

boldface let ters represen ting the vectors. Thus
+ P2 + P3 ==
(5.3)
Po
As soon as we see boldface letters, we recall
that they are vectors and must be added in
a special way: by carefully transferring them,
without changing their direction, and placing
them tail to head. You understand, of course,
that their sum (according to the distance from
the first tail to the last head) may be even less
than the added components. In the case illustrated in Fig. 9 the sum of three vectors was found
to equal zero because the head of the last vector
exactly coincides with the tail of the first,
Pi
70
Collision
It is easy as pie now to write the conservation
laws for the second important type of processescollisions. Assume that after being accelerated
in a particle accelerator, particle 1 collides in
the target with a stationary prolan, particle 2,
and, as a result, that both particles disappear.
In their place, particles 3, 4, 5,
., are produced
and they go off in as many directions. The total
energy of particles 1 and 2 before they met was
equal to E I
E 2 (incidentally, the second addend
here is equal to the rest mass of particle 2),
and the total momentum is equal to the momentum PI of the incoming particle (the momentum
of particle 2 was simply zero). The laws of conservation of energy and momentum can now be
written as
+ E + E; +
Ps + P4 + P5 +
E3
(5.4)
Pi-
(5.5)
But, in addition to energy and momentum,

other quantities are certain to be conserved in
decay and collision processes. These are the
same invariant differences of the squares of the
energy and momentum (E2 - p2) that characterize each particle. We already know that however
the particle or observer is travelling, E2 _ p2
is always equal to m 2 , the square of the rest
mass of this particle. This means that the energy
and momentum in our equations are inter-
71
dependent:
(5.6)
If we know the energy of a particle, we can,

by means of equations (5.6), determine its
momentum in magnitude (from the length of
the arrow): its direction, in this case, not being
limited in any way. This circumstance will prove
useful.
N ow we have a tool by means of which we can
clear up a great deal, in fact all that we shall
encounter in this book. It is necessary to solve
these equations in each separate case; nothing
more. But such a way out would be much too
simple. Physics would not be the science that
it is if it only solved equations without trying
to find out what they stand for. One of the
merits of theoretical physics is that it provides
us with the possibility of <olving equations
without solving them, i.e. it enables us to perceive the solution of a problem at once, without
complex calculations. One of the founders of
quantum mechanics, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac,
said in this connection that he considered he had
understood the meaning of an equation if he
was capable of conceiving of the features of its
solution without directly solving it. We shall
see that though we keep the system of equations (5.4), (5.5) and (5.6) in mind, we shall
have occasion to solve it only once, and then
in the simplest of cases. The rest of the time
we shall try our best to write the answer at
72
once, withont procrastination, transforming the

equations so that each transformation is of
physical significance.
Decay Again
To begin with, we can write the conservation
laws in more simple form. They are written in
our, stationary frame of reference. We stand
still and watch the particle decay, record its
momentum and then the momenta of the newly
produced particles, calculate the energies, combine all of these data and obtain the equations.
It is only reasonable, however, to ask: but why
us? How would this decay look from the point
of view of the particle itself? Or, if you like,
from the position of an observer travelling along
with the particle?
This question can be rcadi ly answered. As far
as the observer is concerned, the particle would
be at rest, its energy would be equal to its rest
mass and its momentum would equal zero.
After measuring the energies and momenta of
they decay particles, we can write
E: + E~ +
p~
p~
+.
mo,
o.
(5.7)
(5.8)
As can be seen, the terms to the right of the

equal sign have been simplified to some extent.
Which equations are correct? The last two
equations, (5.7) and (5.8), or the previous equations, (5.1) and (5.~)? The answer is: both sys-
73
terns of equations are correct. One system is

simpler, the other a little more complicated, but
both are correct. One system is written in the
reference frame travelling together with the
initial particle, the other in a frame at rest.
The equations can be written for any other reference frame as well, for instance, in one travelling
together with one of the decay particles. They
differ only in how conveniently they are expressed. But convenience is a subjective-concept;
one person can work more conveniently while
sitting at a desk, whereas another may find it.
more convenient to rush along, racing with a meson. Objectively, all frames of reference are of"
the same worth, the more so because we haveequations (the Lorentz transformations) enabling us to recalculate E and p from one frame
to any other, provided that we know how these
frames move with respect- to one another.
There are two frames of reference that are
predominantly preferred by physicists:
1. One is the laboratory (or simply, lab) frame
of reference, in which all the energies, momenta
and directions of the particles are taken such
as they are recorded in the chamber or on the
photographic film, i.e. in the instrument at rest
in the laboratory.
2. The second type of frame travels along
with the decaying particle. It is convenient in
that the decay laws can be readily conceived
of, because the particle itself is at rest. It is
frequently called the-eo-moving frame of reference, or simply coframe,
74
We Begin to Reason
We have written the conservation laws. Let us
see how the above-mentioned forbiddenness prin-
ciple with respect to mass can be derived from

these laws.
It is forbidden for the total rest mass of particles
1, 2,
to exceed the rest mass of particle 0:
ml
+ m2 +
~ mo.
(5.9)
Assume that this is not so, and imagine that

we are observing a decay in the co-moving
frame of reference. We observe that particle 0
decays into particles of such masses that
ml
+ m2 +
>rno.
Can this be so? No. As we know, the energy

of a particle is always greater than its rest mass
(the hypothenuse is longer than a side, see
Fig. 2), Of, at worst, .equal to it. Hence, all
the more
E 1+E2 +
>mo
But we have violated the law of conservation of

energy. Thus, for a successful decay it is necessary
that
ml
+ m2 +
~ mo.
But is this condition sufficient? Maybe, even

when we comply with this condition (and in
the absence of other rules forbidding the process),
the decay is not always feasible? No is the
answer: this condition is quite sufficient, but
we shall postpone the proof until the last chap
ters.
75
Here we may hear from an unsatisfied reader:

"Why, then, did we go over to the co-moving
frame in our derivations? We should have remained in our own CORY laboratory frame of
reference; there your trick would not have worked.
Repeating our reasoning in the lab frame, we
would show that the inequality m 1 + m 2
. > Eo is forbidden, but we could not have
forbidden the inequality m 1 + m 2 +
. > mo.
The required condition for decay would then
take the form
ml
+ m2 +
~ Eo,
(5.10)
after which nothing could prevent particles

1, 2, etc. from acquiring energies such that the
law E 1 + E 2 +
= Eo is exactly complied
with."
We chose a co-moving frame for the observation of particle 0 because the condition (5.9)
derived in this frame is stronger than that obtained
in the lab frame. Why decline a more exact
limitation? To obtain condition (5.9) in the lab
frame, additional calculations are required. We
must take into account the requirement for
conserving the momentum in a decay process,
whereas in the co-moving frame we could manage
without it. In other words, condition (5.9) is
necessary and sufficient (though we have not yet
proved the latter), whereas condition (5.10) is
only necessary, but not sufficient (the latter is
clear from the fact that it does not coincide
with condition (5.9)).
If you have become confused by all these
"necessaries" and "sufficients", here is an argument that appeals to your imagination rather
7fl
than your reason. Assume that in the laboratory

frame only condition (5.10) is valid and, according to it, several particles are produced with
a total mass greater than m., (though less than
Eo). Now then, do you really imagine that in
the co-moving frame some of the particles disappear just to comply with condition (5.9)?
You Cannot Bind the Boundless
\\re shall assume that you are now convinced,
and shall consider the consequences following
from the forbiddance condition
m 1 + m'2 +
~ moThus, the decay of a light particle into heavier
ones is forbidden, no matter how it travels. A KO
meson (with the mass 0.498 GeV), for instance,
can decay into rt + and rt - because the total mass
of two pi mesons is 0.280 GeV (0.140 GeV each).
It can decay into three pi mesons (n +n-nO)
because their total mass is 0.415 GeV (the mass
of 31:0 being 0.135 GeV). But nobody ever saw or
will see a decay into n +31-nono; the total mass
of four pi mesons is 0.55 GeV, whereas the
initial KO meson had a rest energy of only
0.1:98 GeV To whatever energy we accelerate
the KO meson, under no circumstances can it.
decay to four pi mesons. Not the energy of motion is of importance, but the rest mass.
This is clear even without any equations.
Consider how a decay process occurs at rest.
A particle (the K meson) disappears, the energy
concealed in its mass is released for other purposes and can be made use" of. For each new pi
Conservation ot Energy and Momentum
71
meson to be born, at least 0.140 GeV of the

freed energy must be spent on i ts prod uction ,
i ,e. on the energy of existence of this meson.
When three particles are created, then 0.415 GeV
of the total energy reserve of 0.498 Ge V is expended on their production. 'The remaining 0.083 GeV
is used up in setting them in motion. How they
divide this energy among themselves is their
own business. In various cases they scatter
differently, only taking care that their momenta,
combined into a triangle, add up to zero (see
Fig. 9), so that conditi.ons (5.7) and (5.8) are
complied with. But a fourth meson cannot be
created because the remaining 0.083 GeV is
insufficient to produce it.
This is a pity, is it not? It would seem suf-.
ficient to accelerate a meson in an acceleratorto an energy equal to 7, or even 10 Ge V, for
it to begin to shower protons, antiprotons and
even whole, ready-made nuclei. But the law of
conservation of energy and momentum stands
on guard and prevents mankind from taking
advantage of nature. With a single stroke of
the pen, as we know, a physicist transfers from
the frame in which the proton became heavier
to one in which it is a t rest and there he finds
that no new properties have been imparted to
the proton by acceleration.
A Way Out
The whole point is that at the end of the accelerating process, the tar'get-a thin sheet of foil
or a polyethylene bar-is inserted into the
accelerator, or a stream of hydrogen is released
78
across the proton beam, and the protons collide

at full speed wi th protons or with the nuclei
of the target. Then, instead of the conservation
laws for decay, we must write equations (5.4)
and (5.5), the laws of the conservation of energy
and momentum in the collision of two particles
(protons collide pairwise rather than in groups).
The question is: is it true that even now we
cannot obtain a particle heavier than a proton?
We shall see.
~"Assume that several particles are produced.
We write that
=E+m,
== p.
(5.11)
(5.12)
Here E is the energy of a proton that acquired

its velocity in the accelerator, p is its momentum, and m is the mass of the stay-at-home
proton, which, suspecting nothing, was at rest
in the target until proton No.1 crashed into it.
Imagine (and this is a very popular course
of action) that the protons, after colliding t first
formed a certain new particle 0 with the energy
Eo = m
E and the momentum Po == p, so
that nothing is lost, neither energy nor momentum. Then this new particle decays to the particles 1, 2,
Never mind the fact that this
may actually not occur at all. The fact is that
the conservation laws that we employ' are general, and are independent of the specific mechanism of the interaction that occurs. Consequently, whatever the mechanism we assume and
imagine, we shall not obtain an incorrect result
19
(provided, of course, that we are interested

only in the restrictions following from the conserv ation laws alone).
The Problem is Reduced
to the Preceding One
We have thus reduced the problem of a collision
to one on the decay of particle O.
By travelling alongside the particle that is
ready to disintegrate, we previously considerably
facilitated calculations. Let us do the same here.
We measure the energies and momenta of particles 1, 2,.
in a frame of reference travelling
together with particle 0, and write the conservation law. Condition (5.12) now assumes the
form
P1 + P2
0,
(5.13)
and condition (5.11), the form
Ei + s; +
We wrote the equal sign and then hesitated.
What do we write next? How much energy will
the two protons have together in the frame of
reference in which the fictitious particle 0 is
at rest? In the decay of a real particle 0 we wrote
its rest mass at the right. To what is the rest
mass of a particle equal if it has the energy
m
E and the momentum p? We know that
the square of the rest mass is an invariant; it
equals the difference of the squares of the energy
and momentum. In our case
mb
(m+ E)2 _ p2.
80
After removing the parentheses

m't == m 2 + 2mE + E2 _ p2.
But '2 - p2 is again an invariant which is
the square of the mass of the incoming proton,
i.e. m 2 Consequently,
mh :=: 2m 2 -t-- 2mE.
(5.14)
Hence, the law of conservation of energy can
be written in the form
E~-1-E~+
== V2nL 2
+ 2mE.
(5.15)
But Still ...
A great physical difference exists between equation (5.15) and the law (5.7) of energy conservation in decays. Previously, a real particle 0
decayed, which had a constant mass mo, inherent
in only particles of its kind. Now we have the
decay of a conditional particle 0, and its conditionality is manifested, among other matters,
by the fact that the mass rna of the particle
is 110 longer constant. The greater the energy E
of the accelerated proton, the greater the mass m.,
(though the invariance of rno with respect to
the changes in the motion of the reference frame
remains valid). It is not impossible then for E
to reach such high values that even heavy particles can be brought into this world in collisions. Let us see. At the end of the acceleration
cycle in the large accelerator in Dubna protons
acquire a momentum of 10 GeV. This means
that their total energy E at the instant they
.hit the target is equal to 10.044 GeV tsee p. 46).
Then the total energy of all the created particles

is
mo ~ V2
= V2
X O.~4t
0.94
+2
X 10.04 X 0.94
X 10.~~ ~
V""20.64 ~ 4.54 GeV.
See what a store of energy is at the disposal

of t\VO protons that met to begin the process
of creation! Precise directives on what these
4.5 GeV can be spent do not exist in nature.
Sometimes, for instance, two protons produce
another pair like themselves: one proton and one
antiproton. Altogether there turns out to be four
particles of the same mass, 0.94 GeV each (do
not forget that the t\VO initial particles loaned
all their energy, including the rest energy, to
particle 0 and now demand 0.94 GeV each from
the common hoard for their resurrection). Their
creation requires 0.94 X 4 == 3.76 GeV of energy.
The remainder is 0.78 GeV and the whole quartet, three protons and one antiproton, divide
this surplus in some manner between themselves
and immediately go off, carrying their share in
the form of energy of motion.
In other cases, in addition to the two former
protons, several mesons may be produced. Let
us calculate the greatest number of mesons that
can appear in such a collision. To resurrect
themselves the , protons expend 0.94 X 2 =
= 1.88 GeV of" energy. They can give all the
rest (4.54 - 1.88 == 2.G6 GeV) to progeny. 'The
creation of one charged meson requires at least
0.14 GeV, so that as many as 19 mesons can
be produced. True, all the available energy will
be spent on their creation, and the whole family
6-1920
82
(2 protons -t- 19 mesons) will remain stationary;

it will not have enough energy to crawl apart.
We have forgot ten, however, that all this occurs
in a reference frame travelling together with the
conditional particle O. Its velocity with respect
to the accelerator is tremendous:
10
v = 10.98 === 0.91.
At this same velocity our family, as a single

whole, breaks away from the target.
It -Jturns out that the higher the energy that
the protons acquire in the accelerator, the more
extensive their capacity to create new particles,
heavier ones and in a greater quantity. (Their
capacity, but not their duty. They may just
as well not create anything new and simply fly
apart.) But if one of the newly created particles
subsequently decays spontaneously, its large
store of energy will be of no avail. With whatever
energy it rushes along, a reference frame can
always be found in which it is at rest. Therefore,
the total mass of the part.icles that are formed
after its destruction can in no case exceed its
own mass.
Chapter 6
Kinematics in the World

of Accelerators
Accelerators are, no doubt, the largest physical
instruments that ever existed. Journalists and
poets like to write about them. Journalists
report on their graphic rhythms. Poets write
about the girls attending the cyclotron. Film

directors ask the girls to dance on the electromagnet.
1 also find difficulty in tearing myself away
from this subject. Let us spend a little more
time estimating what an accelerator is capable of.
You have some idea of its design. I t consists of
an annular channel (see Fig. 1) located between
the poles of a large circular magnet. Electrically
charged particles are injected into the channel.
They begin to travel in a circle owing to the
.action of the magnetic field; the electric field
accelerates them and they accumulate mass.
Then a target is inserted into their path and
the rest you already know. This will be sufficient
.for the time being.
What is an accelerator capable of?
We have seen that if the energy of an accelerated proton Increases from m to E (in a 10 GeV
particle accelerator, for instance, to 10 Ge V),
then, after hitting the target, the total rest
mass of all the remaining and newly produced
particles cannot exceed m o ==
2m (m
E).
This enables particles heavier than the proton
(hyperons) or antiparticles (antiprotons) to be
created. All by themselves, without the participation of man, these particles may appear in
cosmic rays, but since their appearance is unexpected and they live only a fraction of a second,
they are hard to detect. An accelerator is an
accurately controlled source of such particles;
usually located near it are instruments that fish
out the particles.
The larger E is, the more we should expect
from the accelerator. Near the city of Serpukhov,
84
where the continental shield approaches closest

to the earth's surface, an accelerator that imparts
protons a momentum of 70 GeV has been in
operati on for many years. * Let us see what th is
installation is capable of. At the end of the
acceleration cycle each proton turns out to be
74 times as massive as it was in the beginning
(70 0.94 === 74). The value of m.; will equal
11.6 GeV. This energy is sufficient for the erea-
tion of about seven protons and five antiprotons:
O.9fl X (7
5)
11.28.
In the same way as all the matter of the earth,.

the sun and the galaxy consists of protons and
neutrons, there rnay well be other galaxies consisting of antimatter, i.e. atoms of antihydrogen,
antideuterium, antihelium, anti-iron, anti-uranium, etc. All the atoms of these antielements
consist of antiprotons and antineutrons that
form antinuclei about which positrons (as antielectrons are called) rotate.
I t is unlikely that we will ever reach these
limits of the universe. But, as a matter of fact,
what is there to prevent us from creating antimatter on our earth? If an accelerator can simult.aneously produce several antinucleons (protons
and neutrons are called nucleons, Le. particles
of the nucleus: this clears up the definition of
an antinucleon), they can combine to form antinuclei. The nucleus of antideuterium can be
obtained from an antiproton and an antineutron;
* Two more powerful accelerators have been built more

recently: a 300 GeV accelerator in Switzerland and a
400 GeV one in the USA.
85
the nucleus of an tihelium from two antiprotons

and two antineutrons, etc. There is nothing that
forbids them to combine in this way. But we
know that in physics all that is not forbidden
is allowed. As a matter of fact, antimatter has
11
Mcndclccvs
HYDROGEN
1"
LITHIUM
BERYLLIUM
BOIlON
De
sn
SOLJIUM
11 J\a
M ..\GNESIUM
ALL'MI~LM
POT.~SSIUM
CALCIUM
3Li
19K
COl'rrR
J'lCu
----........
~""'I!IIlIJIJI"""'-
12Mg
20
Ca
zr-:
30
Zn
STRONTIUM
CARBON
tiC
SILICON
14
13"1
SCA!'iOlU:'\1
T1TA:'-:IU!\1
215c
GALLIUM
31 Ga
Si
.-----/
22
Ii )
~;;J
32
10. Chemical elements and ant ielcments.
really been produced ill the Serpukhov accelerator: nuclei of antihelium-3 were detected in
1970, and nuclei of anti trit.iurn in 1974 (even
earlier, in 1965, an tideu terons were discovered
in one of the American accelerators). They do
not last long, however; they soon collide with
atoms of rnatter, miniature atomic explosions
occur that are detectable only by special instruments, and all is transformed into mesons and
radiation. But physicists manage to examine and
investigate these phenomena. Thus Mendeleev's
periodic table is being added on from the other
end, from the prehydrogen end rather than the
end with the transuraniurn elements. (If we
move from the end of the table to its beginning,
86
the number of baryons in the nuclei of the elements becomes lesser and lesser. The lithium
nucleus has 6/ helium 4 and hydrogen only 1.
It would seem that we have reached the limit.
But, in the same way as the thermometer is
graduated for temperatures below zero, we can
agree upon the disposal of nuclei with -1, -4,
-6, etc. baryons on the other side, or "back"
if you like, of Mendcleev's table. These will be
nuclei with 1, 4, 6, etc. antibaryons, i.e. the
nuclei of antihydrogen, antihelium, antilithium, .... ) This is how Mendeleev's "antitahle"
began to be filled in (Fig. 10).
We should not, however, suppose that the
Serpukhov accelerator was built just for this
purpose. This example has been presented to
give some idea of the extensive capability of
accelerators.
What Are Two Accelerators Capable of?
Another large accelerator is in operation near
Geneva in Switzerland, at its very border with
France. When it was built, it was the largest
in the world, designed for 25 Ge V I t is no longer
the largest. Physicists of the European Council
for Nuclear Research, abbreviated CERN (Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire),
could not reconcile themselves to this situation.
That is how the project of the colliding-beam
accelerator was evolved. Proposed by this project was the construction of an even larger annual
channel, the so-called intersecting storage ring
(Fig. 11) near the existing accelerator, but on
the other side of the border. Accelerated protons
87
are injected into the ring from two sides. Two

proton round dances are obtained in the ring,
rotating in opposite directions}without corning
into contact. In the course of accelerator operation, newer and newer portions of accelerated
FRANCE
SWITZERLAND
Fig. f 1. Reconstruction of the CERN accelerator.

I-the old accelerator: 2-whf're the round dances are held (storage
ring); a-points (right in all) where collisions take place.
protons are injected, When there are enough of

these "immigrants", the round dances are aimed
at each other and at eight points of their intersection (the rings are not exactly circular) pairs
of protons begin to collide intensively. Eight
points of intersection are better than one because
they enable us to install eight times as many
recording instruments.
Let us figure out to what consequences this
"collision on the French border with Switzerland"
can lead. Again, as before, we imagine that at
the instant of collision of two protons each with
88
an energy of 25 Ge V, at first a fictitious particle 0 is formed, which immediately decays.

As we know. we can estimate the number of
particles produced in a decay from the rest
mass m.; of the initial particle (their total mass
cannot exceed this value). Hence, we only have
to find m.: We write the conservation laws in
our, Le. laboratory, frame of reference.
[The momenta of the protons from opposing
round dances at the instant of collision are the
same in value, hut opposite in direction. Then
their sum, i.e. the momentum of the fictitious
particle 0, is equal to zero. This implies that
particle 0 is at rest. Thus its energy is; in fact,
its rest mass. What is it equal to? The sum of
the energies of two colliding protons. If their
momenta are equal, then so are their energies.
Hence, the mass of the fictitious particle is
simply twice the rated energy of the accelerator:
m.,
= 50 GeV
This is a very high energy; it would be sufficient to produce even antioxygen. In a single
70 GeV accelerator we can produce a store of
energy equal to 11.6 GeV, whereas in two colliding beams of 25 GeV each the store of energy
equals 50 GeV What conventional accelerator
does such an "accelerator with an attachment"
correspond to? If the energy of a conventional
accelerator equals x, then the usable energy it
produces is equal, 3S we know, to m.; =
= Y2m 2 2mx. We wish to find out at what
value of x this m o will be equal to 2E, i.e. the
doubled energy of the double accelerator.
89
Equating 2E and rna we find that
2m2
+. 2mx
2mx
2E2/m - m,
Of,
= 4E2,
4E2 - 2m 2 ,
discarding the small quantity m, we obtain

E2
x===2-.
m
E = 25 GoV, then x
2
625/0.94
1330 GeV T1hus a 25 GeV accelerator with
an attachment is equivalent in Ls capacity to
a conventional 1330 GeV accelerator. These
marvels are due to the fact that 1330 GeV is
the energy that rushes past us, whereas the
arrangement of two colliding beams enables us
to obtain 50 GeV right off the bat, and then
utilize it completely to create new particles.
The CERN project was realized many years
ago. Colliding beams of protons, each with an
energy of 30 GeV, have revealed much that is
interesting about collisions in the region of
1500 GeV
If
With Us in Siberia
Let us examine the equation x == 2E2/m again.
I t is clear that the less the mass of the colliding
particles, the higher the gain in energy. Hence,
colliding-beam accelerators have been built in
many countries for electron
electron and electron -l positron beams. One such accelerator was
built in Novosibirsk (Fig. 12). I t is not at all
large, occupying only a part of a large room
90
Fig. 12. General view of the Novosibirsk colliding-beam

accelerator.
(with a high ceiling, it is true), but it accelerates

electrons to an energy of 0.13 GeV The electrons
are fed into two circular magnetic racecourses
(one metre in diameter) where they are stored
for the time being, and then the two opposing
beams are aimed at each other. Their collision
is equivalent to the production and decay of
a particle with the mass 0.26 GeV. This is an
91
immense value for an electron, which is lighter

than a proton by a factor of 1840! If we had
wanted to create particles with a mass of 0.26 Ge V
by accelerating electrons in a conventional accelerator and making them collide with~electrons
Injector
Accelerator
Strorage ring
Fig. 13. Principle of the col lidiug-beam accelerator.

Electrons (full l ine) and posi t r ons (dash line) are
the accelerator: thry col lidr ir! th~ storage ring.
illj c ted __
into
at rest, we would have had to build an electron

accelerator with a rating of
0.13 2
X===
2 0.00051 ~6t3 CeV.
This would have been a huge structure.

In another accelerator built in Novosibirsk
(Fig. 1~)), electrons with an energy of 0.7 GeV
collide in the storage ring with positrons of the
same energy. An equivalent accelerator of the
conventional type would have to impart an
energy of 2000 GeV to the electrons.*
* Ohor accelerators with col liding beams of electrons

and positrons are in operation in the USA, FR G, France
and italy. In the very largest, the colliding beams consist
The calculations that we have carried out here

do not excel in profundity. We acquired no knowledge of the secrets of accelerator operation, nor
did we get even a notion of the true nature of
the problems faced by the designers of these
structures. But our knowledge of kinematics
proved sufficient to understand how much more
efficient this newer type of accelerator, applying
the colliding-beam principle, is than the previous types.
Chapter 7

Little by little we have learned to freely manipulate the laws of conservation and invariant
quantities. We are now ready to advance another
step. I t was mentioned at the very beginning
of this book that kinematics helps us to see
what instruments have overlooked. The time has
come for us to take a look and ~ee how this is
done. Assume that we wish to detect. an uncharged
particle. Such a particle leaves no traces. Since
it is uncharged it does not strip the electrons it
encounters from their orbits, and slips by unno.
ticed. Sometimes, of course, it may have a headon collision with some nucleus. This immediately
draws attention because the tracks of new particles diverge from this spot. But nuclei are tiny,
and it is a rare neutral particle that runs across
one. But it would be a good thing to find the
of particles with an energy of 16 GcV The equivalent
energy rating of an accelerator with a fixed target is
1 000 000 GeV.
93
route of a flyi ng uncharged

particle each time that
one is created.
The
following three examples
explain how this is done.
First example: unstable

particles.
At the end of the forties and the beginning of
the fifties of our century, physicists recording
the tracks of particles
coming from outer space
to the earth by means of
a Wilson cloud chamber
began to observe an int.eresting phenomenon more
and more often (Fig.
14). Among the many
stars-traces of particles
produced in the collision of a fast' proton
withan atomic nucleusthey often saw a pair
Fig. 14. The creation of

a pair of strange particles.
Throe tracks
ernerctnc ri om
of tracks emerging from [Join t 1 CO:1S ti tu te n so-:called

lower down we see two
a single point and seem- star;
"1'or].;.s" with their vor-tices
aimed
at the star (this is an
ing to soar in the void.
up-to-date photograph, not
One of the names given one of those men tioned in
to this phenomenon was the text).
a "fork". When you look
at a fork you get the impression that somewhere in empty mid-air a pair of charged particles suddenly appear and go off in different
94
directions. Such pair production, you guess,

is probably due to the decay of an invisible
neutral particle. Where could it have come
from? I t was noticed that the forks are Ire..
quently close to stars. The idea suggests itself
that along with the many charged particles
created in a star, invisible neutral particles are
also produced. Fortunately, these particles are
unstable and soon decay into two charged ones:
one with a positive and the other with a negative
charge. It is they that form the fork. Maybe
new neutral particles are also produced in the
decay, but we cannot see them.
Row could we check whether the guess was
correct? Additional observations were required.
I t was necessary, in the first place, to find out
what particles form the prongs of the fork. It
was found that sometimes the prongs are traces
of n + and Jt - mesons, whereas in other cases
one trace belongs to a proton and the other to
a n - meSOD. It follows that the neutral particle,
whose existence was suspected, decayed either
according to the scheme
VO --+ n +
+ Jt - ,
or according to
Vo~ p
n-
(the unknown particle was evidently denoted by

a V to remind us of the fork). But if this actually
is the decay of some particle, we can put the
whole apparatus of Einstein's invariants into
operation. Do you recall what this means?
Whatever the way in which a particle is rushing
Bow Particles Are Discovered
95
past and whatever the d i rection in which we

happen to be moving, the difference of the squares
of the energy and morneu t um of the particle

remains constantly equal to the square of its
mass. But how can we find the euergy and momentum of an invisible J artie . e? llere, precisely,
is where the conservation l aws came in handy.
The energy E, momentum p and mass m of
the particles leaving the tracks were determined
for each pair-production fork. When the track
of a particle is registered on photographic film,
the more its path is bent by a magnetic field ,
the less its .aomentum ; the longer it keeps
travelling without stopping, the higher its energy. In this way, the energy, rest mass and momentum of a particle travelling by can be determined from length and curvature of its track.
The energy of the invisible particle was obtained
by adding the energies of the two visible ones.
The momentum of the invisible particle was
found by adding the momenta of both visible
ones. But here there was a subtle point that we
already know about: they were added like vectors (Fig. 15). As we know, the sum of two vectors
depends, not only on their magnitudes, but on
the angle between them as well. The angle here
was known; it is equal to the apex angle of the
fork prongs. This addition can most simply be
carried out graphically by superposing the vectors of the particle momenta, drawn to some
scale, onto the tracks of the particles. Then we
transfer one of the arrows without turning it in
any way to the head of the other one. The distance
from the tail of the first vector to the head
of the second is, as we know, the sum of the
J
98
matics. Nowadays, however, electronic computers

have come to the aid of the physicist (a person
can no longer cope with the required volume
of calculations). Special automatic measuring
machines measure the length, curvature and
other characteristics of the tracks and, on the
basis of these measurements, calculate the momentum, mass and energy of the AO particle.
The presumable KO meson is treated in tho
same way. Moreover, the machines find the fork
closest to the star and measure the coordinates
of the fork and star. All of these data are delivered (sometimes they are transmitted directly
by cable) to the computer. "That does the computer check? First it makes sure, according to
equation (7.1), that the mass obtained concerns
a A particle. But this is not all. The computer
next calculates the direction of the vector Pi -+. P2
and compares it with the direction from the
star to the apex of the fork. According to the
Iaw of conservation of momentum, these directions must coi ncide. Only when all tho checks
tally can we consider that the tracks indicate
the decay of a A 0 particle tha t leaves the star.
Well, and what next? What are we driving at?
The most interesting is what comes afterward.
The laws of creation of the 1\ and KO particles
are investigated, an attempt is made to guess
the forces acting on them at the instant they
come to light. The 1(0 meson is t lie subject of
especially persistont research. In the family of
elementary particles, the KO particles keep themselves aloof; they have many strange, unusual
properties. In 1956 the explanation of one of
these propert ies led to an upheaval in science.
At the present time, the KO mesons have set

about another uprising in physics, perhaps even
more thorough than the previous ono*.
Second example: cascade hyperons.
The first of the hyperons, 1\0, was discovered
in 1950, but scientists kept on finding previously
unknown relatives in their family for many
years. The Q - (omega-minus) hyperon turned up
in 1964.
Film Star
As long as six months before its discovery, the
existence of the Q - particle was predicted by the
* A nut with a right-hand thread can be just as readily

screwed on a right-hand screw 3S a left-hand nut on
a left-hand screw. Everyorre is accustomed to such equality
of rights of right- and left-handedness, and thought that
that is the way all things should be, now and for evermore. But in 1956 they found that in K meson decays
and like processes this equivalency is violated. Physicists
call this parity nonconservation in weak interaction.
An entirely outlandish conclusion on the properties of
space suggested itself: that right and left are not equivalent
in space. To "rescue space" it was proposed that "righthand things" made up of particles are equivalent to the
same kind of "left-hand things" consisting of antiparticles.
This hypothesis was immediately tested experimentally
and it seemed to agree excellently with the experimental
facts. Raptures over the discovery of a new law of naturethe law of conservation of combined parity-did not
last very long. It was soon found that in the decays
of I{O mesons, combined parity was also not conserved,
though by only a very small amount. The nonconservation is very small, but the problem is a huge one and has
not yet been fully und erstood.
7*
100
Kinematics for the Lyrica1
young and promising Soviet physicist TIm Suvernev. This was the subject of a film, "No.1 Newton Street", made shortly afterward, and almost
forgotten at the present time. The fllm showed
how its hero, listening to a concert in the Conservatory, frantically jots down in a notebook
-------Fig. 16. Creation and decay of the Q - hyperon.
the reaction K- -t- P -+ Q- -t- K --1- KO that had

just occurred to him. The page in the notebook
was shown covering the full width of the screen.
Soon after the film was produced, experiments
were conducted in the USA with the aim of
obtaining this reaction. The predictions were
confirmed with exceptional accuracy. This concorned the way by which the particle is created,
the decay mode, the mass predicted beforehand,
101
and even the name-s-omega-minus-c-of the new

particle.
Let us examine the photograph on which the
Q- hyperon was first seen (Fig. 16). Of interest
to us is how the conservation laws behaved in
this case.
The photograph was taken on January 31,
1964 in the Brookhaven National Laboratory,
which has a powerful accelerator in operation.
It was necessary to examine 50 000 photographs
of interactions that occurred in the liquid-oxygen
bubble chamber before the one illustrated here
was found. It is difficult, without sufficient
practice, to make head or tail of the spider web
of lines, but that is only because you haven't
seen the 49 999 earlier pictures. If you had,
you would have immediately seen what was
noticed by the 33 American physicists" conducting the experiment. You would have seen a new,
previously unwitnessed particle.
Down the Cascade
Separated out at the right of Fig. 16 is the essential part of the photograph. The solid lines show
what is also visible in the photograph; the dash
lines show what was conjecture. Let us examine
them more closely. Line .1 is the track of a K-
* Gone arc the times in which an experiment in highenergy physics could he performed lry a small group of
researchers. Today, such complex and diverse equipment
is required for a good experiment that only a large collective can cope with it. For this reason we frequently
find scion tific papers wi th several dozens of au Lhors,
sometimes as many as a hundred.
91
momenta in the same scale. After determining

the total energy E I + E 2 and the total momentum PI + P2' we can calculate the mass of the
required particle:
(7.1)
After many pair-production forks had been

observed and M v had been calculated for each
Fig. 15. Vector addition.
one, it was found that all the M v values obtained

could be divided into two classes: in the V-+
-+ P + rt : decays the value of M. was always
approximately equal to 1.11 GeV, whereas in
the VO -+ j(+ + n- decays, the value of M
varied in the neighbourhood of 0.49 GeV*.
* Do not forget that exact measurements are never

obtained in physics, and that all such values are always
approximate. This constitutes a basic difference between
the natural sciences and the humanities in which everything is al ways known with absolute exactitude.
How Pa rticlcs Are Discovered
97
To what conclusion did this lead? It was proof

of the existence of t\VO, rather than one, neutral
particles AO and KO (lambda-zero and K-zero).
One, the heavier (it was denoted by .L\. 0 , overturning the fork) decays as follows:
AO
--+
+ n-;
whereas the other, a lighter one, decays by the

reaction
KO
n+
+ n-.
What if differing values had been obtained

for M v in one or both of the classes? This would
imply that a part of the energy and momentum
of VO is carried away by new invisible particles.
Fortunately, this did not happen.
Today, A and KO are the most ordinary and
most frequently encountered specimens of the
so-called strange particles. They are unstable,
i.e. after appearing they soon decay spontaneously. From the distance from the star to the point
of decay, the path length of the A 0 and KO particles is determined. After calculating their
velocities (v =:= pi E), their lifetimes can be
readily found. 'I'he A particle has an average
lifetime of 10- 10 s (travelling several centimetres
during this time). The lifetime of tho KO mesons
is approximately the same. The KO mesons are
among the most interesting bodies in nature.
Though KO and AO mesons were discovered
many years ago and have been accepted into the
family of elementary particles, though tens of
thousands of these particles pass by physicists
in various experiments, each separate [(0 or AO
particle is Identified as before by means of kine-
7-1920
102
meson ejected from the accelerator with a momentum of 5 GeV. At point A it collides with
a proton, a hydrogen nucleus (that cannot be
seen), and the pair, K - and p, are transformed
into the particles Q -, K + and KO. The particle
KO departed, without decaying, beyond the
limits of the photograph and remained unnoticed.
The track of particle K + is marked by the number 2; it turns to the left because the chamber
was placed in a strong magnetic field, which
turned all particles with a positive charge to
the left and those with a negative charge to the
right. The short track 3 is that of the sought
Q - hyperon. At point B it decayed into a nparticle (track 4) and an invisible go (xi-zero)
hyperon. This latter, after a slightly longer
night than the Q- hyperon itself, decays, in its
turn (at point C), into two, again invisible,
particles: nO and A o The A0 hyperon travelled
a comparatively long way before it decayed (at
point D) into a proton (track 6) and a rr - meson
(track 5). As to the nO meson, its lifetime, as
a rule, does not exceed 10 -16 S and it does not
have time enough, in essence, to leave its birthplace. (Its average path length is c X 10- 16 ==
== 3 X 10 10 X 10-16 === 3 X 1.0-6 em.) The nO
meson decayed at point C into two photons
(tracks 7 and 8). These photons are invisible,
but, fortunately, an event happened to each of
them that is rarely observed in hydrogen; passing
too close to somo nucleus, they were transformed
into two charged particles each: an electron and
a positron (tracks 9 and 10 are from the particles
produced by one photon and tracks 11 and 12
are Irorn the other) that arc turned by the terrific
103
IIow Particles Are Discovered
force (called the Lorentz force) of the magnetic

field. This cascade of interactions can be written
in the form of the following chain of reactions:
K- -t-- p -+ Q-
1(+ .+ KO
,_~
go -t-- JlJ~ AO -\- nO
1---7 1'1 -f- 1'2

1---7 e+ + e:
--~ e+-t-e-
31-
--1- P
(7.2)
As we can see, many particles flashed by unnoticed in the chamber, and we cannot manage
without kinematic laws here. Let us see how
to make sure that the whole picture of the cascade
has been correctly represented by tho diagram
(7.2).
Dersu Uzala * at Work
In the first place, from the shape and nature of

the visible tracks, taking all precautions, the
physicists made sure that tracks 4 and 5 most
likely belong to n - mesons, track 2 to a K+
meson, track 6 to a proton, and tracks from 9
A Nanaian hunter and guide, he was a real-life East

Siberian version of Fenimore Cooper's Pathfinder and was
made famous by V. K.~~ Arsenyev, Soviet explorer of the
Far'[East, ethnographer and writer, and by the Japanese
director Akira Kurosawa in the 1975 film "DersuUzalav.v-
Trt
..
104
through 12 to electrons and positrons. The momenta of the visible particles 'v ere determined
from tho curvature of their tracks.
Calculating by equation (7.1) the mass of the
invisible particle that created the fork 5-6,
a value of 1.116 GeV was obtained, which is
exactly tho mass of the AO hyperon. Adding the
momentum vectors of particles p and rr-, they
found the magnitude and direction of the momentum of the 1\ hyperon. Then, adding (vector
addiLion!) the momenta of particles 9 and ~10,
they obtained the momentum of the invisible
photon 1'1 (it was found to be equal to 0.082 GeV)
and, naturally, its direction. In exactly the
same way, the momentum (0.177 GeV) of the
photon 1'2 was found, and its direction also
became known. At this point the first test of
their line of reasoning began. The arrows representing the mornenta of AO (DC), 1'1 (7) and
1'2 (8) met in almost a single point (with a discrepancy of only 1 mm in the horizon tal direction and 3 mm in a vertical plane. All the events
occurring on the photograph extend over a length
of. 200 ern). This signifies that some invisible
particle really did decay at this point into a AO
hyperon and into something else that immediately decayed to two photons, 1'1 and '\'2. It was
not hard to guess that this "something else"
could not be anything but a nO meSOD. But this
had to be checked by calculations.
Again the laws of kinematics and the invariance
of the rest mass were put to work. If the momenta of two photons are known in both magnitude and direction," it is almost child's play to
find the rest mass, by means of the same equa-
How Particles Arc Discovered
105
tion (7.1), of the particle that decayed into the

photons. The value 0.1351 + 0.0015 Ge V was
obtained and it is in excellent agreement with
the known mass of the rt" meson, equal to'
0.135 GeV.
The next problem was to find what Invisible
being decayed at point C into a AO hyperon and
a nO meson. Again a candidate is on hand: everyone knows that the so-called cascade hyperon
go with the mass 1.314 GeV willingly decays
to a AO hyperon and a nO meson. Was it possible
to check this hypothesis? Indisputably! Adding
together the energies of the A 0 and nO particles,
the physicists calculated the energy of the
supposed parent; adding vectorially the momenta
of AO and nO (the momentum of n was obtained
by.....adding the momenta of 1'1 and 1'2' which,
in turn, were found by adding the momenta of
particles 9, 10, 11 and 12) they obtained the
momentum of the parent. Then equation (7.1)
was applied again, and it provided the value
1.316 + 0.004 GeV.
The agreement was excellent. And to top it
off, the momentum of particle go came almost
exactly to point B.
Is it worthwhile to relate in detail what
happened next? The reader guesses wi thout
trouble that the calculated momentum of go
and the measured momentum of 31- turned out,
after being added together, to be directed along
prong BA and enabled (again by equation (7.1)!)
the mass of particle Q- to be determined. What
a triumph of theoretical physics! Two years
earlier, the American physicist Murray GellMann and the young Japanese physicist Susumu
106
Okubo* had predicted that the Q - particle

would decay in exactly this way and, above all,
that its mass would be 1.686 GeV. Kinematic
calculations yielded the value
(1.686 + 0.012) GeV!
As they say, no explanation is required. But
still, run over all the reasoning again to see
into what a tight knot the checkups and assumptions are tied, to see how all the assumptions
are reliably checked and how the final conclusion
follows from the premises with unyielding logic.
Before going on, try to find what has remained
unproved in reaction (7.2) and how to prove it.
Third example: how can nondeeaylng, neutral
particles be seen?
As a matter of fact, how can they be seen?
We know about the creation of a AO hyperon
because it very soon, after 10- 10 s, decays into
charged particles. But what can we know about
the production of a neutron? Its lifetime is
about a quarter of an hour; most neutrons travel
about in the chamber without decaying. Collisions between neutrons and nuclei are also rare
events. Or what can we do about the neutrino,
I t is precisely their predictions that are played up

in the film "No. 1 Newton Street" mentioned above.
Credit should be g-iven to the science advisor of the film
(the physicist V V. Shekhter of Leningrad), who selected
from the numerous predictions of Gel l-Mann's theory
just the very one that was confirmed first of all. The
fact that the particle was predicted in the film (and by
a mythical Tim Suvernev) is, of course, only a joke,
hut it foretells its near discovery.
107
which does not, practically, interact with anything atall? Or let us consider the nO meson.
It does decay, but only into neutral particlesphotons-that we rarely succeed in noticing.
Where Have All K-zeroes Gone?
In order to understand how these things are
done, we return again to the photograph on
which the Q - hyperon was first observed.
From what phenomena did the experimenters know
that a pair of heavy mesons, K + and KO, were produced together with the Q- hyperon? For no KO
can be seen in the photograph. It simply
dashed along the chamber without decaying.
What clue was there indicating its creation?
Naturally, it was the law of conservation of
energy and momentum. The momentum of the
initial K- meson was known (5 GeV). The momentum of the created K + was measured from
the curvature of its track. The momentum of the
created Q - hyperon was calculated in passing
when its mass was determined (it was simply
equal to the vector sum of the momenta of all
the particles obtained in the decay of the Qhyperon: two n - mesons, two electrons, two
positrons and a proton). The energies of the
K - and K + mesons and of the Q - hyperon became
known together with their" momenta. It was
quite natural curiosity to see whether the sum
of the energies of the K + meson and the Qhyperon was equal to the sum of the energies of
the initial particles, the K- meson and the
proton (the latter was at rest so that its energy
was equal to its mass). Another question was
108
whether the vector sum of the momenta of the

K meson and the Q- hyperon coincided with
the momentum of the K - meson (since the proton was at rest, its momentum equalled zero).
As it turned out, no coincidence was found.
Well then, the 33 physicists reasonably decided,
besides the K + meson and the Q - hyperon, there
were other invisible particles of some kind that
carried away the unbalance (as physicists usually
call this phenomenon).
No trouble was encountered in-determining the
energy and momentum carried away by the
invisibles. The next step was also easy to take;
it consisted in finding the difference in the
squares of the energy and momentum that were
carried away. This difference is invariant; it
yields the square of the rest mass of the particle
that carried away the energy and momentum
(or, if there were several such particles, we
would obtain the rest mass of the fictitious
particle that decays to the invisible ones).
Missing Mass
Calculations of the rest mass of the invisible
particle yielded the value 0.5 GeV. It could
only be a KO meson, whose mass is 0.498 GeV.
If the energy and momentum had been carried
away by two particles, say KO and nO, the mass
of the Iicti tious particle could not be less than
the sum of the masses of the KO and nO mesons,
i.e. not less than 0.63 GoV, but the calculated
value was only 0.5 GeV. We can therefore write
K-
-r- p ~ Q -
-t-- K + -l- KO,
How Particles Arc Discovered
109
the more so because Gell-M ann stated beforehand

that the Q - hyperon cannot be created in any
way except together with two K mesons.
The mass of a particle (fictitious or real) that
carries away energy and momentum is called
missing mass. If all the initial energy is denoted
by E (in our case the sum of the energies of tho
K - meson and the proton) and the initial momentum by p (the momentum of the K - meson
in our case), and if the energies and momenta of
the particles that are visible at the end are denoted by E I , PI' E 2 , P2'
the missing mass M x
can be calculated by the equation
Mx
=l!(E--E t - E 2 -
)2_(P-Pl-P2~ r~
(7.3)
To subtract vectors PI' P2, etc. from vector P
is just the same as to add to vector p vectors
PI' P2' etc. on which the heads and tails have
changed places.
When the missing mass is equal to the mass of
some particle, this means that the energy and
momentum were carried away by this particle.
When there are no particles with such a mass,
the energy and momentum were stolen by several
particles. These are the principles on which the
sleuthing of the Sherlock Holmes of physics are
based.
This \vay it is possible to learn of almost every
event of (singlet) neutron or nO meson creation.
All we need to do is to measure tho momenta
of all the visible particles as accurately as
possible.
110
Results of Reactions
Using the large chambers that were built in
recent years, momenta are determined with
quite high accuracy. This immediately enabled
physicists to find out what reaction they obtained
on a photograph. The fact is that the principle "all that is not forbidden is allowed" is
especially effective at high energies. If a proton
collides wi th an antiproton, the creation of a
rather large number of rr mesons is allowed, provided that their total charge equals zero (the
proton has a plus and the antiproton a minus
charge). Nature makes use of this opportunity.
The number of created n mesons varies greatly
from collision to collision. A multitude of different reactions occur pellmell. For example:
p-~p~rt+
rt-,
p-t-P~Jt+
rt :
(7.4)
n",
(7.5)
p --1- P -+ rr + 1t -
(7.6)
P+ J) -+
(7.7)
-t-- n O -t- rt",

nO -t- nO + n,o -t- rt",
+
P -+ rt
Jt +
11: -
P --1- P -+ rr + ~-1- Jt + -t- rr I' -1- p ~ n+ + Jt+
j[+
(7.8)
1t -,
-+-
rt -
--1-
(7.9)
rt-
+ n-
n-. (7.10)
:J1 ,
In appearance, reactions (7.4:), (7.5) and (7.6)

do not differ; only the pair n +Jt - is visible in
all three. In exactly the same way, there is no
difference in the appearance of the reactions (7.8),
(7.9) and (7.10). This is where the concept of.
missing mass comes in very handy. By measuring the tracks of the charged particles we find
11.1
the momenta and energies of the n + and nmesons. The momentum of the antiproton is
known beforehand (before entering the chamber,
all the antiprotons created in the accelerator
pass through a special channel which sorts out
only particles with a definite momentum). All
of these data are fed into a computer which calculates the missing mass by means of equation
(7.3). We then obtain values either close to zero,
or close to 0.135, or values exceeding 0.27.
When the missing mass is equal to zero, or,
more exactly, when the missing energy and the
missing momentum are equal to zero, this indicates that there were no particles involved
except the visible ones. Hence, we deal with
reaction (7.4) if we observed two tracks, reaction (7.8) if we observed four, and reaction (7.10)
if we observed six. If the missing mass equals
zero and the missing energy and momentum are
nonzero, a photon was created.
When the missing mass equals 0.135 GeV,
one nO meson is produced (reactions (7.5), (7.9),
etc.) in addition to the visible particles. The
missing momentum p - Pi - P2 - .
is its
momentum. Tho missing energy L' - E 1 - 2 - . .. is its energy. Hence, we can see the
invisible nO meson by means of kinematics just
as well as the n + and n - mesons.
When the missing mass exceeds 0.27 Ge'V,
either two nO mesons were created or heavier
neutral particles. I-Iere kinematics, as a rule,
denies its assistance, and there are no more
possibilities of direct analysis.
In any case, the conservation laws enable us
to separate cases in which only charged particles
112
are produced from those in which a single neutral

particle is additionally produced. This is much
more important than it may seem and, as soon
as the measurement of the missing mass became
sufficiently precise, a whole new cycle of discoveries began in elementary particle physics.
Entirely unheard-of kinds of particles were disclosed, which, on the one hand, could not even be
identified as being particles, but, on the other,
possessed many of the features of particles. The
list of elementary particles began to lengthen
at a threatening rate. At first theoretical physics
was taken aback by this torrent of new particles,
but subsequently competed with. the stream of
newly discovered particles by means of an even
more powerful tide of predicted ones. This
process is in full swing at the present time. Many
feel that these two head-on waves will elevate
physics to a new level.
Chapter 8
How Hesonance Particles

Are Discovered
Four physicists (three Americans and one Serbian) were conducting experiments on the annihilation of antiprotons in 1961 at Berkeley (just
across the Bay from San Francisco and the home
town of the University of California). Annihilation, or demolition (from the Latin word annihilare, meaning "to bring to nothing") is the
phenomenon mentioned at the end of the preceding chapter. When, after colliding, two heavy
particles disappear and, in their place, several
113
light particles appear, this is annihilation.

Instead of sedate nucleons, the acknowledged
building bricks of matter, unstable particles are
formed, unsuitable for creating nuclei.
The physicists placed a large hydrogen bubble
chamber in the path of the antiprotons rushing
headlong out of the accelerator. Then they adjusted the automatic apparatus and the photographic cameras, which began to make snapshots
of the collisions and decays that occurred. The
reactions were of the type of (7.4) through (7.10).
The antiprotons of the beam, together with the
protons of hydrogen, are transformed into groups
of n mesons. The momentum of each antiproton
was 1.61 GeV, the mass nl o of the proton-antiproton system is 2.29 GeV (you can check this
by means of equation (5.14)), so that up to fifteen
n mesons could be formed. The researchers decided
to pick out the photographs in which only fourprong stars could be found. Of the 2500 fourprong stars (Fig. 17), they further picked out
800 photographs about which it was safe to say
that, in addition to the four visible particles,
another invisible one, the nO meson, was concealed. Using equation (7.3), they calculated the
missing mass and obtained 0.135 GeV, which
is the value characteristic for the nO meson.
This indicated that they. were concerned with
the process
p+p-+1t++n-+no+n-
(8.1)
What was their interest in this particular
reaction due to'? The point is that several years
earlier, in studying the internal structure of the
proton and neutron, many theoretical physicists
8-1920
rt ".
1'14
Fig.
7. Annihilation.
How Resonance Particles Are Discovored
'115
came to the conclusion that there must be a heavy

uncharged particle capable of decaying to three rr
mesons. The best way to obtain a large number
of mesons straight off is annihilation, and this
is why reaction (8.1) was resorted to to find the
new particle.
They expected the mass of the particle to be
about 0.67 GeV and that it would exist about
10- 23 s. During this time it could move from
its birthplace not more than 10-13 crn, and there
seemed to be no hope of distinguishing its point
of creation (annihilation) from its point of decay. Practically all the four prongs in the photographs emerged from a single po in t.
Searching for the Pearl

What were the chances of finding this particle?
Assume that sometimes it actually was created
and immediately decayed into 1[+, rt : and nO
mesons, i.e. that the course of annihilation was
p-~- p -+ (D+n+ + nI~ n+
+ n- + nO.
(8.2)
If we only knew which of the rt + and n - mesons

were created in the decay of the sought particle
(which was arbitrarily called (Do, i.e. omegazero), the problem could have been readily
solved by means of kinematics. It would be
necessary to sum up the energies of the n + and
n - mesons, adding to this the energy of tho
invisible nO meson and thus obtaining the energy
of the roO particle. After doing likewise wi t h
the momenta, we could calculate the momentum
8*
116
of the omega-zero particle. Then we could have

calculated the invariant quantity, the mass of
the appearing and immediately disappearing
particle:
m w :=: 11 (E 1 -t- A'2 + E 3 ) 2 - (Pi -\ P2 -r P3)2.
(8.3)
What is this mass equal to? To 0.67 GeV? But

this value was proposed as a purely tentative
guess. It would have been better, evidently,
to proceed in the same manner as when the A 0
and K 0 particles were discovered. Instead of
specifying the mass of the <00 particle beforehand,
they should have waited to see what value of m
is obtained in all the annihilation four-pronged
stars without exception.
"Hold on, all the rest is clear!" you may exclaim. "The mass that was obtained everywhere:
on the first photograph, on the second, on the
third and so forth, up to the eight-hundredth,
is the mass of the WO particle. Everything tallies
beautifully! Hurrah for and long live kinematics!"
But I am compelled to remind you of the "if"
wi th which we began our line of reasoning. If we
only knew which of the Jt + and j[ - mesons were
created in the decay of the meson. But this is
precisely what we do not know! Assume that
sometimes roO mesons were actually produced. And
what if they were not? What happens then to
the combination (8.3)? It will obviously not be
equal to the mass of the <00 meson, but what
will it be equal to? This last question can be
readil Y answered: even if no u)o particle is created , the reaction p -~ P --+ rt +
n - + nO -~.
(0
+ :n; +
rr -
p -l- p ~ X
117
can be written in the form
:n;n+
1~ n+ -+- n- -j- nO
Only X would not then be a recorded real particle (co"), but, instead, a certain fictitious particle, whose mass is not constant, varying from
time to time, from one photograph to another.
Hence, the invariant mass of the three, the
quantity
n~x:=:: (E 1 -i- E 2 + E a)2 - (Pi + P2 -t- P3)2,

would have a new variable value in each photograph. Within what values would it vary? Within those stipulated by the conservation laws.
The lowest value of m x would be one in which
decay of the fictitious particle into three n mesons would still be possible, i.e. 0.415 GeV (the
creation of a rr + meson requires at least 0.140,
that of a 1t - meson also 0.140, and the creation
of a nO meson requires 0.135 GeV). The maximum
value of m x should be such that the whole available mass of the proton-antiproton system
(2.29 GeV) would just be sufficient to produco
the particles :n; +, n - and X:
-V
mx
2.29 - 0.14 - 0.14 == 2.01 GeV.
Within these limits (from 0.415 to 2.01), however, not a single value of the invariant mass is
neither forbidden, nor favoured, nor to be encountered much more often than values close
to it in magnitude (provided that particle X' is
not real, but fict itious, inven ted for convenience).
Everything seems to be clearing up. Let us
apply some calm reasoning.
118
Kinema tics for the Lyrical
If WO mesons had been created in each case

(and if we knew which of the mesons were obtained in the" decay of the 000 meson), i.e. if reaction (8.2) was the one that always occurred,
then all the invariant masses m x of the triplet,
n +, n - and nO mesons, on all of the photographs
would be found to equal the same :value: the
1118SS of the 00 meson.
On the other hand, if no Wo mesons. were produced at all, i.e. only the direct reaction (8.1)
occurred, then practically all values of the
invariant mass ni x of some (any) triplet, ranging from 0.415 to 2.01 GeV, could be found on
the various photographs.
Find the Irregularity

What if reaction (8.2) occurs in one half of the
cases and reaction (8.1) in the other half? What
happens and what do we obtain? Reaction (8.1)
will yield any invariant masses. In any definite
interval of values, say 0.5 to 0.6 GeV, there will
be approximately the same number of values of
rnx as in the adjacent interval, from 0.6 to
0.7 GeV; and in the interval from 0.6 to 0.7
approximately the same amount as in the'Tnterval from 0.7 to 0.8 GeV, etc.
What will reaction (8.2) yield? Here all the
masses m.x will be concentrated close to a single
value, the mass of the Wo meson. We could compile a table showing how many times the invariant mass of the meson triplet is found in the
interval from 0.5 to 0.6, in the interval from
0.6 to 0.7, etc. Then the mass interval containing the mass of the (00 lneson will immediately
flow Resonance Particles Are Discovered
119
stand out and draw our attention. From interval

to interval this "how many times?" will vary
smoothly and at some place there will be a sudden jump. There will be too many triplets at
this point and therefore the mass of the (Do meson
is within this interval.
This, then, is the idea on which the search
for the invisible particle is based: in the absence
of an 0)0 meson, we cannot expect certain values
of m x to be more frequent than others. If, of
course, the creation of an roO meson is rare, the
surplus of cases with m}( ~ m
over other
values of m x will be small, so that the jump
remains unnoticed. But what is there to prevent
us from trying anyway? What if (Do mesons are
frequently produced and the table immediatel y
reveals them?
"Yes, that seems reasonable, but what are we
going to do about the fact that we do not know
which 1 + and n - mesons are produced by the
decay of the (00 meson, and which are produced
directly from the system p-+ p?"
"Well then, that only means that we have to
try all the combinations of 1+, n - and nO meons. Of five particles
(0
a neutral triplet can be obtained in Iour different ways: of particles 1, 2, 3; of particles 5, 2,

3; of particles 1, 4, 3 and of particles 5, 4, 3.
In order not to miss the triplet that could be
created from the WO meson we have to try all of
them, i.e, calculate m x for each triplet.
120
This, of course, makes it necessary to seek the

00 meson on a background of a considerahly
greater number of unnecessary events, but there
is no other way,
An Explanation for the Layman
I do not know whether I have set forth tho idea
of the search with sufficient clarity. In the case
that I have not, let us consider a similar situation from real everyday life. A Martian visiting
the earth (and what could bo more real?!) can
establish t he date of World War II by counting
the numbers of people of various ages that live
in Europe. He finds that the least amount in the
age bracket from 37 to 40 years. Or, by investigating the numbers of sick-leave certificates that
were issued by the doctors of a certain city in
the months January, February, etc., he can
establish what month the current wave of grippe
attacked the city.
What do these examples, for instance the
former, havo in common with the matter we
are discussing? The invariant mass of the meson
threesomes is the age. The various ranges of
m x values represent the age rounded off to a
whole number of years. The counting of the
number of people of a definite age corresponds
to the calculation of the frequency of specific
m x values. The slight change in the birth rate
from year to year meets the requirements that,
in the absence of a 0)0 meson, the frequency of
various In x values varies smoothly from range
to range. 'I'he drastic reduction of the birth rate
during the war, analogous to the surplus of
121
cases with the (00 meson, is the predominance of

one value of m x over all the others.
We do not actually know the line of reasoning
followed by the physicists that discovered the
0)0 meSOD, but we are quite sure that they proceeded in the following way. In each photograph they measured the momenta and directions
of the four charged mesons, calculating the missing
momentum. This provided the momentum and
direction of the fifth (n") meson. I ts energy was
calculated in the same way. To make sure that
the particle really was a nO meson, they calculated its invariant mass lr E~ - p~. Then for
each of the four possible neutral combinations of
three n mesons, they calculated the invariant
mass of the missing particle by equation (8.3).
At the same time, the same calculations were
carried out for the four meson threesomes with
the charge +1, i .e. for the threesomes rt ", :Jt+
and rr -; and Jt -, 11: - and n+, and for the t\VO
threesomes with the charge +2, i.e. for the
threesomes n+, n+ and nO; and n-, n- and n",
This last operation was carried out just in case
there happens to be a particle that decays into
1+, 1+ and n - mesons, or into n +, n + and nO
mesons.
After all this work had been done on all
800 photographs, the physicists began to count
the number of times the invariant mass m ~Y
was found to be within the 0.02 GeV range from
0.42 to 0.44 GeV, within that from 0.44 to 0.46
GeV, etc. Instead of compiling a table, the results of the count were represented in a graph
(Fig. 18). Plotted along the horizontal axis are
the m x values: along the vertical axis arc the
122
Kinematics fo
N r - - - - - - -A- - - - - - - -
100
80
60
40 20 -
......:;J.......\......J...~~.L_..L.....J..........L.._J.....J._L~_..&___"___J
t--'l"~
80
60
40
20
~---'-~-.....---L-........L........L..-L-..J.......L......J.....-.L........J.-J...-1-.J::3IlL--.1......,J
100
80
60
40
20
O~----_a.A
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
l.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Fig. 18. Discovering the
000
resonance pa
The upper graph shows how frequent! y the val

found for the threesomes n+n+n- and n-n-n+ (Cl
:)"( +n+JlO and jC-Jl-nO (curve B). The same for rt
by curve C, whereas curve D represents the St
frequency with which they were fot

two upper graphs (A and B) the
plotted for the threesomes, n +, :Jt + a
n +, n + and nO rnesons. Though the curv
123
line, as you can see, but the [umps from range to

range are quite small and are of a random nature.
No values of m x are found to be appreciably
more frequent than others. Curve C is, as they
say, a horse of a different colour. It represents
the frequency of m x values found in investigating the combination of n +, n - and nO mesons.
Though the jumps are also small over most of
the curve, within several of the ranges, from
0.76 to 0.82 GeV, the smoothness of the curve is
obviously violated. A peak crops up on a smooth
rise. In this range there are many more threesomes (93 more) than there should be if the
curve rose smoothly (there should have been
about 98 threesomes). This surplus is what reveals the existence of the particle being sought.
The mass of the particle, the location of the
centre of the peak, turned out to be equal to
0.787 GeV. Calculations of the height of the
peak lead to the conclusion that reaction (8.2)
occurs in 10% of the cases. Only in this way
could the peak have reached its height.
Much time has passed since 1961. The discovered roO particle has been investigated many times
during these years. It is known now that the tip
of the peak is actually located at the invariant
mass 0.7828 GeV. Of especial interest is the
fact that though the peak~is-"'very narrow.Cit is
not infinitely narrow.
If we removed all the photographs on which
the triplets" of n+, n- and nO mesons were not
created by the decay of the roO meSOD, and if
we calculated the invariant mass for the remaining triplets that we know for sure to be produced
by an (00 meson, we would not always obtain
124
Kinomatics for the Lyrical
the value 0.7828. The reason is not because we

cannot measure the momenta of the mesons with
sufficient accuracy and determine the mass with
sufficient precision. By no means! Even with
absolutely precise determination, the masses of
lllIJJ
Fig, 19. Mass distribution curve for the resonance

ticle.
pUI-
Mass values arc plotted along- the horizontal axis, and how frequentl y these values are encountered (in rela tive units) along the
ver tical axis. Also shown is the width (variance) of distribution.
the triplets will differ in the various photographs, though all the triplets owed their formation to the same 00 mesons. Most often, of
course, we would find triplets with masses close
to 0.7828 GeV, but some would have a mass of
about 0.782, about 0.775, about 0.79 GeV, etc.
If we were to plot a curve like the ones in Fig. 18
for the decays (00 ~ Jt+Jt-Jt 0 , i.e. plot the number
of times we find one or another value of the mass
125
(rr +n-nO) along a vertical axis, we would oh tain

a peak rather than needle in the curve. I ts vertex
would be located at the value 0.7828 GeV and
its wid th halfway to the vertex would equal
0.0094 GeV (Fig. 19).
For us this is an entirely new phenomenon.
Does it follow that the particle has no definite
mass? But can that be possible? Is not the mass
of a particle a fixed quantity, once and for all,
can it yield to the influence of something?
On the Threshold of Ne\v Discoveries

Maybe we h.ave discovered the existence of cor-
puscles even smaller than elementary particles?

Maybe the roO meson consists of these corpuscles
in exactly the same way as atoms are made up
of protons, neutrons and electrons? Maybe, in

the same manner as the mass of a frying pan
is reduced if we break off a piece, small pieces
are broken off the 00 meson from time to time
so that its mass varies from case to case? Evidently, then, the mass of these corpuscles is
much less, say by a factor of one hundred, than
0.0094 GeV, i.e. less than that of an electron.
Maybe the 000 meson is the first sign of a new
subelementary world?
Maybe the point is that energy and momentum
are not conserved in decay processes? We do
not actually measure the energy of the (u0 meson
itself; we measure the energy and momentum of
three n mesons. Maybe we should, in fact, proclaim the "law of violation of energy conservation"
in decay processes, and not be at all surprised
that the mass of the roO meson is not conserved?
126
Maybe Einstein's theory of relativity is to

blame? Maybe what we call an invariant quantity (the difference E~ - p~) is no such thing?
Maybe this difference varies with the energy
or something else? Then again there is nothing
to be surprised about.
The Discovery Fell Through
But reality turns out to be much more sensible
and, at the same time, much more fantastic.
Matters are quite different from what we
have surmised above. We need not resort to
the aid of any corpuscles. We shall have to leave
alone the Iaw of energy conservation. The theory
of relativity will, as before, continue its triumphant march.
What happened is that quantum mechanics,
the mechanics of the interaction and motion of
minute particles, reminded us of its existence.
So far we had no need to deal with it. This,
in fact, was what our initial intention consisted
of: to relate about elementary particles all that
requires no knowledge of the theory of their
motion and transformation; to tell how the conservation of energy restricts the morals and
manners of the subatomic world. I thought this
could be done without resorting to quantum
mechanics.
Surrender
But it could not. Oneof the basiclaws of quantum
mechanics-the indeterminacy principle-gives
the following explanation for the effect we have
127
observed. The point is that the 00 meson has

such a short lifetime that its mass does not have
enough time to "become established". The certainty with which the mass of an unstable particle is registered depends upon the mean lifetime of the particle. Only stable (eternal and
nondecaying) particles have a fixed mass that
does not vary. If, however, the particle is free
to decay, then its mass is capable of varying
within some limits. The longer the lifetime of
the given kind of particle, the closer it is to
stability, the more precisely its mass can be
recorded. For this reason, the mass of the rr +
mesons, with a lifetime of 10- 8 s and the mass of
the A0 hyperons, with an average lifetime of
10- 10 s, and even that of the nO mesons, with a
lifetime:of only 10 -16 s, are practically constant.
Their variations cannot be registered by up-todate instruments.
But if you succeed in finding particles that
have a mean lifetime of 10 -23 s, you will be
astonished by the discord in their masses. The
difference will reach 0.005 and 0.010 GeV and
even more. But they will be one and the same
kind of particles and have the same properties.
All their properties will be the same except for
one: their mass.
You may ask what kinds of properties can
such minute objects have (even Voltaire's Micromegas knew that the smaller a body is, the
less properties it has). Actually, there are very
many. I did not enumerate them before, not
wanting to enunciate incomprehensible words.
But now I shall name them to demonstrate how
many properties particles have. Particles differ
128
from one another by their lifetime (as you know),

electric charge (as you also know), baryon charge,
lepton charge, spin, isospin, space parity, charge
parity, strangeness, helicity, decay mode, form
factor, magnetic moment, force of interaction
with other particles, etc. Not so few, as you can
see. In addition, they are characterized by their
mass, So far, nobody has noted that any of these
properties depends upon the mean lifetime. But
the mass does.
The Iact that such a dependence must exist was
known beforehand. The founders of quantum
mechanics warned a long, long time ago that
this would happen. The indeterminacy principle
predicted that if it becornes necessary in physics
to deal with processes which last an extremely
short time, the energy evolved in these processes will change from lime to time. This had
already been observed in other phenomena as
well. The law relating the duration t of a process
and the uncertainty r in the energy is formulated as follows:
(GeV) X t (8)
h/2rt == 6.6 X 10- 25 GeV-s.
IIere h is Planck '8 constant *.
(8.4)
The lifetime of the excited state of an atom l' ~ 10- 8 s,

After this it emits a quantum of visible light with the
energy E = hv, The uncertainty relation can then be
written in the form
S X l' = 1/2n
where S is the uncertainty in the frequency. Hence, it
is equal to about 10 8 S-l. The frequency itself of visible
light v ~ 5 X 1014 S-l, so t.hat the relative uncertainty
or the frequency is tsvl ~ 10-6 Consequently, spectral
lines are not infinitely narrow.
129
With respect to our acquaintance, the WO

meson, the uncertainty r of its mass is the
width (variance) of the curve in Fig. 19, i ,e.
0.0094 GeV. Then, applying equation (8.4),
we can calculate how long on an average the
particle exists from the instant of its creation
to the instant of its decay. We obtain 7 X 10- 23 s.
The Clock-Balance
Hence, we have measured the lifetime of
the W O meson without measuring any times. We
have in hand a most unique clock. It is not
enough that it measures intervals of time a thousand million times shorter than any other clocks
can, but it measures them without measuring
time.
Let us follow again the explanation of how
these clocks work. We wish to ascertain the
mean lifetime of a particle X. We find out that
it decays and measure the energies and momenta
of the particles that are created from it with
the greatest feasible accuracy. Each time we
calculate the invariant mass of this group of
particles, i.e. the mass of particle X itself. We
try to record as many decays as possible. Rounding off the mass values to an accuracy of 0.01 GeV,
for instance, we plot a curve with the rounded-off
values along the horizontal coordinate axis and
the number of times they were found along the
vertical axis. We obtain a curve similar to the
one in Fig. 19. The location of its vertex indicates, to an accuracy within 0.01, the average mass
of particle X. Besides, the distance between the
branches of the curve, halfway to the vertex,
9-1920
130
is the quantity I'. Substituting its value into

equation (8.4), we obtain the mean lifetime of
particle X.
Can we use this clock to measure the lifetime
of the AO hyperon? Judge for yourself. The AO
hyperon has a Iifetirne of 10- 10 s. lIenee the
difference in mass of various AO hyperons will
be of the order of
r == 6.610-x 10- 2 5 6 6 10- 15 G V

== '. X
re
10
No instrument exists that can detect such a
small difference in energy.
Can we make use of this clock to measure the
lifetime of the nO meson? No, we cannot: r ==
= 6.6 X 10-25/1.8 X 10- 16 = 4 X 10-9 GeV.
This is also beyond the limits of accuracy of upto-date experimental procedure. The lifetime
of the nO meson has been measured, but by a different method.
Then what kind of times can our clock measure?
Approximately 10-22 s and less. Our (Do meson
lies just on the boundary of experimental feasibility. We are still incapable of measuring a
variance in energies of the order of 0.001 GeV,
especially if we take into account the fact that
the peak is never as evident as shown in Fig. 19,
but always appears on a background of other
phenomena (as in Fig. 18).
Besides the 0)0 meson, do other particles exist
with a similarly short lifetime? Yes, they do.
Before the discovery of the (u0 meson, the rho
meson (denoted by p), for example, had been
found. I t decays into two n mesons, its average
mass fs 0.763 and the average variance r in
131
masses is O.106 GeV Thus, its lifetime (found by

substituting into equation (8.4)) is approximately
only one tenth of that of the <.Do meson, and equals
6 X 10- 24 s. Other particles, such as the Y-zero,
isobar, etc., have similarly short Jifet.imes.
But their lao short lifotime brought about a
situation in which they were not c.n.siderod to be
p rrticles at all. It was thought that tho p meson
is a pair of Jt OleS')J1S that do not go off at the instant of their creation, but hang around each
other for a certain length of time (6 X 10 -24 s)
and leave each other only then. They were given
a diffcren t namo, noL particles , hut resonances:
the rho resonance, the Y resonance, stressing,
by this word, the ephemeral and unstable nature
of such formations. (1 arn obliged to use words
here that do not have an exact meaning, such
as ephemeral nature, hang around each other,
etc. Actually, a more or less precise theory exists
concerning these phenomena, and all inaccuracies are stipulated. But it happens to be a matheme tical theory. If we attempt to translate the
language of mathematics into that of visualizable
conceptions, we obtain nothing except vague
words. Gradually crystallized out of these words
tre such terms as "resonances".)
A Flood of Discoveries
The discovery of the (Do meson marked a definite
turning point in the sentiments of scientists.
The (Do meson was undoubtedly a "resonance"
since it had such a short lifetime. At the same
time, it resembles a particle in all of its features:
132
its mass varied from time to time by only 1 to

1.5%. It became clear that no impassable abyss
exists between resonances and particles, that
formations wi th a lifetime of 10- 23 or 10 -24 S
are just as full-fledged candidates for the
status of elemen tary particles as the A0 hyperon or nO meson. The precision and powerful
demonstrative capacity of the experiment itself
had an immense impact. Physicists began feverishly to discover new resonances. They proceeded, in general, in tho same way as previously.
They picked out a definite reaction, calculated
the invariant masses of all the combinations of
particles they found in it, and then looked to see
whether any values of this mass were found more
frequently than neighbouring values.
Some experimenters were carried away by unwarranted enthusiasm, others announced exaggerated resul ts: if an insufficient number of
photographs are made, some mass values may
be found more frequently (by pure chance) and
others more rarely. It was quite easy, when wishing at all costs to make a discovery, to pass a random accumulation of mass at one point as the detection of a new particle. But gradually rigid
rules were approved for the acception of new
peaks into the resonance family. Up to the present several dozens have been discovered, and
there is still no end in sight. Each new resonance
(still, as previously, they are called resonances,
though it is understood that there is no difference between them and particles) is met with
great interest, because physicists hope that
when a great many have been accumulated, they
will begin to understand the relations between
the resonances and their

place in the picture
of the world.
In conclusion, I wish
to underline the difference between resonance
particles and particle
particles that makes the
strongest impression on
us. A resonance differs
from a particle in that
a photograph in which
a particle decays can,
as a rule, be shown. But
nobod y can show you a
photograph recording the
decay of a resonance.
If you ask a physicist to show you a photograph recording the decay of a nO meson into two
photons, he can look for
and find such a photograph (Fig. 20). True,
you will not see the nO
meson there, but the phy-sicist knows tha tit has
been there because the
.invariant mass of the
two photons yields a
value close to the mass
of the nO meson. If you
next ask him to show you
afphotograph of the process in which a (!)o meson
e1
"'1 2
133
1'11
Fig. 20. Creation and decay of the nO meson.

Shown at the lower left is
what you should pay attention to in the photograph: 'VI
""2 are the photons produced in the decay; 1'1 prod uced the electron-post tron
pair e 1e t t whereas 1'2 produced
a whole shower. The straight
tracks at the bottom belongto other particles created togethel' wi th the ~o meson,
and
134
Kinematics Ior the Lyrical
is created and then decays, the physicist will

make a helpless gesture. He cannot give you
one photograph. He can give you two hundred
and say "Among them at least one hundred 'belong' to the roO meson" But which ones? "That
is something nobody knows" This is understandable, because the decays roO -+- rt + n + It
are found on a background of n meson triplets,
whose invariant mass turns out by mere chance
to be close to that of the (00 meson. We are incapable of separating the WO meson from the background. This constitutes the difference. The Qhyperon was discovered by fmding a single suilable photograph, whereas the experimenters succeeded in discovering the 0)0 meson without having on hand even one trustworthy case of a roO ~
~ 11: -t- n + 11: decay, but having a great many
untrustworthy ones.
Here physicists are in the same boat as geologists who are given a great number of samples
of some mineral and told, "A part of the samples
are not the mineral, but simply rock. But nobody
knows which are which. The properties of the
rock are unknown. Those of the mineral are also
unknown. Please report on t.he properties of the
mineral. Do not rely 011 separating the mineral
from the rock by some kind of chemical analysis, they are inseparable, ..." These are exactly
the conditions under whi ch physicists work in
investigating resonances (see also Chap, 16).
Part Two

A brilliant )~()UDg student of \VClITIS
Majored in physics for fcur terms.'
As he approached TIS stature,
i.:
He got farther and farther from nature.
This paperized physicist of Worms.
Chapter 9
The Momenta Hedgehog

We shall deal in this chapter with the principal
properties of the decay of a particle at rest into
two particles. The problem is to be formulated
8S follows. Assume that a nO meson at rest decays
to two photons. Can we find out beforehand the
energy that these photons will have? Or, in another case, a A 0 hyperon disintegrates in motion
to a proton and an - meson. What did the energies
of its successors seem to be to this hyperon in
the last instant of its existence? Or, if you cannot
stand such profanation of elementary particle
transformation, what did these energies seem
to equal to you, if you travelled along-side the
hyperon and were the unintentional witness of
his event?
We Solve a System of Equations

Let us solve this problem in its most general
form. Assume that a stationary particle 0 of
mass m decays to two particles, 1 and 2. We
know the rest masses of particles 1 and 2 beforehand: they are m 1 and m 2 What can be said
136
about the energies E 1 and E 2 and the directions of

these particles?
It can be said with respect to the energies that
added together they equal the energy of the initial particle, i.e. its mass m:
E1
+ E2 =
m:
(9.1)
As to the directions, we know that they should

be such that the momentum vectors PI and Pe
of the two particles add up to equal zero (as was
the momentum of the particle 0 at rest):
PI
+ P2 =
O.
(9.2)
Besides, we know another property of moving

particles: whatever their energies and momenta,
a certain combination of these properties is
independent of their motion:
E~-p:=m~,
(9.3)
E:-p;=m:.
(9.4)
We shall have to solve this system of equations, (9.1) through (9.4). The solution is quite
simple. Look at equation (9.2). Recall the rule
for adding vectors. The addition of two vectors
yields zero only when the tail of the first vector
coincides with the head of the second and vice
versa. It can be seen in Fig. 21 that
Pi = P2.
(9.5)
The'Imomonta of particles 1 and 2 are equal in

magnitude, but opposite in direction. Hence,
if we subtract equation (9.4) from equation (9.3)
we obtain
E~ - E~ == m~ - m~.
(9.6)
137
Next we divide equation (9.6) by equation (9.1}

and obtain
{9.7}
Now we add equations (9.7) and (~.1). After
Fig. 21. Decay of a particle at rest (the sum of the two

momenta equals zero).
cancelling, we obtain
2E 1
== m+ m~-m~
m
from which
(9.8)
If you wish to find E 2 you interchange masses of
particles 1 and 2:
~
E 2-
m 2+ nz222m
2
n~l
(9.9)
This is the algebraic solution of our system of

equations. I can inform geometry fans that the
problem of the decay of a particle of mass m to
two particles of masses m 1 and m 2 fully coincides
with the following school geometry problem
138
(Fig. 22): the sum of the sides of the triangle

equals m, and their projections on the base
are equal to ml and m 2 ; find the sides of the triangle. You will see that the same system of equations, (9.1) through (9.5), are obtained. For your
E2
Fig. 22. The geometric solution.

Solving this t.rtangle means
to two particles.
'YOU
have solved the problem of decay
benefit, I have indicated on the triangle the

quantities E 1 , E 2 and P == Pt
P2. If you prefer
the geometric method of sol ving this problem,
try to obtain equation (9.8) by purely geometric
means.
It should be easy to understand by just looking at the triangle that the problem has a solution only when m:> m,
m 2 Here again we
meet our old acquaintance, one of the forbidden
reactions: the sum of the masses of the products of
decay must not exceed the mass ofLthe initial par-
ticle.
Let us try to find an understanding of the solut ion" obtained. We have come across an interest
tng' feature. In the decay of a particle at rest
ihe energies of its two offspring cannot have
139
just any values. They depend upon the rest masses of the particles involved: on m, m, and m 2
The energy values are predetermined by these
masses. But in decay into two identical particles, their energies are determined only by the
mass of the parent particle:
s, =E2 == ';
(9.10)
For instance, when a stationary nO meson with

a mass of 0.135 GeV decays to two photons, it
simply divides its energy in half: 0.0675 GeV
to one photon and the same amount to the other.
But the momentum of the progeny always depends
upon their mass (it is the same for each one and
is equal to 11 E: - n~~ or 11 E~ - m;). The heavier they are, the less their momentum as they
go off. At ml === m 2 ~ m/2, the particles to
which particle 0 decays do not go anywhere but
remain at the point of decay. This happens, as
a matter of fact, not only when their masses are
equal, but with any masses, provided that ml
m 2 ~ m. To understand why this is so, just
imagine what the altitude of the triangle in
Fig. 22 would be if In! + m 2 == m. At m 1 + m2~
== m, what we have is more like something falling into parts, rather than decay into particles.
Thus, we arc already capable of calculating
beforehand with what energy particles will be
created in one or another kind of decay. This
enables us to identify particles which have
a typical mode of decay.
It is known, for instance, that K+ mesons (having a mass of O~494 GeV) and n+ mesons (with
a mass of 0.140 GeV) have approximately the
140
same lifetime and decay into the same particles:

the f.l + meson (mu-meson, or mUOD, with the
mass 0.1057 GeV) and the neutrino (mass 0).*
Practical Conclusions
This decay "at the end of the trail" may be like
the one shown in Fig. 23: the track of the K +
or n+ meson, more and more sinuous (owing to
the loss of velocity the particle meanders between the atoms; the lower its velocit y.Lhe greater the angle through which it can be turned by
an atom happening to be nearby, and, as a result, it loses still more velocity), is suddenly
interrupted (the particle comes to a stop) and
ends with a knee, which is the track of the outgoing muon. The neutrino leaves no track.
Can we determine from our photograph what
has decayed: a K + or a n + meson? One procedure
takes into account the fact that the degree of
sinuousity, or crookedness, at the end of the
trail differs for a K + particle and for a n + meSOD.
But there exists another procedure that is based
on kinematics. I t consists in measuring the
path of the muon. The higher the momentum,
the longer the path, and the momentum in
the decay
K+~~++v
is not at all the same as in the decay

n+-+~++v.
This is practically the only decay mode for the n-t

meson; for the K+ meson it is one of many, but quite
frequent.
I-=J
~
CD
s=
CD
1:3
(""!"
CD
0..
(JQ
CD
~
Fig. 23. A case of the decay [(+ -+ f.t +

'V.
The track running from the right across the other tracks is til trace of the J.+ mr-sor; t hc track downward
from the knee is the outgoing J..t+ meson. Just before the knee, the direc tiou or the h t track was changr-d ,
This proves that the particle was at rest during the decay.
,....
142
Fig. 24. The decay n +
lJ. +
+ 'V.
Jl: meson itself WClS cvidvn t lv cren tnt in the rraction 3l- + p
Jt- + Jt+ + n; the J..t + meson docaycdto e+ and a v pail'
The
-
In the former case it equals 0.236 GeV (check

by equation (9.8), and then by equation (9.3)),
whereas in the latter it is only 0.0298 GeV. This
implies that all ~l + mesons obtained in the decay of a stopped K + meson will have one path
length in a given substance, and the f.1 + mesons
obtained from the decay of a n + meson will have
an entirely different path length (Fig. 24).
Usually, both procedures are applied to eliminate any doubt about what decayed, a K+ particle or a n + meSOD.
Fig. 25. A case of the decay K+ -+ n+
143
+ nO.
At the end of its trai l the n+ meson comes to (l stop and decays
to J.! + and v . The decay of nO produces two pho t ons, 011(' of which,
near some nucleus, creates the e+e- pair visible in the photograph.
In exactly the same way, on the basis of

path length, you can distinguish the decay
K+-+!l++v
from the decay
K + -+
J1 +
n",
provided that the decay occurred with the K+

particle at rest (i .e. if the knee was preceded
by a highly sinuous track). The momentum of
the n+ meson should equal 0.205 Ge V, instead
of 0.236 GoV, the momentum of the II + meson
(Fig. 25).
In addition, the derived equations (9.8) and
(9.9) are essential in investigating another kind
of decay: decay "in travel". We shall deal with
'144
this type of decay in Chap. 11, and now I shall

tell you about what gave this chapter its name:
the momenta hedgehog.
'The Momenta Hedgehog
'By solving the system of equations (9.1) through

1(9.4) we determined the energies of particles 1
.and 2. But you probably noticed that nothing
'was said about their directions. The fact is
that they may have any directions. Vectors PI
.and P2 are equal in length (and their length is
-deterrnined only by the masses m, ml and m 2)
.and opposite in direction, but whatever their
,direction, it is all the same, their sum is always
.equal to zero. This implies that there are no
forbidden directions of motion of the offspring
of particle O. But we know that all that is not
forbidden is allowed. As a matter of fact, from
time to time, from photograph to photograph,
the direction of the kink, or knee, of the ,.,.. +
meson (in the decay K + ~ f-.l +
v) is found to
(differ. Each new decay of particle 0 into particles 1 and 2 may take place in some new direction. This is what enables us to construct the
decay momenta hedgehog.
Imagine that we have accumulated an innumerable heap of photographs of the decay K+-+
-+ fl +
v. What will happen if we position
them so that their points of decay coincide and
draw all the momentum vectors of the f-.l + meson?
The point of decay will then bristle with thousands of arrows. Their length will be the same,
but we shall find practically any directions.
This, then, is our momenta hedgehog (Fig. 26).
What Colour Are Elementary Particles?
145
All of its spines are identical, and there is no

place on it that we can ,touch without getting
pricked. You must think of this hedgehog each
time you deal with the decay of a particle into
two and ask yourself in which directions the
daughter particles might travel. The hedgehog
will remind you: in any.
To the readers who have no use for counterparts from animate nature in a book on physics,
Fig. 26. Decay momenta hedgehog of a particle at rest.
I state simply: the locus for the heads of the

momentum vectors
particle 1 is a sphere of
radius p with its centre at the point of decay.
The same sphere is the locus for the momenta
of particle 2.
of
Chapter 10
What Colour Are Elementary

Particles?
This is a question that I have asked many physicist friends. Not one of them was surprised, and
each tried to describe his idea of what particles
10-Ina
146
look like. The question was asked separately'

and none of them knew what answers the others
had given.
The discord was incredible. The more astonish-ing the fact that many of the opinions coincided
with respect to the proton. The general notion
was that it must surely be black (if not red).
It is of interest that only theoretical physicists:
found it possible to express their idea on this
question. It turned out that experimental physi-'
cists never see particles in colour. Only one'
said that he thought the electron was green:
(and, even in this case, it proved to be the trace!
of an electron on an oscilloscope screen that,
he had in mind). Hence, this resulted, at the
same time, in a good test enabling a theorist.
to be distinguished from an experimenter. I t may'
help a physics student to choose what will suit,
him, or her, better. If you do not sense the col-our of particles, do not J become a theoretical.
physicist.
A reader inexperienced in science may ask:'
"What a strange way to settle scientific prob-lems by a majority vote? Don't physicists know'
the true colours of particles?"
This question is fully within the competence'
of kinematics, and I cannot refrain from discussing
it. The colour of a body is determined by thefrequency of the--light waves travelling away'
from it. If the body is self-luminous, these are'
waves emitted by the body itself. Otherwise,.
they are waves reflected from the body. The
former is si ill pier, and we shall define the colourof a particle as the colour of the light waves spon-
taneously radiated by it. l'he colour of an atorm
Wh~t
Colour Are Elementary Particles?
147
is also the colour of the light it emits. Assume

for the sake of simplicity that the particle is at
rest.
It is known from quantum mechanics that the
radiation of light is a flux of photons, or light
quanta. The frequency v of light is related to the
energy E of the photons by the equation
E = hv,
(10.1)
where h is Planck's constant:

h
4.14
10-24 (GeV-s).
(10.2)
Hence, if we wish to determine the colour of

particle X (or atom X) of mass m, we should find
the energy of the photons it emits and convert
it into frequency. This is, in essence, the problem
on the kinematics of decay to two particles. Let
us imagine for the moment that the particle emits
photons, one after the other, but remains, of
course, unchanged. We will perceive this flux
of photons from the particle as its glow. The
process is
x -+ X + y.
(10.3)
The mass m of the initial particle X is not less

than the sum of the rest masses (m
0) of
particles X and y, so that our necessary and sufficient condition for the possibility of decay
m> m.;
+m
(10.4)
is complied with. Let us now nod the energy

of y. Into equation (9.9) (E 2
(m 2
m: - m~)/2m) we substitute the values m 1 = m
and m 2 ==:: O. But what do we obtain: E 2 == 01
10*
148
The answer is unexpected. We lind that the

energies of photons and, consequently, their
momenta as well are equal to zero. Our assumed
beam of light carries neither energy nor momentum. There will simply be no radiation.
Now we begin to understand why physicists
are compelled to solve the problem on the colour
of particles by resorting to democratic principles, i.e. by an analysis of public opinion. We
have proved the theorem stating that particles
have no colour. This, evidently, is why the
proton seems to many physicists to be black.
And all atoms should appear black. When, for
instance, atoms of incandescent sodium emit
photons, they do not cease to be atoms of sodium.
This is process (10.3) again:
Na -+ Na
+ y.
(10.5)
Hence, atoms of sod ium or any other atoms cannot radiate colour.
... We frantically turn over our knowledge
of physics: where were we tripped up? It is true, of
course, that sodium engaged in radiation does
not cease to he sodium. But light is radiated by
excited atoms of sodium. What do we mean hy
"exci ted"? Simply energy stored up beforehand;
having surplus energy. Surplus energy means
surplus mass. This, then, is the crux of the
matter] When common salt shines with a yellow
colour in the flame of a Bunsen burner, the
reaction is
Na* -+ Na
+ 'V
(10.6)
(where the mass of N a * is greater than that of
Na), rather than reaction (10.5). If we now
149
wish to find the colour of particle X, we have

to look for a process
X~
Y~.+
y,
(10.7)
where particle Y must be lighter than particle X.

Then everything turns out fine: a photon is
emitted with the energy
(10.8)
and, after dividing E; by 4.14 X 10-24 we find
the colour of the particle.
Just for sport let us see how the frequency of
the light emitted by sodium is calculated by
this equation. An excited atom weighs only
slightly more than an unexcited one, i.e. in the
decay Na* -+ Na + y, 2m x in the denominator
of equation (10.8) can be replaced by the sum
mNa* + mNa. After cancelling \VO obtain
~"'f"l == mNa* -
nlNa.
This is the well-known equation for the frequency of light radiated by an atom in its transition
from an excited state to its ground state. Usually, however, it is written in the form
h = E* - E.
But we know that the energy of an excited state
and the mass of an atom are one and the same,
but expressed in different words.
So, everything has been cleared up and it
remains to look for processes in which elementary particles spontaneously emit photons. Unfortunalely, such processes are exceptionally
few and far between. The following reactions
150
are decays in which the colour of the particles

can be determined:
Jt0~
-t.-
y,
11 ~ Y
Y (11 is a resonance with
the mass 0.550 GeV),
(00
-+
~o -+
nO
AO
+ ,,/,
.-t-
(~O
is a hyperon with
the mass 1.192 GeV).

But even here an unpleasant surprise lies in
wait for us: the energy of photons is so high
that the eye does not sense it as light. We will
simply obtain radioactive radiation.
We can calculate, for instance, the frequency
of the photons from the decay ~o -+ AO
y.
Substituting m L == 1.192 and mA == 1.115 into
equation (10.8) yields E; === 0.0745 GeV, which
corresponds to a frequency of v :=: 1.8 X 10 22 s -1.
The eye cannot perceive a frequency higher than
1015 s -1.
Thus, nothing came of our interest in the colour
of particles. NO\V what is the moral in all this,
as they used to ask in the nineteenth century?
Or the dry residue, as they ask in the twentieth?
What have we found out?
In the first place, we found that in radiating
light, atoms become lighter. This is quite clear:
light carries away energy, and energy is equivalent to mass.
In the second place, we found out that an atom
before radiation and the atom aftor radiation are
different particles, just like the i\ 0 and LO hyperons in the reaction ~o ~ AO +.1'. The differ-
151
inces, of course, are not so large, because the

.energy of the photons are much less, but they
are real differences. Unexcited helium, for in-stance, is an inert gas. Excited helium. on the
contrary, participates in reactions.
We shall not be astonished now to hear the
~o hyperon called the excited state of the- AO
1hyperon. The concept that certain heavy particles are excited states of lighter particles is a
'Useful one. I t helps to establish family ties between elementary particles.
~.:
,- ~'Still another piece of information that we
gained is that condition (10.4), the necessary and
.sufficient condition that the decay 0 -+ 1
2
will take place, requires an additional stipulation. When particles 1 and 2 have rest masses,
:then mo> n't 1
m 2 is quite valid. But when
particle 2, for example, has no rest' mass, then
the inequality becomes strict:
r
m., >ml
This is understandable: at m., = ml

m 2 , particles 1 and 2 are created fixed, whereas a photon
cannot stand still.
The Mossbauer Ettect

Finally, we should not forget the fifth conclusion. As a photon is emitted it carries away,
not only energy, but momentum as well. The
momentum of the photon is simply equal to the
energy hv: Particle Y receives an equal momentum h in the opposite direction: in radiating
light the atom is subjected to recoil. This recoil
is very small; the energy of visible light isIn-
152
significant. In the radiation of yellow light with

the frequency v = 5 X 1014 S-I, for instance,
the recoil momentum of the atom is
hv ~ 2 X 10-9 GeV.
It is quite another matter when an elementary
particle decays or we observe a radioactive decay. There we cannot ignore this recoil (in the
preceding example Pr == E; = 0.0745 GeV).
The reaction in radioactive gamma decay
(emission) is
N*-+N+y,l
(10.9)
with the transition of an excited nucleus from a

state with greater mass to one with less mass,
emitting a photon and undergoing recoil. The
recoil energy is equal as usual to
R=
M I\ v~
2
p~
2M N
(hV)2
2M N
In our example
R = (0.0745)2/(2 X 1.15)
2 X 10- 3 GeV.
It becomes clear then why in the bulk of the

substance this photon is not immediately captured
by another unexcited nucleus. 1'0 accomplish
the reverse process
+ y-+ N*
it is necessary for the nucleus N to have exactly

the same momentum (in magnitude and direction), and the same kinetic energy R, as the
nucleus N in the decay reaction. * But nuclei N
* Only in this case can we conform to the laws of con . .

servation of energy and momentum.
153
are almost stationary or, to be more precise,

their velocity and energy in ordinary thermal
motion are much less than the velocity and
energy received in recoil. (The kinetic energy of
thermal motion can be determined by the equation E=3kTI2, where k= 8.62 X 10-14 GeV/deg,
i.e. Boltzmann's constant. At room temperature,
the energy is E ~ 2.5 X 10- 11 GeV, which is
much, much less than the required amount R.)
When, however, photons are emitted by atoms,
the recoil energy of the atom is much less than
the energy of thermal motion. At the frequency
'V = 5 X 1014 S -1 of the radiated light, the recoil energy of a sodium atom (whose mass is
about 22 GeV) is equal to
(4.14 X 10- 24 X 5 X 1014 ) 2 ~ 10-19 GeV,
R == (hV)2
2Al ==
2 x 22
' ...,
whereas the energy of thermal motion is 10 -11

GeV Therefore, among the countless amount of
atoms there could quite possibly be some that
have the proper momentum, equal to the recoil
momentum of the atom that emitted the light,
and the light will be absorbed.
The German physicist Rudolf Ludwig Mossbauer was the first to comprehend that when nuclei N* and N are bound in the points of a crystal
lattice, the recoil momentum of the photon in
decay (10.9) is sometimes shared by the whole
crystal. The mass of the crystal is very large and
everything looks as if N* and N are "particles" of
incredibly large mass (equal to the mass of the
crystal). It is obvious that such a "particle" remains stationary after gamma radiation. To
154
absorb such a photon it is also necessary for

its momentum to be taken up by the whole crystal. This is feasible when the energy of the y
quantum is not too high. M6ssbauer reasoned
that in radioactive y decay of nuclei in a crystal,
the photons will be absorbed again in the same
crystal (or in another one, but of the same material) in the same manner as occurs in the radiation of light by atoms. He confirmed his hypothesis expetirnent.al ly. The sensitivity of the Mossbauer effect is so great that when the photonemitting crystal is raised several metres above
the absorbing, or receiving, crystal, absorption
no longer takes place. As the photons "fall" with
gravity they lose potential energy, gain frequency and reach the nuclei with an energy
differing from that required for the process
N + l' --+ N*. This experiment confirmed (once
again) Einstein's concept that photons possess
a mass of motion that differs in no way from
the mass of motion of other particles.
Chapter 11
Relativistic Transformations
of the Momenta Hedgehog
There is not much good in the hedgehog if a particle decays while it is at rest. It is quite another
matter when it decays in travel. We can, of
course, follow the particle in a thought experiment, in which case it will seem to be at rest,
and we can repeat all the reasoning of Chapter 9.
But it is not in our power to make .physical
Transformations of the Momenta Hedgehog
155
instruments follow the particle. I t is therefore

of prime importance to comprehend how decays
look to a stationary observer. And not only those
of a single particle, but of a great many particles of the same type.
To discover a new particle, it is sometimes
sufficient to record it at least once. This is
what happened, for example, in the case of the
g- hyperon. But to determine the properties of
a particle, a single observation is hardly enough.
Most of the properties can be cleared up only
after investigating a great many interactions
of a single kind of particle. These properties
are manifested as a certain average property of
the whole set of particles being investigated.
It may be of interest, for instance, to find out in
which direction such and such particles are
most frequently emitted in such and such a process, or what recoil a proton is most frequently
subject to in such and such a reaction, and how
often the reaction occurs.
There is, therefore, one feature of the kinematics of elementary particles that distinguishes it from the kinematics, for example, of an
icicle falling from the eaves of a roof, or that
of a rocket in its flight to the moon. Elementary
particle kinematics is concerned, not only with
the motion and decay of separate single particles, but also with the average characteristics
in the decay of a great number of particles of
the same type. It poses such questions as: how
many, on an average, do we find particles with
the same energy or ones travelling in the same
direction, etc.? In the kinematics and the statistics of particle decay and particle collisions,
156
the questions "how much?" and "how often?"

usually go hand in hand.
Up to this time we have, in essence, dealt with
the kinematics of a single, separate decay or
collision. When we drew the decay hedgehog,
we first raised the question about how a thousand decay processes, such as K+ -+ ~+
v,
would look if they all occurred at a single point.
But we saw nothing of any particular interest:
an ordinary round hedgehog, indicating that
the f.t meson may have any possible direction.
A decay in travel, however, substantially alters
the picture. The momenta hedgehog is transformed: certain spines become shorter, others
longer; at certain spots they become denser,
at others, more sparse. This leads to interesting
problems.
Now let us find out how a great number of
processes in which a particle 0 decays into
particles 1 and 2 will look if we observe these
decays while we are stationary. We shall assume
that all the particles 0 have the same momentum p in both magnitude and direction (and,
natural] y, the same energy E).
We Solve Without Solving

Our problem can be solved in different ways.
We can proceed directly by writing the conservation laws
E +E2-==E}
1
Pt
+ P2 = P
(11.1)
'I ransforrnations of the Momenta Hedgehog
157
and solving these equations, taking into account

the invariance of the combination E2 _ p 2
But we can also resort to a roundabout way.
We shall, of course, favour the roundabout way
over the direct one, according to the proverb:
the furthest ,yay about is the nearest way home.
We shall be led by the Lorentz transformations. Recall their meaning and form. Assume
that in the previous frame of reference (for
example, the one travelling together with particle
0), the momentum of a particle (for instance, 1)
was equal to p*, the energy to E1, the longitudinal projection of the momenturn was denoted
by
and the transverse projection by pl. *
In the new frame of reference (for instance, the
laboratory frame), the same quantities will be
denoted by letters without asterisks. Then the
transverse projection p 1. remains unchanged:
Pu
PJ. = pl,
(11.2)
whereas the longitudinal projection turns out
to be a combination of the quantities
and
E~,
pn
i.e.
Pn =YPii +1'vE~.
(11.3)
The energy is also expressed by a linear combination. Thus
E 1 = ,\,E: + yvpii.
(11.4)
The factors y and yv in equations (11.3) and
(11.4) depend only upon the velocity of the pre We have omitted the subindex 1 for the momentum p
of particle 1, firstly, for the sake of simplicity, and secondly, because in the reference Irame in which particle
o is at rest, the momenta of particles 1 and 2 have the
same magnitude.
Kinematics lor the Schoolboy
158
vious reference frame with respect to the new

one, i.e, the velocity, in our case, of the particle
O. 'rhe factors equal
E an d
1'~-
ni
(11.5)
l'V~-.
m.
The first of these fractions is simpl y the definition of the Lorentz factor, and the second follows
from the first if we recall that v = piE.
Thus, instead of solving equations (11.1)
in a stationary frame of reference, we can solve
them in the co-moving frame, i.e. the one in
which particle 0 is at rest (which we learned
to do in Chapter 9), by finding the momenta
of particles 1 and 2, and transforming these
momenta into ones in the stationary frame according to the Lorentz formulas. This simple
algebraic substitution, i.e. the solution of the
system of equations (11.1), is done with equations (11.3) and (11.4), in which
and
are to be replaced by their values from Chapter 9.
Being true, however, to our love of geometry,
we shall obtain this solution graphically. In the
(co-moving) system in which particle 0 is at rest,
all solutions are depicted as points on a sphere
of radius p* (the sharp points of the spines of the
momenta hedgehog). For the time being, it is
sufficient to draw a single cross section of this
sphere: a great circle (also of radius p*). The
coordinates of any point Q of this circle are
equal to the longitudinal
and transverse pi
components of the momentum vector having its
head at point Q. Just look at what the Lorentz
transformations do to this circle. If they were
E:
Po
Po
Trafisfornlations of the Momenta Hedgehog
159"
of the form
Pi == pi,
PU == YPo,
they would simply stretch it 'V-fold horizontally
(the vertical coordinate of each point remaining
unchanged, and the horizon tal coordina te s Lretched
y times). The figure obtained in stretching
the circle is an ellipse (Fig. 27). But the formulas also have the additional member 'VuE:. Thus
PH
== 'VPo
+ yvE:.
It further increases each stretched horizontal

coordinate by the amount 'VuE:. But this amount
is the same for all points of the circle: 1', v and E 1
depend only on the mass of the particles, i.e,
m, ml and m 2 and on the energy of particle 0,
and we specified the values of these quantities
beforehand by stating that we are dealing with
a definite decay reaction and with particles having definite momenta. Hence, the addend 'VvEi
simply transfers all points of the ellipse a distance 'VvE: to the right, i ,e, the ellipse as a
whole is shifted to the right with respect to the
initial circle (Fig. 28).
Thus, the Lorentz transformations convert a
circle into an ellipse by stretching it to the right
and left, and then shift it as a whole to the right.
Next we revolve the circle and ellipse about axis p.
Our circle becomes a sphere (our previous
momenta hedgehog) and the ellipse, an ellipsoid
of revolution (Fig. 29). This then is our transformed momenta hedgehog of particle 1. We have
proved that the locus of heads of the momentum
t30
Fig. 27. The geometric meaning of the first member of

equation (11.3).
The circle of radius p* was stretched into an ellipse .
._.---+----.....--i'Iir:::;;;;...-----f-t---..-.----...... p
Fig. 28. The geometric meaning of equation (11.3).

The ellipse was shifted by the distance )'vEt to the right.
Fig. 29. Decay hedgehogs of a particle at rest (at left)

and of a particle in motion (at right).
It>1
vectors of particle 1, formed upon the decay of

particle 0 having the specified momentum p,
is an ellipsoid of revolution. In other words,
if we observe, while standing at one place, a
great number of decay processes of particles 0
C
Q
0"
DQ'= p*
DQ:::p,:'
Fig. 30. An anatomical analysis of the hedgehogs
Fig. 29.
with the same momentum p (in both magnitude

and direction), and imagine that all their points
of decay are made to coincide, the momenta of
particles 1, taken in toto, are confined within
the ellipsoid of revolution, the locus of their
heads. The shape and position of the ellipsoid
are determined only by the values of m, tru, ln 2
and the vector p. Let us see just how this happens.
The centre 0 of the ellipsoid is displaced, as we
mentioned above, with respect to the centre 0'
of the sphere, by the distance 'VvE: in the direction of vector p. Since yv === p/m and
==
= (m2
m~ ~ m;)/2m, then (Fig. 30)
iO=Ef p == m2+n~i-n~~
m
2m~
p.
11-1920
E:
(11.6)
162
The minor semiaxis of the ellipsoid was directed across the circle-stretching procedure and
therefore remained unchanged. I t is equal to
p*. Recall that p* is the altitude of the triangle
in Fig. 22. You can see for yourself that p*
is determined by an equation resembling the
one that expresses the altitude of a triangle in
terms of its area and base (a corollary of Hero's
formula expressing the area of any triangle in
terms of its sides). Thus
OC ~-= p*
_ V -----------------(rn-m 1 - - m 2 ) (nt-n~1+m2) (n~-t-,nt -m 2) (In+m 1+m2)
2m
(11.7)
Naturally, the major semiaxis is equal to
yp* because that, precisely, is the amount that
the horizontal radius 0' B' was stretched. Hence
E
OIJ==- p*.
(11.8)
m
An ellipse, the cross section of our ellipsoid,

can readily be constructed by employing equations (11.6), (11.7) and (11.8). Each point on
the ellipse is the head of some momentum vector
of particle .7.
But how about particle 2? I t is really necessary
to induce the hedgehogs to multiply? That, of
course, is one way. But we can also manage
wi th the previous ellipse (see Fig. 30). In the
~
drawing we I ay off the vector 0' 0", equal to the

momentum p of particle O. Then we draw the
~
vector O'Q, equal to the momentum Pt of particlo 1. Next we join points Q and 0". What is the
Transfol'nlutions of the Momenta Hedgehog
163
vector QO" equal to? This vector is the one that

must be added geometrical] y to vector PI to obtain vector p. It is clear that this is the vector
P2' the momentum of particle 2. Thus, by constructing point 0" in addition to the ellipse, we
can depict the direction and magnitude of the
momentum of particle 2.
How is the ellipse positioned with respect to
the sphere (or, in our drawings, with respect to
its circular cross section)? Is its left end always
to the right of the centre of the sphere as in
Fig. 30? No, not always. Everything depends
upon the combination of the values of m 1 , m 2 ,
m and E (or p). At sufficiently low values of E,
the sphere, following the Lorentz transformations, is only slightly shifted to the right and
is only slightly stretched, so that point A remains to the left of centre O'! The hedgehog
"crawls away" a little and stretches a little, but
no one can have any doubt about it being a hedgehog (Fig. 31). As the value of E increases,
the ellipsoid stretches more and more, but the
distance that it is shifted depends upon the
masses m, m 1 and m 2 For example, with m 1 =
= m 2 == 0 (in the decay process nO -+ y -t- 1',
for instance), point A will not step over point
0' no matter how high the energy of particle O.
The decay of the nO meson into two photons is
always represented as in Fig. 31. But if particles
1 and 2 have a rest mass, sooner or later, with
an increase in the energy of particle 0, the momenta of particle 1 will be in the position shown
in Fig. 32.
This ellipse has no arrows that point backward.
Even the particles that were emitted directly
11*
164
Fig. 31. One arrangement of the
t\VO
hedgehogs.
The meaning of the ver tical Iincs will he oxpl ained Ia ter ,
Fig. 32. Another arrangement of the hedgehogs.
0"
Fig. 33. A problem-solving hedgehog.
Transforma tions of the Momenta Hedgehog
165
backwards (arrow Oa) in the reference frame in

which particle 0 is at rest (the co-moving frame)
are found to be travelling forward (arrow OA)
in the laboratory frame of reference. Particle
travels so fast in the lab frame (and particle 1
so slow in the co-moving frame of particle 0)
that, as a result, all the particles 1, regardless of
their direction in the co-moving frame, are
turned forward. The fact that the ellipsoid of
the decay process nO -+ y
y is depicted by
Fig. 31 only means that in this process, however
fast the nO meson rushed along, we shall always
find photons that travelled backward *.
Many other properties of decay processes can
be represented clearly and distinctly by drawing
a momenta ellipsoid. Let us construct the ellipse
for some arbitrary decay 0 -+ 1
2 when particle 0 has some definite momentum, specified
beforehand (Fig. 33). Now let us do a little
work with this ellipse.
Problelns
Problem 1. Particle 1 was emitted in decay at
the angle 12 with the direction of particle O.
What is its momentum?
Solution. We draw a ray from point 0' at tho
angle 12 from the horizon tal (Fig. 33). It in tersects the ellipse at the two points, Ql and Q2This means that at an angle of 12 we observe
* Do not [ump to the conclusion that this makes thern

travel slower, Not at all. Only the magnitude of their
momentum decreases, whereas their velocity remains,
as before, equal to unity.
166
both slow particles having a low momentum

numerically equal to the line segment O'Q2 and
fast particles with a high momentum numerically
equal to the segment O'Q1" The same question for
the decay nO -+ '\' + "( (Fig. 34) has the unam-
Fig. 34. Decay hedgehog for a nO meson in motion.
biguous answer: each angle corresponds to only

one momentum.
Problem 2. Following decay, particle 1 is
emitted at the angle 12. What was its direction
in the co-moving frame of particle 0 (see Fig. 33)?
Solution. From point Ql we draw a horizontal line up to its intersection with the right-hand
side of the circle at point Q;. From point Q'!.
we draw a horizontal line up to its intersection
with the left-hand side of the circle at point Q~.
(In stretching the circle into an ellipse the
right-hand side of the circle became the right
half of the ellipse and the left-hand side, the
~
left
half.) Vectors
O'Q; and O'Q; indicate tho
sought-for directions.
167
Problem 3. What is the greatest angle at which

particle 1 is emitted in the decay represented
by the ellipse in Fig. 33?
Solution. We draw a tangent to the ellipse
from point 0' The angle it makes with the p
axis is approximately 43. This is the greatest
possible angle of emission of particle 1.
Problem 4. Under what conditions does part.icle 1 have a maximum angle of emission?
Solution. When line segment 0'0 becomes longer than AO. Since 0'0
E~plm and AO==
= Ep*/m, this condition is reduced to E;p>
Ep* or to p*/E: ~ piE. But the ratio of the
momentum to the energy is equal to the velocity.
Hence, particle 1 has a limiting angle of emission when the veloci ty of particle 0 in the lab
It,arne of reference exceeds that of particle 1 in
the co-moving frame of particle 0:
>
(11.9)
The higher the velocity, the greater the Lorentz

factor, and therefore inequality (11.9) can be
-replaced by the equivalent (but frequently
jnore convenient) inequality
~t,
:,'>'\'*.
:.rr;
1
The momenta hedgehog is also capable of
-selving a different type of problem: "How many
particles have such and such a momentum?
l.9ch and such an angle of emission?" Or "How
-IAquently is such and such a property encoun.red?" Bear in mind that when we ask, for example,
~ow frequently do we encounter the emission
168
angle tOO?", we mean an "angle close to 10"

i.e, angles from go to 110 , or 9. go to 10.10 *
To solve such problems it is necessary to know
the properties in the decay of particle 0 when
it is at rest. I t is necessary to know at what angles
particle 1 is most frequently emitted when particle 0 is at rest, i.e. the density of the spines
at various places on the surface of the round
hedgehog. For example, the hedgehog can be
isotropic. An isotropic hedgehog has equally
dense spines sticking out in all directions. The
word "isotropic" means the "same on all sides, or
in all directions" If the spines grow more denselyon one side of the hedgehog and more sparselyon the other, it will not be an isotropic
hedgehog. The decay of a stationary particle
is often isotropic. This means that there are
equal numbers of spines on equal areas of the
sphere's surface, no matter where on the sphere
we draw these equal areas.
If the distribution of spines is known for a
round hedgehog, we can readily determine how
they will he distributed on an elongated hedgehog. A "running" hedgehog (the momenta hedgehog of a moving particle), as is evident, is
obtained by the transformation of a "sleeping"
hedgehog. \\TO already know how each spine
(each momentum) is transformed, therefore we
The extent of the range of angles is not very important; it is specified on the basis of physical considerations.
For example, if the measurement error is 1, it is meani ngluss to take a range of angles ]ess than one degree.
On the other hand, if some peak that \YC are observing
has a width of 0.5, the range should be at least 0.20
otherwise we simply shall not observe anything.
as
169
can imagine how they will be positioned when

they are transformed all together, provided we
know their positions before transformation.
Let us see how this is done. Firs t of all, let us
draw a round hedgehog having equally dense
spines pointing in all directions. Do you think
it will resemble Fig. 35? No, it will not. A hedgehog is a sphere, not a circle; we only draw it
in the form of a circle. Arcs AB and CD are equal
D
Fig. 35. A pseudoisotropic hedgehog.
in magnitude, but if we revolve them about

axis 00', the areas of the spherical zone surfaces
they describe differ. But what we want, if the
decay is to be isotropic, are equal numbers of
spines on equal areas of zone surfaces. For this
purpose, we must imagine that we cut up the
sphere by parallel strokes of a knife into slices
of the same thickness. Then there really will
be an equal number of momenta, for instance
one on an average on each slice. This is so because the area of the spherical surface on each
slice, as we were taught in solid geometry, is
equal to tho circumference of a great circle
multiplied by the thickness of the slice (sphe-..
170
rical zone). Hence, if the thickness of the slices

is the same, the areas of the zone surfaces will
also be the same. Consequently, to represent an
isotropic decay by arrows on a circle, its diameter should be cut into equal lengths (see Figs. 31
Fig. 36. A diagram for the problem on the number of

particles emitted within a given cone.
and 32), instead of cutting its circumference

into equal parts, and then one arrow should be
drawn into each arc thus obtained (we could
just as well draw a hundred arrows, but then it
would be impossible to understand anything
in the drawing; one arrow per arc is better).
Next we transfer all of these spines according
to the previous rule into the ellipse and we obtain a general idea of the density of the spines of
a running hedgehog (see Figs. 31 and 32). Can
we calculate exactly what percent of all the
particles is emitted forward, within the angle a?
This is quite simple; we merely projected point .L~{
onto the circle (Fig. 36). Then the ratio of the
area of the spherical surface of the spherical
segment m.Am to the whole surface of the sphere
171
is the sought-for percent:

o _
*- -
2nR x NA
'2rtR X 2R
NA
2R
(X 100%).
Next, we shall attack a more interesting problem.
0"
Fig. 37. A diagram for the problem on the pro pert.ies of

the limiting angle.
Problem 5. Prove that the hedgehog's spines

grow more densely at the limiting angle.
Solution. We are asked to prove that if particle 1 has a limiting angle, it is most frequently
found to be emitted, in the laboratory frame of
reference, at an angle close to the limiting one.
We draw a tangent O'Q to the ellipse from
point 0' (Fig. 37). The angle it makes with the
axis of the ellipse is the limiting angle. Next
we draw the secant O'QI at the small angle ~ with
the tangent, and another secant 0'Q2 at the same
angle ~ to the first secant. The solid angles bounded by these closely spaced cones are approximately equal. * But let us determine on the spheri ,
* The cones and solid angles referred to here are the

ones formed by the revolution of plane figures Q()'QI and
Ql0 'Q2 about axis 0'0".
172
cal surface of which solid angle there are more

spines. We project points Ql' R 1, Q2 and R 2
horizon Lally from the ellipse to the circle. The
particles emitted into the conical solid formed
by the revolution of QO'QI are the ones that are
emitted into the conical solid Q;O'R; in the
co-moving reference frame of particle 0; those
emitted into the conical solid Q10'Q2 are the ones
emitted into the conical solids R~O'R~ and
Q~O'Q~. The first conical solid is incomparably
wider than the last two simply because the
direction of secant 0' R1Ql is close to the direction
of the arc R 1QQl at the point of tangency. We
have proved what we had set out to prove: the
most frequently encountered particles in decays
are those emitted at an angle close to the limiting one.
Problem 6. Prove that if the particle X is
heavier than the Jt meson in a reaction rt -t- p ~
-+ P + X, then the proton will always have a
limiting angle of emission in the lab frame,
regardless of the energy of the rt meson.
Solution. Let us represent this reaction in the
form rr + p ~ 0 -+ P + X, i.e. we shall assume
that first rt and p form the particle 0 with the
energy Eo == En + m p and the momentum Pl0
and then particle 0 with the mass
rna =
V EtJ-
p~ ~ V m~ -+ m~ + 2E nm]J
decays to particles with the masses m}J and m xThe energy of proton p in the co-moving frame
of particle 0 is
mb-+- m;J- m1-
1*
Ep
:==
2mo
173
If we wish to prove that the proton has a limiting angle of emission \ve must show (see Problem 4) that the relativistic factor of particle 0
in the laboratory reference frame exceeds the
relativistic factor of the proton in the co-moving
frame of particle O. By the definition of the
relativistic (Lorentz) factor (see Chapter 4)
E
~--.!2.
'VO .
m0
E*
and ",*:--=:....J!....
rP
In p
Next we calculate the difference
Eo
Yo-1'p==mo-
E~
mp
==
Eo
ma -
mb+m0-m~
2,nOnlp
2Eom,p-nl,b-rn~+m~
21nomp
Into this expression we substitute the values

of Eo and mh and obtain
1'0-1'~
2 (En
+ lnp) nJ.p- (m~+ m~ -1- 2E n m p) -
m~
+ m~
2nlomp
Removing the brackets and adding and subtracting as required we finally obtain
1'0-
mi--ln~
"(p == 2momp
But, according to the conditions of the problem,

> mjt, hence Yo > y~. I t follows that the
creation of a heavy particle leads to the emission
of the proton at an acute angle.
If we compare this with the results of the
preceding problem, it becomes clear that in
the reaction n + p ~ p + X, it is best to
mx
174
locate the proton trap at the limiting angle of

emission. This is exactly the direction in which
the proton is most readily emitted when m x >
> mn.. The magnitude of the limiting angle is
determined by the energy of the n meson and
the mass of the awaited particle X. We shall
return to this discussion again in Chapter 13.
Problem 7. Particle 1 was emitted at the angle
12. What angle can be expected between the
paths of emission of particles 1 and 2 (see Fig. 33)?
Solution. The sought-for angle is equal to
either LRQI0" or to LQIQ20" (two answers).
The Discovery of the nO Meson
Problem 8. It is known that nO mesons decay to
two photons. If the nO mesons have the momentum p, are all angles possible between the paths
of the emitted photons?
Solution. The momentum ellipse for the decay
nO -+ y
y has the form shown in Fig. 34. As a
matter of fact (one that you can check 1), the
radius of the circle is p* = mn./2, the major semiaxis is OB = (E/m rrJ(m 1t/2) == E/2, the vee-
tor 0'0", as always, is equal to p, so that 00"

== 0'0 == p/2. The momentum p is always less
than the energy E and therefore 0' and 0" are certainly within the ellipsoid (00" < OB)*. The
angle RQO" is the angle a we are interested in
between the paths of the photons. When point Q
coincides with point B, (X = 180 0 As point Q
* It can be shown that 0' and 0" are the focuses of the
ellipsoid.
175
moves to the left, angle a is reduced and at

point C it reaches its minimum value. Hence,
not any angle (for instance, angle 0) is possible
between the photons.
What, then, is this minimum possible angle
equal to? Look at the triangle 0' CO" I t is an
rig. 38. Discovering the nO meson.

The dot-and-dash l ine is a beam of high-energy photons; the n
mesons were produced in target M. C1 and C 2 are counters that
register the photons produced in the drcay of the 1"[0 meson. The
plane of the two counters and the t argo t is perpendicular to the
axis of the beam.
isosceles triangle. Hence, its exterior angle at

the vertex is equal to the sum of the interior
angles at the base. Thus, angle CO'O == Cl ml n /2.
Then
tan Clm 1n == co =~==mrr.!2== mIT.
2
7iO'
(JU'
p/2
p.
Consequently,
Clml n
==:
2 arc tan
mrr.
p
(11.10)
Try, as well, to derive the formula cos (a m l n /2)

V:t, where V:t is the velocity of the n meson.
176
The property of photons in rt" meson decay of

not being emitted in too close pairs made it
possible to prove that the nO meson really exists,
Under conditions in which the conjectural nO
mesons had approximately the same momentum
and decayed at the same point, a cone of emitted
photons scat tered in all directions (Fig. 38).
They were registered by two counters. Simultaneous clicks of the two counters indicated that
both photons were emitted at the same time,
i ,e. were produced by a single nO meson. When
the experimenters began to bring the counters
closer together, simul taneous clicks were drastically reduced beginning with a certain angle.
Making use of equation (11.10) and the value of
this angle, they calculated the mass of the invisible source of the pair of photons. It was found
to be close to the mass of the 1t + and 1t - mesons.
This is how the nO meson joined the rr + and nmesons.
A New Method of Solving
a System of Equations
Problem 9. Solve the system of equations

(11.11)
V x2
V y2+ m~ === E,
+ m:
x+y~p
(11.12)
Solution. If x and yare assumed to be momenta

of two particles, 1 and 2, V x 2
m~ and V y2
m:
can be assumed to be their energies. Then equation (11.11) expresses the conservation of energy
and equation (11.12) the conservation of momentum in the decay of particle 0 to two particles
177
emitted toward the same side. The mass of particle 0 is known: m = V E2 - p2. There is
nothing to prevent us then from drawing the
circle and ellipse on the basis of the values of
m, mI' m'2' P and E. Assume that this is the
ellipse of Fig. 34. Then x == O'A and y == AO".
This is one solution; the other is: x == 0' Band
y == BO. As is evident, the solution requires
only the extreme points A and B, rather than
the whole ellipse. Express the analytical formulas for x and y (the analytical Iormulas for OA ==
= OB and 0'0 are known to you). If the ellipse
had turned out to be like the one in Fig. 33,
there would not have been a positive solution
(there p == x - y). Making use of this fact, investigate the solution with respect to its positiveness.
This last problem shows that if you know the
Lorentz Lransformations, you can use them to
solve purely algebraical problems Irorn highschool mathematics. As a matter of fact, the
graphical method is not at all necessary here;
the system of equations (11.11) and (11.12) can
be solved without it. For this purpose, you carry
out the Lorentz transformations on the system
(11.11) and (11.12) in the co-moving reference
frame of particle 0 , solve equations (11.1) in
this frame, and then carry out a reverse Lorentz
transformation.
Using a system of ordinary high-school equations as an example, it becomes evident that in
theoretical physics one sometimes manages to
solve equations without solving them, For this
purpose we assigned physical meanings to the
12-1920
178
quantities in the system of equations (11.11) and

(11.12). Then we recalled the properties of these
quantities (in our case, how they change in the
Lorentz transformations) and wrote down the
answer out of hand on the basis of physical laws
that we know.
Try to think up other similar systems of equations that can be sol ved on the basis of physical
considerat.ions. Certain more complex examples
of this kind are given near the end of this book.
Chapter 12
The Story of How the nO

Meson
as Found in Cosmic Rays
"1
This happened way back in 1950. By that time

physicists were of the opinion that the third member of the n meson family, the nO meson, was
somewhere on the run and that it would show up
if properly searched for. They guessed that it
decays to two photons and that the abundance of
electrons and positrons in cosmic rays is due,
precisely, to the abundance of photons produced
by the nO mesons. As the photons pass close to
nuclei, they create a great many electron-posi
tron pairs.
Many physicists got down to work on this
problem at that. time. Having no hope of seeing
the elusive nO meson with their eyes, they began
to seek such features of its decay to two photons
that would obviously lead to the conclusion that
the source of the photons is the nO meson, and
no one else. Almost at the same time, several
groups reported on the results of their experi-
How tho nO Meson Was Found in Cosmic Rays
179
ments, After this, no more doubt remained concerning the existence of nO mesons. We gave an
account of the kinematic idea behind one such
experiment in Problem 8 of Chapter 11.
Much more interesting, however, is the kinematic idea on which another xperiment was
based. It was conducted by three 1 hysicists. By
means of a balloon they elevated photographic
plates for registering photons produced by nO
decays to an altitude of 21 km, They managed to
prove the existence of nO mesons in cosmic rays by
measuring the energy of only separate odd photons. If they had succeeded in registering a pair
of photons at the same time, they would be readily convinced of Lhe existence of nO mesons. But
how much wit and ingenuity was required to
discover the nO meson by measuring the energy
of a single photon in the decay reaction nO--+-+ l'
y, not knowing whether there is a second
one somewhere, and without paying any attention to the directions of the observed photon or
the invisible nO meson.
"Kinematics for the Lightly Equipped"

Let us make an attempt to comprehend this
matter. It will be a long story because we have
entered a new branch of kinematics that we shall
cal} "kinematics for the lightly equipped" If you
are equipped for measuring all the momenta and
directions of particles participating in a decay or
collision, you have no use for this new branch.
But if you are capable of observing only a part
of the particles, if you can measure only angles
without knowing the energies, or only the ener12*
180
gies without knowing the angles of emission (in

which cases it is especially difficult to discover
something), the laws of kinematics are able to
render an incalculable service to physicists. This
is the most interesting part of kinematics. There
is much here that we still have insufficient knowledge of, but what we do know is always elegant
indeed. *
Decay Isotropy
To begin with let us recall that isotropic decay is
understood to be decay that is equally frequent
in all directions. Decay isotropy, as we now know,
is manifested by the occurrence with equal frequency of momenta arrows in layers (or slices)
of equal thickness (into which we have divided
the momenta sphere) (Fig. 39). Such slices are
called spherical zones, as men tioned previousl y,
and we are referring only to their spherical surface.
During the search for the nO meson it was already clear that its decay to photons must be isotropic. This led to an interesting conclusion. IJet
us draw a momenta sphere for the decay of nO
mesons at rest. All the photons found in a given
narrow slice have the same longitudinal component of momentum; it is simply the distance of the
slice from the centre of the sphere. Consequently,
decay isotropy also means that any longitudinal
* We have already seen how "kinematics for the lightly

equipped" functions in the experiment desc.ribed in
Chapter 11 (Problem 8): the nO meson was discovered
without measuring the energies of the photons.
How the nO Meson 'Vas Found in Cosmic Rays
181
components of the momenta are encountered with

equal frequency (Fig. 40).
What will happen if the momenta of all the nO
mesons are the same ~and are equal to p? Then the
energy E 1 of one of the photons (1) can be found
by the Lorentz formula
E1 =
~E~
l'VPU.
(12.1)
This formula contains the fix d quantities (see
Fig. 39. The concept of isotropy.

How to slice up a sphere into spherical zones of equal spherical
surface areas.
Problem 8 of Chapter 11):

E
"1==-,
m11.
n
E*
rn P- .
(==
an d " ( v =
1
2
rn1f,
(12.2)
Only the longitudinal component of the photon's

momentum varies from decay to decay. But we
already know how it varies: any permissible
values are encountered with equal frequency.
Hence, any values of the energy E; of photon 1
should be encountered with equal frequency. It
182
is a matter of fact that we obtain E 1 by multiplying

by a constant value and adding another
constant value. Thus
pn
*
Ef 1 == -E + - p PIl2
Inn
(12.3)
The component pjj varies from -m n /2 to

-'rm'Jf,/2 (the radius of the sphere is m n /2), and
within these limits there are equal chances for
Fig. 40. Isotropic decay.

The mornen ta llC'dgrhog is sf iced ill to zones, each having the same
number of momenta. The diagram shows that in isotropic decay
all values of the longitudinal components of the momenta are
encountered on an average with equal frequency.
encountering any value of pjj. Hence the energy

E 1 varies within the limits from (E' - p)/2 to
(E + p)/2 (as is evident if you substitute the
Po
extreme values of
into equation (12.3)). Again,
within these limits, any value of the energy can
be expected with equal probability.
We have proved an important theorem (valid
not only for the decay nO -+ y + V): i.f particles
at rest decay isotropically and if their momenta
How the nO Meson Was Found in Cosmic Rays
183
are the same in magnitude, then all possible

energies of the particles produced in the decay
are equally probable. The limits within which
the energy of the photons varies depend on E
and p, the energy and momentum of the nO mesons.
This suggests the following practical rule for
discovering the nO meson: if the momentum p
of the nO meson is specified, then we measure the
energy of the photons and accumulate as many
of such measurements as possible. Next we multiply the energy of the most "energetic" of such
photons (its anticipated energy is close to
(E
p)/2) by the energy of the "laziest" photon
(its energy will be found to be close to (E - p)/2)
and we shall obtain m~./4. From this we find the
mass of the nO meson. Hence we can discover the
nO meson by observing only a single photon from
each decay reaction and disregarding its direction.
Unfortunately, there are no such ideal conditions in investigating cosmic rays. There we cannot expect all the nO mesons to have one and the
same energy. What can be done? Let us try to
cope with this new difficulty.
We just mentioned that if all the cosmic 1118sons had the same energy E, we would encounter,
among the photons, any values of energy from
(E - p)/2 to (E
p)/2 with equal frequency.
If we plot the energy of the photons along the
horizontal axis an rJ the number of phot.ons having this energy along the vertical axis, the
chances of encountering any energies will be equal.
The 'dependence of the number of photons on
their energy is represented in l~ig. 41 (the graph
184
reminds one of a soccer goal). I f among the cosmic mesons we were to hnd mesons of some other
energy E', the dependence of the number of photons they produce on the energy of the photons
would be represented by other soccer goals, whose
Photon energy
(E-p)/2
(E+p)/2
Fig. 4t. Dependence of the number of photons on their

energy.
All photon ('lll'rgy values Irorn (E
p robablv,
(E
+ p)/'2. an:
goal posts would stand at the points

- p')/2
and ('
p')/2, etc. All the mesons in cosmic
rays can be divided into groups having close
values of energy, and each group produces photOIlS with a definite energy range, all the energies within the range being found with equal
frequency. We thus obtain a great many soccer
goals of various widths and positions, as if each
group of nO mesons with close values of energy
stuck to their own rules and erected their own
goals on the cosmic soccer field (Fig. 42).
185
Of interest is the fact that no matter how many

such goals you erect on the axis of photon energies they always have at least one common point.
If a forward makes a goal kick to point E 1 =
= m rJ2, he will certainly score simultaneously
1
3
2
m~/2
Fig. 42. A case when the energies are different.

Four soccer A'oal~, correspond ina to four irnairinary ':HOliVS of nO
mesons (the areas of the goals are proportional to the popul ation
of each group).
in all the goals of all the Learns (provided their

goalkeepers do not prevent him). The energy
m n /2, as we have seen, is the geometric mean of
the positions of the goal posts of any team. Being
a mean it is, of course, between the posts, not
outside.
This is a vital fact. We have thereby proved
that if nO mesons of all possible energies shower
from every quarter, among the photons they
decay to, ones with the energy m n /2 will be
found most frequently. Other energies are not
encountered so often; it is always possible to
specify such momenta to the n mesons that they
186
will not be able to produce photons of the other

energies. * And you can be sure that photons
with the energy m n /2 can be produced by any
nO mesons, even ones at rest (see equation (9.10)).
This, then, is one method for you to use to prove
N
25
20
15 10
5
100 200
300 400 500
600
700 E,McV
~ig. 43. Detection of nO mesons in the strato~pllere.

The s topped line shows how frequently photons of a specified
energy are encountered at an altitude of 21 krn. Plo t tr-d along the
horizontal axis are the energies of the photons in l\lcV t (equal to
one thousandth of a GeV); plotted along the vertical axis are the
numbers of times photons of a given energy are encountered. The
smooth curve is obtained by smoothing out the stepped line. The
maximum was at the value 70 MeV.
that there are nO mesons in cosmic rays. It consists in finding the energy that the cosmic pho-
* This can readily be understood; the limits that enclose

all the possible energies of photons produced by a nO meson of the energy E have a certain interesting property:
the higher the meson energy E, the greater] the upper
l imit and the less the lower Iimit. At E ~ mrr,o the upper
and lower limits are equal to rn no/2. Then, as E increases,
the left goal post moves to the left and only to the left,
and the right post, only to the right.
187
tons most frequently have. This was found to be

70 MeV (Fig. 43). This indicates that the mass
of their source is 140 Mev , which is exactly the
mass of the rt + or rt - meson.
But there is a more accurate method as well.
If, among the cosmic nO mesons there were mesons of only four different energies, E(l), E(2), E(3)
and (4), each energy would have its goal, 1,2,3
and 4, whose wid til would be determined by the
magnitude of E, and whose area, by the number
of mesons having this energy E. If we count how
many times we encounter a photon with one or
another energy, we will not obtain four curves,
1, 2, 3 and 4, but will obtain their sunl in the
form of a stepped pyramid of ancient Mexico
(Fig. 44). If there are a great many soccer goals,
rather than four, the pyramid is converted into a
hill, having the outline of il continuous smooth
curve with its summit at the point E 1 == m n /2,
but we are concerned now only with the bottom
ends, or feet, of this hill. We know that the
smooth rise to the summit is simply the steeply
trimmed edges of the goals that we piled up on
one another. The positions of these bottom ends
are related to mn,/2 by the"equation
l!left end X right end =--= ~1t
(12.4 )
As we can see, the mass of the n meson is again

expressed in terms that are dear to the heart of
true soccer fans. After counting up the frequency
with which we encounter various cosmic photon
energies, we plot a curve on tho basis of these
188
N
Fig. 44. Overall photon distribution in the Iour g-roups

of nO mesons.
T'he s tecpness of the ascen t for this pyramid depends upon the
IIurn her of nO mesons wi th the corresponding energy.
IIIrr.. / 2
Fig. 45. Photon spectrum obtained in the limit by increas-
ing the number of groups.

T'he stP('JHlPSS of t hr- ascent for this hill dr-pends upon t he nu
of n U mesons w i tit t hc corresponding C'llprgy.
How the nO Meson Was Found in Cosmic Hays
1.89
data (frequency as a function of the energy).

Then we slice the "hill" we obtain by several
horizontal lines (Fig. 45), measure their intersections with the slopes of the "hill", multiplying
their coordinates together pairwise, take the
square roots of the products, and then calculate
their average over the whole cross section. This
-will yield a more precise value of one half of the
mass of the source of photons. It is more precise
because the calculations include all the photon
energies, not only the mas t frequently encountered ones.
What other facts can we discover by making a
topographical survey of this hill? Recall that the
hill was obtained Irorn a stepped pyramid. Each
step was formed by nO mesons of a definite energy
(or, to be more exact, by photons produced by
nO mesons of a definite energy). Some steps were
high, indicating that there were many nO mesons
with that energy. Other steps were low, indicating
that there were not many nO mesons with that energy. Consequently,from the smoothed pyramid (i ,e.
hill) we can determine from the steepness of the
slope how many nO mesons of a certain energy we
had. As a matter of fact, by measuring the steep"
ness of the hill at equal intervals, the investigators found out how many nO mesons and with
what energies appear in cosmic rays (Fig. 46).
The energy was calculated by drawing the horizontal median of the hill. The arithmetic mean
of the coordinates yielded one half of the energy
of the n meson, just as the geometric mean had
Yielded one half of its mass.
This experiment is almost forgotten today. The
age of accelerators has begun, and exoLic adven-
190
tures in high-altitude cosmic-ray recording stations, ascents in balloons and similar methods of
research no longer interest physicists. They require can trollable and reproducible conditions for
their experiments. But the discovery that we
N
lOO
r--~----_
10
lr-----+-----~
100
1000 E,MeV
Fig. 46. Energy spectrum of nO mesons in the stratosphere.

Taken from the same experiment in Ow s tratosphcre, the curve
shows how many nO mesons of any speciued (lnergy are found at an
al titude of 21 km. The circle's are the rcsul ts ob taincd in IDCaS1Jring
the steepness of the slopes (see Fig. '13) with t hr-ir errors. The
energies E of the nO mesons are pl o t tr d along HlP horizontal ;lxh
in ]\TrV; t hc number. of crises N, a lruur the vor t.icnl axis.
have narrated here is a triumph of kinematics,

one that yielded an elegant and mathematically
pure result. The accomplishments of kinematics
may, of course, appear modest on the background
of brilliant new physical theories, advanced every
now and then, that penetrate deep into the dy-
How the
nO
Meson Was Found in Cosmic Rays
191
namics of interaction, making an attempt to

solve the cardinal problems of physics. Physicists do not care much for absolutely correct theories and the onclusions they lead to. Their
attention is attracted by controversial problems,
inexplicable facts, limits beyond which established l aws are no longer valid. This is exactly
where the still unknown is concealed. But, in a
study of the histo ry of science, gems are found
now and then that fill the heart of a scientist
with pride for his science. Such is the reasoning
of Nicolas Leonard Sadi Carnot on heat engines
or the discovery and explanation of the effect
named after Rudolf Ludwig Mossbaucr. Such
also is the discovery of the nO meson in cosmic
rays.
The Colour of the Atom in Motion
All that we have just said about nO mesons and
photons also pertains to atoms and the light
they radiate. There this phenomenon-the dependence of the energy of the photon on the
direction it is emitted with respect to the motion
of the emitter-has been known for a long time.
But there we speak of the frequency of the light
rather than the energy of the photon, and the
phenomenon is called the Doppler effect, after
Christian Johann Doppler. When light from the
~avelling atom is radiated in the direction of
travel of the atom, its frequency in a stationary
reference frame seems higher; when in the oppo~ite direction, it seems lower. The colour of a
travelling atom (if we employ the language of
Chapter 10) is not the same as that of a station-
192
ary one, and it is different in front than in back.

In front it is of a violet colour and in back it is
red. A baboon has the same colour scheme, but
hardly for the same reason.
The Lorentz transformation formula (12.1) for
photons is
E 1 == yE:
+ 1'UPii,
which is the formula for the Doppler effect. The

energy
of photons emitted by an atom at rest
is equal to their momentum p*. Moreover, the
energy of a photon is related to the frequency of
the light by the equation E~
p* == hv", When
a photon is emitted (in the co-moving reference
frame of the atom) at the angle e* to the direction of motion, pii = p* cos e* = hv* cos S*.
The equation for the frequency of the light visible in the laboratory frame of reference takes
the form
E;
== v* (1'
+ yv cos S*).
Recalling that l' here is the relativistic (Lorentz)

factor, we flnd that in front (8* == 0) the atom
will seem to be emitting light of the frequency
Vmax===V
* .. /1+v
i-v'
(12.5)
and in back, of the frequency

"In 1n
* .. /1-v
1 -r- v
== \' V
(12.6)
Assume that we have before us an incandescent

gas whose atoms (in their co-moving frames of
reference) emit light of a single frequency V*,
193
but travel, in all possible dir ctions with the

same velocity v. 'I'hen , instead of the frequency
v", we shall see light of all frequencies from
"min to V ma x ' with a11l the- frequencies being
equally common (remember the soccer goals).
If, however, the gas contains atoms travelling at
all velocities, we shall most often encounter light
of the frequency v*, because at any velocities
,,*But
= V"mln X "max
in an ordinary incandescent gas the spread
of frequencies is negligible. The velocity v of the

gas atoms is so much less than unity, that practically even in the. depths of the sun, where the
temperature T is .about ten mill ion degrees, the
velocity v equals 0.0016*, which corresponds to
the same shift in frequency. For the colour of
the gas to spread, due to the motion of the atoms,
by one octave to the right and to Lthe left
(v m a x : V* "miD. = 2 1: 1/2), the temperature
T of the gas should reach 4 X 10 13 degrees!
But what is beyond the power of an incandescent gas is easily accomplished by the)' quanta
from the cosmic-ray nO mesons, High velocities
are reached in a gas as a result of the chaotic
exchange of impacts with other atoms. This is a
very inefficient way of gaining velocity. The
closeness of the velocities of cosmic-ray particles
to unity proves that the mechanism of their
acceleration was an entirely different one, and
that a space accelerator is in operation somewhere
in the depths of the universe. Otherwise, the
frequency of the photons in cosmic rays (see
This figure was obtained from the equation
where k = 8.62 X 10-14 GeV/deg.
13-1920
m;: = ~ k T.
194
Fig. 43) would not have a spread of several octaves .

.....{ Nevertheless, a Doppler effect of octave span
for visible light is also well known to astronomers. But this is not the spread in the spectrum
in both directions, discussed above, but a shift
in only one. In the spectra of all distant stars
and nebulas, all the known lines are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. These stars
are evidently recessing from us at velocities
comparable to that of light. We look from in back
at the light radiated by the atoms of these stars
(8* == 180) in which case equation (12.6) is
valid. The source of energy of the accelerator
that accelerates, not protons, but whole galaxies
to a velocity v ~ 1 is something that we shall
not discuss here.
The A 11 Resonance
But let us return to the earth from the depths of

space. We shall visit the city of Dubna near
Moscow to see how "kinematics for _the lightly
equipped" suggested, to the physicists working
there, the possibility of the existence of a new,
previously unknown, resonance particle, the resonance between the AO hyperon and the 1')0 (etazero) meson. Like the nO meson, this 11 meson
can decay to two photons, and it is better to deal
with this matter now, before the properties of a
decay to two photons has been effaced from our
memories.
The following experiment was conducted at
the "IIigh-Energy Physics Laboratory in Dubna.
A chamber, filled with liquid propane was irra-
How the nO Meson Was Found in Cosmic Bays
195
diated by high-energy n mesons and, among the

great many reactions that occurred, only cases
were selected in which a A hyperon and at least
one photon were produced. When such photographs were found, the energy and direction of
the AO hyperon and photon were measured, and
the effective mass mA,,; of the .l\')' system was
calculated. After collecting over a hundred
cases wi l h A and l' particles, and counting which
values of In'it' are most frequently encountered,
the physicists discovered the following interesting feature. In the range 1.7 GeV 2 ~ m'i..., ~
~ 1.9 GeV 2 , the values of m'i..., are encountered
too often, more often than they should be according to the laws of chance. It was simplest, of
course, to conclude that a resonance particle had
been discovered in the A')' system. But another
possibility could not be ruled out: that the observed phenomenon was actually a resonance of the
A hyperon with some other particle, for instance,
a nO meson, and that we observe only one of
the two photons that a nO meson decays to:
X-+Ao+no
I~ 1'1 + 1'2'
(12.7)
The particles AO and nO could have been created,

of course, without forming a resonance, but then
the effective mass rnA'll could have any value
whatsoever. If, however, reaction (12.7) was
occurring, the effecti ve mass of the A 0 hyperon
and one of the photons could vary within only
restricted limits. Moreover, the less the mass of
particle X differs from the sum of the masses of
particles A and n", the more restricted the limits
13
196
would be. Maybe, the physicists reasoned, this

is precisely why so ~lnany values of "~~1' were
found in the range from 1.7 to 1. 9 Ge V:l.
To con vince ourselves that such reasoning is
correct, we must determine within what limits
the effective mass of the Ay system in reaction
('12.7) can vary if the mass of particle X is specified. This should not be difficult, we have just
discussed the kinematics of nO -+ 1'1 + 1'2 decays
in all their minutest details.
'The effecl ive mass of the 1\1'1 pair is uniquely
related, in the co-moving reference frame of particle X, to the energy of the remaining photon
1'2 as follows:
mlVt =:.: (according to the definition

of ellec ti ve mass)
== (E A
-+-E"t)2- (PA + p"t)2 === (according to the

conservation laws)
==(mx - E v,)2_ (O
== m~ -
p"2r~===(Dccording
to tho
laws of algebra)
2m6yE1'2 -i- E~2 - P~l == (E == p for the

photon)
(12.8)
I-Ience, the minimum (maximum) value is obtained for ntA'\'t when, in the co-moving reference
frame of particle X, the energy of the photon 1'2
is maximal (minimal}. And when is the energy
of the photon produced by the nO meson maximal
(minimal)? This was discussed in deriving equation (12.3): the energy of the photon is restricted
by the limits (E - p)/2 and (E
p)/2, where E
and p are the energy and momentum of the nO
197
meson. In the co-moving reference frame of particle X, these quantities have quite definite values because X decays to two particles, AO and rr",
and the energies of the products of the decay of a
particle at resl are fixed values. Thus, we can
continue our mathematical operations with
equation (12.8):
2
2
2 E rnin ::=: m x2 -- 2In x En. +=
P1t
rnA max === 1nX -- m _1
2
"'min
1'2 m ;!
=== mX (m~y -
E;T +
P;.~).
But, according to the conservation laws,
mx - En
E A and PA
and then, finally,
m"
max ~ ln x
AV min
(E'A
+ PA).
r.
(12.9)
This is exactly the equation we were seeking; it

answers the question about the limits within
which the square of the effective mass of the Ay
pair can vary if y is produced in the decay nO -+
~ y -~ y and the mass of the'Ano pair is specified. But we do not know this mass and cannot
check, as yet, whether we will obtain the values
1.7 and 1.9. 1\J aybe we can try to solve the reverse
problem: what should the mass m x he in order
for the max i mum value to be 1.9 GoV2 and the
minimum, 1.7 GeV2? In other words, we are to
find m x Irorn the system of equations
m.x (E A -+- P~\)

mx (E A
PA)
1.9, }
'1.7.
(12.10)
As a matter of Iact, even more call be determined
from tho system of equations (12.10), because
i98
there are two equations, not one. Let us try to

determine, besides mx, m n as well. The latter
is the mass of the particle that decayed to two
photons. For this purpose we write equations
(12.10) in their general form:
mx (E A
PA) m Xv '" x s
2
mx (E A - PA) '-' mAl'mln
=
__
.
(12.11)
First we multiply one equation by the other and

obtain
nl!r (E'i - p1.) ~=
mli'mnx X m~l'min
or
m!rml :::.:: m~v lUClX X
m~v
(12.12)
min,
from which
2 _
mx-
m~'Vmax X nl~'\'min_1.g X 1.7 _ 2 6 G V2
lnl
1.1152
--.
e.
Now we can readily find m n as well. For this

purpose we add the two equations (12.11):
2m xE A
7:=
m~vmax+ m~l'min
and recall equation (9.8) for E A, the energy of

one of the two particles to which particle X
decays:
2m xEA
== ml
m'i -
m~.
Then we obtain
(12.13)
If we substitute the value of mk we have just
found, as well as the values of m:~, m~'\'llIax and
m~"mln, we obtain m~ == 0.24 GeV 2 , i.e. the
How the n Meson Was Found in Cosmic Rays
mass of the
nO
199
meson turns out to be equal to
0.49 GeV. What a strange nO meson we have

found; almost four times as heavy as the ordinary ones! Obviously, it is no nO meson at all,
but some other kind of particle that also decays
to two photons.
We do know of such a particle; it is the
meson with the mass 0.55 GeV. It follows that if
the surplus of m'1" values in the range from 1.7 to
1.9 GeV 2 is due to a two-stage process of the type
(12.7), the particle X should have the mass
V2.6 == 1.61 GeV, and the particle that we
thought was a nO meson is actually an 'Y)0 meson.
The obtained assessments of the masses are
crude and approximate because the limits themselves (1.7 and 1.9 GeV 2 ) were estimated by eye.
In any case, the conducted calculations indicated that maybe a particle, as yet undiscovered,
may exist with a mass slightly exceeding the
sum of the masses of the AO and 11 particles,
which decays to a A hyperon and an 11 meson.
This is no rigorous proof, the evidence is too
circumstantial. But the supposition was advanced
and investigators began their search in earnest, abiding by all the rules. A year and a half
later, after conducting new experiments, American physicists confirmed the existence of a resonance with the mass 1.675 GeV, which decays
to a AO hyperon and an 11 meSOD. Research on
this resonance is being continued. It is thought
that this is the first member of a whole family of
resonances of baryons with the 11 meson, and
that it will prove possible to discover tho sigmaeta (~ll) and maybe even the xi-eta (8Y)) resonances.
,,0
200
Chapter 13
2 + 3 = 23
"Forward, forward, on wi th my tale!" Hedgehogs,
soccer goals and photons are matters of the past.
Has not the time come to aft ack a much more
difficult problem? There is a very common type
of decay that we have not touched upon so far.
This is a decay to three particles.
It is known, for instance, that KO, roO and 1]0
mesons decay to three rt mesons. The commonly
known neutron decays to a proton, an electron
and an antinentrino. After 10-8 s a mu-plus meson decays to a positron and a neutrino-antineutrino pair. There are even more complex cases.
One of the resonances decays to a pair of particles, the nand 0)0 meson, and the roO meson
decays to three rt mesons, There are many more
reactions of this type.
But we shall not specify a definite type of decay.lAssume, simply, that particle 0 decays to
three other particles: 1, 2 and" 3. Assume, in
addition, that it is at rest. What do the conservation laws have to say about this dscav processfLet'uswrit e them out:
+ E 2 + E 3 == m,
PI = P2 + P3 = 0*.
E1
(13.1)
(13.2)
It is evident from this equation that all three vectors,

Pl' Pf and P3 are coplanar (they lie in' a single plane).
Reca I that in the decav to two particles, PI and P2 lay
on one straight Iine" (see' equation: (9.2)).
201
2+3=23
To this we must add the invariant relations

E~- p~
== m.~,
E: -- p; == m:
and
E; -
p; == nl;
(13.3)
and investigate the properties of the solution of
the system of equations we have obtained, like
we did in decay to two particles.
Then we found that the energy of particle 1
was fully determined by the masses of particles
0, 1 and 2:
m2+1nr-m~
E 1 = -~21-n--'
(13.4)
and then found out that there is no restriction on

the direction of particle 1, as well as many more
details of the decay reaction.
What can prevent us from pretending that a
decay to three particles is simply a decay to two?
We assume that the pair of particles 2 and 3 is a
single particle with the energy E 2 + E 3 and the
momentum P2 + Ps- We shall denote it by 23,
joining 2 and 3. But, for it to really pass as a
particle, we must furnish it with a mass as well.
For this mass we take the invariant
= V (E 2 + E 3)2 - (P2 -1- pS)2,
(13.5)
because if particle 23 was real and did decay to
particles 2 and 3, its mass would be exactly
what we have written.
Thus, we have the particle 0 that decays at
rest to the particles"1 and 23, with the masses
m 1 and m 2 3 Making use of equation (13.4) we
can write that the energy of particle 1 is
m23
(13.6)
202
N ow we can easil y draw the momen ta hedgehog,

draw the ellipsoid and, in a word, solve all the
problems given in Chapters 9, 10 and 11. There
is, however, one important "but" Previously,
the mass of the second particle emitted in the
decay had a fixed value. In this case, m 2 3 is a
variable quantity. It depends upon how particles 2 and 3 are emitted, i.e. their directions and
energies. Hence E] will also differ in the various
decays 0 -+ 1
23. Hence, it is of no use to
draw the momenta hedgehog. In a decay of a
particle to three, their energies are not constant
and are not determined by only the masses of
the particles. These energies may vary from case
to case, from one observed decay to another.
The Discovery of the Neutrino

Kinematics is the maidservant of physics. It
strives to apply each ne,v observation and each
new conclusion as soon as possible to render aid
to either theoretical or experimental research.
Even- the conclusion that we have just come to
played a vital role in tho physics of its time. The
fact, as such, is quite elementary: the decay of a
particle at rest to two particles differs from the
decay to three in that in the former each particle
produced always has the same energy, whereas in
the latter, the energy of each particle varies.
But this fact served as the basis for the discovery of the most inconceivable of all elementary
particles, the neutrino.
This happened in the following way. The ~
decay of nuclei had been observed for a long
time. Sometimes, one or another nucleus, by
203
itself, emitted electrons (B radiation is a flux of

electrons or positrons), and was thereby transformed into another nucleus with a charge one
unit higher or lower. This was evidently a reaction resembling the ~ decay we discussed in
Chap. 10:
N* -+ N + er .
(13.7)
If this is so then all the electrons produced in

the given type of decay would always have one
N
Ee
Fig. 47. Typical energy spectrum for electrons in a

decay.
The energies of the electrons produced in the decay are plot ted
along the horizontal axis: the numbers of ti01CS these energies are
found, along the vertical axis.
and the same energy. But it was found that the

energies of the electrons emitted in p decays
varied drastically from case to case. If you observe
p decays of a single type of nucleus for a sufficiently long time, you find electrons with all
possible values of energy, from very low energies
to quite substantial values (Fig. 47).
If this phenomenon had been disclosed more
recently, after the discovery of many resonances,
its explication would not have posed any ques..
tions. It is quite clear, we would contend, that a B
204
decay produces at least one more invisible particle. We would add that it is something like
the nO meson but lighter (lighter because the
difference in mass between N* and N is very
small). There would be no doubt but that the
actual reaction is
N* -+- N -t- e:
+ XO
(13.8)
and that the mass of particle XO can be determined by measuring the momentum vectors of N
and e', and calculating the missing mass. At the
beginning of the thi rties, however, when no other
elementary particles besides electrons and protons were even thought of, such an idea would
have seemed much too bold. "What!" almost any
physicist would exclaim at that time. "You \van't
to introduce a now particle on ly in order t.o have
it carry away the deficit in energy and momentum?! A particle serving only to save the conservation laws?! A particle that has not manifested
itself in any other manner?! Is it impossible to
try first to find a simpler cause: for example,
that we have found a process in which energy is
not conserved?" At that time it was easier for
many physicists to believe that energy is not
always conserved than in the existence of new
particles. When Wolfgang Pauli proposed that
the decay was according to the mode (13.8), his
idea was regarded as the hig-hest possible flight
of fancy. The feasibility of the nonconservation
of energy in a B decay seemed to a great many
scientists, due to the frame of mind and level of
knowledge prevailing in those days, not to he
50 senseless. This possibility was discussed even
2+3==23
205
by Niels Bohr. It was mentioned . . among the

possible sources of energy of the stars by the
outstanding Soviet physicist "Lev Davidovich
Landau.
Several experiments were conducted in the
twenties and thirties to check the energy balance
in collisions of elementary particles, and in some
experiments the balance was found to be violated! Then the future members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, A. I. Alikhanyan, A. I. Alikhanov and I..... A . Artsirnovich conducted an
experirnent to check whether the balance of momentum was violated in the decays. What strange
people these physicists are! They permit thernselves to doubt the soundness of such a simple
law, so understandable to philosophers, fitting
so easily into various philosophical conceptions,
as the law of conservation of energy! Nothing
COlnes from nothing; why complicate matters
unnecessarily? What kind of additional experiments do they lack nowr!
I wish to digress somewhat from the decays to
three particles, and dwell in more detail on the
different approaches of physicists and half-baked
dogmatists to the conserv ation of.~~.energy. It
would seem, at first hand, that the latter are
right. As a matter of fact, what could be sirnpIer? Energy is conserved everywhere, high and
.low; how can this be~doubted? If somebody does
doubt this obvious fact, let him build a perpetual motion machine! But, up-to-date science
actually cannot explain why energy should be
conserved; this is beyond its powers. "So far it
has been conserved" is the only reason that we
.rpan offer. Theoretically, the conservation of ener-
Kinematics tor the Schoolboy
gy is derived from the invariability of physical

laws with time. But this last is also an experimental fact, i.e. a law of the type: "so far it has
been so". Physicists understand this and regard
the depth of their knowledge on the conservation
of energy with due humility. Some philosophers,
however, pretend that they know something
about the conservation of energy that is unknown
to physicists. They make this something a matter
of principle, prov ing that energy must be conserved because ... , Iollowed by elegant, ideological
generalizations. They make everything look as
if they are aware of something incomprehensible
to ordinary people. They do not understand that
if one fine day some experiment may indicate that
somewhere energy is not conserved, or is conserved to limited accuracy, they, and the rest of
us, will just have to swallow the pill and change
our world outlook so that it agrees with the
nonconservation of energy.
I t does not follow that physicists believe less
in the law of conservation of energy than the
philosophers do. Not at all. But some simply
have blind faith and others take things with a
grain of salt. Or, without joking, they have
faith that goes hand in hand with true knowledge.
But let us return to the ~ decay. We need only
add that Pauli's proposal, based on the belief
that energy and momentum are conserved, as
well as on his vast intellectual valour, turned
out to be absolutely correct. Not so long ago,
when nobody had any more doubt of its existence,
the neutrino was noted in a more direct way
(and not on the basis of only kinematic considerations). Today, physicists readily deal with two
201
2+3=23
kinds of neutrino and two kinds of antineutrino. *

We have digressed so far from our line of
reasoning that it will be necessary to remind you
of what we started with and then proceed. We
wanted to represent a decay to three particles
as a decay to two, This presented no difficulty,
but we found that oneof the two particles (23)
now has a variable mass and, as a result, the
energy of particle 1 is also variable.
Let us see within what limits this energy may
vary. Recall the equation that we derived:
E _
m2tmi-n~~3
1-
t2m
'
where
m:
= (E 2
E 3) 2
(P2
+ P3)2.
When does E 1 reach its maximum value? Obviously, when m 2 3 becomes minimal (the other
quantities in equation (13.6) are constant). The
minimum value of m 2 3 equals m 2 + m a because,
as we know, particle 23 must further decay to
particles 2 and 3, and at m 2 3 < m 2 + m 3 the
energy will be insufficient for this decay. At
m 2 3 = m 2 + m a the decay 23 -+ 2 + 3 is still
feasible. True, in this case, particles 2 and 3 are
.deprived of the kinetic energy required for them
to be emitted anywhere. In the co-moving refer.ence frame of particle 23 they seem to be stationary, but in any other frame of reference they
. .a re emitted side by side, without departing from
~ Still another
~Ti.s being sought
(",.).
neutrino, already predicted theoretically,

at present. It is called the tau neutrino
-
208
each other. Thus

_ m2+m,r--(n~2+m3)2
E t ma x :"
2m
(13.9)
As to the minimum value of E i , it cannot, in

any case, be less than mI' Check whether when
P2 P3 == 1112 : m 3
(a)
P2
PI
PJ
P2 =P3
PJ.min
(b)
Fig. 48. Decay to three particles.

(a) Configuration for which the mornen turn of particle J reaches
its maximum value;
(b)
conngura tl on for which it equals zero
ml' E 1 is exactly equal to m 1 and

particle 1 is stationary. In this case, particles 2
and 3 are emitted in opposite directions with
the same momentum (Fig. 48). Thus
m 2 3 == m -
m 1 ~ E 1 ~ E 1m ax '
(13.10)
The particular values of energy within this range

that are more frequently encountered and those
encountered less frequently depend, not upon
the conservation laws, but upon the specific habits of these types of particles (particles 0, 1, 2
and 3). But, whatever their habits, the energy
will not jump out of the limits of equation (13.10).
The limiting energy of each of the particles
depends upon the masses of all the particles
209
participating in the decay. 'These may include

invisible ones, whose presence we can only presume. But, from the maximum energy observed
in the decay, we can estimate the mass of the
Fig. 49. Decay to four particles.

Shown above is the configure tton of the four particles for which
the momentum of particle 1 reucues its max imurn value. Shown
below is a case in wluch the uio.nen tu:n of Vill'ticlc 1 equals zero ,
invisible particle. (Thus, for instance, it was

established from the maximum energy of the
electrons in a ~ decay that the mass of the neutrino is very small. It is supposed that the mass of
the neutrino, like that of the photon, equals zero.)
Here again our already farniliar hedgehogs appear. Equation (13.9), as you can see, no longer
has variable quantities as there }vere in equation (13.5). Consequently, \VO have the right to
draw a momenta sphere and, elongating it according to the Lorentz transformat.ions, draw the
ellipsoid alongside. They will help us answer
questions of the following kind. What is the
maximum. momentum of particle 1 in the decay
o ~ 1 2 + 3, if the momentum of particle 0
is given and particle 1 is observed at a certain
angle? Another question might be: what is the
limiting angle of emission of particle 1 under
lAo
14-1920
210
these conditions? This does not necessarily concern the creation of three particles. I t is clear
that with any number of emitted particles, particle 1 has the highest energy when all the other
particles merge in to one having the mass m 2
+ m 3 +.
m.; (Fig. 49). (It has minimum
energy when particle 1 is at rest.) Then we can
construct both a sphere and ellipsoid. The surface
of the ellipsoid will correspond to all values of
energy of particle 1, whereas the internal part
of the ellipsoid corresponds to all other energy
values (in decay to t\VO particles, the internal
part of the ellipse had no particular meaning).
The Missing Mass Spectrometer

At this point we are very likely to be capable of
understanding the idea of an experiment proposed
in 1965 at the European Council for Nuclear
Research. An attempt was made in this experiment to find what charged resonance particles
are produced by energetic Jt - mesons. Assume
that a Jt - meson collides with a proton. Their
interaction sometimes resul ts in the proton
being recoiled off to one side with the creation
of several light particles. As you must know by
now, anything may be created if its creation is
not forbidden. Therefore, sometimes one particle,
say another Jt - meson is produced; sometimes
two, Jt - and nO mesons; and sometimes three or
four. They do not have to be rt mesons; resonances are also produced, either by themselves or
accompanied by other particles. If we denote all
that is produced by X - (where the minus sign
concerns the total charge), all such reactions can
2 + 3 = 23
211
be conditionally written out as the single reaction:

n-
p -+ p
X-
(13.11)
\Ve should note, however, that unlike Jt - and p,

the rest mass of particle X - is not specified beforehand. It may vary from case to case, from
one 1t --p collision to another, and equals
-V (E i +E'2+
r~- (Pi + P2 +-
.)~,
in which the parentheses include the energies

and momenta of all the particles produced together with the proton. These values alternate and
vary very capriciously; whatever the square root
is equal to is the mass of "particle" X. Thus, in
the reaction 1t - + p -+ P + X -, particle X will
have, as is said, a whole mass spectrum, i.e. a
whole set of m x values, like the quantity m 2 3
in equation (13.t5) had a whole spectrum of values. But some values will be encountered appreciably more of len than others. 'This wi ll occur
when the fictitious "particle" happens to he a
real particle or a real resonance. The mass m x
of particles and resonances is a fixed value
(sometimes with great precision, and sometimes
less accurately), and in this case the energies and
momenta of the particles, into which they might
decay, are distributed so that
V (E 1 +E2 -t-
.)2_(pt +P2'+
.)2
will be equal to m x- Hence, by noting which

values of m x are encountered noticeably more
frequently than others, we can find the masses
of real particles and resonances X produced in
the reaction mode rt :
p -+ P + X-.
14*
212
All this is no t new to us; th is is precisel y the

procedure that was resorted to t.o discover the resonances (see Chap. 8). The novel idea of the
experiment being described is that the investigators wanted to manage without measuring ni s They contended that by noting only one value,
the angle at which the proton gl ances off, it is
also possible to discover new resonances. Jtwas
found that if you establish which angles of recoil of the proton occur most frequent.ly, you
can find the mass of particle X that is most often
encountered. Our aim in the following is to find
out why this is so.
It would be most simple to return to Problems 5
and 6 from Chap. 11, because all that is required
was mentioned there. But it is of more advantage
to recall everything in i Is proper order. \\7e can
begin with Problem 6. It follows from this problem that if particle X is heavier than the n meSOD, then the protons have a limiting angle of
emission: in the lahoratory reference frame the
proton cannot be emitted backwards. What does
the limiting deflection of the proton depend upon?
It is restricted by the tangent to the momenta
ellipse. Hence, it depends on the shape and position of the elliptical hedgehog, i.e. in the final
analysis, on the rest mass of the initial n "P system and the masses of the t\VO particles, p and
X, that are produced. If the energy of the nmeson is specified beforehand, then the mass m 0
of the n "P system will also be constant. The
shape and position of the ellipse are thereby
uniquely determined by the mass of particle X.
'I'his rneans that there is an unambiguous relation
between the maximum angle of emission of the
2+3=23
213
proton and the mass of particle X. Thus we can

indirect! y measure the mass of this particle by
measuring limiting angles.
"Fine!" you object, "but how do we know that
the proton was emitted at the limiting angle? It
leaves the point of collision at any angle it likes,
not necessaril y at the maximum permissible
angle."
"Right! But recall the property that we cleared
up in Problem 5 of Chap. 11. The limiting angle
is the favourite angle of emission of particles.
Their paths accumulate mostly about the limiting direction. Nothing extraordinary; this just
happens to be a property of momenta ellipses
(see the problem for more details). Consequently,
though the direction of the prot.on is not conditioned in an y way, in practice there are many
more emitted at the limiting angle than at any
other angles."
It seems that we have final ly understood why
there is a close relationship between the angles
at which protons are emitted and the mass of
particle X. This relation is not unambiguous; we
cannot maintain that in each case that we know
the angle of the proton recoil, we thereby find the
mass of, partie] 0 X. But we can con tend that
very often the proton is emitted so that its direction enables m. x to be estimated. There exists,
as they say, a correlation between the direction
of the proton and mx; not a complete relation,
but a relation nevertheless. *
* We find man y correlations in everyday life. The height

of a youth is not uniquely related to his age: you cannot
determine his height from his age. But height and ageare
214
By now we should have no difficulty in understanding the idea of the above-mentioned experiment. '\'e measure the angles at which the
proton recoils and, after investigating some tens
of thousands of such collisions occurring in the
process n p ~ p -t- X -, \ve count up how
many times we run across one or another angle.
Certain angles will be encountered so frequently
that their occurrence cannot be explained by the
laws of chance. Next we select ellipses for which
the slope of the tan gent is equal to these angles.
From this we Iind the val ues of m x which correspond to these ellipses. In this manner we obtain
the masses of all the particles and resonances (of
negative charge) that are produced together with
the proton.
It is not a simple matter to conduct this ex.periment. To obtain a reliable result you must register an immense number of events of the type
rrp ~ p -1- X -, determine in each case the
direction of the incident n - meson, make sure
that precisely a proton is ejected and that it is
ejected precisely at the instant the Jt - meson hits
the target, measure the angle of the proton recoil,
etc. This procedure requires entirely new electronic apparatus, joined directly to a computer.
The reward for all this work is a princely one:
you gain the capacity to discover a whole series
of resonances automatically, without the touch
of a human hand.
correlated: in most cases, taller boys are older. There are

correlations between the t ime or the year and the t ernperature; between the age ana the vocabulary of a child,
etc.
2+3=23
215
But more details of this experiment are beyond

the scope of what we are dealing with here.
I had hoped to end this chapter here, but remembered that I am in debt to the reader. It
was shown in Chap. 5 that the condition
>
m ~ ml
m
m1
m2
-+- m.;
must he complied with for a decay to n particles
1, 2, etc., to occur. But the proof that this is a
sufficient condition was postponed. Right now
is the most suitable time to provide such a proof.
Of advantage for this purpose is the method of
mathematical induction. A decay to two particles
when m ~ m 1 -+- m 2 is permitted by all conservation laws because (see Fig. 22) wi th this condition you can always construct a triangle having
the projections of the sides equal to n~l and m 2 ,
with the sum of the sides being equal to m.
Hence, at n == 2 the sufficiency of the condition
has been proved.
For n == 3 assume that the condition
m2
-t.-
m-;
is complied with. Then we can find a value m 2 3

that will satisfy the t\\I'O inequalities:
m
n11
m 23
and
m23
m2
+m
3,
(it is sufficient, for example to take m 2 3 == m 2

m 3 ) . But under these conditions, as we have
just proved, the following decays are allowed:
o --+- 1 -t- 23
23 -+ 2 -t- 3.
216
But this constitutes the decay 0 -+ 1

2 + 3.
This proves the sufficiency of the condition for
n = 3.
I leave you to complete the proof yourselves.

Chapter 14
Three-Photon Cone
An elegant kinematic problem was formulated
and solved by the physicist.s of the Moscow Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics.
At their disposal they had a bubble chamber filled
with a mixture of liquid propane and xenon. It is
much easier to note the creation of a high-energy
photon in such a chamber than in one filled with
hydrogen (you recall that we find out that a
photon has been created by observing its transformation into a ere : pair close to the nucleus;
the higher the nuclear charge, the more frequently such transformations occur; the nuclear charge
of xenon is many times higher than that of hydrogen).
It fnllows that the physicists had the opportunity of observing high-energy photons. I t was to
be used to prove that the (00 meson can decay,
not only to three rt mesons (W O -+ j[ +
nnO), but to three photons (roo ~ "?
l'
1')
as well. It was expected that the fast rr: mesons,
ejected from the accelerator, would collide with
protons in the chamber (each propane molecule
has eight protons) and convert them into neutrons. At this, the n - mesons would themselves he
converted into (00 mesons, which sometimes decay on the spot to a nO meson and a photon. This
+ +
+ +
Three-Photon Cone
217
nO meson, practically on the same spot and with-
out fail, decays to two more photons. Each of

the photons, after travelling some centimetres
invisibly, create a e :e pair (electron and positron)
pass
what
were
near some xenon nucleus that it happens to

by chance. This newly produced pair is
can be observed in the chamber. Thus, they
to investigate the process
n- -t- p ~ n
+ WO
I....y+;n;o
1- y
I
(14.1)
The outward appearance of this process is as
Iol lows: we see the track of the 1t - meson, which
suddenly breaks off and then at a distance we
see three two-prong e :er forks, whose sharp
corners point back to the spot where the initial
track of the rt meson was in terru pted (Fig. 50).
The directions of all the photons can be quite
accuratel y measured in such photographs. They
coincide with vectors whose tails are at the end,
or break-off, point and whose heads are at the
branching points of the forks. The directions of
the photons were determined to an accuracy
within 1.0
This cannot, unfortunately, be said of the
energies of the photons. For various reasons, the
energies of photons can be only very approximate-
....
t-"
00
;/
\.'
r-:.:- _.... 'i'
..
---0' ~---:. --_.- -- ~7--~o-,o
.:
~:'
~ ,.~
.~ -~e~e.~, _ .
4~.:,
"~i_
-'7';'::::~~~~~';<:'" :~: . .:-.ji~:: '.
,o,~/
)}.~~~;~~
't/ J'
j/;'.'
.,., -: ;;:1?:J'"
'#
',/
Fig. 30. Investigating

'T'h prongs 01' ccr t a in
{-+, -
the
~.
<'t>
....
S
..-.
~
'\'
n'
tn
....
'-0
....
n-
,,'
10
..'
.....
process
+ p ~ n + WO (one
t ..
0,"
.... , i
tr'
CD
en
~
of the photographs).
1'0;'\"s llH'r::f' into a sing-Ill track. 'I'Ii ~('co:)(t phOt(l~T;11Jh, in w hir h t hr- same case
point. is not g-iven lu-re A eo mpl e to t hrc-e-d irnensto.ra J p ic turc of an evcn t
two simul tancous pho tographs.
o1'd('~ay W;''-5 -ho t 1'1'0'11 ano t.hr r

can }1\' recons truc ted only rrorn
o..;
o
o
s:
Three-Photon Cone
219
ly determined in a chamber filled with a heavy

liquid. This being so, there is no possibility
of calculating the invariant mass of the three
photons to make sure that it equals the mass of
the roO
meSOD.
This confronted the investigators with a difficult problem. Without seeing either the neutron
or the roO meson, and knowing only the directions
of the photons, they were obliged to prove that
the three photons in such photographs originate
from the (u0 mesons. Just note how much ingenuity they displayed in coping with their task.
Do you recall how the nO meson was discovered (Chap. I l )? The reaction used then resembled reaction (14.1):
n- -+- p --+ n
-~
nO
1-.. 21'
Under conditions in which all the sought-for n?
mesons had one and the same velocity calculated
beforehand, t he investigators counted the number
of pairs 0 f ph 0 ton s em itt cd \vi l had nil. e an gIe
ex between their paths. It was found that there
are no photon pairs emitted at an angle a between
them less than a certain definite angle. The velocity of the nO mesons could be estimated from
the magni tude of this Iimi ting angle:
en
cos
a .
n;ln
zx.:
v.
(14.2)
This velocity coincided with the previously calculated value, thereby proving the existence of
the n"
m~son.
220
The process
n;-
+ p -+ ti -t--
0)0
I~ 31'
was a considerably more complex one (it was
necessary to deal somehow with three photons).
Fig. 51. A three-photon cone.
But the investigators succeeded ill showing what

quantity was to he measured in the experiment
so that equation (14.2) is complied with as previously. Such a quantity was the apex angle of
cone constructed by using the directions of the
photons as generatrices, or elements.
Assume that the three photons to which the
WO meson decays have the momenta PI' P2 and P:l
Assume, further, that they are directed in space
in any manner (Fig. 51). Layoff a line segment
Three-Photon Cone
221
of any length along the arrow PI; then layoff

line segment of the same length along arrows P2
and P3. Pass the plane S through the ends A, B
and C of the line segments. Next draw a circle
wi th its cen tre at point 0 through the three
points, A, Band C. After joining the points on
the circle with point 0' the site of decay of the
000 meson, we obtain a cone. I t will be a right
circular cone because line 00' is perpendicular to
plane S (try to prove this). This is the cone we
have in mind when we speak of the cone constructed by using the directions of the photons as
generatrices. It is obvious that whatever the
tlirections of the photons, the cone can always be
constructed (though sometimes, it is true, it may
degenerate into an ordinary plane). What the
investigators proposed was to measure the apex
angle of this cone on all the photographs in
which three photons are seen. When this was
done, the smallest angle turned out to be related to the velocity of the (0 meson by the same
equation (14.2).
Let us prove this . We draw the axis 00' of the
cone. Vector p represents the momentum of the
roO meson. It does not, of course, have to coincide
with the axis of the cone, but it must coincide
with the total momentum of the three photons
PI
+ P2 -~
P3 == p.
(14.3)
Let us project the four momenta on the axis of

the cone. Recall that the length of the projection
of any line segment on some axis is equal to the
length of the line segment multiplied by the
cosine of the angle between the segment and
the axis. By definition the axis of a right circu-
222
lar cone is a straight line that makes the same

angle with all the generatrices of the cone. We
denote this angle by al2 (having in mind the
fact that the apex angle of the cone is equal to
ex). The momentum p makes a certain angle <p
with the cone's axis. Now we can proceed to
project the momenta. The length of the projection
of momentum PIon the cone axis equals
Pi cos (aI2), just as the projections of P2 and P3
are equal to P2 cos (aI2) and P3 cos (aI2). The
projection of momentum p equals P cos <po
The sum of the projections of the vectors PI' P2
and P3 on any axis should equal the projection
of their sum, vector p, on the same axis, i.e~.
(Pi + P2 1- P3) cos ~
::=:
p cos
cr
The quantity in parentheses is the arithmetical,

not vector, sum of the momenta of the three
photons. But the momentum of a photon is
equal to its energy. Hence the sum in parentheses
is simply the energy of the (00 meson:
a
E cos 2
::=:
p cos <po
We divide both sides of this equation by E and

recall that piE is the velocity of the (00 meson:
a
cos 2 == V cos cpo
(14.4)
We have thus derived a simple equation that

shows how the apex angle of the three-photon
cone depends upon the directions of the photons
and the velocity of their source. Now let us
assume that all the (00 mesons have the same
Three-Photon Cone
223
velocity, hut are emitted in all possible directions and decay to three photons haphazardly. 'l'he
angle q:> between the axis of the cone and the
direction of the (Do meson may have any value
and, with it, the apex angle Ow of the cone may
vary arbitrarily. But the cosine of any angle
cannot exceed unity. Hence, the maximum value
of cos (a/2) that we can find on all possible photographs of these decays will not exceed v:
( COS CX
2
max
~ v.
(14.5)
As is evident, this equation really does resemble equation (14.2) (do not forget that the maximum value of the cosine of an angle corresponds
to the minimum angle). It remains to show that
the sign "~" can be replaced by the sign "==".
For this purpose it is sufficient to cite an example in which
a
cos T == u,
This is easy. Assume that the (00 meson is emitted forward upon being produced, in the same
direction that the J[ meson was travelling. Assume, further, that its decay to three photons
occurred in a plane perpendicular to its motion.
Such a decay yields, in the laboratory frame of
reference, the required cone (Fig. 52). We can
see here that the momentum of each photon, for
instance
p~:
== O'A' is transformed into the mo->
mentum Pi -== O'A. Let us write down the Lorentz transformations. lIere they look especiall y
simple because they contain no components with
224
the longi tudinal projection of the momentum.

Thus
the longitudinal projection of 00' =:: PIli =:: yVPl

(without the member ,\,Pfll);
and the energy (or momentum) 0' A ~ PI =:: YP!
(without the member yvpT,,).
Fig. 52. The decay
WO -+
+ y + y.
The case when the decay plane A' B'C' of the (00 meson i~ perpendicular to the direction 0'0 of mo tion of the (1)0 meson. TIH'll the
mo nc.i ta of the t hrer photons make the sarne ang le with axis 0'0
or, what i~ the same, the momentum of the (00 meson is the axis
of the cone (all t.rree momenta of the photons are the same in
h.: d larrnrn, but this is not necessary).
From the triangle OAO' we can write

OU'
"'vp*
cos L AO'O = --==-==_r_l
== v.
0' A
ypt
Thus, the momentum of any of the three photons

makes the same angle, arc cos v with the direction
of travel of the 00 meson. Hence they lie on the
225
Three- Photon Cone
surface of the cone for which

a
cos "2: === v,

which was to be proved.
What use can we make of equation (14.5)? It
can enable us to find an 000 -+ 31' decay only if
all the roO mesons being produced have the same
velocity and it is known beforehand. But in our
process:
n-
+ p -+ n + 00,
in the laboratory reference frame, this is not at

all the case. The momenta hedgehog of the roO
meson is stretched out forward, and the momenta
of the (Do meson differ in different directions. But
we know of a frame of reference in which the
momentum of the roO meson will be one and the
same, regardless of its direction. If we imagine
the process
n-
+ p -+ n +
(Do
as occurring in two stages: first the particles nand p merge into a single particle 0 after which
o decays to n and roo, then in the co-moving reference frame of particle 0, the momenta hedgehog of the (Do meson becomes round as a sphere
(see Chap. 9), which is all that we need.
We have now prepared all that is required to
understand the course of the experiment that
proved the existence of the decay roO -+ 31'. The
investigators took a great number of photographs
similar to Fig. 50. In each of them the vectors
representing the directions of the photons were
projected on a plane perpendicular to the track
15-1920
226
of the n - meson (Fig. 53) and the angles ~,

between the photons and the track of the 1t - meson, were measured. With the momentum of the
:rt- meson being known, the velocity V o of the
fictitious particle 0 could be readily determined.
Fig. 5:1. Transformation of the photon momenta from

the laboratory frame of reference to the co-moving frame
of particle o.
'I'he horizontal line S)IOWS the direction of the rr- meson; S is
a plane perpend icul ar to this line; following Loren tz transrormattons, momenta P~, p~ and P~ remain in planes passing through
eac h of the mornen turn vee tors Ph P2 and P3 and the direction of
t ho :rt- meson. It rernatns to pass a cone throug-h momentum vectors
pt pt and p!, and to measure its apex angle.
Then the angles B were recalculated to obtain

the angles B*, the angles at which the photons
are emitted in the co-moving reference frame of
particle O. The required equations are quite
simple; we merely write the Lorentz transformations from the laboratory frame to the co-mov-
227
three-Photon Cone
ing frame:
P: cos P* =
P~
==
"(OPl
cos ~ -
"(OPl -
"(OVOPI,
"(OUOPl
cos ~
and divide one equation by the other. The momenta PI and p~ in both frames of reference cancel out, and only the relation between the angles
remains:
A*
cos p
cos ~-vo
= 1vo cos ~ .
This is the equation that was used to determine

the directions of the photons in the co-moving
frame of particle O. Then the investigators constructed a cone with three generatrices having
precisely these directions and calculated its
apex angle. *
I t was found that the apex angles of the cone
are mainly large ones, and that apex angles less
than the value 2 arc cos v are quite rare. To make
sure that this did not happen by chance, the
experiment was repeated several times, irradiating the chamber with n - mesons of various energies. Different calculated velocity values were
obtained for the (Do mesons, depending upon the
energy of the n - meson. (Incidentally, we can
also calculate the velocity without any trouble:
assigning a value of energy to the n meson, we
can find the mass of particle 0, as was done in
Chap. 5. 'Then, according to the rule of Chap. 9,
:* Try by yourself to solve the following problem: three
generatrices of a cone make the angles ~T, ~: and ~:
with a certain straight line. Planes passed through this
straight line and the generatrices make the angles aI' CX 2
and aa witlt one another. Find the apex angle of the cone.
1S*
228
Kinematics for the School boy
we find the energy of the (Do meson in the comoving reference frame of particle O. K.nowing
the energy, we can readily find the momentum and
the velocity.) It was also found that each time,
in each experiment, the angles a end abruptly
at the required value.
This is how a new channel of (Do-meSon decay
to lighter particles was revealed.
Chapter 15
". . With a Faint Wave

of the Hand. " ~:.
This is an exceptional chapter. In it the Iaws
of kinematics are made use of for an unexpected
purpose: to improve the quality of a nhvsical
instrument.
There is a building in Dubna that houses the
synchrophasotron, or proton synchrotron, in an
enormous room. When you enter this room you
are dazzled. So much equipment: charnbers, elec..
tromagnets, wiring, pipelines, blocks of concrete,
protective grids, light signals, tracks, cranes and
hoists, etc. This is the instrumentation laboratory. This is the place where experiments are
conducted for investigating the properties of elementary particles. Sometimes a year or even two
is spent in assembling apparatus in this room to
obtain an installation that the physicists hope
will double the accuracy in measuring the mass or
the probability of decay of some particle. Such
From the historical poem "Poltava" by A. S. Pushkin

1799-1837) -Tr.
With a Faint Wave of the Hand ...
229
is experimental high-energy physics, the foundation of today's knowledge of the building bricks
of the universe.
Let us discuss one such installation. It was used
in 1967 for observing the~decay of mesons and
resonances to photons (1' quanta). These decays
had not been studied in sufficient detail at that
time. Decays to charged mesons were known better by far. Charged mesons leave a track, which
substantially simplifies their investigation. The
photon is quite another- matter. Special conditions are required for it to leave a track: the medium it is travelling through must be-filled with a
heavy substance (i.e. a substance whose atoms
have sufficiently heavy nuclei). The heavier the
nuclei, the more frequently the"photon, passing
near to them, forms electron
positron pairs,
and the tracks of these pairs are visible (see
Fig. 50).
But here, as we already know, another difficulty arises: though the photons become visible (by
the ere: pairs they create), their energy cannot

be measured with any fair accuracy. All these
circumstances drastically hinder the investigation of the photon decays of resonances.
In Chap. 14 we told about one of the methods
used to avoid this difficulty. The following describes another method.
A target, consisting of a vessel with liquid
hydrogen, was placed in the path of the n --meson
beam. The rr - m.esons, colliding with the hydrogen nuclei, create new particles. Most often, of
course, the rr- meson simply recoils off to one
sidc:
np -+rt- + p,
230
but sometimes the so-called charge exchange

occurs:
n- + p ~ nO + n,
All of these processes have been investigated in
some detail, but it will be of interest to see
how often, for instance, the process
n-
+ P -+ f)0 + n
occurs. Here the flo meson (whose mass, as you

recall, is about 0.55 GeV) instantly decays,
ei ther to the triplet rr +, n- and nO mesons, or to
a pair of photons. The former decay was already
well known, but how often the latter occurs is
what was to be found out. It was also to advantage to find out whether there are any other particles that decay to two photons. These photons
are emitted from almost the same spot their
parent particle was produced and, after being
ejected from the target, go off in the air. How can
we manage to observe them? Placed for this purpose (Fig. 54), at a distance of almost two metres
from the target, were two spark chambers SCI
and SC 2 (arranged symmetrically on both sides
of the beam of n- mesons). These chambers are
devices in which each photon triggers off a series
of sparks enabling one to determine where exactly the photon passed through. The chambers
had to be installed where most photons were expected. It was known from other experiments
that in similar reactions (for example, in the
reaction rt - + p -+ n
roo, described in the
preceding chapter) mesons are most often emittod straight forward. Knowing this, it is possible
to calculate the energy that the 11 mesons most
With a Faint Wave of the Hand ..."
231
frequently have in this experiment (we solved

such problems in Chap. 11). After this we are
ready to draw the momenta hedgehog for the decay
flo -+ 'V
'V (Fig. 55) and install the chambers
along the directions 0' C' and 0' C". 1-'hese are
Of
SCi
Fig. 54. Principle of the installation.
t.he directions of photons emitted with the same

energy (O'C' == C'O"). The chambers are quite
wide, so that pairs of photons with other energies
will also pass through them (for instance, with
che energies O'Q and QO"), but it can be proved
that most of all the photons passing through the
chambers in this arrangement will be ones with
equal energies.
232
Thus, spark chambers enable photons to be

registered and their direction to be observed. But
this is, of course, insufficient. 'Ve must also know
the energies of the photons. Otherwise, how can
we prove that they were produced in the decay of
->: -
('
o
~::~/
'-,-
Q'
Q,--"
C'
SC
~~."()" "
iYO"- r,
()'C"II C' Oil
lj'Q"11 Q
0"
S( .'
'I
Fig. 55. Momenta ellipse of photons produced by the

decay 1)0 -+ V + y.
occurs at point 0'. Two pairs of pho tr ns are shown; one
pair wi th the same energies and the o ther with differen t energies.
DCCl1Y
an 11 0 meson, rather than a nO meson or an (Do

meson? For this purpose, thick glass slabs C1
and C 2' Cherenkov counters, were placed into
the chambers. These slabs are of a special glass
that begins to glow when electron pairs produced
by a photon pass through them. The greater the
233
energy of the photon, the brighter this glow, or

radiation. We determine the energy of the photon by measuring the intensity of radiation.
In the experiment, each time both counters
flash, the spark chambers are switched on and
the direction of the photon causing radiation is
determined. After measuring the energy and direction of the two photons, it is necessary to clear
up their origin . You alread y know how this is
done. Adding the energies E 1 and E 2 of the two
photons, we obtain the energy E of the particle
that produced them:
E1
+E
Adding together the momenta PI and P2 (the magnitude of the photon's momentum is equal to
its energy and the directions of the photons are
known), we obtain the momentum p of the particle that produced them:
P = PI
+ pz
After subtracting the square of the momentum

from the square of the energy, 'we obtain the
square of the mass of this particle:
M2 == (E I
-r-
E 2) 2
(PI
+ P2)2.
(15.1)
Then we must examine the masses to find which

values are especially numerous. These wil l be
the masses of particles from which pairs of photons
are created. One value that is to be expected with
high frequency is M === 0.135 GeV. This belongs
to the nO meson, the main source of photons in
such collisions. Also repeated a great many times
is the value 0.55 GeV, which belongs to the sough tfor 'Y)0 mesons. If some other value of the mass
Kinema tics for the Schoolboy
234
is found much too often, that will be fine. It

will mean that we have discovered some additional, so far unknown, source of photon pairs.
Equation (15.1) can be simplified. Look at
~
Fig. 56. The line segment AB is vector Pl. The

B
P~+P'l.
Fig. 56. Diagram for calculating the effective mass of

a pair of photons.
length -AB is equal to the energy E 1 (such are

properties of any photon). Emerging from point
B in the required direction is vector P2; it is represented by arrow BC. Here also BC == Ezo
~
But vector AC indicates the magnitude and direction of the vector PI

Ps- On the other hand,
EI
E 2 is the sum of the two sides AB
BC.
Hence, the value we are intorested in is
Af 2 ~ (AB
BC)2- AC2.
Known in the triangle ABC are the sides All

and BC and the angle B between them (if the vectors PI and P2 are known, the angle between them
is also known), and we are to determine (AB
BC)2 - AC 2 Recall the law of cosines from
trigonometry:
AC2 =::.: AB2 -t-o BC 2 -- 2 X AB X Be
x cos B.
235
Substituting, we obtain
M2 === 2
~4
X AB X Be (1
+ cos B)
x AB x BCcos (B/2).
2
Hence the mass is
M == 2 cos 2BV-E tE 2,
(15.2)
The more accurately an instrument operates,

the higher its quality. OUf Instrument is designed
for seeking particles that decay to two photons.
The question is: what is its accuracy? If, for
example, along with the 1]0 meson, some other meson of close mass is produced as well, can our
instrument detect its existence? It is evident
from equation (15.2) that it all depends on the
accuracy with which the energy of the photons
and the angle between them are determined. As
far as the angles are concerned, things are fine:
they can be measured with high accuracy. The
energy of the photons is an entirely different matter: here errors of 10 % or even more are quite feasible. If, for instance, the photon by itself has
an energy of 2 GeV, the instrument may indicate
2.2 and 1.8 GeV or any other close value. With
what error will this permit us to determine the
mass of the meson? Also to about 10 %. The
scintillators will trap many pairs of photons with
close energies, and at E 1 ~ E 2 , the mass
2 VE12 COS 2""

B
2E'1 cos TB
.J
Since B is known to high accuracy, the relative

deviation of M from the true value will aproximatcl y coincide (in order of magnitude) wi th the
236
relative errors in the measurement of the energy.

It turns out that such an installation is not particularly good; its resolution (capacity to differentiate between particles of close masses) is
not higher than the errors with which energy can
be measured. If, for instance, there are two particles 1) and 11' with the masses 0.55 and 0.60 GeV,
that decay to two photons each, instead of the
first mass, 0.55 GeV, the calculation by equation
(15.2) yields a whole set of values from about
0.5 to 0.6 GeV, not because particles with such
masses exist, but simply because the energy cannot be more precisely measured. In exactly the
same way, instead of 0.6 GeV (the mass of the
imaginary particle 11'), we shall obtain a great
many values in the vicinity of 0.55 to 0.65.
'I'hese two ranges of values, 0.50 to 0.60
and 0.55 to 0.65, considerably overlap, and we
shall not succeed in detecting the existence of
two mesons. They will have the appearance of a
single meson with a strongly blurred mass.
Let us see how, without doing anything to the
instrument, we can improve its resolving power.
The laws of kinematics allow equation (15.2)
to be replaced by another equation. This proves
sufficient to substantially enhance the quality
of our instrument.
The idea that the quality of an instrurnent can
be improved by a stroke of a pen, seems, on the
face of it, to be absurd. Is it not all the same to
the instrument that we make certain manipulations with a pen on a piece of paper? The instrument has done its work: it has delivered the prescribed quantities, energies and angles, with the
accuracy it is capable of. No matter how we mani-
237
pulate these figures, this cannot improve the instrument. This is the line of reasoning of anybody
that hears about this matter.
But let us try the following simple procedure.
Instead of the mass of the 11 meson, let us calculate its Lorentz factor. You may remember (see
equation (4.5)) that this factor is the name of the
ratio of the energy of a particle to its mass:
E
'Y=M
And, 10 and behold, it turns out the Lorentz factor of a particle can be more accurately determined
than its mass with the same accuracy of measurement of energy. Not always, of course, but
this is SJ for our experiment in which the chambers are specially aimed at pairs of photons
with close energies.
1\8_a matter of fact, the Energy of the 11 meson
i.s equal to the sum of the energies of the two photons, and the mass is expressed in terms of the
energy by equation (15.2). Therefore, the Lorentz
factor is
E 1+E 2
2 V E 1E 2 cos (B/2)
'V=----~--
Taking the factor depending upon the angle out

of brackets and dividing E 1
E 2 termwise
by -V E 1E 2 , we obtain
'V
1
= 2cos(B/2)
(-w / E 1
..
IE;)
V E;+ V JI;
(15 3)
The factor depending upon the angle is determined

with sufficiently high accuracy and we shall pay
238
no attention to it. Let us clear up the accuracy

with which we can determine the sum -V E1/E 2 -+-V E 21E1 Assume that our scintillators measured E 1 and E 2 with some error. Then -V E 1/E 2
is also inaccurate, with an error of several percent (for example, we obtain a value that is 15%
greater than the actual one). But y also includes
the addend -V E 2/E1 It is also obtained with a deviation, but in the other direction, since it is
equal to 11-V E 1/E 2' and if the denominator of a
fraction increases, the fraction decreases. When
the denominator is close to unity, then the fraction is reduced by about the same factor that
the denominator is increased. I--Ience, if E 1
and E 2 are approximately equal, the amount that
V E 1/E 2 deviates to one side is approxirru ely
the amount that -VE2/E1 deviates to the other.
But then the sum V E}/E 2
V E 2/E1 is obtained
with an incomparably less deviation from its
true value than each of its addends taken separately. The deviations of the addends cancel each
other! The closer E 1 is to E 2 , the more exact this
compensation; the farther apart they are, the poorer this compensation is, but it is always present. Consequently, 'V is always obtained much
more exact, even with high errors of the instruments, than M, where there is no trace of such
cancellation.
But of what good is the Lorentz factor to us?
To identify a particle, we must know M and not
'V. As we know, it is the mass, rather than factor
'V that differentiates one kind of particles from
another.
With a Faint Wave of tho Hand ... tt
239
Sometimes, however, under certain definite

conditions, particles can be identified by their
factor y. In our case, for instance, if we seek not
simply 11 mesons, but 'Y)0 mesons that were produced in the reaction n - p -+ n + 11, we can
suggest a frame of reference in which all the
11 mesons created in this reaction have the same
Lorentz factor. This is no special privilege of
the 11 meson alone. The 00 meson from the reaction
np -+ n
00 0 in the preceding chapter had
the same property. This is always the case when
the energy of the n meson is specified at the beginning and only two particles are left at the end
of the reaction. Let us assume, as before, that
first the particles n - and p merge and produce the
o particle, and then that this particle decays to
nand 'Y)0. If the energy of all the mesons is one
and the same, the mass of particle 0 will be the
same in all collisi ODS:
M0
= -V (E n ...,- 1np )2-
p~ == -V m~
+ nL)~ + 2m
pE n .,-
Then in the co-moving frame of imaginary particle 0, all mesons, in whatever direction they are
emitted, will have the same energy. The perti'nent equation was derived back in Chap. 9:
222
E* _ Mo+mt]-m.n
1) -
2Mo
'But if the 'Y) mesons have fixed energy, their

'Lorentz factor is also a fixed value:
2
2
2
'V = E Tl* == Mo+mT]-mn
.
m1)
2M om l1
240
It is unambiguously determined by the mass

mY}. Each value of the mass of a particle that pro-
duces a photon pair corresponds to only a single

value of factor y. In this experiment, therefore,
the factor y is in no way inferior to the mass for
identifying a particle. Since its value is known
with higher accuracy than the mass, it can serve
this purpose even better. Two particles with close
masses, that cannot be distinguished by means of
equation (15.2), can be readily differentiated by
means of equation (15.3). Expressed as a percentage, the difference in quantity "( approximately
coincides with the difference in masses, but factor y can be~ calculated from the energies with
higher accuracy than the mass can be. As we
have seen, the resolving power of the instrument
really is improved by a mere stroke of the pen,
provided, of course, that the pen is guided by the
laws of kinematics.
One question remains that is not quite clear.
The Lorentz factor was fixed in the co-moving
frame of particle 0, whereas the experimental
installation operates in the laboratory frame of
reference. The question is: can its readings be
used to determine y in the co-moving frame of particle O? Yes, they can; only the Lorentz transformations are required. They are to be carried out
as was described at the end of the preceding chapter. If we imagine that a plane is passed through
the direction of the incident rt - meson and the
line of emission of one of the photons then, after
the Lorentz transformations (in the co-moving
reference frame of particle 0), the momentum of
the photon remains in this plane, but the angle
at which the photon is emitted will seem to be
241
different. Instead of ~ it becomes ~*, and

cospA*
cos ~-
vo
==----..;...-~
i-vo cos
where Do is the relative velocity of the two frames

of reference, i.e. the ratio of the momentum of
the n meson to the total energy of the n meson
and proton. The equations for the energy of photons in the co-moving frame of particle 0 are
known to us. For example,
E *1
==
Eo
M0
1-
Po
M0
R.
1 COS Pt-
In short, the co-moving reference frame of imaginary particle 0 is no less convenient than the
laboratory frame, and factor y in this frame is
constant and can stand us in good stead.
Strictly speaking, the tale of the pen tip ends
he e. We found that such a way of improving the
quality of our instruments is also feasible. We
shall not deal here with the applications of this
idea in practice. We agreed at the beginning
that we would not concern ourselves with anything in this book except kinematics.
But let us think over this matter. What, in
fact, enabled us to raise the resolving power of
our instrument without even touching it? Why
at first did it seem that its resolving power could
be no better than the error with which it could
measure the energy of the photons, and then it
became evident that the resolving power could
be improved? Maybe it is a matter of the equations we used? First we multiplied the energies
and this made the error in M as large as that of
the energies, After that we divided, took the
16-1920
242
square root and added the reciprocal values,

thereby drastically reducing the error.
No, this is not th point. It is good thing to
have such an equation, but that is not enough.
We are dealing here with quite a different matter.
We simply remembered something we had not
thought about previously. We finally took into
account the fact that the 11 meson is only one
of the two particles being produced. At first we
had forgotten about this aspect of the reaction.
A meson is created, it immediately decays, we
collect the decay products and re-establish its
mass: this was our initial incentive. How it is
produced, together with one or with many particles, made no difference to us. Later, only after we recalled that in the co-moving frame of a
particle decaying into two, the descendants should
have a definite factor y, only then did we acquire
the possibility of advantageously utilizing the
welcome properties of the combination
... /
E1
E2
+ . /LE
V
E1
This signifies that we improved the quality of

the instrument by making use of new, previously
unknown, information. An improvement of quality in exchange for new information is how this can
be called.
The concept of information has been so deeply
instilled into science in recent years that it is
difficult to picture a time, within the living memory of scientists. when this word did not have
the connotations it has today. The word existed,
of course, in this sense as well, but its implications were different and more meagre than they
With a Faint Wave of the I-Iand ..."
243
are today.__.Information meant what they gave

you in an inquiry office or what you read in the
gossip column of your newspaper, With the advent of cybernetics, the meaning of this word expanded on a gigantic scale, became much more
profound, developed and extended in all ways
and directions. Somehow it immediately became
a part of the system of popular concepts of the
investigator; it seemed that many vital aspects
of scientific activity were contained in this single word. Some of these aspects, maybe for want
of this connotation, previously escaped the attention of physicists. Finally, somebody used
the word information in this sense and, at once,
it was found to be indispensable. Whether we are
formulating a problem, attempting to reach conclusions from an experiment, assessing the reliability of the final results of numerous observations and calculations, everywhere, maybe not
explicitly, but we make use of the concept of
information. Sometimes in a quantitative sense,
as in a statistical problem, but more often simply
qualitatively.l\tIany physicists do not even realize hO-N deeply and with what comfort the basic
idea of information in the physical sense has settled in their minds. This idea is: without new information, you cannot reach a new conclusion.
It .s clear then that the prohlern of acquiring
new knowledge of nature is one of vital importance to the scientist. This is no abstract problem,
hut one confronting him from day to day. In
Insufficiently developed branches of science, or
still obscure realms of highly developed bran.ches, new information is not always required to
~<gain new knowledge. Here, they frequently do
244
not know what to do with the old information;

there is a lack of ways of assimilating the information they already have. Sometimes, in these
cases, a new mind, after romping in a field of
long-known facts, suddenly comes up with an
armful of information that was not noticed by his
predecessors. Consequently, in such branches of
science, the concept of information often has no
practical (a scientist would say heuristic) significance. There it simply has nothing to do with
the matter; there they just cannot cope with the
abundance of data.
This concept of information does not particularly worry a high-ranking theoretical physicist.
His principal source of new information and new
ideas to work on is not outside. I t is inside; it
is his own mind, and the scantest information
may be enough for him to develop a triumphant
theory. (He cannot, of course, do without any
information at all. He bases himself on the facts
like an automobile on the ground, but the direction and rate of motion are determined, nevertheless, by his internal forces.) But a physicist
that bases his research on experiments, one in
whose science the techniques of processing information are most thoroughly developed, one
who is a practised hand at conducting an experiment with a limited number of external influences, is one to whom the concept of an ample supply of information is certainly to his liking. The
unapprehended and unformulated by anybody
concept that without new information there can
be no new conclusions is at work with might and
main throughout all of physics. Unnoticeably,
without making a show of itself, but hard at work.
With a Faint \Vave of the Hand ..."
245
Amusing, is it not, that our knowledge, or our

information of the world, does not want to come
into existence out of nothing? This sounds even
trivial: if we have extracted all the consequences
from a certain situation, for additional conclusions we obviously require new data. But, in the
first place, there remains the possibility of brainwork in the form of mental construction, the free
fight of imagination. In certain fields of activity, this is all in the day's work. A physicist, however, conducts experimen ts; he requires tested
facts and theories. This is what leads to the necessity of this nonmaterial something called information. In the second place, in real everyday life
we never know whether all the conclusions have
been reached. It sometimes seems that new knowledge has come into existence out of nothing,
when actually it was simply a conclusion that
nobody had yet arrived at. Physics, on the other
hand, has reached such a level of development
that in some fields all conceivable inferences, at
the present state of the art, are drawn from each
new experiment. Here, beyond any doubt, new
conclusions require new information. It need not
necessarily be experimental; it can also be theoretical: something is understood that we had not
previously surmised; something is recalled that
we had previously forgotten. As a result, the
problem begins to take on new hues, suggests
new ideas, etc. Take our experience in investigating the reaction :It p -+ n
11 as an example. Along with the experimental information on
the layout of the instrumen 1, and the accuracy
with which the energies coul l be measured, we
had theoretical inforrnation on the constancy of
246
the V factor of the 'Yl meson. This last was supplied",

not by the instrument, but by the science of kinematics and the laws of conservation of energy
and momentum. One form of information is of
equal value to another form. This last piece of
information is precisely what enabled us to improve the resolving power of our apparatus. Equal
value of the two forms of information is precisely what we are obliged to for the feasibility
of improving the quality of our instrument without even touching it. We could cite dozens of
examples of the close unity between the two forms
of information: theoretical and experimental.
Chapter 16
To
OUf
Regret, the Last Chapter
Our first attempt (in Chap. 13) to master the

kinematics of a decay to three particles was unsuccessful. We tried to represent it as a decay to
two particles, but very little resulted from that
endeavour. Therefore, in Chap. 14, without further ado, we resorted to a problem that did not
require a knowledge of the energies and momenta
of the particles. But there is no way of getting
around an honest and complete analysis of a
system of three particles, which, in fact, is an
analysis of the system of eqnations
+ E + E = m,
Pi + P2 + P3 = 0,
E1
E~ - p~ === m~,
.E~
p~ ~ m~ and E~ - p;
(16.1)
(16.2)
mi.
(16.3)
To Our Regret, the Last Chapter
247
Giving preference, as before, to geometric

language, we shall now try to graphically represent the conditions (16.1), (16.2) and (16.3).
New Geometry of a Triangle
Let us draw an equilateral triangle ABC of
altitude m (Fig. 57). Then, from an arbitrary point 0 within the triangle, we draw straight lines
to the three vertices A, Band C. l'he distances
of point 0 from the sides of the triangle we denote
by E 1 , E 2 and E s The area of triangle ABC
is equal to the sum of the areas of triangles OAB,
OBC and OCA. Thus
1
2" m X AC=TEt X Be +T E 2 x CA
1
+T E 3 X AB .
Cancelling out like factors, we obtain
E1
+E + E
2
m,
(16.4)
which is simply the well-known theorem stating that the sum of the distances from any point
in an equilateral triangle to its sides is constant.
Before us is a finished Iaw of the conservation
of energy. This means that whatever the case of
decay we observe, within the triangle ABC
we can alw ys find a point whose distances from
the sides yield the energies of the particles in the
observed decay. All these points fill a certain region within the triangle. On the contrary, any
point within this region represents a conceivable, allowable case of decay.
I
248
B
C-------~-"-----~A
Fig. 57. The law of conservation of energy.

B
C--~--~:-""--...L.....:-----+---~A
MM'=E2minatEj= 00:
N N'=E 2 m a., at E I =. 00'
Fig. 58. Diagram for deriving the equation of the bound..
ary for a Dalitz plot.
I'o Our Regret, the Last Chapter
249
Let us now learn to draw the boundaries of this

region . (We cannot expect the region to seize
the whole triangle, because we did not take into
account the restrictions imposed by equation
(16.2).) This is a good problem on the Lorentz
transformation.
What does drawing a boundary signify? What
properties do points on the boundary line possess?
Assume, for instance, that the boundary has the
shape shown in Fig. 58. Let us next draw several
line segments parallel to side Be of the triangle.
Let us take anyone of them, say MN (whereJf and
N are the points of its intersection with the boundary). For points along line segment illN, their
distances from side ACwi11 vary, whereas their distances from sideBC are constant. These points correspond to decays in which particle 1 always has
the same energy and particle 2 has different energies. At point M the energy of particle 2 is the
minimum, and at point N the maximum of the
possible values. If we knew the positions of these
points (their distances from side AC) for all the
line segments MN II Be, we could draw the whole
boundary of the region. Hence, the problem is
reduced to finding the maximum and minimum
possible values of E 2 for a fixed value of E 1
But if the energy of particle 1 equals E I and
its momentum is PI' then the energy m - E 1
and momentum - PI (Fig. 59) fall to the lot of
the fictitious particle 23. The invariant mass of
this particle is found to be
('16.5)
(so far this is the same as equation (13.6)).
250
Now assume that particle 23 decays to particles 2 and 3. The energy of particle 2 in the comoving reference frame of particle 3 is
E~::= n~~3-~ In~ -m~
(1u.6)
2m 2 3
(this,
as you may recall, is equation (9.9)),

First stage
23
IE:
Momentum
-Pi
Energy
Mass
...
Pi
1
111- 1
Im 2 - ZlnEl fnii
m1
Second stage
/3*2
~~--~ ....
~--
"
P2+ P3==-Pi
2
tE,)
==:.
m -1
Fig. 59. Decay to particles 1, 2 and 3 in the co-moving

reference frame of particle
o.
and its momentum p~ is also thereby determined.

Important here for us is that both E~ and
are determined entirely unambiguously by the
energy E 1 : the quantity Ell is actually present in
equation (16.6) because this equation is based on
equation (16.5).
N ow let us return to the co-moving reference
frame of particle O. The energy of particle 2
p:
To
OUf
251
is
E 2 ~::: r E 2-; -'V v P~ II
( 16. 7)
This is a Lorentz transformation. The equation

includes the relativistic factor 'Y, i.e. the ratio
of the energy of particle 23 to its mass:
(16.8)
and 'Vv is the ratio of the magnitude of the momentum of particle 23 to its mass:
YV
PI
if m2-2mE 1 +mi
(16.9)
Besides, equation (16.7) includes the quantity

which is the projection of the momentum
of particle 2 (in he co-moving reference frame
of particle 23) along the direction of particle
23. The momentum p~ itself is a fixed value, but
its projection can have any value. Depending
upon the direction of particle 2 in the co-moving
frame of particle 23, the momentum P~1f becomes
either larger or smaller. But E 2 in equation
(16.7) varies together with P~I1. The rnaximum
value of E 2 is obtained when particle 2 travels
in the same direction that the momentum
- PI has; the minimum value when it travels
in the opposite direction (Fig. 60).
In both of these cases, the projection of the
momentum coincides in length with the momentum p~ itself. Thus
P~lb
p:
E 2 ma x
r"
1'E~ ._f--
yVp2'
E z mtn = yE~ -- YVp2.
(10.10)
(16.11)
252
1
P{
(a)
- P*
.>;
-e----~--I
p*2
PI
(b)
Fig. 60. Decay to particles 2 and 3 in the co-moving

frame of particle 23.
Also shown is the morncu turn of par ticle 1 ill tho co-moving frame
of particle 2::J. (a) The energ-y or par ticle 2 in the co-moving frame
of particle 0 is close to its minimum value (in Fig. 58 the point
represcn l.ing such even ts turns ou t to be in the vicini ty of poin t M
for case () and of point N for case (1))). (b) The energy of particle 2
is close to the maximum possible for the given energy value of
par t t cl e 1
Now we know how to draw the boundary of

the region of decays to three particles. At the
same time, we found that in boundary decays
(those of a point on the boundary line), all three
particles are emitted along a single line: particle
2 travels either in the same direction as particle
1, or in the opposite direction (Fig. 61). In ei ther
case, particle 3 cannot go off to one side. The triangles that can always be constructed from the
253
momenta PI' P2 and P3 are converted into line

segments on the boundary line.
Nevertheless, what line do equations (16.10)
and (16.11) represent?*
It has no special name in mathematics. But in
physics it is called a Dalitz plot, after Richard
Henry Dalitz who first drew one. Its shape depends upon the values of m l , m 2 , m 3 and m, If
m., == m 2 === m 3 == 0, the plot becomes an equi2
I!
3
r
E2 m
} With specified
2
1
1
J
E1
e.:
Fig. Gt. Extreme energy values of particle 2.
lateral triangle (Fig. 62a). When m is only slightly greater than ml + m 2 -1- m/ 3 , the line almost
becomes an ellipse (Fig. 62b). If, in addition,
m 1 == m 2 = m 3 , the line almost becomes a cir-
cle.
Physicists have a great liking for Dalitz plots.

It is convenient to represent the results of the
analysis of a photograph in which a decay to
three particles is observed as a point. One photograph, one point; another photograph, another
point, so that a thousand photographs provide
a thousand points. The results of the observations
of a great many decays of the same type are all
within a figure (plot) drawn beforehand. The results
The portion adb (in Fig. 58) corresponds to equation

(16.10), and the portion acb, to equation (16.1t).
254
of a whole experiment are represented in a single picture. In almost each issue of any thick
physics journal that publishes papers on threeparticle systems we find these freckled Dali l.z
plots.
But what good are these plots? The point is
that these plots have one exceptionally useful
property. The density of tho points at any part
of the plot is proportional to the freqllency with
which decays occur, whose representative points
are within this part. For example, if inside a
small square 2 (Fig. 63) there are Iive times as
many points as within an identical square 1
at a different part of the plot, then the probahil ity of observing triplets of particles wi th energies
in the region of square 2 is five times greater than
the probability that a decay produces particles
with energies in the region of square 1. We see
in the Dalitz plot which energies are encountered
more and which less frequently*. Moreover, the
frequency with which we find particles with certain energies is closely associated with the manner that these particles (0, 1, 2 and 3) interact
wi th one another. There are very many theories
of such interaction. Each theory submi ts its
version on the frequency with which one or an"
other energy of a particle is to be found. By employing a Dalitz plot, theoretical physicists
select the most suitable of the many theories of
interaction for the case on hand.
* This does not concern only energies. Knowing the

energies, we can readily calculate the angles between
the paths of the particles (Irorn the momentum triangle
in Fig. 9) or the invariant masses of pairs of particles
(from equation (16.5)).
To
OUf
(a)
255
(b)
Fig. 62. Dalitz diagrams.

For decays to three photons. (lJ) For decavs to three heavy
par tic los (the outer triangle should have ber-n drawn much larger
than the inner one).
(a)
Fig. 63. A- Dalitz plot.
256
Spin of the roO Meson

In Chap. 8 we mentioned the discovery of the
meson. In investigating the triplet rt +n -no,
physicists found that too many triplets have an
invariant mass m close to the figure 0.787 GeV,
and understood that they were witnessing the decay of a hitherto unknown particle. This raised
the question about its properties. Here the Dalitz plot stood them in good stead. The energies
of all the triplets of rr mesons with a mass close
to 0.787 GeV were transformed to the co-moving
reference frame of the conjectural particle (00.
This was done in the following way. Adding together the energies E 1, E 2 and E 3 they obtained
E w; adding together the momenta PI' P2 and P3'
they obtained Pw. Projecting PI onto Pw' they
found PIll. Then they wrote E~ == yE I - "UPl'"
where y==Ewlm w and yv==Pw/m(j). The Iinal
equation was of the form
{u0
*
EooE 1 "- PwPll1
E1 =
moo
f
E:
E:.
The same was done with

and
Decays of
the (()o mesons to n mesons with such energies
(E;, E~ and E;) were represented by points in a
Dalitz plot (Fig. 64). On the plot, of course, were
cases, not only of the decay {u0 -+- n + + n - -1-r- nO, but simply triplets of n mesons whose invariant mass was, by chance, close to 0.787 GeV.
It was not possible to separate any kind from the
others. But just look at the interesting way in
which the points are distributed. They are dense
in the centre of the plot, and less and less towards
the periphery.
257
Just by Iook ing at this plot, a physicist immediately understands that the WO meson is a particle with spin. This means that it can be imagined
as a rotating sphere or top. The direction of the
axis of the top is called the spin vector. The inter-
Fig. 64. Cases of the decay (fjo

on a Dal itz plot.
n+
+ n- + nO marked
T+. T_ and To arc the kinetic energies of the n+. n- nd J(o mesons.
action of these spinning tops with external fields

depends upon the relative directions of the spin
vector and the field. In short, a particle with spin
"feels", in this sense, the direction of the field.
There are also particles without spin; their interaction with the external field is independent of
the direction of the field.
It is of vital importance to know which particles have spin and which do not. This determines
their closest relatives, how they affect particles
in their vicinity, and much more. But the presence or absence of spin is not at all simple to determine, especially when, like the roO meSOD, the
17-1920
258
particle has a lifetime of 10 -22 s. Nevertheless,

it was successfully shown that the roO meson is a
particle having spin. We shall try to give a
general idea of how this was achieved.
The proof was based on a rule that governs the
decay of particles with spin to n IJlP ODS. This rule
Decay plane
Fig. 65. The decay roO
n+
+ rr: + nO.
The planes in which the momen ta of the three 1t mesons 1tc should
predominantly be perpendicular to the spin vector of the WO
meson.
states that if the pattern of the directions of the

outgoing n mesons is such that it determines some
vector in space, then the most frequently observed
directional patterns are ones in which this vector is
along the axis of rotation, i,e, along the spin vector
of the initial particle. Imagine, now, the decay of
an W O meson at rest. The momenta of the three
n mesons form a triangle, because the equation
PI + P2
P3 = 0 is represented in the form of a
triangle (Fig. 65). The plane of this triangle determines the direction of the vector in space:
the vector is perpendicular to the plane. Hence,
8S the rule states, the vector perpendicular to the
259
plane of the decay should have a preferred orientation along the axis of rotation of the (Do meson. Or, more simply, the decay plane of three
n mesons should most frequently be perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the (Do meson. If,
however, the (Do meson had no axis of rotation
(being a particle without spin), there would not
he any pre.ferred decay plane.
This seems to be impossible to prove. The axis
of rotation is invisible, it can have any direction.
How, then, can we be sure that some one decay
plane of the roO meson is preferable to all the
others?
Nevertheless, there is a way out of our dilemma. We must find whether among the decays
there are ones in which the momenta triangle is
stretched out into a single line. These are "maximally obtuse" triangles with one angle equal to
1800 The vertices of such triangles no longer determine the decay plane. They lie in a straight
line, and any number of planes can be passed
through a straight line. Consequently, among
them there can be no preferred decay plane. But
there should be one if the particle that decays has
spin. Hence, in the decay of particles with spin,
no "maximally obtuse" triangles, stretched out to
a single straight line, should be observed. The
more the triangle is stretched out, the more seldom such triangles should be found in the decays.
The decay of a spinless particle is quite a different matter. Here the position of the decay plane
is in no way stipulated. I t is even of no conse_
quence whether it exists at all. I-Iere "obtuse" and
"acute" decays may be encountered with equal
frequency.
260
But look again at the Dalitz plot (Fig. 64).

You recall that here a place was allotted for
cases in which all the particles go off in a single
straight line. The points corresponding to these
cases are on the boundary line. The sparsely populated boundary zone of the decay region is a
clear indication that the (0 meson cannot toler-ate having its descendants, the n mesons, move
away from the plane that it had foreordained.
"Your plane is predestined ," it seems to tell
them, "so please be so kind as to travel in such a
way that it is quite clear in which direction my
head was held during my lifetime."
The more instable the plane bearing on the
heads of their momenta like on a tripod, the
fewer such cases. Our ffio meson is obviously a particle having spin.
But our attentive reader is already on the alert.
It becomes clearer and clearer to him that
something is wrong here.
The Deception is Exposed

"Aha, really?" you interrupt me, "You said that
the pattern of the directions of outgoing 3t mesons should determine some vector in space?"
"Yes."
"And that this vector should be perpendicular
to the decay plane?"
"Yes."
"And that since the n mesons travelling along
a single straight line have no decay plane, there
is no vector in space that could coincide with the
direction of the spin vector?"
"Suppose that I did."
261
"But that is not true! They also have an allotted direction. It is the straight line itself, the one
they are travelling along. They can simply leave
along the axis of rotation of the roO meson and
your rule will have been complied with. Conse-
~
~
CJ
P."
Co)
P2
r,
Fig. 66. The decay roO -+- n+

n- -1- nO.
I t would scorn tha t the three J[ mesons could he
emitted along the direct ion of spin of the ('"1 111eFon.
But an analysis of :Fig. 4 indicates that this dol'S
not occur. The spin vectors S in Figs. 6:) and 66
behave differently when they are reflected ]))' a
mirror.
quently, nothing hinders the creation of such

stretched-out triplets, provided they are mainly
oriented along the axis, rather than crosswise."
,,).. ou are right," I am obliged to acknowledge,
"and I am glad that you have found me out. I just
wanted to simplify the true state of affairs. I
shall have to tell the truth. As a matter of fact,
if the three mesons form a plane, the "special"
vector is perpendicular to it. If they form a
straight line, then the direction of it is singled out
(Fig. 66). But there are two types of vectors. One
type, ordinary vectors, joining two points in
space, are reversed in direction after being reflected by a mirror (with the mirror perpend icular
to the vector). The other kind, which determine
262
the position of a plane in space, do not change,

in essence, after reflection because a plane has
no up or down directions.
"The almost complete absence of points in the
Dalitz plot that represent decays with the special line of travel of particles proved that the
roO meson is not simply a particle having spin,
but one with definite properties with respect to
reflection by a mirror."
"What properties, specifically?"
"That is something that I am unable to explain with sufficient simplicity so as to be understood by the general reader."
If, however, the reader is interested in this
question, he should turn to more serious books on
high-energy physics. The time has come for us
to end our discussion.
But, in winding up, I cannot help looking back
and reminding the reader that all that is known
about the (1)0 meson, its mass, lifetime and spin
properties, was found out without ever
actually seeing either the (00 meson itself or
even a single photograph on which it is positively
known that its decay occurred. It has never been
known whether we are dealing with the roO meson
or some imitation of it, but, nevertheless, it has
been studied in no less detail than other particles.
In conclusion, let me suggest several problems.
1. Prove that if two particles are travelling at
velocities that are the same in magnitude and
direction, their velocities will be the same in
any other frame of reference.
2. A similar problem: if it is found that in
some frame of reference the ratio of the momenta
of two particles is equal to the ratio of their
Conclusions
2C3
masses, this will be true for any other frame of

reference.
3. Making use of the Lorentz transformations,
the results of the preceding problem and Figs.
48 and 49, solve the system of equations
V x2+m~+ V y2+1n~+ V z2-t-m;==E,

x + y + z == p,
x
y == m 1
m2
This problem can be readily generalized for

cases with any number of unknowns.
4. How does the Dalitz plot look for the case:
m 2 = m 3 = 0 and m., =1= O?
5. We have never completely solved the system of equations (11.1), though it reduces to"a
quadratic equation. Find the solution and write
an equation expressing the momentum of particle 1 in terms of its angle of emission. This equation readily yields one for determining the limiting angle of emission of particle 1.
Conclusions
I picture elementary particle physics 3S an Alpine
country dominated by two towering mountains.
Their foothills, interlacing and entangled with
one another, cover the whole country, and their
peaks are lost in clouds and mist.
One mountain consists of the means of detecti on and the resul ts of observ ation. I t consists
of experimental apparatus: instruments as huge
8S the Luzhniki Sports Facilities Complex in
Moscow and semiconductor scaling circuits. It
264
Conclusions
consists of the search for particles by the most

commonplace means, such as boiling, sparking
and photography; and by such an unusual one as
Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation. It consists of investigating and handling hundreds of thousands
and even mi ll ions of photographs in hope of
finding the one confirming an idea that has occurred to some theoretical physicist. I t consists of a
tide of ne\v particles and resonances; of the discovery of infringements of the most indisputable,
in our opinion, physical laws. Such is one peak.
It is quite difficult for the layman to comprehend
this tumult of Twentieth Century engineering and
science.
The other mountain consists of theoretical
views and computations. It consists of theories
whose very premises make the hair of a man of
common sense stand on end; it consists of calculations in which an exact solution sometimes covers dozens of pages and before which any electronic computer might shirk. It is the ability to
manipulate infinities and meaningless operations
so as to finally obtain four or five reliable digits.
It consists of a language that is richer Of, in any
case, more laconic and exact than all the world
languages taken together. A language in which
some popular concept, such as" a virtual particle"
cannot be explained by any human words whatsoever; it has no meaning outside the equation in
which it appears. There are designations that
are introduced at first for the sake of convenience,
and subsequently turn out to be cardinal words
of this language. This mountain also consists of
the consequences of theories that seem to be incredible or doubtful even to those who advanced
Conclusions
265
them, but, nevertheless, these consequences are

later confirmed by experiments with unexpected
precision. And finally, it consists of a science
in which, since a certain time, the requirement
that structure be elegant has almost become the
most basic one and sometimes displaces such oldfashioned criteria as logicality, reliability and
faithfulness to experimental results in every detail. Ask a theoretical physicist what is behind
the l aws of nature, logic or beauty, in the sense
of elegant ideas and theories. The answer wi ll
be: beauty. As a matter of fact, Saint Augustine
knew that "beauty is the shining essence of truth"
Such is the second peak. I t is difficul t for a person standing a long way off from all this to absorb even the most scanty husks of the world
outlook of a theoretical physicist.
But the interest displayed in this "roof of the
world" is so great that from time to time attempts
are made to dispel the mist wreathing the peaks
and to demonstrate to the astonished onlookers
the beautiful mountainous landspace, or the structure of amazing elegance erected by the efforts
of its inhabitants.
I am skeptical about such attempts. They are
incapable, in any case, of providing the Iaymnn
with an idea of the real difficulties that face the
inhabitants of this country, of what really thrills
them, of their true joys. Because it is impossible
to understand the joy of a child bathing in the
sea if you never did so as a child, if you yourself
have never been toppled over by a merry wave, or
if you have never sunk your feet into the sandy
bottom. It is as impossible for the man of our
-time to understand the first farmer, the first man
266
Conel usions
to plow and sow his fleld to the best of his knowledge, to reap his harvest when the time came and
thresh the grain with his own hands, and at last
inhale the fragrance of freshly baked bread. In
exactly the same way, the reading of books on
science for the layman, which treat of things that
the reader cannot do and test for himself, only
creates the illusion of true understanding. Maybe
it enriches his vocabulary and in some way extends his mental outlook, but in doing so it unnecessarily deludes the reader into thinking that
he has attained true comprehension when this is
entirely out of the question.
Such a classic writer of Soviet books in this
field as Yakov Perelman employed an entirely
different approach. His was an explanation with
figures and formulas, carried through to the very
end. He did not attempt to cover too wide a range
of phenomena, but the problems on which he
wanted to throw some light were clarified just
enough for the reader to then readily grasp an
understanding of something similar.
The present author has tried to follow Perelman's example. It seemed to him that there is a
field of elementary particle physics that can be
fully mastered by anyone having a sixth-form
(high-school) education. One that could be mastered to the extent that the reader can -derive
new equations by himself, analyze special cases
of already derived equations and understand the
course of reasoning behind many physical discoveries. Between the two chief cloud-wreathed
mountains of our Alpine country I tried to find
a narrow canyon, hidden among the foothills,
along which we could pass into the very centre
Concl usions
267
of the country. The idea was as follows: let a helicopter deliver us to the entrance of the canyon,
i.e. we accept as initial facts the equations of
Einstein, the Lorentz transformations and the
capacity of particles to decay and scatter in collisions. But going farther, along the trail through
the canyon, we pushed forward by ourselves,
surmounting all the difficulties that are overcome
by a studen t majoring in physics. He travels
faster, of course, because he has high-speed apparatus, his mathematical knowledge. We, with our
school algebra, advanced much slower, but on
our own; we went through on foot rather than flying. Conscientiously, step by step, we passed
through the whole canyon with its branching ravines. Our journey ended in the very heart of the
land of elementary particles. We did not scale
either of the peaks of which the country is so
deservedly proud, but our expedition was a conscientious one.
This ends our planned route. Now it all depends on you whether you decide to return from
this remote corner to the civilized world, or to
change over from tourism to mountain-climbing,
and begin your ascent to the very summits in a
search for new riddles and new unheard-of adventures.
INDEX
Accelera torts)
CERN, 87
col ltdine-beam, 89, 91
description of, 83
Dubna, 37, 80
Novosiblrsk, R9, 01
Serpukhov, 83, 85
world of 82ff
ALIHHANOV, A.I., 205
ALIKIIANYAN. A.I., 205
Annihilation, 112ff
An tibaryon, 17
An tideuterlum, 84
An tlclemen t, 8~)
Antlncutrtno, 207
Ant inucleon, R4
An tiproton, 17, 81
Anttimiverse, 18
ARSE~YEV,
V.K., 103
ARTSIMOVICH, L.A., 203
Baryon, 16
Baryon charge, 128
Baryon number
conservation law of, 18
Beta decay of nuclei, 202
Bpta radiation, 203
BOIIR, Niels, 205
BOLTZMANN, L.E., 153
Boltzmann's constant, 153
Brookhaven National Laboratory, 101
Bubble chamber
Iiydrogen, 113
propane and xenon,
Button-Moulder. 32
CAH~OT, K.L.S., HH
Cascade hyperon, 105
CERN, 86
Charge pari ty, 128
Charmed particle. 11
CHERRNKOV, P.A., 232
Cherenkov counter, 232
Cotrame, 73
Col liding beams,
88
Collision, 19
particle, 11
processes, 70ff
Com hincd parity, !)9
Conse il Europeen POll le Hecherche Nucleatre, R6
Conserva tion of energy
approach to. 2 05
and momentum, G6
Coordina te system, 51
Cosmic rays. 17H
Cyclotron, 83
DALJTZ, H.H . 2::>,
Dalitz plot, 253
Decay, 19
bet a, of nuclei, 202
to charged mesons, 229
to four par t iclos, 209
isotropy, 180ff
meson, 40
mesons to photons, 229
morle, 128
particle, 11
processes, 67 ff
resonances to photons, 229
to three particles, 220, 246
to two particles, 1:l5ff
DEHSU UZALA, 103
DIRAC, P.A.M., 71
Discovery of particles, 92ff
DOPPLER, C.J., 191
Doppler effdct, 191
Duhna High-Energy Phy.
Laboratory, 194
EIKSTEI~, Al.her t, 26
Einstelnian mechanics, 44
Elnstein ts formula, 28
E!('etl'ic charge, 128
Electromaenet ic radiation,
E10ctron, /j;)
Electron vol t, 37
269
Index
Elemen tary particle physics, 9
Elementary particles
colour of, 145ff
indivisibi li ty of, 23
Energy
of existence, 31,
of motion, 22
rest, 22, :)6

Eta-zero meson, 194
European Council for Nuclear
Hesearch, 86,
Excited atom, 148
210
Lambda particle, 16
J... ANDAU, Lev, 205
Lepton, 17
Lepton charge, 128
Levels, 13
Liml ttna angle, 171

LORENTZ, 11.A' t ;)0
Lorentz ractor, 50, 158

Lorentz force, 1.03
Loren tz transtorma t ions, 51,
53ff, 73, 1;17, 177, 251
Mag"Jwtic moment,
Forbiddance Iaw, 63ft

Force of interaction, 128
Fork, 93
FOfJn factor, 128
Frame of reference,
co-moving, 73
laboratory, 73
128
Mass d is t ribut ion rHI'V~,

l\'If-'cHl l ilet irne , 127
lVfE~DELEEV, D.I., 85
Mendelevvs "anti table", 86

Mendeleevs periodic table, 8a
Meson, 17
pta-zero,
19~
K, 11
neutral omega,
GELL-MANN, M., iOG
Hedgehog
pseudoisotropic, 169
"runninO''' 1681
'~sl('('ping"', 168'
Helici tv, t 28
Hlgh-cneruy physics, 9
Hydrogen bubble chamber, 113
Hyperon, 11
cascade, 105
omega-minus, 45, 99
xi-zero, 102
IBSEN, Henrik, 32
Indeterminacy principle, 126
ilndivisibili ty of elemen tary
particles, 23
Inertia, photon, 47
'Information, concept of, 242
In tersecting storage ring, 86
Invarian t of motion, 44
Isobar, 16
Isobar particle, 131
Isotropic decay, 180ft

Isotropy concept, 181
K meson, 11
Kinerna tics of elementary par-
ticle
interaction,
Micrornegas, 9,
127
Missing mass, 108ff

spectrometer, 210
Mornen ta hedgehog,
135
problems, t 65ff
rela tivistic transrorma tions,

154
Momen tum, 34
Moscow Institute of 'l'heoret-
ical
and
Experimental
Physics, 216
MOSSBAUER, R.L., 153
Mossbauer rffeet, 151ff
Mu-meson, 140
Muon, 140
Neutrino, 11, 21, 207

discovery of, 202
electron-like, 46
muon-like, 46
tau,
207
Neutron, 16
ul tracold, 22
NEWTON, Isaac, 34
Newton's second law, 34
Nuclear force, 33
Isospin, 128
KUROSAWA, A., 103
pi-zero, 174
rho, 130
Meson deca y , 40
11
Nucleon,
84
OKUBO, S., 105

Omega-minus hyperon,
G, DD
Index
270
Omega-zero particle, 115
Pair production, 94
Parity nonconservation, 99
Particle
charmed, 11
discovery, 92ff
family, 17
isobar, 131
lambda, 16
omega-zero, 115
resonance, 112, 124
sigma, 16
strange, 97
upsilon, 45
xi, 16
Y-zero, 131
PAULI, W., 204
PERELMAN, Ya.I., 26G
Photon, 17
dtstrtbution, 188
energy, 183
high-energy, 216
inertia, 47
spectrum, 188
Pi-zero meson, 174PLANCK, M., 47
Planck constant, 47
"Poltava" 228
Proton
'
accelera tion, 38
collision, 17, 78
properties of, 16ff
synchrotron, 228
PUSHKIN. Alexander, 228
PYTHA GORAS, 43, 60
Pythagorean theorem, 43, 60
Sigma partlclr-, 1G
Space parity, 128
Spark chamber, 2.'-10
Spectrometer, missing mass,
210
Spin, 128
of omega-zero meson, 2GGff
Strangeness, 128
Strange particle, 97
Subatornlc world, 13ff, 37
Subelementary world, 125
Synchrophasotron, 228
Tau neutrino, 207

Three-photon cone, 216ff
TSIOLKOVSKY, K.E., 35
Tsiolkovsky formula, 35
Uncertainty, 129
Universi ty of California, Berkeley, 112
Upsilon particle, 45
Variance, 129
VAVILOV, S. L, 264
Vavilov-Cherenkov radia tion,
264
Vector addition rule, 68
Vector arithmetic, 69ff
Velocity of light, 27
VOLTAIRE, Francois, 9
Quantum mechanics, 126
WILSON, C.T.R., 93
Wilson cloud chamber,
Red shift, 194

Relativistic factor, 50
Resolving power improvement,
Xi particle, 16
Xi-zero hyperon, 102
236
Resonance
particle, 112, 12"
rho, 131
Y, 131
Rho meson, 130
Rho resonance, 131
Y resonance, 131
Y-zcro particle, 131
Zone surface, 169
To tIle Reader
Mir Publishers would be grateful for your comments on
the content, translation and design of this book. We
would also be pleased to receive any other suggestions
you may wish to make.
Our address is:

2 Pervy Rizhsky Pereulok
1~110, GSP, Moscow, 129820
USSR
'!!nnted in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Also [ro m
sun
I>IlOBABILITIES
D.A:\IEL
or TJ-IE QUAXTUIVI "70RLJ)
DA~IX
This absorbing account of the "quantum revolution" in

physics introduces the reader to the fascinating concepts of probability and relativity-and to the men and
women whose successes and disappointments in their
work made it possible.
The term "quantum" first appeared at the very beginning of the century, on December 14th 1900. Its
reluctant coiner, Max Planck, considered it "only a
working hypothesis" In a Iew years time Einstein was
to declare, "the quantum exists!" Yet the development
of quantum mechanics was not a steady series of
triumphs: as perha ps never before in the history of
science, dramaticallv new ideas were paralleled by
dramatic events in the lives of those who created the
new physics.
The author (a well-known Soviet writer on science)
presents an intriguing story that draws on the priceless
taped interviews with the pioneers of this revolution
that are preserved in Copenhagen; the book will engage
the interest and emotions of the scientific and general
reader alike.
G. KOPYLOV, D.Sc. (Phys-Math.)

ELEMENTARY KINEMATICS OF
ELEMENTARY PARTICLES
This book tells a fascinating story of one of physics today: the
discovery of primary building blocks of matter. This field of science is
called particle or high-energy physics and is one of the frontiers of
present day physical research.
How is it possible to detect particles a hundred thousand times
smaller than the atom, which itself is many times smaller than an
apple as the apple is smaller than the Earth? How can we follow
motion of particles that have velocity almost that of light? How can
we measure the lifetime of these particles when it is of the order of
0.00000000000000000000001 second? What kind of clock can we
use? How can we investigate the properties of these astonishing and
elusive bits of matter?
All these and many other questions are comprehensively answered
in this book written for the layman by the late Dr. Gersten Kopylov,
who was a prominent scientist, well known in the world of particle
physics. This book was written to be understood even by readers
having only a secondary school education and it requires a knowledge
of only elementary algebra and geometry. Nevertheless in the
author's treatment, the material is no way oversimplified or distorted.

Elementary Kinematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elementary Kinematics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elementary Kinematics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What are some of the challenges of particle physics discussed in the book?

What are some of the challenges of particle physics discussed in the book?

G I.

First published 1983

HaYKa. JIaBRaH peAaK~HH

@ English translation, Mir Publishers, 1983

Preface to the Second

Preface to the Second Russian Edition

entirely impracticable, but such an extreme

Dr. G.I. Kopylov died some years ago and

Kinematics for the Lyrical

What It's All About

Kinematics for the Schoolboy

Chapter 9 The Momenta Hedgehog

Chapter 11 Relativistic Transformations of the

Chapter 12 The Story

Kinematics for tho Lyrical

"M icr orncg as"

What It's All About

Kinema tics for the Lyrical

can measure such infinitesimally short lengths

What It's All About

In recent years particles have been discovered with

Kinematics for the Lyrical

Mores in the Subatomic World

to that sometimes enable us to identify what

Mores in the Subatomic World

Kinematics for the Lyrical

Mores in the Subatomic World

by rejection of the self-evident in favour of

The most estimable status in tho subatomic world

Mores in the Subatomic World

(one or two) members of other particle families,

Kinematics for the Lyrical

of our world cannot perish primarily because the

Mores in the Subatomic World

accelerate the proton but it can deflect it. These

Kinematics for the Lyrical

mentioned above is only one of the simplest laws

Mores in the Subatomic World

was no reason to fire them when physicists began

Kinematics h;' the Lyrical

* When the particles themselves have low energy, we

mfores in the Subatomic World

,do not even understand the mechanism by means

Kinematics for the Lyrical

energy returning to the reservoir. We would soon

Mores in the Subatomic World

to definitely recognize the nature of a body from

How to Weigh a Bullet in Flight

Kinematics for the Lyrical

Hence, the mass of a body engaged in mechanical

Energy and Momentum

Energy and Momentum of Fast Particles

Kinematics for the Lyrical

crease at a rate that prevents the velocity of the

I-Iere m denotes the mass of the body when it is

Energy and Momentum of Fast Particles