Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The Neutrino

Nature volume 178, pages 446–449 (1956)Cite this article

An Erratum to this article was published on 08 September 1956

EACH new discovery of natural science broadens our knowledge and deepens our understanding of the physical universe; but at times these advances raise new and even more fundamental questions than those which they answer. Such was the case with the discovery and investigation of the radioactive process termed 'beta decay'. In this process an atomic nucleus spontaneously emits either a negative or positive electron, and in so doing it becomes a different element with the same mass number but with a nuclear charge different from that of the parent element by one electronic charge. As might be expected, intensive investigation of this interesting alchemy of Nature has shed much light on problems concerning the atomic nucleus. A new question arose at the beginning, however, when it was found that accompanying beta decay there was an unaccountable loss of energy from the decaying nucleus1, and that one could do nothing to the apparatus in which the decay occurred to trap this lost energy2. One possible explanation was that the conservation laws (upon which the entire structure of modern science is built) were not valid when applied to regions of subatomic dimensions. Another novel explanation, but one which would maintain the integrity of the conservation laws, was a proposal by Wolfgang Pauli in 1933 which hypothesized a new and fundamental particle3 to account for the loss of energy from the nucleus. This particle would be emitted by the nucleus simultaneously with the electron, would carry with it no electric charge, but would carry the missing energy and momentum escaping from the laboratory equipment without detection.

The concept of this ghostly particle was used by Enrico Fermi (who named it the 'neutrino') to build his quantitative theory of nuclear beta decay4. As is well known, the theory, with but little modification, has enjoyed increasing success in application to nuclear problems and has itself constituted one of the most convincing arguments in favour of the acceptance of Pauli's proposal. Many additional experimental tests have been devised, however, which have served to strengthen the neutrino hypothesis; and also to provide information as to its properties. The very characteristic of the particle which makes the proposal plausible its ability to carry off energy and momentum without detection has limited these tests to the measurement of the observable details of the decay process itself: the energy spectra, momentum vectors and energy states associated with the emitted electron and with the recoiling daughter nucleus5. So, for example, an upper limit has been set on the rest mass of the neutrino equal to 1/500 of the rest mass of the electron by careful measurement of the beta-energy spectrum from tritium decay near its end point6, and it is commonly assumed that the neutrino rest mass is identically zero.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Chadwick discovered that the beta spectrum was continuous. L. Meitner suggested in 1922 that a quantized nucleus should not be expected to emit a continuous spectrum, and Ellis found non-conservation of energy from experiments on the emitted electron. Chadwick, J., Verh. Deutsch. Phys. Ges., 16, 383 (1914). Ellis, C. D., Internat. Conf. on Phys., 15, 209 (1934).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellis and Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 117, 109 (1927). Chadwick, J., and Lea, D. E., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 30, 59 (1934); Nahmias, M. E., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 31, 99 (1935). Wu, C. S., Phys. Rev., 59, 481 (1941).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pauli, W., in “Rapports du Septième Conseil de Physique Solvay”, Brussels, 1933 (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1934).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fermi, E., Z. Phys., 88, 161 (1934).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. We do not attempt here to describe the many beautiful and difficult, recoil experiments in which recoils of neutrino-emitting nuclei (∼ 8–200 eV.) have been measured. A summary can be found in an article by O. Kofoed-Hansen in Siegbahn's “Beta and Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy” (Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York, 1955).

  6. Langer, L. M., and Moffat, R. J. D., Phys. Rev., 88, 689 (1952). Hamilton Alford and Gross, Phys. Rev., 92, 1521 (1953). This question is treated in detail in an article by C. S. Wu in Siegbahn (op. cit.). We quote Dr. Wu's most conservatively estimated limit.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Houtermans, F. G., and Thirring, W., Helv. Phys. Acta, 27, 81 (1954). H. A. Bethe has given the relationship between the recoil electron spectrum and the energy and magnetic moment of a neutrino in Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 31, 108 (1935).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Crane, H. R., Revs. Mod. Phys., 20, 278 (1948). This article also summarizes neutrino detection attempts to 1948. The status of the neutrino in 1936 is given by H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher, Revs. Mod. Phys., 8, 82 (1936).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Snell, A. H., and Miller, L. C., Phys. Rev., 74, 1714 A (1948). Snell, A. H., Pleasanton, F., and McCord, R. V., Phys. Rev., 78, 310 (1950). Robson, J. M., Phys. Rev., 78, 311 (1950); 83, 349 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goeppert-Mayer, M., Phys. Rev., 48, 512 (1935).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Furry, W. H., Phys. Rev., 56, 1184 (1939).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Majorana, E., Nuovo Cimento, 14, 171 (1937).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Primakoff, H., Phys. Rev., 85, 888 (1952).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Konopinski, E. J., Los Alamos Report LAMS 1949 (1955).

  15. Kalkstein, M. I., and Libby, W. F., Phys. Rev., 85, 368 (1952). Fireman, E. L., and Schwartzer, D., Phys. Rev., 86, 451 (1952). Awschalom, M., Phys. Rev., 101, 1041 (1956). Cowan, jun., C. L., Harrison, F. B., Langer, L. M., and Reines, F., Nuovo Cimento, 3, 649 (1956).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, jun., R., Contributed Paper, American Physical Society, Washington, D. C., Meeting, 1956. This experiment was originally suggested by Pontecorvo and considered by Alvarez in a report UCRL-328 (1949).

  17. Reines, F., and Cowan, jun., C. L., Phys. Rev., 90, 492 (1953); 92, 830 (1953).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cowan, jun., C. L., and Reines, F., Invited Paper, American Physical Society, New York Meeting, January 1954.

  19. Cowan, jun., C. L., and Reines, F., Postdeadline Paper, American Physical Society, New Haven Meeting, June 1956. Cowan, Reines, Harrison, Kruse and McGuire, Science, 124, 103 (1956).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. The neutrino spectrum was deduced from the spectrum of beta-radiation from fission fragments as measured by C. O. Muehlhause at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Dr. Muehlhause kindly communicated his results to us in advance of publication.

  21. The evidence for and against the existence of a ‘bineutron’, also called ‘dineutron’, is discussed by B. T. Feld in his article on the neutron in the volume edited by E. Segrè entitled “Experimental Nuclear Physics”, 2 (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1953).

  22. Oneda, S., and Wakasa, A., discuss the question of classes of interactions between the elementary particles in Nuclear Phys., 1, 445 (1956).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico https://www.nature.com/nature

    FREDERICK REINES &  CLYDE L. COWANjun.

Authors
  1. FREDERICK REINES
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. CLYDE L. COWANjun.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

REINES, F., COWANjun., C. The Neutrino. Nature 178, 446–449 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1038/178446a0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/178446a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing