Quantum Electro Dynamics

Cambridge Books Online
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/
Early Quantum Electrodynamics

A Sourcebook
Edited by Arthur I. Miller
Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608223
Online ISBN: 9780511608223
Hardback ISBN: 9780521431699
Paperback ISBN: 9780521568913
Chapter
3 - Photons and relativistic electrons pp. 29-40
Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608223.005
Cambridge University Press
3
3.1
Photons and relativistic electrons
The Dirac equation
Until Dirac's electron theory, the only relativistically invariant wave equation
was that of Klein and Gordon (Gordon, 1926, and Klein, 1926).7
m2c2
(3.1)
with a particle density

_ ^ h dip
h dip*
i dt
i Bt
and a Hamiltonian density
H=h2
9V
dt
h2c2\Vip\2 + m2c*\ip\2.
3 2
(3.3)
Contrary to the standard introductions in physics textbooks to the Dirac

equation, Dirac's initial motivations had little to do with the nonpositive definiteness of the particle density in Eq. (3.2), which could not be interpreted as a
probability density (see Kragh, 1981, and Moyer, 1981). Nor did the possibility
of negative energy states deter Dirac because these states exist in any relativistic theory, owing to the relativistic equation for energy
E = (p2c2 + mV) 1 / 2 .
(3.4)
Whereas classical mechanics excludes negative energies as unphysical, in quantum mechanics transitions can occur between +mc2 and me2.
What most likely did motivate Dirac was the need for a relativistic equation
with a first-order time derivative in order to satisfy the quantum mechanical
transformation theory. Yet, owing to the negative energy states, Dirac, himself,
at first considered his theory to be provisional (1928). Nevertheless, the theory
had enormous initial successes (natural emergence of electron spin and correct
Sommerfeld fine structure formula).
The Dirac relativistic equation for an electron of mass m and charge \e\ is
' = 0,
(3.5)
where ip is a four-component spinor with two components corresponding to

negative energy states, $ = y^d^, with y^ the 4 x 4 Dirac y-matrices in the
29
Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 210.212.129.125 on Thu Nov 06 14:53:44 GMT 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608223.005
Cambridge Books Online Cambridge University Press, 2014
30
representation
The ok are 2 x 2 Pauli spin matrices and / is the 2 x 2 identity matrix; the
y-matrices anticommute
{Yi*, YV} = 260^,
the particle density is
(3.7)
p=y*n>,
(3.8)
and the Hamiltonian density for a free electron is

H = xp*[-ihca V + mc2/3]y,
where
H:
) Ms )
(3.9)
(3oi>
Electromagnetic potentials are inserted by the replacement

ie
he
in which A^ = (A, iq>), where A is the vector potential and q> is the scalar
potential for a particle of charge \e\.
Until the advent of covariant perturbation theory in 1946, ordinary timedependent perturbation theory was usually used to treat self-energy and collision problems. For this purpose the Dirac equation in Eq. (3.5) was rewritten
to look like the Schrodinger equation:
H^f-ih ip.
(3.12)
So, from Eq. (3.9) the Dirac equation for an electron in an electromagnetic
field becomes
( V + eA\ + mc2B + eq\\l> = ifi \b
(3.13)
(other variations of perturbation theory were developed by Heisenberg and

Pauli in (1929 and 1930) and by Heisenberg in (1931 and 1934a), which we
discuss in a moment).
Owing to the negative energy states, Heisenberg deemed the Dirac equation
to be the 'saddest chapter in modern physics' (letter to Pauli, 31 July 1928, in
Pauli, 1985). Although the negative energies were considered to be extraneous,
they were ubiquitous. For example, wrote Heisenberg, in atoms the 'spontaneous radiation transitions +mc2 to me2 are more abundant than any other
spontaneous transition'. And in Dirac's dispersion theory, the classical Thorn-
3.2 Heisenberg and Pauli on quantum electrodynamics
31
son limit for light scattered by an electron emerges from the negative energy
states only (that is in the limit hu> me2, where a) is the frequency of the
incident light).8
But Heisenberg and Pauli took Dirac's work seriously enough to begin
formulating a quantum electrodynamics, that is a relativistic quantum theory
for the interaction between radiation and electrons.
Among the new results that appeared before publication of Part I of the
Heisenberg-Pauli opus (1929) are the following.
By October 1928 Klein and Y. Nishina used Dirac's equation and semiclassical
radiation theory (unquantized radiation field), along with Dirac's timedependent second-order perturbation theory to calculate the Compton effect
(including the 'physically meaningless negative energy states'; Klein and
Nishina, 1928).
By the end of December 1928 Klein (1928) completed his work on the peculiarities of electrons that are reflected at a potential step. Owing to relativistic
kinematics we have the following situation for the potential step V(x) = 0 for
x < 0 and V(x) = +P for x > 0: If P > E + m0c2 (where E is the energy of
an electron approaching from x < 0) an electron can penetrate the barrier
and emerge into x > 0 with a negative kinetic energy and with velocity
directed oppositely to its momentum. Klein concluded ominously that the
energy 'difficulty .. . can occur with purely mechanical problems where there
is no question of radiative processes'. Jokingly, Pauli referred to Klein's
results as a 'scandal' (letter of Pauli to Klein, 18 February 1929, in Pauli,
1985).9
3.2
Heisenberg and Pauli on quantum electrodynamics, 1929
Heisenberg and Pauli (1929) set up a theory of the interaction of light and
matter 'by considerations based on correspondence limits . . . . The correspondence-like analog to the theory attempted here will be on the one hand
Maxwell's theory and on the other hand the wave equation of the single-electron problem reinterpreted in the sense of the classical continuum theory'.
They accomplished this program by inventing a method for field quantization
to which they were guided by classical Lagrangian field theory.
(1) Write the system's Lagrangian density L as
Z. = L(v,gradV, VO,
where a labels the components of the field.
( 3 - 14 )
32
(2)
Calculate the canonical momentum na to each field component
(3)
Write the system's Hamiltonian density H

H(TTa, y>a) = X ^ a ^ ~ ^-
(3.16)
(4)
Require that ira and \pa are q-numbers, that is

[na, V J =
(3-17)
where the commutator is evaluated at equal times for different spatial

points.
To the problem of whether one uses commutators or anticommutators to
quantize q-numbers, they replied:
It is apparent that from the standpoint of wave quantization and of the
relativistically invariant treatment of the many-body problem, the two types of
solutions, namely Bose-Einstein statistics on the one hand, and the exclusion
principle on the other hand, will also always appear as formally equivalent.
Thus, no satisfactory explanation can be given why nature prefers the second
possibility.
Heisenberg and Pauli regarded the step of quantizing with either commutators
or anticommutators to be a 'well known peculiarity',10 and proceeded to do all
calculations with commutators and anticommutators. As Pauli (1985) wrote to
Klein on 18 February 1929 concerning either method of quantization, 'we
obtain not any information at all on the inner foundation of my exclusion
principle'. This quest for an 'inner foundation' was central to Pauli's thoughts
during the 1930s.
Two difficulties emerged for the first time from the Heisenberg-Pauli paper:
The first difficulty was that quantization of Maxwell's equations turned out not
to be as straightforward as they at first thought. The Lagrangian density for the
electromagnetic field without sources is
L = (B2 - E2),
(3.18)
or in terms of potentials
Since dA4/dt (= idcp/dt) does not appear in L, then its canonical momentum
n4 = 0 and the commutator
3.2 Heisenberg and Pauli on quantum electrodynamics
33
[774, AA] = 0,
instead of (/i/i)-11
Consequently the quantization procedure failed. This was a tremendous
setback to the program. As had been the case in 1924, when he failed to solve
the Zeeman effect, and in the spring of 1925, when the old Bohr atomic physics
completely broke down with no alternative in sight, Pauli once again despaired.
In the 1924 crisis he delved into the Hamburg underground cafe culture; in
1925 he considered taking up movie directing; and in 1929 he began to write a
Utopian novel (letter to Peierls of 18 June 1929, in Pauli, 1985). Heisenberg,
however, thrived in periods of flux and resolved this difficulty.
Heisenberg's 'Kunstgriff, as Pauli referred to it to Peierls, was to add to the
Lagrangian density the term
ldf.
2
(3-20)
\dx)
which preserves gauge and relativistic invariance and also gauge invariance with
the replacement q>'a = cpa + SA/dxa, imposing on the function A the auxiliary
condition DA = 0. (Repeated Greek indices indicate summation from 1 to 4 and
repeated Latin indices mean summation from 1 to 3.) The quantity e is set
equal to zero at the end of any calculation.
In Part II of their paper, Heisenberg and Pauli (1930) removed the 'aesthetic
defect' of the E term by demonstrating that in a relativistically invariant manner
one can always choose a gauge so that cp = 0. Consequently all calculations can
be done in the Coulomb gauge without supplementary terms.
The second difficulty was that there arises an infinite self-energy term for the
electron, which is the 'interaction of the particle with itself. Heisenberg and
Pauli explored this term further by developing a perturbation method alternative to time-dependent perturbation theory. They wrote the Schrodinger equation in occupation number space by expressing the q-number electron wave
function and the electromagnetic field in creation and annihilation operators.
Schrodinger's equation thus became
(-E+
Hatom + Hrad)<P = -
ffint<D,
(3.21)
where &(N\, N2, .; Mi, M2, . . .) is the state comprising Ns electrons in

states s, Mr photons in states r and
in. = - i e V w M " .
(3-22)
+
where tp V 74- Expressing <t> as <J> = O 0 + 4>i + , where <J>0 is the wave
function of the unperturbed system of electrons, that is
34
where Nr is the number of electrons in the unperturbed state r, and there are
no photons in the unperturbed system of electrons. Then an iteration procedure
can commence with the additional substitution of E = Eo + E\ + E2 +
The term Ex vanishes because it is proportional to the diagonal matrix element
of //;,. E2 contains the electron's Coulomb self-energy. The 'Klein-Jordan
trick' however, does not work for the electron in the presence of an electromagnetic field because the Ak commute with the electron wave function xp.u
In Part I Heisenberg and Pauli (1929) simply discard the infinite Coulomb
self-energy as an irrelevant additive infinite constant, just like the zero-point
energy of the vacuum; neither of these effects, they wrote, 'correspond to
reality'. They omitted any physical discussion of the negative energy states,
'since these transitions [that is, transitions from +mc2 to me2] undoubtedly
do not occur in reality'.13 The negative energy states were an 'inconsistency of
the theory being presented here, which must be accepted as long as the Dirac
difficulty is unexplained'.
In the improved formulation of their quantum electrodynamics in Part II,
Heisenberg and Pauli were less sure about neglecting the infinite Coulomb
self-energy, the presence of which 'in many cases will make application of the
theory impossible'.
Despite these problems, they believed that any future theory of quantum
electrodynamics would have 'essential traits in common with the theory attempted here'. 14
It was Pauli's belief that the difficulties and shortcomings of the HeisenbergPauli formulation of quantum electrodynamics indicated that the 'natural goal
of the force and range of correspondence thinking on the basis of wave
mechanics had been reached' (letter to Peierls of 18 June 1929).
Further difficulties ensued. In a sequel paper, J. Robert Oppenheimer, who
had worked with Heisenberg and Pauli on Part II, found a new contribution to
the self-energy of the electron. By rigorously carrying out Heisenberg and
Pauli's iteration procedure from Part II of their paper, Oppenheimer (1930b)
identified another self-energy for the bound electron, which led to the false
prediction of infinite displacements of energy levels and which could not be
disregarded merely as an irrelevant infinite additive constant.15 Like Heisenberg and Pauli, Oppenheimer discarded the infinite Coulomb self-energy.
Oppenheimer's calculation was redone more directly and clearly by Ivar
Waller (1930b), who demonstrated that, for free electrons moving with momentum p, second-order perturbation theory gives an additional divergence to the
electron's self-energy that has a leading term
W(p)~hjo kdk
(3.23)
3.3 The electron's mass
35
and so diverges quadratically, where k is the energy of an intermediate state

photon. The quantity h is exhibited explicitly to emphasize that the self-energy
in Eq. (3.23) is a quantum effect. It arises in second-order perturbation theory
from the electron's own vector potential (here expressed in the Coulomb or
radiation gauge). This so-called transverse self-energy is in addition to the
Coulomb self-energy that is expected from classical electromagnetic theory and
which diverges linearly like l/r 0 , where r0 e2/mc2 is the classical electron's
radius. Oppenheimer and Waller pointed out that the divergent self-energy was
not directly connected with the negative energy states.
3.3 The electron's mass in classical and quantum electrodynamics

Owing to reliance by Heisenberg and Pauli on correspondence-limit procedures
in quantum electrodynamics, it is useful to pause here and compare how the
mass of the electron is calculated in classical and quantum electrodynamics.
Lack of success in deducing the equations of electromagnetism and also the
properties of light from Newtonian mechanics - a mechanical world-picture led Wilhelm Wien (1900) to propose research toward an electromagnetic worldpicture. In this program the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are taken as axiomatic
and the electron's mass is to be deduced from its own (or self-) electromagnetic
field. Consequently, like a self-induction effect, the moving-electron's mass
should be a function of its velocity (relative to the laboratory) that increases
without limit as the electron's velocity approaches the velocity of light. Empirical data available in 1902 gave just this dependence of mass on velocity.
The subsequent theories of Max Abraham (1902, 1903), who set the mathematical basis for this sort of approach, and H. A. Lorentz (1904) were formulated as follows: The goal of the electromagnetic world-picture is to deduce the
electron's mass from the Lagrangian L e containing only the electron's self-electromagnetic fields, where
Le = ~
\{B2 - E2)dV,
(3.24)
E and B are the electron's self-electric and self-magnetic fields and the integral
is carried out over the volume of the electron. The electron's momentum is
deduced from Eq. (3.24) by the usual Lagrangian methods (G e = dL/dv) with
certain assumptions on the electron's constitution and charge distribution.
To complete the deduction of the electron's mass requires recourse to Newton's second law
F e + F ext = moa,
(3.25)
36
3 Photons and relativistic electrons
where the resultant force on the electron is the sum of the external forces F ext
and the self-electromagnetic force Fe, which is the Lorentz force
Fe =\p\E + x
flW,
(3.26)
where p is the electron's charge density, and m0 is the electron's mechanical

(inertial) mass, which is assumed to be zero in the electromagnetic worldpicture. Consequently Eq. (3.25) becomes
F ext = - F e .
(3.27)
Expansion of the self-fields in Eq. (3.26) expressed as retarded potentials
yields
Fe = axa + a2da/dt + (terms proportional to higher-order time
derivatives of the acceleration a), (3.28)
where the term <X\ is dependent on the electron's structure, whereas a2 is not.
The term a2 is the radiation-reaction force, that is the force exerted on the
electron by its self-fields. Then, from Eq. (3.27),
^ext - <*i ~ a2da/dt + (terms proportional to higher-order time
derivatives of the acceleration a). (3.29)
Maintaining an equivalent of Newton's second law in the electromagnetic
world-picture requires substantiation that a2da/dt ocxa. This proof was first
accomplished by Abraham (1903). A dimensional analysis by Poincar6 in
(1906) will suffice. The quantity oc\ is proportional to the electron's electromagnetic (i.e. electrostatic) rest mass, which is
Mo = - ^ r ,
(3-30)
r0c2
where r0 is the electron's radius (of the order of 10 ~15 m), and certain numerical factors have been omitted from Eq. (3.30) which are essential to a complete historical analysis of the electron's electromagnetic mass (see Miller,
1981). The quantity oc-i can be written as
a2 = e2/c3.
Then
e2
(3.31)
d
da
e2 d
^=j>
c J Ts
(3-32)
rocl Tl
dt
where d is the distance over which the electron accelerates from velocity v\ to
velocity v2 during a time interval T. In order for a2da/dt ocxa, from Eq.
(3.32) it follows that
"Vl.
T
(3-33)
3.3 The electron's mass
37
Consequently the condition for truncating the series in Eq. (3.29) at the first
term is that the time interval T over which the electron is accelerated from
velocity v\ to velocity v2 exceeds the time for light to traverse the electron's
radius. This is the approximation of quasi-stationary motion, which permitted
Abraham and Lorentz to calculate the electromagnetic mass by assuming that
the electron's self-fields were those for a charge moving with a uniform velocity
that happens to be the electron's instantaneous velocity. Consequently the time
rate of change of the momentum calculated from Lagrangian methods could be
set equal to [ie, which is the velocity-dependent electromagnetic mass of the
electron.
However, Poincar6 demonstrated in his classical papers of (1905) and (1906)
that the electromagnetic world-picture as originally conceived cannot be carried
through in a Lorentz covariant manner. The reason is that the energy and
momentum of a particle, with mass deduced from the Lagrangian in Eq. (3.24),
do not transform properly under Lorentz transformation. The supplementary
forces necessary to rectify this problem serve also to hold Lorentz's deformable
electron together so that it does not explode from the enormous Coulomb
repulsions between its constituent parts. (Abraham's theory of a rigid sphere
electron could not be made Lorentz covariant. For a detailed historical account
of the electromagnetic world-picture see Miller, 1981.)
For Abraham, Lorentz and Poincare' there was no self-energy problem because they assumed a finite radius for the electron. But such is not the case in
quantum electrodynamics, which deals with point electrons because the concept
of electron radius is ambiguous in quantum mechanics and also spoils Lorentz
invariance. As Heitler (1936) put it in the first edition of his book, which is
essentially a handbook for calculations, 'In the present state of the theory
[which deals with point charges] the only way to proceed is to ignore this self
energy entirely' (emphasis in original).
Let us further compare the classical theory of the electron with quantum
electrodynamics. For this purpose we assume that the electron can be represented by a charged oscillator. Then from Eq. (3.33) the expansion in Eq.
(3.29) can be expressed in terms of the parameter
j)
1,
(3-34)
where A is the wavelength characteristic of the force exerted on the oscillator.

Thus, besides being small, the higher-order terms in the expansion of Eq.
(3.29) depend on the structure of the electron, that is r0, and so vanish in the
limit of zero electron radius. From the correspondence principle one would
expect that these higher-order terms are also small in quantum theory. But this
38
is not the case because the contribution to the electron's self-energy from
second-order perturbation theory diverges. From Eq. (3.34) the cutoff for
divergent integrals is
tnc
(3.35)
hv
= 137 me2.
a
For energies beyond 137mc2 quantum electrodynamics was expected to be

invalid because here radiation-reaction forces dominate for which there are no
correspondence-limit analogues.16
3.4 From negative energy states to positrons

As a result of Waller's published realization in (1930a) that inclusion of the
negative energy states is required to describe the scattering of X-rays by atoms
and for achieving the classical limit of Thomson scattering, and then Hermann
Weyl's conjecture (1929) that the negative energy electron is a proton, Dirac
returned to the nature of negative energy states. (Dirac, 1930a, cites a private
communication from Waller about Waller's results in Waller, 1930a.) From
Dirac's equation it follows that the negative energy electron moves in an
external field as if it had positive charge and positive energy. But when an
arbitrarily varying perturbation is present there is no definite separation between positive and negative energy states. Even in the absence of an electromagnetic field, an electron can change from positive to negative energies with
the amount of energy of at least 2mc2 'being simultaneously emitted in the
form of radiation'.
Making the association, like Weyl, of the negative energy electron with the
proton raised several difficulties, continued Dirac (1930a); chief among them
was nonconservation of electric charge when the positive energy electron becomes a negative energy electron. In order to cure this problem, as well as that
of all positive energy electrons falling into the more stable negative energy
states, Dirac proposed the concept of the vacuum, or 'normal state of electrification', as a sea of negative energy electrons in which all states with negative
energies are occupied. The Pauli principle prevents other electrons from falling
into these already occupied states. Only departures from exact uniformity can
be measured. Vacant states in the vacuum are 'holes', that is protons. The
possibility of charge nonconservation is cured thus: When a positive energy
electron drops into a hole the electron and proton annihilate with emission of
radiation. So, whereas in the original Dirac theory positive energy electrons
dropped into negative energy states, in the hole version there is the possibility
3.4
From negative energy states to positrons
39
of annihilation and creation of an electron-proton pair. (To anticipate, Dirac

would soon realize that the negative energy electron was not a proton but a
positively charged electron with positive energy, a positron.)
The invention of holes changed the character of Dirac's theory from a
single-particle into a many-body theory. For example, continued Dirac, in the
scattering of light by an electron (free or bound) two different sorts of intermediate states can occur (energy is conserved only between initial and final
states, but not in the intermediate states which are virtual): (i) a negative
energy electron can absorb the incident photon and be raised to a positive
energy electron, while the incident electron fills up the vacant hole with
emission of the final photon; (ii) a negative energy electron emits the final state
photon and becomes a positive energy electron, while the initial positive energy
electron fills the hole and absorbs the initial photon. Consequently transitions
to negative energy states are replaced by creation and annihilation of electron-proton pairs.
What about the inequality of electron and proton masses? This is an 'unsolved difficulty' wrote Dirac in a sequel paper (Dirac, 1930b) where he
calculated the process e~ + p> 2y. He used for the mass in the Dirac equation
the mean of electron and proton masses.17
Dirac then broached a point that would become central in the ensuing years,
namely what to do with the infinite density of electricity from the vacuum
which makes an infinite contribution to the Maxwell equation
div E = -4irp.
(3.36)
Dirac proposed that the finite measured charge density p should be interpreted
'as the departure from the normal state of electrification in the world'.
Oppenheimer (1930a) went on to show that the transition probability for
annihilation of an electron by a proton is 'absurdly large' and leads to an
'absurdly short mean life for matter' of 10~9 s.
In light of Oppenheimer's result and Weyl's proof in (1931) that negative and
positive energy electrons must have the same mass, Dirac (1931) rethought the
concept of holes. In a tone reminiscent of that of Hermann Minkowski in 1908,
Dirac wrote that branches of mathematics thought to be 'purely fictions of the
mind' have turned out to be essential for a 'description of the physical world',
for example, non-Euclidean geometries and noncommutative algebra. The key
problems of that time in theoretical physics, such as the relativistic formulation
of quantum mechanics, would probably require 'a more drastic revision of our
fundamental concepts than any that have gone before'. Most likely, he thought,
the best way to advance was to apply the 'resources of pure mathematics' to
perfect and generalize the existing formulation of theoretical physics and then
40
to 'interpret the new mathematical features in terms of physical entities'. With

deliberate underemphasis, Dirac excluded the word 'new' before 'physical
entities'.
In (1931) Dirac pointed out that his 'Theory of electrons and protons'
(1930a) had been 'a small step in this direction'. But now he offered a new
physical entity, antimatter. Dirac proposed that 'a hole, if there were one,
would be a new kind of particle, unknown to experimental physics, having the
same mass and opposite charge to an electron'. As to protons, they 'have their
own negative energy states with holes that are antiprotons' (see also Kragh,
1989).

Quantum Electro Dynamics

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Quantum Electro Dynamics

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cambridge Books Online

Early Quantum Electrodynamics

Photons and relativistic electrons

The Dirac equation

with a particle density

Contrary to the standard introductions in physics textbooks to the Dirac

where ip is a four-component spinor with two components corresponding to

Photons and relativistic electrons

and the Hamiltonian density for a free electron is

Electromagnetic potentials are inserted by the replacement

(other variations of perturbation theory were developed by Heisenberg and

3.2 Heisenberg and Pauli on quantum electrodynamics

Heisenberg and Pauli on quantum electrodynamics, 1929

Photons and relativistic electrons

Calculate the canonical momentum na to each field component

Write the system's Hamiltonian density H

Require that ira and \pa are q-numbers, that is

where the commutator is evaluated at equal times for different spatial

3.2 Heisenberg and Pauli on quantum electrodynamics

where &(N\, N2, .; Mi, M2, . . .) is the state comprising Ns electrons in

Photons and relativistic electrons

3.3 The electron's mass

and so diverges quadratically, where k is the energy of an intermediate state

3.3 The electron's mass in classical and quantum electrodynamics

3 Photons and relativistic electrons

where p is the electron's charge density, and m0 is the electron's mechanical

3.3 The electron's mass

where A is the wavelength characteristic of the force exerted on the oscillator.

Photons and relativistic electrons

For energies beyond 137mc2 quantum electrodynamics was expected to be

3.4 From negative energy states to positrons

From negative energy states to positrons

of annihilation and creation of an electron-proton pair. (To anticipate, Dirac

Photons and relativistic electrons

to 'interpret the new mathematical features in terms of physical entities'. With

Você também pode gostar