Side N
Six Leptons, a Word Made for Two
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What Happened | Rosenfeld’s Nuclear Forces for the word itself; Stoney and Thomson at their own papers; the bibliographic records for the twelve discovery papers; DONUT and the LEP–SLD combination; the Particle Data Group’s lepton summary table and its neutrino review for what the members actually are; the NIST constants listing |
| Timeline | Rosenfeld for 1948; Stoney for 1894 and Thomson for 1897; the bibliographic records for every announcement between; the four Nobel citations for who was credited and when; DONUT for 2000 and the LEP–SLD combination for the count that closed the family |
| The Argument | Rosenfeld’s own definition, which named the category by mass and was overtaken by it; the discovery record that shows each member arriving for a different reason; the lepton summary table, where the masses that broke the definition are printed |
| What Others Add | The neutrino review for what a lepton is in the Standard Model’s own words, and for the mass-squared splittings; KATRIN for the direct limit on the mass; the NIST listing for the constants the comparisons are computed from; the Nobel citations for how the credit was worded |
| Conclusion | Rosenfeld and the summary table together — the name and the numbers that outgrew it |
What the evidence base looks like
- 14Sources behind this article
- 5Sections, every one of them sourced
- 8Read in full
- 6Read at the abstract or the record only
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| The papers that named or found a member | 3 | All three in full — one from a scan of the book, two from transcriptions rather than the original type |
| Reference works of the field | 3 | All three in full, at the issuing body’s own PDF — two Particle Data Group documents and the constants listing |
| Collaboration results | 3 | At the abstract. One of the three has a body that refuses an automated request outright, so nothing on the page rests on it |
| Award citations | 4 | In full, and treated as a primary source for who was credited rather than for who did the work |
| Bibliographic records | 1 | Title and date only, standing for twelve papers none of which was opened. The record says so, and so does this table |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing