[Paper Review] Again on Majorana and the Thomas-Fermi model: a comment to physics/0511222

Salvatore Esposito|ArXiv.org|Dec 28, 2005

Quantum Chromodynamics and Particle Interactions2 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper corrects the misconception that Ettore Majorana authored a forgotten 1928 publication on the Thomas-Fermi model in *Il Nuovo Cimento*. It clarifies that while Majorana delivered a talk at the Italian Physical Society meeting, the published version was written by the society’s secretary, G. Dalla Noce, and thus not Majorana’s work. The key contribution is the historical clarification that Majorana’s unpublished, advanced work on the second approximation of the atomic potential—distinguishing local and effective potentials—was later adopted by Fermi, particularly in their 1934 paper, confirming Majorana’s foundational role despite no formal publication.

ABSTRACT

We comment on a recent paper announcing the discovery of a previously unknown publication of Ettore Majorana on the Thomas-Fermi atomic model. In pointing out that such a publication was not written by Majorana, we correct some misunderstandings and clarify the historical and scientific relevance of the "forgotten publication".

Motivation & Objective

• To correct the widespread belief that Ettore Majorana authored a 1928 publication on the Thomas-Fermi model in *Il Nuovo Cimento*.
• To clarify that the published communication was written by G. Dalla Noce, not Majorana, despite Majorana delivering the talk.
• To reaffirm the scientific and historical significance of Majorana’s unpublished work on the second approximation of the atomic potential.
• To demonstrate that Fermi adopted Majorana’s refinement—particularly the distinction between local and effective potentials—explicitly in their 1934 paper.
• To discourage reliance on speculative reconstructions of Majorana’s work and instead advocate for recognition based on documented, established results.

Proposed method

• Analysis of the linguistic style of the 1928 communication in *Il Nuovo Cimento* to compare with Majorana’s known handwriting and unpublished notes.
• Historical review of the role of the Italian Physical Society’s secretary, G. Dalla Noce, in drafting and publishing meeting communications.
• Comparison of the equations and physical reasoning in the 1928 communication with Majorana’s notebooks (Volumetto 2, pp. 116–117) and Fermi’s 1934 paper.
• Examination of Fermi’s and Amaldi’s publications to confirm the absence of citation of the 1928 paper as Majorana’s work.
• Use of the original unpublished notebooks of Majorana, translated and published in Ref. [7], to trace the origin of the theoretical ideas.
• Cross-referencing of the potential scaling relation ∇²V = (Z−n−1)/(Z−n) ∇²V₀ in the 1928 communication with its later appearance in Fermi’s 1934 work.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Was the 1928 publication in *Il Nuovo Cimento* authored by Ettore Majorana, as claimed in recent literature?
• RQ2 Why was the 1928 communication not included in Amaldi’s official list of Majorana’s publications?
• RQ3 What was the actual scientific content of the 1928 communication, and how did it relate to Majorana’s unpublished work?
• RQ4 Did Enrico Fermi adopt Majorana’s refinement of the Thomas-Fermi model, and if so, under what conditions?
• RQ5 What explains the absence of acknowledgment of Majorana’s contribution in the 1928 publication, despite his active role in the research?

Key findings

• The 1928 communication in *Il Nuovo Cimento* was not authored by Ettore Majorana, but by the secretary of the Italian Physical Society, G. Dalla Noce.
• Majorana delivered the talk in person at the XXII General Meeting of the Italian Physical Society in December 1928, but did not write the published version.
• The core theoretical contribution—distinguishing the local potential V₀ from the effective potential V via the scaling relation ∇²V = (Z−n−1)/(Z−n) ∇²V₀—originates from Majorana’s unpublished notebooks and predates Fermi’s 1934 paper.
• Fermi’s 1934 paper on the Thomas-Fermi model explicitly uses the same refinement, confirming that Majorana’s approach was adopted, albeit not formally credited in the 1928 publication.
• The lack of citation of the 1928 paper in Fermi’s and Amaldi’s works is due to the fact that it was not Majorana’s publication, not due to rejection or neglect of his ideas.
• Majorana’s decision not to publish his results stemmed from his hypercritical standards, not lack of recognition, as he deemed the work premature for formal publication.