Designation of the Positive Electron

H. Dingle

Editor’s Note

As of 1934 there was no consensus about how to name the positive electron, discovered two years earlier. The popular (and ultimately the prevalent) choice seemed to be “positron”, against which Herbert Dingle here argues. It is ugly and offends the literary sense with its hybrid character, he says, and moreover it suggests that the electron ought to be unhappily renamed the “negatron”. Dingle suggests instead the poetic name “oreston”, alluding to the sister and brother Elektra and Orestes of Greek myth. It never caught on.　　中文

I have been hoping that, following Lord Rutherford’s proposal of a name for the heavy isotope of hydrogen, someone would suggest a more satisfactory word than “positron” for the positive electron. Since, however, no better qualified reformer has appeared, may I raise the question before it is too late? “Positron” is ugly; it offends literary purists by its hybrid character; and it not only bears no relation to the established name of the associated particle, the electron, but even suggests that that particle should be called the “negatron”, which fortunately it is not.　　中文

In order to balance destructive by constructive criticism, I venture to propose the name “oreston” for the newcomer. The word is euphonious, pure Greek, and since, in one of the most beautiful of Greek stories, Orestes and Elektra were brother and sister, it implies an appropriate relation between the two particles. The name found favour among many physicists in Pasadena where Anderson first obtained evidence of the particle, when I mentioned it there last year. I do not propose, however, further to urge its claims, the purpose of this letter being mainly to cleanse the language of “positron”, and only incidentally to nominate a substitute.　　中文

(133, 330; 1934)

Herbert Dingle: Imperial College, South Kensington, S.W.7, Feb. 12.