Prompted by an invitation to contribute to the special number of the journal

"Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie" on the occasion of the 100th

anniversary of Majorana's birth, I reconsidered the whole issue and

wrote a completely new paper. It explains why a Lagrangian with both

a Majorana mass term and a standard-model interaction term simply admits

no solutions. Neither one of my earlier papers discussed below got this point.

They only understood that the solution with a Majorana mass term must be different

and correctly identified neutrinos as Dirac fields.

The paper (pdf) finally appeared as:

R.Plaga, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 31,273-283(2006).

In the editorial introduction to the special number, the editor (Valeri Dvoeglazov) writes:

"...he claims that there are no Majorana physical neutrinos in the standard model.

We discussed this statement in editorial correspondence extensively. I decided

to publish the paper."

and in particular the "well known fact" that for massless neutrinos Majorana and

Weyl neutrinos are equivalent. At that time I was

this issue quite well. In spite of this after posing me some questions she said: "You know what Rainer,

I feel you do not really understand this deeply." I became a bit angry: "No, *you* are

too dumb to understand." A few days later I came back to her and said:

"I am sorry: you were right, I did not understand it at all."

The matter really bugged me and I discussed it in the next two years with

a couple of knowledgable specialists. In this exchange I shared the feelings of my friend.

(This was the instinct of a first-year student who immediately notice when the professor

doesn't know what he's talking about, even if she doesn't know the first thing about the subject.)

In 1996 I wrote a manuscript about this issue that came to the conclusion

that neutrinos are Weyl particles, and that this can be shown even in the massless

case. This paper was wrong. In 2001 after countless further discussions I submitted

a correction (pdf) that reaches the same conclusion but only when making stronger assumptions.

I also realised neutrinos can have Majorana masses without being Majorana fermions.

I failed dismally to convince the community, though the issue seems (by now) very

clear to me. A close colleagues, who knows that I am no fool, refused to take a look

at it because the issue is "so well understood". In conclusion the whole matter seems

to be a prime example for the correctness of Popper's motto of this site.

**Ettore
Majorana 1906 - 1938(?) Hermann
Weyl 1885 - 1955**