Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PDF Are There Really Neutrinos An Evidential History 2Nd Edition Allan D Franklin Author Ebook Full Chapter
PDF Are There Really Neutrinos An Evidential History 2Nd Edition Allan D Franklin Author Ebook Full Chapter
-An
Evidential History 2nd Edition Allan D.
Franklin (Author)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/are-there-really-neutrinos-an-evidential-history-2nd-e
dition-allan-d-franklin-author/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
https://textbookfull.com/product/once-can-be-enough-decisive-
experiments-no-replication-required-allan-franklin/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-fifth-
force-discovery-pursuit-and-justification-in-modern-physics-2nd-
edition-allan-franklin/
https://textbookfull.com/product/what-makes-a-good-experiment-
reasons-and-roles-in-science-allan-franklin/
https://textbookfull.com/product/rightful-heritage-franklin-d-
roosevelt-and-the-land-of-america-brinkley/
A Natural History of California Allan A. Schoenherr
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-natural-history-of-california-
allan-a-schoenherr/
https://textbookfull.com/product/homeschool-an-american-
history-2nd-edition-milton-gaither/
https://textbookfull.com/product/is-everyone-really-equal-an-
introduction-to-key-concepts-in-social-justice-education-2nd-
edition-robin-j-diangelo/
https://textbookfull.com/product/evidential-reasoning-in-
archaeology-1st-edition-robert-chapman/
https://textbookfull.com/product/do-we-really-understand-quantum-
mechanics-2nd-edition-franck-laloe/
Are Tere Really
Neutrinos?
Frontiers in Physics
Te Eightfold Way
Murray Gell-mann
Plate Tectonics
An Insider's History Of Te Modern Teory Of Te Earth
Naomi Oreskes
By
Allan D. Franklin
Alysia D. Marino
Second edition published 2020
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300,
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
Reasonable eforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and pub-
lisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use.
Te authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in
this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been
obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may
rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying, microflming, and recording, or in any information stor-
age or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access www.copyright.com or
contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-
750-8400. For works that are not available on CCC please contact mpkbookspermissions@tandf.co.uk
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe.
Kamioka Observatory, ICRR (Institute for Cosmic Ray Research), Te University of Tokyo.
P R E FA C E TO THE FI R S T E D I T I O N ix
P R E FA C E TO THE SECOND EDITION xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
CHAPTER 2 TH E N E U T R I N O H Y P O T H E S I S 51
A Bohr and the Nonconservation of Energy 53
B Pauli and the Neutrino 60
C Te Immediate Reaction 63
1 Chadwick and the Neutron 63
2 Fermi’s Teory of Decay 68
CHAPTER 3 TO WA R D A U N I V E R S A L FE R M I I N T E R AC T I O N 79
A Is Fermi’s Teory Correct? 79
1 Te Challenge of the Konopinski-Uhlenbeck
Teory 79
V
VI C O N T EN T S
CHAPTER 4 F E R M I ’ S TH E O R Y : TH E F I N A L A C T 117
A Te Discovery of Parity Nonconservation 117
B Te Suggestion of V – A Teory 126
C Te Resolution of the Discrepancies and the
Confrmation of the V- A Teory 128
1 Te Angular Correlation in 6He 128
2 Te Electron Decay of the Pion 130
3 Te Neutrino Is Left-Honded. Te Triumph
of V – A 133
D Discussion 134
E Digression: Te Nondiscovery of Parity
Nonconservation 136
1 Did the Experiments Show Parity
Nonconservation? 137
2 An Oddity 143
3 Te Reasons Why Not 145
CHAPTER 5 “ O B S E R V I N G ” T H E N E U T R I N O : TH E R E I N E S -
C O WA N E X P E R I M E N T S 153
A Digression: and Now for Something Completely
Diferent 154
1 Dancof’s Instrumentalism 154
2 An Interim Cose for Reolism 157
B Finding the Poltergeist 160
C Commentary 175
CHAPTER 7 H OW M A N Y ? WH O S E ? 215
A One? Two? Tree? … 215
1 Te Discovery of the Muon Neutrino, vμ 216
2 Do I Hear Tree? Te Discovery of the τ Lepton
and Its Neutrino 221
C O N T EN T S VII
3 Te Moss of νμ 229
4 Te Moss of ντ 233
B Whose Neutrino Is It, Majorana’s or Dirac’s? 236
CHAPTER 8 TH E M I S S I N G S O L A R N E U T R I N O S 247
A Davis’s Homestake Mine Experiment 248
B Other Solar Neutrino Experiments 260
1 Gallium Experiments 260
a) Te Soviet-American Gallium
Experiment (SAGE) 262
b) Te GALLEX Experiment 267
2 Te Kamiokonde II Experiment 271
CHAPTER 9 N E U T R I N O O S C I L L AT I O N S 283
A Teory 283
B Experimental Tests 288
1 Solor Neutrino Experiments 288
2 Atmospheric Neutrinos 292
3 Accelerator-Produced Neutrinos: Te Liquid
Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) 303
C Discussion 312
D Recent News on Neutrino Oscillations 313
C H A P T E R 10 C O N C L U S I O N : TH E R E A R E N E U T R I N O S 315
E PI LO G U E: N EUTRI N O S IN THE 21S T C E N T U R Y 323
REFERENCES 363
INDEX 385
Preface to the First Edition
IX
X P REFAC E T O T HE FIRS T ED ITI O N
In the two decades since the frst publication of Are Tere Really
Neutrinos? the feld of neutrino physics has continued to grow and
many of the questions posed in the book are still active areas of inves-
tigation. In the second edition, we have included a new epilogue on
“Neutrinos in the 21st Century,” highlighting the progress and recent
developments in our understanding of this fascinating particle.
Allan D. Franklin
Alysia D. Marino
2019
XI
Acknowledgments
Much of this work was done while Allan D. Franklin was a resi-
dent fellow at the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and
Technology. He is grateful to Jed Buchwald, the director, to Evelyn
Simha, the associate director, and to their staf, Carla Chrisfeld,
Rita Dempsey, and Trudy Kontof, for providing both support and
an atmosphere in which it is almost impossible not to get work done.
Evelyn and Penelope Greene also read the early parts of the book and
helped me to clarify issues, particularly for the general reader. He
also thanks Jed and his fellow fellows, Kostas Gavroglu, Alex Jones,
Friedrich Steinle, Juliet Floyd, Katherine Rinne, Xiang Chen, Lenny
Reich, Liz Brack-Bernsen, Tal Golan, David McGee, John Steele, and
Jim Voelkel, for sharing their work with him and for valuable discus-
sions. Our colleagues at the University of Colorado, David Bartlett,
John Cumalat, Bill Ford, K.T. Mahanthappa, Graham Oddie, John
Price, Mike Ritzwoller, and Chuck Rogers also provided very helpful
discussions. Philip Morrison informed Allan about Dancof’s article,
and Eric Erdos helped prepare some of the illustrations. Allan also
thanks Bert Schwarzschild for his editorial work and comments on
Chapter 1. We are very grateful to our colleague Eric Zimmerman for
his many helpful comments on the new epilogue. Finally, Allan gives
his gratitude to his wife and best friend, Cynthia Betts, for invaluable
support and encouragement.
X III
1
THE ROAD TO THE N EUTRINO
that took some 30 years. It was not as simple as just measuring the
energy of the electrons emitted in β decay.
Te story begins with the discovery of radioactivity, the process in
which an atomic nucleus emits a particle and is transformed into the
nucleus of another element. I will discuss how physicists found that
one of the types of particles emitted, the rays, was an electron. Early
work on the energy spectrum of the emitted electrons indicated that
the spectrum consisted of groups of electrons with diferent discrete
energies—a line spectrum. It was ultimately found that these lines
were a real efect but were in fact a rather small efect on a larger con-
tinuous spectrum. Te continuous spectrum was not accepted until it
was shown that the electrons were not emitted with discrete energies
that somehow lost energy in the emission process.
A Te Discovery of Radioactivity
Our story begins in 1896 with the almost accidental discovery of radio-
activity by Henri Becquerel (1896a, b, c, d, e). Becquerel’s work was
stimulated by the then recent discovery of x rays by Wilhelm Rontgen
in 1895. Becquerel had been working on phosphorescence, the delayed
emission of light by a substance after it has been exposed to an external
source of light. Becquerel was continuing in a family tradition. Both
his father and his grandfather had worked in the feld. After Rontgen s
announcement, Becquerel began investigating whether phosphorescent
substances would emit x rays if they were exposed to intense light. His
initial experiments produced no efects, but when he used uranium salts,
which he had prepared for phosphorescence experiments 15 years ear-
lier, he found a striking efect. He described his experiment as follows:
One wraps a photographic plate … in two sheets of very thick black
paper … so that the plate does not fog during a day’s exposure to sun-
light. A plate of the phosphorescent substance is laid above the paper on
the outside and the whole is exposed to the sun for several hours. When
the photographic plate is subsequently developed, one observes the sil-
houette of the phosphorescent substance, appearing in black on the neg-
ative [Figure 1.1]. If a coin, or a sheet of metal… is placed between the
phosphorescent material and the paper, then the image of these objects
can be seen to appear on the negative. (Becquerel 1896a, translated in
Pais 1986, pp. 45–46)
T HE R OA D T O T HE NEU T RIN O 3
Figure 1.1 Becquerel’s original photograph. The outline of the radioactive substance is seen.
Looking at the plate in the fgure, one sees a dark smudge—not very
convincing evidence for anything. For Becquerel, however, it stimu-
lated further investigation. He also performed the experiment with a
piece of glass inserted between the phosphorescent substance and the
black paper, which he noted “excludes the possibility of a chemical
action resulting from vapors that might emanate from the substance
when heated by the sun’s rays.” Having eliminated a plausible back-
ground efect that might have produced his observed efect, Becquerel
concluded that “the phosphorescent substance in question emits radi-
ations which penetrate paper that is opaque to light.”
One week later, Becquerel admitted that his earlier interpretation
of his result was wrong. He published a paper demonstrating that
his observed phenomenon had nothing to do with phosphorescence
(1896b). William Crookes, a British physicist who often worked with
Becquerel in his laboratory, described the discovery.
Te writer visited Henri Becquerel’s laboratory one memorable morning
when experiments were in progress which culminated in the discovery
of the “Becquerel Rays” and of “Spontaneous Radioactivity.” Uranium
salts of all kinds were seen in glass cells, inverted on photographic
plates enclosed in black paper, and also the resulting images automati-
cally impressed on the sensitive plates. Becquerel was working on the
phosphorescence of uranium compounds after insolation [exposure to
4 A RE T HERE RE A L LY NEU T RIN O S ?
Becquerel observed the same efect with several uranium salts, from
which he inferred that the efect was due to the presence of uranium.
He confrmed this idea in an experiment in which he used only pure
uranium metal and obtained the same result. He concluded that
uranium was emitting a form of radiation that could both penetrate
opaque paper and expose a photographic plate. Becquerel drew no
conclusions about the nature of the radiation emitted, but he specu-
lated that it might be some form of invisible phosphorescent radiation.
He noted that although the existing evidence was consistent with such
a hypothesis, he had not proved it. Subsequent experiments, by the
Curies and others, showed that other substances, including the newly
discovered elements radium and polonium, emitted similar radiation.
What that radiation actually was, however, remained a mystery.
One interesting point about this important discovery was that it did
not require new experimental apparatus or high technology. Becquerel
used photographic plates, uranium salts, and other equipment already
present in his laboratory. Crookes described Becquerel’s laboratory as fol-
lows: “What struck one as remarkable was the facility with which experi-
mental apparatus was extemporized. Card, gummed paper, glass plates,
sealing wax, copper wire, rapidly and almost spontaneously seemed to
grow before one’s eyes into just the combination suitable to settle the
point under investigation. Te answer once obtained, the materials were
put aside or modifed so as to constitute a second interrogation of nature”
(Crookes 1909, pp. xxi-xxii). Performing good experiments is an art.
T HE R OA D T O T HE NEU T RIN O 5
* Although Tomson is usually, and with good reason, given credit for this discovery,
the work of Wiechert, Kaufmann, and Zeeman all contributed to it.
6 A RE T HERE RE A L LY NEU T RIN O S ?
more to do with the cathode rays than a rife-ball has with the fash
when a rife is fred” (Tomson 1897, p. 294).
Tomson repeated the experiment, but in a form that was not
open to that objection. Te apparatus is shown in Figure 1.2. Like
Perrins, it had two coaxial cylinders with holes. Te outer cylinder
was grounded and the inner one was attached to an electrometer to
detect any charge. Te cathode rays passed from A into the bulb, but
they did not enter the holes in the cylinder unless they were defected
by a magnetic feld.* In Figure 1.2 the magnetic feld is perpendicular
to the plane of the page, and the magnetic force will bend the cath-
ode rays toward the holes. (Further increasing the magnetic feld will
cause the cathode rays to bend too far.) Tomson concluded,
When the cathode rays (whose path was traced by the phosphores-
cence on the glass) did not fall on the slit, the electrical charge sent to
Figure 1.2 J. J. Thomson’s experimental apparatus for demonstrating that cathode rays carry
negative charge. The cathode rays will not enter the holes in the cylinders unless they are bent by a
magnetic feld (Thomson 1897).
the electrometer when the induction coil producing the rays was set in
action was small and irregular; when, however, the rays were bent by
a magnet so as to fall on the slit, there was a large charge of negative
electricity sent to the electrometer…. If the rays were so much bent by
the magnet that they overshot the slits in the cylinder, the charge pass-
ing into the cylinder fell again to a very small fraction of its value when
the aim was true. Tus this experiment shows that however we twist and
defect the cathode rays by magnetic forces, the negative electrifcation follows
the same path as the rays, and that this negative electrifcation is indissolubly
connected with the cathode rays. (pp. 294–295, emphasis added).
Figure 1.3 J. J. Thomson’s apparatus for demonstrating the electric defection of cathode rays.
A potential difference is applied across the plates shown. The addition of a magnetic feld perpen-
dicular to the page allowed Thomson to measure the mass-to-charge ratio, m/e, of the cathode rays
(Courtesy of the Cavendish Laboratory).
8 A RE T HERE RE A L LY NEU T RIN O S ?
was applied across the two plates. He therefore concluded that the
electrostatic properties of the cathode ray are either nil or very feeble.
Tomson admitted that when he frst performed the experiment, he
also saw no efect. “On repeating this experiment [that of Hertz] I
at frst got the same result, but subsequent experiments showed that
the absence of defexion is due to the conductivity conferred on the
rarefed gas by the cathode rays” (p. 296). Tomson then performed
the experiment with a better vacuum and observed the defection. In
another experiment he also demonstrated directly that the cathode
rays were defected by magnetic felds, as well as by electric felds.
Tis had also been shown in his replication of Perrin s experiment.
Tomson concluded
As the cathode rays carry a charge of negative electricity, are defected by an
electrostatic force as if they were negatively electrifed, and are acted on by a
magnetic force in just the way in which this force would act on a negatively
electrifed body moving along the path of these rays, I can see no escape from
the conclusion that they are charges of negative electricity carried by particles
of matter, (p. 302, emphasis added)
and magnetic felds so that the cathode ray beam was undefected,
Tomson determined the velocity of the rays.
Turning of the magnetic feld allowed the rays to be defected
by the electric feld alone. From the measured value of the defec-
tion, the length of the apparatus, and the electric and magnetic
feld strengths, Tomson could calculate the mass-to-charge ratio,
m/e, for cathode rays. He found a value of m/e of (1.3 ± 0.2 × 10 −8
grams/coulomb. (Te modern value is 0.56857 × 10 −8 grams/cou-
lomb). Tis ratio appeared to be independent of both the kind of
gas in the tube and the kind of the metal in the cathode, which
suggested that the particles were constituents of the atoms of all
substances. It was also far smaller, by a factor of 1000, than the
smallest mass-to-charge ratio previously measured, that of the
hydrogen ion in electrolysis.
Tomson remarked that this surprising result might be due either
to the smallness of m or to the largeness of e. He argued that m was
small, citing the work of Philipp Lenard, who had shown that the
range of cathode rays in air (half a centimeter) was far larger than
the mean free path of molecules (10 −5 cm). If the cathode ray travels
so much farther than a molecule before colliding with an air mol-
ecule, it must be much smaller than a molecule. If it is smaller, then it
should have a smaller mass. If the charge on an individual cathode ray
was equal to that of the hydrogen ion, then the mass of the cathode
rays was approximately 1/1000 of the mass of the hydrogen ion. Later
experimental work—in particular, Robert Millikan s oil-drop experi-
ment—measured the charge of Tomson s corpuscles precisely (1911;
1913). Combined with the measured ratio, m/e, this led to a value
for the mass of the electron of 1/1847 that of the hydrogen atom.
Tomson concluded that these negatively charged particles were also
constituents of atoms. In other words, Tomson had discovered the
electron, and he had good reasons to believe in its existence.*
* Not everything Tomson concluded agrees with our current views of the electron.
In the early nineteenth century, Prout had argued that all atoms were built up out of
hydrogen atoms. Experiment had shown that this could not be the case—that the
atomic weight of chlorine was 35.47 in units of the hydrogen atom. Some suggested
that there might be a smaller building block. Tomson thought the cathode rays
might be such building blocks.
10 A RE T HERE RE A L LY NEU T RIN O S ?
Figure 1.4 Rutherford’s apparatus for measuring the range in matter of particles emitted by
radioactive sources (Rutherford 1899).
T HE R OA D T O T HE NEU T RIN O 11
to the ordinary absorption law, and that, after the fourth thickness
the intensity of the radiation is only slightly diminished by adding
another eight layers” (p. 115). Rutherford concluded, “Tese experi-
ments show that the uranium radiation is complex, and that there are
present at least two distinct types of radiation—one that is very read-
ily absorbed, which will be termed for convenience the a radiation,
and the other of a more penetrative character, which will be termed
the β radiation” (p. 116). Te frst four foils each considerably reduced,
and fnally eliminated, the radiation. Te remaining β radiation was
then only slightly reduced by each of the following foils (Figure 1.5).
It was initially believed that the a particles were electrically neutral
because they could not be defected by a magnetic feld. Rutherford
found, however, that they could be defected in the same direction
as a positive charge when he applied a strong magnetic feld. Te β
rays were negatively charged, and the γ rays, a third type of emitted
radiation discovered by Paul Villard in 1900, were electrically neutral.
(Figure 1.6 shows that the positive and negative charges are defected
in opposite directions and that the uncharged γ rays are undefected.)*
In 1904 William Bragg demonstrated that particles of equal initial
energy or velocity had equal ranges in matter, an important point for
* Subsequent work by Rutherford and others showed that the a particles were helium
ions. Rutherford later used the scattering of these high-energy a particles from
gold foil to argue for the nuclear model of the atom—a very small, heavy, positively
charged nucleus surrounded by negatively charged electrons, a miniature solar sys-
tem. After the discovery of this nuclear, or Rutherford, model of the atom, the a
particles were considered helium nuclei. Te γ rays were found to be high-energy
electromagnetic radiation.
12 A RE T HERE RE A L LY NEU T RIN O S ?
Figure 1.5 The ionization produced by the radiation emitted from a uranium source as a function
of the number of aluminum foils used as an absorber (Rutherford’s 1899 data). The rapid decrease
is due to the absorption of α particles. The remaining β rays are only slightly reduced by the addition
of each foil.
Figure 1.6 A schematic view of the radiation emitted by a radioactive source placed in a mag-
netic feld. The positively charged a particles are defected to the left, the negatively charged β rays
are defected to the right, and the uncharged γ rays are undefected (Rutherford 1913).
T HE R OA D T O T HE NEU T RIN O 13
later work. Tis range depended on the material through which the
particles passed. Bragg assumed that the a particles lost energy only
by ionization—by knocking electrons out of the atoms in the mate-
rial. Tis ionization was thought to be independent of the velocity
of the a particles, so that in each equal length of the path, the ion-
ization produced, or the energy lost by the a particle would be con-
stant. Bragg further assumed that the β particles lost energy not only
by ionization but also by collisions in which they were defected and
eliminated from the beam.
Bragg’s experimental apparatus is shown in Figure 1.7. Te radia-
tion emitted from the radium source at R was collimated into a pencil-
like beam by the lead stops. Te ionization produced in the ionization
chamber AB was measured. In Bragg’s own words,
In the case when all the rays are initially of uniform velocity, the curve
obtained ought to show, when the radium is out of range of the ion-
ization chamber, an efect due entirely to β and γ rays, which should
slowly increase as the distance diminishes [or decrease as the distance
increases]. When the a rays can just penetrate, there should be a some-
what sudden appearance of the ionization, and for a short distance of
Figure 1.7 Bragg’s apparatus for measuring the range of a particles. The radiation emitted from
R is collimated into a thin beam by the lead stops. The ionization chamber AB can be moved relative
to the radioactive source (Bragg 1904a).
14 A RE T HERE RE A L LY NEU T RIN O S ?
Figure 1.8 The ionization produced in the chamber as a function of the distance from the radio-
active source R. There are several changes in the slope of the curve, indicating the presence of
several a particles, each with its own energy (Bragg 1904a).
the approach, equal to the depth of the chamber, the curve should be a
parabola. Afterwards it should become a straight line.
Tis is exactly realized [Figure 1.8]; and so far the hypothesis is veri-
fed. But a further efect appears. As the radium is gradually brought nearer to
the chamber, the straight line suddenly changes its direction; and indeed there
appear to be two or three such changes….
For all this there is a ready explanation. Te atom passes through
several changes, and it is supposed that at four of these an a atom is
expelled. Probably the particles due to one change are all projected with
the same speed. (Bragg 1904, p. 723, emphasis added)
Kulya mapunda.
Lied anhören
MusicXML-Datei herunterladen
Die ansprechenden Töne haben auch jetzt wieder ihren Zauber
auf den weißen Mann ausgeübt; hoch aufgerichtet sitzt er da, und
kräftig singt er mit, zum nicht geringen Vergnügen der Herren
Schwarzen. Ein Tanzlied ist es, dieses „Hasimpo“, wie es bei uns der
Einfachheit halber kurz genannt wird. Bei dem Arbeitslied passen
Melodie und Text, soweit ich diesen überhaupt habe übersetzen
können, wenigstens noch einigermaßen zusammen; was mir Pesa
mbili heute nachmittag jedoch als Grundlage dieses Hasimpo-Liedes
in die Feder diktiert hat, will mir noch nicht so recht in den Kopf. Der
Vollständigkeit halber hier zunächst der Versuch der Hilala-
Übersetzung:
„Arbeit, Arbeit. Der Jumbe wird weinen über seinen Sohn. Wir
lieben den weißen Ombascha, der ist stark. Danke. Der Sohn, er hat
wahrgesagt. O ich Dummer, meine Mutter geht weg, die Kinder
weinen. Weinet nicht, weinet nicht, weinet nicht.“
Also kraus wie immer, aber doch wenigstens in einzelnen Teilen
Zusammenhang und Sinn; das sílilo, sílilo, sílilo, weinet nicht, weinet
nicht, weinet nicht, klingt direkt ergreifend; weniger will mir der
Ombascha, der weiße Gefreite, in den Rahmen des Liedes passen;
doch wer vermag die Tiefen einer Negerseele zu ergründen! Und
noch dazu die eines Poeten.
Das Tanzlied heißt:
„Es essen Gemüse die Wairamba, sage ich, sie essen Gemüse,
sage ich, am Brunnen. Wenn ihr heim kommt, so grüßt sie, meine
Mutter, und sagt: Wir kommen. So sagte ich, und die Polizei hat den
Satanas gefaßt. Wir ließen nieder unsere Lasten von Zeug und
Perlen und nochmals Perlen. Die Sonne, die geht unter; unsere
Tanzerlaubnis ist zu Ende.“
Rührend ist auch hier wieder das Hereinziehen der Mutter,
rätselhaft die Polizei und ihre Beschäftigung mit dem Höllenfürsten.
Und nun kommt das Standardlied:
Lied anhören
MusicXML-Datei herunterladen
Neunzehntes Kapitel.
Zur Küste zurück.
Lindi, ausgangs November 1906.