G.S. Guralnik has just posted a paper arguing that he should get a share of the credit for any discovery of a Higgs particle, based on a joint paper he cowrote in 1964. That paper did not mention a massive Higgs particle, but he says that it could have been deduced.
The curious thing is that he cites Anderson's 1963 paper, but fails to explain why Anderson should not get the credit. Some say that it should be called the Anderson-Higgs Mechanism.
The paper includes a picture of himself sticking his tongue out. I think that he is trying to emulate the famous picture of Einstein.
I think that it would be very strange to give a Nobel prize to the authors of some 1964 papers, if the Higgs particle is discovered today at the LHC. The scientific merit of those papers should be judged by how well they solved problems with the weak interaction at the time. The work was used to explain why the weak force is short range, and the derived models were quantitatively verified in the 1970s. That is the value of the work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Explanation of Newtonian Time
Matt Farr posted a new paper on Time in Classical Physics : Wigner (1995, 334) describes how Newton’s “most important” achievement was the ...
-
Dr. Bee's latest video is on Schroedinger's Cat, and she concludes: What this means is that one of the following three assumptions ...
-
A commenter disputes my contention that Bell's Theorem depends on an assumption of local hidden variables. This may seem like an obsc...
-
I mentioned 'tHooft's new paper on superdeterminism , and now Woit links to an email debate between 'tHooft and philosopher of...
No comments:
Post a Comment