3 ms·
You got me. But being a Fermion or a Boson is (IMO) a label for a generic property. and we have plenty of other such theoretical constructs named after the inve
by lokimedes 4y ago
You got me. But being a Fermion or a Boson is (IMO) a label for a generic property. and we have plenty of other such theoretical constructs named after the inventor: Weyl, Dirac, etc. we need language and labels to communicate ideas, so that is alight. But the Higgs particle and mechanism represents physical reality (now at least) which brings it to the level of electrons, quarks and the fundamental forces of nature. These names will stand for as long as our civilization. Who cares that someone predicted them a couple of years before their discovery when we are a century down the line.
Just imagine if fire was known as the Peterson effect?
Anyway that’s just my opinion.
- mike_hock 4y agoI question both the point and the well-definedness of this distinction between the concrete and the abstract. Does the Lorentz factor not "represent physical reality" and will it not also stand until the end of civilization? Why should a particle (almost) never be allowed to bear the name of its inventor, but an equation or a constant should?
- samatman 4y agoThe Planck length is another unassailable example in my opinion.