杨振宁催生2013年物理学诺贝尔奖上帝粒子
纽约时报-杨振宁催生2013年物理学诺贝尔奖上帝粒子 
精选
||| 推荐到群组
纽约时报杨振宁催生2013年物理学诺贝尔奖上帝粒子
我很惊讶，阅读自由派报纸纽约时报这篇文章(参考＃1)！“感谢上帝，上帝粒子。”
鉴于科学网的多篇文章（参考＃2，＃3, #4），在这里我想补充一些琐事的话题：
纽约时报的青睐--称杨振宁催生上帝粒子, 也许是因为杨振宁是一个纽约客！:
古老的世界对称的概念隐藏的物理学基础.在艺术与自然，对称美; 在科学和数学，系统的对称性。
1954年，理论物理学家杨振宁和罗伯特·L·米尔斯(在布鲁克海文国家实验室)得出结论，所有的基本力量是自然试图保持对称性的结果- 例如，电荷守恒在电磁的情况下，或保护动量和能量的情况下，爱因斯坦的引力。(Refer to 评论 [1] [3] below: 岳东晓 2）规范不变原理) ) (also refer to: 听诺贝尔物理学奖杨振宁讲演:【规范与对称之美】-- （杨―米尔斯规范场理论）本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html )
1957年众所周知，杨振宁李政道诺贝尔物理学奖获的工作对宇称不守恒。
1964年，希格斯写了两篇论文，每篇都只有两页长，内容就是现在被称为希格斯场的东西。《物理快报》接收了第一篇论文，但拒掉了第二篇论文。著名物理学家南部阳一郎在评审第二篇论文的时候，建议希格斯加上一部分内容来解释这一理论的物理学意义。希格斯加了一段话，预言这个场中会产生一种新的粒子，即上帝粒子。然后，他把改过的论文投给了那家杂志的对手——《物理评论快报》，结果发表了。(Refer to: 评论[18]方锦清的博客, also below) （参考＃2，＃3, #4）
你怎么能找到失踪的“上帝粒子？
希格斯粒子物理学理论基础机制标准模型 -像寻宝地图-如此完美的模型- 为您提供沿途的线索。根据这些指导，一步一步的你发现了他预言希格斯粒子--上帝粒子。它看似简单,像个拼图游戏(Jigsaw puzzle)。
“想象一下，您正在像个拼图游戏(Jigsaw puzzle)图片拼图。你知道失踪一块图片的形状，其基本的颜色和图案，但你没有任何地方看到它。所以，你得到一些像那些在欧洲核子研究中心有实力的人，环顾四周，他们在你的沙发上桌子上找，找到失踪的一块图片，它非常适合拼图。恭喜希格斯，恩格勒特，Bose博士在欧洲核子研究中心你怎么能找到失踪的“上帝粒子”- 失踪的一块图片。(Refer to 方锦清的博客, 评论 [18], below)
希望中国本土的科学家更加注重科学理论和假说。“诺贝尔奖排除只提供证据的纯实验者。”1957年，杨振宁李政道获得诺贝尔物理学奖,吴健雄的实验验证他们的工作却被排除获得诺贝尔奖。
You may ask: What the heck is Yang or Nobel related to me or concern me? Here are something you can take home with you to boost your own study:
你可能会问：杨振宁诺贝尔都跟我到底是什么关吗？这里有东西，你可以带回家跟你提高自己的研究：
听诺贝尔物理学奖杨振宁谈顿悟与创新(本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html )
我知道的诺贝尔物理学奖获得者李政道的智慧(本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-654564.html )
你可能会问：什么东西创建一个诺贝尔奖得主？
许多，但最重要的是一种罕见的对工作的热情。(Ref. #5).
乔治·比德尔（Nobel laureate，1958）回应：“勤奋学习，尊重DNA，不要吸烟，不要喝酒，避免妇女与政治，这是我的公式”。
在许多诺贝尔奖获得者的自传中，"优秀的导师"。恩里科·费米（Enrico Fermi）（物理，1938）的五博士赢得诺贝尔奖，欧内斯特·卢瑟福（化学，1908）12博士赢得诺贝尔奖。奥托华宝（医药，1931）建议美国的博士生，“如果你想成为一名科学家，你必须问一个成功的科学家的实验室接受你，即使一开始你只会清理他的试管。”
仍然存在一个质量是至关重要的。这是利昂·莱德曼（物理，1988）称为“强迫性的奉献。” (Ref. #5).
********************&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&77777777777777777777777777777
I’m surprised to read this article from known liberalnewspaper (Ref. #1)! Thank God and the God Particle for The New York Times. Areader can count on The Times to provide a story about the Nobel Prize inphysics that is clear, simple and satisfying.
In view of multiple articles (Ref. #2, #3) on Science Net,here I wanted to add some trivia on the topic:
“At the heart of this quest was an ancient idea, theconcept of symmetry, and how it was present in the foundations of physics buthidden in the world as we experience it. In art and nature,something is symmetrical if it looks the same when you move it one way oranother, like a snowflake rotated 60 degrees; in science and math, a symmetryis something that does not change when you transform the system, like thelength of an arrow when you turn it around or shoot it.
They credited Chen Ning Yang’s work to set up the foundation for2013 Nobel Prize work! Perhaps, Yang is a New Yorker?
In 1954, the theorists ChenNing Yang and Robert L. Mills at the Brookhaven National Laboratory concludedthat all fundamental forces were the result of nature’s trying to maintainsymmetries — for example, the conservation of electric charge in the case ofelectromagnetism, or the conservation of momentum and energy in the case ofEinstein’s gravity.”
“His paper was rejected by thejournal Physics Letters, which was published at CERN, as having no relevance tophysics. So he rewrote it and sent it to a rival journal, Physical ReviewLetters. Along the way he added a paragraph at the end, noting that the theorypredicted a new particle, a spinless creature of indeterminate mass, whichwould become famous as the Higgs boson.”
”How could you find the missing “God particle?”His model predictshow you can locate the particle. It appears simple like puzzle games. It seemsa treasure hunt: You got the map (he predicted) and you followed and found it.
“Imagine you are working on a picture puzzle andit is mostly finished. You have a piece that you know the shape of and itsbasic color and pattern, but you don't see it anywhere on your table. So youget some strong people, like those at CERN to look around, and they move yourcouch, and there is the piece, and it fits perfectly. That is what justhappened. Congratulations to Drs. Higgs, Englert, and Dr. Bose and the amazingteam at CERN.”
“For the experimentalists,”she added, “we are kind of used to being excluded from the Nobel.”
Hopenative Chinese scientists pay more attention on theoretic science, coming upwith hypotheses and theory.
Again,I don’t trust URL links, so I copied and pasted for my future reference asfollows.
*********** Acknowledgment - Sources of Inspiration: Reference ********************7777777777777777
Reference #1
October 8, 2013
For Nobel, They Can Thank the ‘GodParticle’
The “God particle” became the prize particle on Tuesday.
Two theoretical physicists who suggested that an invisible oceanof energy suffusing space is responsible for the mass and diversity of theparticles in the universe won the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday morning.They are Peter W. Higgs, 84, of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, andFrançois Englert, 80, of the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium.
The theory, elucidated in 1964, sent physicists on ageneration-long search for a telltale particle known as the Higgs boson, popularlyknown (though not among physicists) as the God particle. The chase culminatedlast year with the discovery of this particle, which confers mass on other particles, at the Large HadronCollider at CERN, in Switzerland. Dr. Higgs and Dr. Englert will split a prizeof $1.2 million, to be awarded in Stockholm on Dec. 10.
“You may imagine that this is not unpleasant,” Dr. Englert said inan early morning news conference.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had not been able to contactDr. Higgs, who had vowed he would not be available Tuesday. A friend and fellowphysicist, Alan Walker, said in a phone interview on Tuesday morning that Dr. Higgs, who does not use acellphone or a computer, had gone off by himself for a few days without sayingwhere, and that he would return Friday.
Dr. Higgs, he said, is a modest man who likes his own company andthe ability to come and go without a fuss. Even before the announcement, hesaid, one journalist had invaded Dr. Higgs’s building looking for an interview.“He was sent away with a flea in his ear,” Dr. Walker said.
In a statement released later bythe University of Edinburgh, Dr. Higgs pronounced himself “overwhelmed,”saying, “I hope thisrecognition of fundamental science will help raise awareness of the value ofblue-sky research.”
The prize had been expected ever since physicists working at theLarge Hadron Collider announced on July 4, 2012, that they had discovered aparticle matching the description of the Higgs. Thousands of particle physicists worked on the project,and for many of them the Nobel is a crowning validation.
Fabiola Gianotti, who led one of the teams at CERN, the EuropeanOrganization for Nuclear Research, called the prize “a great emotion and agreat satisfaction,” adding that it was nice that the experiments were cited inthe award. “The young physicists are superexcited.”
The Higgs was the last missing ingredient of the Standard Model, asuite of equations that has ruled particle physics for the last half-century,explaining everything from the smell of a rose to the ping when your computerboots up. According to this model, the universe brims with energy that actslike a cosmic molasses, imbuing the particles that move through it with mass,the way a bill moving through Congress attracts riders and amendments, becomingmore and more ponderous and controversial.
Without the Higgs field, many elementary particles, likeelectrons, would be massless and would zip around at the speed of light. Therewould be no atoms and no us.
For scientists, the discovery of the Higgs (as physicists call it)affirmed the view of a cosmos ruled by laws of almost diamond-like elegance andsimplicity, but in which everything interesting — like us — is a result oflapses or flaws in that elegance. That is the view that emerged in a period offeverish and tangled progress after World War II, in which the world’sphysicists turned their energies from war to looking under the hood of nature,using the tools of quantum field theory.
At the heart of this questwas an ancient idea, the concept of symmetry, and how it was present in thefoundations of physics but hidden in the world as we experience it. In art and nature, something is symmetrical if it looks the samewhen you move it one way or another, like a snowflake rotated 60 degrees; inscience and math, a symmetry is something that does not change when youtransform the system, like the length of an arrow when you turn it around orshoot it.
In 1954, the theorists ChenNing Yang and Robert L. Mills at the Brookhaven National Laboratory concludedthat all fundamental forces were the result of nature’s trying to maintainsymmetries — for example, the conservation of electric charge in the case ofelectromagnetism, or the conservation of momentum and energy in the case ofEinstein’s gravity.
By then, however, two more forces of nature had been added to theroster: the so-called weak nuclear force, responsible for some types ofradioactive decay, and the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei together. Inquantum field theory, forces are transmitted by bundles of energy calledbosons. By quantum rules, the mass of a boson is related to the range of theforce: the more massive the boson, the shorter its reach.
When the physicist Sheldon Glashow, now of Boston University,wrote down a theory in 1961 that explained the weak force and electromagnetismas manifestations of a single “electroweak” force, the math indicated that theparticles that transmitted the nuclear part of that force should be massless,like the photons that transmit light and can spread across the universe. Butthe nuclear forces barely reach across an atomic nucleus, suggesting that theircarriers should be among the most massive of elementary particles. How did thecarriers of the weak force become so massive while their brothers the photonsremained free and easy?
It was Yoichiro Nambu of the University of Chicago, who would wina Nobel in 2008, who suggested that the fault might lie not in the laws ofphysics but in how those laws play out in the real world. By a process calledsymmetry breaking, a situation that started out balanced can wind upunbalanced.
Imagine, for example, a pencil standing on its tip; it willeventually fall over and point only one way out of many possibilities. The massof the boson can be thought of as the energy released when the pencil falls.
In 1964, three papers by the different physicists showed how thiscould work by envisioning a kind of cosmic molasses filling space. Particlestrying to go through it would acquire mass.
The first to publish this idea were Dr. Englert and hiscolleague Robert Brout, who died in 2011. Dr.Englert was born in Etterbeek, Belgium, in 1932, and he studied engineering andphysics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, emerging with a Ph.D. in 1959.While a research associate at Cornell, he bonded with Dr. Brout, a professorthere. When Dr. Englert returned to Belgium, Dr. Brout went with him.
While they were working on their paper, Dr. Higgs, a youngtheorist born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, was working on his own versionof the theory.
His paper was rejected by the journal Physics Letters, whichwas published at CERN, as having no relevance to physics. So he rewrote it andsent it to a rival journal, Physical Review Letters. Along the way he added aparagraph at the end, noting that the theory predicted a new particle, aspinless creature of indeterminate mass, which would become famous as the Higgsboson.
That paper was accepted with the proviso that he mention Dr.Englert and Dr. Brout’s paper, which had beaten him into print by seven weeks.
Meanwhile, three other physicists — Tom Kibble of ImperialCollege, London; Carl Hagen of the University of Rochester; and Gerald Guralnikof Brown University — were writing their own paper. Just as they were about to send it in, mail that had beendelayed by a postal strike came in, containing journals with the other twopapers, the one by Dr. Higgs and the one by Dr. Englert and Dr. Brout.
The groups and their friends have been arguing ever since overexactly who did and said what. In 2004, Dr. Higgs, Dr. Brout and Dr. Englertwon the Wolf Prize, considered an important forerunner of the Nobel. In 2010,all six physicists shared the Sakurai Prize of the American Physical Society,another big award. Dr. Brout might logically have shared the Nobel if he werealive today; the prize is not awarded posthumously.
The Higgs boson became a big deal after Steven Weinberg made itthe linchpin in a 1967 paper that unified the electromagnetic and weak forcesalong the lines proposed by Dr. Glashow earlier, earning himself a share of the1979 Nobel Prize.
Along the way, the Higgs boson achieved a presence in pop culturerare in abstract physics. To the eternal dismay of his colleagues, LeonLederman, the former director of Fermilab, called it the “God particle” in hisbook of the same name, written with Dick Teresi. (He later said that he hadwanted to call it the “goddamn particle.”) Journalists and the news media couldnot resist the nickname, however, and many particle physicists grudginglyadmitted that the name had brought a dose of drama and public excitement to afield almost breathtakingly austere and abstract.
The July 4 announcement last year ended that tension. That day wasalso the first time that Dr. Higgs and Dr. Englert had ever met. Indeed, thenewly discovered boson so far fits the theoretical predictions so well thatphysicists are a little dismayed. They were hoping for a surprise or two thatwould tell them how to improve on the Standard Model.
The award on Tuesday sets the stage for the Swedish academy tofigure out someday how to recognize the 10,000 scientists who built the LargeHadron Collider and sifted 2,000 trillion subatomic fireballs for a few dozentraces of the precious godlike particle.
“We are of course thrilled — the first big discovery of theL.H.C., for which we built the giant machine and detectors,” said MariaSpiropulu, a professor at the California Institute of Technology and a memberof one of the CERN teams that tracked the Higgs particle down. “For theexperimentalists,” she added, “we are kind of used to being excluded from theNobel.”
*******************************777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
Reference #2
希格斯和恩格勒同获2013年物理学诺贝尔奖 
精选
已有7402 次阅读 2013-10-802:36 |个人分类:生活点滴|系统分类:海外观察|关键词:诺贝尔奖物理学
2013 Nobel Prize in Physics
The Nobel Prize inPhysics 2013 was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs "forthe theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understandingof the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmedthrough the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS andCMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider"
2012年7月4日两个科学家第一次见面的情况
François Englert andPeter Higgs meet for the first time, at CERN when the discovery of a Higgsparticle was announced to the world on 4 July 2012.
下面三个重要文件非常值得阅读：科普版和学术版的都有，图片也非常精彩，今天比预计公布时间迟了1个小时，也许是有一些文件没弄好。
弗朗索瓦·恩格勒(Franois Englert)和彼得·希格斯(Peter W. Higgs)因预测希格斯玻色子存在而获2013年诺贝尔物理学奖。
彼得·威尔·希格斯可以说是众望所归，早就有人预测今年的诺贝尔奖金非希格斯玻色子的研究莫属。
1964年，恩格勒和罗伯特·布绕特(Robert Brout，已故)共同提出希格斯机制与希格斯玻色子理论。同年，彼得·希格斯也在《物理快报》发表文章，提出希格斯机制理论。另一组研究者，汤姆·基博尔、卡尔·哈庚杰和拉德·古拉尼也在同一年独立提出类似的结果。
彼得·威尔·希格斯
Peter Ware Higgs，生于1929年5月29日。英国理论物理学家，爱丁堡大学荣誉退休教授，他以希格斯机制与希格斯粒子而闻名于世。彼得·希格斯出生在英格兰泰恩河畔纽塞，他在1960年毕业于伦敦国王学院，1980年到1996年期间曾在爱丁堡大学任教。
2012年7月4日，CERN宣布LHC的紧凑μ子线圈探测到质为125.3±0.6GeV的新粒子（超过背景期望值4.9个标准差），超环面仪器测量到质量为126.5GeV的新粒子。而在2013年3月14日，欧洲核子研究组织发布新闻稿表示，先前探测到的新粒子是希格斯玻色子。希格斯机制广泛被视为粒子物理学标准模型的重要理论基础，彼得·希格斯获得过许多奖项，包括1997年获得狄拉克奖章及英国物理学会理论物理杰出贡献奖、2004年获得沃尔夫物理学奖和2010年荣获樱井奖。2012年，史蒂芬·霍金在被访问时表示，彼得·希格斯应该获得诺贝尔物理学奖。
彼得·希格斯出生在英格兰泰恩河畔纽塞，父亲曾在BBC担任声音工程师。希格斯童年时患有气喘，后来因为父亲工作的缘故，全家在第二次世界大战期间搬离泰恩河畔纽塞，他也因此没有继续在学校接受教育。希格斯的父亲后来居住在贝德福德，希格斯与母亲则留在布里斯托。他后来进入可安文法学校就读，并受到校友保罗·狄拉克在物理方面的影响。
希格斯17岁时进入伦敦市立中学就读，专研数学。彼得·希格斯后来获得伦敦国王学院物理学位，并成为爱丁堡大学研究员，也曾在伦敦帝国学院及伦敦大学学院任职。希格斯在1960年返回爱丁堡大学担任讲师，然后在1980年成为爱丁堡大学教授。他在1983年成为英国皇家学会会员，并在1984年获得卢瑟福奖。希格斯在1991年成为英国物理学会会员，然后在1996年退休成为爱丁堡大学荣誉教授。他在2008年成为斯旺西大学荣誉教授。
希格斯在爱丁堡大学期间首先对质量研究感兴趣，并逐渐发展出希格斯场理论。因为希格斯场遍布于宇宙中，某些带质量的基本粒子与希格斯场相互作用而获得其质量，而相互作用的副产品为希格斯玻色子。
希格斯机制的起始原先来自于芝加哥大学日本物理系教授南部阳一郎，他发现亚原子物理学的自发对称性破缺机制，提出南部-戈德斯通定理，认为连续对称性被自发破缺后必存在额外的零质量玻色子，称为戈德斯通玻色子。1963年，菲利普·安德森发表论文指出，类似戈德斯通玻色子的准粒子也可以在其它物理学领域找到，他猜测，对于相对论性模型，假若正确应用规范不变性理论，戈德斯通玻色子问题应该可以迎刃而解。
希格斯在1964年于苏格兰高地健行时突然获得灵感，随后在美国物理学会《物理快报》发表论文解决南部-戈德斯通定理留下的难题。希格斯在论文里提出希格斯机制理论，但是遭到《物理快报》退回。于是他将论文转投到《物理评论快报》，同时有另外五位科学家也获得相同的结论，包括弗朗索瓦·恩格勒、罗伯特·布绕特、杰拉德·古拉尼、卡尔·哈庚和汤姆·基博尔。这六位物理学者分别发表的三篇论文在《物理评论快报》50周年庆祝文献里被公认为里程碑论文。
2011年底，大型强子对撞机的两个实验分别独立在质量为125GeV附近，侦测到希格斯玻色子可能出现过的迹象[18]。2012年7月，CERN宣布发现新玻色子，符合希格斯玻色子的质量与性质。2013年3月14日，欧洲核子研究组织发布新闻稿表示，先前探测到的新粒子是希格斯玻色子。
弗朗索瓦·恩格勒
（François Englert, 1932年11月06日－）是比利时理论物理学者，在粒子物理学做出重要贡献。
1964年，恩格勒和罗伯特·布绕特共同提出希格斯机制与希格斯玻色子理论。另外还有两个研究小组也在同年独立地提出类似结果，一组为杰拉德·古拉尼、卡尔·哈庚、汤姆·基博尔，另一组为彼得·希格斯。六位物理学者分别发表的三篇论文，在《物理评论快报》50周年庆祝文献里被公认为里程碑论文。恩格勒的主要研究领域为统计力学、粒子物理学、宇宙学。
1955年，恩格勒从法语布鲁塞尔自由大学毕业，获得学士学位。毕业后，他选择留在学校继续攻读博士。1959年，得到博士学位。同年他成为康乃尔大学的副研究员，上司是助教授罗伯特·布绕特。他们成为好朋友与密切工作伙伴。1960年，恩格勒升任为助教授。1961年，恩格勒返还比利时，布绕特全家也跟着一起去法语布鲁塞尔自由大学，布绕特在那里担任正教授。1964年，恩格勒擢升为正教授。1980年，布绕特与恩格勒共同领导理论物理组。1998年，恩格勒成为荣誉退休教授。
1964年6月，布绕特团队发表了三页论文，他们指出，假定在量子真空（quantum vacuum）里标量场的振幅不等于零，则会引起自发对称性破缺，从而促使某些规范玻色子获得质量。由于电磁相互作用的光子与传递弱相互作用的W及Z玻色子都是规范玻色子，这结果是统一弱相互作用与电磁相互作用的关键。稍后，希格斯独立发表论文概述怎样能够应用局域规范不变性来回避戈德斯通定理。不久之后，希格斯发表第二篇论文，他将上述回避方法加以延伸应用于一种非常简单模型，借以描述规范矢量场怎样获得质量。在这篇论文里，希格斯给出后来知名为“希格斯玻色子”的假定量子的方程。希格斯的1966年论文又推导出希格斯玻色子的衰变机制；只有带质量玻色子衰变，假若找到衰变的迹象，就可以证实希格斯玻色子存在。
古拉尼团队论文提到了布绕特团队与希格斯分别独立于1964年发表的论文。这论文也推导出希格斯玻色子的存在，但是希格斯的希格斯玻色子具有质量，而古拉尼团队的希格斯玻色子不具有质量，这结果令人疑问两种希格斯玻色子是否相同。在2009年与2011年发表的两篇论文中，古拉尼解释，在古拉尼团队给出的模型里，取至最低阶近似，玻色子的质量为零，但是这质量的数值没有被任何理论限制；取至较高阶，玻色子可以获得质量；另外，只有古拉尼团队论文明白写出模型里没有零质量戈德斯通玻色子，这论文是唯一对于整个希格斯机制给出完整分析的论文。
1971年，正在乌特勒支大学攻读博士的杰拉德·特·胡夫特与他的论文指导教授马丁纽斯·韦尔特曼共同将杨-米尔斯理论加以重整化。他们表示，假若按照希格斯机制来实现杨-米尔斯理论的对称性破缺，则杨-米尔斯理论可以重整化。这是二十世纪理论物理学的重要成就之一。由于这贡献，希格斯机制开始得到理所当然的重视。1999年，胡夫特与韦尔特曼共同因此获得诺贝尔物理学奖。
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-731142.html
*******************************77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
Reference #3
随便说说2013的诺贝尔（2）——物理 精选
已有2212 次阅读 2013-10-823:34 |个人分类:渭城朝雨浥轻尘-原创|系统分类:人物纪事|关键词:诺贝尔物理希格斯恩格勒玻色子
实话说本人虽然高中时候的班主任就是物理老师，但是大物还是差一点挂掉。。。。在此对我的老师和各位科学先贤三鞠躬，没学好真是愧对啊。
今晚物理诺奖开奖的时候，据说是延迟了好几次？不知道是给场内外的观众吃饭的时间呢还是在等老爷子们的飞机还是在研究到底奖给谁……
不过呢，量子物理或者粒子物理学本来就有点晦涩难懂（大物里好像都没有，比高数难多了！），连薛定谔的猫那个问题能搞明白就不容易了，别说什么玻色子了。可是“希格斯玻色子”这个专有名词在2012-2013年之间几乎达到了妇孺皆知的地步，这可全赖欧洲强子对撞机的同僚和新闻界同事的努力啊（又脸皮厚了，谁跟你是同事）。
实话说我看了半天的整套理论，还是中文的，还是用科普语言写的，可是还似懂非懂（再次三鞠躬）。可见几位老爷子当年真是天纵英才啊~~~其实说白了，微观物理就是在研究什么最小这个问题。分子可以分成原子和电子，原子可以分成质子中子，质子中子可以分成夸克，这似乎就到头了。然后希格斯玻色子就是能给这些小东西以质量的一个东西。一般人可能觉得，重量是源于地心引力，质量是自己的啊，和神马子有啥关系。这样理解已经是高中物理水平了（其实到这个水平就不容易了，非物理专业人士到这也就够了），但是任何物品都可以往小了分，分到头就是各种子各种夸，这些东西的质量并不是自己本来就有的，而是有一个场（场这个概念其实高中就有，那时说就是物质），但是场看不见摸不着，那到底是不是物质？是，希格斯玻色子就是组成希格斯场的物质，只不过太小了你看不见，你的触觉也感觉不到而已。这么说明白一点了吧，东西必须在场里才有质量，而希格斯场到处都有。所以希格斯玻色子也可以说是最基本的子之一了。
弗朗索瓦椠格勒
Fran漀椀猀 Englert，比利时公民。1932年出生于比利时埃特尔贝克（Etterbeek），1959年从布鲁塞尔自由大学获得博士学位，目前为该校荣誉退休教授。
彼得希格斯
Peter W. Higgs，英国公民。1929年出生于英国纽卡斯尔。1954年从伦敦大学国王学院获得博士学位。目前为爱丁堡大学荣誉退休教授。
其实得奖者本来还应该有一位老爷子，他就是罗伯特·布绕特（Robert Brout），他是恩格勒老爷子的导师，是美国人，1928年6月14日出生在纽约。其实布爷爷和恩爷爷才是第一个提出希格斯场和希格斯机制这些理论的人，他俩比希爷爷的论文不论投稿时间还是发稿时间都早了半个月到一个月。可惜，这里有一个不太美丽的失误。（具体看这里http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3779-731147.html）
不管怎样，这玩意就冠名以希爷爷的名字了。我想这就是无数人梦寐以求的“名垂青史”吧。不过这里还有三个科学家有点冤枉：他们是杰拉德·古拉尼、卡尔·哈庚、汤姆·基博尔。他们也在同一年做了类似甚至更深刻完整的工作，可是他们就因为晚了一点点（两个来月）就没有机会得诺贝尔了。毕竟诺贝尔的习惯是不会给超过三个人……据说这也是当年中国的胰岛素没能得奖的原因？（不过至少这六个人还一起得了另外一个奖）
这次布爷爷虽然早已仙逝，但是他的爱徒得奖，对他来说也是一样的。布爷爷和恩爷爷本来就是第一个提出整套机制的人，希爷爷只是多说了个粒子（据说还有位南部爷爷的点拨http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/10/283531.shtm）
比较头疼的是没什么能挖出来的八卦……唯一的就是两位得奖者都是欧洲的，大型强子对撞机也是在欧洲，看生活大爆炸几位主演在剧中都把大型强子对撞机当成圣地一样，欧洲作为现代科学发源地真是老而弥坚啊。不过要找出一个和以往诺贝尔获奖者毫无关系的获奖者，也挺不容易的……（文学奖和和平奖不在此列）
还要再八卦一点点，昨天说要拼这个拼那个，其实也不要灰心，每个人的一生都会遇到一些人会帮助你，就像从前说的贵人。只不过在这之前，一定要保持谦恭的态度，如果“贵人”们的指点有情有理，那可一定不要放过……
本文内容和图片基本上源于网络信息整理（包括科学网，果壳等网站）和本人理解，理论理解如果有错误欢迎指点一二。
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-976008-731404.html
*****************************877777777777777777777777777777
Reference #4:
Professor Peter Higgs: "She congratulated me on the news and I said 'oh, what news?'"
Nobel Prize-winning scientist Prof Peter Higgs has revealed he did not know he had won the award until a woman congratulated him in the street.
Prof Higgs, who does not own a mobile phone, said a former neighbour had pulled up in her car as he was returning from lunch in Edinburgh.
He added: "She congratulated me on the news and I said 'oh, what news?'"
The woman had been alerted by her daughter in London that Prof Higgs had won the award, he revealed.
He added: "I heard more about it obviously when I got home and started reading the messages."
The 84-year-old emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh was recognised by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for his work on the theory of the particle which shares his name, the Higgs boson.
He shares this year's physics prize with Francois Englert of Belgium, and joins the ranks of past Nobel winners including Marie Curie and Albert Einstein.
Watch: David Shukman profiles the "shy but brilliant" Peter Higgs
The existence of the so-called "God particle", said to give matter its substance, or mass, was proved almost 50 years later by a team from the European nuclear research facility (Cern) and its Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Speaking for the first time about the award at a media conference at the University of Edinburgh, he said: "How do I feel? Well, obviously I'm delighted and rather relieved in a sense that it's all over. It has been a long time coming."
An old friend told him he had been nominated as far back as 1980, he said.
Prof Higgs added: "In terms of later events, it seemed to me for many years that the experimental verification might not come in my lifetime.
"But since the start up of the LHC it has been pretty clear that they would get there, and despite some mishaps they did get there".
Stressing the involvement of other theorists and Cern, he added: "I think clearly they should, but it is going to be even more difficult for the Nobel Committee to allocate the credit when it comes to an organisation like Cern.
"I should remind you that although only two of us have shared this prize, Francois Englert of Brussels and myself, that the work in 1964 involved three groups of people, (including) two in Brussels.
"Unfortunately Robert Brout died a few years ago so is no longer able to be awarded the prize, but he would certainly have been one of the winners if he had still been alive.
"But there were three others who also contributed and it is already difficult to allocate the credit amongst the theorists.
"Although a lot of people seem to think I did all this single-handed, it was actually part of a theoretical programme which had been started in 1960."
Landmark researchProf Higgs was born in Newcastle, but developed his theory while working at the University of Edinburgh.
The landmark research that defined what was to become known as the Higgs boson was published in 1964.
Discovering the particle became one of the most sought-after goals in science, and the team of scientists behind the $10bn LHC at Cern made proving its existence a key priority.
In July of last year, physicists at Cern confirmed the discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson.
Prof Higgs, who had often been uncomfortable with the attention his theory brought, was in Geneva to hear the news, and wiped a tear from his eye as the announcement was made.
Reacting to the discovery at the time, he told reporters: "It's very nice to be right sometimes."
- , SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT ,SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT , SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT , SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
********************777777777777777777777777777
Ref. #5:
What makes a Nobel laureate?Many things, but the most important is an uncommon passion for their work.-
- Comments1
Pioneers of science Madame Marie Curie and her husband Pierre are shown in their lab in this undated photo. (Associated Press / October 4, 2006)
Related photos »This year's Nobel Prizes are being unveiled this week. Are there any predictors that point to who will be selected? Here's George Beadle's (medicine, 1958) response: "Study diligently. Respect DNA. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Avoid women and politics. That's my formula."
Is precocity in childhood a predictor? When the 2001 economics laureate, George Akerlof, was in second grade, he was asked what he wanted for Christmas, and he said, "A steel mill." Asked the same question by his scientist father, Roger Kornberg (chemistry, 2006) said, "A week in the lab."
But early privilege is not essential. Mario Capecchi (medicine, 2007) was an abandoned child on the streets of wartime Italy. Albert Camus (literature, 1957) grew up fatherless, in poverty in Algiers.
In addition to childhood hardship, many Nobel laureates, men and women, at some point in their lives suffered imprisonment. Nelson Mandela (peace, 1993) set a record with his 27 years in prison in South Africa. Autobiographies show that prison strengthened the convictions of future laureates and toughened their resolution.
Childhood deprivation and adult imprisonment are, however, atypical. The typical Nobel laureate in science is a male, born in a Western country into a middle-class family. His father is a professional, manager or professor. His family is Protestant, agnostic or Jewish. His parents seek out good K-12 schools for him, and he proceeds to a good university. He receives his doctoral degree before he is 25 and undertakes post-doctoral work under a Nobel-level supervisor. He does his groundbreaking research in his late 30s or early 40s, for which he is awarded the Nobel Prize 15 years later.
Rosalind Yalow (medicine, 1977) told women, "You can have it all!" But only 43 of 862 laureates have been women. The prizes got their start in 1901, before women won universal suffrage in most nations, let alone an equal share of education. In the sciences, even in contemporary times, the difficulty of combining motherhood with experiments that have to be checked at 3 a.m. has channeled many women into teaching universities rather than research institutes.
In their autobiographies, many Nobel laureates pay tribute to an outstanding mentor. Five of Enrico Fermi's (physics, 1938) post-docs went on to win the Nobel Prize, and 12 of Ernest Rutherford's (chemistry, 1908). Otto Warburg (medicine, 1931) advised an American doctoral student, "If you wish to become a scientist, you must ask a successful scientist to accept you in his laboratory, even if at the beginning you would only clean his test tubes."
Is eccentricity a concomitant of Nobel-level genius? In fact, laureates are mostly down-to-earth and unpretentious. In the United States, 44% of marriages end in divorce. Among Nobel laureates in the 20th century, the rate was 11%. Much time and energy are saved by a stable family life. Naturally there are exceptions. Erwin Schrödinger (physics, 1933) lived for some years in a middle-class Dublin suburb with his wife and his mistress, while simultaneously carrying on affairs with his students and fathering children with two other Irish women.
There remains one quality that is essential. It is what Leon Lederman (physics, 1988) called "compulsive dedication." What distinguishes Nobel laureates is passion for their work, work that engages their hearts as well as their heads.
Let the example of Marie Curie (physics, 1903; chemistry, 1911) and her husband Pierre (physics, 1903) stand for the experience of many others. The Curies became convinced that radium could be isolated from the mineral pitchblende. The Sorbonne assigned them a shed with a leaking roof and a dirt floor, where the Curies worked for years, freezing in winter and sweltering in summer.
"And yet," Marie Curie wrote in her biography of her husband, "it was in this miserable old shed that the best and happiest years of our life were spent, entirely consecrated to work. I sometimes passed the whole day stirring a mass in ebullition, with an iron rod nearly as big as myself. In the evening I was broken with fatigue…. We worked in the unique preoccupation of a dream."
This experience — being utterly immersed in and dedicated to a task of great significance — is common to all Nobel laureates, and it is cherished by them as much as the prize itself.
David Pratt compiled "The Impossible Takes Longer: The 1,000 Wisest Things Ever Said by Nobel Prize Laureates."
-
PS: Postscript*** Add-on note for my posts: 各位有缘人【总之就是正在看着屏幕的您！】，[em:3:] blessings! “己所不欲，勿施於人”，實質就是換位思考、尊重別人的利益 = decency。I wrote all my posts based on what I read online, a way of taking break, a routine of daily activity. I can't write anything without this fabric of other's writing, an inspiration that triggers my own motivation to write. Copy/paste the original article provides me with a context to track down where I got the idea, a way to credit back to those writers.“己所不欲，勿施於人”，實質就是換位思考、尊重別人的利益 -You're free to quote my writing. If you're objected to my quotation, can you let me know so I can correct it? Thanks.
Reference: I'd credit the original source of my inspiration to write this post by citing the entire article above, only for academic/teaching purpose, but not for commercial purpose - making and promoting any products. I use both URL (URL is an acronym for Uniform Resource Locator and is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet. A URL has two main components: Protocol identifier: For the URL http://example.com , the protocol identifier is http . Resource name: For the URL http://example.com , the resource name is example.com .) and the entire article for my electronic library as URL is drifted with time, so it's hard to find the original citation. Let me know if you're objected to my citation of your article - I'd act accordingly. Thanks so much for your attention.
~~~~~~~~~
add-on note: I've practiced to copy/paste the entire document of my reference to the post I referred to as above to avoid the below problem. It's hectic to do, but it's good for readers. You can see why below.
A common problem with many Chinese Language websites
In re-reading some of my older blog articles, I have found the following problem with many Chinese language websites. When my article gave reference to material associated with my article, e.g., a website, the Chinese website do not archive old news reports. Instead one finds the website referenced has new stories featured that has nothing to do with my article. The old article referenced by me has disappeared and nowhere to be found. There is nothing I can do about this. On the other hand, international news sites such as CNN or NY Times has a distinct reference for each page of content featured. Reader can always see it even if the content is ten years old. I hope ScienceNet reader and the general public can urge these Chinese websites to change their practice. After all, these days computer memory to a first approximation cost nothing.
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自何毓琦科学网博客。
链接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-1029741.html
**
PPS: 本博网编者启事 - - -
本博网栏目所有文章为记录个人的杂感眉批启示 - 为意识流、随想录、随笔记、涂鸦纸、奔腾八方思绪,写时就是思绪的千军万马抢过独木桥 - 写下来的这点就是过了独木桥的那几个思绪军马。本个人只记下几个思绪军马, 不论对错轻重缓急。
为本个人厘清思想缘起与延伸发展而附加注明转载文章来源 (收集转载文章为自学收藏), 转载文章并不代表本网编者赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。凡本网编者启事注明版权所有的作品，网文章版权均属于文学城/新浪网/科学网/人民网/TIME/NYT/CNBC/NPR/Google/HigherEducation/Science/Nature/Zihu/backChina/未名空间(mitbbs.com) 。凡署名作者的，版权则属原作者或出版人所有。凡经本网编者转载, 或作者不授权 - 经反映本博网编者会采用相应措施。
本博网编者园地个人点滴时空轨迹：满足本个人不同时空 (on travel, on silent, with the public, being alone, staring the sky, feel blue) 阅读需求，本个人探讨国内国际动态，本个人版块解读态势，呈现本个人立体环境。偶而在于传递更多信息(If you swing by for drop-in visit of my blog webpage)。欢迎关注评论指正转载 - 本个人择善固执, 因此不敬之处请原谅。
((择善固执-- I've read many classic books of thinkers and some of them were read many times. Still feel not much has changed in me by reading those books. In the end, we are who we are, and intentional molding and self-help are of little use. Personality determines fate, and personality is of 90% hereditary, so our fate and destiny were pretty much decided when we were born.
Sorry for being little pessimistic. ))
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自李胜文科学网博客。
链接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1071282.html
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自李胜文科学网博客。
链接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1071424.html
2013年诺贝尔奖
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-731582.html
上一篇：PNAS:父亲为性亡-进化的好处?
下一篇：纽约时报启示“钱学森之问”答案之钥匙?!
27 许培扬 曾杰 刘广明 喻海良 杨正瓴 陈钢 王春艳 方锦清 刘全慧 曹聪 岳东晓 孙彧 田云川 戴德昌 苏光松 李天成 薛宇 赵序茅 谢蜀生 强涛 zhangling qqlisten guoyanghuawu yunmu biofans XY ddsers
发表评论 评论 (21 个评论)
- 删除 回复 [21]李胜文
- 中国学生的常见误解之一 饶毅
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-689453.html 精选
已有 12561 次阅读2013-5-13 10:34|系统分类:教学心得
See: http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-689453.html
中国社会和教育界对中国学生的常见误解之一是：中国学生很聪明善于动脑，但实验差不善动手。
比较中国和外国不是很容易，而且人群中各种人都存在，不能一概而论所有中国人，比较是看整体有无倾向。
中国社会流行很多对自己的误解，其中有些是为了给自己打气，有些是因为在不了解、无比较的情况下结论先行，有时特例也造成错误印象。
认为中国学生“动脑行而动手差”是有社会影响的一个误解，比如导致有些老师过分强调实验技能、也误导有些能考试的中国学生以为自己特长在理论性很强的学科，所以似乎有必要讨论这一误解。
这一误解的起源是中国历史上读书人无需做实验，在现代教育开始后，社会、老师、学生开始很担心，以自己的心理不安（psychological insecurity）先入为主地流行这种误解后没根据百年来的实情而改变观念。
这一误解还因为中国社会（包括中国教育界）长期不能比较中国与西方，在近三十年有些大学老师出国较多而能比较后，却忘记了告诉中小学老师，所以误解却继续在中国社会普遍流行。
这一误解也因为我国在国外留学的学生，至少在生命科学，迄今为止进入国外前五最顶尖系科的研究生较少，而带回国内的印象不是来自这些国外优秀学生进入的系科，得出的结论来自中国顶尖学生在美国非顶尖系科对比美国非顶尖学生。
这一误解可能还有特例被误为常规的因素。中国最早获诺贝尔奖的杨振宁和李政道两人皆理论强。1970和1980年代，中文介绍多次说杨振宁认为中国人理论强、实验弱。其实是因为杨振宁本人是一位非常聪明、即使今天有希望得诺贝尔物理奖的几位后辈华人也觉得他智力超出自己很多的人。我曾忍不住问杨先生：“我觉得，从我们生命科学来说，中国人理论强的极少，而绝大多数都是以做实验厉害。但报道称您说中国人理论强、实验差。是否因为中国人做物理的不同于做生物的？”。杨先生的回答很清楚：做物理的华人也是实验强的多，理论强的少。
所以，虽然杨振宁、李政道及近年可能得奖的张首晟等确实理论强，但他们是华人的异数，即使在华人科学家中迄今也属于例外。纯数学确实有陈省身、丘成桐、田刚、夏志宏等少数突出的，但他们占世界顶尖纯数学的比例很低，而应用数学和统计的华人就多很多，占世界的比例高。如果要总结多数人的情况，中国人实验强的比较多，理论强的极少。在美国留学的中国学生，实验好的多，背理论的人多、但理论思维强的少，背理论的能力不等同于思考、提出理论的能力，这点在中国学生表现特明显。迄今在美国成名的华人科学家，绝大多数是以实验见长，而同期出现的理论（包括因为实验结果而提出ideas）多半并不来自华人科学家。中国国内的生命科学的主要工作，迄今也是实验为主，还没有提出过重要理论或ideas。重实验而轻理论的副作用之一是认为“ideas are cheap”，这恐怕是因为我们中国人迄今很难想到非常重要的ideas，说ideas便宜如果不是偷懒、就是给自己解嘲。
过分重实验轻理论导致： 一些实验学科，如生命科学的大部分，国外科学界华人被认为合适打工的多，而领导实验室的偏少，甚至有些美国人在写推荐信、或招聘的时候出现歧视。
过分重实验轻理论导致：我们国家不怕投实验设备的钱太多。有些好笑的是，我们中国现在有些机构有时以投钱多到某些领域买机器、造装置，靠钱和仪器来争取做些领先的工作，而不够多动脑筋。
过分重实验而轻理论也导致：中国人迄今为止，弱于开创新领域，而挤在外国人开创的领域，希望做出工作得到同领域外国先驱的承认。因为希望外国人认可而忘记自己独辟蹊径、走出新的道路、让外国人跟上。
实验强不是缺点，但不认识到目前现状是中国人实验强、理论弱，就会忘记我们中国人急需提高和受刺激的是加强思维，不能因为几个特例而忘乎所以。对于中小学和大学，也需要问我们的学校和老师，是否我们的培养和鉴别方式，把真正思维强、而背书弱的人给筛选掉了？
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-424754-689728.html
- 删除 回复 [20]李胜文
- 李泳: "2009年， Guralnik回忆了他们自己的工作（The History of the Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble development of the Theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Gauge Particles），也讲述了那一段对称破缺的历史。他们刚向PRL投稿时，看到了迟来的EB和H的论文，感觉尽管他们的目标一样，但对自己的工作没构成挑战（they did not form a serious challenge to our work.）。
G认为，EB和H的工作是不完整的，他们发现了对称破缺能产生有质量的玻色子，但没有证明他们的近似是正确和合理的。Hagen就说，“EB和H解决了问题的一半，让规范粒子有了质量；GHK才解决了整个问题，不但让粒子有了质量，还躲过了Goldstone定理的魔手。”（“In a sense EB and H solved half of the problem — namely massifying the gauge particle. GHK solved an entire problem — massifying and also showing how the deadening hand of the Goldstone theorem is avoided.”）
G认为，不带偏见地通读那些文章，都会看清GHK是完全独立思路的结果。（“An unbiased reading of all the papers should make it clear that GHK is the result of an entirely independent train of thought.”）可是，几十年过去了，今天的人只接受结果，不关心那些陈年旧事，也忽略了“正确”和“完整”的意义。“我们迟迟不把文章发出来，还把那些文章列入文献，真是太天真了。但是，我们从没想过那会有什么影响。”（While we were too innocent in our slowness to publish and in the way the referencing was included, we never thought that this would in any way affect）（GHK把EB和待刊的H都列为参考文献了。）
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279992-731275.html
- 删除 回复 [19]李胜文
- “我的父亲是中国最早一代留美并研究数论的学者。他在清华大学、西南联大、以及后来的云南师范学院做了很多年的工作。”杨振宁在揭幕仪式上这样评价他的父亲：“他是一位智慧的父亲，也是最优秀的数学家”。
“生活在今天，你们是很幸运的。我希望你们每一个人记住这句话的含义，以及自己所能在在历史上扮演的角色，我希望你们每一个人都能够努力，为自己、为民族、为国家创造一个非常好的未来。”杨振宁说。
杨振宁携妻出席父亲塑像揭幕仪式
http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/10/283874.shtm
- 删除 回复 [18]jinjiawang
- 请您百度“岁差”
我的实验颠覆牛顿300多年的地轴进动解岁差的理论！地球差异旋转新解岁差。
并对岁差重新定义！
《修正发展牛顿的岁差理论 开辟数字化预报地震先河》获中科院首届科学智慧花稿件奖。
http://idea.cas.cn/viewdoc.action?docid=10
- 删除 回复 [17]李胜文
- 方锦清的博客: (这是专家！我将它在我的组合的参考文献。That's an expert's prose! I got move it up in my portfolio of references literature. So much to learn, so little time!)
[转载]你真正了解上帝粒子吗？没有上帝粒子就没有人类
已有 140 次阅读 2013-10-10 17:31 |个人分类:科学论坛|系统分类:科普集锦|关键词:上帝粒子
你真正了解上帝粒子(10个问题）吗？
没有上帝粒子就没有人类
按 语
2013年诺贝尔物理学奖颁发给比利时的弗朗索瓦·恩格勒和英国的彼得·希格斯，注意这是比利时第2位获得诺贝尔奖，第1位是普利高津(Ilya Prigogine),因为创立耗散结构理论获得1977年诺贝尔化学学奖，在比利时普利高津成为无人不晓的广受尊重的著名科学家，我多次赴他那里访问时，就在比利时机场就听到对他的赞扬声。一个小国家居然就有此殊荣，令人钦佩！这次比利时又会掀起新的科学热的浪潮。此奖表彰80多高龄科学家（理论物理学家），他们在预测希格斯粒子(即“上帝粒子”)所做出的贡献。上帝粒子对物质和生命形成有深远影响，没有上帝粒子就没有人类。然而大家对于物理学这个晦涩的概念了解吗？上帝粒子一些事件也许并不为人所知。所以我在这里推荐下面网易编辑李小龙的介绍。
没有上帝粒子就没有人类
关于上帝粒子你可能不知道的十件事
1、上帝粒子从哪里来？
物理学家普遍认为，上帝粒子来源于宇宙大爆炸。事实上，宇宙大爆炸被认为是包括上帝粒子在内的一系列基本粒子的最初起源。
2、上帝粒子如何使其他粒子产生质量？
上帝粒子会形成遍布宇宙空间的希格斯场，一些粒子在希格斯场中运动，就像在糖浆中穿行，因受到阻力而变得凝滞，粒子由此获得质量。不同粒子受到的“阻力”不同，其所获得的质量也有差异。
3、为什么说没有上帝粒子，就没有生命，没有人类？
如果没有上帝粒子，宇宙中的所有粒子都将以光速运动。这么快的速度运行，粒子将无法结合到一起，就不会产生原子、分子、DNA、蛋白质，也就不会有生命，不会有人类，不会有其他任何物质，宇宙将会是一片虚无。
4、科学家可能在十几年前就捕捉到上帝粒子了？
2000年，欧洲核子研究组织当时的旗舰加速器——大型正负电子对撞机打算结束运行，结果发现了一个迹象，看起来就像上帝粒子，拥有大约115 GeV的质量。科学家说服管理层，让大型正负电子对撞机超期运行了6个星期，在超期服役期间，更多看起来像是上帝粒子的事件出现了。科学家又要求再次延长运行时间，但是大型正负电子对撞机必须拆除，给更强大的对撞机（LHC）腾位置。2011年，LHC宣布了最新的结果，暗示上帝粒子如果存在的话，它的质量介于115-130 GeV之间，这说明科学家可能在十几年前就捕捉到上帝粒子了。
5、寻找上帝粒子过程中科学家有没有动摇过？
2008年8月，欧洲核子研究中心开始运行新的大型质子对撞机。这架大型质子对撞机造价约为80亿美元。计划实施时，将有来自34个国家近2000名科学家参加。乐观估计，将在2010年前后提供一个确切的答案。然而2011年8月，欧洲核子研究中心表示：一些迹象表明，上帝粒子也许真不存在，只是人们的“幻想”。与此同时，该中心许多科学家也认为“上帝粒子不存在”的可能性越来越大。
6、希格斯关于上帝粒子的论文曾经被拒？
1964年，希格斯写了两篇论文，每篇都只有两页长，内容就是现在被称为希格斯场的东西。《物理快报》接收了第一篇论文，但拒掉了第二篇论文。著名物理学家南部阳一郎在评审第二篇论文的时候，建议希格斯加上一部分内容来解释这一理论的物理学意义。希格斯加了一段话，预言这个场中会产生一种新的粒子，即上帝粒子。然后，他把改过的论文投给了那家杂志的对手——《物理评论快报》，结果发表了。
7、英国是不是举办过一场比赛，来寻找解释希格斯场的最佳方法？
科学家很难向英国政府解释清楚希格斯场。1993年，英国科学部长威廉•瓦多格列佛发起一场比赛，让科学家用一页纸的篇幅向他解释希格斯场，获胜者是英国伦敦大学学院的物理学家戴维•米勒。米勒把希格斯场比作一个房间，房间里均匀分散着一大群为政客聚会服务的工作人员。一个无关紧要的人可以不受阻碍地在人群中穿来穿去，然而，如果是时任英国首相撒切尔夫人到场，一定会吸引大量的关注：聚会工作人员会围拢在她周围，减慢她穿行的速度，使她带上某种“质量”。
8、霍金是不是用100美元打赌不存在上帝粒子？
著名物理学家霍金曾和密歇根大学的教授凯恩用100美元打赌，自信地认为被称为“上帝粒子”的希格斯粒子不可能被找到。不过，当欧洲核研究组织宣布找到上帝粒子时，霍金称赞了该发现的重要意义，并打趣地说：“这个发现应该能为希格斯赢得诺贝尔奖，不过害我输了100美元”。
9、上帝粒子名字里为何有“上帝”两字？
最初上帝粒子一说出自一本科普读物，事实上，很多科学家认为认为“上帝粒子”这个称呼过分抬高了这种粒子的重要性。利用类似的神学词汇来标注一个令人费解的亚原子粒子，似乎是为了触怒那些反科学的宗教人士，或至少使他们游离于科学之外。“上帝粒子”已经成为希格斯粒子的一种别称，然而它却既非物理也非神的意志，却对两方面产生了影响。“上帝粒子”是一种廉价的称呼，它在称呼上无疑抓住了人们的关注点，然而它的意思却是那样含糊，真正内容很难被人们洞悉。
10、希格斯不喜欢“上帝粒子”这个名字？
美国物理学家、1988年诺贝尔物理学奖获得者利昂·莱德曼曾著有科普书籍《上帝粒子：如果宇宙是答案，那么问题是什么？》。后来媒体也沿用了这一称呼，常常将希格斯粒子称作是“上帝粒子”。上帝粒子这个名字广泛传播，然而，作为一个无神论者，希格斯非常不喜欢这个名字。在此之前，谦虚的希格斯并不希望自己的名字冠在粒子前，但权衡之下，他终于接受了希格斯粒子这个名称。
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-266190-731782.html
- 删除 回复 [16]OUGWH
- 恐怕那个委员会今后不会再授予同一人两次诺贝尔奖了，甭管这个人有多牛。杨振宁得不到第二次诺贝尔奖，是因为他已经得过了。
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 08:58)：鲍林了两次，不同的类别。居里夫人两次了。Linus Pauling got twice, different categories. Madam Curie got twice. "夫妻双双获奖的典型代表就是居里夫妇（Marie Curie and Pierre Curie），他们分享了1903年的诺贝尔物理学奖，但是居里夫人（Marie Curie）在8年之后又获得了1911年的诺贝尔化学奖。" (本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-212210-731640.html ). So, it's hard to tell; let time take the course. Perhaps, Yang Chen Ning may make the oldest age record of getting a Noble (second time). Do you want to bet?
- 删除 回复 [15]biofans
- >>[8]曾杰 2013-10-10 15:18 印象中，获得诺贝尔奖时，杨振宁是中国籍，丁擎中是美国籍。
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
中国、中华民国和中华人民共和国有区别。
中国国籍、中华民国国籍和中华人民共和国国籍也有区别。 - 博主回复(2013-10-10 08:59)：感谢您的澄清，不胜感激！Thanks for your clarification, appreciated!
- 删除 回复 [14]birdwing
- 我个人认为杨不会再获奖，事实上cp不守恒最早是苏联物理学家沙皮罗先提出来的，光这点就不可能让杨二次获奖。还有我对量子场一直很困惑，重整化去掉无穷大总觉得不正常，感觉U(1)场应该是共轭场，呵呵扯远了。
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 08:40)：请继续去写你的故事！我们需要您告诉物理学有关领域的。Go on, continue to expand writing story please! We the public need someone with your caliber to tell what is your field of physics about. If you don't, nobody will do in a way you can explain. Your unique perspective is valuable to the public! However, please try to use the lay language at the level to make it simple to illustrate your complex physics. Thanks!
- 删除 回复 [13]Zjinney
- 且看三个最接近诺贝尔奖的本土工作。。
潘院士确实是中国物理学界顶尖高手，但诺贝尔奖只看原创性，潘的奥地利老板才是真正的候选人。
薛院士虽有老杨高赞，但仔细一看，反常量子霍尔效应是拓扑绝缘体理论出现后由张首晟首先理论预测的特性，其理论很严格指出了具体材料和掺杂的磁性元素来实现反常量子霍尔效应。就好比Higgs粒子的发现，实验验证的人也无缘诺贝尔奖。倒是张守晟应该在三五年内会由于拓扑绝缘体的理论贡献拿奖。杨振宁的学生也获奖，也算一段传奇了。
至于中微子振荡，比之上帝粒子发现还稍逊一筹，得奖更加不靠谱。
科学网每年都热炒诺贝尔奖本无错，但不能总停留在YY和傍亲戚的水平。
黄校长十年获奖的大话实在离谱，但也不会是博主所言十光年。
天朝到诺贝尔奖的距离就是北京到斯德哥尔摩那么远。。。。。。。。 - 博主回复(2013-10-10 09:07)：请继续去写你的故事！我们需要您告诉有关的领域。
- 删除 回复 [12]blackrain007
- 可能正是因为杨振宁的这一贡献，人们认为他在历史上最重要的物理学家中的排名很高（远高于另外一位。当然，另外一位也是天才）。一直有人说他可能再得一次火药奖。
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 08:46)：历史不能不写他，杨振宁先生是国人的骄傲。
- 删除 回复 [11]qzw
- Breaking News -- Alice Munro is the winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Literature.
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 09:09)：请继续写！我们需要您告诉有关的领域。
- 删除 回复 [10]jinjiawang
- 王金甲用实验颠覆牛顿300多年地轴进动解岁差理论！地球差异旋转新解岁差！
并对岁差重新作出正确定义；
http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=ppp7l3tg7lTy-69pgc4WsFZs2kYexN4LvVDsVMVsTjCCFzy4wThtUmoM6KQWMAXy
该获奖！！ - 博主回复(2013-10-10 09:08)：请继续去写你的故事！我们需要您告诉有关的领域。
- 删除 回复 [9]罗婷
- 第一杨振宁先生很帅！哈哈，第二我虽然没看完但是还是觉得是一片很用心的好文！点赞！！
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 09:43)：你动笔， 必有"情" "理" 要说。但是，读者未必能体会。难为文!
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 09:06)：你的阅读感感觉很灵！！这就是我试图完成的！"我感到文学写作：两字，“情”与“理”。有“情”可成文；有“理”可成文；“情”与“理”相融，文学上品！读者会为你的真诚心意感动。情真意切是文学写作的精灵。精灵来无影，去无踪。无情，非真，心不动，笔不转。硬写，常是 “无病呻吟”。"(本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-728976.html)
Wow! You got a great sense of reading the author's mind! That's what I tried to accomplish!
- 删除 回复 [8]田云川
- 杨-米理论应该得奖，但杨李之争使杨先生不会再得，委员会只能保持中立不会打破平衡。
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 09:47)：如果杨振宁催生中国本土的科学家获得诺贝尔物理学奖, 你预测他应该得到另一个？诺贝尔和平奖？
- 删除 回复 [7]曾杰
- 印象中，获得诺贝尔奖时，杨振宁是中国籍，丁擎中是美国籍。
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 08:51)：[16]biofans 2013-10-10 07:40
>> [8]曾杰 2013-10-10 15:18 印象中，获得诺贝尔奖时，杨振宁是中国籍，丁擎中是美国籍。
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
中国、中华民国和中华人民共和国有区别。
中国国籍、中华民国国籍和中华人民共和国国籍也有区别。
You should expand your thought on the following:
[1]曾杰 2013-10-9 23:17
印象中，获得诺贝尔奖时，杨振宁是中国籍，丁擎中是美国籍，可见，都已具备开拓研究能力；所以，必须思考文化传统的教育背景。
犹太裔获诺贝尔奖最多，同时，又是坚持传统文化和宗教传统最强。
只有文化之树根深，才能叶茂，美国电影《云中漫步》，也充分反映了这个道理。
- 删除 回复 [6]diracdjch
- 杨振宁被吹得像花儿一样美，何苦来由着，真的这么自卑，需要一个近90岁的人来撑门面？与其自卑，不如少些功利心，埋头苦干。
- 博主回复(2013-10-10 08:43)：[6]loujinshan 2013-10-9 18:21
我们看重诺贝尔奖获得者的成果，包括他们的科学精神，千倍于看重诺贝尔奖本身。http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-673617-731570.html - 博主回复(2013-10-9 23:05)：埋头苦干--"听诺贝尔物理学奖杨振宁谈顿悟与创新"
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html - 博主回复(2013-10-9 22:52)："榜样之力无穷：家族式获诺奖你知多少？
诸平
2013年诺贝尔物理奖、化学奖以及生理医学奖已经先后揭晓了，当我们看着一年一度的诺贝尔奖揭晓，我们应该从中得到一些什么呢？是惊喜？是感慨？是赞叹？还是失落？遗憾？无望？……当我看到诺贝尔奖的一些统计结果时，萌生了一个想法，为什么在1901-2013年之间那么多的诺贝尔奖得主中，有些竟然是夫妻、父子、兄弟双双获奖，甚至出现父母与女儿、女婿获奖的情况。是否与家庭教育和父母的榜样影响有直接关系？值得我们思考。
可见正人先正己、榜样的力量多么重要啊。
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-212210-731640.html " - 博主回复(2013-10-9 22:27)：你为什么这么说？你是什么逻辑？我们正在谈论历史，从历史中学习.什么不对的吗？近90岁？儒家多少岁？道家多少岁？我们讨论更多，我们可以前往更好的方向发展。埋头苦干与此讲杨振宁有什么矛盾问题吗？讲杨振宁这么自卑?
- 删除 回复 [5]张能立
- 【博主】：我们需要向公众宣传，不只是在科学网。让所有公众更多讲科学。让公众为科学研究骄傲。毕竟，科学是生产和发展的基础。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
与李老师共勉！
- 删除 回复 [4]张能立
- 诺贝尔自然科学奖是中华民族真正复兴的唯一指标 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39840-731673.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
敬请科学网各位师生批评指正。谢谢。 - 博主回复(2013-10-9 21:41)：说得好！诺贝尔奖是一个旗舰！我们需要向公众宣传，不只是在科学网。让所有公众更多讲科学。让公众为科学研究骄傲。毕竟，科学是生产和发展的基础。
- 删除 回复 [3]孙彧
- 杨先生此前在清华百年校庆的学术报告中就告诉大家 他晚年仍然在研究希格斯玻色子 他还表示 自己曾经一度不相信这个假说 但近年来看法有所改变 有趣的事是 此言一出 一年光景 实验证据就被发表了 而今 诺奖风云再起 我辈又能领略科学大师们的风采了
- 博主回复(2013-10-9 21:31)：杨宝刀未老，重出江湖，"规范场"一通天下。
- 删除 回复 [1]岳东晓
- 希格斯的论文并没有引用YANG-MILLS的论文。希格斯示范希格斯机制用的例子是最简单的U(1)规范场，也就是电磁场。后人才把希格斯机制推广到YANG-MILLS场。
参见： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-684007-731620.html - 博主回复(2013-10-9 21:03)："希格斯的论文并没有引用YANG-MILLS的论文。希格斯示范希格斯机制用的例子是最简单的U(1)规范场，也就是电磁场。后人才把希格斯机制推广到YANG-MILLS场。"
纽约时报这篇文章, 或许意味着希格斯文章，他应该引用杨的论文。尊重历史，尊重你的同胞的科学家同事，我们必须引用对方的贡献。Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards, said that nowadays 96% of our writing either directly or indirectly borrowed from others. It's up to a writer to give such credits to the original sources. I wonder if someone asked Higgs, "Did you read Yang's articles?" What will he say? - 博主回复(2013-10-9 20:41)：非常感谢您指出：你的论作, 简洁，美观，大方，完整，我复制/粘贴在这里读者看到："本文简单地把现有被实验验证的物理理论做一个最简单的简介。基本物理原理有两个：
1）最小作用原理
这个原理是说一个物理系统的规律由一个称为拉格朗日量的东东决定，物理变化总是让所谓的作用量最小。
至于拉格朗日量应该是什么呢？这就要由物理学家去猜测了，猜对了，就中奖了。
对于自由的物质粒子我们用某个函数表示，其拉格朗日量有两项，一项代表粒子的运动，一项代表其静止质量。
动能项的数学式必然要反映随时间空间的变化，所以包含，而质量项则包含的平方。
2）规范不变原理
这个原理是说如果把在不同点转动一个不同的角度，得到的物理方程应该是不变的。但我们发现自由粒子的拉格朗日不满足这个要求。
转动后为, 结果 。拉格朗日里活生生冒出一个与有关的东西，而这个东西应该是没有物理观测效应的。怎么办？我们的自由粒子方程有问题？物理学崩溃了？
物理学家是不会这么轻易放弃的。他们的思维是这样的：方程应该是不变的，既然自由粒子方程无法不变，那么我们干脆加个名叫A的东西，让A与耦合，让A的变化抵消这个鬼一样的。这个新加的A叫做规范场。 而最小耦合是
对于电子来说，这个规范场就是电磁场。也就是说，我们的理论似乎把电磁场凭空推导出来了，理论上说，就算人类从未做过电磁学实验，根本不知道电磁场的存在，我们的理论告诉你必须有个电磁场。当然，历史发展不是这样的，我们先知道有电磁场，然后才有理论。但粒子物理则不同，杨振宁玩了一个更绝的叫杨-米尔斯场。强相互作用、弱相互作用用杨米尔斯场的方法全都推导出来了。
3）希格斯机制
由上面的规范不变原理推出来的规范场A的拉格朗日不能有A的平方这样的项，否则就又无法规范不变了。换言之规范场不能有质量。这又是一个问题，因为我们知道弱相互作用的作用传播粒子是有质量的，怎么保持规范不变，又产生这个质量呢？
希格斯说，这样吧，我们再引入一个新的标量场，而且这个标量场的真空值不为0，结果你发现在局域规范变换下，最小耦合使这个标量场产生出了规范场A的质量。具体的数学推导可以参考相关文献。
由上可见，物理学的研究在某种程度上是一种建设性加侦探性工作，我们先确定了应该成立的基本原理，然后去寻找能够满足这种原理的数学，而这个数学又给我们带来新的物理。
下一个问题是：希格斯场又是怎么来的呢？"
