Comments:Prospective Nobel Prize for Higgs boson work disputed

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Concerning priority021:55, 14 December 2011

Concerning priority

An important, but factual point (at least in my opinion) that is not clearly discussed in the article about the discovery of the "Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism" is which group published first the mechanism? In the article of Higgs (received the 31 August 1964) we could find a reference to the work of Brout and Englert (received the 6 June 1964); in the article of Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble (received the 12 October 1964) we found references to the works of Brout and Englert and of Higgs. So causality provides an element of answer to this question that has to be taken into account.

FourPhilMar (talk)21:55, 14 December 2011