The speed of light is NOT constant

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am surprised a thing as important as this would seem to have an archetypal English name likes Higgs . Anthony Higgs at school hit me so hard he broke his hand . If wondering we got on fine after that , I sort of won that one in the eyes of the other kids . It was over building a volcanic island in humanities ( daft name for too lazy to teach us a proper subject , hippy teachers ) . Still hear of him , still a bit moody . Perhaps Higgs is a pen name or just made up ? Hawking is English enough I suppose , maybe we Brits are not so stupid after all ?
 
Nigel Pearson said:
Perhaps Higgs is a pen name or just made up ?
Peter Higgs is a real person, who just happens to be named Peter Higgs. I know he is real because I once sat opposite him at lunch. He probably finds all the fuss about the Higgs field rather embarrassing, because he is just an ordinary theoretical physicist who had a bright idea. Others had similar ideas at about the same time.
 
I got into trouble with my German friend Kurt when I said I used a Cockcroft - Walton voltage multiplier . He said " no no no , what is the scientific name " I replied " A Cockcroft - Walton voltage multiplier " . " That is typical of you English to name things after the inventor " . Kurt makes RDC cones , a very good engineer . C-W were loosely connected with this stuff ( Alpha particles if memory is correct ) . The multiplier became part of everyday life in TV's . The TV tube used as the smoothing device .
 
Maybe we name things after the inventor because, unlike the French etc., we don't name streets after people (well, not to the same extent as they do). When we do name a street after a person we usually only use their surname. A major exception (if it ever happens) will be Boris Island: London's new hub airport in the middle of the River Thames. Planes will have to land gently there in order to avoid disturbing the nearby munitions ship.
 
So, if they said they positively found the Higgs, that would be that. Go home. They said they found something that looks like they think it may be one of five different Higgs. Not only that, there was a gap between the trace of the Higgs and where the photons popped up, so they are thinking there is an unseen intermediary particle. Maybe dark matter. Sounds like they want more funding to play with their little machine. Watch, they will want a bigger one!
 
So, if they said they positively found the Higgs, that would be that. Go home. They said they found something that looks like they think it may be one of five different Higgs. Not only that, there was a gap between the trace of the Higgs and where the photons popped up, so they are thinking there is an unseen intermediary particle. Maybe dark matter. Sounds like they want more funding to play with their little machine. Watch, they will want a bigger one!

Grown up boys need bigger toys. :D
 
Now I am looking for an explanation of how 5 versions of a particle fill the position of one in the standard model. Doesn't that break it?

Really basic question: So if these particles, all particles, are actually resonances in space-time as a particle in the way we think of a grain of sand is not relevant to quantum physics, why don't I see anything on frequency when they describe them? They talk energy, but not frequency or number of cycles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.