精選紐約時報楊振寧催生2013年物理學諾貝爾獎上帝粒子
我很驚訝，閱讀自由派報紙紐約時報這篇文章(參考＃1)！“感謝上帝，上帝粒子。”
鑒於科學網的多篇文章（參考＃2，＃3, #4），在這裏我想補充一些瑣事的話題：
紐約時報的青睞--稱楊振寧催生上帝粒子, 也許是因為楊振寧是一個紐約客！:
古老的世界對稱的概念隱藏的物理學基礎.在藝術與自然，對稱美; 在科學和數學，係統的對稱性。
1954年，理論物理學家楊振寧和羅伯特·L·米爾斯(在布魯克海文國家實驗室)得出結論，所有的基本力量是自然試圖保持對稱性的結果- 例如，電荷守恒在電磁的情況下，或保護動量和能量的情況下，愛因斯坦的引力。(Refer to 評論 [1] [3] below: 嶽東曉 2）規範不變原理) ) (also refer to: 聽諾貝爾物理學獎楊振寧講演:【規範與對稱之美】-- （楊―米爾斯規範場理論）本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html )
1957年眾所周知，楊振寧李政道諾貝爾物理學獎獲的工作對宇稱不守恒。
1964年，希格斯寫了兩篇論文，每篇都隻有兩頁長，內容就是現在被稱為希格斯場的東西。《物理快報》接收了第一篇論文，但拒掉了第二篇論文。著名物理學家南部陽一郎在評審第二篇論文的時候，建議希格斯加上一部分內容來解釋這一理論的物理學意義。希格斯加了一段話，預言這個場中會產生一種新的粒子，即上帝粒子。然後，他把改過的論文投給了那家雜誌的對手——《物理評論快報》，結果發表了。(Refer to: 評論[18]方錦清的博客, also below) （參考＃2，＃3, #4）
你怎麽能找到失蹤的“上帝粒子？
希格斯粒子物理學理論基礎機製標準模型 -像尋寶地圖-如此完美的模型- 為您提供沿途的線索。根據這些指導，一步一步的你發現了他預言希格斯粒子--上帝粒子。它看似簡單,像個拚圖遊戲(Jigsaw puzzle)。
“想象一下，您正在像個拚圖遊戲(Jigsaw puzzle)圖片拚圖。你知道失蹤一塊圖片的形狀，其基本的顏色和圖案，但你沒有任何地方看到它。所以，你得到一些像那些在歐洲核子研究中心有實力的人，環顧四周，他們在你的沙發上桌子上找，找到失蹤的一塊圖片，它非常適合拚圖。恭喜希格斯，恩格勒特，Bose博士在歐洲核子研究中心你怎麽能找到失蹤的“上帝粒子”- 失蹤的一塊圖片。(Refer to 方錦清的博客, 評論 [18], below)
希望中國本土的科學家更加注重科學理論和假說。“諾貝爾獎排除隻提供證據的純實驗者。”1957年，楊振寧李政道獲得諾貝爾物理學獎,吳健雄的實驗驗證他們的工作卻被排除獲得諾貝爾獎。
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:
你可能會問：楊振寧諾貝爾都跟我到底是什麽關嗎？這裏有東西，你可以帶回家跟你提高自己的研究：
聽諾貝爾物理學獎楊振寧談頓悟與創新(本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html )
我知道的諾貝爾物理學獎獲得者李政道的智慧(本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-654564.html )
你可能會問：什麽東西創建一個諾貝爾獎得主？
許多，但最重要的是一種罕見的對工作的熱情。(Ref. #5).
喬治·比德爾（Nobel laureate，1958）回應：“勤奮學習，尊重DNA，不要吸煙，不要喝酒，避免婦女與政治，這是我的公式”。
在許多諾貝爾獎獲得者的自傳中，"優秀的導師"。恩裏科·費米（Enrico Fermi）（物理，1938）的五博士贏得諾貝爾獎，歐內斯特·盧瑟福（化學，1908）12博士贏得諾貝爾獎。奧托華寶（醫藥，1931）建議美國的博士生，“如果你想成為一名科學家，你必須問一個成功的科學家的實驗室接受你，即使一開始你隻會清理他的試管。”
仍然存在一個質量是至關重要的。這是利昂·萊德曼（物理，1988）稱為“強迫性的奉獻。” (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
希格斯和恩格勒同獲2013年物理學諾貝爾獎 
精選
已有7402 次閱讀 2013-10-802:36 |個人分類:生活點滴|係統分類:海外觀察|關鍵詞:諾貝爾獎物理學
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日兩個科學家第一次見麵的情況
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.
下麵三個重要文件非常值得閱讀：科普版和學術版的都有，圖片也非常精彩，今天比預計公布時間遲了1個小時，也許是有一些文件沒弄好。
弗朗索瓦·恩格勒(Franois Englert)和彼得·希格斯(Peter W. Higgs)因預測希格斯玻色子存在而獲2013年諾貝爾物理學獎。
彼得·威爾·希格斯可以說是眾望所歸，早就有人預測今年的諾貝爾獎金非希格斯玻色子的研究莫屬。
1964年，恩格勒和羅伯特·布繞特(Robert Brout，已故)共同提出希格斯機製與希格斯玻色子理論。同年，彼得·希格斯也在《物理快報》發表文章，提出希格斯機製理論。另一組研究者，湯姆·基博爾、卡爾·哈庚傑和拉德·古拉尼也在同一年獨立提出類似的結果。
彼得·威爾·希格斯
Peter Ware Higgs，生於1929年5月29日。英國理論物理學家，愛丁堡大學榮譽退休教授，他以希格斯機製與希格斯粒子而聞名於世。彼得·希格斯出生在英格蘭泰恩河畔紐塞，他在1960年畢業於倫敦國王學院，1980年到1996年期間曾在愛丁堡大學任教。
2012年7月4日，CERN宣布LHC的緊湊μ子線圈探測到質為125.3±0.6GeV的新粒子（超過背景期望值4.9個標準差），超環麵儀器測量到質量為126.5GeV的新粒子。而在2013年3月14日，歐洲核子研究組織發布新聞稿表示，先前探測到的新粒子是希格斯玻色子。希格斯機製廣泛被視為粒子物理學標準模型的重要理論基礎，彼得·希格斯獲得過許多獎項，包括1997年獲得狄拉克獎章及英國物理學會理論物理傑出貢獻獎、2004年獲得沃爾夫物理學獎和2010年榮獲櫻井獎。2012年，史蒂芬·霍金在被訪問時表示，彼得·希格斯應該獲得諾貝爾物理學獎。
彼得·希格斯出生在英格蘭泰恩河畔紐塞，父親曾在BBC擔任聲音工程師。希格斯童年時患有氣喘，後來因為父親工作的緣故，全家在第二次世界大戰期間搬離泰恩河畔紐塞，他也因此沒有繼續在學校接受教育。希格斯的父親後來居住在貝德福德，希格斯與母親則留在布裏斯托。他後來進入可安文法學校就讀，並受到校友保羅·狄拉克在物理方麵的影響。
希格斯17歲時進入倫敦市立中學就讀，專研數學。彼得·希格斯後來獲得倫敦國王學院物理學位，並成為愛丁堡大學研究員，也曾在倫敦帝國學院及倫敦大學學院任職。希格斯在1960年返回愛丁堡大學擔任講師，然後在1980年成為愛丁堡大學教授。他在1983年成為英國皇家學會會員，並在1984年獲得盧瑟福獎。希格斯在1991年成為英國物理學會會員，然後在1996年退休成為愛丁堡大學榮譽教授。他在2008年成為斯旺西大學榮譽教授。
希格斯在愛丁堡大學期間首先對質量研究感興趣，並逐漸發展出希格斯場理論。因為希格斯場遍布於宇宙中，某些帶質量的基本粒子與希格斯場相互作用而獲得其質量，而相互作用的副產品為希格斯玻色子。
希格斯機製的起始原先來自於芝加哥大學日本物理係教授南部陽一郎，他發現亞原子物理學的自發對稱性破缺機製，提出南部-戈德斯通定理，認為連續對稱性被自發破缺後必存在額外的零質量玻色子，稱為戈德斯通玻色子。1963年，菲利普·安德森發表論文指出，類似戈德斯通玻色子的準粒子也可以在其它物理學領域找到，他猜測，對於相對論性模型，假若正確應用規範不變性理論，戈德斯通玻色子問題應該可以迎刃而解。
希格斯在1964年於蘇格蘭高地健行時突然獲得靈感，隨後在美國物理學會《物理快報》發表論文解決南部-戈德斯通定理留下的難題。希格斯在論文裏提出希格斯機製理論，但是遭到《物理快報》退回。於是他將論文轉投到《物理評論快報》，同時有另外五位科學家也獲得相同的結論，包括弗朗索瓦·恩格勒、羅伯特·布繞特、傑拉德·古拉尼、卡爾·哈庚和湯姆·基博爾。這六位物理學者分別發表的三篇論文在《物理評論快報》50周年慶祝文獻裏被公認為裏程碑論文。
2011年底，大型強子對撞機的兩個實驗分別獨立在質量為125GeV附近，偵測到希格斯玻色子可能出現過的跡象[18]。2012年7月，CERN宣布發現新玻色子，符合希格斯玻色子的質量與性質。2013年3月14日，歐洲核子研究組織發布新聞稿表示，先前探測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－）是比利時理論物理學者，在粒子物理學做出重要貢獻。
1964年，恩格勒和羅伯特·布繞特共同提出希格斯機製與希格斯玻色子理論。另外還有兩個研究小組也在同年獨立地提出類似結果，一組為傑拉德·古拉尼、卡爾·哈庚、湯姆·基博爾，另一組為彼得·希格斯。六位物理學者分別發表的三篇論文，在《物理評論快報》50周年慶祝文獻裏被公認為裏程碑論文。恩格勒的主要研究領域為統計力學、粒子物理學、宇宙學。
1955年，恩格勒從法語布魯塞爾自由大學畢業，獲得學士學位。畢業後，他選擇留在學校繼續攻讀博士。1959年，得到博士學位。同年他成為康乃爾大學的副研究員，上司是助教授羅伯特·布繞特。他們成為好朋友與密切工作夥伴。1960年，恩格勒升任為助教授。1961年，恩格勒返還比利時，布繞特全家也跟著一起去法語布魯塞爾自由大學，布繞特在那裏擔任正教授。1964年，恩格勒擢升為正教授。1980年，布繞特與恩格勒共同領導理論物理組。1998年，恩格勒成為榮譽退休教授。
1964年6月，布繞特團隊發表了三頁論文，他們指出，假定在量子真空（quantum vacuum）裏標量場的振幅不等於零，則會引起自發對稱性破缺，從而促使某些規範玻色子獲得質量。由於電磁相互作用的光子與傳遞弱相互作用的W及Z玻色子都是規範玻色子，這結果是統一弱相互作用與電磁相互作用的關鍵。稍後，希格斯獨立發表論文概述怎樣能夠應用局域規範不變性來回避戈德斯通定理。不久之後，希格斯發表第二篇論文，他將上述回避方法加以延伸應用於一種非常簡單模型，借以描述規範矢量場怎樣獲得質量。在這篇論文裏，希格斯給出後來知名為“希格斯玻色子”的假定量子的方程。希格斯的1966年論文又推導出希格斯玻色子的衰變機製；隻有帶質量玻色子衰變，假若找到衰變的跡象，就可以證實希格斯玻色子存在。
古拉尼團隊論文提到了布繞特團隊與希格斯分別獨立於1964年發表的論文。這論文也推導出希格斯玻色子的存在，但是希格斯的希格斯玻色子具有質量，而古拉尼團隊的希格斯玻色子不具有質量，這結果令人疑問兩種希格斯玻色子是否相同。在2009年與2011年發表的兩篇論文中，古拉尼解釋，在古拉尼團隊給出的模型裏，取至最低階近似，玻色子的質量為零，但是這質量的數值沒有被任何理論限製；取至較高階，玻色子可以獲得質量；另外，隻有古拉尼團隊論文明白寫出模型裏沒有零質量戈德斯通玻色子，這論文是唯一對於整個希格斯機製給出完整分析的論文。
1971年，正在烏特勒支大學攻讀博士的傑拉德·特·胡夫特與他的論文指導教授馬丁紐斯·韋爾特曼共同將楊-米爾斯理論加以重整化。他們表示，假若按照希格斯機製來實現楊-米爾斯理論的對稱性破缺，則楊-米爾斯理論可以重整化。這是二十世紀理論物理學的重要成就之一。由於這貢獻，希格斯機製開始得到理所當然的重視。1999年，胡夫特與韋爾特曼共同因此獲得諾貝爾物理學獎。
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-731142.html
*******************************77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
Reference #3
隨便說說2013的諾貝爾（2）——物理 精選
已有2212 次閱讀 2013-10-823:34 |個人分類:渭城朝雨浥輕塵-原創|係統分類:人物紀事|關鍵詞:諾貝爾物理希格斯恩格勒玻色子
實話說本人雖然高中時候的班主任就是物理老師，但是大物還是差一點掛掉。。。。在此對我的老師和各位科學先賢三鞠躬，沒學好真是愧對啊。
今晚物理諾獎開獎的時候，據說是延遲了好幾次？不知道是給場內外的觀眾吃飯的時間呢還是在等老爺子們的飛機還是在研究到底獎給誰……
不過呢，量子物理或者粒子物理學本來就有點晦澀難懂（大物裏好像都沒有，比高數難多了！），連薛定諤的貓那個問題能搞明白就不容易了，別說什麽玻色子了。可是“希格斯玻色子”這個專有名詞在2012-2013年之間幾乎達到了婦孺皆知的地步，這可全賴歐洲強子對撞機的同僚和新聞界同事的努力啊（又臉皮厚了，誰跟你是同事）。
實話說我看了半天的整套理論，還是中文的，還是用科普語言寫的，可是還似懂非懂（再次三鞠躬）。可見幾位老爺子當年真是天縱英才啊~~~其實說白了，微觀物理就是在研究什麽最小這個問題。分子可以分成原子和電子，原子可以分成質子中子，質子中子可以分成誇克，這似乎就到頭了。然後希格斯玻色子就是能給這些小東西以質量的一個東西。一般人可能覺得，重量是源於地心引力，質量是自己的啊，和神馬子有啥關係。這樣理解已經是高中物理水平了（其實到這個水平就不容易了，非物理專業人士到這也就夠了），但是任何物品都可以往小了分，分到頭就是各種子各種誇，這些東西的質量並不是自己本來就有的，而是有一個場（場這個概念其實高中就有，那時說就是物質），但是場看不見摸不著，那到底是不是物質？是，希格斯玻色子就是組成希格斯場的物質，隻不過太小了你看不見，你的觸覺也感覺不到而已。這麽說明白一點了吧，東西必須在場裏才有質量，而希格斯場到處都有。所以希格斯玻色子也可以說是最基本的子之一了。
弗朗索瓦槧格勒
Fran漀椀猀 Englert，比利時公民。1932年出生於比利時埃特爾貝克（Etterbeek），1959年從布魯塞爾自由大學獲得博士學位，目前為該校榮譽退休教授。
彼得希格斯
Peter W. Higgs，英國公民。1929年出生於英國紐卡斯爾。1954年從倫敦大學國王學院獲得博士學位。目前為愛丁堡大學榮譽退休教授。
其實得獎者本來還應該有一位老爺子，他就是羅伯特·布繞特（Robert Brout），他是恩格勒老爺子的導師，是美國人，1928年6月14日出生在紐約。其實布爺爺和恩爺爺才是第一個提出希格斯場和希格斯機製這些理論的人，他倆比希爺爺的論文不論投稿時間還是發稿時間都早了半個月到一個月。可惜，這裏有一個不太美麗的失誤。（具體看這裏http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3779-731147.html）
不管怎樣，這玩意就冠名以希爺爺的名字了。我想這就是無數人夢寐以求的“名垂青史”吧。不過這裏還有三個科學家有點冤枉：他們是傑拉德·古拉尼、卡爾·哈庚、湯姆·基博爾。他們也在同一年做了類似甚至更深刻完整的工作，可是他們就因為晚了一點點（兩個來月）就沒有機會得諾貝爾了。畢竟諾貝爾的習慣是不會給超過三個人……據說這也是當年中國的胰島素沒能得獎的原因？（不過至少這六個人還一起得了另外一個獎）
這次布爺爺雖然早已仙逝，但是他的愛徒得獎，對他來說也是一樣的。布爺爺和恩爺爺本來就是第一個提出整套機製的人，希爺爺隻是多說了個粒子（據說還有位南部爺爺的點撥http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/10/283531.shtm）
比較頭疼的是沒什麽能挖出來的八卦……唯一的就是兩位得獎者都是歐洲的，大型強子對撞機也是在歐洲，看生活大爆炸幾位主演在劇中都把大型強子對撞機當成聖地一樣，歐洲作為現代科學發源地真是老而彌堅啊。不過要找出一個和以往諾貝爾獲獎者毫無關係的獲獎者，也挺不容易的……（文學獎和和平獎不在此列）
還要再八卦一點點，昨天說要拚這個拚那個，其實也不要灰心，每個人的一生都會遇到一些人會幫助你，就像從前說的貴人。隻不過在這之前，一定要保持謙恭的態度，如果“貴人”們的指點有情有理，那可一定不要放過……
本文內容和圖片基本上源於網絡信息整理（包括科學網，果殼等網站）和本人理解，理論理解如果有錯誤歡迎指點一二。
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: 各位有緣人【總之就是正在看著屏幕的您！】，[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.
轉載本文請聯係原作者獲取授權，同時請注明本文來自何毓琦科學網博客。
鏈接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-1029741.html
**
PPS: 本博網編者啟事 - - -
本博網欄目所有文章為記錄個人的雜感眉批啟示 - 為意識流、隨想錄、隨筆記、塗鴉紙、奔騰八方思緒,寫時就是思緒的千軍萬馬搶過獨木橋 - 寫下來的這點就是過了獨木橋的那幾個思緒軍馬。本個人隻記下幾個思緒軍馬, 不論對錯輕重緩急。
為本個人厘清思想緣起與延伸發展而附加注明轉載文章來源 (收集轉載文章為自學收藏), 轉載文章並不代表本網編者讚同其觀點和對其真實性負責。凡本網編者啟事注明版權所有的作品，網文章版權均屬於文學城/新浪網/科學網/人民網/TIME/NYT/CNBC/NPR/Google/HigherEducation/Science/Nature/Zihu/backChina/未名空間(mitbbs.com) 。凡署名作者的，版權則屬原作者或出版人所有。凡經本網編者轉載, 或作者不授權 - 經反映本博網編者會采用相應措施。
本博網編者園地個人點滴時空軌跡：滿足本個人不同時空 (on travel, on silent, with the public, being alone, staring the sky, feel blue) 閱讀需求，本個人探討國內國際動態，本個人版塊解讀態勢，呈現本個人立體環境。偶而在於傳遞更多信息(If you swing by for drop-in visit of my blog webpage)。歡迎關注評論指正轉載 - 本個人擇善固執, 因此不敬之處請原諒。
((擇善固執-- 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. ))
轉載本文請聯係原作者獲取授權，同時請注明本文來自李勝文科學網博客。
鏈接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1071282.html
轉載本文請聯係原作者獲取授權，同時請注明本文來自李勝文科學網博客。
鏈接地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1071424.html
2013年諾貝爾獎
http://210.75.240.149/blog-847277-731582.html
上一篇：PNAS:父親為性亡-進化的好處?
下一篇：紐約時報啟示“錢學森之問”答案之鑰匙?!
28 許培揚 曾傑 劉廣明 喻海良 楊正瓴 陳鋼 王春豔 方錦清 劉全慧 曹聰 嶽東曉 孫彧 田雲川 戴德昌 蘇光鬆 李天成 薛宇 趙序茅 謝蜀生 強濤 zhangling qqlisten guoyanghuawu yunmu biofans XY ddsers advogato
該博文允許注冊用戶評論 請點擊登錄 評論 (21 個評論)
- [21]???
- ?????????? ??
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-689453.html ???
?? 12561 ????013-5-13 10:34|??????????br />
See: http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-689453.html
???????й???????????????????????????????????
???й????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????Щ?????????Щ???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????絼??Щ?????鼼????????Щ??????й????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????psychological insecurity?????????????û???4?????????
????????????????磩?????????й?????????Щ????????????????????С?????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????о???????????????4??Щ????????????ó??4????????????????9??????
???????????????????????????????????????????????1970??980???????????????????????????????????????λ?????????????????????????λ??????????????????????????????????????????????4???????????????????????????????????3????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????<????ý???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????綥??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????й??????õ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????9?????????????????????????????????????ideas????????4????????????????????????????????????û??????????as????????????????????ideas are cheap????????????й????????????deas???ideas?????????????????
???????????? ?Щ????????????????????????緒????????????????????????????Щ???д????????????????
??????????????????????????????Щ?????????????Щ?????????Щ??????????????????Щ???????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1?辶?????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????й??????????????????????????????????????????????????У????????????????????????????????????
??????????http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-424754-689728.html
- [20]???
- ??: "2009??? Guralnik??????????????The History of the Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble development of the Theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Gauge Particles????????????ζ???????????????????????????B????????о???????????????????û??????they did not form a serious challenge to our work.????
G????EB??????????????????????????????????????û?????????????Hagen???????EB??????????????淶c??????GHK?????????????c???????????Goldstone???????????????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????????????????????????GHK???????·?????????An unbiased reading of all the papers should make it clear that GHK is the result of an entirely independent train of thought.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????·?????????????????????????????????????????ô????????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??B????????ο????????
??????????http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279992-731275.html
- [19]???
- ?????????????????????????????????????j???????????????????????????????????????????????????λ???????????????????
??????????????????????ÿ???????仰????????????????????????????????ÿ????????f??????????????????????õ??4??????????
???Я????????????
http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/10/283874.shtm
- [18]jinjiawang
- ?????????
???????????00??????????????????????????
????????????
?????????????? ???????????????????????????????
http://idea.cas.cn/viewdoc.action?docid=10
- [17]???
- ???????? (?????????????????ο?????That's an expert's prose! I got move it up in my portfolio of references literature. So much to learn, so little time!)
[??]?????????????û????????????
?? 140 ????2013-10-10 17:31 |????????|????????????????
??????????(10??????
û????????????
?? ?
2013??????????????????????????????á????????????2λ?????????λ??????ya Prigogine),????b?????????977?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????д????????????α??????????????????????80?????????????????????????????(???????????)???????????????????????????û????????????????????????????????????????Щ?????????????????????????????С??????
û????????????
??????????????5?????
1?????????????
???????????????4??????????????????????????????????????????????
2?????????????c?????
?????????鱝????????????Щc????????????????????????????f??????c????????????c????????f????????????????????
3????ô?û????????????????û?????
??????????????????????????????ô??????У?c????????????????????????????DNA??????????????????????????????????????????????????
4?????????????????????????????
2000????????о???????????????????????????????????????????4????????????15 GeV???????????????????????????????6????????????????????????¼?????????????????????????????????????????????C???λ???2011???LHC??????????????????????????????????115-130 GeV?????????????????????????????????
5??????????????????????? />
2008?8????????о?????????????????????????????80????????????????4?34???????μ?????<?????2010????????е??????????8????????о????????Щ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????4???br />
6???????????????????
1964????????}?????ÿ?????}??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????λ????????л?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
7????????????????????????????????
????????????????????1993???????????n•??????????????????????????????????????????????????#8226;?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????4?????????????????????????????????????????????£???Χ?????????????????????
8????????100??????????????
?????????Ъ?????????00???????????????????????????????????????????????????о??????????????????????÷?????????????????????????????????????????????100??????
9?????????????С?????}???
????????????????????????????????????????????????????c????????????????????????????c????????????Щ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????n????????????????????????????????????????????
10???????????????????????
???????1988?????????????3???п??鼮????????????????????ô????ô?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????c?????????????????????????????
??????????http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-266190-731782.html
- [16]OUGWH
- ???????????????????}??????????¹????????????ò?????????????????????ù?/dd>
- ??????(2013-10-11 00:58)??????}?Σ?????????????}????Linus Pauling got twice, different categories. Madam Curie got twice. "?????????????????????Marie Curie and Pierre Curie?????????1903??????????????????????Marie Curie???8??????911????????????" (??????????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?
- [15]biofans
- >>[8]???nbsp; 2013-10-10 15:18 ?????????????????????????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
???????????????????br /> ?????????????л?????????????/dd> - ??????(2013-10-11 00:59)?????????壬????м???Thanks for your clarification, appreciated!
- [14]birdwing
- ???????????????????cp????????j??????????????????????????λ?????????????????????????????????????о?)???????????????????
- ??????(2013-10-11 00:40)??????????£??????????????????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!
- [13]Zjinney
- ???????????????????
???????????綥???????????????????????µ???????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????4???????????????ñ?iggsc?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????δ?????
?????????????????????????????ý???????
????ÿ???????????????????????YY?????????
?????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????¸???ô????????????????? - ??????(2013-10-11 01:07)??????????£???????????????
- [12]blackrain007
- ??????????????????????????????????е???????????λ??????????λ?????????????????????λ????
- ??????(2013-10-11 00:46)?????????д??????????????a?
- [11]qzw
- Breaking News -- Alice Munro is the winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Literature.
- ??????(2013-10-11 01:09)????????????????????
- [10]jinjiawang
- ????????????00????????????????????????
????????????????
http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=ppp7l3tg7lTy-69pgc4WsFZs2kYexN4LvVDsVMVsTjCCFzy4wThtUmoM6KQWMAXy
?û??????? - ??????(2013-10-11 01:08)??????????£???????????????
- [9]??/a>
- ?????????????????????????û????????????????????????????
- ??????(2013-10-11 01:43)???????? ???quot;?" "?" ??????????????????????!
- ??????(2013-10-11 01:06)??????xио?飡??????????????"??е???д???}??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????ж??????????д??????????4???????????????棬??????????????д????? ???????????"(??????????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!
- [8]????
- ?-?????õý??????????????????ã????????????????????
- ??????(2013-10-11 01:47)???????????????????????????, ??????õõ??????????????
- [7]???/a>
- ?????????????????????????????
- ??????(2013-10-11 00:51)??[16]biofans 2013-10-10 07:40
>> [8]???nbsp; 2013-10-10 15:18 ?????????????????????????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
???????????????????br /> ?????????????л?????????????br /> You should expand your thought on the following:
[1]???nbsp; 2013-10-9 23:17
???????????????????????????????????????????f??????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????
?????????????ï???????????????????????????
- [6]diracdjch
- ??????????????????ο???????????????????0????????棿???????????Щ????????????
- ??????(2013-10-11 00:43)??[6]loujinshan 2013-10-9 18:21
????????????????(??????????????????????????http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-673617-731570.html - ??????(2013-10-10 15:05)??????--"??????????????????"
??????????http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html - ??????(2013-10-10 14:52)??"???f????????????????
??
2013???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????ô?еõ??Щ?ô???????????п?????????????????????????????????????????Щ??????????????????ô?1901-2013????ô????????????Щ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????
??????????http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-212210-731640.html " - ??????(2013-10-10 14:27)?????ô?ô??????ô????????????????????.?ô???????????????????<???????????????????????????????????????ôì????????????ô????
- [5]??b
- ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????a?????????????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?????????
- [4]??b
- ????????????????????????????a href="http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39840-731673.html" target="_blank">http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39840-731673.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
?????????????????лл?? - ??????(2013-10-10 13:41)????úã??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????a?????????????????
- [3]???
- ?????????????????????????????????????????? ????? ???????????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????? ????????? ????????????????
- ??????(2013-10-10 13:31)???????δ?????????"?淶??"??????
- [2]????
- ????????????????
- ??????(2013-10-10 13:20)?????ö? ?????????ζ???8203;???
- [1]????
- ???????û???YANG-MILLS???????????????????????(1)?淶???????????????????????YANG-MILLS????
?μ?a href="http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-684007-731620.html" target="_blank">http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-684007-731620.html - ??????(2013-10-10 13:03)??"???????û???YANG-MILLS???????????????????????(1)?淶???????????????????????YANG-MILLS????"
?????????, ????????£??????????????????????????????????????????????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? - ??????(2013-10-10 12:41)???????????????, ?????????????????????/?????????????"???????????б???????????????????????????}??br />
1???С????
??????????????????-???????????????仯????ν?????С??
??-?????????ô???????????????²????¶?????н????
???????c??????????-?????}????????????????????????
????????????????????仯????????????????
2???淶?????
?????????????????????????õ??????????????????????????c??????????????br /> ????? ?? ??-??????ð???й???????????????????????????ô??????????????????????????
?????????ô???????????????????????????????????c????????????ô???????????????A?????A??仯?????????????????????? ????
????4?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????5?????????????????????????????????????????????????е??????????????c???????????????????-???????????????????????????????????????
3??????r />
?????淶?????????淶??A?????????A?????????????????淶???????????淶?????????????????????????????????c????????ô????淶?????????????
???????????????????????????????????????0??????????????任????С????????????淶??A?????????????????ο???????
?????????о?????????????????????????????????ó??????????????????????????????????????
??????????????ô4????"
