Today Peter Higgs will present his standard talk “My Life as a Boson” at Bristol in a CERN webcast seminar. It could be a good moment to continue the running debate about who is worthy of the inevitable Nobel prize for the Higgs Boson that has already featured on other blogs (see NEW, Resanaances, TRF)
With the discovery of the “Massive Scalar Boson” (a.k.a The Higgs) now seeming imminent, physicists are jostling for position to take the credit. There are at least seven living physicists who played key roles in the prediction of its existence fifty years ago and many more experimentalists and phenomenologists who worked more recently on its likely discovery at the LHC with supporting evidence from the Tevatron. It seems that at least one Nobel must be up for grabs for the theoretical work in the 1960s and possibly another for the experimental side, but the rules only allow for three laureates to share a prize, so who will the Nobel committee choose?
It is not just the prize money that is at stake. There is fervent national pride to play for. The prize for the Higgs boson is building to become the most widely anticipated Nobel Prize in history. Already we are seeing campaigns to support the various candidates in the form of people naming the particle in honour of their colleagues as a way of supporting their cause. Controversy started mounting at the Higgs Hunting conference in 2010 in Paris. The organisers decided that the sought after boson should actually be called the BroutEnglertHiggs boson to recognise the contributions of 1964 Robert Brout and Francois Englert who submitted the first complete paper on the symmetry breaking mechanism a few weeks before Higgs. This ignited a raging controversy set alight by supporters of Tom Kibble, Gerald Guralnik and Carl Hagen, three physicists who submitted an independent account of the mechanism just as the work of the other three was appearing in print. Later in 2010 the Sakurai Prize was awarded to all six making the AngloFrench campaign to support only three seem especially chilling.
In 2011 Robert Brout died. The Nobel cannot be awarded posthumously. If Brout, Englert and Higgs has been the leading contenders to take the prize before then Brout’s death opens up the way for a third Laureate to be recognised, who if anyone will it be? One possibility would be to include Kibble as a representative of the third group and also because of his extra work on the nonAbelian version of the mechanism that proved important when Weinberg and Salam developed the full theory by applying the symmetry breaking theory to Glashow’s Electroweak Gauge theory. Another strong contender is Philip Anderson who took an influential step towards the discovery with a nonrelativistic model inspired by condensed matter theories. Other possibilities might be Goldstone whose theoretical work on symmetry breaking that paved the way for the discovery has been overlooked by the Nobel committee. Perhaps even a phenomenologist such as John Ellis who did so much to develop the theory leading to its discovery could be honoured.
Getting to the bottom of it all is not easy. The final form of the Higgs mechanism was put in place by Steven Weinberg and independently Abdus Salam as the standard model ElectroWeak unification, but that work has already been rewarded, so the question is about which precursors are worthy of an extra Nobel for the Higgs. Was the prediction of the particle itself the essential element or was it the mechanism what counts? Only Higgs himself emphasised the importance of the massive Higgs boson in his early work. Does it matter if the first account was nonrelativistic or was a full model for the boson required? Will they take into account that a potential winner already has one Nobel Prize? These are questions that only the Nobel committee can answer. One thing for sure is that the controversy can only get stronger. At a recent conference in La Thuille Englert was invited to open the session about the Higgs Boson’s near discovery with a talk about its theory. This time it was the American Tevatron teams who used the BEH label while ATLAS and CMS opted for the “SM Scalar Boson”.
For the record let me state my opinion for what its worth. If I were able to nominate for the Nobel prize for the theory my choice would be Higgs, Englert and Goldstone. Higgs deserves it for highlighting the experimental prediction of the massive scalar boson while Englert in collaboration with Brout was the first to publish a description of the symmetry breaking mechanism. Goldstone is added for realising the importance of the Mexican hat potential and its consequences as well as the understanding he provided for the strong force. The work of Anderson was important but it was too incomplete and he is already a Laureate. Kibble, Guralnik and Hagen offered important explanatory details for how the mechanism overcomes the Goldstone theorem but their contribution was too late to be considered part of the original discovery. However, if Goldstone were replaced by either Anderson or Kibble in the list it would still look very reasonable. The prize committee may set their own criteria or just be influenced by how many nominations each physicist gets.
If choosing the winners of the theory prize is hard enough, the allocation of the prize for its experimental discovery is even harder. No small set of individuals among the thousands who have worked in collaboration can take enough of the credit to single them out. In a few past cases the Nobel committee has given the award to the head of the lab concerned, but the Tevatron and LHC have been developed and run over many years and the directors have changed several times. My guess is that no Nobel will be given for its experimental discovery, just as none has been given for finding the top quark.
For those who want to investigate further I have compiled a convenient list of many of the key papers and contributions that led to the prediction of the Higgs boson, or followed it. Unfortunately all of these are locked behind paywalls so I don’t have access to them and can only base my comments on what others have reported. Most of the protagonists have also posted their own historical accounts which provide valuable if highly biased background:

Anderson: Interview by Alexei Kojevnikov

Brout and Englert: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Gauge Theories: a Historical Survey

Higgs: My Life as a Boson
Heisenberg 1928
W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 49 (1928) 619.
A description of ferromagnetism as spontaneous symmetry breaking
Stueckelberg 1938
Stueckelberg, Helvetica Physica Acta Vol.11, 1938, p.299, 312
In an early precursor to the Higgs mechanism, Ernst Stueckelberg proposed a model of massive quantum electrodynamics with a coupled scalar field to spontaneously break the symmetry. This was different from the Abelian version of the Higgs mechanism in that it used an affine representation of the group rather than a linear one. Like much of his work this was ahead of its time and did not receive much credit during Stueckelberg’s lifetime.
GinzburgLandau 1950
V. L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, On the theory of superconductivity, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20 (1950) 1064
Ginzburg and Landau used a macroscopic thermodynamic theory to show how spontaneous symmetry breaking can make the photon massive and explain superconductivity. The symmetry breaking is induced by an electrically charged Bose condensate. This made use of an idea introduced by Landau where a W shaped potential spontaneously breaks the symmetry. It can be regarded as a thermodynamical precursor to the idea of the Mexican hat shaped Higgs potential that breaks the gauge symmetry in the standard model.
Landau was awarded a Nobel prize in 1962 for work on superfluids. Ginzburg also received the prize in 2003 for superconductivity and superfluids
YangMills 1954
Yang, C. N.; Mills, R. (1954). “Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isotopic Gauge Invariance”. Physical Review 96 (1): 191–195.
Based on unpublished ideas of Wolfgang Pauli, Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills developed a generalisation of the abelian gauge theories of quantum electrodynamics to nonabelian gauge groups. The theory was initially regarded as a failure due to its prediction of massless gauge bosons whereas the relevant nuclear interactions required massive intermediaries to explain the short range nature of their force.
Despite its eventual spectacular success in the Standard Model, no Nobel was ever awarded for YangMills theory although Pauli and Yang were physics laureates for other work.
BardeenCooperSchrieffer 1957
L. N. Cooper, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 1189.,
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper and J. R. Schrieffer, Microscopic theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 106 (1957) 162
This research described the first microscopic model that realised the theory of GinsburgLandau to explain low temperature superconductivity. Electrons form Cooper pairs which act like bosons and produce the charged Bose condensate as described by Ginzburg and Landau. The model breaks the electrodynamic gauge symmetry giving the photon an effective mass. This later became the inspiration for the Higgs mechanism where the bosonic field is fundamental.
The three physicists were awarded the physics Nobel Prize in 1972 for this work.
Nambu 1960
Nambu, Y (1960). “Quasiparticles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity”. Physical Review 117: 648–663
Y. Nambu, Axial vector current conservation in weak interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 380.
Nambu investigated the effects of symmetry breaking in the context of superconductivity and found that it led to a massless particle. He then considered the idea that a similar mechanism may be relevant to particle physics where the pion is nearly massless. This is due to spontaneous breaking of approximate chiral symmetry leading to a light pseudoNambuGolsytone boson.
Goldstone 1960
Goldstone, J (1961). “Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions”. Nuovo Cimento 19: 154–164
Following Nambu, Jeffrey Goldstone showed that there would be massless particles when a continuous symmetry is broken. These particles are now called NambuGoldstone bosons. This was regarded as a problem for any attempt to use spontaneous symmetry breaking where no massless particles are known. This discovery was important in the theory of the string interactions where the pion can be regarded as a pseudoNambuGoldstone boson. Goldstone also used elementary scalar fields with mexican hat potentials that became a crucial element of the Higgs mechanism.
Nambu won a Nobel Prize for spontaneous symmetry breaking in subatomic physics but Goldstone has never been awarded the prize.
Nambu, JonaLasino 1961
Y. Nambu, G. JonaLasinio (1961). “Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity”. Physical Review 122: 345–358
Y. Nambu and G. JonaLasinio described a four fermion model in which chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken and a zero mass boson is generated.
Glashow 1961
Gauge unification of electromagnetic with weak force, but no Higgs mechanism or other form of symmetry breaking so gauge bosons would be massless contrary to known physics.
Goldstone, Salam, Weinberg 1962
J. Goldstone, A. Salam, S. Weinberg (1962). “Broken Symmetries”. Physical Review 127 (3): 965
A proof was given that a zero mass boson appears when symmetry is spontaneously broken. This was a disappointment because such a zero mass particle should be easily observable so it seemed to rule out the use of symmetry breaking. The development of the Higgs mechanism came about as a realisation that the conditions of the theorem did not apply to gauge theories.
Schwinger 1962
Schwinger, Julian (1962). Gauge Invariance and Mass. II. Physical Review, Volume 128. pp. 2425
Julian Schwinger studied a model of quantum electrodynamics in 2 dimensions with a Dirac fermion. The Schwinger model can be solved analytically. It is found to exhibit spontaneous symmetry breaking of the U(1) symmetry making the photon massive. There are different views on how well this is related to the Higgs mechanism but it was certainly an influence in guiding people towards the idea that symmetry breaking could provide massive gauge bosons.
Schwinger won a Noble Prize for his codiscovery of renormalisability of QED
Anderson 1962
P. W. Anderson (1962). “Plasmons, Gauge Invariance, and Mass”. Physical Review 130 (1): 439–442
Motivated by his work in condensed matter physics, Philip Anderson showed that spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetry can give mass to the gauge bosons. His mechanism was essentially a nonrelativistic precursor to the Higgs Mechanism . The work was published in Physics Review rather than a condensed matter journal because Anderson thought it relevant to particle physics. The crucial observation was that the troublesome massless Goldstone boson mode is absorbed into the gauge boson field transforming it from the component field of a massless particle to the three component field of a massive one. He did not point out that a massive scalar boson would also be important.
Anderson was overlooked when the 2010 Sakurai prize was given to Higgs, Brout, Englert, Kibble, Guralnik and Hagen for the Higgs mechanism. Some people justify this by pointing out that the relativistic extension of his idea is nontrivial and an important part of the theory. Others say that there is bias against him from particle physicists because he is condensedmatter physicist and argued against funding the American SSC hadron collider. It is a difficult call, he certainly had some of the key elements, but the Nobel Prize is usually only given for more complete theories. In the form presented by Anderson the idea was described by Higgs as crucial but just speculation. At least Higgs cited Anderson’s paper. Brout, Englert, Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble all left the reference out despite being well aware of the prior work.
Anderson has the Nobel Prize from 1977 for work on superconductivity
KleinLee 1964
A. Klein, B.W. Lee (1964). “Does Spontaneous Breakdown of Symmetry Imply ZeroMass Particles?”. Physical Review Letters 12 (10): 266
Abraham Klein and Ben Lee pointed out that the relativistic case of Anderson’s idea would be harder because Lorentz invariance and the lack of a referred reference frame restricted the terms that could be used. They thought that it might still be possible.
Gilbert 1964
W. Gilbert, Broken symmetries and massless particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12 (1964) 713.
In response to Klein and Lee, Walter Gilbert showed that under certain assumptions it was not possible to extend Andersons idea to the relativistic case. This perhaps demonstrates best of all that the subsequent steps were not a trivial development of Anderson’s nonrelativistic version of the theory.
Gilbert later switched to biology and was awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry. He was also a thesis advisor to Guralnik.
BroutEnglert 1964
F. Englert, R. Brout (1964). “Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons”. Physical Review Letters 13 (9): 321–323
On 26 June 1964 Robert Brout and Francois Englert submitted the first paper that describes the relativistic Higgs mechanism. It was published in Physics Review Letters on 31^{st} August 1964. The paper showed how gauge symmetry can be broken by scalar fields to give rise to massive gauge bosons as required by the weak nuclear force. They did not mention the existence of a scalar boson. The work covered both Abelian and nonAbelian gauge theories and also considered the possibility that a condensate of fermions could be behind the symmetry breaking mechanism (this would mean a composite Higgs boson but they did not elucidate it in those terms)
The paper mentioned both Abelian and nonAbelian gauge theories
Higgs 1964
P. Higgs (1964). “Broken Symmetries, Massless Particles and Gauge Fields”. Physics Letters 12 (2): 132.
P. Higgs (1964). “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons”. Physical Review Letters 13 (16): 508
When Higgs saw Gilbert’s paper it soon occurred to him that Schwinger’s model already provided a counterexample to the claim that a relativistic theory of symmetry breaking without massless bosons was not possible. He quickly wrote a note for Physics Letters that was submitted on 24^{th} July and was later accepted. A second paper describing the model in detail was submitted a week later. This contained a complete model of the Higgs mechanism for abelian gauge theories. It was a hybrid of Goldstones scalar theory with Maxwell’s equations.
This second paper was rejected. It has been said that the referee who rejected the paper was Nambu and that he suggested the paper needed to have more about the experimental implications of the model. It has even been said that he highlighted the massive scalar boson in the spectrum. Higgs does not mention this influence in his account and says that he revised the paper himself along such lines. It was sent to Physical Review Letters at the end of August and was accepted. Higgs says that Nambu was the referee of this second paper for PRL not PL and that he drew his attention to the work of Brout and Englert which had just been published, with the result that Higgs added a citation to their paper.
Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble 1964
G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen and T.W.B. Kibble (1964). “Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles”. Physical Review Letters 13 (20): 585.
The GHK paper on the symmetry breaking mechanism came later than BEH so it would have to add some crucial piece of the picture to be regarded as prize worthy. It is often regarded as the most comprehensive treatment of the time and showed how the massless mode is avoided in more explicit terms. It did not recognise the massive scalar boson but it is not obvious that this would have increased its worthiness if it had. The real question is just whether the extra contributions they made entitle the authors to be recognised as original pioneers of the Higgs mechanism.
The authors were included in the award of the Sakurai prize in 2010, but there is no room for them to be included in the Nobel Prize. At best they can hope for one of them to be included.
Polyakov, Migdal 1966
A. Migdal and A. Polyakov, ZHETF 51, 135 (1966).
In 1966 Polyakov and Migdal working in Russia published another independent verison of the Higgs mechanism. Although the publication was significantly behind the others this is said to be due to the publication originally being rejected by the journal it was submitted to. No date has been given for the origianl submission. Some say it was in 1965 and others say it was in 1964 and even before the work of Englert, Brout and Higgs. Polyakov a young student at the time who later became a formidable physicsts responsible for many other contributions to the subject. Nobody would doubt his ability to develop the theory at that time but the peerreview system and the iron curtain may have robbed him of due credit for the Higgs boson.
Englert, Brout, Thiry 1966
F. Englert, R.Brout and M. Thiry, Il Nuovo Cimento 43A (1966) 244
This work reasoned that a gauge theory using the Higgs Mechanism could be renormalizable.
Higgs 1966
P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156.
This was a more detailed paper about the Higgs Mechanism and its experimental consequences.
Kibble 1967
T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 155, 1554 (1967).
Details of the nonAbelian version of the Higgs Model
Weinberg 1967
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1264.
Steven Weinberg married together the gauge theory of Glashow and the Higgs mechanism to form the completed model of Electroweak theory
Salam 1968
A. Salam, in the Proceedings of 8th Nobel Symposium, Lerum, Sweden, 1925 May, 1968, pp 367377.
Abdus Salam independently provided his formulation of the Electroweak theory.
Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble 1968
G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, T.W.B. Kibble (1968). “Broken Symmetries and the Goldstone Theorem”. In R. L. Cool, R. E. Marshak. Advances in Particle Physics. 2. Interscience Publishers. pp. 567–708
‘t Hooft, Veltman 1971
G. ’t Hooft, “Renormalizable Lagrangians for massive YangMills fields” Nucl. Phys. B35 (1971) 167.
Proof that the standard model is renormalisable. It was not until this paper was published that acceptance of the Electroweak theory became widespread.
EllisGaillardNanopoulos
J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 106 (1976) 292.
In this paper the authors started to look at how the Higgs might be observed in accelerators and alerted experimentalists to the possibility.
The obvious answer is that the rule must evolve.
GHK has most complete solution. Would be a shame if they are snubbed.
Somebody could write an even more complete solution now. Do they deserve the prize?
No – not nearly 50 years later, but GHK was independent and essentially simultaneously. In fact GHK published in shorter duration gap between the BE and Higgs papers. It is also the only one that had the boson and showed how the Goldstone Theorem failed – not that it could fail. The boson was massless but gained mass in the model. To treat the time gaps as significant would be stressing the wrong points on these three papers.
Here are dates:
31st August 1964: Francois Englert and Robert Brout (full paper, received 26 June)
19th October 1964: Peter Higgs (full paper, received 31 August)
16th November 1964: Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble (full paper, received 12 October)
Also Guralnik published papers on this prior to the GHK which show an extension of the thinking and timing.
G.S. Guralnik, “Naturally Occurring Zero Mass Particles and Broken Symmetries”, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 13, 295 (1964).
G.S Guralnik, “Photon as a Symmetry Breaking Solution to Field Theory I”, Phys. Rev. 136, 1404 (1964)
G.S. Guralnik, “Photon as a Symmetry Breaking Solution to Field Theory II”, Phys. Rev. 136, 1417 (1964)
Best solution would be to allow 5 to get Nobel. The “rules” of the academy could be modified somewhat easily – more similar to voting in a fraternity house than Congress.
Nice post on this topic.
PhysicsPet, above, has already made most of the necessary arguments needed in order to show that a statement such as this one is, at best, disingenuous: if you plan to make a *historical* argument, at least make one that is *factually correct*, and not some minced up version of cherrypicked events. There is a paper trail to all of those works; there are clearly different lines of argumentation; there are plenty of historical accounts by very different people; etc; etc; etc; no need for logical fallacies.
However, there is one subtler detail that insists in not making headlines: the bare mass in the leading (“treelevel”) approximation is irrelevant. Is it really true that working professionals in physics are not aware of this fact‽
I only asked a question so anything else you think I stated came from your imagination. I have already said that I would be happy to see GHK recognised but it is unrealistic to suppose that the committee are going to change the rules and allow more than three winners. They have awarded hundreds of prizes and must have faced the same dilemma many times before, yet the rules stand. In principle they could give two prizes on separate years but they will only consider one at a time and a second nomination would compete with other discoveries.
If you see factual errors please point them out. I have said that I don’t have access to the papers so everything is a summary of what others have said. I am ready to be corrected.
Thanks for the extra references
Small historical edit….the Sakurai Prize in 2010 was awarded before the spat in Paris in 2010. That conference was in July of 2010. The Sakurai award was in Feb of 2010.
Higg’s life as boson paper posted here was also after the Sakurai Prize. Peter shows he understands Nobel math by completely ignoring GHK.
There was a mention of GHK in the questions, but I think it is clear that he discounts them for the prize due to being later than himself and exceeding the 3 person cutoff.
Update: Peter Higgs’ “Life as a Boson” speech(s) and paper (posted here) was after the Sakurai Prize was announced in late September 2009 but before it was awarded in Feb 2010. Sorry for double post to clarify.
Wow, quite an analysis.
Much of this was mentioned in the book The Infinity Puzzle by Frank Close: http://www.amazon.co.uk/TheInfinityPuzzleunderstandextraordinary/dp/0199593507
A great book authored by someone who was there while it happened.
Why does that prevent him from being biased?
That would make more sense :)
Wasn’t he responding to carla’s:
“…someone who was there while it happened.”
Yes, but it is possibly biased and some inacurracies were highlighted on NEW I think.
Thanks for posting Woit’s NEW blog entry – did not see that before.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4181
The point on t’hooft made in the comments is interesting. Close’s failure to comment on t’hooft’s 40 year migration from a “HiggsKibble Mechanism” (with credit to all 3 groups) to a “BEH Mechanism” does seem intentional given all the other details brought forward about footnotes and other papers (i.e. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1264).
My own theory on this is all these books have a deal between the authors and subjects (Higgs in particular). The subjects provide access in exchange for the story to match how they want it to be told…regardless of the paper trail left from years past.
Please check dates. I believe Frank Close is younger than all six theorists and was not at any of the locations in 1964 as the theory was being ironed out by the three groups.
Unfortunately there is a precondition … noone gets a prize unless the boson is actually observed. And confidently observed. It would be so embarrassing to see a prize awarded prematurely and then find that it was just a statistical anomaly that disappeared with more data, or an intermittent fault in some instrumentation. Unlikely perhaps, but these things have happened before!
This bosonhunt has been so hyped up that there must now be a good chance that no prize will be awarded at all. Not until it is certain that it has been seen, and certain that there is no other explanation.
How close am I in my interpretation of a “particle”?
In the standing spherical wave concept, the energy in that sphere (packet) is E = h * c / lambda. where h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed the peak moves in the sphere and lambda is 2r (r is the spacial radius of the sphere).
It takes the “peak” energy (density?) 720 degrees to make one cycle around the sphere (oscillating 90 degrees at a time from the center to the “surface” (amplitude?) of the sphere and back to the center).
The spin is the intrinsic rotation of the peak around an axis to complete one cycle (through x, y and z, i.e. 720 degrees). This intrinsic rotation is what gives the “particle’s angular momentum.
The electric charge is a measure of the effect by the “electric” field created by the peak oscillating between the center of the sphere to the “surface”. The electric field is the gradient of energy created in a grid of all the particles in the universe.
The mass is the measure of the momentum transferable from one particle to another and is created by oscillatory motion of the peak confined in a spherical space (quantum confinement, quanta space).
Speculations from my interpretation:
1) The radius of the sphere for any type of particle is derived by the principle of least action, the resultant effects of all the fields acting on the particle.
2) The attraction force, quantum gravity, is created by the oscillatory nature of the “wave” within the spherical space. When the peak moves to the surface it creates a negative pressure (tending towards “empty” space in the center) and by the principle of least action must return to the center. Like all other fields, gravity likewise is the summation of these (quanta) negative pressures by all the particles in the universe. hence, the gravity “wells” are greatest where there is a dense coalescing of particles, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.
3) These oscillations that some have coalesced to “particles” (standing waves) where created by the expansion of the energy, space, and time system. The expansion of the universe (energy and space) could not be done isotropically because of the time factor, i.e. instantaneity is not possible and hence energy expanded in a nonuniform densities. These variations in energy densities patterns grow more and more complex leading to the “coalescing” of space, (formation of “particles”).
4) The fields and particles have a duality in the sense that all the particles create the fields and each particle effects another through these fields.
PS; What is energy?
I would like to quote Narendra Katkar in one of his papers, “The Speed of Light, A Fundamental Retrospection to Prospection”
“The Universe is a process of Absolute transformation,
from Cosmic Primal Energy, CPE to Quantum to
Radiation and back to CPE Vacuum State.
CPE → QE → RE→ CPE
Energy is never created neither lost.
“Everything essentially is Energy”
What is Energy? …!!! ”
Why not give the prize to the Inventor or Creator of that particle, who made an endlessly greater effort. The rest only discovered it but can they make such a particle too?