9
$\begingroup$

We have fermions (named after Fermi) and bosons (named after Bose). Why don't we name the particle corresponding to the Higgs field a "higgson"? The superpartner particle (sparticle) of the Higgs boson is the higgsino, which makes the name "higgson" more reasonable (the sparticle of the photon is the photino).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related, but not a duplicate of hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6/… $\endgroup$ – user22 Oct 29 '14 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ It's worth pointing out that Higgs boson -> Higgsino follows the same convention of the SU(2) gauge bosons, (e.g. W boson -> Wino), though we more commonly talk about the mass eigenstates, termed charginos and neutralinos. So the analogy with the photon isn't entirely justified. $\endgroup$ – Logan M Oct 29 '14 at 19:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ higgson sounds as a surname $\endgroup$ – Anixx Apr 28 '15 at 20:36
7
$\begingroup$

There are a number of reasons:

  1. The thing that differentiates fermions and bosons from the Higgs boson specifically is that they are general classes of particles (based on spin), while the Higgs boson is a specific particle (or particle type, if you will).
  2. The names "fermions" and "bosons" were coined by Paul Dirac, who was no longer in prominence when the idea behind the Higgs field was proposed. In general, particles aren't named after people (the Higgs boson is an exception).
  3. Just ask Benjamin Lee (unfortunately deceased) who first used the term.
  4. The idea behind the higgsino, supersymmetry, didn't come around until the early 1970s, and didn't rise to prominence until much later; by then, the term "Higgs boson" was well established, and "higgson" wouldn't have been catchy enough.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 2. We have Dirac fermion and Majorana fermion. I know that once the habit has started, it's hard to change. But why didn't the first people who named it (like Benjamin Lee) use higgson? $\endgroup$ – Ooker Oct 29 '14 at 8:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dirac was no longer in prominence? I thought by dint of having his electron equation, he was always in prominence. $\endgroup$ – Manjil P. Saikia Oct 29 '14 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ @ManjilP.Saikia Sure, he was famous, but he was no longer participating in research at the level he was at his prime. Others were making headlines. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Oct 29 '14 at 17:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.