gleki wrote:
> i think this is too much. First we need to put all elementary particle
> into one table with their places defined.
>
>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahngu1CNj7wddDZBRzgwMm1EWlpKU
> EJRcTQtUGNCMFE&usp=drive_web#gid=8
>
> I suggested boson as jbozoni etc.

I have (without editing this definition) been treating the Higgs mechanism
as I have been treating gravitation (grava) and other fundamental
interactions (since the mediator is a elementary boson to the best of our
knowledge; not that while its spin is 0*hbar and spin of the other
discovered bosons that mediate fundamental interactions are 1*hbar, the
spin of the graviton is expected to be 2*hbar). The Higgs boson is not the
only thing that is xigzo. Thus, I think that this word is justified and
its gismu nature is too (if we consider the other interactions deserving
of gismu too (and I do opine so)). I also do not think that this word in
anyway gets in the way of the rest of the nomenclature.

Comment #12: Re: ko sisti

Curtis W Franks (Sun Jul 6 03:37:40 2014)

krtisfranks wrote: > I have (without editing this definition) been treating the Higgs mechanism > as I have been treating gravitation (grava) and other fundamental > interactions (since the mediator is a elementary boson to the best of our > knowledge; not that while its spin is 0*hbar and spin of the other *note [Typo] > discovered bosons that mediate fundamental interactions are 1*hbar, the > spin of the graviton is expected to be 2*hbar). The Higgs boson is not I was saying that the difference is bosonic nature betwixt the Highs and the photon, the W_(±) and Z_0 bosons, and gluons is not conceptually great enough to justify treating them differently since the graviton is treated as the latter four are and is somewhat similarly different therefrom. the > only thing that is xigzo. Thus, I think that this word is justified and > its gismu nature is too (if we consider the other interactions deserving > of gismu too (and I do opine so)). I also do not think that this word in > anyway gets in the way of the rest of the nomenclature. [Except for the fact that we can be briefer and more "obvious" with the meaning of lujvo (rather than zi'evla). For example, xigyka'u would be "Higgs boson" (like tsabyka'u would be "gluon").]