Dear JAM (I must use your short signature, since I am unable to read your name in the characters you used), I usually read all the responses to my articles, so, as you can see, I didn't stop at the point you suggested it was worth to.

I consider every critic as constructive (of course, if they are not offensive), even when I do not agree with them.

In this case, after reading your comment, I re-read my article looking for the "professional" tone you mentioned, but I must admit I could not find it. Or, at least, I would say that my explanation not so formal and rigorous such that it can be understood only by professionals.

Indeed, I used only concepts that are taught in high-school. Certainly I used a bit of mathematics, but no advanced knowledge of it is needed. Of course, in order to understand the article, the reader is required to know about basic electromagnetism (again, at a level usually taught in high-schools). This is explicitly stated in the first sections.

On the other hand, I wrote this article on purpose for the Cantor's Paradise publication on Medium, that is clearly a publication read by people who are familiar with mathematics.

I understand your frustration, but I must admit I cannot go simpler than that (I do not want to, in fact: there is plenty of metaphoric explanations of the Higgs boson and I do not need to add another one to this collection).

Also, on self-citation, you know that only valid citations are those made on journals. Self-citations on medium are useless for the career of a scientist. I really put my references there to make them accessible to people who do not usually read these kinds of journals. I really believe it is important and useful for someone (teachers, e.g.).

Indeed, I admit I sometimes use my articles to promote "products" (I made just one, till now, promoting a textbook of mine). I will take your warning about that into account for the future.

Just a curiosity: what are you studying for your PhD and where?