I was busy with some personal issues over the past few weeks, so I hadn’t even really been following the rampant speculation about the Nobel Prize for this year. Apparently a lot of people (including some of my colleagues) thought that the July discovery, at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] experiments ATLAS and CMS, of a new particle resembling the long-sought Higgs particle would generate a Nobel Prize in 2012 for Peter Higgs and for the other physicists who predicted the existence of such a particle.
Well, I never thought this notion was very plausible; I was confident it wouldn’t happen before 2013. And that is for several reasons.
The first and most important is that although the evidence that a new particle has been found is very strong, the evidence that it is a Higgs particle of some type (which I’ll describe below) is still only moderate. Personally, I’m convinced that the new particle is a Higgs particle, but that is based partly on the evidence from the data and partly on theoretical prejudice — on my knowledge of theoretical physics and of what the alternatives to the Higgs-particle interpretation of the data are. If I’m wrong, too bad for me, but no harm done. However, the Nobel Prize committee is making a permanent, irrevocable award for the history books, and the bar for evidence from the data alone should be very high. Now here’s the key point: by March 2013 at the latest, the data from all of 2012 will have been analyzed. The amount of data that will be available by then will be about three times as much as was available in July 2012 — enough to change the current moderate evidence to strong evidence, if in fact we’re dealing with a Higgs particle of some type. The Nobel Prize committee is surely well aware of this — that by next year the situation is likely to have qualitatively changed, with the evidence beyond controversy. So it makes sense to wait until 2013, when the case is likely to be closed.
Before I go on, let me explain why I say the evidence that the new particle is a Higgs particle is only moderate. [Again, it is enough evidence to convince me, but that’s because of my theoretical prejudice.] Recall that the simplest possible type of Higgs particle is called the “Standard Model Higgs”, but the Higgs particle in nature may be more complicated, and there might even be several Higgs particles. Now, there are three lines of evidence:
- Very weak evidence from other measurements: Precision measurements of many types can be combined together to make an indirect prediction that the Higgs particle, if it is of Standard Model type or similar, should have a mass below about 200 GeV/c2. This evidence requires assuming something about the Higgs, rather than taking the information from LHC data directly, and its prediction isn’t precise.
- Weak evidence from photons: the observed rate for this new particle to be produced and then to decay to two photons is within a factor of two of the rate expected for a Standard Model Higgs particle. The problem is that other particles could (by accident) have a similar rate.
- Moderate evidence from leptons: the observed rate for this new particle to be produced and then to decay to two lepton/anti-lepton pairs is within a factor of two of the rate expected for a Standard Model Higgs particle. The reason this evidence is stronger than the evidence for photons is that it is very difficult, for deep theoretical reasons, to arrange for any non-Higgs particle of 125 GeV/c2 in mass to have such a large probability to decay to lepton/anti-lepton pairs. However, this evidence still rests on only a handful of observed collisions — few enough that it is still conceivable, though very unlikely, that they could be due to a statistical fluke.
Looking ahead, the best evidence that this is a Higgs particle will continue to come from its decays to lepton/anti-lepton pairs (with additional evidence from other sources playing a supporting role.) With three times the data, the probability that the observed events are due to a statistical fluke will drop very significantly, and other tests of the Higgs-particle interpretation of the data will become possible. And so the moderate evidence from leptons that we saw in July will likely be very strong by the time it is updated in March. If I were on the Nobel committee, I’d want to wait until after March, just to be sure.
There are two other reasons why the committee might have wanted to wait. The first is that it takes some considerable time to put together a case for a prize; it is a big logistical job. From early July to early October (with August a vacation month) would not have left much time, even for a normal prize award. The second is that the committee has an especially thorny problem with the Higgs particle. There are clearly six people involved: Higgs himself wrote papers, but these were essentially simultaneous with papers by Englert and Brout and by Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble. [Anderson, whose papers in solid state physics about superconductivity partly presaged the Higgs field idea, already has a prize for something else.] Brout, unfortunately, has died, too soon to know of his achievement. But the Nobel Committee has never given a prize to more than three people (as a consequence of which some important people, such as B.J. Bjorken, have never received a Nobel Prize for their work.) So they either have to change their rules, or they have to play favorites, or (bluntly) they have to let nature play favorites and wait til two of the people on the list die. Either way this is extremely controversial and it is going to take them quite a while to figure out what to do. Three months is nowhere near enough, I am sure.
Two final remarks.
The first is that the next looming giant problem for the Nobel Committee involves how to give an award for the experimental discovery of the new particle. This discovery involved perhaps the largest collective scientific effort ever undertaken; not only can it not be boiled down to three people, it can’t be boiled down to three hundred. The skills and ideas and techniques and the sweat and blood of many, many physicists and engineers went into the design, building, and operation of ATLAS and CMS and of the LHC itself, and dozens were directly involved in the measurements that allowed the discovery of the new particle. There is no obvious way to select the leaders and give them a personal prize. I don’t know how the committee is going to deal with this without changing their rules. Science has changed, in a big way; can the Nobel Prize adapt?
Second, one should remember that the six members of the Higgs crew have already won the only prize that actually counts. Imagine learning that you, a measly human being, thinking away in an office somewhere, have guessed something profound and fundamental about this great and awe-inspiring universe — something the history and science books will recount for as long as our civilization holds itself together. This is a prize that no human can award. And the physicists of the Higgs crew received this prize [preliminarily — final confirmation by March 2013] from Nature, when the discovery was announced back in July. The money and the fame of next October’s Nobel Prize, great as they may be, are pale compared to the humbling glory and wonder of having been the incredibly lucky ones who, smart and thoughtful but nearly blind, stumbled into the truth.
18 thoughts on “Why the Higgs Crew Waits for a Nobel”
As other places have mentioned, the peace prize has been given to organizations, which could be taken to be a precedent for CERN.
Good point. Maybe the individual physicists can merely have units named after them. (Just kidding, sort of.)
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a different committee (from Norway) than the committee in charge of the “hard sciences” prizes (from Sweden). Even though the rules might be common, they are different sets of people entirely.
Congratulations on a well balanced appraisal of the Higgs situation. Interested people need to stay informed and see all sides of the story before passing opinions. Your report helps clearing up the large amount of hype and misunderstanding promoted by the media nowadays.
We credit Neil Armstrong for landing on the moon. (That was dynamite, but not a Nobel.)
I probably missed it somewhere. But I read that the spin of the 125 GeV Higgs has yet to be determined (it could be a spin 2). Is this true?
Not as stated. If the new particle with a mass of 125 GeV has spin 2, then it is NOT a Higgs particle at all.
However, you can read a bit about why, based on my expertise in this area, I am very skeptical of this possibility. here: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-discovery-of-the-higgs/higgs-discovery-is-it-a-higgs/
Re some now esteemed basic science concepts…:
Betrayal Of The Enlightenment Science Heritage
Three glaring examples of betrayal of the Enlightenment science heritage:
– The Higgs particle case: by plain common sense and data the origin of all mass in the universe is the minuscule pre-big-bang gravitons singularity…
– Life nature and genesis: by plain common sense and data life is just another mass format …
– The Genetics concepts: by plain common sense and data culture and natural selection are ubiquitous and genetics are their evolving RNA nucleotide progenies…
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
1.Ponder why Mass = Energy at singularity…
2.Ponder that Culture is reaction-to-circumstances/drive-to-survival by ALL MASS FORMATS…
3.Ponder the implications of the various modes of Cooperation in nature…
4.Ponder that Intelligence = learning from experience…
5.Ponder that in an evolving two-pole system (m/E, singularity/max expanded) there cannot be randomness…
6. Ponder that in an evolving two-pole system m/E, gravitation is propensity of energy reconversion to mass…
If we take into consideration two facts ;
1- All theories are effective ones.
2- The indetermination of theories by data.
then how can these facts affect what you said in this post.?
Well, there’s more poetry than philosophy in some parts of this post, so if you’re asking about the precision of what I said, then… I agree it wasn’t precise.
Nevertheless, we have not forgotten Newton just because his three laws of motion were only an effective theory and were not a unique formulation of the problem. I don’t think we’ll forget Higgs and the others on the crew when our viewpoints shift and we understand things more broadly. They (along with Anderson in his own context) were the first to make a very essential and basic point.
In a hindsight we all knew… How to award it to an organization may as well be a small problem as this is not a peace prize, but a prize for physics.
If you’re suggesting my remarks are 20-20 hindsight, go read my articles after the Higgs discovery and you’ll see the points are essentially the same. http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-discovery-of-the-higgs/ It never occurred to me that the Higgs crew would get a Nobel so fast, so I didn’t even bother to comment on it.
Nice blog. Will be interesting to see what the Swedes do with this one month from today. It would be great to see the committee have the guys to award it to all of the remaining theorists. My bet is they do not but let’s hope. Prioritizing some over others given the merits of all the papers does not seem right.
I think the Nobel to Englert and Higgs is quite OK (and I am a condensed matter physicist ;). Actually, Salam, Winberg, and Glashow got their prize for electroweak theory in 1979, way before the Z and W were seen (1983).
Does the Higgs field resistance per particle vary near E=mc2? Does time dialation become integrated dimensionally as harmonic fluctuation push/drag across ST lattice? Polyhedral lensing on Planck scalars interfere w/ST if higgs field constant varies per chromatic wavelength. Maby superstring or spin foam, standard modle harmonics seem less static everyday.
Comments are closed.