Of Particular Significance

Blog – Of Particular Significance

[A Heads Up: I’m giving a public lecture about the LHC on Saturday, April 28th, 1 p.m. New York time/10 a.m. Pacific, through the MICA Popular Talks series, held online at the Large Auditorium on StellaNova, Second Life; should you miss it, both audio and slides will be posted for you to look at later.]

Is supersymmetry, as a symmetry that might explain some of the puzzling aspects of particle physics at the energy scales accessible to the Large Hadron Collider [LHC], ruled out yet? If the only thing you’re interested in is the answer to precisely that question, let me not waste your time: the answer is “not yet”. But a more interesting answer is that many simple variants of supersymmetry are either ruled out or near death.

Still, the problem with supersymmetry — and indeed with any really good idea, such as extra dimensions, or a composite Higgs particle — is that such a basic idea typically can be realized in many different ways. Pizza is a great idea too, but there are a million ways to make one, so you can’t conclude that nobody makes pizza in town just because you can’t smell tomatoes. Similarly, to rule out supersymmetry as an idea, you can’t be satisfied by ruling out the most popular forms of supersymmetry that theorists have invented; you have to rule out all its possible variants. This will take a while, probably a decade.

That said, many of the simplest and popular variants of supersymmetry no longer work very well or at all. This is because of two things: (click here to read the rest of the article.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 24, 2012

A few days back I told you things were going very well so far in 2012 at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] — that not only had the increase in energy (from last year’s 7 TeV of energy per proton-proton collision up to 8 TeV) gone well but the collision rate (the number of collisions per second) had already been brought back up to last year’s level.  And I pointed out that the current collision rate had been achieved using fewer bunches of protons than last year, which meant it could eventually be increased further, by putting more bunches in.  But I didn’t know when they’d take that step — in particular, whether it would be anytime soon.

The proton beams at the LHC aren’t continuous; as of now, they consist of over a thousand bunches, each containing something like 100,000,000,000 protons.  Two bunches are arranged to hit head on every 50 billionths of a second, and in each bunch crossing occur 10 to 40 virtually simultaneous proton-proton collisions.

Well, they did it the next day!  Since Wednesday the number of bunches per beam has been about 1380, same as late last year, and the collision rate jumped up by over 25%, just like that!  In fact they brought it even a bit higher (not sure exactly how)  to within 15 – 20% of this year’s final target.  And they’ve had some long runs, as long as nearly 10 hours, showing the accelerator remains very stable.

Three cheers for the accelerator physicists!  Now the experimentalists just have to assure they can extract quality data from a firehose.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 21, 2012

Two interesting claims about dark matter this week, and on the face of it, completely contradictory, but in fact, not obviously so. Before saying one word more, let me repeat my mantra — something that all physicists know but relatively few non-scientists appreciate — most claims of a radical new result turn out to be largely or completely wrong. This is not because physicists are stupid but because doing science at the forefront of knowledge involves using novel techniques that might have unknown pitfalls, and also because a single small mistake can create a fake effect (as we saw most recently with the OPERA neutrino speed measurement.)  And because nasty statistical accidents can play tricks on you.

Both claims that I’m about to describe use novel techniques, and their analyses have not been repeated by anyone else. At this point you should understand that both are tentative, and (based on the history of radical claims) the odds are against them. Both might be wrong. That said, both analyses look to me as though they’ve been reasonably well done, and if a mistake has been made, it will require someone far more expert in dark matter studies than I am to point it out.

So let me describe them in turn, to the best of my ability. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 20, 2012

There is going to be some amount of debate regarding dark matter in the next few weeks, so I’ve written an article on one of the best ways to go looking for new signs of dark matter out in space.

The reason we are almost entirely convinced that the universe has lots of matter that doesn’t shine is that we can see many signs of its gravitational effects — for instance, its effect on the motions of stars within galaxies, its ability to bend light a la Einstein, etc.  It’s almost certain that most of a galaxy is dark matter.  And over the years we’ve convinced ourselves this dark matter almost certainly can’t be made from any type of particle that we already know about.

But to learn more about what it is, we need to find signs of some of its non-gravitational effects, if it has any.  One possibility is that dark matter particles, if and when they collide, might annihilate into ordinary known particles.  If those known particles are photons, we might be able to detect them.  A good way to look for them would be to point a suitable telescope toward the center of the Milky Way, our galaxy, which is one place where we expect dark matter particles to be especially numerous, and collisions among them to be especially common.

In the article I just finished, I explain how this can be done.  One goes looking for photons from the galactic center, makes a plot of the number of photons observed at a particular energy, and looks for a bump in the plot — an exceptional number of photons with the same energy.

And the reason I’m doing this now is that there is a new paper claiming that a signal of this type may have been seen (with a claimed significance of 3.3 standard deviations, after including the look-elsewhere effect.)  This is a paper by a theorist, analyzing publicly available data taken by the experimental group that operates the Fermi Large Area Telescope satellite.  One should note that the record of theorists making discoveries using experimentalists’ data is very poor.  Typically there are either detector-related or statistics-related issues that theorists screw up.  And there are risks of bias — I am not yet sure whether the rather sophisticated analysis method used by this theorist was chosen in a blinded fashion.  [For instance, did he choose his method first and then look at the data, or did he already know there was a hint of a peak in the data before he started designing his method?] So I would be skeptical of this claim for now.  (And the theorist, knowing he’s out on a limb, was careful [and wise] to put the word “Tentative” in his title.)   However, stranger things have happened, so I wouldn’t dismiss this claim out of hand either, at least not until the Fermi experimentalists tell us that in their opinion the theorist over-estimated the statistical significance of this particular bump.  We’ll be looking forward to what they have to say.

I’ll have a few more details about this for you soon.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 19, 2012

Yesterday, I was visiting Brandeis University, where I gave a colloquium on the Large Hadron Collider [LHC]. It was such a gorgeous June April day outside that I felt quite lucky to see a substantial audience, which I think reflects a sense in the wider physics community that the excitement surrounding the LHC no longer reflects merely its future, but also its present.

I also enjoyed a research talk given by a Harvard postdoc, Matt Reece.  He had some things to say about which variants of supersymmetry can now largely be excluded by LHC data, both directly from existing searches for superpartner particles, and indirectly from the search for the Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest possible form that the Higgs particle might take), assuming the hints of a Higgs particle with a mass of 125 GeV/c2 turn out to be the real deal.  He also made a nice little back-of-the-envelope calculation in his introduction, showing how that the hierarchy (the same one for which we have a hierarchy problem) between the incredible weakness of gravity and the strengths of the other forces is required for there to be large objects (i.e. planets, stars) that are held together by gravity, but prevented from collapse into a black hole by the effect of electromagnetism.

These days, at every place I visit — and Brandeis was no exception — the question of the Higgs particle always comes up.  No surprise; it’s the hottest topic in particle physics right now.  And the quality of the evidence always gets discussed.  Dr. Reece was of course asked his opinion by someone in the room.  So I get a chance to hear a lot of viewpoints.

One of the things that I have found puzzling is that almost all of the other particle physics and string theory bloggers not only are of the opinion that the Higgs particle has definitely been found, but also claim that almost all other particle physicists think so too. I honestly just can’t understand how they can say this.  I find plenty of theorists who say things like “well, if I didn’t already have a strong theoretical reason to believe the Higgs particle exists, I wouldn’t be very confident in the evidence that is in the current data.” Meanwhile, many senior experimenters regale me with stories of past errors and biases, some of which you find in the history books, and some of which you can’t. All of this is anecdotal; I can’t tell you how opinion is really distributed. But clearly a substantial fraction of the community — maybe a minority, but not a small one — are much less confident than most of the bloggers.  It’s not a question of nay-saying — I haven’t heard anyone argue there’s no evidence at all for a Higgs at 125 — but many physicists feel that the evidence is too weak at this stage for any certainty.  Of course we all expect the uncertain situation to be resolved in 2012.

One of the other great pleasures of visiting other universities is that I always get to hear about interesting research directions being pursued that I’d not been following.  (The theorists at Brandeis were all doing neat stuff that unfortunately would take way too long to describe here. ) And then, as the day comes to a close, I always hear some good stories.  My favorite this time was of an ATLAS experimentalist describing how easy it is to get lost while crawling around, installing or fixing things, inside the vast muon system of the ATLAS detector (one of the two general purpose detectors at the LHC.)   Can you imagine getting lost inside your own experiment?! 🙂  Well, this one’s the size of an eight-story office building, but hasn’t got hallways, elevators, big EXIT signs, or even an obvious THIS WAY UP.  Meanwhile, your GPS device doesn’t work down there either!

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 18, 2012

Every time I turn around, the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] is breaking another record. Since 2012 data-taking began April 5th, the news has been improving steadily and rapidly.  Over the weekend, the accelerator physicists brought proton-proton collision rates — the total number of collisions per second — back up to the same level as last year’s record, and even a bit beyond.  The LHC produced over these two days more than six times as much data as was obtained in all of 2010, and a quarter of what was obtained in the first three months of 2011.  Granted, the accelerator physicists won’t keep up this torrid pace every day; there are times (typically weekends and overnights) where the LHC produces lots of data, and other times where the focus is on improving the accelerator and much less data is gathered.  But so far the signs are very good indeed.  Some experts were unsure whether the move from 7 TeV to 8 TeV energy per collision would be smooth, but fortunately it seems that the accelerator is performing very well at the new energy.

Two differences from last year that are important to know:

  • The energy per collision is higher:  8 TeV of energy for each proton-proton collision, rather than 7 TeV last year.
  • The simultaneous collision rate (or “pile-up”) is higher: the current high collision rate per second is being obtained with a smaller number of bunches of protons per beam than at the end of last year, by about 25%, which means the number of simultaneous collisions has gone up by about 25%, to as many as 30 collisions or so happening at virtually the same instant.  (Pile-up will be a recurrent theme (and perhaps thorn) in 2012.)  But the use of fewer bunches at the present time means that more bunches can be added later, which will allow another increase in the collision rate per second sometime this year (I’m not sure when.)

The challenges ahead for the ATLAS and CMS experiments to handle this firehose of data, especially the pile-up, are not to be minimized.  I’ve written about one of the big challenges here; there are others.  But better to have to face these difficulties than to be sitting idly, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for data to start showing up!   Also, the more data they get in the early part of 2012, the sooner Phase 1 of the search for the Higgs particle will come to a close — and the more likely that July 2012 will see significant news, perhaps fairly convincing news, concerning the hint of a Higgs particle with a mass of about 125 GeV/c2.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 17, 2012

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.