Of Particular Significance

Category: LHC Background Info

A pause from my quantum series to announce a new interview on YouTube, this one on the Blackbird Physics channel, hosted by UMichigan graduate student and experimental particle physicist Ibrahim Chahrour. Unlike my recent interview with Alan Alda, which is for a general audience, this one is geared toward physics undergraduate students and graduate students. A lot of the topics are related to my book, but at a somewhat more advanced level. If you’ve had a first-year university physics class, or have done a lot of reading about the subject, give it a shot! Ibrahim asked great questions, and you may find many of the answers intriguing.

Here’s the list of the topics we covered, with timestamps.

  • 00:00 Intro
  • 00:40 Why did you write “Waves in an Impossible Sea”?
  • 03:50 What is mass?
  • 09:03 What is Relativistic Mass? Is it a useful concept?
  • 17:50 Why Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is necessary
  • 23:50 Electromagnetic Field, Photons, and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
  • 36:17 Particles are ripples in their Fields
  • 38:47 Fields with zero-mass particles vs. ones whose particles have mass?
  • 46:49 The Standard Model of Particle Physics
  • 52:08 What was the motivation/history behind the Higgs field?
  • 1:02:05 How the Higgs field works
  • 1:05:33 The Higgs field’s “Vacuum Expectation Value”
  • 1:12:02 The hierarchy problem
  • 1:24:18 The current goals of the Large Hadron Collider

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 17, 2025

Dylan Curious is an bright and enthusiastic fellow, and he has a great YouTube channel focused on what is happening in AI around the world. But Dylan’s curiosity doesn’t stop there. Having read and enjoyed Waves in an Impossible Sea (twice!), he wanted to learn more… so he and I had a great conversation about humans and the universe for about 90 minutes. Don’t let the slightly odd title deter you; we covered a broad set of interesting topics of relevance to 21st century life, including

  • In what sense is all motion relative?
  • Why haven’t we already encountered intelligent life from other stars?
  • Might we live in a simulation?
  • Could the universe have glitches akin to what happens in computer games?
  • Should the language of science be reconsidered?
  • Are the particles we’re made of really waves?

Dylan is fun to talk to and I’m sure you’ll enjoy our discussion. And follow him, as I do, as a way of keeping up with the fast-changing AI landscape!

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON February 3, 2025

Last week, when I wasn’t watching democracy bleed, I was participating in an international virtual workshop, attended by experts from many countries. This meeting of particle experimenters and particle theorists focused on the hypothetical possibility known as “hidden valleys” or “dark sectors”. (As shorthand I’ll refer to them as “HV/DS”). The idea of an HV/DS is that the known elementary particles and forces, which collectively form the Standard Model of particle physics, might be supplemented by additional undiscovered particles that don’t interact with the known forces (other than gravity), but have forces of their own. All sorts of interesting and subtle phenomena, such as this one or this one or this one, might arise if an HV/DS exists in nature.

Of course, according to certain self-appointed guardians of truth, the Standard Model is clearly all there is to be found at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC], all activities at CERN are now just a waste of money, and there’s no point in reading this blog post. Well, I freely admit that it is possible that these individuals have a direct line to God, and are privy to cosmic knowledge that I don’t have. But as far as I know, physics is still an experimental science; our world may be going backwards in many other ways, but I don’t think we should return to Medieval modes of thought, where the opinion of a theorist such as Aristotle was often far more important than actually checking whether that opinion was correct.

According to the methods of modern science, the views of any particular scientist, no matter how vocal, have little value. It doesn’t matter how smart they are; even Nobel Prize-winning theorists have often been wrong. For instance, Murray Gell-Mann said for years that quarks were just a mathematical organizing principle, not actual particles; Martinus Veltman insisted there would be no Higgs boson; Frank Wilczek was confident that supersymmetry would be found at the LHC; and we needn’t rehash all the things that Newton and Einstein were wrong about. In general, theorists who make confident proclamations about nature have a terrible track record, and only get it right very rarely.

The central question for modern science is not about theorists at all. It is this: “What do we know from experiments?”

And when it comes to the possibility of an HV/DS, the answer is “not much… not yet anyway.”

The good news is that we do not need to build another multibillion dollar experimental facility to search for this kind of physics. The existing LHC will do just fine for now; all we need to do is take full advantage of its data. But experimenters and theorists working together must develop the right strategies to search for the relevant clues in the LHC’s vast data sets. That requires completely understanding how an HV/DS might manifest itself, a matter which is far from simple.

Last week’s workshop covered many topics related to these issues. Today I’ll just discuss one: an example of a powerful, novel search strategy used by the ATLAS experiment. (It’s over a year old, but it appeared as my book was coming out, and I was too busy to cover it then.) I’ll explain why it is a good way to look for strong forces in a hidden valley/dark sector, and why it covers ground that, in the long history of particle physics, has never previously been explored.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON January 29, 2025

When it comes to the weak nuclear force and why it is weak, there’s a strange story which floats around. It starts with a true but somewhat misleading statement:

  • The weak nuclear force (which is weak because its effects only extend over a short range) has its short range because the particles which mediate the force, the W and Z bosons, have mass [specifically, they have “rest mass”.] This is in contrast to electromagnetic forces which can reach out over great distances; that’s because photons, the particles of light which mediate that force, have no rest mass.

This is misleading because fields mediate forces, not particles; it’s the W and Z fields that are the mediators for the weak nuclear force, just as the electromagnetic field is the mediator for the electromagnetic force. (When people speak of forces as due to exchange of “virtual particles” — which aren’t particles — they’re using fancy math language for a simple idea from first-year undergraduate physics.)

Then things get worse, because it is stated that

  • The connection between the W and Z bosons’ rest mass and the short range of the weak nuclear force is that
    • the force is created by the exchange of virtual W and Z bosons, and
    • due to the quantum uncertainty principle, these virtual particles with mass can’t live as long and/or travel as far as virtual photons can, shortening their range.

This is completely off-base. In fact, quantum physics plays no role in why the weak nuclear force is weak and short-range. (It plays a big role in why the strong nuclear force is strong and short-range, but that’s a tale for another day.)

I’ve explained the real story in a new webpage that I’ve added to my site; it has a non-technical explanation, and then some first-year college math for those who want to see it. It’s gotten some preliminary comments that have helped me improve it, but I’m sure it could be even better, and I’d be happy to get your comments, suggestions, questions and critiques if you have any.

[P.S. — if you try but are unable to leave a comment on that page, please leave one here and tell me what went wrong; and if you try but are unable to leave a comment here too for some reason, please send me a message to let me know.]

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON January 10, 2025

Particle physicists describe how elementary particles behave using a set of equations called their “Standard Model.” How did they become so confident that a set of math formulas, ones that can be compactly summarized on a coffee cup, can describe so much of nature?

My previous “Celebrations of the Standard Model” (you can find the full set here) have included the stories of how we know the strengths of the forces, the number of types (“flavors” and “colors”) and the electric charges of the quarks, and the structures of protons and neutrons, among others. Along the way I explained how W bosons, the electrically charged particles involved in the weak nuclear force, quickly decay (i.e. disintegrate into other particles). But I haven’t yet explained how their cousin, the electrically-neutral Z boson, decays. That story brings us to a central feature of the Standard Model.

Here’s the big picture. There’s a super-important number that plays a central role in the Standard Model. It’s a sort of angle (in a sense that will become clearer in Figs. 2 and 3 below), and is called θw or θweak. Through the action of the Higgs field on the particles, this one number determines many things, including

  • the relative masses of the W and Z bosons
  • the relative lifetimes of the W and Z bosons
  • the relative probabilities for Z bosons to decay to one type of particle versus another
  • the relative rates to produce different types of particles in scattering of electrons and positrons at very high energies
  • the relative rates for processes involving scattering neutrinos off atoms at very low energies
  • asymmetries in weak nuclear processes (ones that would be symmetric in corresponding electromagnetic processes)

and many others.

This is an enormously ambitious claim! When I began my graduate studies in 1988, we didn’t know if all these predictions would work out. But as the data from experiments came in during the 1990s and beyond, it became clear that every single one of them matched the data quite well. There were — and still are — no exceptions. And that’s why particle physicists became convinced that the Standard Model’s equations are by far the best they’ve ever found.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 20, 2024

Geneva, Switzerland, is not known for its sunny weather, and seeing the comet here was almost impossible, though I caught some glimpses. I hope many of you have seen it clearly by now. It’s dim enough now that dark skies and binoculars are increasingly essential.

I came here (rather than the clear skies of, say, Morocco, where a comet would be an easier target) to give a talk at the CERN laboratory — the lab that hosts the Large Hadron Collider [LHC], where the particle known as the Higgs boson was discovered twelve years ago. This past week, members of the CMS experiment, one of the two general purpose experiments at the LHC, ran a small, intensive workshop with a lofty goal: to record vastly more information from the LHC’s collisions than anyone would have thought possible when the LHC first turned on fifteen years ago.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 21, 2024

It’s been quite a week… Spectacular northern lights for hours on Thursday night. A great comet in the evening skies (though so far I’ve have only caught glimpses, thanks to atrocious viewing conditions.) And now, I’m at CERN (the pan-European particle physics laboratory) for the first time since the pandemic began. I’ll be giving a talk at a conference of CMS experimenters. (CMS and ATLAS are the two general purpose experiments at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC].)

The topic of the workshop is a novel technique called “Level-1 Scouting” — though it isn’t really about “scouting” for anything. It has to do with evading the strait-jacket of the trigger, an essential feature of data gathering at each of the LHC experiments. With tens of millions of collisions per second, the data flood at CMS is too great, and only a tiny fraction of these collisions can be stored. The trigger decides real-time which ones to keep and which ones to discard forever. That’s been the basic rule since the LHC began running.

But this rule no longer applies, thanks to new technology and human ingenuity. CMS now uses level-1 scouting to record sketchy information about every single collision that happens in their detector. LHCb, with a smaller detector, was the first to try something along these lines. ATLAS is on a parallel track. These developments have the potential, looking ahead, to substantially enhance the capability of these detectors. More about this after I’ve given my talk.

Auroras after sunset. (These were as bright to the naked eye)
Comet A3 after sunset. (Brighter than to the naked eye.)

Post-sunset light over CERN. (As to the naked eye.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 14, 2024

I’m delighted to tell you that Quanta Magazine has published an essay I have written on the *real* story of how the Higgs field gives mass to particles — avoiding those famous false analogies. There’s a musical connection, too. I hope you enjoy it! https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-higgs-field-actually-gives-mass-to-elementary-particles-20240903/

If you are curious to learn more about the main points of the essay, feel free to ask me questions about it in the comments below or at Quanta Magazine. (I also go into more detail about these subjects in my book.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 3, 2024

[Update: unfortunately, the link below was taken down before the tour, with no explanation. The tour was instead recorded at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67mF5Yx7ZG0.]

Would anyone like a tour of the ATLAS and CMS experiments, the general purpose particle detectors at the Large Hadron Collider that were used to discover the particle known as the Higgs boson? A live, virtual tour is being given today (Tuesday June 11) on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=askq7-9CzrU, at 1700 CERN time — that’s 1600 London time, 11:00 New York time, 8:00 San Francisco time. Find out how these enormous, complex, magnificent devices are constructed, and learn how their various parts work together, 25 million times every second, to allow scientists to track the tiniest objects in the universe. Includes a Q&A at the end for participants.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON June 11, 2024

A couple of months ago, I was on Daniel Whiteson’s podcast, which is called “Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe“. During the two-part episode in which I appeared, entitled “Is the Universe Made of Waves?” (Part 1 and Part 2), I explained some of the key points made in my book, “Waves in an Impossible Sea.”

One thing I emphasized is that while photons [“particles” of light] moving across empty space are always traveling waves moving at the speed of light c, electrons are different. When in motion they too are traveling waves, but unlike photons, they can slow down, and even be stationary. When stationary, they are standing waves, of a somewhat unfamiliar sort (as described here and here). All of this is discussed in detail in the book’s chapters 16 and 17.

Whiteson has sent me a couple of questions that listeners raised with him, and since I imagine some of you might have similar questions, I decided to answer them publicly here.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON May 21, 2024

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.