Category Archives: Particle Physics

An Interesting Result from CMS, and its Implications

UPDATE 10/26: In the original version of this post, I stupidly forgot to include an effect, causing an error of a factor of about 5 in one of my estimates below. I had originally suggested that a recent result using ALEPH data was probably more powerful than a recent CMS result.  But once the error is corrected, the two experiments appear have comparable sensitivity. However, I was very conservative in my analysis of ALEPH, and my guess concerning CMS has a big uncertainty band — so it might go either way.  It’s up to ALEPH experts and CMS experts to show us who really wins the day.  Added reasoning and discussion marked in green below.

In Friday’s post, I highlighted the importance of looking for low-mass particles whose interactions with known particles are very weak. I referred to a recent preprint in which an experimental physicist, Dr. Arno Heister, reanalyzed ALEPH data in such a search.

A few hours later, Harvard Professor Matt Reece pointed me to a paper that appeared just two weeks ago: a very interesting CMS analysis of 2011-2012 data that did a search of this type — although it appears that CMS [one of the two general purpose detectors at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)] didn’t think of it that way.

The title of the paper is obscure:  “Search for a light pseudo–scalar Higgs boson produced in association with bottom quarks in pp collisions at 8 TeV“.  Such spin-zero “pseudo-scalar” particles, which often arise in speculative models with more than one Higgs particle, usually decay to bottom quark/anti-quark pairs or tau/anti-tau pairs.  But they can have a very rare decay to muon/anti-muon, which is much easier to measure. The title of the paper gives no indication that the muon/anti-muon channel is the target of the search; you have to read the abstract. Shouldn’t the words “in the dimuon channel” or “dimuon resonance” appear in the title?  That would help researchers who are interested in dimuons, but not in pseudo-scalars, find the paper.

Here’s the main result of the paper:

At left is shown a plot of the number of events as a function of the invariant mass of the muon/anti-muon pairs.  CMS data is in black dots; estimated background is shown in the upper curve (with top quark backgrounds in the lower curve); and the peak at bottom shows what a simulated particle decaying to muon/anti-muon with a mass of 30 GeV/c² would look like. (Imagine sticking the peak on top of the upper curve to see how a signal would affect the data points).  At right are the resulting limits on the rate for such a resonance to be produced and then decay to muon/anti-muon, if it is radiated off of a bottom quark. [A limit of 100 femtobarns means that at most two thousand collisions of this type could have occurred during the year 2012.  But note that only about 1 in 100 of these collisions would have been observed, due to the difficulty of triggering on these collisions and some other challenges.]

[Note also the restriction of the mass of the dimuon pair to the range 25 GeV to 60 GeV. This may have done purely been for technical reasons, but if it was due to the theoretical assumptions, that restriction should be lifted.]

While this plot places moderate limits on spin-zero particles produced with a bottom quark, it’s equally interesting, at least to me, in other contexts. Specifically, it puts limits on any light spin-one particle (call it V) that mixes (either via kinetic or mass mixing) with the photon and Z and often comes along with at least one bottom quark… because for such particles the rate to decay to muons is not rare.  This is very interesting for hidden valley models specifically; as I mentioned on Friday, new spin-one and spin-zero particles often are produced together, giving a muon/anti-muon pair along with one or more bottom quark/anti-quark pairs.

But CMS interpreted its measurement only in terms of radiation of a new particle off a bottom quark.  Now, what if a V particle decaying sometimes to muon/anti-muon were produced in a Z particle decay (a possibility alluded to already in 2006).  For a different production process, the angles and energies of the particles would be different, and since many events would be lost (due to triggering, transverse momentum cuts, and b-tagging inefficiencies at low transverse momentum) the limits would have to be fully recalculated by the experimenters.  It would be great if CMS could add such an analysis before they publish this paper.

Still, we can make a rough back-of-the-envelope estimate, with big caveats. The LHC produced about 600 million Z particles at CMS in 2012. The plot at right tells us that if the V were radiated off a bottom quark, the maximum number of produced V’s decaying to muons would be about 2000 to 8000, depending on the V mass.  Now if we could take those numbers directly, we’d conclude that the fraction of Z’s that could decay to muon/anti-muon plus bottom quarks in this way would be 3 to 12 per million. But sensitivity of this search to a Z decay to V is probably much less than for a V radiated off bottom quarks [because (depending on the V mass) either the bottom quarks in the Z decay would be less energetic and more difficult to tag, or the muons are less energetic on average, or both.] So I’m guessing that the limits on Z decays to V are always worse than one per hundred thousand, for any V mass.  (Thanks to Wei Xue for catching an error as I was finalizing my estimate.)  

If that guess/estimate is correct, then the CMS search does not rule out the possibility of a hundred or so Z decays to V particles at each of the various LEP experiments.  That said, old LEP searches might rule this possibility out; if anyone knows of such a search, please comment or contact me.

As for whether Heister’s analysis of the ALEPH experiment’s data shows signs of such a signal, I think it unlikely (though some people seemed to read my post as saying the opposite.)  As I pointed out in Friday’s post, not only is the excess too small for excitement on its own, it also is somewhat too wide and its angular correlations look like the background (which comes, of course, from bottom quarks that decay to charm quarks plus a muon and neutrino.)  The point of Friday’s post, and of today’s, is that we should be looking.

In fact, because of Heister’s work (which, by the way, is his own, not endorsed by the ALEPH collaboration), we can draw interesting if rough conclusions.  Ignore for now the bump at 30 GeV/c²; that’s more controversial.  What about the absence of a bump between 35 and 50 GeV/c²? Unless there are subtleties with his analysis that I don’t understand, we learn that at ALEPH there were fewer than ten Z decays to a V particle (plus a source of bottom quarks) for V in this mass range.  That limits such Z decays to about 2 to 3 per million.  OOPS: Dumb mistake!! At this step, I forgot to include the fact that requiring bottom quarks in the ALEPH events only works about 20% of the time (thanks to Imperial College Professor Oliver Buchmuller for questioning my reasoning!) The real number is therefore about 5 times larger, more like 10 to 15 per million. If that rough estimate is correct, it would provide a more powerful constraint than constraint roughly comparable to the current CMS analysis.

[[BUT: In my original argument I was very conservative.  When I said “fewer than 10”, I was trying to be brief; really, looking at the invariant mass plot, the allowed numbers of excess events for a V with mass above 36 GeV is typically fewer than 7 or even 5.  And that doesn’t include any angular information, which for many signals would reduce the numbers to 3.   Including these effects properly brings the ALEPH bound back down to something close to my initial estimate.  Anyway, it’s clear that CMS is nipping at ALEPH’s heels, but I’m still betting they haven’t passed ALEPH — yet.]]

So my advice would be to set Heister’s bump aside and instead focus on the constraints that one can obtain, and the potential discoveries that one could make, with this type of analysis, either at LEP or at LHC. That’s where I think the real lesson lies.

A Hidden Gem At An Old Experiment?

This summer there was a blog post from   claiming that “The LHC `nightmare scenario’ has come true” — implying that the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] has found nothing but a Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest possible type), and will find nothing more of great importance. With all due respect for the considerable intelligence and technical ability of the author of that post, I could not disagree more; not only are we not in a nightmare, it isn’t even night-time yet, and hardly time for sleep or even daydreaming. There’s a tremendous amount of work to do, and there may be many hidden discoveries yet to be made, lurking in existing LHC data.  Or elsewhere.

I can defend this claim (and have done so as recently as this month; here are my slides). But there’s evidence from another quarter that it is far too early for such pessimism.  It has appeared in a new paper (a preprint, so not yet peer-reviewed) by an experimentalist named Arno Heister, who is evaluating 20-year old data from the experiment known as ALEPH.

In the early 1990s the Large Electron-Positron (LEP) collider at CERN, in the same tunnel that now houses the LHC, produced nearly 4 million Z particles at the center of ALEPH; the Z’s decayed immediately into other particles, and ALEPH was used to observe those decays.  Of course the data was studied in great detail, and you might think there couldn’t possibly be anything still left to find in that data, after over 20 years. But a hidden gem wouldn’t surprise those of us who have worked in this subject for a long time — especially those of us who have worked on hidden valleys. (Hidden Valleys are theories with a set of new forces and low-mass particles, which, because they aren’t affected by the known forces excepting gravity, interact very weakly with the known particles.  They are also often called “dark sectors” if they have something to do with dark matter.)

For some reason most experimenters in particle physics don’t tend to look for things just because they can; they stick to signals that theorists have already predicted. Since hidden valleys only hit the market in a 2006 paper I wrote with then-student Kathryn Zurek, long after the experimenters at ALEPH had moved on to other experiments, nobody went back to look in ALEPH or other LEP data for hidden valley phenomena (with one exception.) I didn’t expect anyone to ever do so; it’s a lot of work to dig up and recommission old computer files.

This wouldn’t have been a problem if the big LHC experiments (ATLAS, CMS and LHCb) had looked extensively for the sorts of particles expected in hidden valleys. ATLAS and CMS especially have many advantages; for instance, the LHC has made over a hundred times more Z particles than LEP ever did. But despite specific proposals for what to look for (and a decade of pleading), only a few limited searches have been carried out, mostly for very long-lived particles, for particles with mass of a few GeV/c² or less, and for particles produced in unexpected Higgs decays. And that means that, yes, hidden physics could certainly still be found in old ALEPH data, and in other old experiments. Kudos to Dr. Heister for taking a look. Continue reading

A Flash in the Pan Flickers Out

Back in the California Gold Rush, many people panning for gold saw a yellow glint at the bottom of their pans, and thought themselves lucky.  But more often than not, it was pyrite — iron sulfide — fool’s gold…

Back in December 2015, a bunch of particle physicists saw a bump on a plot.  The plot showed the numbers of events with two photons (particles of light) as a function of the “invariant mass” of the photon pair.  (To be precise, they saw a big bump on one ATLAS plot, and a bunch of small bumps in similar plots by CMS and ATLAS [the two general purpose experiments at the Large Hadron Collider].)  What was that bump?  Was it a sign of a new particle?

A similar bump was the first sign of the Higgs boson, though that was far from clear at the time.  What about this bump?

As I wrote in December,

  “Well, to be honest, probably it’s just that: a bump on a plot. But just in case it’s not…”

and I went on to describe what it might be if the bump were more than just a statistical fluke.  A lot of us — theoretical particle physicists like me — had a lot of fun, and learned a lot of physics, by considering what that bump might mean if it were a sign of something real.  (In fact I’ll be giving a talk here at CERN next week entitled “Lessons from a Flash in the Pan,” describing what I learned, or remembered, along the way.)

But updated results from CMS, based on a large amount of new data taken in 2016, have been seen.   (Perhaps these have leaked out early; they were supposed to be presented tomorrow along with those from ATLAS.)  They apparently show that where the bump was before, they now see nothing.  In fact there’s a small dip in the data there.

So — it seems that what we saw in those December plots was a fluke.  It happens.  I’m certainly disappointed, but hardly surprised.  Funny things happen with small amounts of data.

At the ICHEP 2016 conference, which started today, official presentation of the updated ATLAS and CMS two-photon results will come on Friday, but I think we all know the score.  So instead our focus will be on  the many other results (dozens and dozens, I hear) that the experiments will be showing us for the first time.  Already we had a small blizzard of them today.  I’m excited to see what they have to show us … the Standard Model, and naturalness, remain on trial.

The Summer View at CERN

For the first time in some years, I’m spending two and a half weeks at CERN (the lab that hosts the Large Hadron Collider [LHC]). Most of my recent visits have been short or virtual, but this time* there’s a theory workshop that has collected together a number of theoretical particle physicists, and it’s a good opportunity for all of us to catch up with the latest creative ideas in the subject.   It’s also an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the furtive immensity of Mont Blanc, a hulking bump on the southern horizon, although only if (as is rarely the case) nature offers clear and beautiful weather.

More importantly, new results on the data collected so far in 2016 at the LHC are coming very soon!  They will be presented at the ICHEP conference that will be held in Chicago starting August 3rd. And there’s something we’ll be watching closely.

You may remember that in a post last December I wrote:

  “Everybody wants to know. That bump seen on the ATLAS and CMS two-photon plots!  What… IS… it…?

Why the excitement? A bump of this type can be a signal of a new particle (as was the case for the Higgs particle itself.) And since a new particle that would produce a bump of this size was both completely unexpected and completely plausible, there was hope that we were seeing a hint of something new and important.

However, as I wrote in the same post,

  “Well, to be honest, probably it’s just that: a bump on a plot. But just in case it’s not…”

and I went on to discuss briefly what it might mean if it wasn’t just a statistical fluke. But speculation may be about to end: finally, we’re about to find out if it was indeed just a fluke — or a sign of something real.

Since December the amount of 13 TeV collision data available at ATLAS and CMS (the two general purpose experiments at the LHC) has roughly quadrupled, which means that typical bumps and wiggles on their 2015-2016 plots have decreased in relative size by about a factor of two (= square root of four). If the December bump is just randomness, it should also decrease in relative size. If it’s real, it should remain roughly the same relative size, but appear more prominent relative to the random bumps and wiggles around it.

Now, there’s a caution to be added here. The December ATLAS bump was so large and fat compared to what was seen at CMS that (since reality has to appear the same at both experiments, once enough data has been collected) it was pretty obvious that even if it there were a real bump there, at ATLAS it was probably in combination with a statistical fluke that made it look larger and fatter than its true nature. [Something similar happened with the Higgs; the initial bump that ATLAS saw was twice as big as expected, which is why it showed up so early, but it gradually has shrunk as more data has been collected and it is now close to its expected size.  In retrospect, that tells us that ATLAS’s original signal was indeed combined with a statistical fluke that made it appear larger than it really is.] What that means is that even if the December bumps were real, we would expect the ATLAS bump to shrink in size (but not statistical significance) and we would expect the CMS bump to remain of similar size (but grow in statistical significance). Remember, though, that “expectation” is not certainty, because at every stage statistical flukes (up or down) are possible.

In about a week we’ll find out where things currently stand. But the mood, as I read it here in the hallways and cafeteria, is not one of excitement. Moreover, the fact that the update to the results is (at the moment) unobtrusively scheduled for a parallel session of the ICHEP conference next Friday, afternoon time at CERN, suggests we’re not going  to see convincing evidence of anything exciting. If so, then the remaining question will be whether the reverse is true: whether the data will show convincing evidence that the December bump was definitely a fluke.

Flukes are guaranteed; with limited amounts of data, they can’t be avoided.  Discoveries, on the other hand, require skill, insight, and luck: you must ask a good question, address it with the best available methods, and be fortunate enough that (as is rarely the case) nature offers a clear and interesting answer.

 

*I am grateful for the CERN theory group’s financial support during this visit.

Pop went the Weasel, but Vroom goes the LHC

At the end of April, as reported hysterically in the press, the Large Hadron Collider was shut down and set back an entire week by a “fouine”, an animal famous for chewing through wires in cars, and apparently in colliders too. What a rotten little weasel! especially for its skill in managing to get the English-language press to blame the wrong species — a fouine is actually a beech marten, not a weasel, and I’m told it goes Bzzzt, not Pop. But who’s counting?

Particle physicists are counting. Last week the particle accelerator operated so well that it generated almost half as many collisions as were produced in 2015 (from July til the end of November), bringing the 2016 total to about three-fourths of 2015.

 

The key question is how many of the next few weeks will be like this past one.  We’d be happy with three out of five, even two.  If the amount of 2016 data can significantly exceed that of 2015 by July 15th, as now seems likely, a definitive answer to the question on everyone’s mind (namely, what is the bump on that plot?!? a new particle? or just a statistical fluke?) might be available at the time of the early August ICHEP conference.

So it’s looking more likely that we’re going to have an interesting August… though it’s not at all clear yet whether we’ll get great news (in which case we get no summer vacation), bad news (in which case we’ll all need a vacation), or ambiguous news (in which case we wait a few additional months for yet more news.)

The Two-Photon Excess at LHC Brightens Slightly

Back in December 2015, there was some excitement when the experiments ATLAS and CMS at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] — especially ATLAS — reported signs of an unexpectedly large number of proton-proton collisions in which

  • two highly energetic photons [particles of light] were produced, and
  • the two photons could possibly have been produced in a decay of an unknown particle, whose mass would be about six times the mass of the Higgs particle (which ATLAS and CMS discovered in 2012.)

This suggested the possibility of an unknown particle of some type with rest mass of 750 GeV/c².  However, the excess could just be a statistical fluke, of no scientific importance and destined to vanish with more data.

The outlook for that bump on a plot at 750 GeV has gotten a tad brighter… because not only do we have ATLAS’s plot, we now have increasing evidence for a similar bump on CMS’s plot. This is thanks largely to some hard work on the part of the CMS experimenters.  Some significant improvements at CMS,

  1. improved understanding of their photon energy measurements in their 2015 data,
  2. ability to use 2015 collisions taken when their giant magnet wasn’t working — fortunately, the one type of particle whose identity and energy can be measured without a magnet is… a photon!
  3. combination of the 2015 data with their 2012 data,

have increased the significance of their observed excess by a moderate amount. Here’s the scorecard.*

  • CMS 2015 data (Dec.): excess is 2.6σ local, < 1σ global
  • CMS 2015 data (improved, Mar.) 2.9σ local, < 1σ global
  • CMS 2015+2012 data: 3.4σ local, 1.6σ global
  • ATLAS 2015 data (Dec. and Mar.): 3.6σ local, 2.0σ global to get a narrow bump [and 3.9σ local , 2.3σ global to get a somewhat wider bump, but notice this difference is quite insignificant, so narrow and wider are pretty much equally ok.]
  • ATLAS 2015+2012 data: not reported, but clearly goes up a bit more, by perhaps half a sigma?

You can read a few more details at Resonaances.

*Significance is measured in σ (“standard deviations”) and for confidence in potentially revolutionary results we typically want to see local significance approaching 5σ and global approaching 3σ in both experiments. (The “local” significance tells you how unlikely it is to see a random bump of a certain size at a particular location in the plot, while the “global” significance tells you how unlikely it is to see such a bump anywhere in the plot … obviously smaller because of the look-elsewhere effect.)

This is good news, but it doesn’t really reflect a qualitative change in the situation. It leaves us slightly more optimistic (which is much better than the alternative!) but, as noted in December, we still won’t actually know anything until we have either (a) more data to firm up the evidence for these bumps, or (b) a discovery of a completely independent clue, perhaps in existing data. Efforts for (b) are underway, and of course (a) will get going when the LHC starts again… soon!  Next news on this probably not til June at the earliest… unless we’re very lucky!

So What Is It???

So What Is It? That’s the question one hears in all the bars and on all the street corners and on every Twitter feed and in the whispering of the wind. Everybody wants to know. That bump seen on the ATLAS and CMS two-photon plots! What… IS… it…?

ATLAS_CMS_diphoton_2015

The two-photon results from ATLAS (top) and CMS (bottom) aligned, so that the 600, 700 and 800 GeV locations (blue vertical lines) line up almost perfectly. The peaks in the two data sets are in about the same location. ATLAS’s is larger and also wider. Click here for more commentary.

Well, to be honest, probably it’s just that: a bump on a plot. But just in case it’s not — just in case it really is the sign of a new particle in Large Hadron Collider [LHC] data — let me (start to) address the question.

First: what it isn’t. It can’t just be a second Higgs particle (a heavier version of the one found in 2012) that is just appended to the known particles, with no other particles added in.   Continue reading

Is This the Beginning of the End of the Standard Model?

Was yesterday the day when a crack appeared in the Standard Model that will lead to its demise?  Maybe. It was a very interesting day, that’s for sure. [Here’s yesterday’s article on the results as they appeared.]

I find the following plot useful… it shows the results on photon pairs from ATLAS and CMS superposed for comparison.  [I take only the central events from CMS because the events that have a photon in the endcap don’t show much (there are excesses and deficits in the interesting region) and because it makes the plot too cluttered; suffice it to say that the endcap photons show nothing unusual.]  The challenge is that ATLAS uses a linear horizontal axis while CMS uses a logarithmic one, but in the interesting region of 600-800 GeV you can more or less line them up.  Notice that CMS’s bins are narrower than ATLAS’s by a factor of 2.

ATLAS_CMS_diphoton_2015

The diphoton results from ATLAS (top) and CMS (bottom) arranged so that the 600, 700 and 800 GeV locations (blue vertical lines) line up almost perfectly. (The plots do not line up away from this region!)  The data are the black dots (ignore the bottom section of CMS’s plot for now.) Notice that the obvious bumps in the two data sets appear in more or less the same place. The bump in ATLAS’s data is both higher (more statistically significant) and significantly wider.

Both plots definitely show a bump.  The two experiments have rather similar amounts of data, so we might have hoped for something more similar in the bumps, but the number of events in each bump is small and statistical flukes can play all sorts of tricks.

Of course your eye can play tricks too. A bump of a low significance with a small number of events looks much more impressive on a logarithmic plot than a bump of equal significance with a larger number of events — so beware that bias, which makes the curves to the left of the bump appear smoother and more featureless than they actually are.  [For instance, in the lower register of CMS’s plot, notice the bump around 350.]

We’re in that interesting moment when all we can say is that there might be something real and new in this data, and we have to take it very seriously.  We also have to take the statistical analyses of these bumps seriously, and they’re not as promising as these bumps look by eye.  If I hadn’t seen the statistical significances that ATLAS and CMS quoted, I’d have been more optimistic.

Also disappointing is that ATLAS’s new search is not very different from their Run 1 search of the same type, and only uses 3.2 inverse femtobarns of data, less than the 3.5 that they can use in a few other cases… and CMS uses 2.6 inverse femtobarns.  So this makes ATLAS less sensitive and CMS more sensitive than I was originally estimating… and makes it even less clear why ATLAS would be more sensitive in Run 2 to this signal than they were in Run 1, given the small amount of Run 2 data.  [One can check that if the events really have 750 GeV of energy and come from gluon collisions, the sensitivity of the Run 1 and Run 2 searches are comparable, so one should consider combining them, which would reduce the significance of the ATLAS excess. Not to combine them is to “cherry pick”.]

By the way, we heard that the excess events do not look very different from the events seen on either side of the bump; they don’t, for instance, have much higher total energy.  That means that a higher-energy process, one that produces a new particle at 750 GeV indirectly, can’t be a cause of big jump in the 13 TeV production rate relative to 8 TeV.  So one can’t hide behind this possible explanation for why a putative signal is seen brightly in Run 2 and was barely seen, if at all, in Run 1.

Of course the number of events is small and so these oddities could just be due to statistical flukes doing funny things with a real signal.  The question is whether it could just be statistical flukes doing funny things with the known background, which also has a small number of events.

And we should also, in tempering our enthusiasm, remember this plot: the diboson excess that so many were excited about this summer.  Bumps often appear, and they usually go away.  R.I.P.

ATLAS_dibosonXS

The most dramatic of the excesses in the production of two W or Z bosons from Run 1 data, as seen in ATLAS work published earlier this year. That bump excited a lot of people. But it doesn’t appear to be supported by Run 2 data. A cautionary tale.

Nevertheless, there’s nothing about this diphoton excess which makes it obvious that one should be pessimistic about it.  It’s inconclusive: depending on the statistical questions you ask (whether you combine ATLAS and CMS Run 2, whether you try to combine ATLAS Run 1 and Run 2, whether you worry about whether the resonance is wide or narrow), you can draw positive or agnostic conclusions.  It’s hard to draw entirely negative conclusions… and that’s a reason for optimism.

Six months or so from now — or less, if we can use this excess as a clue to find something more convincing within the existing data — we’ll likely say “R.I.P.” again.  Will we bury this little excess, or the Standard Model itself?