Of Particular Significance

Category: Particle Physics

While I was on my way to Johns Hopkins University Monday evening, I wrote the following post, for publication today (Wednesday). Tuesday morning, CERN stole some of my thunder by putting out a press release consistent with the conclusion I drew below.  Not that I mind.   A quote from the press release follows this post.

The rumor mills on various blogs have been going berserk, with claims that a Higgs particle of Standard Model type (the simplest possible version of the Higgs particle) has been found by ATLAS and CMS (the two large general purpose experiments at the Large Hadron Collider.)  The claims are that the Higgs signal is at a mass-energy [E=mc2] of 125 GeV;  that CMS, in its search for a Higgs particle decaying to two photons, sees a small excess (that’s two or so standard deviations, or 2 σ, away from zero signal); and that ATLAS sees a larger excess (perhaps 3 σ) in their similar analysis. (You may find it useful to read my recent article about a lightweight Standard Model Higgs particle, and why searching for it through its decays to two photons is the best way to find it but takes frustratingly long — or you might like my recent guest post on Cosmic Variance about the Higgs search.)

Well, rumors are sometimes true, and this one might be, more or less.

  • More precisely, it might be true that ATLAS and CMS see excesses of the claimed type and size. We’ll find out on December 13th.
  • And also, it might even be true that these excesses are signs of the Standard Model Higgs particle. We will not find that out on December 13th.

Why not? There’s just not enough data yet. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 7, 2011

I’ve decided to write a new set of articles explaining why it takes time, potentially a long time, to discover the Higgs particle.  First article is done: why even to find a Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest possible type of Higgs particle that might be present in nature) has taken quite a while, if the Higgs particle is relatively lightweight.  Coming soon: various exotic Higgs particles that would take several more years to discover.  

If you’ve missed my two posts from the weekend you may want to read them:

  1. Saturday: The media is providing misleading reports on the Higgs particle search, not always properly distinguishing between the Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest type of Higgs particle that might be present in nature) and Higgs particles in general.  There’s a very big difference.
  2. Sunday: Although the search for the Standard Model Higgs particle is at least half over, it could take a very long time (as much as 10 years) to confirm that there are no Higgs particles of any type in nature.

I’m also recommending:  (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 5, 2011

As we approach the December 13 news conference to update the search for the Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest possible Higgs particle) we are starting to see lots of news stories about it.  And they’re all wonderfully misleading.

I love this quote from the BBC: “But there is an even more intriguing possibility: that [the Higgs particle] may not exist at all, at least in its simplest form.”

This is a lot like saying: “Maybe the earth has no trees at all, at least not maple trees.”  Or “Maybe children on earth do not play games at all, at least not football.”  Or “Maybe Picasso did not paint any pictures at all, at least not the Mona Lisa.”

If the simplest form of the Higgs particle does not exist in nature, that will surprise no one in the field.  There are hundreds of serious scientific papers, written by experts over the past 40 years, suggesting other forms of the Higgs particle (or particles).  Every novel idea (supersymmetry, extra dimensions, little Higgs, etc.) has a more complicated story than the Standard Model Higgs particle.  Most particle physicists are hoping for precisely this situation.  Exotic Higgs particles generally would take a little longer to find than the Standard Model version of the Higgs — but they’re still Higgs particles, just as oak trees are trees and basketball is a game.

We will not know if the Higgs particle does “not exist at all” for ten years.  Let me say that again.  It will take ten more years to sweep the floor clean and assure ourselves that there is no Higgs particle, of some exotic form, hidden in Large Hadron Collider data.  See this post for more info.

So when I see a figure caption on a BBC article stating “the Higgs search is approaching its endgame at Cern”, all I can say is, “you’ve got to be kidding.”  This is not the beginning of the end; it is the end of the beginning.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 3, 2011

After a day and a half of intense discussions and exchanges of information, the Intensity Frontier workshop meeting is coming to an end today. I already mentioned on Wednesday that particle physicists are currently summarizing their efforts as roughly divided into three research directions:

  • The Energy Frontier: Try to make new heavy particles or other high-energy phenomena using very high-energy high-collision-rate accelerators (such as the Large Hadron Collider)
  • The Cosmic Frontier: Let the Universe itself, through its natural particle production mechanisms, teach us something (through properties of “dark energy” or dark matter or through cosmic rays, etc.)
  • The Intensity Frontier: Search for rare new phenomena or difficult-to-produce new particles using medium-energy ultra-high-collision-rate accelerators, or some other low-energy ultra-high-rate mechanism.

Each frontier has its advantages; the energy frontier probes new particles and forces very directly, allowing for detailed study, whereas the intensity frontier is indirectly sensitive to much higher energies and/or much weaker forces, though it often provides fewer details. Meanwhile, at the cosmic frontier we rely purely upon what the universe has to offer, which has the obvious benefit that what the universe provides comes for free, and the disadvantage that what it provides is limited and out of our control. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 2, 2011

Some of you may remember that a few months back there were widespread reports in the media — and various blog posts, including even ones by particle physicists such as University of California-Davis’s John Conway on Cosmic Variance — giving the impression that the 2011 summer’s results from the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) had all but ruled out a particular speculative idea called “supersymmetry”. (Here are links to my description of supersymmetry and the classic strategy people use to look for it, as well as the assumptions that underlie that strategy and what happens when you relax them.) I complained loudly back then that this was a terribly premature conclusion — that only the most popular version of supersymmetry had been excluded by the data at that time, and that there were still many types of searches that would need to be carried out before such a broad conclusion could be drawn. And I wasn’t the theoretical particle physicist to say so.

Well, a few months on, I’m glad to say that the experimentalists at ATLAS and CMS have collectively come to the conclusion that indeed there is a great deal of work left to do. This was reflected in several talks on supersymmetry searches at the HCP conference in Paris two weeks ago, including the final talk, given by Giacomo Polesello of ATLAS. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 29, 2011

Can’t take a breath this week without stumbling over another particle physics result of note. (It isn’t usually like this, folks — this year has been very odd.) OPERA (the experiment that claims their neutrinos travel faster than light does, which if true would require some kind of modification of Einstein’s relativity principles) is back, and they’ve done a very important cross-check many of us were hoping they would do, which is very good news indeed. Since they say that it confirms their previous result, the plot now thickens considerably; the experiment’s technique is now harder to question, and the long list of possible sources of problems with the experiment is considerably shorter. Obviously this news deserves a long post, explaining exactly what they did and why it is such an improvement. I’ll produce one for you before the weekend is over, possibly as soon as tomorrow. Watch this space!

In the meantime, here’s a guide to past posts, which cover most of what you need to know: (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 18, 2011

As many of you have already read on the BBC or on the physics blogs, such as Resonaances, Quantum Diaries and Cosmic Variance, a new discrepancy — this one quite substantial, and appearing in a measurement that is harder to question than some others we’ve seen this year — has appeared at a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment, LHCb. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 16, 2011

Yesterday I spent the day at Stony Brook, one of the branches of the State University of New York (SUNY), which has a long and distinguished history, and a bright future, in high-energy physics and related fields.   It is the home of the C.N.Yang Institute and the Simons Center.  My main task was to deliver a colloquium on the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] (roughly the same talk I gave at Harvard recently) but the real pleasure of the visit (at least for me) was catching up with what some of my colleagues who work there, or who were themselves visiting there, have been doing recently.

One thing I’ve not talked about yet on this website — mainly because it is more technical than LHC physics — is that a lot of progress is being made right now understanding the fundamentals of my entire research area.  I refer here to what is known as “quantum field theory” [QFT for short].  It’s not a “theory” in the colloquial sense of “hunch” or “conjecture”, where you imagine someone saying “my theory is that it was the butler’s fault”.  This is a second meaning, very common in science, of the word “theory”: a mathematical framework for scientific calculations, and a conceptual framework that goes along with it. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 9, 2011

Matt Strassler 11/1/11.   No rest for the weary: yet another discrepancy. This one is somewhat different from the small multi-lepton excess at CMS of a couple of weeks ago (tenuous, but in a very interesting and plausible place) and from the OPERA faster-than-light neutrino claim (not so tenuous, but not so plausible either). Now we have a discrepancy involving collisions that produce two low-energy photons [particles of light]. The effect is seen in four experiments, not one: both ATLAS and CMS at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and also CDF and DZero at the Tevatron collider. It’s too large to be a statistical fluke (the excess is not small and it shows up in four experiments). Nor does it look like an experimental mistake (since it shows up in four experiments). Might it be a sign of a new phenomenon not predicted by the Standard Model (the equations that describe the known particles and forces, plus the simplest possible Higgs particle)? Maybe… Can’t rule it out, though there’s not enough information in the experiments’ public documents for a serious evaluation of that possibility. But in any case, my preliminary impression is that it’s most likely something else: either a problem with the theoretical calculation of what the Standard Model predicts, or a problem with the way this theoretical calculation was used by the experiments.

Now why would I come to that conclusion? To read more, click here.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 2, 2011

The Nagoya (Japan) conference in celebration of the Inauguration of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute has come to a close this morning.  There was a pleasant little ceremony yesterday in which Kobayashi and Maskawa took up shovels to place dirt around a newly-planted tiny apple tree outside the institute — an apple tree descended directly from “Newton’s apple tree” at Trinity College, Cambridge (you know the one, the tree whose apple is said to have inspired Newton’s theory of gravity — as though he’d never seen a dropped fork before.)

Professors Kobayashi (right) and Maskawa await the shovels they will use to place dirt around the roots of the newly-planted descendant of Newton's apple tree.

Meanwhile, back indoors there were numerous talks on a wide variety of research topics. Several of these addressed Japan’s broad experimental particle physics program, which covers neutrinos, bottom quarks, dark matter, cosmic rays, and the development of new experimental devices.  Here are a few tidbits I heard about yesterday.

First, the one you all want to know: there was some very good news from the OPERA experiment (the one with the speedy neutrinos,) in which Nagoya is a participant.   (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 26, 2011

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.