Of Particular Significance

Category: Science News

Well, yesterday’s update on the search at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] for the Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest possible type of Higgs particle) is past. It left us, as was widely expected, with an ambiguous situation about which, for now, intelligent people can (and do) disagree (compare my reaction with this one).  But it also left us with great hope for 2012 that all these ambiguities will be resolved, and that Phase 1 of the Higgs search will come to a definite close next year, with

  1. the discovery of a Standard Model Higgs particle (or a look-alike) between 115 and 127  GeV [with best bets at 125 or so] ; or
  2. confidence that there is no Standard Model Higgs, and the launch of the search for many other types of Higgs particles; or
  3. the discovery of something else along the way.

There’s still a lot more to say about yesterday’s results. Is what ATLAS and CMS are detecting a real signal, or not, and what might make us nervous or confident about it? What are the implications if it really is a signal of a new particle? How confident can we be that it is a Higgs particle? How much evidence is there that it is of Standard Model type? I will write an article about these issues soon. But there’s still a tremendous amount of work left (even for a theorist) to do to help plan for LHC in 2012, and to help assure analysis of the fall 2011 data is thorough.  During the rest of my stay at CERN I will be working hard on that!

However, I would be deeply remiss if I did not follow up on yesterday’s flurry of Higgs discussion by stepping back and reminding you what has happened here.

It has been an astonishing year. I find it challenging to remember how I thought about particle physics twelve months ago, after all these changes in our understanding brought about by the new results from the LHC.  This is especially true as far as the Higgs search, which has unambiguously excluded a huge part of the mass range for Standard Model (and also many non-Standard Model) Higgs particles — with implications that I am still coming to grips with. And this reshaping of the landscape of particle physics is due in large part to the extraordinary efforts of three groups of people:

  • The accelerator physics team at the LHC, the often unsung heroes who designed, built, and now operate this wonderful and incredibly reliable machine, overcoming obstacle after obstacle to bring its collision rate higher and higher, well beyond expectations for 2011, and delivering 150 times as much data as was produced last year, thereby making the achievements announced yesterday possible…
  • The experimental collaborations, the large teams of physicists who collectively built and now operate the giant and complex collision detectors, which work extraordinarily well, typically close to or even beyond their design parameters; who manage to cope with the incredibly challenging conditions at the LHC to obtain high quality data; and who have shown great ingenuity in finding ways to extract more information from that data — in particular, improving the methods for the Higgs particle search so much that they have  significantly exceeded original expectations for what one could learn from the amount of data currently available…
  • The theoretical physicists that you never hear about — the ones who work and sweat tirelessly on very difficult technical problems: combining high-precision theory and data carefully to provide a detailed understanding of the structure of the proton; or coming up with clever ways to calculate, with higher and higher precision, the rates for Higgs particle production, and for other processes that obscure the Higgs particle’s signals;  without these researchers the measurements that we heard about yesterday would have had much larger theoretical uncertainties and could not have led to such powerful conclusions…

I have nothing to say except:  Wow.  Wow.  You’re amazing.  I feel so privileged to be a witness to what you’ve done.

The rest of us — other particle physicists, scientists everywhere, and the public — owe you a long and deafening round of applause. May history always remember what you achieved this year.

And we also wish you the very best in 2012; may it be even more successful and historic than 2011.

The search by the ATLAS and CMS experiments for the Standard Model Higgs particle made astonishing progress in 2011, leaving all eyes on the tiny remaining gap (115.5 to about 128 GeV) and the hint of a signal around 125 GeV.

 

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 14, 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

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

The most important thing that happened this week in Berkeley, California was definitely not the news of a  small and probably ephemeral excess of multi-lepton events at the Large Hadron Collider‘s CMS experiment — and probably not even the disconcerting earthquakes on (near?) the strained Hayward fault — it was the (public but not yet peer-reviewed) report from the Berkeley Earth Team, a group of mostly non-climate scientists [mostly from physics] who went back to analyze and check the data that climate scientists have been studying for years.  Go look at their website; it’s for you.

My understanding is that the scientific director, Richard Muller, organized the team because he was highly skeptical that climate scientists were treating their data properly. His agenda seems to have been largely scientific rather than political.  Though I did not share his point of view, I found it understandable. In my field we have often seen data mis-analyzed, even though high-energy physics is a largely apolitical domain. It is not easy, even with full scientific integrity, to avoid all sources of bias. With something that has enormous policy implications, such as climate change, there was some concern among serious scientists that error and/or group-think bias could set in within even a large community. The idea of having a largely independent review by scientifically experienced non-experts was a good one.

Well, in science, when you see vocal skeptics starting to come around to the point of view of those they previously criticized, you know the climate is changing.

I doubt we’ll ever have a more independent review than the Berkeley Earth Team has just given us. I don’t know all the scientists on the team, but I am confident at least that Saul Perlmutter (who just won the Nobel Prize) is of the highest integrity.  The team included only scientists who had not taken a public position on climate change, and their funding sources are very broad-based.  Moreover, unlike climate scientists, who could be subjected to the accusation of letting a vested interest in obtaining funding bias their science toward a prevailing viewpoint, some members of this team had to give up time from their own personal research, thereby reducing their funding opportunities, in order to participate in this endeavor. None of them has much obviously to gain — no probability of scientific recognition, prizes, funding, or even thanks — especially Muller, who in confirming what he expected the team would likely refute has burned plenty of bridges in the interest of honesty.

I’m definitely not qualified to comment on the details of climate science, and I haven’t read the report.  All I have to go on right now is the two-page summary of the results reported here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct

which I highly recommend you personally read.  It has subtleties and details that the press is not capturing.

Nevertheless, it seems to me at this early stage that the report’s main result — that where it has so far come to conclusions, it agrees with what many climate scientists have long been saying — represents a success story for science, one worth noting. It confirms yet again that preconceptions and funding sources do not automatically determine scientific results. And it confirms also that it is possible, over time, to obtain consensus about nature — that even while the US Congress witnesses ideology placed before the nation’s best interest, the collective scientific process still manages to put the integrity of science first, and a scientist’s pride second.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 24, 2011

Supernovas are some of nature’s most common and powerful nuclear bombs.  They are also among the most useful for particle physicists and astrophysicists alike.   [The last quarter of this post, on the OPERA experiment’s claim of light traveling slower than neutrinos, has been updated a couple of times, in obvious italicized remarks, in response to some very useful comments.] (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 20, 2011

Here’s an article intended to give a layperson a sense for why so many types of particles — most of them, in fact — decay away almost instantly, forcing us to discover them through various types of trickery.   This is relevant in the search for the Higgs particle, which decays away far too quickly to observe directly. (See the Higgs FAQ, the video clips from my recent public talk, or the article about recent hints of the Higgs for more info.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON August 4, 2011

Terrible news indeed, that there is a serious chance that the James Webb Telescope, the successor to the Hubble space telescope, will be cancelled by the House of Representatives.   I myself am horrified watching this country voluntarily give up its leadership in one scientific field after another, killing projects that are not even a drop in the bucket of our yearly debt, and for which we have already paid a significant fraction of the bill.  I can’t describe the benefits of this telescope nearly as well as my astronomy colleagues, so please read what they have to say.  Here is a post by my former colleague at the University of Washington, Julianne Dalcanton.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON July 12, 2011

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.