High speed beams, heaps of excitement and hunting the Higgs boson

August 19, 2010 By Lucy Goodchild
DZero detector showing the large liquid argon calorimeter. (Credit: Fermilab)

(PhysOrg.com) -- If looking for the elusive Higgs boson particle is like searching for a needle in a haystack, research published last month has made the haystack smaller.

The Higgs boson is a particle, or set of particles, that might give others mass. The existence of the Higgs boson has been theorised but never recorded.

Scientists have now ruled out a quarter of the allowed mass range for the Higgs Boson, in results presented at the International Conference on High Energy Physics, held in Paris from 22-28 July. This narrowing of the search range improves the chances of identifying the particle.

Dr Jonathan Hays and colleagues at Imperial College London were amongst over 600 physicists from around the world working on data from the DZero experiment at ’s high-speed . Their findings, when combined with those from a second experiment at Fermilab called CDF, have confirmed that the Higgs boson will not have a mass between 158 and 175 GeV/c2 (where 100 GeV/c2 is equivalent to 107 times the mass of a proton).

Previous experiments and theories have provided researchers with a mass range of 114 to 185 GeV/c2 in which to search for the Higgs particle, which to date remains undiscovered.

So why look for the intangible, invisible, so far unidentified particle? Dr Hays, a STFC Advanced Fellow at Imperial who has worked on one of the experiments at Fermilab for a decade, explains his work.

What is the DZero experiment?

It is one of two experiments running at Fermilab’s in Chicago, which aims to make precise measurements of things we know about, detect new particles being produced that we haven’t seen before, and fill in some of the gaps we have in our current physics theories.

The Tevatron is a huge, circular particle accelerator, similar to the at CERN. It accelerates (the positively charged particles inside atoms) and antiprotons so they collide with each other, which annihilates them and produces energy and all sorts of other particles. DZero is named after one of the collision points in the accelerator, where the detector is positioned.

Imperial joined DZero in 1999 and I started working on the experiment in 2000. It takes years and years to plan something this big, then you spend years and years running the experiment and collecting data.

Did you have any technical glitches, like the LHC did?

There are always technical problems when you switch on a particle accelerator. You can’t just sit down and design something, then build it, switch it on and expect it to work perfectly first time. You’re only building one of them, so it’s essentially a prototype. It takes time to exploit to its fullest. You need to see what happens, make adjustments.

It’s performing exceptionally well now, producing exponentially more data every year. It’s been running for ten years now, and produced five units of data up to last year. This time next year, we’ll have ten units of data to analyse.

Some people were worried about the risks involved in switching on the LHC but at the Tevatron we didn’t really have any media coverage claiming we might create a black hole. We’re not a bunch of mad scientists sitting around cackling ‘let’s turn on the machine’. You can’t be certain about anything, but the likelihood of a catastrophe is basically zero.

Are you looking for the Higgs particle?

Yes, finding or ruling out the existence of the Higgs is one of the major goals of the DZero experiment - it’s the most interesting thing for me, it really captures people’s imaginations. We can see from our theories that there is something unexplained, a bit left over, that looks like a particle - the Higgs particle. It is widely accepted among physicists that the (or something like it) exists, so now we just have to find it - or rule it out. In which case something stranger and more exciting need to be out there.

The idea of a has been around for over 40 years, so it’s not new. Although we had a big hint to suggest that way of describing things might be correct, when the W and Z bosons were discovered, there are still some theoretical niggles.

How did you get into particle physics?

I started out quite vaguely and slowly narrowed as I went along. Originally I thought I wanted to be a lawyer, but doing A Level physics I realised I was really interested in it. I thought I could do a physics degree, then I had the option of switching to law if it didn’t work out. I was interviewed by a journalist at the local paper when I was 18, about what my plans were, and I said I wanted to do research in physics. I have that documented, so it’s evidence of what I said!

I did my undergraduate degree at Imperial, a BSc in physics with a year in Europe. I did a year of research at the University of Erlangen in Germany. It was a great way to learn a new language, I think I’m lazy because I never managed to learn anything from tapes and books, but immersing myself in German really worked. I made a system for steering a proton beam in an accelerator, using a computer we rescued from a skip and some hardware I made myself. It was a great success, I even got to present my results at an international conference! That’s when I really got interested in particle physics. I did my PhD and postdoc here at Imperial, then went to Chicago to work with the Tevatron. I’m currently an STFC Advanced Fellow at Imperial, based in London.

I like the fact that particle physics is fundamental - it’s asking basic questions about the universe and how it works. Also, it’s very international, so I get lots of chances to travel. I got the travel bug after working in Germany during my degree, so that’s a great bonus for me.

What is it like to work with the Tevatron?

DZero is a great experiment to work on, as there are lots of different jobs to do, so you can move around and be responsible for different things. I was in charge of the group that identifies electrons and photons and I also used to co-ordinate one of the systems responsible for reducing the number of events the detector records from millions per second to hundreds.

There is a team of six of us at Imperial working on the experiment now. Professor Gavin Davies, Dr Rick Jesik, Dr Per Jonsson, Dr Tim Scanlon, Nicholas Osman and myself.

Is there a rivalry between the Tevatron and the LHC?

I think a healthy rivalry keeps everyone on their toes, but it’s important to work together. Many of us work on both - I also work on the CMS experiment at CERN. Also despite being sometime ri vals, w e combine data from DZero and CDF for the Higgs searches, so we have double, which really helps. Each instrument is better in different areas, with different techn ologies, so you ca n cross-check data, which is a real benefit. There’s the ‘Tevatron Higgs New Phenomena Working Group’, which combi nes data from both experiments. Our Imperial team is very involved with this group, and that’s where our latest results have come from.

What does the future hold?

It’s an exciting time now, who knows what the future holds. The Universe is there, so the Universe must work. The theory at some point has to fit with that, has to describe a Universe that makes sense. Where we are now, it makes sense but as we push the frontier, we will uncover questions that can only be answered by taking measurements. There are lots of great, interesting, inventive theories, and now we need data to work out what’s a good idea but not right, and which theories are more plausible than others.

Explore further: Physics world shifts focus to Switzerland

More information: Fermilab: www.fnal.gov/

Related Stories

The hunt for the Higgs steps up a gear

August 28, 2008

The hunt for the Higgs boson, the most highly sought-after particle in physics, received a boost this month with the release of two new results from the Tevatron particle collider at the US Department of Energy's Fermilab ...

New experiments constrain Higgs mass (w/Videos)

March 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The territory where the Higgs boson may be found continues to shrink. The latest analysis of data from the CDF and DZero collider experiments at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermilab now excludes a significant ...

Search for the Higgs: What’s next?

August 16, 2010

In July, the particle collider experiments at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory revealed their latest search results for the elusive Higgs particle. Based on the analyses of data collected by the CDF and DZero ...

Recommended for you

'Material universe' yields surprising new particle

November 25, 2015

An international team of researchers has predicted the existence of a new type of particle called the type-II Weyl fermion in metallic materials. When subjected to a magnetic field, the materials containing the particle act ...

CERN collides heavy nuclei at new record high energy

November 25, 2015

The world's most powerful accelerator, the 27 km long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operating at CERN in Geneva established collisions between lead nuclei, this morning, at the highest energies ever. The LHC has been colliding ...

Exploring the physics of a chocolate fountain

November 24, 2015

A mathematics student has worked out the secrets of how chocolate behaves in a chocolate fountain, answering the age-old question of why the falling 'curtain' of chocolate surprisingly pulls inwards rather than going straight ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2010
Will particle physicists face a crisis of faith if ‘the God particle’ doesn’t exist?
3.6 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
Of course someone with the name MaxwellsDemon would pose this question:

"Will particle physicists face a crisis of faith if ‘the God particle’ doesn’t exist?"

The answer is no. The "God particle" isn't to particle physicists what God is to religious people. At least, as a scientist, if you prove your theory wrong, then it is actually your scientific duty to hypothesize a new one and test that. Science isn't about faith. It is about understanding. For religious folk, God HAS to exist... God can't not exist or their whole reality would be negated.
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2010
It seems to me that we keep discovering new surprises with regard to the concept of mass. At the galactic scale we’ve discovered some kind of elusive ‘dark’ matter, at the intergalactic scale we find some unexplained form of ‘dark’ energy forcing matter apart, and for all of our looking, we still have no proof that the theoretical Higgs mechanism that gives particles their mass, actually has any validity.

To the causal observer it appears very likely that our ideas about the nature of mass at the particle scale, and the behavior of mass at the cosmological scale, are fundamentally flawed.

So I think we’d be wise to brace ourselves for the nonexistence of the Higgs boson, and start looking for new solutions to the mass problem.
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2010
Maxwells Demon - Your logic is flawed. Being a "casual observer", you seem to have a cynical view of the existence of the Higgs Boson without acknowledging the fact that there is more evidence to support it's existence. Your lean toward recommending we "brace ourselves for the non existence of the Higgs" isn't sound because you are basing that idea apparently on no evidence whatsoever, so it defies logic.
Of course we have no proof that the Higgs exists and scientists are well aware of what it means for the physics community if it doesn't exist.
not rated yet Aug 20, 2010
Correct me if I am wrong.

The Higgs mechanism merely describes how mass originates in particles not how it interacts with space-time. The effect of mass on space-time - dubbed gravity - at any scale is for theories of gravity to explain. Obviously, since the effects of gravity cannot be self-consistently described at all scales by a single theory, and as shown by the empirical evidence you provided, our theories of gravity are what probably require refinement and not the other way around.
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2010
Frankly I think it’s kind of sad that we’ve grown so accustomed to the schism between QM and GR that we discuss mass and gravity as phenomena necessarily defined by two separate theories. We know that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, but we’re still willing to settle for one theory to explain inertial mass, and a different theory to explain the intrinsic gravitational field around that mass.

Clearly there’s a theory that can describe the origin of mass as well as the inseparable gravitational field around it in a single elegant mathematical formula. And if history is any indication, we should expect some of our definitions/assumptions about mass and spacetime to undergo some significant revisions in the unification.

It’s my understanding that the Higgs model can’t predict spacetime effects like frame dragging and time dilation, which is why I don’t see it as ‘the solution’ to this problem.
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2010
It's my understanding that the Higgs model can't predict spacetime effects like frame dragging and time dilation, which is why I don't see it as 'the solutions to this problem.

Standard Model cannot predict Higgs boson mass - which means, it cannot use it in any equation for any prediction. Well known "hierarchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. Actually every value of Higgs boson mass is correct from perspective of Standard Model.

During time, Higgs boson mass was guessed from 109+-12 GeV to 760+-21 GeV, plus two unconventional theories with 1900 GeV and 10^{18} GeV. There are so many comparably likely models - most of which contain continuous parameters whose values aren't calculable right now - that the whole interval is covered almost uniformly.

1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2010
Will particle physicists face a crisis of faith if the God particle doesn't exist?

Actually not, because many theorist's doesn't believe in Higgs model anyway. The technical derivation of the Higgs mechanism, consists in a mere reshuffling of degrees of freedom by transforming the Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. This already raises serious doubts about the adequacy of the entire manoeuvre, since gauge transformations possess no real instantiations and no straightforward interpretation of the Higgs mechanism is tenable.


The title of recent NewScientist article "In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for" illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.