A hint of Higgs: An update from the LHC
The CMS detector at the LHC weighs in at 14,000 metric tons. [Credit: Boreham, S; Brice, M; Ginter, P; Marcelloni, C; Collaboration, CMS]
The physics world was abuzz with some tantalizing news a couple of weeks ago. At a meeting of the European Physical Society in Grenoble, France, physicists -- including some from Caltech -- announced that the latest data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) might hint at the existence of the ever-elusive Higgs boson.
According to the Standard Model, the remarkably successful theory of how all the fundamental particles interact, the Higgs boson is responsible for endowing every other particle with mass. And as the last remaining particle pr edicted by the Standard Model yet to be detected, its discovery is one of the chief goals of the LHC, the most powerful particle accelerator on Earth and perhaps the most complex scientific endeavor ever attempted.
Sitting underground near Geneva, Switzerland, the LHC accelerates protons around a ring almost five miles wide to nearly the speed of light, producing two proton beams that careen toward each other. Most of the protons just keep on going past each other, but a small fraction of them collide, creating other particles in the process. But these particles are fleeting, decaying into lighter particles before they can be detected. The challenge for physicists is to pick out hints of new, exotic physics from the flurry of newly minted particles. By sifting through the data, they hope to tease out signs that some of these particles are Higgs bosons.
The LHC is equipped with several detectors, but the ones that are the largest and are going after the Higgs are called ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) and the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS); Caltech plays a prominent role in the latter. Both experiments recently reported what physicists are calling "excess events." That is, the LHC appears to have created slightly more events than would be expected if the Higgs does not exist. The bump occurred in the region between 130 and 150 gigaelectron volts (GeVa unit of energy that is also a unit of mass, via E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one), which is the expected mass range of the Higgs. But the data are not yet statistically significant enough to be called a definite signal, let alone a discovery of the Higgs particle, says Harvey Newman, professor of physics.
There are two possible explanations for these results, he says. The bump in the data could just be background events due to some unknown source or it could be the first signs of the Higgs. "One could speculate that it's an unusual statistical fluctuation," he says. "But I don't think so."
The LHC is now operating with 7 teraelectron volts (TeV, a thousand times higher than a GeV) of energy at the center of mass between the two proton beams, and may increase to 8 TeV next year (the maximum energy is 14 TeV, which will be reached by 2014).
Physicists will continue to ramp up the LHC, boosting it to higher energies and increasing the number of collisions to improve the chances of producing Higgs bosons. With several times more particle interactions, the physicists are continuing to close in on the Higgs, as well as other new particles and interactions. There's a chance that by the end of next year, they may determine, once and for all, whether the Higgs exists.
Searching for SUSY
If it turns out that the Higgs does not exist, then physicists will have to do some serious rethinking about the Standard Model. "But even if the Higgs exists, the Standard Model still has fundamental problems," Newman says. For example, the theory is not self-consistent. "The most natural way to solve these problems," he says, "is with supersymmetry."
Evidence for supersymmetry, abbreviated SUSY ("soosie"), is also something that physicists had anticipated at the LHC. The theory proposes that each fundamental particle has a supersymmetric partnerfor example, a quark's partner is called a "squark." There are many versions of the theory, from simple toy models to subtler ones. So far, however, the LHC hasn't detected any signs of supersymmetry. "Many of the models we're excluding are toy models," says Maria Spiropulu, an associate professor of physics. So even though people might be disappointed, it's way too early to rule out the theory. "Some people get depressed that SUSY is being excluded. But it's quite the oppositewe're confirming that nature is much more subtle than what the obvious thing would be."
What Exactly Is a Higgs Boson?
The Higgs boson gives a particle its mass. But what does that mean?
In 1964, a physicist named Peter Higgs proposed the existence of a field that permeates the whole universe. Just as a magnetic field interacts with iron filings, the so-called Higgs field, which permeates the vacuum between every particle in the universe, interacts with every fundamental particle. These interactions slow a particle as it moves through the field. Because an electron, for example, doesn't interact with the Higgs field that much, it can zip through the field with ease like a sleek anchovy swimming through the ocean, and, as a result, has little mass. Particles like the top quark interact with the Higgs field a lot more strongly, however, so to them, the field is more like an ocean of molasses than of water. The top quark is thus heavy and sluggish, weighing in at more than 300,000 times the mass of an electron. In physics, every field has an associated particle; the electromagnetic field is associated with the photon, for instance. For the Higgs field, the associated particle is the Higgs boson. By interacting with itself, it's responsible for its own mass.
Caltech at the LHC
Spiropulu and Newman, who are now at the LHC working on the latest data run, lead the Caltech team of 40 physicists, students, and engineers that's part of the CMS collaboration. Spiropulu, who joined the faculty in 2008, is an expert on devising ways to discover exotic phenomena beyond the Standard Model, such as theories of supersymmetry that predict particles of dark matter, the mysterious stuff that makes up almost a quarter of the universe.
When Newman arrived at Caltech in the 1980s, he did a lot of the groundwork in designing the crystal detectors that are now used in CMS. He also developed the worldwide grid of networks and data centers that stores and processes the flood of data coming from the LHC. With the LHC generating gigabytes of data per second, no single site can hold all the information, so the data is handled in a distributed fashion at hundreds of sites throughout the world, including Caltechs Center for Advanced Computing Research, where the first university-based center for LHC data analysis was invented. Newmans team also runs the transatlantic network that links the LHC to the United States, allowing data to flow between Europe and North America. His team, together with Steven Low, professor of computer science and electrical engineering, developed the state-of-the-art applications for transferring data over long distances, enabling terabytes of data to stream between sites at speeds of up to the 100 gigabits per second. Newman and engineer Philippe Galvez also developed a system called Enabling Virtual Organizations, an internet-based tool that helps physicists and scientists from other fields communicate and collaborate from anywhere in the world.
According to Newman and Spiropulu, the Caltech team consists of experts in everything from the detector and data analysis to how new phenomena might manifest themselves at the LHC. Because the group is involved in so many aspects of CMS, Caltech is making a particularly significant contribution, Spiropulu says. "We are one of the leading groups in the U.S.and I would say also in the entire CMS collaboration."
Undergraduates are also a critical part of the team. In the last two years, there have been a total of 24 students from the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF) and Minority Undergraduate Research Fellowships (MURF) programs, as well as from programs at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research, the site of the LHC). This year, four SURF students are spending their summer at the LHC. "Caltech students can really 'do things' from an early ageat a level one rarely sees elsewhere," Newman says.
Provided by
California Institute of Technology
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Water flow question
55 minutes ago
-
[Drift velocity] Factors affecting velocity
3 hours ago
-
does cold gasoline have less energy
4 hours ago
-
distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
6 hours ago
-
The Global Positioning System !
7 hours ago
-
A Question relating Power
8 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (21) |
48
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of robots as a laser ...
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives may do more harm ...
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (29)
Concerning super-symmetries and superstrings, it is a beautiful mathematical construction, but I am convinced that it was the biggest waste of the time, money and intellectual capacities in the history of science.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (23)
That one might go to phlogiston, aether theory, the theory that everything is made up of earth, water, air and fire or researching how to appease weather gods.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (21)
So absurdly ridiculous that its hilarious. undergrad humor?
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (4)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (17)
What's worse, with increasing distance from human observer size the things become fuzzy like the landscape under the fog. It applies both to the cosmological scale, both the quantum scale. This noise gives the Higgs boson the ambivalent character of fermions, too.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (14)
Well known "hiearchy 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. Because Standard Model cannot predict Higgs boson mass, it cannot use it in any equation, which actually means, it doesn't require it for anything from perspective of mainstream physics, which does care just only about numbers of its model, not about their philosophy at background.
Even if we would find some Higgs for most massive particles observable, the indicia of fourth generation of quark and neutrinos would force us to assign new generation of Higgs boson to them too.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (8)
http://upload.wik...2011.png
If you check the top quark mass (172.0±2.2 GeV/c2), you'll realize, it's exactly the twice of the value of the gap. It's another indicia, (at least one of) the Higgs particle(s) is hiding right there...
Now the new study proposes, a top quark bound by to its anti-matter partner, the antitop quark, would act as a version of the elusive Higgs boson, conferring mass on other particles.
http://www.nature...436.html
It would mean, the same artefact, which is searched at LHC was revealed at Fermilab already before years.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (27)
@Physorg Was this article written for 3yo's or tabloid press. Come on Physorg, maintain some kind of standard. A: This old news. B: Its very inaccurate. "E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one" c does not equal 1. If that were true then E would equal m. "The bump occurred in the region between 130 and 150 gigaelectron volts (GeVa unit of energy that is also a unit of mass, via E = mc2, where the speed of light, c, is set to a value of one), which is the expected mass range of the Higgs" The higgs wasn't expected to be in this range. Its just that they haven't found it at any other range.
Come on Physorg. Quit the copy/paste journalism unless you are going to check the facts before you print.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (11)
In physics 'natural units' are usually used to simplify the equations. http://en.wikiped...al_units
Natural units don't change the laws of physics, they just change the 'measuring rods' we use. However, if you want to use the results for practical purposes you often have to convert back to the metric system.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (13)
Wow... /facepalm
Look it up, and stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
"In many systems of natural units, the speed (scalar) of light is set equal to 1, and the formula becomes the identity E = m; hence the term "massenergy equivalence"."
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
With regard to physics, that has been confirmed repeatedly since the Einstein revolution.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (12)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Link?
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Actually, in relativistic (geometrized) units, c=1, by definition, to make calculations a lot easier.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (7)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (5)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (30)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (15)
A geocentric model isn't 'wrong'. It's just a lot more complicated than the model we currently use. You can map a geocentric model perfectly on a heliocentric (or any other -centric) model.
Physics (utilizing math) always on the lookout for the simplest model that explains what we observe and gives us accurate predictions about future events.
Example:
1 2 3 4 5
Many would suggest the next number is 6. But there are an infinite number of mathematical formulae which will render this sequence (including the 6). Which of them is 'right' and which is 'wrong'? We can't tell. We only _choose_ the one that is simplest. But that doesn't make it any more right than any of the others.
(However, observation lets us eliminate a much larger infinity of formulae which don't fit the bill - so not _every_ theory is equal. Just the ones that fit the observations
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 3.1 / 5 (7)
Wow you must be retarded. It's called natural units dumbass
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
For instance, a simple physical principle is that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent (it is in fact cornerstone of General Relativity). After that mathematics follows from it (in this case tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry). Mathematics on which General Relativity is based will stay correct forever, but General Relativity depends on validity of this principle.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (12)
Regarding Gagarin's "physical ideas", what? Inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent. Ok, so what is inertia? Where does it come from? Yeah, that's what I thought. All the work in extra dimensions and what not DOES turn into physical ideas. The thought is that there is a solution to the math that correctly describes the universe we live in. We search only for the answer, and do so by narrowing down the possibilities.
We live in exciting times. Sit back and enjoy the ride.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
Click on the report abuse button, they seem to get removed quite quickly.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Try reading the article again !
Here.... "an electron, for example, doesn't interact with the Higgs field that much, it can zip through the field with ease"
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
As you study calculus you being to understand that this branch of mathematics is really about how an infinite number of infinitely small quantities can be added up to generate real values.
But really, I can't believe the incredible egos of the non educated, laypeople responding to this post with crap they know utterly nothing about.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (14)
Cosmology research needs best of brains trust.LHC and particle physics groups seem to be in a hurry -that may bring even negative energies at Earth-planet that support Life.
The oriogins-Cosmology Vedas Interlinks- East West Support needed-can help to probe heritage documents back to 5th-7th century. At the outset Cosmic Dance of Lord SIVA is not understood in spirit. This applies to Singularity as well
Vidyardhi nanduri
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Maybe from pure geometrical perspective, but the planets simply cannot move in epicycles along stable paths due the Newton inertial and gravitational laws. From perspective of classical mechanics the geocentric model is unsustainable.
Aug 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
around 1/4 of them will continue on somewhere else math;
around 1/4 will continue on somewhere else physics;
around 1/2 will continue on somewhere else exotic just so stories such as UFO phenomena, religious studies, or stories relating to before the Big Bang or beyond the Black Hole or the nature of Dark Energy and so on.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
As I said: You can map the two perfectly. That a geocentric model just becomes mathematically enormously complex doesn't mean it's wrong (and nowhere did I suggest that a geocentric model should be limited to Newtonian mechanics. That have REALLY been shown to be wrong). That it's a foolish waste of resources to use a geocentric model is not the point.
Simplicity of the formulae is not an indicator whether a theory is good or bad (otherwise we'd have never made the leap from Newton to Einstein or from an atomistic model to quantum physics)
Using the simplest possible model is pleasing (and easy) - but nowhere is there a prerequisite that the universe be simple.
That's the interesting thing about science: We only ever know what works. But we'll never know whether we have it right-so we'll never be sure we have the TOE, too
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
First, you admit you're no expert, then you say you're convinced that string theory will prove to be a waste of time. That's like saying, "I don't know how to speak French, but the subjunctive is completely useless." As I'm sure Dr. Witten would be too polite to say, "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
I know, formally thinking people aren't very sensitive to these nuances and from similar simplification many nonsensical models of string theory follows. You cannot invert space-time for objects at the moment, when they're driven of their own inertia.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (4)
The centricity of a model is completely independent of what type of physics you use - it's just a mathematical transformation.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Nope, if you would violate the entropy law and the causality arrow of time, on which the causality of formal math is itself based.
This is just the point, in which formal math differs from physics. Formal math is atemporal, it doesn't recognize time concept and all connections in it are valid at the same moment. Nature is more richer in this extent, which leads into physical systems, which cannot be described mathematically, despite such a systems are quite trivial (the N-body system, for example). And vice-versa: many formal system described with abstract math simply cannot exist in temporal physics.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Note that geocentric does not equate to ptolemaic. Geocentric just means: 'Taking the earth as the center'.
Without a fixed reference system such an assumption is percetly valid (though foolish because it makes computations of everything else a lot harder). In the absence of a static aether we don't have a definite reference system - so any system is as 'good' or 'bad' as any other with respect to how valid it is.
And temporal physics (whatever you mean by that since it isn't the official name of any scientific discipline) is described using...what?
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Yes, like a "slick anchovie". Very visual representation... I can only imagine the author was eating pizza at the time.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (5)
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
The whirling beetles (Gyrinidae) are using this feature, because they're using surface waves for their mutual communication. But the same waves would notify their prey in advance, so that these clever beetles accelerate in lower speed, than the speed of water molecules. Only at the moment, when they need to communicate mutually (e.g. to avoid collisions in dense crowd), they're doing a circular motion, which emanates "synchrotron waves" into outside.
http://www.physor...528.html
It means, the thin surface layer of water is behaving like the superfluid, until the acceleration isn't high enough.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
anadish.com
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Antonio Saraiva
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
Ethelred
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Couldn't it just as well be some other particle or compound particle?
Even if you found something looks like the Higgs, how would you know the Higgs is fundamental?
The real Higgs might be a compound particle made of other stuff you never imagined too.
And if there is a Higgs, then isn't there an anti-higgs as well? And wouldn't that make finding the "Higgs" twice as easy? Why has neither the higgs nor anti-higgs been discovered?
I find it amusing that people will build a multi-billion dollar accelerator to look for an almost infinitesmally small particle, and even if the particle is found, it won't actually resolve much of anything. Even if the Higgs is found, the standard model could still have 50 unknowns in it and most of the time you won't even know for any of the stuff we normall care about, even in computers or electronics.
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Correct.
In the theory of relativity, which has been allegedly found correct to within margn of error of instrumentation, mass and energy are directly related to velocity by the equations given, and the curve is only defined from v = 0 to c "from the left".(i.e. any velocity between zero to exactly equal to c.)
At any rate, this is a continuous curve for every V from zero to c in the set of real numbers.
And for example, neither the kinetic energy equation in classical physics, nor the relativistic mass or mass-energy equations would be reconciled to a "single" particle supplying the mass to all other particles, because the value of mass is different for all velocities, and the value of "v^2" is different for all velocities.
It doesn't make sense mathematically, regardless of relativity.
In relativity, neither mass, nor energy, nor velocity is "digital".
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
This present phase is what the human existence labels "How"?
That premonition and predisposition suggests:
We are in for a long haul.
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I trust the nature of the renormalization could be better understood if we put the same resources into the notion. The realization of a particle to hold up and say "here it is," must be abandoned.
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Positrons and electrons (as 2 polar opposites) interact with the field differently. Because light which is neutral is unidirectional particles of charge (not neutral) are infidirectional (points have infinite directionality). Charges create mass. Different Charges create different masses (more or less massive, more or less dense).
Some masses fall apart quickly (decay) due to weak surrounding, retaining, pressures (forces). The top quark for instance is too massive to survive in earths atmosphere due to lack of energy.
The Higgs boson requires extraordinary pressure (force) to hold on its own. One such Higgs boson is a blackhole, naked mass. And even that decays.
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
And that depends on whether the blackhole is singular space (infinitely small point, of any given mass) or/ a rip in the field. A rip in the field would have backwards decay, the blackhole would get more massive over time.
On second thought, a blackhole is a rip in the field. It swallows up mass. A blackhole is a Higgs boson past the allowable mass/density threshold. I was wrong. A blackhole is not a Higgs boson.
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Kinetic energy (motion) charges the electron.
This takes us back to the top. The higher the charge the bigger the mass.
Sep 03, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Thank you, georgert.