Campaign 2008

More
Science
columns

How Smart Is the Octopus?
Bright enough to do the moving-rock trick.
Carl Zimmer
posted June 23, 2008
Jeffrey Goldberg, Neuropundit?
The Atlantic goes cuckoo for neuro-puffs.
Daniel Engber
posted June 18, 2008
The Bogus $1 Million Meat Prize
Why PETA's artificial chicken contest is nothing but a publicity stunt.
Daniel Engber
posted April 23, 2008
The Paranoid Style in American Science
Contrary imaginations.
Daniel Engber
posted April 17, 2008
Spinach, Lettuce, and the Limits of Bioterrorism
A comforting look back at the major E. coli outbreaks of 2006.
Carl Zimmer
posted March 19, 2008
Search for more Science articles
Subscribe to the Science RSS feed
View our complete Science archive

Science: The state of the universe.

Quantum ScoopThe Holy Grail of particle physics may already have been found.

By James Owen Weatherall
Posted Monday, June 4, 2007, at 1:05 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

So, if the rumor is true and the standard model Higgs has been found at the Tevatron, the LHC is in big trouble: Immediately, its "guaranteed" success—the final particle of the standard model, not to mention a couple of Nobel Prizes for European scientists—is gone.

The irony is that things look just as bleak for the LHC if the rumor is false, and the Europeans end up finding the standard model Higgs themselves. Physicists have developed such a complete description of elementary particles that, once the final piece of the theory is in place, the chances that the LHC will find anything the standard model doesn't predict are almost negligible.

Particle theorists talk a big game. They get excited and tell reporters, not to mention government funding agencies, that the Higgs is just the beginning: The LHC, some say, may find examples of a class of particles indicative of a new fundamental property of nature, called supersymmetry. Others say there may be two or three particles, which together perform the job the standard model assigns to the Higgs. The truth is that these alternatives patch up the standard model, should something unexpected happen. If a Higgs-like particle is found, say, but it's too light to be the standard model boson. Or if it decays in a surprising way. In cases like these, the LHC could indeed produce dramatic new discoveries.

But what happens if the Higgs turns out to be just right? Well, then the standard model predicts that you'd need a machine roughly a quadrillion times more powerful than the LHC to find anything new. With current technology, this would mean an accelerator the circumference of the Milky Way. Though some theorists—proponents, for instance, of string theory—speculate about what such an accelerator might find, few other physicists take them seriously.

In fact, finding the "just right" Higgs would be bad news all around. Surely the European Union wants more for its $8 billion than a single particle. But more importantly, it would provide the final proof of the standard model, which happens to be clunky, boring, and infuriatingly silent on the Big Questions that the final theory of physics was supposed to answer. Questions like: Why is there something, rather than nothing? And where does gravity fit in? If the standard model turns out to be a complete description of particle behavior, as the discovery of the Higgs would suggest, these questions may never be answered.

That's why particle physicists, and the EU member states that have spent Nepal's annual GDP to build this accelerator, are hoping that no one, in Chicago or Switzerland, finds the Higgs. The future of high-energy physics lies with the small chance that the standard model is wrong, and something exotic happens at LHC energies. Something, I hope, that will help us understand the why questions that the standard model leaves wide open.

PAGE: 12

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

Related in Slate

In 1996, Jim Holt called the standard model a "stick-and-bubblegum contraption," and wondered why physicists can't come up with some more elegant theories of matter. In a "Diary" from 2002, particle physicist Kenneth Bloom wondered what sorts of machines we should be building next. Gregg Easterbrook reviewed Lee Smolin's attack on string theory. Amanda Schaffer assessed the scholarly work of Brian Greene.

James Owen Weatherall has a master's in physics from Harvard University. He is currently preparing his doctoral dissertation, in physics and mathematics, at the Stevens Institute of Technology, where he is also assistant director of the Center for Science Writings.

The world's largest superconducting solenoid magnet by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

It is dishonest to paint the LHC as an $8 billion experiment to discover the Higgs Boson. That is certainly part of it, and currently the issue that particle physicists are most excited about but it is hardly the only physics that will be discovered at the LHC. History has shown us that whenever particle accelerators have been bumped up in energy, we learn something new. Unfortunately it appears that the universe does not always operate in a smooth and differentiable fashion as energy increases, so there are many surprises in store for us.

In any case, there are several other experiments such as ALICE, LHCb and TOTEM which will be occurring at the LHC. The accelerator itself will be run with heavy ion collisions for a month every year, which will allow us to better probe the quark-gluon plasma that is theorized to have existed 10 millionths of a second after the Big Bang. Even if the Higgs is found exactly where it is theorized to be and behaves in the manner it is theorized to behave, these other experiments would make our money worth it. After all, how much money have we spent doing nothing in Iraq?

To say that particle physics would look bleak if the Higgs is found is also nonsense. There are many things that the Higgs can not explain, such as what particle(s) makes up dark matter. While it is true that the Standard Model does not predict anything that exciting coming out of the LHC energy levels outside of the Higgs, we will not know whether this is true without testing it. We may find something exciting! […]

Personally I'm betting that at least one Nobel Prize comes out of the LHC that is completely unrelated to the Higgs. […] Perhaps a better understanding of why there are three families of particles will happen. Or we may better understand the interactions of the quark-gluon plasma. Or maybe we'll discover a dark energy candidate. There are so many possibilities that focusing the whole experiment on the Higgs boson is a slap in the face to the many physicists who are working hard at the other physics available at the LHC.

After all, there will be over 4000 physicists working there and they can't all get credit for the Higgs!

--PhysicsGirl

(To reply, click here.)

I think the biggest problem with the article is the assertion that it's a disaster for the Tevatron to see the Higgs before the LHC. There's a lot more to physics than finding particles. First, in order to call it the SM Higgs they need to show that it's spinless and the couplings are what they should be. That's hard to do with just a 5 sigma excess. I'm not an expert on this, but if the Tevatron can see this thing, then the LHC will make a ton of them. First comes discovery, then comes the model-building. It seems this would just give the ATLAS & CMS people a head start in knowing where to look.

--apotheosis

(To reply, click here.)

The article states "[The standard model is] the most accurate theory ever developed, in any field." I would be fascinated to know the objective standard to which models in different fields can be evaluated for "accuracy". Certainly, all models are wrong, but their value comes in helping make predictions which turn out to be correct. Is the accuracy of a theory dependent on how many correct predictions it has made? As measured by what...number of publications? And when is a theory so uncontroversial that it ceases separating one group of thinkers from another? […]

If you're working "accuracy" from the "nothing left underlying the current explanation" angle, then the science of physics is always going to win because of a very uninteresting fact. Science is integrated. We carve it up into areas to help ourselves, not because Nature is divided up into sciences. Psychology is constrained by biology is constrained by genetics is constrained by chemistry is constrained by physics. No theory in any other area is complete without the proper foundational work in all of the science which supports it, and physics supports everything. If that's what "accurate" means, then the claim is meaningless. The best theory in physics will always be the best theory ever because bad physics necessarily takes the rest of fully articulated scientific theory down with it.

--Mangar

(To reply, click here.)

(6/5)

also in slate