Look forward to the 13 TeV setup results.
I'm looking forward to reading reports say late 2016 when the dust settles on the 13 TeV setup results. As is always with science, additional research and time to digest results is necessary and prudent.
Ever since the putative discovery of the Higgs boson in 2011, one of the next-big-thing searches in physics has been to confirm the mechanism by which the exotic particle imparts mass to other particles. Now, a team led by boffins from Brookhaven National Laboratory think they've contrived just such a test. In work conducted …
I gave up after the first couple of paragraphs.
As I think I understood the article...
When particles are smashed at the right energy level, Higg's bosons are produced. But we can't detect HBs themselves.
However, HBs decay into other types of particles (in almost every collision it becomes a pair of quarks, and very infrequently it's other particles). The trouble is, many of the other particles in the collision *also* produce particles just like those.
= Needle in a haystack.
However, in 0.1% of collisions, HBs produces a pair of photons, which are what you can measure. If you add up their energy & mass it should equal the energy and mass of an HB (good old Einstein at work, there).
IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist), so if there's anyone out there who actually understands it, please correct me!
Huh. I thought that blog post was pretty easy going, particularly compared to reading any of the actual papers published on the subject, or, say, Lacan or Heidegger. But I think reading this stuff requires a rather specific kind of focus - it's not a matter of "are you smart enough" or anything else so simplistic.
Anyway...
However, in 0.1% of collisions, HBs produces a pair of photons, which are what you can measure. If you add up their energy & mass it should equal the energy and mass of an HB (good old Einstein at work, there).
This is missing an important detail. There's a background that obscures this signal, too - lots of other stuff decaying into photon pairs. The key is that the experimenters count all the observed photon-pair decay events at each total energy level, and there are more of them at the Higgs mass level (because of those decaying Higgsies), which produces the spike in the graph shown in the blog post. So you plot number of photon-pair decay events versus their mass, and where the spike appears, that's your possible Higgs.
(Also, photons have no rest mass, so you don't exactly "add up their energy & mass", but that's a minor quibble.)
Most of the effort to this end is being expended ensuring only well-funded mainstream ideas are in the running for this elusive prize. Of course Nature has proven annoyingly independent, generally refusing throughout human history to submit to the will of establishment figures hell bent on seeing their notions proven correct, and their renown/funding validated. So if Nature's notion of a true Theory of Everything requires there be some paradigm/funding shattering, expect none. Expect instead what we have had for the last half century: all provable advance made primarily using the tools developed in the first half of the 20th century. In the new physics building at a local university there are a number of famous equations etched into the walls. The newest of them is 80 years old. QED
My point exactly.
In a recent interview on BBC Radio 4 with Chris Llewellyn Smith - a key architect in the Standard Model admits his work is standing on the shoulders of giants, and work on the fundamental particles has basically been tinkering with the same standard model for the last 40 years....
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/tls/tls_20140701-0930a.mp3
Jump to about 8:30 if your attention span is too short for the whole interview
"Since 1975 we knew what we know today...."
Pleier says the interactions so far observed match the rate of W-W production and scattering predicted by Standard Model physics – which is yet another arrow-to-the-knee for more exotic physics.
Earlier in the article, it was mentioned that "at a critical temperature the Higgs field becomes tachyonic," To me, anything becoming tachyonic would seem to be exotic.
To me, anything becoming tachyonic would seem to be exotic.
Here, apparently, "tachyonic" just means "having imaginary mass"1. And that really just means that its energy is not in a stable equilibrium (it's at a local maximum rather than a local minimum), thus spontaneous symmetry breaking2 occurs, and it moves to a lower energy state. This makes it no longer tachyonic, a process called "condensation" (because the lower energy becomes a condensate of new particles).
So it's not "exotic" in the sense of "not happening very often"; or in the sense of "gosh that's pretty weird" (relative to other stuff that happens at the quantum level); or in the sense of "the mathematics are bizarre" (because as it turns out they're not); or in the sense used in the article, which is "different from the Standard Model". It's perfectly in keeping with the SM, as I understand it.
Of course, you can still find it "exotic" in a subjective sense.
1A non-tachyonic field usually has complex mass, where the real part corresponds to rest mass (I think) and the imaginary part to decay rate. At least that's my understanding from browsing some of this stuff. I may be wildly incorrect. But the point is "imaginary mass" here just means "the real part is zero". This also means the field doesn't have any particle-like nature, apparently, until it condenses and becomes non-tachyonic.
2The standard analogy here is a ball balanced on top of a perfectly symmetrical hill. Any perturbation will cause the ball to roll down the hill in some direction, which breaks the symmetry.