Msnbc's Thomas Roberts talks with astronomer Derrick Pitts about the Higgs boson.
The latest results from Europe's Large Hadron Collider have raised hopes among particle physicists that the elusive Higgs boson — also known as the "God Particle" — may be coming to light at last.
Sure, we've heard that before: Rumors about a possible detection at Fermilab's Tevatron, a particle collider near Chicago, have been circulating since last year, and just in the past few months there's been a rise and fall in expectations that the Higgs would turn up in the Tevatron's data.
Now the potential signature of the Higgs boson has turned up in an avalanche of data from both of the Higgs-hunting detectors at the Large Hadron Collider. The signature is not yet clear enough to constitute a discovery, but it suggests that the $10 billion particle collider, arguably the biggest and costliest science experiment on Earth, just might be on the right track.
"We cannot say anything today, but clearly it's intriguing," Fabiola Gianotti, spokeswoman for the science team behind the LHC's ATLAS detector, told The Guardian. Similarly intriguing results were reported by the team for the other detector, the Compact Muon Solenoid or CMS.
The two sets of findings were reported independently on Friday at the Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics in Grenoble, France, one of the world's biggest particle-physics forums. The ATLAS and CMS teams have been sorting through billions upon billions of data points from proton collisions at the LHC, looking for the statistical signs that suggest Higgs bosons are being shaken free for tiny fractions of a second.
The newly reported analyses suggest that the type of Higgs boson predicted by Standard Model of particle physics could be turning up around the mass-energy level of 140 billion electron volts, or 140 GeV. That's about the same level reported by one of the Tevatron's research teams.
When it comes to statistical significance, the results are not yet solid enough to constitute a confirmed discovery. But the fact that multiple detectors at two colliders are coming up with similar "bumps" in their data is nevertheless generating excitement.
"No reputable scientist is going to tell you anything more than 'this is very, very interesting and we'll keep an eye on it.' But it is indeed very, very interesting," Fermilab's Donald Lincoln, a member of the CMS collaboration at the LHC as well as the Tevatron's DZero collaboration, told me in an email.
Some are not yet convinced. The University of Padua's Tommaso Dorigo, who is part of the CMS team as well as the Tevatron's CDF team, said he doesn't see "anything compelling" in regards to the Higgs' potential detection. Rather, he sees the results as more significant for identifying energy levels where the Standard Model Higgs almost certainly won't be found. But everyone who's in the know pretty much agrees that it won't be long before physicists can say definitively whether the kind of Higgs particle they've been looking for does or does not exist.
"While I'd hate to predict an exact date, it's pretty clear from the performance seen thus and the expected near future that the Higgs will be found or ruled out on a time scale of months or perhaps a year," said Lincoln, author of the book "The Quantum Frontier."
What's so big about the Higgs?
Detecting the Higgs boson would be a big deal: It's the main reason why the Large Hadron Collider was built in the first place.
The LHC circulates protons around a 17-mile-round (27-kilometer-round) underground tunnel on the French-Swiss border to nearly the speed of light, and smashes them together within the giant ATLAS and LHC detectors as well as other special-purpose detectors distributed around the collider ring.
The more exotic products of those collisions almost instantly decay into more common subatomic particles, but by analyzing the distributions, directions and velocities of those particles, physicists can theoretically untangle big mysteries ranging from the origins of the universe to the nature of dark matter and the potential existence of extra dimensions in the cosmos.
The Higgs boson, and its associated field, is one of those big mysteries. Back in the 1960s, British physicist Peter Higgs and others proposed the boson's existence as the answer to a theoretical question about the nature of particle mass.
It's long been known that some particles (such as the quarks and leptons that make up matter) have mass, while others (such as the photon) are massless. But there was no solid explanation for the difference.
Higgs and his colleagues suggested that a type of field — analogous to a magnetic field — affected different particles in different ways, imparting mass to some particles but not to others.
In particle physics, fields are associated with force-carrying particles, which are put in a category of particles known as bosons. The particle associated with the Higgs field came to be known as the Higgs boson. Nobel-winning physicist Leon Lederman nicknamed it the "God Particle" because it played a central but subtle role in our conception of the cosmos. (Higgs and many other physicists hate the nickname.)
Fermilab scientist Don Lincoln describes the nature of the Higgs boson.
A video provided by Chris Mann explains the Higgs boson and its connection to mass.
If the Higgs boson is found, and if it behaves in a manner consistent with the Standard Model, that would serve as an exciting validation of our current view of the structure of the cosmos. If the Higgs isn't found, or if it behaves in a non-standard way, that could be even more exciting. Physicists would have to go back to the drawing board and modify their explanation for the workings of the universe.
It's hard to predict how going back to the drawing board might affect the scientific world, or our everyday lives ... but the last time this sort of thing happened was a little more than a century ago, when quantum mechanics and relativity had to be invented to explain phenomena that just seemed weird to 19th-century physicists. These scientific paradigm shifts opened the way to innovations ranging from atom bombs and nuclear power to microwave ovens and lasers. So who knows where post-Standard Model physics might lead?
The details of discovery
Here's one more important thing to keep in mind: Discovering the Higgs won't be like discovering a new continent. Lots of numbers have to be crunched, and lots of statistics have to be analyzed to tease out the evidence for a previously undetected particle.
"It's much more like walking toward people in the fog, and waiting for the moment when you recognize the person you're looking for," Lincoln told me. The process that's playing out right now is probably the way discoveries work in 21st-century physics: First there are hints that something interesting might be going on, then more data are deciphered to confirm a discovery, and then physicists finally figure out how that knowledge can be put to use.
With that in mind, here's how Lincoln explains the slight "bump" seen in the newly reported data from the Compact Muon Solenoid:

M. Krammer et al. / CMS / CERN
This chart shows how data from the Large Hadron Collider's Compact Muon Solenoid may suggest the existence (or non-existence) of the Higgs boson at particular mass-energy levels (on the horizontal axis, in terms of giga electron volts, or GeV).
"Take a look at the image above. There are a couple of important things. First, there's a horizontal red line. This is the Standard Model. If the black or blue line goes below the red line, the Standard Model version of the Higgs boson is ruled out for that mass. So, except for some wiggles, the Standard Model Higgs is ruled out from about 150 billion electron volts, or 150 GeV, to 460 or so.
"The thing that is getting people a little excited is the second feature. The dashed black line is how well we expect to do if the Standard Model is right, but the Higgs boson doesn't exist. When the blue and black lines start to drift away from the dashed black line, it means that we expect we can rule out more than we did. For instance, in this case, we expected to be able to rule out from about 125 GeV and up. But since the blue and black lines don't dip below the red lines until 145 or 150 or so, this could mean that we have more events than physicists would expect to see from the Standard Model without the Higgs. So that could mean there are some Higgs events floating around. The difference is biggest around 145 GeV or so.
"Now we get a reality check. The green and yellow bands indicate our uncertainty in our expectations. So we see that the black and blue lines are at the edge of our uncertainty. Further, even in the region we are excluding (near 160 GeV), there is an excess (observed above expectation).
"This means (to me at least, and at this point it's all a matter of judgment) that it could be that the discrepancy reflects an imperfect understanding of the detector and algorithms.
"Still, all of the experiments sees an excess at some level, suggesting that either our theory has been implemented incorrectly or maybe something is going on. No reputable scientist is going to tell you anything more than 'this is very, very interesting and we'll keep an eye on it.' But it is indeed very, very, interesting.
"At the Lepton/Photon conference to be held in a month in Mumbai, the ATLAS and CMS experiments will hopefully combine their results, effectively doubling the amount of beam being used."
Now that you've gotten the hang of reading the data, here's the corresponding chart from the ATLAS detector.
The bracketed areas indicate mass-energy regions where the Standard Model Higgs has been excluded: 155 to 190 GeV and 295 to 450 GeV.
If you look ever so closely at the chart, you'll notice a slight elevation of the black line above the yellow zone of uncertainty at about 140 GeV, the same area where the CMS team detected the potential signature of a Standard Model Higgs boson:

K. Cranmer / NYU / ATLAS / CERN
This plot shows readings from the ATLAS detector that hint at mass-energy levels where the Standard Model Higgs boson might (and cannot) be found. The brackets indicate exclusion zones from roughly 155 to 190 GeV and from 295 to 450 GeV.
The bottom line? Something interesting may be going on in the world of physics, although there's still a chance that results or theories are being misinterpreted. Within the next year or so, we should know whether we're in the midst of a cosmic discovery. Stay tuned ...
Update for 6:05 p.m. ET July 25: The director general of the organization that hosts the LHC — known as the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN — says he expects the question of the Higgs boson's existence to be solved by the end of 2012. "I would say we can settle the question, the Shakespearean question — 'to be or not to be' — end of next year," Director General Rolf Heuer told reporters at the Grenoble conference.
Correction for 11:10 a.m. ET July 26: I've corrected the name of the ATLAS collaboration's spokeswoman, which I scrambled up as I was writing this item. Mi dispiace!
More about particle physics and the LHC:
- Interactive: Inside the Big Bang Machine
- Interactive: Nightmares and dreams at the LHC
- What's a hadron? Your guide to the particle zoo
- Special Report: The Big Bang Machine
For more about the findings presented in Grenoble:
- CMS press release about the results
- CMS slide presentation
- CMS: "Search for Standard Model Higgs Boson in pp Collisions at √ s = 7 TeV"
- ATLAS: "Combined ATLAS Standard Model Higgs Search With 1 fb-1 of Data at 7 TeV"
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.


Excellent and informative post. Thanks.
the only Higgs bosom influence I detect is the guy in the labcoat.
The details of the creation of this and any theoretical previous universes have eluded the grasp science and theology. Yet a recent development at the Fermilab facility in Illinois has gotten mankind two steps closer to what some have referred to as the "God particle". Within two days of one another, both labs claim to have found significant clues at the presence of the sought-after Higgs boson, previously a theoretic jewel in the crown of particle science. I found this here: Higgs boson breakthrough hailed as window unto creation. I think a massive research and studies is still needed to prove this finding and make it believable for majority of the population of the Earth.
@Oaktree
"My point being, we may be measuring a snap shoot in nature which is changing due to the continuous change in the ratio between matter and antimatter. Is the visible mass constant or is it changing at such a slow rate that makes us assume W and Z boson are constants too?"
A good thought. Therefore, decay would not get them there. Quantum means to get to the gravity particle(s) is fraught with trouble. They can only be created and their effect on mass be observed, by way of increased gravity (which I did) or by gravitational lensing (although, factors in 'gravitational lensing' are more elaborate than Einstein predicted.
so could the change in the ratio between matter and antimatter at this level reflect the activity of conscious/matter event (God particle)? sounds like increased gravity would make a nice weapon.
@driftrat
Tough question. Even increasing gravity to a tactical level is difficult, as far as my current understanding goes. However, slight tweaking of gravity may surely make aviation more efficient.
increasing working base theorys to utility value is what us humans do...is perpep motion a possibility?...the ability to increase/decrease gravity at a specific objet, on cue, still would make a nice weapon.
driftrat,
I think Cindy will like the way you twist and turn, you do it so effortlessly, you must had a lot of practice, eh?
Are you related to William Frank Buckley, Jr. by any chance?
Anadish sounds like very honest and sincere fellow and my hat goes off to him for dwelling into such a challenging endeavor with such limited resources. I think infusing petty talk serves no purpose and is one of the uglier traits of Americana.
commmon oak...all indivduals have their own styles which all posess their own singularities. Life is to be enjoyed with a little humor - remember we die - and there is a purpose to light hearted humor in the attempt of being witty. You'r comming off a little stuffy in my terrain chief.
of course Anadish is serious...and most probably on to somthing that may make you brag that you ever communicated with him...
2
@Oaktree
I like your, "One thing that struck me going through some of the released data is, how stable are the W-/+ and Z bosons anyway? We have a mass with a certain degree of accuracy for both at present but how stable is this state for these bosons? Could they be drifting and we just don't have enough change in the evolution operator to detect any change to the resonances of the two bosons?"
The irregularities of the particles responsible for gravity or for giving mass (as you wish) make them very uncertain in terms of their decay. Hence, there are only two ways to detect them (but first produce them somewhere) then detect them by the change of mass (which I did) or to detect them by the so-called 'gravitational lensing', although gravitational lensing is much complex than Einstein postulated. Sub quantum detection is anathema for our apparent quantum level knowledge base of the present times.
hello again Anadish,
I see you have been giving my post some thought and thank you for your reply. But, I must clarify myself because you seem to be misinterpreting my point.
By inquiring to any change to the resonance of the W and Z bosons I mean decay characteristic, their complex mass. the amount of energy to release them and decay rate over time. My point being if the real part of their complex mass is increasing from "zero" over time then do we need another boson (Higgs) to explain the VEV of the W and Z bosons? I suppose one can say the variance of the W and Z could be caused by the Higgs field but that doesn't classify it as a particle. I would assume it just a shift in the resonance by some unknown cause.
I am in no way equating the Higgs boson to the graviton or the gravity particles you are referring to.
You made the comment,
which body of published papers are you referring to or is this your own derivations/experimentation?
You go on and wrote,
which mass are you referring to the "gravity particles" [boson(s)] or some other particle (neutrons?) which mass was affected by these "gravity particles"?
Your work sounds very interesting and I hope your finally get you patent so we can discuss it in detail.
PS. You chose to use the word "anathema", is it a sign of your frustration with the patent office?
@ Oaktree
Thanks for your interest and understanding.
"The irregularities of the particles responsible for gravity or for giving mass (as you wish) make them very uncertain in terms of their decay." It is from my understanding of how gravity giving particles work.
By "mass" I mean mass of the quantum body or dark matter you fill up with extra gravity giving particles. You can faintly modulate the "mass" of a body by adding gravity-giving particles in a regular manner.
Even if the patent office does not grant a patent, the publication of the application prior to examination will throw open the discussion, surely.
By "anathema", I meant our distaste/inability to sense many sub-quantum happenings, as below 1 photon, we go 'blind'. However, the universe is not so.
The initial delay at the patent office was trying; but they are diligent people and quite just, in the sense that they keep a balance in their national interest and in safekeeping/protecting a new idea.
Higgs Particle?
A.
Particle Physicists Report Possible
Hints of Long-Sought Higgs Boson
Experimenters with the Large Hadron Collider report curious excess of particles
but claim no discovery
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/particle-physicists-report-possi.html?etoc
B.
Why Dark
Matter And Energy YOK
http://www.lhcportal.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=667
All the energy and mass of the universe are obviously accounted
for
C.
EmD versus Emc
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/emd-versus-emc/
Space distance versus space time, science versus engineering
Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)
http://dovhenis.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/update-comprehension-of-universelife-evolution/
E=Total[m(1
+ D)]
The big bang did not create matter or antimatter.
Singularity was all the energy-mass of the universe.
At 10^-35 seconds since big bang, D was already a fraction of a second above
zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this
instance started the energy space texture, the straining of space texture, the
space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome
expansion and initiate impansion back to singularity, again. DH
singularity is the study of the inevitable failure of a system.
your stated quantum and GR facts are more like personal opinions than scientifically derived facts.
They cannot detect neutrinos; while it is necessary to detect them in order to find Higgs boson convincingly. So they can never detect Higgs, as simple.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/aug/08/1
@JonButterworth
"Unfortunately, the W bosons in question decay to an electron, or muon, plus a neutrino (see my dodgy diagram above). The electrons and muons can be measured well, but the neutrinos can't. Neutrinos do not interact much at all with anything, including our detectors. So we don't see them. The missing momentum they carry away gives a clue, but it doesn't allow us to reconstruct a Higgs mass bump."
Weren't you ready for such an eventuality when you designed the experiment? And what is the way out then? As one reads, it seems to be an impossible imbroglio.
@anadish
I'll presume that you are being playful here, naturally if they had known that it was going to be difficult before they started, they'd probably have had a game of golf instead.
@reggiedixon
Exactly. That's how one needs to look also for the 'particles' which give mass. Colliding hadron and then look for all the settling debris is one such way. But there are others which include producing those mass giving particles and then look at their effect on surrounding mass(es). It's easier that way; although, it's impossible to see the signature(es) of those mass-giving particles. I mean impossible. However, a cumulative signature should be seen -- much more like an undecipherable doodling.
But wait....If you are right, then, what are those good number of neutrino detectors all over the world doing? Scintillators, Cherenkov detectors, radio detectors, tracking calorimeters -- It's in infancy, but are all these techniques useless?
anadish
Because the neutrino is so weakly interacting the detectors tend to be huge water filled "caverns" (50,000 tons) and so, on a purely practical note, are unlikely to be able to be implemented as part of a particle accelerator. The detectors are also built deep underground (1 km compared to 175 m for the LHC) to prevent the interactions of other particles from swamping the few and far between neutrino interactions. So a second practical problem would be that the LHC would need to be lower another 825 m.
The real killer though is that the problem of other interactions swamping the neutrino interaction means that a neutrino detector built into a particle accelerator, which will produce many other particles at the same time as the neutrinos, is not a possibility. In other words, it's probably impossible to detect neutrinos in the sorts of reactions mentioned above because the other particles will swamp the neutrino signal. They can pretty much only be detected in isolation far from the source reaction.
@koolherc
Thanks. The devil is in the details, that's what's said.
@to everybody in general
Good, in a way, if the economy bounces back, or even if it kills itself due to a failure to find new energy sources, the corporates might well think of funding in their 'Last Putsch" another deeper mightier hadron collider....
So, LHC's specification weaknesses could be a future funding possibility. If you keep those businessmen guessing, don't do things at the same time....They anyway keep making a kill constantly. Why not kill them softly by bigger proposals.
In India they have a saying, "Tea is only as sweet as the sugar you put in it."
Hello Anadish,
Thanks for the link to Jon Butterworth's blog, I found it very interesting. The diagram showing the path from the Higgs to the electron, muon and two neutrinos brings me back to my point:
Does the theory require a particle (Higgs boson) to explain the release [increase their energy above their ZEP and hence give them a VEV (ZEP + mass)] of W and Z bosons from vacuum?
Butterworth made an excellent point in his article when is wrote they may not find the Higgs boson but the events detected at the LHC energy levels will give us further insight on how the quarks are distributed inside the proton.
I will venture to say that this information could be even more important than finding the Higgs boson because it could give us a better understanding to quantum confinement. The mechanism of how energy is release from vacuum, seems to me, is the Holy Grail. The transformation [field (Higgs) creation] of energy from vacuum (=>ZEP) to the real (positive mass) universe is the key to understanding the real (visible) universe.
Then we will be half ways there, :)
What is going on in vacuum (where does that rupture in spacetime leads to is another question? (multi-manifolds all interconnected, one of which is our visible universe?)
@oaktree
Thanks. In brief, I fully know the future lies in accepting sub eV particles to the fullest -- be in neutrino, be it more unnamed ones. sub eV particles are the bridge between vacuum and the quantum particles. Have you noticed how the acceptance of sub eV particles is bringing science back to the days of luminiferous aether (as more of those sub eV particles throng vacuum)?
A clue to your main problem is 'involution'.
It's sounds simple, but the science community is still some steps away from it.
A great article, one that I will read more than once. Thanks.
Interesting discussion as well.