Michael Brooks

Here comes the science bit

The Higgs boson is science's royal wedding

All this Higgsteria just demonstrates that we're now at the end of the age of physics.

By Michael Brooks Published 04 July 2012 8:30

The era of scientific pomp and circumstance is almost done

This royal wedding-esque era of scientific pomp and circumstance is almost done. Photograph: Getty Images

A team of jigsaw enthusiasts will announce today that they have found an object that may be a piece missing from a puzzle they have known to be incomplete since the 1960s. While the team is understandably excited, they remain cautious. “All we can say at this point in time is that it is a puzzle piece,” said a spokesman for the group. “We have not yet been able to confirm that it is from the incomplete jigsaw.”

Further analysis will be necessary before the discovery of the missing piece can be confirmed. If the piece turns out not to be the one that has been missing, then “that’s even more exciting,” according to the spokesman. “It would mean there is a whole other incomplete jigsaw that we didn’t know was there.”

There has been feverish speculation about what the completed jigsaw will look like. A rival team has tried to undermine the excitement by pointing out that we have been in possession of the jigsaw’s box for half a century, and the completed jigsaw is almost certain to look like the picture on the front of the box.

The team are dismissive of such comments. “That doesn’t negate the enormous achievement of the people who worked so hard to find this missing piece,” the spokesman said. “The fact is, we may now be able to complete this jigsaw and move onto the next one. If that isn’t cause for celebration, I don’t know what is.”

As this little vignette demonstrates, we are in the last, desperate gasp of particle physics. The subject has been dominant in science – in terms of access to funding – since the end of the Second World War, when particle accelerators promised to unlock further secrets of the atom and build on the gains of the bomb that won the allies the war. Though our understanding of matter has deepened, that promise has not really been fulfilled. Daniel Sarewitz of Colorado University has declared that the diminishing returns of the subject mean that we are at “the end of the age of physics”.

Sarewitz has been accused of being “anti-science” because of this viewpoint, but the opposite is true. Today’s hysteria over the Higgs boson – a carbon copy of the Higgsteria whipped up by Cern last summer – is only superficially good for science. In the end, it distracts attention from more pressing, and perhaps more impressive, research. Other announcements today include the discovery that plastic pollution on the northwest coast of America is now as bad as in the notoriously polluted North Sea; that a pregnancy and live birth are possible from frozen ovarian tissue (meaning that a woman’s fertility can be preserved indefinitely); that the genome of an unborn baby can be sequenced using only a blood sample from its mother, opening the way for important tests. All of these can be viewed as just as important as the discovery (or not) of the Higgs boson. But they won’t get anywhere near the attention.

Particle physicists will enjoy the limelight today, and declare that it’s not their fault everyone is so excited. But that’s rather like the British royal family disowning any responsibility for generating excitement about last year’s royal wedding.

And let’s be clear: today’s announcement at Cern – whatever it is – is the scientific equivalent of a royal wedding. It is significant for those involved in the proceedings; cheering, screaming spectators, though, have participated in an enjoyable but irrational frenzy. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, the republicans of science are quietly plotting particle physics’s demise.

America has refused to build any more particle accelerators. It seems unlikely that Europe will see the point of building anything much bigger than the LHC. Genomics, neuroscience, graphene, chemical synthesis and other smaller-scale endeavours will now quietly soak up science’s diminishing pot of money. Physicists working with what are known as quantum critical crystals claim they can do much of what happens in a huge atom-smasher. Enjoy the final moments, the rousing chorus; the era of scientific pomp and circumstance is almost done.

More from Michael Brooks

View the discussion thread.

23 comments

Mon, 2012-07-09 05:41 — New Stateswoman (not verified)

The missing piece of the puzzle? Planet Nibiru - heading this way, imminent. Something the government forgot to tell us about, while they prepare to go to their underground bunkers.

Sat, 2012-07-07 08:20 — darchand

Interesting, if slightly sensational, analogy. I do think the fanfare has a lot to do with the scale and money involved. But It's also a justification of the standard model, and all the money that goes into particle physics in general. They're entitled to party.

But I disagree with Sarewitz's view that we are 'at the end of the age of physics'.

Look at dark matter - apparently this stuff constitutes 95% of the universe, and we still have no idea what it's made of!

And even though science is being forced to become leaner, smarter and return more bang for its buck, we are still seeing lots and lots of exciting research. I'm thinking mainly of astrophysics (black holes, extrasolar planets, etc) and biotech, but the same is true of other fields.

Sat, 2012-07-07 19:25 — Uxma (not verified)

I agree with the above commentator. Such ignorant declarations can come from those who don't fully appreciate or understand the firm grasp of physics on all of reality. The end of the age of physics shall come only with the end of humanity. Dark matter is just one thing we have a whole multiverse(s?) of physics to discover. Yes I am offended by this article.

Fri, 2012-07-06 20:19 — hugh markey (not verified)

OK, OK! So they've found the lost chord. Now everyone's muscling in on the act.

Sub-atomic Intellect

Wed, 2012-07-04 20:05 — Morales Holly (not verified)

my best friend's sister-in-law got paid $16649 a month ago. she been making cash on the laptop and moved in a $503300 condo. All she did was get lucky and profit by the clues leaked on this web page Lazycash24 dot com

Wed, 2012-07-04 19:48 — trinity236 (not verified)

All this Higgsteria just demonstrates that we're now at the end of the age of physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed, 2012-07-04 16:31 — Bob1234 (not verified)

The LHC and the hysteria surrounding the Higg's Boson is a prime example of the neoliberalisation and marketisation of science. This project is being funded purely to obfuscate and redirect funding away from projects that would help create more egalitarian social and economic spaces for the working class to realise their full potential, for example. However, funding such research that would have genuine social benefits would give more power to the working class, and with that power they could potentially overthrow the ruling class, which is not why science is funded. Science is funded to maintain the status quo, to continue to pull the wool over our eyes to think that the existing social conditions are the result of some sort of natural predisposition of mankind to produce such outcomes.

Science is and can never be "objective", it is a social contruct, and embedded within a complex network of socio-psychological and political relations that are unique to our own lived spaces. It all boils down to class at the end of the day, and until the neoliberal hegemony can be overthrown, the tyrannical hold of objective "science" will continue to enslave mankind and promote the privatisation, commercialisation and degradation of the communitarian values that "science" detests.

I watched a program about the LHC where a scientist said that the scientists working on the two different experiments concurrently were actually having a competition to see which experiment could discover the particle first. Here is a perfect example of how deeply the logic of the market and neoliberal economics has penetrated the ivory towers of science itself. The scientists are using the language of the high priests of neoliberal capitalism. Friedman would have proud indeed.

Wed, 2012-07-04 16:58 — jankaas (not verified)

part of me thinks that you are just taking the p*ss, but just in case you're not...

"This project is being funded purely to obfuscate and redirect funding away from projects that would help create more egalitarian social and economic spaces for the working class to realise their full potential, for example."

erm, no. the search for the Higgs Boson is to gain a more complete understanding of the reality we inhabit. the fact that your preferred projects are not funded sufficiently doesn't change that simple truism. scientists ask questions about reality and then try and answer them by resorting to methodological naturalism.

"Science is and can never be "objective", it is a social contruct, and embedded within a complex network of socio-psychological and political relations that are unique to our own lived spaces."
methodological naturalism (aka science) is our best shot at objectivity. all your arguments are based on your personal opinion shaped by a complex network of socio-psychological and political relations that are unique to your lived spaces. ('lived spaces' wtf?)

"The scientists are using the language of the high priests of neoliberal capitalism."
utter bollox mate, the language they use is accessible to anyone willing to put the hours in. you could level your accusation at foreign languages just as easily.

can i make a wild guess here? you've never done any science, or bothered to read any scientific pubications, but have got a degree in Humanities. am i right, or am i right..?

Wed, 2012-07-04 22:02 — Keir

Enjoy the final moments? What, is capitalism done? Or is it just that Americans realised that a 'God particle' would not give them fundamentalists' rights after all? It wouldn't surprise me; after all, they made a perfectly unbelievable blunder with Hubble.

No, provided that this is not the last recession, and capital gathers sufficient strength, science will continue to be funded, because science is the other tool of capital.

Wed, 2012-07-04 14:59 — jankaas (not verified)

a rather strangely bitter article Mr Brooks, perhaps you were not invited to the 'reception'...?

and as for this;
"All this Higgsteria just demonstrates that we're now at the end of the age of physics."

Francis Fukuyama anyone?

Wed, 2012-07-04 14:46 — peterr (not verified)

Well, take your choice: Michael Brooks has never shown any evidence that his knowledge of science is anything but extremely superficial; or else, for example, you can turn to Slate and read the opinion of Lawrence Krauss on the importance of this discovery.

It is people like Brooks, really in the entertainment business, not the information business, who have pumped this up in terms of 'importance'. Try to put some serious time into reading science popularizations, or even science if possible, by actual scientists. Then maybe decide where public money should go in matters like this, and use that as one of the important factors in deciding how to advocate and vote as a citizen of a democracy.

Alex Baldwin (why is the NS site tech so bad?)'s picture

Thu, 2012-07-05 00:03 — Alex Baldwin (why is the NS site tech so bad?) (not verified)

Your takedown of Brooks is hilarious in the context of having looked up his background. I urge anyone else to do the same.

Mon, 2012-07-09 16:31 — peterr (not verified)

Judging people on the basis of initials after their name, rather than actual acc0mplishment, is not hilarious, but certainly unfortunate.

Tue, 2012-07-10 22:02 — peterr (not verified)

Come to think of it, that article may very well be a hissy, belated response to the particle physics people at Sussex in the 90's being snobbish towards the quantum circuits people there.

Wed, 2012-07-04 13:19 — Keir

Watch that ear.

Wed, 2012-07-04 11:33 — Robert Miller (not verified)

Can anyone answer this amateur's conundrum about the Higgs boson? It is supposed to give other particles mass; which means the other particles have no mass - right? But a particle without mass is nonsense (to me at least). According to Newtonian physics (which is all I sort-of understand), mass is defined as the resistance to acceleration. So, forces, even tiny ones, applied to a so-called particle with zero mass will experience infinitely great acceleration. Here, I admit I may be breaking the golden rule of maths; "Thou shalt not divide by zero", but forget that for the moment. Infinite acceleration, in other words, means that such a mass-less particle will exist in every conceivable position in space at the same time. To sum it up, the very idea of a particle by definition, includes the hidden assumption that it has a mass. Any takers to give me an answer to what this is all about?
Robert Miller
New Zealand

Wed, 2012-07-04 13:47 — Alex Baldwin (why is the NS site tech so bad?) (not verified)

I would add that if you find this stuff interesting then you should read some Feynman. He wrote a few short and accessible books about it that might be right up your alley.

Wed, 2012-07-04 13:11 — Alex Baldwin (why is the NS site tech so bad?) (not verified)

I am not a physicist, but I know a little bit. I would welcome corrections to this:

"According to Newtonian physics" - you can't rely on Newtonian physics for these problems.
"mass is defined as the resistance to acceleration" - That (I believe) is inertia, not mass.
"But a particle without mass is nonsense (to me at least)." - Particles have to have energy, which is based on both their speed and their resting mass. Because of how the maths works (this is why you can't ignore the rules of maths when thinking about this) a particle that travels at the speed of light has no resting mass AND has to be moving at the speed of light all of the time.

To pre-empt the next point: yes there are situations where it seems like light slows down (e.g. refraction is based on this). The understanding that I have of why this is possible is that the photons are still travelling at the speed of light but that they are delayed by being absorbed and re-emitted in the medium. I also know that this answer is supposed to be simplistic and wrong.

Wed, 2012-07-04 13:16 — Andybbn (not verified)

Yes, intertia is the resistance to acceleration of an object. And objects that travel at or near light speed most certainly defy Newtonian physics. In fact, pretty much all of modern particle physics defies classical theory. You need quantum mechanics and special relativity.

Wed, 2012-07-04 12:34 — Andybbn (not verified)

I should add that one of the consequences of special relativity is that time, from the point of view of a particle travelling at the speed of light, doesn't flow. So such a particle would be in all places at the same time from its perspective (if that makes any sense) - but not from that of an observer not travelling at the speed of light.

Wed, 2012-07-04 12:28 — Andybbn (not verified)

The general idea is that there is a field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space. This field is mediated by the Higgs boson in the same way that the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons (i.e. light). As massive particles travel through space, they interact with this field by absorbing or emitting Higgs bosons. The interaction with these Higgs bosons slows the particles down and gives the illusion of mass.

Photons for example don't interact with the Higgs field and are therefore massless and travel at the speed of light. In fact all massless particles are bound to travel at the speed of light.

If there are any particle physics experts who would like to add to or correct this interpretation, please do so.

Wed, 2012-07-04 09:43 — GC (not verified)

I really hope you're wrong. Science doesn't get many days in the limelight, and unlike the royal wedding which was purely pomp and circumstance, the discovery of a thing that looks like the thing that you set out to discover is at least a subject of substance worth celebrating.

You quite rightly point out some of the other scientific announcements made today that will receive little to no media attention, but this happens every day of the working week and is as such not an argument to ignore / play down the LHCs discovery. A better analogy would be today is particle physics' moon landing; the culmination of years of work and vast amounts of money to achieve a goal that once reached will require a good think about what the next goal will be.

I don't think its unhealthy to celebrate a scientific discovery such as today's, even if most of us have little understanding of its practical significance, because tomorrow morning the papers will be full of whatever rubbish about who said what to whom and other such trivial prattlings on that will have much less of a legacy than today's announcement from CERN.

Wed, 2012-07-04 09:43 — GC (not verified)