Twenty-four-hour particle people: the ongoing reinvention of particle physics

The Large Hadron Collider, the machine that smashed particles together to create the Higgs boson, is closed for an upgrade and will next host particle collisions in 2015. Yet there is hope of further insight before then.

You might have thought that 2014 would be a restful year in theoretical physics. In December, Peter Higgs received his Nobel Prize. Surely all the fuss over the Higgs boson, which was discovered in July 2012, 48 years after Higgs predicted its existence, has finally run its course? Not at all: physicists are already scheming about what comes next.

This month, some of the subject’s leading lights gathered at the Higgs Centre in Edinburgh to divine the future of physics. It’s an important discussion because Higgs’s boson hasn’t given them many clues.

We know that there must be many more bosons out there, because we have yet to find a way to mesh quantum theory, our mathematical description of reality at the smallest scales, with relativity, which describes the reality of space and time on the scale of galaxies. There are plenty of theories but there is still little data to guide discussions.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the machine that smashed particles together to create the Higgs boson, is closed for an upgrade and will next host particle collisions in 2015. Yet there is hope of further insight before then.

In December, a team of US researchers identified more than 100,000 ways in which current data might show us as yet unseen physics. The way the Higgs boson “decayed” – or changed into other particles and energy configurations after its creation – might have deviated from the expected routes. Finding out if it did take one of the 100,000 unexpected turns will require sifting through 100 petabytes of data. In comparison, storing every word ever written by human beings would require about 50 petabytes of data.

If that doesn’t show the Higgs doing something interesting, we’ll have to wait for the Advanced LIGO project to start operating later this year. This is designed to detect gravitational waves – ripples in space – caused by cataclysmic events such as the collision and merger of two black holes. Einstein predicted gravitational waves should exist but we have yet to see one. Advanced LIGO can detect the tiniest wobbles in space: if a black hole merger causes the planet to move half an atom’s width closer to the sun, we’ll know about it.

If we do snag a gravitational wave, analysing its properties should reveal details of where quantum theory and relativity meet. We already have data on that coming in: the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite is sampling the cosmic microwave background radiation that was produced shortly after the Big Bang and contains information about how quantum effects seeded the structure of galaxies. Results from this mission are enabling us to rule out certain theories about what happened in the earliest moments of the universe, providing another avenue for exploring the most fundamental rules governing the cosmos.

The LHC will resurface next year – but it is small that may prove beautiful in the end. In Edinburgh, Birmingham University’s Andrew Schofield introduced theorists to the prospect of particle physics done on a tabletop. There are many types of solid material that have properties analogous to large colliders – if you manipulate them correctly, you can make energy ricochet through the material in ways that mimic the flight and interactions of free-flying protons in kilometre-long particle accelerators. This may not be as awe-inducing as the big machines but we’ll take insights wherever we can get them.

A scientist walks inside a tunnel at the Large Hadron Collider. Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty.

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At The Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science By Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 08 January 2014 issue of the New Statesman, The God Gap

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What do Labour's lost voters make of the Labour leadership candidates?

What does Newsnight's focus group make of the Labour leadership candidates?

Tonight on Newsnight, an IpsosMori focus group of former Labour voters talks about the four Labour leadership candidates. What did they make of the four candidates?

On Andy Burnham:

“He’s the old guard, with Yvette Cooper”

“It’s the same message they were trying to portray right up to the election”​

“I thought that he acknowledged the fact that they didn’t say sorry during the time of the election, and how can you expect people to vote for you when you’re not actually acknowledging that you were part of the problem”​

“Strongish leader, and at least he’s acknowledging and saying let’s move on from here as opposed to wishy washy”

“I was surprised how long he’d been in politics if he was talking about Tony Blair years – he doesn’t look old enough”

On Jeremy Corbyn:

"“He’s the older guy with the grey hair who’s got all the policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well is what he comes across as” 

“I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles”

“He was just going to be the opposite of Conservatives, but there might be policies on the Conservative side that, y’know, might be good policies”

“I’ve heard in the paper he’s the favourite to win the Labour leadership. Well, if that was him, then I won’t be voting for Labour, put it that way”

“I think he’s a very good politician but he’s unelectable as a Prime Minister”

On Yvette Cooper

“She sounds quite positive doesn’t she – for families and their everyday issues”

“Bedroom tax, working tax credits, mainly mum things as well”

“We had Margaret Thatcher obviously years ago, and then I’ve always thought about it being a man, I wanted a man, thinking they were stronger…  she was very strong and decisive as well”

“She was very clear – more so than the other guy [Burnham]”

“I think she’s trying to play down her economics background to sort of distance herself from her husband… I think she’s dumbing herself down”

On Liz Kendall

“None of it came from the heart”

“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”

“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”

“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”

“With Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham there’s a lot of rhetoric but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of direction behind what they’re saying. There seems to be a lot of words but no action.”

And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:

“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.