Here’s a short video, courtesy of NOVA, that we made on our trip to Geneva. Hopefully the excitement of the moment comes through… (Note: might be hard/impossible to view the video outside the US, sorry.)
Watch Higgs Boson Revealed on PBS. See more from NOVA.
Postcard from Geneva Read More »
Via everywhere on the internet, here’s Jeremiah McDonald, who used a 20-year-old videotape of his younger self to carry on a conversation across time. (Seems legit at a casual glance, but I suppose it could be faked.)
Sadly we can’t actually transfer information into the past. If we could, I would have started writing this book a bit earlier.
Time Travel via YouTube Read More »
Back in Los Angeles, after my brief action-packed jaunt to Geneva. Higgsteria continues, and I’ll be on NPR’s Science Friday later today to talk about it. That’s 2pm Eastern, 11am Pacific time. Hope to do justice to the palpable air of excitement at CERN and around the world.
After that, I think certain parts of my book are going to need some re-writes…
One thing I don’t want to get lost in all the hubbub. Amidst all the many impressive aspects of the work the physicists and machine-builders did to make the LHC happen and achieve this fantastic discovery, I was very struck by how eager people were to give credit to other people. In their main talks, both Fabiola Gianotti and Joe Incandela went out of their way to give credit to the machine builders, the technicians who worked on their experiments, and the thousands of colleagues within each collaboration who contributed to the result. But that eagerness to share credit went well beyond the official announcements — everyone we talked to was quick to point out how far-reaching and international the project really was. The very quintessence of a group effort.
Unfortunately, at least in the sciences, large groups can’t win the Nobel Prize. There will be much discussion in days to come about who deserves a prize for inventing the theory behind the Higgs; I think it’s complicated, and I’m not going to push for any particular set of people. When it comes to the experiments, the matter is easier: there’s no fair way to give it to anyone, really. There was a lot of Nobel-quality effort, without question, but I can’t see how it’s possible to narrow it down to just three people, which is the strict Nobel rule. What we really need to do is change that rule, but the folks in charge are (probably correctly) very conservative about such things, so I don’t see it happening soon.
So let me throw out one name that should at least be in the conversation: Lyn Evans, “the man who built the LHC.” Evans was in charge of the project for many years, and it was his dedication and ability that brought it to successful completion. He is now officially retired as a CERN staff member, although he’s still working as a member of the CMS collaboration and the leader of the effort to build a linear collider. He didn’t play a central role in the actual experimental effort to find the Higgs, but there’s no person who deserves more credit for enabling the conditions under which it could be found. People who are much more informed about the detailed history of the LHC and the ATLAS/CMS experiments will be in a better position that I to render such judgments, but I think the Nobel committee could do a lot worse.
A couple of us are going to try to live-blog the July 4 Higgs update seminars from CERN. This effort will be subject to the whims of internet connectivity, of course, but we’ll do our best. At the moment we have correspondents on at least three different continents (I [Sean] am at CERN, JoAnne is in Melbourne for ICHEP, and I think John is in California…), so hopefully at least one of us will be able to get through. We’ll just be updating this post, so keep refreshing. You are also welcome to try the CERN webcast.
Seminars proper start at 9am Geneva time (3am Eastern time, midnight Pacific time, 5pm Melbourne time). One from ATLAS, by Fabiola Giannoti, and one from CMS, by Joe Incandela. Then a press conference after. Remember what we’re looking for: how significant is the signal, do the two experiments agree with each other, does the rate agree with the Standard Model prediction, are different channels mutually consistent with each other.
If people ask questions in the comments there is some chance that we will try to answer them.
Has there ever been a scientific discovery (if indeed we will be able to call it that) that has been anticipated so far ahead of time? Can’t think of any off the top of my head. Fasten your seatbelts!
11:38 pm Geneva time (Sean): Preliminary thought #1: There is a “nightmare scenario” that particle physicists have worried about for years. Namely: find exactly the Standard Model Higgs and nothing else at the LHC. I personally assign the nightmare scenario very low probability. Not on the basis of any inside info, just on the basis of physics. We know the Standard Model is not right; there is dark matter, there is dark energy, there is baryogenesis, there are the hierarchy and cosmological constant and strong-CP problems. It can’t be the final answer. Seems to me much more likely that there is interesting physics at the weak scale above and beyond the Higgs, than we just get stuck with a vanilla Standard Model. Beyond this physics-informed prediction, there is the wishful hope that the Higgs itself leads directly to new physics. Most obvious example: in many (most?) models of dark matter as weakly-interacting massive particles, the dominant way that dark matter and ordinary matter interact is through exchange of Higgs bosons. If that’s how nature works, the Higgs is literally a portal from our world to another. This isn’t the end of the show, it’s merely an act break (as we say in the movie biz).
11:44 pm Geneva time (Sean): Preliminary thought #2: I am a mere theorist, and let me be as legitimately humble as I can be right here. Beyond the details of whatever may or may not be found, the LHC is a gargantuan effort undertaken by literally thousands of people over the course of years and in many cases decades. This moment, we hope, is something of a payoff for their perseverance. My hat is off to the experimentalists and engineers and technicians who really made it happen.
…
Live-Blogging the Higgs Seminar Read More »
Update: There’s a slightly expanded version of this post on the NOVA website, where I fill in some background on what the Higgs is and why we care.
Greetings from Geneva, where I’m visiting CERN to attend the much-anticipated Higgs update seminars on Wednesday, July 4. We’re all wondering whether they will say the magic words “We’ve discovered the Higgs,” but there’s more detailed information to watch out for. Hoping for some good book fodder, at the very least. (I personally am not hunting for Higgses, any more than someone who eats at a seafood restaurant has “gone fishing,” but you know what I mean.) Remember Higgs 101, and why we need it.
If at all possible, I’ll try to live-blog here at CV during the seminars. They will start at 9am Geneva time, a slot chosen to enable a simulcast in Melbourne for people attending the ICHEP Conference. For folks in the U.S., not so convenient: it’s 3am Eastern time, Midnight (July 3/4) Pacific time. Here is the seminar announcement, and of course CERN will have a live webcast. Or try to, anyway; last time something like this was arranged, back in December, the live feed collapsed pretty quickly under the load. I’m sure I won’t be the only one live-blogging: here’s Aidan Randle-Conde and Tommaso Dorigo.
So what are we looking for? …
Hunting for Higgses Read More »
I’m going to hop on a plane to Geneva. Have to see a man about a boson.
Here’s something to tide you over. A bit of friendly international-competition humor. [NSFW captions.]
“I should have gone into string theory!”
Hitler Learns the Tevatron Has Been Shut Down Read More »
Hey, anyone remember the lawsuits that were trying to shut down the LHC? They were finally dismissed by a federal appeals court in 2010, with the following concise summary of the situation:
Accordingly, the alleged injury, destruction of the earth, is in no way attributable to the U.S. government’s failure to draft an environmental impact statement.
Of course, maybe we’re just lucky enough to live in the branch of the wave function where the disaster didn’t happen?
The next obvious step in the robots’ scheme to take over the world: develop an unbeatable strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors. (The robots are patient, their plan has a lot of steps.)
It didn’t bother me when computers became better than us at chess, but this is outrageous.
More Gradual Erosion in the Dignity of Humankind Read More »
Editor’s Note: Way back in 2007, we here at the blog were struggling with a vocal minority of obnoxious commenters. [This post is from when I was still at the group blog Cosmic Variance — SMC.] I was stuck on a cross-country plane flight with my laptop, and took out my frustrations by banging out this proposed Comment Policy. Upon landing, I sent it to my co-bloggers for judgment. They were mildly amused, but didn’t think it accurately reflected our actual sentiments — and they were probably right. So we never posted it.
But now, since I’ve been busy and those same co-bloggers are pretty silent, we’re looking for content. So I’ve dredged it back up, just to offer as food for thought.
So, to be clear: this is not our comment policy. It’s simply what our comment policy would have been in a different universe, where my co-bloggers weren’t as good at talking me down from my less well-thought-out schemes.
Our current comment policy is that we delete obnoxious crap, and ban repeat offenders. Easy!
————————————
Did you know that there are some blogs out there on the internet that don’t have comments at all? Amazing, but true. To us here at Cosmic Variance, comments are a crucial part of the joy of blogging, and we couldn’t imagine doing without them. Nevertheless, we get occasional visitors who don’t always “get” the whole “commenting thing,” at least as we understand and encourage it. But don’t worry, we’re here to help. In order to answer every possible question before it is raised, we have constructed a hierarchical explanation of how we conceive of the role of comments: a set of Deep Underlying Axioms from which all else can in principle be derived; a Fundamental Theorem of Commenting that concisely expresses the upshot of the above axioms; a Grand Explanatory Analogy that should serve to clear up certain common misconceptions; and a set of Specific Examples, Illustrated in an Entertaining Question-and-Answer Format, to guide the thinking of those who prefer concrete imagery to abstract thinking. We close with some inspirational final words on how the comment section is Your Chance to Shine.
All told, we’re pretty sure you will agree that this is the most awesome comments policy in the entire blogosphere. …
I was the judge for this year’s 3 Quarks Daily Science Prize; here are the results. Cross-posted at 3 Quarks Daily, obviously.
I want to thank Abbas and all the 3QD crew for inviting me to judge this year’s Science Prize. I can’t help but thinking that after having Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, and Lisa Randall judge the previous years, a certain phase transition has occurred; but I’m happy to be associated with such an amazing group.
Let me start by saying something obvious but nevertheless true: the entries this year were of extraordinarily high quality. Some excellent blog posts among the initial nominees didn’t even make the final ten, and any one of the nine finalists would have been a worthy choice for number one. But I will resist the temptation to declare a nine-way tie.
There is no simple and objective standard for what makes a blog post “the best.” “Blog is software,” as Bora Zivkovic likes to remind us — blogging is a medium, not a genre. Successful blog posts can be one word or ten thousand; a personal reflection or a rigorous analysis; an original idea or an insightful commentary; a devastating take-down or an inspirational message. But within these flexible parameter, there are certain aspects of blogging that make it special, and I looked for posts that took advantage of those unique capabilities. I wanted to choose posts that would be hard to imagine finding in any other medium, but whose quality measured up to the best of journalism or science writing. One frustrating aspect of a contest like this is that the prize is given to posts, rather than to blogs — for many of the most successful blogs, their charm comes from the accumulated effect of reading many posts over a long period of time. But okay, enough with the throat-clearing.
Without further ado:
First place this year goes to Empirical Zeal, for “The crayola-fication of the world: How we gave colors names, and it messed with our brains.” With many different criteria in mind, this post by Aatish Bhatia stood out among the rest. It’s just about the perfect use of a blog. For one thing, it looks gorgeous: all those colorful images, each of which actually serves a purpose. The writing is playful and clever; once you see the mantis shrimp telling you “DEAR MORTAL, YOUR RAINBOW IS PUNY,” you’re not likely to forget it. And most of all, the science is fascinating and important. To a physicist, there is a continuum of colors; but to our eyes and brains, “rainbows have seams,” and that affects how we think about the world. A completely deserving winner. (And don’t forget that there is a Part II.)
Second place goes to Three-Toed Sloth, for “In Soviet Union, Optimization Problem Solves You” (cross-posted at Crooked Timber.) Cosma Shalizi doesn’t bother with colorful pictures; he even uses a slightly gray font on a white background, presumably because black on white would come off as too florid. But this is a creative and original essay that brings the theory of computational complexity to bear on the practical problem of managing a planned economy. (Conclusion: it can’t be done.) The flexibility of blogs doesn’t just mean the ability to post videos; it also means the freedom to explore ideas outside traditional disciplinary comfort zones. Not a light read, but a true contribution to intellectual discourse. The kind of post that nudges the rest of us to be better bloggers.
Third place goes to The Mermaid’s Tale, for “Forget bipedalism. What about babyism?” In another great use of the medium, Holly Dunsworth takes creative advantage of the blog format to make important points both about science and about how science is done. How much can we learn about a species just by studying a few bones in its feet? Does a particular anatomical feature represent a crucial adaptation to circumstances, or is it just an ancestral remnant? Also: adorable pictures of baby monkeys, as well as real data with error bars. Everybody wins.
In very different ways, these three posts serve as proud examples of what blogging can be at its best — feel free to share them with any of your friends who still remain skeptical. Yet, I cannot help but cheat just a little bit by offering two “honorable mentions.” At The Primate Diaries, Eric Michael Johnson’s “Freedom to Riot: On the Evolution of Collective Violence” is a polished and fascinating look at natural selection and the behavior of human crowds. And at Quantum Diaries, Flip Tanedo’s “Helicity, Chirality, Mass, and the Higgs” is an original take on explaining an abstract but central point in modern quantum field theory. All of these posts — as well as the other finalists! — are impressive achievements. My hat’s off.
3 Quarks Daily 2012 Science Prize: The Winners Read More »