Higgs boson announcement – expert reaction

This expert reaction comes via the Australian Science Media Centre: CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research) has this evening announced that the long-sought Higgs boson probably exists, after experiments conducted in the Large Hadron Collider yielded results that are consistent with its…

Gb6qznxr-1341392596
Results pertaining to the Higgs boson are “consistent with its existence”. jef safi

This expert reaction comes via the Australian Science Media Centre:

CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research) has this evening announced that the long-sought Higgs boson probably exists, after experiments conducted in the Large Hadron Collider yielded results that are consistent with its existence.

The Higgs boson is the final particle in the Standard Model of physics, and has remained hidden from scientists’ reach until a series of experiments confirmed its presence.

Below Australian and UK physicists respond.

Professor Peter Higgs of the University of Edinburgh (who postulated the theoretical particle, which is named after him, in the 1960s):

Scientists at CERN are to be congratulated on today’s results, which are a great achievement for the Large Hadron Collider and other experiments leading up to this.

I am astounded at the amazing speed with which these results have emerged. They are a testament to the expertise of the researchers and the elaborate technologies in place.

I never expected this to happen in my lifetime and shall be asking my family to put some champagne in the fridge.”

Higgs Field Animation from AusSMC on Vimeo.

Professor Anthony Thomas, Director of the Adelaide Node of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Particle Physics at the Terascale. He is based at the University of Adelaide’s School of Chemistry and Physics:

Today’s announcement that the Higgs boson has been discovered at CERN represents the most important and profound discovery in particle physics in almost 30 years. The Higgs represents the key missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle that is the famous Standard Model of nuclear and particle physics.

It has been anticipated for more than four decades and, were it not there, theorists all over the world would have been back to their drawing boards in desperation.

Now that it has been found, there is not only a palpable sense of relief but a great deal of excitement as we begin to pore over the details of the various experimental results to see what hints they may have for completely new physics which goes beyond the Standard Model.

Dr Csaba Balazs is Director of the Monash Node of the Centre for Particle Physics at the Terascale, Monash University, Melbourne:

The existence of the Higgs boson is a cornerstone of Einstein’s dream. In 1955 Einstein died without fulfilling his lifelong dream: the unification of all physical laws in a single equation. Since then thousands of physicists have pursued the quest for unification.

Various theories have been worked out that might realise the dream; however we do not know which one, if any, is correct.

In 1983 a glimpse of hope for unification emerged in the form of the discovery of two particles called the W and Z bosons. The existence of these particles proved that the unification of two out of four fundamental forces is possible.

However, the unification was not complete without the existence of a hypothetical third particle: the Higgs boson. So the existence of the Higgs particle became one of the cornerstones of unification.

In 1991 the construction of the Superconducting Super Collider started. This machine was going to be powerful enough to find the Higgs boson. Unfortunately, in 1993 the project was cancelled by the US Congress, and Einstein’s dream once again was fading away.

Today, after 50 years of its theoretical introduction, we have learned that the Higgs boson probably exists! This is a tremendous step ahead in our fundamental understanding of unification and in realising Einstein’s dream.

Associate Professor Kevin Varvell is Director of the Sydney Node of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale. He is based in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney:

This could hardly be a more exciting time for our field of research. The Higgs boson has been searched for using progressively larger and more sophisticated accelerators and detectors for 30 or 40 years now.

While it is too early to say yet whether the new particle which has been seen is the Higgs predicted by our Standard Model of Particle Physics, or something even more interesting, it is fair to say that we have taken a very big step forward today. Now the hard work begins to flesh out what this new thing really is.

At the conference centre in Melbourne leading up to the broadcast from CERN, I was struck by the buzz going around the place. Some knew what one of the two large experiments ATLAS and CMS would say, some knew nothing, and many had heard rumours or even seen leaks.

What everyone had in common was a sense of anticipation and the feeling that the field may not be the same come the evening.

Dr Paul Jackson is a lecturer in high energy particle physics in the School of Chemistry and Physics at the University of Adelaide and works with the ARC Centre of Excellence in Particle Physics at the Terascale. He is also team leader of the Adelaide group on the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC:

The Higgs boson gives each type of particle its own mass. Its existence is required to explain several features of our current model of particle physics, and evidence for the Higgs will further validate this model.

Hints from data at the Large Hadron Collider collected in 2011 pointed to a region in mass at about 125 GeV (equivalent to about 125 proton masses) where some anomalous activity may be occurring.

The data collected in 2012 so far have been analysed and are demonstrating excesses consistent with a signal which at first glance looks consistent with the expectation of a Standard Model Higgs Boson.

If confirmed to be the Standard Model Higgs this will provide a crucial piece in our understanding of how particles in the universe are assigned masses. Its measurement could have far-reaching effects on research in fundamental particle physics.

Further reading:

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Help evidence based journalism become the norm and donate

Join the conversation

19 Comments sorted by

  1. Mat Hardy

    Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University

    Whilst I appreciate the contribution that science makes to our lives, some part of me is uncomfortable with the sheer amount of money being spent on proving this point of theoretical physics.

    So many problems in the world to solve and this seems really only of use to such a small and privileged academic elite.

    Or will this have real benefit to humanity? I'm happy to be illuminated if it does.

    report
    1. Jonti Horner

      Post Doctoral Research Fellow at University of New South Wales

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      I'm not a particle physicist, so forgive me if I don't make predictions about exactly what, in twenty or thirty years time, this particular discovery will have led to that betters everyone's lives. However, one of the great (and often overlooked) benefits of this kind of research are the spin-offs that quickly go on to benefit people in totally unexpected ways.

      My own field, Astronomy, has a fair number of these - and people who criticise the "waste of funds looking at the stars when we could…

      Read more
    2. Eric Ireland

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      Without quantum mechanics, we wouldn't have semiconductors or lasers, but no one could have predicted their development a hundred years ago.

      report
    3. Mat Hardy

      Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University

      In reply to Eric Ireland

      I'm not 100% convinced by the spin-off argument. Haven't been since people kept telling me manned space flight was good for getting non-stick fry pans. Given the input credits, could not these beneficial by-products have been more directly arrived at?

      And the spin-off thing seems like a dummy pass given what the LHC was built for and the hype generated by the Higgs thing. Even the expert reaction above is universally "W00T! Now we can update the textbooks and write heaps of research papers exploring particle mass."

      And the "nobody could have predicted stuff 100 years ago today" is a logical furphy, since it only considers successes.

      The link provided by Jonti above IS helping me to understand and judging by the titles of the webpages associated with it's menu, it's obvious that this criticism is common. It just seems like a shed load lot of money.

      Now, back to my Polonium 210 research.

      report
    4. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      Mat

      I suppose I don't buy the spin-off argument as being the main reason for doing this sort of fundamental science because I view the pursuit of basic knowledge of the Universe and our place in it as the primary reason for doing it. Any spin-offs are secondary.

      How does the old saying go; 'Man does not live by bread alone'. It isn't enough in life to feed our bodies. We need to feed our souls as well. And basic science is one of the key things that does that. When I look at the sweep of what…

      Read more
    5. Michael Shand

      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      FMRI machines for a start

      Basically Knowledge is power and new knowledge creates new technology and new technology creates new economies and new economies create jobs - this is self evident throughout human history.

      If you honestly dont understand why studying the unknown is humanity's only hope of long term survival and flourishing then can I politely suggest that you go and listen to some Neil degrasse Tyson

      Google or youtube "Neil Degrasse Tyson", failing that Carl Sagan is also quite good on this question and to a lesser extenet Lawrence Krauss

      report
    6. Mat Hardy

      Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University

      In reply to Michael Shand

      My argument is not that we shouldn't seek. You're just reducing things to a rather arrogant and patronising absurdity.

      BUT, with a finite pot of money (and some of it public), there is only so much we can seek at a time. So I'm questioning the value judgement here.

      Naturally the other end of the scale is just as troubling. If we could only research that which could be proven to have a direct and immediate benefit to society we would be in for a very grey time. And people like me would be first up against the wall. But the reality is that we do live somewhere in the middle.

      report
    7. Michael Shand

      Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      I might also add that you are missing the bigger picture,

      NASA's entire running budget since it started = one week in afgahnistan

      That includes the 8 moon landings and all the work up to that, it includes all the satalites and explorer craft, the mars rover, the american parts of the international space stating, the exploration of our solar system and the planets, the WMAP, the hubble telescope and soon to be the James webb telescope

      So when you ask why are we pumping all this money into science....get a real look at where our money is going

      report
    8. Mat Hardy

      Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      BTW, can one of you noo-cle-ar types tell me how Polonium is 'made'? ie. if I wanted to go get some for a birthday present, who produces it? Is it something that you need a full scale industrial reactor or the like to come up with or is there a lesser level of gear involved?

      The bottom line question is this: if someone wanted to spike Yasser Arafat's coffee with Po, where would it have come from? Would it have to be state with nuclear capacity, or are there private, industrial sources?

      report
    9. Chris van den Bergen

      OHS Consultant

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      From Wikipedia:

      Synthesis by (n,γ) reaction

      In 1934 an experiment showed that when natural 209Bi is bombarded with neutrons, 210Bi is created, which then decays to 210Po via β decay. The final purification is done pyrochemically followed by liquid-liquid extraction techniques.[40] Polonium may now be made in milligram amounts in this procedure which uses high neutron fluxes found in nuclear reactors.[39] Only about 100 grams are produced each year, practically all of it in Russia, making polonium exceedingly rare.

      So, anyone with a source of high neutron flux and appropriate extraction techniques can produce enough to poison someone. I would guess that would limit it to about 10-15 countries. Seems like a very convoluted way of assassinating someone.

      report
    10. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      I hear what you are saying about finite pots Mat. My point on an earlier comment is that the total 'pot' for all fundamental academic study - science or otherwise - is relatively small compared to most other human activities. So arguing as some others do that this research money would be better spent on assisting people in poverty for example is missing the point that there are far larger spending 'targets' that could be cut to supply far more in that regard.

      The separate question which I believe…

      Read more
    11. Eric Ireland

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      I don't know if I entirely agree that we have a "finite pot" of money available for research anyway. Contrary to what some politicians assert, national budgets are not comparable to household budgets. If we spend 10 billion on fundamental research of this kind, there could be huge benefits for the world economy in the long term. On the other hand, it could be a dead end, but we just don't know! Up to a certain point, it seems like if we really want to do something, the money can be found. If there was a referendum on whether we should spend 10 billion on the LHC or say, famine relief, anyone with a conscience would pick the latter. But the political reality is that if the 10 billion was not spent on the LHC, the money would probably not be spent on famine relief. It would be more likely to be spent on tax cuts, prisons, war, etc.

      report
    12. Misha Ketchell

      Managing Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      Surely the problem with so called "pure" research is that the impacts are unknown. But that doesn't mean there won't be concrete valuable future benefits. I get your point about elites working on this, but I think it's a good thing, if for no other reason than I want to live in a world where are are people who are able to pursue pure intellectual curiosity in the same way I want to live in a world where people spend their lives playing the violin!

      report
    13. Jack OG

      Engineer

      In reply to Mat Hardy

      Mat, if you were truly, deeply concerned on the issue of research as a purely intellectual pursuit / as a specific problem solver, you would be able answer these doubts for yourself, with the help of Mr Google -- 1 minute searching found this interesting, though lengthy, paper
      http://iupab.org/publications/value-of-fundamental-research/
      which lists some of the many many many 'spin offs' as you call them..
      Of course all of this only initially serves the "privileged academic elite" as you say, but this is where it all starts!
      Not to mention countless 'accidental discoveries' as another topic
      http://science.discovery.com/brink/top-ten/accidental-inventions/inventions.html
      And one of my favourites, the Alchemist in search of the Philosopher's Stone, with the purpose of turing lead into gold, who boiled down urine and actually discovered phosphorus!!

      Louis Pasteur once said, "chance favours the prepared mind." This has been my favourite quote since i heard it some years ago :)

      report
  2. Ron Chinchen

    Retired (ex Probation and Parole Officer)

    Though I understand the argument regarding priorities and that we should be addressing Earth's problems (and rightly so), the difficulty is that that argument is too often directed at scientific advancements, that do and have been the foundation of the comfortable lifestyle we in the west now live.

    Discoveries in the physical sciences and in our tentative steps into space, broaden our knowledge about how the Universe works. Where would we be had the concept of telescopes and the advantages of…

    Read more
  3. Seán McNally

    Market and Social Researcher

    'Is there no better way to spend money?' No, unless you want to pull into question the whole notion of asking questions. Someone somewhere can always claim that someone somewhere needs something more than someone somewhere else. Take the extravagance of universities and having Australia’s foot the bill for studying people on the side of the planet when we have people living in poverty and only single carriage lanes for some highways.

    report
  4. Babu G. Ranganathan

    logged in via Facebook

    DOES 'GOD PARTICLE' EXPLAIN UNIVERSE'S ORIGIN? Just google the title to access this popular Internet article of mine.

    The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing. What it does is convert energy into mass. Again, the universe had a beginning. It is not eternal because it does not have the ability to have sustained itself eternally. All scientists believe that the universe (time, mass, and space had a beginning from nothing).

    Atheistic scientists believe that the beginning of the universe…

    Read more