Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Find Evidence of How Higgs Particle Imparts Mass

brindafella (702231) writes Physicists at CERN's Large Hadron Colider (LHC) ATLAS experiment have been looking through their data, and have found enough of the extremely rare "W boson" (proton-proton) collisions that they can now declare their results: They have found how the Higgs imparts mass to other particles. From the article: "'Only about one in 100 trillion proton-proton collisions would produce one of these events,' said Marc-André Pleier, a physicist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory who played a leadership role in the analysis of this result for the ATLAS collaboration. 'You need to observe many [collisions] to see if the production rate is above or on par with predictions,' Pleier said. 'We looked through billions of proton-proton collisions produced at the LHC for a signature of these events—decay products that allow us to infer like Sherlock Holmes what happened in the event.' The analysis efforts started two years ago and were carried out in particular by groups from Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of Michigan, and Technische Universität Dresden, Germany." Here's a pre-print of the paper.

23 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. like donut holes by mveloso · · Score: 4, Funny

    The higgs particle imparts mass the same way that donut holes impart mass, but differently.

    1. Re:like donut holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not that differently. I know that I slow down considerably when moving through a field of doughnut holes.

    2. Re:like donut holes by tippe · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe that effect is also called "Timbit drag"; discovered by the great Canadian scientist Tim Horton. Incidentally, he was also the individual who discovered the effect of non-uniform doughnut hole decay; that is, the tendency of old fashioned plain doughnut hole variants to persist for hours or even days after the glazed or chocolatey variants have long since disappeared.

  2. If mass can be finally explained... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since Einstein's famous equation relating mass and energy, physicists have always still wondered what really gives particles mass. Perhaps soon we will know a theory of mass that does not only boil down to it is a collection of energy. I for one, am hopeful that in my life time, even energy will be better understood, so that the wave particle equation can be further simplified.

    Exciting times ahead for sure.

    1. Re:If mass can be finally explained... by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just ready for the Higgs anti-boson diet pill......

    2. Re:If mass can be finally explained... by Der+Huhn+Teufel · · Score: 2

      Careful, overdosing can lead to both explosive diarrhea and decompression.

    3. Re:If mass can be finally explained... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Parent is modded up a lot for not saying much... Einstein's equations just say that mass is just a type of energy and allow for that to be changed into other kinds of energy. Beyond explaining how binding energy factors into the mass of things made of multiple parts, it doesn't say anything about the source of rest mass of elementary particles. As far as knowing pretty soon some theory of mass, this doesn't change that, it confirms a theory that has been around for some time. As far as simplifying the equations involved, I'm willing to bet any further theories that explain more than current ones aren't going to be much simpler, especially when you compared quantum field theory that underlies the Higgs mechanism with vanilla quantum mechanics.

  3. Another giant leap? by hAckz0r · · Score: 2

    By leap I mean assumptions, not 'getting ahead'. How does one go from proving that a Higgs CAN decay into fermions, in accordance to the math of the standard model, all the way to saying that the Higgs is responsible for creating mass in general? What is the proof of any connection here? Yes, a fermion will have some mass, but how do they manage to jump to the conclusion that the Higgs creates the mass of all particles? I've looked a the paper and still don't see any connection. Looks like another overly sensational headline to me.

    1. Re:Another giant leap? by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think because of the scientific method, you come at it from the other direction.

      Someone did some maths. That suggests that it does give matter mass, and in doing so also predicts certain decays.

      Then you look for those decays. The chances of those decays occurring completely at random in the exact way your maths predict, in any other circumstance, are immensely small. Thus - if the decays are there - it's probable that you were right.

      It's like saying, we know there is a certain kind of Yeti in this forest. The maths tells us that its footsteps will look a certain way, walk so far, stay confined to this area, etc.. And when we and others go looking - eliminating all bias they can - we happen to find footsteps exactly like that, exactly where we expected, exactly how we expected.

      Now it doesn't mean it IS a Yeti. It doesn't mean it's even our kind of Yeti. It just means that - from complete assumption and logical consequences of that reasoning, we happen to find exactly what we'd expect if we were right. The chances of us being wrong but something SO SIMILAR happening in the exact right place is immensely tiny and - statistically, predictable enough that you can try to eliminate it as much as possible. This is all that "99.9999%" certainty junk that you see. For things to decay in that way, we're 99.9999% certain that it is because of the original assumption and not anything else along the way (including random chance).

      When you come at it, arse-backwards like that, the chances of you being wrong are small. Unless, of course, some other animal that's equally as unknown happens to completely coincidentally make the exact same footprints. In which case, that's STILL a win for maths/science. We found something out by poking around in the right places that we never knew before and - given the similarity - our maths can't have been far wrong in the first place. And we can spot the error, correct for it, and try to understand it.

      Nobody is seriously saying "this is EXACTLY what we thought". They are saying, when we test under the assumptions made, the evidence of reality appears to fit this best, subject to a certain accuracy. Other hypotheses that predict similar results in the same area either don't exist (which is suggestive that you're right but still has to be proven) or have to be proved wrong in order to get close to making such statements.

    2. Re:Another giant leap? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Best way I can explain it as I understand it:
      There are 1000 theories that explain mass. (I'm making up these numbers for demonstration purposes)
      Given the data they released 900 can no longer be possible.
      Of the remaining 100 theories, 90 require the higgs to provide that mass.
      In the 10 that don't include the higgs as the provider of mass, there are large data sets that mostly rule them out.
      For any of those 10 to work, there would have to be some pretty large coincidences.
      Again, made up the numbers... but you get the idea.

      It'd be like if someone stole your phone, and you found a guy with the same model phone and it's even got the same lock screen on it... and your password works on that phone. Are you 100% sure that's your phone? No... but you're pretty damned sure it is. Probably enough to punch him in the nose. :-)
      Particle physics will now and forever be a game of probabilities. We'll never know 100%, but we'll know 99.99999999999999999999999999999% for sure.

    3. Re:Another giant leap? by glwtta · · Score: 2

      That's all well and good, but it's still just talking about whether the Higgs field/boson imparts mass, not how.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  4. As usual, the title is wrong! by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Higgs field imparts mass on particles by exchanging virtual Higgs particles with them. A real Higgs particle surfaces when the field becomes excited, but you need a lot of energy for that.

    1. Re:As usual, the title is wrong! by HybridST · · Score: 2

      IIRC most of mass comes from quantum electrodynamical interactions. About 5 per cent is due to Higgs field interactions.

      Google: "youtube susskind higgs" for some lectures on higgs interactions and some implications of them. One of them is my source for this.

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
  5. Re:So, uh... How? by bswarm · · Score: 3, Informative
  6. Misleading title by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Summary and title is a bit misleading. I was eager to see what they would say about how this 'higgs boson' infers mass to other particles, but they never say anything about that, they just talk about how they found this data and how they produced the results. Maybe I missed something?

    1. Re:Misleading title by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      I think the same thing. I found nothing inside the TFA about the mechanism they are testing nor what is the relation with the obtained data.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Misleading title by jfengel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, as usual, the summary is terrible. ALL collisions at the LHC are proton-proton collisions, not just the W-W ones.

      What they're measuring is one of the higher-order corrections implied by the Higgs mechanism. Without the Higgs field, W bosons wouldn't have mass. Measuring how the Ws interact with each helps verify that the Higgs mechanism for explaining W boson mass is correct. Unfortunately, it's kinda hard to produce a W boson, much less two at once, much less getting them to interact with each other. You have to produce a lot of high-energy collisions to see it happen.

      They did, and they got the answer they expected from the Higgs mechanism. Yay, Peter Higgs gets to keep his Nobel prize.

  7. LHC by backslashdot · · Score: 3

    Everytime the LHC makes the news ... I think congratulations to the EU and then I think about the Superconducting Super Collider being built in Texas which was cancelled in 1993. We should have had these breakthroughs come out 15 years ago. In the United States. Thanks Congress for slowing down the pace of physics. Much appreciated .. NOT.

    1. Re:LHC by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      It's very difficult to predict which areas of science are likely to produce valuable discoveries. However, due to the incredible success of science throughout the last century (at least) it's quite a safe bet to invest in science and technoloy.

      Here's an interesting link about the economic effects of publicly funded science: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/report/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

      However, science can take a while to pay off, so at the moment, the LHC doesn't look good value, but who knows what we'll be up to in 50 years time?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  8. Re:Erm by HybridST · · Score: 2

    They throw out hundreds or thousands of collisions for each datum they keep. So they have billions of events stored as data out of many trillions of mostly-boring collisions so far. This cherry-picked data may have something to do with it.

    --
    Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
  9. Re:Erm by azav · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Now finalized based on a total of 34 observed events, the measured interaction rate is in good agreement with that predicted by the Standard Model, a theory describing all known fundamental particles and their interactions."

    "Now with the LHC data in hand, the measured rate agrees with the prevailing theory's predictions and establishes a signal at a significance level of 3.6 sigma—strong evidence, according to Pleier. "The probability for this measurement to be a mere background fluctuation is very small—about one in 6000," he said."

    "Again, so far, the data indicate that the Higgs is working as expected.

    "For the first time, we can rule out certain models or predictions that we could not before," Pleier said. "To complete the job, we need more data, at higher energy, so we can see the fingerprint more clearly."

    The LHC will resume data taking at increased collision energies—13 tera-electronvolts (TeV) instead of 8 TeV—in spring of 2015. The datasets collected will be up to 150 times the size of the currently available data and will allow for a detailed behind-the-scenes look at the Higgs at work." "

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  10. Re:Erm by Lord+Crc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Indeed. Only a small fraction of the collision events are kept, otherwise the amount of data would be overwhelming.

    From http://www.lhc-closer.es/1/3/13/0:

    In particle physics, a trigger is a system that uses simple criteria to rapidly decide which events in a particle detector to keep when only a small fraction of the total can be recorded. Trigger systems are necessary due to real-world limitations in data storage capacity and rates. Since experiments are typically searching for "interesting" events (such as decays of rare particles) that occur at a relatively low rate, trigger systems are used to identify the events that should be recorded for later analysis. Current accelerators have event rates greater than 1 MHz and trigger rates that can be below 10 Hz.

  11. That's not what this paper is about, at all by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Researchers Find Evidence of How Higgs Particle Imparts Mass "

    Ummm, no. This paper is about an unrelated bit of physics, W-W scattering. It is orthogonal to the Higgs mechanism.

    Reading over the article I don't see any confusion on this point, so I'm looking at the author here on /.