Not Even Wrong

Today brings news of two new experimental results, both consistent with the Standard Model:

• At the Higgs Hunting 2012 conference starting today, ATLAS reports results from the WW decay channel for the Higgs. At the July 4 joint announcement, CMS had reported results in this channel, but not ATLAS. Analyses of last year’s data had indicated fewer excess events in this channel than expected from a 125 GeV SM Higgs (see here). The 2012 data from CMS and ATLAS now show an excess in this channel of a size quite compatible with an SM Higgs. For more about this, and a nice summary of the latest combined data for various Higgs channels, see viXra log. The gamma-gamma channel Higgs signal is high, the tau-tau channel is low, others close to expected, but deviations from the SM predictions are not especially significant.
• At DarkAttack2012, Columbia’s Elena Aprile gave a talk this morning presenting new results from Xenon100. These show no evidence for a dark matter detection and provide the strongest exclusions yet of conjectural high mass WIMPs such as SUSY is supposed to provide. The Xenon100 results now rule out most of the region where pre-LHC CMSSM SUSY model fits showed a dark matter WIMP was supposed to be (see for instance slide 31 here).

Update: There’s a press release about the Xenon100 result here.

Update: At Higgs Hunting 2012, two excellent summaries today of the theory implications of the Higgs results, from Matt Strassler and Michael Peskin.

The past few days at CERN there has been a workshop on Implications of LHC results for TeV-scale physics. This is the third in a series of these workshops, which have a goal of evaluating the implications of LHC results for choosing what new HEP facilities to design and fund.

One can argue about the implications, but the LHC results so far are in some sense very simple

• the Higgs has been discovered, with properties consistent with SM predictions, more detailed tests of this consistency to come.
• no evidence has been found for non-SM phenomena. The LHC has produced stringent bounds on extra dimensions and strongly interacting superpartners. The only remaining hope for a strongly interacting superpartner in the current data is for the stop, but evidence against that is accumulating, see for instance here.

The hope that the LHC would see extra dimensions was always quite a stretch, but the idea that it would see strongly interacting superpartners has been conventional wisdom for a very long time. It seems to me that many theorists who have spent the majority of their careers arguing for this conventional wisdom are having trouble admitting what has happened.

For some perspective on this, I recently ran across a 1997 Physics Today essay contest, which asked for submissions that would reflect what a “Search and Discovery” piece from the future might look like. The winner was Gordy Kane’s Experimental Evidence for More Dimensions Reported. It’s supposed to be from May 2011, and assumes that GUTs and supersymmetry were discovered long ago, even

fully accepted in 2000 after the discovery at Fermilab of the needed supersymmetric partners.

According to Kane, 2011 would see discovery of extra dimensions at the LHC, through observation of a 950 GeV KK state.

Michael Peskin also submitted something similar to the Physics Today contest, purporting to be an October 2016 Search and Discovery column entitled Do Squark Generations Show Geometry? In Peskin’s account, the first superpartner was found at LEP in 1999 when it got up to a center of mass energy of 200 GeV, By 2008 a large number of superpartners had been discovered, with ATLAS reporting precise values for four squark masses. Like Kane, he not only conjectures that by now we’d have a huge, well-tested SUSY phenomenology, but that our decade will see the discovery of extra dimensions, of a sort predicted by string theory. For Peskin, the discovery of extra dimensions comes about in 2016 from an electron-positron linear collider operating at a center of mass energy of 1.7 TeV.

Today Peskin gave a talk entitled Will there be Supersymmetry at the ILC?. He starts off by explaining his motivation as follows:

One often hears:

“If SUSY is not found at the LHC before the shutdown, then we will know that SUSY will not be found at the ILC.”

People attending this workshop know that this is incorrect. I hope that this will be explained clearly in the report to the European Strategy Study.

Despite the negative LHC results, Peskin is still trying to argue that one can expect to find supersymmetry at the ILC (which operates at a much lower center of mass energy than the LHC). He asks the question “Are light SUSY particles excluded at the LHC?” and answers it with:

I will first give some sociological evidence against this
statement:

1. No theorist who believed in SUSY before 2009 has renounced SUSY in the light of the LHC exclusions. (*)

2. Model builders are still building models with 200 GeV charginos.

(* Gordy Kane might be considered an exception. )

I’m assuming the remark about Kane is a joke…

He goes on to argue that surely at least one strongly interacting superpartner (the gluino) will be found after the long shutdown, when the LHC operates at or near design energy:

So, when we eventually reach the gluino at LHC 14 TeV, the
generic jet+MET observables will begin to work and SUSY will be discovered unambiguously.

The light SUSY sector will still be hard to explore at the LHC. We
will feel lucky that we are already constructing the ILC !

After the long history of LHC SUSY predictions that haven’t worked out, I’m not sure how seriously this will be taken as an argument for funding the ILC. There’s a draft of a section of the report on the implications of the negative LHC results here.

I suspect that arguments about whether to build the ILC over the next few years will revolve around its capabilities in terms of doing a much better job than the LHC to study the properties of the Higgs. Attempts like Peskin’s to argue that it should be built in order to look for supersymmetry are not likely to be taken very seriously by anyone outside the community of those who have been devoting the last few decades to thinking that SUSY is right around the corner, and still are unwilling to give up on this.

Bonus Higgs section: The last couple weeks have seen about a hundred Higgs-related things I could have linked to. For a random sampling, see this interview with Higgs, this from the Daily News and this survey of atrocities.

Bonus culture section: From last night’s first episode of the new season of Breaking Bad:

“We’re living in a time of string theories and God particles. Feasible, doable, why not?”

Update: Geoff Brumfiel at Nature has some quotes from various theorists, including

• From Joe Lykken:
  

  Under the weight of the LHC’s hard evidence, SUSY and other beloved theories are feeling the strain. “There’s going to be a huge massacre of theoretical ideas in the next couple of years,” predicts Joe Lykken, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois….

  And hopes of finding extra dimensions that would mysteriously swallow up energy from collisions in the LHC are evaporating faster than the postulated microscopic black holes that also failed to make an appearance. “I was one of the people who pushed the idea of extra dimensions that we could see in our lifetime,” says Lykken. “Now that we have data, I’m becoming much more conservative.”

• Frank Wilczek is hanging in there:
  

  It is too soon to write off SUSY, agrees Frank Wilczek, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004 for his work on the standard model. “The last man standing, as far as ambitious ideas beyond the standard model go, is supersymmetry.”

• Last year Gordon Kane was predicting SUSY discovery (gluinos) this summer. Now:
  

  It will take years’ more data to test some of the most promising ideas, says Gordon Kane, a theorist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a longtime SUSY champion.

Update: At Berkeley they had an event to explain the implications of the Higgs to the public, which learned that we need to go beyond the “three known multiple universes”:

…the Standard Model Higgs has problems. To fix them, alternatives have been proposed that involve a composite Higgs – one composed of other matter particles – that has extra spatial dimensions beyond our three known multiple universes and something called supersymmetry.

I’m trying to get over my Higgs obsession, and move on to other topics, but one last posting about this for now…

The first thing to say is that this is the biggest thing to happen in fundamental physics in about 30 years (i.e. since the discovery of the W and Z). It’s a remarkable event and huge success for high energy physics, vindicating at the same time the colossal efforts that have gone into making the LHC and its detectors work, as well as the theoretical framework of the electroweak part of the Standard Model. Today’s New York Times has a front-page story by Dennis Overbye, above the fold, which is very well done. In general the press reports that I’ve seen have been quite good, with minimal speculative nonsense thrown in. According to Overbye, CERN DG Heuer made the right decision to go ahead and simply claim discovery only on Tuesday afternoon. All in all, CERN has done an excellent job of communicating this story to the public (except perhaps for the “don’t believe the bloggers” business, but what else could they do…).

Attention will turn now to who gets rewarded for all this, in particular, who gets a Nobel Prize? Personally I think the experimentalists are first in line, and with no obvious figureheads, a prize for three groups: ATLAS, CMS and the CERN accelerator engineers and physicists would be highly appropriate. If it’s not too late in their process, maybe this could even be done in time for this year’s prize, announced October 9.

As far as theorists go, Frank Close has posted something about this here. With the restriction to three people, he argues for Englert, Higgs, Kibble. Personally I think Anderson deserves a piece of it, see here. There’s also a good argument to be made that what has just been validated is not the older work on the Higgs mechanism, but the Weinberg-Salam model of 1967 (extended to quarks), and that has already been rewarded with a Nobel.

I’ve been trying to get accurate numbers for the signal sizes seen by CMS and ATLAS in the various channels, but the only information out there now is the slides from the two talks. Resonaances includes the crucial plot from each experiment giving the signal sizes normalized to the SM, and eyeballing these and averaging, one gets 1.0 in the ZZ channel, 1.75 in gamma-gamma channel, about .75 in the WW channel (only CMS reports 2012 data). In the bb and tau-tau channels, no significant signal is seen, but the expected signal size there is very small. The errors per experiment are something like +/- .4, which you can make your own judgement about how to reduce for the combination. The bottom line is that, within errors, everything is consistent with the SM predictions. The gamma-gamma channel is the one to watch, it is about 2 sigma high.

The DG also announced a new LHC schedule, extending this year’s proton-proton run by two months, to mid-December. This will hopefully allow the experiments to each accumulate another 20 inverse fb of data, finishing this run and going into a two year shutdown with a total of 30 inverse fb to analyze and use to improve the results on the Higgs.

While this announcement is a great triumph for physics, unfortunately it significantly increases the probability of what has become known as the “Nightmare Scenario”: a SM Higgs discovery and nothing else at LHC energies. Before the LHC results started to come in, this scenario and its consequences was easy to ignore, but we may be getting closer to the point where it needs to be taken very seriously.

Update: For a rather complete analysis of the data about the different Higgs decay channels, see this new preprint.

I hear reports that mobs of possibly violent physics live-bloggers have massed outside the CERN auditorium where the Higgs results will be discussed tomorrow morning. I’m going to sleep through this, then wake up late tomorrow (it’s a vacation day here…), have a leisurely breakfast and check to see where the numbers ended up, then try out Philip Gibbs’s applet.

I don’t know exactly what numbers the experiments will be reporting, but basically both CMS and ATLAS should each have 4 sigma-ish or better evidence for the Higgs in two separate channels, gamma-gamma and ZZ. So, that’s four independent measurements of a narrow resonance, any one of which would be strong evidence for the Higgs. Best bet for one of these coming in at over 5 sigma is probably the ATLAS gamma-gamma result. Or, just combine any two out of four of these results using Philip’s software.

Things to look for if you’re following the talks and press conference:

• The “D” word. Will it be used? Kind of a silly question though. July 4, 2012 will go down in history as the date of the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs, no matter what people say tomorrow.
• What are the signal sizes in the two channels? You should be able to use Philip’s applet to combine the CMS and ATLAS numbers, and get a combined gamma-gamma number and ZZ number. Are these consistent with the SM prediction? Already tonight, hep-ph is starting to overflow with phenomenology papers describing models where gamma-gamma is enhanced with respect to the SM. I guess that indicates that tomorrow’s numbers will be higher than the SM prediction.

I hope there will be plenty of champagne involved!

Update: Today so far I’ve been mostly on vacation, celebrating Higgs/Independence Day by sleeping late, doing a short piece on TV for Al Jazeera, going out for an excellent lunch, and lying around in the air conditioning checking out the news from other sources (it’s brutally hot out there…). Later maybe a movie, dinner and fireworks.

The news was pretty much as expected: a strong signal from both experiments in two channels, very close to a 5 sigma level when combined. CERN did the right thing by simply claiming discovery, avoiding the situation suggested by the early AP story, where they seemed to be trying to say that they weren’t quite at the discovery level. For details, the slides are here, and the usual suspects (Philip Gibbs, Tommaso Dorigo, Resonaances, Matt Strassler) all did an excellent job of providing details in real time as they came available. Probably also other bloggers I haven’t had time to look at.

I’m still trying to get together combined numbers for the signal size in the various channels. It looks though that in the ZZ channel the size is close to the SM prediction, 2-3 sigma too high in gamma-gamma (nearly twice the expected size). So, still compatible with the SM, but the gamma-gamma excess is intriguing. Theorists with even better information than me have already started yesterday flooding hep-ph with papers supposedly explaining it.

Now, back to vacation….

A commenter here reports that a CERN video announcing that “We have observed a new particle” was released early, and is available here. Note that the language used refers to “observation” NOT “discovery”, indicating that CERN has decided on a version of the 5 sigma discovery criterion that has not yet been met. “Observation” generally means a lower standard of evidence such as 3 sigma. However, it appears that they are sensibly playing this down, with nothing in the video mentioning the word “discovery” or their decision not to use that word. Most physicists likely will however use “discovery” to describe these results, since the combined CMS/ATLAS results should be way beyond 5 sigma (look to Philip Gibbs tomorrow for exact numbers).

In the video, there is reference to “very very strong evidence” for a narrow peak in gamma-gamma (presumably above 4 sigma, close to 5 sigma in each experiment), as well as “also evidence” for ZZ (4 sigma?) and “less conclusive” evidence in other channels.

Immediate Update: The word here is that CERN is claiming that this is just one of multiple videos made to cover all eventualities. Maybe tomorrow’s version will substitute “discovery” for “observation”…

Update: As commenter Tim points out, this is a CMS video, not a CERN one, so it just refers to CMS results. Evidently CMS is not claiming “discovery”, but that doesn’t mean ATLAS doesn’t have slightly better results and will make a discovery claim. Also, it doesn’t show what CERN will say about the joint results of the two experiments.

Besides the Daily Mail, the AP is now reporting Proof of “God Particle” Found. They include the caveat:

But after decades of work and billions of dollars spent, researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, aren’t quite ready to say they’ve “discovered” the particle…

Senior CERN scientists say that the two independent teams of physicists who plan to present their work at CERN’s vast complex on the Swiss-French border on July 4 are about as close as you can get to a discovery without actually calling it one…

Rob Roser, who leads the search for the Higgs boson at the Fermilab in Chicago, said: “Particle physicists have a very high standard for what it takes to be a discovery,” and he thinks it is a hair’s breadth away.

which suggests that neither CMS nor ATLAS have quite managed to reach the 5 sigma threshold, and CERN remains dedicated to not discussing the obvious result of combining the data.

The AP report also has:

CERN spokesman James Gillies said Monday, however, that he would be “very cautious” about unofficial combinations of ATLAS and CMS data. “Combining the data from two experiments is a complex task, which is why it takes time, and why no combination will be presented on Wednesday,” he told AP.

From everything I’ve heard, my impression is that the reason no official combination is being produced is not because it would be technically impossible to do so on a time-scale of days, but because the decision not to do such a combination for ICHEP was made for reasons described here. The problem with this is that it may lead to a lot of confusing explanations like this in the AP report, which muddles how particle physics experiments are done and the obscure issue of 5 sigma/experiment or in combination:

experts familiar with the research at CERN’s vast complex on the Swiss-French border say that the massive data they have obtained will essentially show the footprint of the key particle known as the Higgs boson — all but proving it exists — but doesn’t allow them to say it has actually been glimpsed…

Roser compared the results that scientists are preparing to announce Wednesday to finding the fossilized imprint of a dinosaur: “You see the footprints and the shadow of the object, but you don’t actually see it.”

Better for CERN to just announce discovery and break open the champagne…

Update: Weird. The AP seems to have changed their title from “Proof” to “Evidence”. This may be the first time in history that a media headline about particle physics is incorrectly pessimistic (“Evidence” usually means a 3-sigma signal, which existed last December, “Proof” would be a better way to describe a 5+ sigma signal, if that’s what the combined CMS/ATLAS data shows).

Update: Curiouser and curiouser. I’m hearing that per-experiment combinations are around 5 sigma or above. Very unclear why the AP report is indicating no completely conclusive discovery announcement. Maybe the CERN administration is playing a game with us, downplaying expectations…

Update: As pointed out in a comment, Matthew Chalmers at Nature has

The ATLAS and CMS experiments are each seeing signals between 4.5 and 5 sigma, just a whisker away from a solid discovery claim.

Update: The Atlantic covers the best blogs you should be reading to follow the Higgs story. They miss Resonaances and a few others. About me, they have:

If the Higgs boson was a dead celebrity, Woit would be your TMZ — first to the scene, first to break it, and have it be right.

The Higgs discovery announcement will be at 9am next Wednesday. This is close enough that I can’t reasonably be accused of “subverting the scientific process” and ruining the LHC Higgs analyses by reporting the results here. Unfortunately, no source has provided me with these results yet, so that won’t happen anyway, at least not right now. However, I have learned the following, which may be of interest:

• On Monday at 9am Fermilab will try and steal a little bit of the LHC’s thunder by announcing some new evidence for the Higgs from the Tevatron data. This uses the channel of a Higgs produced with a W or Z, the Higgs then decaying to pairs of b-quarks. This is a channel where the Tevatron is sensitive to a Higgs signal, but the LHC isn’t (at the higher LHC energies backgrounds are too large).
• ATLAS and CMS each collected about 6 inverse femtobarns of data before the technical stop on June 18th, and they are rushing to get as much of it analyzed as possible. They are concentrating on the two most sensitive channels: H->gamma+gamma and H->ZZ->4l and are likely to have over 5 inverse femtobarns of 2012 8 TeV data analyzed in these two channels to present at ICHEP.
• There may not be any 2012 Higgs data from other channels presented at ICHEP. ATLAS will have a H->WW->lvlv analysis, but likely not ready for public release.
• To get the statistical significance necessary to claim a Higgs discovery, the experiments will be producing a combination of their best analysis of the 2011 data in all channels and the 2012 data in the H->gamma+gamma and H->ZZ->4l channels.
• There will be no CERN combination of ATLAS and CMS results publicly released. This is not because such a thing is hard to do (and I believe it is actually being done, just not released), but because of political reasons. I don’t much understand these, but this blog entry gives some of the kind of reasoning being used.
• With no CERN combination, attention will focus on Philip Gibbs at viXra log who in the past has produced reliable unofficial combinations of data, and is likely to do so again.
• With the discovery a done deal, the attention of physicists will focus on the question of whether the signal being seen is compatible with SM predictions, or whether this new particle has unexpected properties. Here the main two numbers to look for are the ATLAS + CMS signal size in each of the two most sensitive channels. To get these, you can do your own combination of the separate ATLAS and CMS numbers, or wait for Philip. The signal size is a product of the Higgs production cross-section and the branching ratio for the channel. I’ve seen estimates of the reliability of the SM prediction of the cross-section varying from 15% to 25% (see more here). The branching ratios are much more accurately known.
• Probably nothing new about SUSY at ICHEP. New SUSY analyses are being targeted for the SUSY2012 conference in August.

Update: Resonaances has more here, including the news that CMS will report 2012 data about the H->WW->lvlv channel (about the significance of this, see the June 29 posting at viXra log), and possibly others. Whether the 5 sigma significance level will be reached by a single experiment remains unclear…

Update: Finally confirmation from a reliable media outlet… The Daily Mail reports God particle is ‘found’. One evidence for this is that supposedly “Five leading theoretical physicists have been invited to the event on Wednesday”. This may mean Englert, Higgs, Guralnik, Kibble and Hagen, with Anderson getting dissed as usual.

Update: Tommaso Dorigo is providing background to the imminent Tevatron announcement here, and I assume will be discussing the actual results immediately upon release. The papers with the results will be released here this morning.

Update: The interesting bottom line from the Tevatron is that they see an excess in the bb channel that the LHC is not sensitive to, of size 2 +/- .7 times that predicted by the SM for a Higgs of mass 125 GeV. So, a marginally significant signal, of size consistent with the SM. The LHC should soon report the sizes of such signals in 3 other channels. In a couple of days we’ll have excesses in four channels, of sizes enough to claim discovery of a Higgs (or something very much like it, depending on how consistent the signal sizes are with the SM).

Update: The Tevatron paper on the Higgs combination is here. Most important number is the fit for the signal size for H->bb, for a 125 GeV Higgs. It’s 1.97 +.74/-.68 (where the SM prediction is 1).