Vitruvian Man Studying the world with a resolution a billion times finer than atomic scales, particle physicists seek a deeper understanding of the everyday world and the evolution of the universe.
Image: Ken Brown
In Brief
- The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is certain to find something new and provocative as it presses into unexplored territory.
- The Standard Model of particle physics requires a particle known as the Higgs boson, or a stand-in to play its role, at energies probed by the LHC. The Higgs, in turn, poses deep questions of its own, whose answers should be found in the same energy range.
- These phenomena revolve around the question of symmetry. Symmetries underlie the interactions of the Standard Model but are not always reflected in the operation of the model. Understanding why not is a key question.
More In This Article
-
Sidebar
Hidden Symmetry That Shapes Our World
-
Sidebar
A Decade of Discovery
-
Sidebar
5 Goals for the LHC
-
Infographic
Breaking Symmetry
-
Infographic
The Basics Particle Physics
-
Infographic
What Really Matters
-
Sidebar
Solving the Higgs Puzzle
When physicists are forced to give a single-word answer to the question of why we are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), we usually reply “Higgs.” The Higgs particle—the last remaining undiscovered piece of our current theory of matter—is the marquee attraction. But the full story is much more interesting. The new collider provides the greatest leap in capability of any instrument in the history of particle physics. We do not know what it will find, but the discoveries we make and the new puzzles we encounter are certain to change the face of particle physics and to echo through neighboring sciences.
In this new world, we expect to learn what distinguishes two of the forces of nature—electromagnetism and the weak interactions—with broad implications for our conception of the everyday world. We will gain a new understanding of simple and profound questions: Why are there atoms? Why chemistry? What makes stable structures possible?
This article was originally published with the title The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentThis analogy of a universal "superconductor" that "gives mass" to certain bosons is very apt. Has it been concidered that the Higgs field itself would be just such a thing and that all mass period is the result of interactions with this universal spacial medium? Given this, wouldn't every point in space be a coordinate for a higgs boson? Surely no one is looking for free roaming Higgs boson?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'am interested in further discoveries that are to change the face of particle physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan
I think between particles there is a sign-variable force (force = + - +-) &. BSergeymil@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think between particles there is a sign-variable force (force = + - +-) &.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forgot the bosòns B and W\0. This makes two for weak: W\0, Z\0; and two for elèctric: γ, B; and two for elèctroweak: W\+, W\-. However, "weak" is not a forse but a difortial interaction; there are only three forses: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+New-Model. The so-called weak would be the neutral elèctrocolor, and the elèctroweak the chargede elèctrocolor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't your exponents show up? It prints 1015 and 1012 instead.
The fundamental bosòns are not motes (particula); they are divisions of waves. And neither are neutrinos lone motes; here I explain what the "six" quarks and three neutrinos are: http://google.com/groups?q=supergenium.
-Aut
--
Edited by lysdexia at 02/12/2008 1:36 PM
higgs boson is a bound state of Z andZ * .this bound state with a total spin zero is the standard
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishiggs boson.its mass must be twice the mass of the standard Z boson.
Sorry to be a nit, but in the quote below, 1015 GeV should be 1015 TeV:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the model holds all the way to 1015 GeV, where the strong and electroweak interactions appear to unify, particles with truly titanic energies act on the Higgs and give it a comparably high mass. Why, then, does the Higgs appear to have a mass of no more than 1 TeV?"
since it seems to be difficult to write exponents here, should also make it clear that by 1015 TeV I meant 10 to the power of 15 TeV. Likewise later in the article it says 1012 TeV,, that should be 10 to the power 12 TeV. End of Nittiness, sorry :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry, bit of confusion due to the fuddled exponents in the article. Looks to me like 1015 GeV in the article was intended as 10 to power 15 GeV, ie 10 to power 12 TeV. Not 10 to power 15 TeV like i just said in my comments below. Man, i am such a nit. I cant even refrain from nitpicking my own comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Quigg, for someone who has a fascination with particle physics but by no means has the degree of knowledge as yet, what readings would you recommend (including those with some mathematical intensity) in order to gain a better understanding of elementary particle physics and quantum physics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. F. Tengelin was quicker than me or more brave than me. I was just thinking of saying the same thing. Let me make his statement more precise. Prof. Steve Weinberg who developed the electro weak theory and shared the Nobel prize with two others is the author of the most authoritative book on quantum field theory. In volume 3 of his book The Quantum Theory of Fields published by Cambridge University Press in 2000 he states on page 192 that the inverse super symmetric unification coupling of all fundamental gauge forces is 17.5. This value is given by his equation 28.2.19. Finding this result scared me quite a bit because I used Prof. El Naschies result which comes to 24.28. This is a large discrepancy. I repeated the calculation again and again but I always found 24.28 and never 17.5. To make things worse Prof. El Naschie noticed immediately that 17.5 must be a miscalculation and said that the exact integer value must be 26. That means 17.5 must be wrong and 24.28 is only an approximation to the exact value which is 26. He said it is obvious that 26 must be correct. He directed me to his paper in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 35, p. 862 (2008) entitled Non-perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling. I am desperate to know who is right and who is wrong? This result will not affect either the career of a Nobel laureate or the career of a well established professor but it could be devastating for me. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who could help me decide who is right, Prof. Weinberg or Prof. El Naschie. Please send me your answers as quick as possible to the address below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAyman Elokaby
Dept. of Physics
University of Alexandria
Egypt