CERN Announces Collider Startup Delay

perturbed1 writes "The 142nd session of the CERN Council saw Organizational Director General Robert Aymar announcing a delay in the activation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The installation will start up in May 2008, taking 'the first steps towards studying physics at a new high-energy frontier.' Such a delay was foreseen due to the quadrupole accident, which we've previously discussed. This gives extra time for Fermilab physicists to try to understand the latest interesting hints of the Higgs boson, as well as give much needed extra-time for the detectors at CERN to get ready for data taking. Given that it will be fall before the LHC detectors take any useful data from collisions at 14TeV, could Fermilab collect enough data for a 5-sigma discovery by then?"

Re:Time is running out for Fermilab

[jd]

Which is still very important and very significant. Personally, I'd like Fermilab to discover a few more intermediate particles but for CERN to get the Higgs. That way, both groups get lots of kudos and maybe even the cash they need. As it stands, neither are getting the support they should.

Re:Time is running out for Fermilab

[Macblaster]

American physicists dont care if a discovery comes from Fermilab or from CERN, because many of them work at both, or at least have colleagues who work overseas from wherever they are. As a US student who used to work at CERN (namely on ATLAS [atlas.ch]) my research advisors were splitting their time between Fermilab and CERN. NSF and DOE funding are going to both labs, and scientists will be happy just to get some real data to work with.

Bad odds!

[Roger W Moore]

I'd also hope for the non-existence of the Higgs boson. however, all odds are against us.

Really? You have some evidence that the theorists are right? If so please share it with us. Just because nobody has thought of a better model it is by no means proof that one does not exist. The Higgs model really is a beautiful one and I think that we will find it...but in 1904 how many physicists would have bet on the universe having a maximum speed limit as the solution to the non-invariance of Maxwell's equations under Galilean transforms? All it takes is one smart guy to come up with a better model and we'd abandon the Higgs model and say that the new one is the way to go.

Re:Time is running out for Fermilab

[perturbed1]

As a physicist at CERN, I'd love to see Fermilab publish some 5-sigma signal on something just as the LHC starts up. I think this would be a huge morale booster for **physicists in general** -- not just for Fermilab or, even a smaller sub-set of that, American physicists. And note, I am saying here a 5-sigma signal! Not necessarily the Higgs. Any other high-energy discovery which then the LHC would confirm and continue on, would be awesome. (Cascade B is simply not high-energy enough!)

Such a high-profile discovery would boost the morale here at CERN significantly. I think almost everyone has this fear, which often people are scared to put into words, that we might turn the detectors on and really, see nothing. There are lots of talks from theorists lately which hide the Higgs, and then hide other physics away by using different mechanisms, suggesting that we might, indeed, see nothing... That is absolutely the worst scenario!

aside I see that a lot of /.ers here think the Fermilab/CERN race as some sort of an American/European race. This is completely bull! There are ~800 Americans working at CERN and vice versa. Half of my research group at CERN is or has worked at Fermilab... I think if Fermilab discovers something, I think most of CERN would be delighted! Afterall, chances are Fermilab might be able to discover something but will not be able to measure the properties of said-particle, such as spin. Presumably, the LHC should be able to do this better... Seeing something at the LHC that is new, even if "just-discovered" by Fermilab, is better than the prospects of "seeing nothing."

Re:Higgs boson

[weber]

Answer: No

You are concerned because you don't understand enough of what's happening, which is a natural (and practical) response to the unknown. Placing it deep underground is not for *your* safety but for the *experiment's*: the "noise" of the world (the sun/stars/etc.) must be reduced as much as possible in order to detect anything in the sensitive detectors.

Gravity is not a field

[the_kanzure]

Gravity is also a field that has both a magnitude and direction since it creates action.

Gravity is most certainly not some field. The standard model of physics allows for virtual particles that mediate the forces, which provides suitable explanation for how the force works rather than some simple field-based interpretation-- in the case of gravity there might be gravitons(*), and in the case of electromagnetic interactions there might be virtual photons. There is no all-knowing permeating field that is distributed throughout the universe. Due to the likes of scifi, my personal understanding of 'fields' has been hindered by thinking of "force fields" that block laser weapons (hah) which is definitely not what these fields are like.

Allow me to clarify: fields do not physically exist. However they are our own mathematical constructions. They may explain nothing of the nature of the force and interactions, but they are actually quite useful to determine magnitudes, directions, etc. Ironically, in another post I mentioned to somebody that "fields are not aether," when Maxwell actually came up with his theory of electromagnetism based off of aether-tubes as the field lines. He later decided to drop the aether-tubes interpretation and to accept purely the mathematics. Harsh of him? Anyway, gravity is not a field, but so far the results of its interactions can be predicted via field theory.

* Warning: gravity is only a theory [bringyou.to],
* Open questions in quantum gravity [openquestions.com],
* Resources [quantumfieldtheory.org],
* Open questions in physics [atomki.hu],
* What's wrong with loop quantum gravity? [cornell.edu]

(*) 'Might be' is rather strong in this scenario. Virtual photons have not been observed, though acting as if they exist has proven tremendous success in quantum electrodynamics. Yet, we do not know how to make gravitons work as the mediator of gravity in our calculations, so 'might be' is not too far from any truth.

Re:Time is running out for Fermilab

[Anonymous Coward]

aside I see that a lot of /.ers here think the Fermilab/CERN race as some sort of an American/European race. This is completely bull! There are ~800 Americans working at CERN and vice versa. Half of my research group at CERN is or has worked at Fermilab... I think if Fermilab discovers something, I think most of CERN would be delighted!

Your mistake is thinking that your opinion in this regard is relevant. It is a race; the US and EU are competitors and this goes a long way toward prestige and posturing. You have to stop thinking like a scientist and start thinking like a politician or Joe Sixpack. And remember, in the end they have more to say as to what funding you get than you do.

Re:Bad odds!

[Roger W Moore]

Wooah, the Higgs model is not beautiful, Higgs model is an ugly hack on the beautiful Standard Model. Every fermion having an adhoc coupling strength to give it its mass, no thanks.

The Standard Model already had the particle masses stuck in there as free parameters so the Higgs does not increase the number of free parameters in the model (except for its own mass). What is beautiful about the Higgs is that it solves the mass problem in an elegant fashion.

For example if you do the tree level calculation of e+e--->W+W- without the Higgs you end up with a cross-section which diverges as the centre-of-mass increases simply because the electron has a non-zero mass. If you add the Higgs the extra diagram precisely cancels the divergence and everything works well. Hence the mechanism which causes the electron to have mass also cancels out the divergences caused by that mass....which is why it looks beautiful to me.

If you don't like free parameters then I don't know why you say the SM is beautiful: it has 126 free parameters IIRC, far more than just the masses. Plus it includes non-perturbative QCD where you can't even calculate what is really going on. However I suppose that is why they say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!