5 April 2007. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [79] Paul Rincon (23 September 2008).

"Collider halted until next year" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ sci/ tech/ 7632408. stm). BBC News. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [80] "Worldwide LHC Computing Grid" (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ en/ LHC/ Computing-en. html). CERN. 2008. . Retrieved 2 October 2011. [81] "grille de production : les petits pc du lhc" (http:/ / www. cite-sciences. fr/ francais/ ala_cite/ science_actualites/ sitesactu/ question_actu. php?langue=fr& id_article=16043). Cite-sciences.fr. . Retrieved 2011-05-22. [82] "Worldwide LHC Computing Grid" (http:/ / lcg. web. cern. ch/ LCG/ public/ ) . Official public website. CERN. . Retrieved 2 October 2011. [83] LHC@home (http:/ / boinc. berkeley. edu/ wiki/ LHC@home), BOINC [84] Alan Boyle (2 September 2008). "Courts weigh doomsday claims" (http:/ / cos miclog. msnbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 09/ 02/ 1326534. aspx). Cosmic Log. MSNBC. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [85] J.-P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, G.G. Ross, P. Sonderegger, H.-J. S pecht (2003). "Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC" (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 613175/ fil es/ p1. pdf). CERN. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [86] J. Ellis J, G. Giudice, M.L. Mangano, T. Tkachev, U. Wiedemann (LHC Safety Assessment Group) (5 September 2008). "Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions". Journal of Physics G 35 (11): 115004. arXiv:0806.3414 . Bibcode 2008JPhG...35k5004E. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/11/115004. [87] "The safety of the LHC" (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ en/ LHC/ S afety-en. html). CERN. 2008. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [88] Division of Particles & Fields (http:/ / www. aps. org/ units/ dpf/ ). "Sta tement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider" (http:/ / www. aps. org/ units/ dpf/ go vernance/ reports/ upload/ lhc_saftey_statement. pdf). American Physical Society. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [89] "Challenges in accelerator physics" (http:/ / lhc. web. cern. ch/ lhc/ gene ral/ acphys. htm). CERN. 14 January 1999. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [90] John Poole (2004). "Beam Parameters and Definitions" (https:/ / edms. cern. ch/ file/ 445830/ 5/ Vol_1_Chapter_2. pdf). . [91] Robert Aymar (26 October 2005). "Message from the Director-General" (http:/ / user. web. cern. ch/ user/ QuickLinks/ Announcements/ 2005/ Accident. html) (Press release). CERN Press Office. . Retrieved 2009-09-28 . [92] "Fermilab 'Dumbfounded' by fiasco that broke magnet" (http:/ / web. archive . org/ web/ 20080616063402/ http:/ / www. photonics. com/ content/ news/ 2007/ April/ 4/ 87089. aspx). Photonics.com. 4 April 2007. Archiv ed from the original (http:/ / www. photonics. com/ content/ news/ 2007/ April/ 4/ 87089. aspx) on 2008-06-16. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [93] "Fermilab update on inner triplet magnets at LHC: Magnet repairs underway a t CERN" (http:/ / user. web. cern. ch/ user/ QuickLinks/ Announcements/ 2007/ LHCInnerTriplet_5. html) (Press release). CERN Press Office . 1 June 2007. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [94] "Updates on LHC inner triplet failure" (http:/ / www. fnal. gov/ pub/ today / lhc_magnet_archive. html). Fermilab Today. Fermilab. 28 September 2007. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [95] Paul Rincon (23 September 2008). "Collider halted until next year" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ in_depth/ 7632408. stm). BBC News. . Retrieved 2009-09-29. [96] Dennis Overbye (5 December 2008). "After repairs, summer start-up planned f or collider" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 12/ 06/ science/ 06cern. html). New York Times. . Retrieved 2008-12-08. Large Hadron Collider 26 [97] L. Rossi (2010). "Superconductivity: its role, its success and its setbacks

in the Large Hadron Collider of CERN" (http:/ / iopscience. iop. org/ 0953-2048/ 23/ 3/ 034001/ pdf/ sust10_3_034001. pdf). Superconductor Scienc e and Technology 23 (3): 034001. Bibcode 2010SuScT..23c4001R. doi:10.1088/0953-2048/23/3/034001. . [98] "Angels and Demons" (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ Public/ en/ Spotlight/ SpotlightAandD-en. html). CERN. January 2008. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [99] Ceri Perkins (2 June 2008). "ATLAS gets the Hollywood treatment" (http:/ / atlas-service-enews. web. cern. ch/ atlas-service-enews/ news/ news_angelphoto. php). ATLAS e-News. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [100] "FlashForward" (http:/ / flashforward. web. cern. ch/ flashforward/ ). CER N. September 2009. . Retrieved 2009-10-03. [101] Katherine McAlpine (28 July 2008). "Large Hadron Rap" (http:/ / www. youtu be. com/ watch?v=j50ZssEojtM). YouTube. . Retrieved 2011-05-08. [102] Roger Highfield (6 September 2008). "Rap about world's largest science exp eriment becomes YouTube hit" (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ earth/ main. jhtml?xml=/ earth/ 2008/ 08/ 26/ scirap126. xml). Telegraph (Lo ndon). . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [103] Jennifer Bogo (1 August 2008). "Large Hadron Collider rap teaches particle physics in 4 minutes" (http:/ / www. popularmechanics. com/ blogs/ science_news/ 4276090. html). Popular Mechanics. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [104] Malcolm W Brown (29 December 1998). "Physicists Discover Another Unifying Force: Doo-Wop" (http:/ / musiclub. web. cern. ch/ MusiClub/ bands/ cernettes/ Press/ NYT. pdf). New York Times (New York, USA). . Retrieved 2010-09-21. [105] Heather McCabe (10 February 1999). "Grrl Geeks Rock Out" (http:/ / musiclu b. web. cern. ch/ MusiClub/ bands/ cernettes/ Press/ Wired. pdf). Wired News. . Retrieved 2010-09-21. [106] http:/ / movies. netflix. com/ WiMovie/ World_s_Toughest_Fixes_Season_2_Co lumbia_River_Dam/ 70144790?trkid=496624 /nofollow External links Official website (http:/ / lhc. web. cern. ch/ lhc/ ) Overview of the LHC at CERN's public webpage (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ pu blic/ en/ LHC/ LHC-en. html) CERN Courier magazine (http:/ / www. cerncourier. com/ ) CERN (https:/ / twitter. com/ cern) on Twitter CMS Experiment at CERN (https:/ / twitter. com/ CMSExperiment) on Twitter Unofficial CERN (https:/ / twitter. com/ LHCExperiment) on Twitter LHC Portal (http:/ / www. lhcportal. com/ ) Web portal Lyndon Evans and Philip Bryant (eds) (2008). "LHC Machine" (http:/ / www. iop. o rg/ EJ/ journal/ -page=extra. lhc/ jinst). Journal of Instrumentation 3 (8): S08001. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S800 1E. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08001. Full documentation for design and constructio n of the LHC and its six detectors (1600p). symmetry magazine LHC special issue August 2006 (http:/ / www. symmetrymagazine. org/ cms/ ?pid=1000350), special issue December 2007 (http:/ / www. symmetrymagazine. org/ cms/ ?pid=1000 562) New Yorker: Crash Course (http:/ / www. newyorker. com/ reporting/ 2007/ 05/ 14/ 070514fa_fact_kolbert). The world's largest particle accelerator. NYTimes: A Giant Takes On Physics' Biggest Questions (http:/ / www. nytimes. com / 2007/ 05/ 15/ science/ 15cern. html?ex=1336881600& en=7825f6702d7071e7& ei=5090& partner=rssuserland& e mc=rss). Why a Large Hadron Collider? (http:/ / seedmagazine. com/ news/ 2006/ 07/ why_a_ large_hadron_collider. php)

Seed Magazine interviews with physicists. Thirty collected pictures during commissioning and post- 19 September 2008 incid ent repair (http:/ / www. boston. com/ bigpicture/ 2009/ 11/ large_hadron_collider_ready_to. html), from B oston Globe. Podcast Interview (http:/ / omegataupodcast. net/ 2010/ 03/ 30-the-large-hadroncollider/ ) with CERN's Rolf Landua about the LHC and the physics behind it 27 Experiments List of LHC experiments This is a list of current and proposed experiments that take place, or would tak e place, at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The LHC is the most energetic particle collider in the world, an d will be used to test the accuracy of the Standard Model (and particularly to search for the Higgs boson), and look fo r physics beyond the Standard Model such as supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and others. The list is first compiled from the SPIRES database, then missing information is retrieved from the online version CERN's Grey Book. The most specific information of the two is kept, e.g. if the SPIRES database lists December 2008, while the Grey Book lists 22 December 2008, the Grey Book entry is shown. When there is a conflict between the SPIRES database and the Grey Book, the SPIRES database information is listed , unless otherwise noted. Large Hadron Collider experiments LHC experiments Experiment Location Spokesperson Description Proposed Approved Began Completed L ink Website ALICE IP2 Paolo Giubellino A large ion collider experiment: producing quark gluon plasma by colliding lead nuclei (~2.76 TeV) ?? 6 Feb 1997 30 March 2010 N/A SPIRES [1] Grey Book [2] Website [3] ATLAS IP1 Fabiola Gianotti[4] A toroidal LHC apparatus: shedding light on the inconsistencies of the Standard Model Dec 1994 31 Jan 1996 30 March 2010 N/A SPIRES [5]

Grey Book [6] Website [7] CMS IP5 Michel Jean Della Negra Compact muon solenoid: same purpose as for ATLAS Oct 1992 31 Jan 1996 30 March 2010 N/A SPIRES [8] Grey Book [9] Website [10] LHCb IP8 Pierluigi Campana LHC beauty experiment: measuring certain B-hadron qualities such as asymmetries and CP violations, ?? 17 Sep 1998 30 March 2010 N/A SPIRES [11] Grey Book [12] Website [13] LHCf IP1 Yasushi Muraki LHC-foward: measurement of neutral 0p meson production, in order to understand ultra high energy cosmic rays ?? 12 May 2004 Not yet N/A Grey Book [14] Website [15] FELIX IP4 Karsten Eggert, Cyrus Taylor Forward elastic and inelastic experiment at the LHC ?? ?? ?? ?? SPIRES [16] Website [17]

List of LHC experiments 28 FP420 IP1, IP5 Brian Cox Foward proton detectors at 420 m [from the ATLAS and/or CMS interaction point(s)] ?? ?? ?? ?? SPIRES [18] Website [19] HV-QF IP5 Antonio Ferrando Hadron very forward calorimeter, quartz fiber option ?? ?? ?? ?? SPIRES [20] Website [21] MOEDAL IP8 James L. Pinfold Monopole and exotic particle detector at the LHC July 2009[22] 2 December 2009[23] ?? ?? SPIRES [24] Website [25] TOTEM IP5 Karsten Eggert Total cross section, elastic scattering and diffraction dissociation at the LHC 1999 18 May 1999 Not yet N/A SPIRES [26] Grey Book [27] Website [28] Notes [1] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERN-L HC-ALICE [2] http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ programmes/ experiments/ ALICE. html [3] http:/ / aliweb. cern. ch [4] Previously Peter Jenni [5] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERN-L HC-ATLAS [6] http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ programmes/ experiments/ ATLAS. html [7] http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ index. html [8] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERN-L HC-CMS [9] http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ programmes/ experiments/ CMS. html [10] http:/ / cms. cern. ch/ iCMS/ [11] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERN-

LHC-B [12] http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ programmes/ experiments/ LHCB. html [13] http:/ / lhcb. web. cern. ch/ lhcb/ [14] http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ programmes/ experiments/ LHCF. html [15] http:/ / www. stelab. nagoya-u. ac. jp/ LHCf/ [16] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERNLHC-FELIX [17] http:/ / felix. web. cern. ch/ FELIX/ [18] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERNLHC-FP420 [19] http:/ / www. fp420. com/ [20] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERNLHC-HV-QF [21] http:/ / budoe. bu. edu/ ~sullivan/ [22] James Pinfold (2010). "The MoEDAL TDR" (http:/ / web. me. com/ jamespinfold / MoEDAL_site/ TDR. html). . Retrieved 2010-04-11. [23] James Pinfold (2010). "CERN Research Board Approves the MoEDAL Experiment" (http:/ / web. me. com/ jamespinfold/ MoEDAL_site/ MoEDAL_Milestones/ Entries/ 2009/ 12/ 2_CERN_Research_Board_Approves_the_MoEDAL_ Experiment. html). The MoEDAL Milestone Blog. . Retrieved 2010-04-11. [24] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERNLHC-MOEDAL [25] http:/ / moedal. web. cern. ch/ [26] http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ find/ experiments/ www2?ee=CERNLHC-TOTEM [27] http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ programmes/ experiments/ TOTEM. html [28] http:/ / totem. web. cern. ch/ Totem/ List of LHC experiments 29 References SPIRES team (http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ about/ people. shtml). " SPIRES database" (http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ hep/ ). Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Retriev ed 2009-09-15. GS-AIF-FPF (http:/ / ais. web. cern. ch/ ais/ manpower/ ). "Grey Book" (http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ ). CERN. Retrieved 2009-09-15. External links CERN website (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ ) LHC website (http:/ / lhc. web. cern. ch/ lhc/ ) CERN Grey Book (http:/ / greybook. cern. ch/ ) SPIRES database (http:/ / www. slac. stanford. edu/ spires/ ) ALICE 30 ALICE Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron SPS Super Proton Synchrotron ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) is one of the six detector experiments a

t the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. The other five are: ATLAS, CMS, TOTEM, LHCb, and LHCf. ALICE is optimized to study heavy ion collisions. Pb-Pb nuclei collisions will be studied at a centre of mass energy o f 2.76 TeV per nucleon. The resulting temperature and energy density are expected to be large enough to generate a qua rk-gluon plasma, a state of matter wherein quarks and gluons are deconfined. Inner Tracking System The Inner Tracking System (ITS) consists of six cylindrical layers of silicon de tectors. The layers surround the collision point and measure the properties of the emerging particles, pin-pointi ng their positions to a fraction of a millimetre. The ITS will recognize particles containing heavy quarks by identify ing the points at which they decay. ITS layers (counting from the interaction point): 2 layers of SPD (Silicon Pixel Detector), 2 layers of SDD (Silicon Drift Detector), 2 layers of SSD (Silicon Strip Detector). ALICE 31 Time Projection Chamber The ALICE Time Projection Chamber (TPC) is the main particle tracking device in ALICE. Charged particles crossing the gas of the TPC ionize the gas atoms along their path, liberating el ectrons that drift towards the end plates of the detector. An avalanche effect in the vicinity of the anode wires s trung in the readout, will give the necessary signal amplification. The positive ions created in the avalanche will induce a positive current signal on the pad plane. The readout is done by the 557 568 pads that form the cathode plane o f the multi-wire proportional chambers (MWPC) located at the end plates. This gives the r and coordinates. The last coordinate, z, is given by the drift time. Transition Radiation Detector The completed ALICE detector showing the eighteen TRD modules (trapezoidal prisms in a radial arrangement). Electrons and positrons can be discriminated from other charged particles using the emission of transition radiation, X-rays emitted when the particles cross many layers of thin materials. To develop such a Transition Radiation Detector (TRD) for ALICE many detector prototypes were tested in mixed beams of pions and electrons. Time of Flight Charged particles are identified in ALICE by Time-Of-Flight (TOF); heavier particles are slower and so take longer to reach the outer layers of the detector. For its TOF system ALICE uses detectors called Multigap Resistive Plate Chambers (MRPC). There are approximately 160 000 MRPC pads with time resolution of about 100 ps distributed over the large surface of 150 square meters. Using the tracking information from other detectors every track firing a sensor is identified. Photon Spectrometer The Photon Spectrometer (PHOS) is designed to measure the temperature of collisi ons by detecting photons emerging from them. It will be made of lead tungstate crystals. When high energy photons strike lead tungstate, they make it glow, or scintillate, and this glow can be measured. Lead tungstate is e xtremely dense (denser than iron), stopping most photons that reach it.

High Momentum Particle Identification Detector The High Momentum Particle Identification Detector (HMPID) is a RICH detector to determine the speed of particles beyond the momentum range available through energy loss (in ITS and TP C, p = 600 MeV) and through time-of-flight measurements (in TOF, p = 1.2 1.4 GeV). Its momentum range is up to 3 GeV for pion/kaon discrimination and up to 5 GeV for kaon/proton discrimination. It is the world's largest caesium iodide RICH detector, with an active area of 11 m. A prototype was successfully tested at CER N in 1997 and currently takes data at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in the US. ALICE 32 Muon spectrometer The muon spectrometer measures pairs of muons, in particular those coming from t he decays of J/? and Upsilon particles. Tracking chambers to detect the muons and reconstruct their trajector ies will be made from a special composite material, which is highly rigid but very thin. A set of resistive plat e chambers (RPC) will act as a triggering device. Forward Multiplicity Detectors The Forward Multiplicity Detectors (FMD) consist of 5 large silicon discs with e ach 10 240 individual detector channels to measure the charged particles emitted at small angles relative to th e beam. The forward detectors also comprise the main trigger detectors for timing (T0) and for collision centrality (V0). Another important forward detector in ALICE is the Photon Multiplicity Detector (PMD). This is a pre-showe r detector which measures the multiplicity and spatial distribution of photons produced in the collisions. Electro-Magnetic Calorimeter The Electro-Magnetic Calorimeter (EM-Cal) will add greatly to the high momentum particle measurement capabilities of ALICE. External links Official ALICE Public Webpage [1] at CERN ALICE section on US/LHC Website [2] ALICE photography panorama [3] Photography panorama of ALICE detector center [4] K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE collaboration) (2008). "The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC" [5]. Journal of Instrumentation 3 (8): S08002. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8002T. doi:10.1088/1748-022 1/3/08/S08002. (Full design documentation) References [1] http:/ / aliceinfo. cern. ch/ Public/ Welcome. html [2] http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Experiments/ ALICE [3] http:/ / petermccready. com/ portfolio/ 07041606. html [4] http:/ / petermccready. com/ portfolio/ 07041607. html [5] http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ journal/ -page=extra. lhc/ jinst ATLAS 33 ATLAS Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty

ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron SPS Super Proton Synchrotron ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC Apparatus) is one of the seven particle detector experimen ts (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, TOTEM, LHCb, LHCf and MoEDAL) constructed at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a new particle accelerator at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland. ATLAS is 4 4 metres long and 25 metres in diameter, weighing about 7,000 tonnes. The project is led by Fabiola Gianotti an d involves roughly 2,000 scientists and engineers at 165 institutions in 35 countries.[1][2] The construction was or iginally scheduled to be completed in June 2007, but was ready and detected its first beam events on 10 September 2008 .[3] The experiment is designed to observe phenomena that involve highly massive particles which were not observabl e using earlier lower-energy accelerators and might shed light on new theories of particle physics beyond the Standard Model. The ATLAS collaboration, the group of physicists building the detector, was form ed in 1992 when the proposed EAGLE (Experiment for Accurate Gamma, Lepton and Energy Measurements) and ASCOT (Apparatus with Super Conducting Toroids) collaborations merged their efforts into building a single, general-purpose particle detector for the Large Hadron Collider.[4] The design was a combination of those two previous designs, as well as the detector research and development that had been done for the Superconducting Supercollide r. The ATLAS experiment was proposed in its current form in 1994, and officially funded by the CERN member c ountries beginning in 1995. Additional countries, universities, and laboratories joined in subsequent years, and further institutions and physicists continue to join the collaboration even today. The work of construction began at individual institutions, with detector components shipped to CERN and assembled in the ATLAS experimental pit beginning in 2003. ATLAS 34 ATLAS is designed as a general-purpose detector. When the proton beams produced by the Large Hadron Collider interact in the center of the detector, a variety of different particles with a broad range of energies may be produced. Rather than focusing on a particular physical process, ATLAS is designed to meas ure the broadest possible range of signals. This is intended to ensure that, whatever form any new physical process es or particles might take, ATLAS will be able to detect them and measure their properties. Experiments at earlier colliders, such as the Tevatron and Large Electron-Positron Collider, were designed based on a similar philosophy. H owever, the unique challenges of the Large Hadron Collider its unprecedented energy and extremely high rate of coll isions require ATLAS to be larger and more complex than any detector ever built. Background

ATLAS experiment detector under construction in October 2004 in its experimental pit; the current status of construction can be seen on the CERN website.[5] Note the people in the background, for comparison. The first cyclotron, an early type of particle accelerator, was built by Ernest O. Lawrence in 1931, with a radius of just a few centimetres and a particle energy of 1 megaelectronvolt (MeV). Since then, accelerators have grown enormously in the quest to produce new particles of greater and greater mass. As accelerators have grown, so too has the list of known particles that they might be used to investigate. The most comprehensive model of particle interactions available today is known as the Standard Model of Particle Physics. With the important exception of the Higgs boson, all of the particles predicted by the model have been observed. While the standard model predicts that quarks, electrons, and neutrinos should exist, it does not explain why the masses of the particles are so very different. Due to this violation of "naturalness" most particle physicists believe it is possible that the Standard Model will break down at energies beyond the current energy frontier of about one teraelectronvolt (TeV) (set at the Teva tron). If such beyond-the-Standard-Model physics is observed it is hoped that a new model, whic h is identical to the Standard Model at energies thus far probed, can be developed to describe particle physics at higher energies. Most of the currently proposed theories predict new higher-mass particles, some of which are hoped to be light enough to be observed by ATLAS. At 27 kilometres in circumference, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will collide two beams of enough energy to pr protons together, each proton carrying about 7 TeV of energy oduce particles with masses up to roughly ten times more massive than any particles currently known assuming of course that such particles exist. With an energy seven million times that of the first accelerator the LHC represents a "new generation" of particle accelerators. Particles that are produced in accelerators must also be observed, and this is t he task of particle detectors. While interesting phenomena may occur when protons collide it is not enough to just pr oduce them. Particle detectors must be built to detect particles, their masses, momentum, energies, charges, and nuc lear spins. In order to identify all particles produced at the interaction point where the particle beams collide, pa rticle detectors are usually designed with a similarity to an onion. The layers are made up of detectors of different types, each of which is adept at observing specific types of particles. The different features that particles lea ve in each layer of the detector allow for effective particle identification and accurate measurements of energy and moment um. (The role of each layer in the detector is discussed below.) As the energy of the particles produced by the acc elerator increases, the detectors attached to it must grow to effectively measure and stop higher-energy particles . ATLAS is the largest detector ever built at a particle collider as of 2008.[2] ATLAS 35 Physics Program A schematic, called a Feynman diagram, of two virtual gluons from colliding LHC protons interacting to produce a hypothetical Higgs

boson, a top quark, and an antitop quark. These in turn decay into a specific combination of quarks and leptons that is very unlikely to be duplicated by other processes. Collecting sufficient evidence of signals like this one may eventually allow ATLAS collaboration members to discover the Higgs boson. ATLAS is intended to investigate many different types of physics that might become detectable in the energetic collisions of the LHC. Some of these are confirmations or improved measurements of the Standard Model, while many others are possible clues for new physical theories. One of the most important goals of ATLAS is to investigate a missing piece of the Standard Model, the Higgs boson.[6] The Higgs mechanism, which includes the Higgs boson, is invoked to give masses to elementary particles, giving rise to the differences between the weak force and electromagnetism by giving the W and Z bosons masses while leaving the photon massless. If the Higgs boson is not discovered by ATLAS, it is expected that another mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking that explains the same phenomena, such as technicolour, will be discovered. The Standard Model is simply not mathematically consistent at the energies of the LHC without such a mechanism. The Higgs boson would be detected by the particles it decays into; the easiest to observe are two photons, two bottom quarks, or four leptons. Sometimes these decays can only be definitively identified as originating with the Higgs boson when they are associated with additional particles; for an example of this, see the diagram at right. The asymmetry between the behavior of matter and antimatter, known as CP violati on, will also be investigated.[6] Current CP-violation experiments, such as BaBar and Belle, have not yet detected sufficient CP violation in the Standard Model to explain the lack of detectable antimatter in the universe. It is possible that new models of physics will introduce additional CP violation, shedding light on this problem; these mo dels might either be detected directly by the production of new particles, or indirectly by measurements made of the pr operties of B-mesons. (LHCb, an LHC experiment dedicated to B-mesons, is likely to be better suited to the latte r).[7] The top quark, discovered at Fermilab in 1995, has thus far had its properties m easured only approximately. With much greater energy and greater collision rates, LHC will produce a tremendous n umber of top quarks, allowing ATLAS to make much more precise measurements of its mass and interactions with o ther particles.[8] These measurements will provide indirect information on the details of the Standard Mo del, perhaps revealing inconsistencies that point to new physics. Similar precision measurements will b e made of other known particles; for example, ATLAS may eventually measure the mass of the W boson twice as accuratel y as has previously been achieved. Perhaps the most exciting lines of investigation are those searching directly fo r new models of physics. One theory that is the subject of much current research is broken supersymmetry. The theory is popular because it could potentially solve a number of problems in theoretical physics and is present in almost all models of string theory. Models of supersymmetry involve new, highly massive particles; in many cases the se decay into high-energy quarks

and stable heavy particles that are very unlikely to interact with ordinary matt er. The stable particles would escape the detector, leaving as a signal one or more high-energy quark jets and a large amount of "missing" momentum. Other hypothetical massive particles, like those in Kaluza-Klein theory, might l eave a similar signature, but its discovery would certainly indicate that there was some kind of physics beyond th e Standard Model. One remote possibility (if the universe contains large extra dimensions) is that microscopic black holes might be produced by the LHC.[9] These would decay immediately by means of Hawking radiat ion, producing all particles in the Standard Model in equal numbers and leaving an unequivocal signature in the ATLAS detector.[10] In fact, if this ATLAS 36 occurs, the primary studies of Higgs bosons and top quarks would be conducted on those produced by the black holes. Components Computer generated cut-away view of ATLAS detector showing its various component s Muon spectrometer: (1) Monitored Drift Tube (2) Thin Gap Chamber Magnet system: (3) End-Cap Toroid Maget (4) Barrel Toroid Magnet Inner detector: (5) Transition Radiation Tracker (6) Semiconductor Tracker (7) Pixel Detector Calorimeters: (8) Electromagnetic Calorimeter (9) Hadronic Calorimeter The ATLAS detector consists of a series of ever-larger concentric cylinders around the interaction point where the proton beams from the LHC collide. It can be divided into four major parts: the Inner Detector, the calorimeters, the muon spectrometer and the magnet systems.[11] Each of these is in turn made of multiple layers. The detectors are complementary: the Inner Detector tracks particles precisely, the calorimeters measure the energy of easily stopped particles, and the muon system makes additional measurements of highly penetrating muons. The two magnet systems bend charged particles in the Inner Detector and the muon spectrometer, allowing their momenta to be measured. The only established stable particles that cannot be detected directly are neutrinos; their presence is inferred by noticing a momentum imbalance among detected particles. For this to work, the de tector must be "hermetic", and detect all non-neutrinos produced, with no blind spots. Maintaining detector per

formance in the high radiation areas immediately surrounding the proton beams is a significant engineering challenge. Inner detector The ATLAS TRT central section, the outermost part of the Inner Detector, as of September 2005, assembled on the surface and taking data from cosmic rays[12] The Inner Detector[13] begins a few centimetres from the proton beam axis, extends to a radius of 1.2 metres, and is seven metres in length along the beam pipe. Its basic function is to track charged particles by detecting their interaction with material at discrete points, revealing detailed information about the type of particle and its momentum.[14] The magnetic field surrounding the entire inner detector causes charged particles to curve; the direction of the curve reveals a particle's charge and the degree of curvature reveals its momentum. The starting points of the tracks yield useful information for identifying particles; for example, if a group of tracks seem to originate from a point other than the original proton proton collision, this may be a sign that the particles came from the decay of a bottom quark (see b-tagging). The Inner Detector has three parts, which are explained below. ATLAS 37 The Pixel Detector,[15] the innermost part of the detector, contains three layer s and three disks on each end-cap, with a total of 1,744 modules, each measuring two centimetres by six centimetres. The detecting material is 250 m thick silicon. Each module contains 16 readout chips and other electronic components. The smallest unit that can be read out is a pixel (each 50 by 400 micrometres); there are roughly 47,000 pixels per module. The minute pixel size is designed for extremely precise tracking very close to the interaction point. In total, the Pixel Detector will have over 80 million readout channels, which is about 50% of the total readout channels; s uch a large count created a design and engineering challenge. Another challenge was the radiation the Pixel Detecto r will be exposed to because of its proximity to the interaction point, requiring that all components be radiation h ardened in order to continue operating after significant exposures. The Semi-Conductor Tracker (SCT) is the middle component of the inner detector. It is similar in concept and function to the Pixel Detector but with long, narrow strips rather than small pi xels, making coverage of a larger area practical. Each strip measures 80 micrometres by 12.6 centimetres. The SCT is th e most critical part of the inner detector for basic tracking in the plane perpendicular to the beam, since it mea sures particles over a much larger area than the Pixel Detector, with more sampled points and roughly equal (albeit one dimensional) accuracy. It is composed of four double layers of silicon strips, and has 6.2 million readout ch annels and a total area of 61 square meters. The Transition Radiation Tracker (TRT), the outermost component of the inner det ector, is a combination of a straw tracker and a transition radiation detector. The detecting elements are drift tu bes (straws), each four millimetres in diameter and up to 144 centimetres long. The uncertainty of track position measu rements (position resolution) is about 200 micrometres, not as precise as those for the other two detectors, a ne cessary sacrifice for reducing the cost of covering a larger volume and having transition radiation detection capability

. Each straw is filled with gas that becomes ionized when a charged particle passes through. The straws are held at a bout -1,500 V, driving the negative ions to a fine wire down the centre of each straw, producing a current pulse (si gnal) in the wire. The wires with signals create a pattern of 'hit' straws that allow the path of the particle to be determined. Between the straws, materials with widely varying indices of refraction cause ultra-relativistic cha rged particles to produce transition radiation and leave much stronger signals in some straws. Xenon gas is used to i ncrease the number of straws with strong signals. Since the amount of transition radiation is greatest for highly relativistic particles (those with a speed very near the speed of light), and particles of a particular energy have a highe r speed the lighter they are, particle paths with many very strong signals can be identified as belonging to the lighte st charged particles, electrons. The TRT has about 298,000 straws in total. Calorimeters September 2005: the main barrel section of the ATLAS hadronic calorimeter, waiting to be moved inside the toroid magnets The calorimeters are situated outside the solenoidal magnet that surrounds the inner detector. Their purpose is to measure the energy from particles by absorbing it. There are two basic calorimeter systems: an inner electromagnetic calorimeter and an outer hadronic calorimeter.[16] Both are sampling calorimeters; that is, they absorb energy in high-density metal and periodically sample the shape of the resulting particle shower, inferring the energy of the original particle from this measurement. The electromagnetic (EM) calorimeter absorbs energy from particles that interact electromagnetically, which include charged particles and photons. It has high precision, both in the amount of energy absorbed and in the precise location of the energy deposited. The angle between ATLAS 38 One of the sections of the extensions of the hadronic calorimeter, waiting to be inserted in late February 2006 The extended barrel section of the hadronic calorimeter in color the particle's trajectory and the detector's beam axis (or more precisely the pseudorapidity) and its angle within the perpendicular plane are both measured to within roughly 0.025 radians. The energy-absorbing materials are lead and stainless steel, with liquid argon as the sampling material, and a cryostat is required around the EM calorimeter to keep it sufficiently cool. The hadron calorimeter absorbs energy from particles that pass through the EM calorimeter, but do interact via the strong force; these particles are primarily hadrons. It is less precise, both in energy magnitude and in the localization (within about 0.1 radians only).[7] The energy-absorbing material is steel, with scintillating tiles that sample the energy deposited. Many of the features of the calorimeter are chosen for their cost-effectiveness; the instrument is large and comprises a huge amount of construction material: the main part of the calorimeter the tile calorimeter is eight metres in diameter and covers 12 metres along the beam axis. The far-forward sections of the hadronic calorimeter are contained within the EM calorimeter's cryostat, and use liquid argon as it does. Muon spectrometer The muon spectrometer is an extremely large tracking system,

extending from a radius of 4.25 m around the calorimeters out to the full radius of the detector (11 m).[11] Its tremendous size is required to accur ately measure the momentum of muons, which penetrate other elements of the detector; the effort is vital because one or more muons are a key element of a number of interesting physical processes, and because the total energy of partic les in an event could not be measured accurately if they were ignored. It functions similarly to the inner detector, w ith muons curving so that their momentum can be measured, albeit with a different magnetic field configuration, lower spatial precision, and a much larger volume. It also serves the function of simply identifying muons very few pa rticles of other types are expected to pass through the calorimeters and subsequently leave signals in the muon spectrometer. It has roughly one million readout channels, and its layers of detectors have a total area of 1 2,000 square meters. Magnet system The ends of four of eight ATLAS toroid magnets, seen from the surface, about 90 metres above, in September 2005 The ATLAS detector uses two large superconducting magnet systems to bend charged particles so that their momenta can be measured. This bending is due to the Lorentz force, which is proportional to velocity. Since all particles produced in the LHC's proton collisions will be traveling at very close to the speed of light, the force on particles of different momenta is equal. (In the theory of relativity, momentum is not proportional to velocity at such speeds.) Thus high-momentum particles will curve very little, while low-momentum particles will curve significantly; the amount of curvature can be quantified and the particle momentum can be determined from this value. ATLAS 39 Part of the ATLAS detector, as it looked in February 2007 The inner solenoid produces a two tesla magnetic field surrounding the Inner Detector.[17] This high magnetic field allows even very energetic particles to curve enough for their momentum to be determined, and its nearly uniform direction and strength allow measurements to be made very precisely. Particles with momenta below roughly 400 MeV will be curved so strongly that they will loop repeatedly in the field and most likely not be measured; however, this energy is very small compared to the several TeV of energy released in each proton collision. The outer toroidal magnetic field is produced by eight very large air-core superconducting barrel loops and two end-caps, all situated outside the calorimeters and within the muon system.[17] This magnetic field is 26 metres long and 20 metres in diameter, and it stores 1.6 gigajoules of energy. Its magnetic field is not uniform, because a solenoid magnet of sufficient size would be prohibitively expensive to build. Fortunately, measurements need to be much less precise to measure momentum accurately in the large volume of the muon system. Forward detectors The ATLAS detector will be complemented with a set of detectors in the very forward region. These detectors will be located in the LHC tunnel far away from the interaction point. The basic idea is to measure elastic scattering at very small angles in order to get a handle on the absolute luminosity at the interaction point of ATLAS. Data systems and analysis

The detector generates unmanageably large amounts of raw data, about 25 megabyte s per event (raw; zero suppression reduces this to 1.6 MB) times 23 events per beam crossing, times 40 million beam crossings per second in the center of the detector, for a total of 23 petabyte/second of raw data.[18 ] The trigger system[19] uses simple information to identify, in real time, the most interesting events to retain for detailed analysis. There are three trigger levels, the first based in electronics on the detector and the other two primari ly run on a large computer cluster near the detector. After the first-level trigger, about 100,000 events per second hav e been selected. After the third-level trigger, a few hundred events remain to be stored for further analysis. This amo unt of data will require over 100 megabytes of disk space per second at least a petabyte each year.[20] Offline event reconstruction will be performed on all permanently stored events, turning the pattern of signals from the detector into physics objects, such as jets, photons, and leptons. Grid comp uting will be extensively used for event reconstruction, allowing the parallel use of university and laboratory com puter networks throughout the world for the CPU-intensive task of reducing large quantities of raw data into a form suitable for physics analysis. The software for these tasks has been under development for many years, and will con tinue to be refined once the experiment is running. Individuals and groups within the collaboration will write their own code to per form further analysis of these objects, searching in the pattern of detected particles for particular physical models or hypothetical particles. These studies are already being developed and tested on detailed simulations of particles and their interactions with the detector. Such simulations give physicists a good sense of which new particles can be dete cted and how long it will take to ATLAS 40 confirm them with sufficient statistical certainty. Notes [1] "ATLAS collaboration records" (http:/ / library. web. cern. ch/ library/ Arc hives/ isad/ isaatlas. html). CERN Scientific Information Service. ATLAS collaboration. Archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20110706223158/ http:/ / library. web. cern. ch/ library/ Archives/ isad/ isaatlas. html) from the original on 6 July 2011. . Retrieved 2011-06-15. [2] "World's largest superconducting magnet switches on" (http:/ / press. web. c ern. ch/ Press/ PressReleases/ Releases2006/ PR17. 06E. html) (Press release). CERN. 2006-11-20. Archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20 070228133909/ http:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2006/ PR17. 06E. html) from the original on 28 February 2 007. . Retrieved 2007-03-03. [3] "First beam and first events in ATLAS" (http:/ / www. atlas. ch/ news/ 2008/ first-beam-and-event. html). Atlas.ch. . Retrieved 2008-09-13. [4] "ATLAS Collaboration records" (http:/ / library. cern. ch/ archives/ isad/ i saatlas. html). CERN Archive. . Retrieved 2007-02-25. [5] "UX15 Installation; WEB cameras" (http:/ / atlaseye-webpub. web. cern. ch/ a tlaseye-webpub/ web-sites/ pages/ UX15_webcams. htm). ATLAS Control Room. cern.ch. Archived (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20101015 022703/ http:/ / atlaseye-webpub. web. cern. ch/ atlaseye-webpub/ web-sites/ pages/ UX15_webcams. htm) from the original on 15 Oc tober 2010. . Retrieved September 15, 2010. [6] "Introduction and Overview" (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ NEW/ HTML/ tp9new/ node4.

html#SECTION00400000000000000000). ATLAS Technical Proposal. CERN. 1994. . [7] N. V. Krasnikov, V. A. Matveev (September 1997). "Physics at LHC". Physics o f Particles and Nuclei 28 (5): 441 470. arXiv:hep-ph/9703204. Bibcode 1997PPN....28..441K. doi:10.1134/1.953049. [8] "Top-Quark Physics" (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ NEW/ HTML/ tp 9new/ node416. html#SECTION0024100000000000000000). ATLAS Technical Proposal. CERN. 1994. . [9] C.M. Harris, M.J. Palmer, M.A. Parker, P. Richardson, A. Sabetfakhri and B.R . Webber (2005). "Exploring higher dimensional black holes at the Large Hadron Collider". Journal of High Energy Physics 5 (5): 053. arXiv:hep -ph/0411022. Bibcode 2005JHEP...05..053H. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/05/053. [10] J. Tanaka, T. Yamamura, S. Asai, J. Kanzaki (2005). "Study of Black Holes w ith the ATLAS detector at the LHC" (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ x067g845688470r4/ ). The European Physical Journal C 41 (s2): 19 33. arXiv:hep-ph/0411095. Bibcode 2005EPJC...41...19T. doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-008-x. . [11] "Overall detector concept" (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ NEW/ HTML/ tp9new/ node6. html#SECTION00420000000000000000). ATLAS Technical Proposal. CERN. 1994. . [12] F. Pastore (2010). "Readiness of the ATLAS detector: Performance with the f irst beam and cosmic data". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Section A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Assoc iated Equipment 617 (1/3). [13] Regina Moles-Valls (2010). "Alignment of the ATLAS inner detector tracking system". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Section A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip ment 617 (1/3). [14] "Inner detector" (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ NEW/ HTML/ tp9n ew/ node10. html#SECTION00433000000000000000). ATLAS Technical Proposal. CERN. 1994. . [15] Hugging, F. (2006). "The ATLAS pixel detector". IEEE Transactions on Nuclea r Science 53 (6). [16] "Calorimetry" (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ NEW/ HTML/ tp9new/ node9. html#SECTION00432000000000000000). ATLAS Technical Proposal. CERN. 1994. . [17] "Magnet system" (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ NEW/ HTML/ tp9ne w/ node8. html#SECTION00431000000000000000). ATLAS Technical Proposal. CERN. 1994. . [18] . http:/ / atlas. ch/ detector. html. See also 32:30 for information on the various trigger levels. [19] D.A. Scannicchio (2010). "ATLAS Trigger and Data Acquisition: Capabilities and commissioning". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Section A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associat ed Equipment 617 (1/3). [20] "The sensitive giant" (http:/ / www. eurekalert. org/ features/ doe/ 2004-0 3/ dnal-tsg032604. php). United States Department of Energy Research News. March 2004. . ATLAS 41 References ATLAS Technical Proposal. (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ TP/ tp. html) C ERN: The Atlas Experiment. Retrieved on 2007-04-10 ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance Technical Design Report. (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ GROUPS/ PHYSICS/ TDR/ access. html) CERN: The Atlas Experiment. Retrieved on 200 7-04-10 N. V. Krasnikov, V. A. Matveev (September 1997). "Physics at LHC". Physics of Pa rticles and Nuclei 28 (5): 441 470. arXiv:hep-ph/9703204. Bibcode 1997PPN....28..441K. doi:10.1134/1.953049.

External links Official ATLAS Public Webpage (http:/ / atlas. ch) at CERN (The "award winning A TLAS movie" is a very good general introduction!) Official ATLAS Collaboration Webpage (http:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ inte rnal/ Welcome. html) at CERN (Lots of technical and logistical information) ATLAS Cavern Webcams (http:/ / atlaseye-webpub. web. cern. ch/ atlaseye-webpub/ web-sites/ pages/ UX15_webcams. htm) Time lapse video of the assembly (http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=kVrUR_SOyk k) ATLAS section from US/LHC Website (http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Exp eriments/ ATLAS) PhysicsWorld article on LHC and experiments (http:/ / physicsweb. org/ articles/ world/ 13/ 5/ 9/ 1) New York Times article on LHC and experiments (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2000/ 11/ 21/ science/ 21HIGG. html?ex=1130040000& en=5282f51cf019f1b7& ei=5070& ex=1082001600& en=39ccf65ca604 7eb2& ei=5070) United States Department of Energy article on ATLAS (http:/ / www. eurekalert. o rg/ features/ doe/ 2004-03/ dnal-tsg032604. php) The Large Hadron Collider ATLAS Experiment Virtual Reality (VR) photography pano ramas (http:/ / www. petermccready. com/ portfolio/ 05091901. html) Large Hadron Collider Project Director Dr Lyn Evans CBE on the engineering behin d the ATLAS experiment, Ingenia magazine, June 2008 (http:/ / www. ingenia. org. uk/ ingenia/ articles. aspx?Index=489) Atlas Experiment News and social networking (http:/ / www. AtlasExperiment. net) The ATLAS Collaboration, G Aad et al. (2008-08-14). "The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider" (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ journal/ -page=extra. lhc/ jinst). Journa l of Instrumentation 3 (S08003): S08003. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8003T. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003. Retrieve d 2008-08-26. (Full design documentation) Press release from October 2008 by EB Industries regarding the ATLAS project (ht tp:/ / ebindustries. com/ ATLAS article. pdf) LEGO model of ATLAS (http:/ / sascha. mehlhase. info/ physics. php?open=atlasleg o), by an ATLAS-scientist at the Niels Bohr Institute CMS 42 CMS Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron

SPS Super Proton Synchrotron View of the CMS endcap through the barrel sections. The ladder to the lower righ t gives an impression of scale. The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment is one of two large general-purpose particle physics detectors built on the proton-proton Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland and France. Approximately 3,600 people from 183 scientific institutes, representing 38 countries form the CMS collaboration who built and now operate the detector.[1] It is located in an underground cavern at Cessy in France, just across the border from Geneva. Background CMS 43 Recent collider experiments such as the now-dismantled Large Electron-Positron C ollider at CERN and the (as of October 2011) recently closed Tevatron at Fermilab have provided remarkable insi ghts into, and precision tests of, the Standard Model of Particle Physics. However, a number of questions remain un answered. A principal concern is the lack of any direct evidence for the Higgs boson, the particle resulting from the Higgs mechanism which provides an explanation for the masses of elementary particles. Other questions include uncertainties in the mathematical behaviour of the Standard Model at high energi es, the lack of any particle physics explanation for dark matter and the reasons for the imbalance of matter and anti matter observed in the Universe. The Large Hadron Collider and the associated experiments are designed to address a number of these questions. Physics goals The main goals of the experiment are: to explore physics at the TeV scale to discover the Higgs boson to look for evidence of physics beyond the standard model, such as supersymmetry , or extra dimensions to study aspects of heavy ion collisions. The ATLAS experiment, at the other side of the LHC ring is designed with similar goals in mind, and the two experiments are designed to complement each other both to extend reach and to pr ovide corroboration of findings. Detector summary CMS is designed as a general-purpose detector, capable of studying many aspects of proton collisions at 14 TeV, the center-of-mass energy of the LHC particle accelerator. It contains subsystems wh ich are designed to measure the energy and momentum of photons, electrons, muons, and other products of the coll isions. The innermost layer is a silicon-based tracker. Surrounding it is a scintillating crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, which is itself surrounded with a sampling calorimeter for hadrons. The tracker and the calorimetry are com pact enough to fit inside the CM Solenoid which generates a powerful magnetic field of 3.8 T. Outside the magnet are the large muon detectors, which are inside the return yoke of the magnet. CMS 44

The set up of the CMS. In the middle, under the so-called barrel there is a man for scale. (HCAL=hadron calorimeter, ECAL=electromagnetic calorimeter) CMS by layers A slice of the CMS detector. For full technical details about the CMS detector, please see the Technical Desi gn Report [2]. CMS 45 The interaction point This is the point in the centre of the detector at which proton-proton collision s occur between the two counter-rotating beams of the LHC. At each end of the detector magnets focus the beams into the interaction point. At collision each beam has a radius of 17 m and the crossing angle between the be ams is 285 rad. At full design luminosity each of the two LHC beams will contain 2,808 bunches o f 1.15 1011 protons. The interval between crossings is 25 ns, although the number of collisions per secon d is only 31.6 million due to gaps in the beam as injector magnets are activated and deactivated. At full luminosity each collision will produce an average of 20 proton-proton in teractions. The collisions occur at a centre of mass energy of 14 TeV. But, it is worth noting that for studies of phy sics at the electroweak scale, the scattering events are initiated by a single quark or gluon from each proton, and so the actual energy involved in each collision will be lower as the total centre of mass energy is shared by these qu arks and gluons (determined by the parton distribution functions). The first test which ran in September 2008 was expected to operate at a lower co llision energy of 10 TeV but this was prevented by the 19 September 2008 shutdown. When at this target level, the LHC will have a significantly reduced luminosity, due to both fewer proton bunches in each beam and fewer prot ons per bunch. The reduced bunch frequency does allow the crossing angle to be reduced to zero however, as bunches are far enough spaced to prevent secondary collisions in the experimental beampipe. The tracker Layer 1 The silicon strip tracker of CMS. Immediately around the interaction point the inner tracker serves to identify the tracks of individual particles and match them to the vertices from which they originated. The curvature of charged particle tracks in the magnetic field allows their charge and momentum to be measured. The CMS silicon tracker consists of 13 layers in the central region and 14 layers in the endcaps. The innermost three layers (up to 11 cm radius) consist of 100150 m pixels, 66 million in total. The next four layers (up to 55 cm radius) consist of 10 cm 180 m silicon strips, followed by the remaining six layers of 25 cm 180 m strips, out to a radius of 1.1 m. There are 9.6 million strip channels in total. During full luminosity collisions the occupancy of the pixel layers per event is expected to be 0.1%, and 1 2% in the strip layers. The expected SLHC upgrade will increase the number of interactions to the point where over-occupancy may significantly reduce trackfinding effectiveness. This part of the detector is the world's largest silicon detector. It has 205 m2 of silicon sensors (approximately the area of a tennis court) comprising 76 million channels.[3] Layer 2 The Electromagnetic Calorimeter

The Electromagnetic Calorimeter (ECAL) is designed to measure with high accuracy the energies of electrons and photons. The ECAL is constructed from crystals of lead tungstate, PbWO4. This is an extre mely dense but optically clear material, ideal for stopping high energy particles. It has a radiation length of ?0 = 0.89 cm, and has a rapid light yield, with 80% of light yield within one crossing time (25 ns). This is balance d however by a relatively low light yield of 30 photons per MeV of incident energy. CMS 46 The crystals used have a front size of 22 mm 22 mm and a depth of 230 mm. They a re set in a matrix of carbon fibre to keep them optically isolated, and backed by silicon avalanche photodiod es for readout. The barrel region consists of 61,200 crystals, with a further 7,324 in each of the endcaps. At the endcaps the ECAL inner surface is covered by the preshower subdetector, c onsisting of two layers of lead interleaved with two layers of silicon strip detectors. Its purpose is to aid in pion-photon discrimination. Layer 3 The Hadronic Calorimeter Half of the Hadron Calorimeter The purpose of the Hadronic Calorimeter (HCAL) is both to measure the energy of individual hadrons produced in each event, and to be as near to hermetic around the interaction region as possible to allow events with missing energy to be identified. The HCAL consists of layers of dense material (brass or steel) interleaved with tiles of plastic scintillators, read out via wavelength-shifting fibres by hybrid photodiodes. This combination was determined to allow the maximum amount of absorbing material inside of the magnet coil. The high pseudorapidity region is instrumented by the Hadronic Forward detector. Located 11 m either side of the interaction point, this uses a slightly different technology of steel absorbers and quartz fibres for readout, designed to allow better separation of particles in the congested forward region. The brass used in the endcaps of the HCAL used to be Russian artillery shells.[4 ] Layer 4 The magnet Like most particle physics detectors, CMS has a large solenoid magnet. This allo ws the charge/mass ratio of particles to be determined from the curved track that they follow in the magnetic field. I t is 13 m long and 6 m in diameter, and its refrigerated superconducting niobium-titanium coils were originally inte nded to produce a 4 T magnetic field. The operating field was scaled down to 3.8 T instead of the full design strength in order to maximize longevity.[5] The inductance of the magnet is 14 ? and the nominal current for 4 T is 19,500 A , giving a total stored energy of 2.66 GJ, equivalent to about half-a-tonne of TNT. There are dump circuits to saf ely dissipate this energy should the magnet quench. The circuit resistance (essentially just the cables from the powe r converter to the cryostat) has a value of 0.1 mO which leads to a circuit time constant of nearly 39 hours. This is the longest time constant of any circuit at CERN. The operating current for 3.8 T is 18,160 A, giving a stored en ergy of 2.3 GJ. CMS 47 Layer 5 The muon detectors and return yoke To identify muons and measure their momenta, CMS uses three types of detector: d

rift tubes (DT), cathode strip chambers (CSC) and resistive plate chambers (RPC). The DTs are used for precise trajectory measurements in the central barrel region, while the CSCs are used in the end caps. The RPCs provide a fast signal when a muon passes through the muon detector, and are installed in both the barrel and the end caps . The Hadron Calorimeter Barrel (in the foreground, on the yellow frame) waits to be inserted into the superconducting magnet (the silver cylinder in the centre of the red magnet yoke). A part of the Magnet Yoke, with drift tubes and resistive-plate chambers in the barrel region. Collecting and collating the data Pattern recognition Testing the data read-out electronics for the tracker. New particles discovered in CMS will be typically unstable and rapidly transform into a cascade of lighter, more stable and better understood particles. Particles travelling through CMS leave behind characteristic patterns, or signatures , in the different layers, allowing them to be identified. The presence (or not) of any new particles can then be inferred. Trigger system To have a good chance of producing a rare particle, such as a Higgs boson, a very large number of collisions is required. Most collision events in the detector are "soft" and do not produce interesting effects. The amount of raw data from each crossing is approximately 1 megabytes, which at the 40 MHz crossing rate would result in 40 terabytes of data a second, an amount that the experiment cannot hope to store or even process properly. The trigger system reduces the rate of interesting events down to a manageable 100 per second. To accomplish this, a series of "trigger" stages are employed. All the data from each crossing is held in buffers within the detector CMS 48 while a small amount of key information is used to perform a fast, approximate c alculation to identify features of interest such as high energy jets, muons or missing energy. This "Level 1" calcu lation is completed in around 1 s, and event rate is reduced by a factor of about thousand down to 50 kHz. All thes e calculations are done on fast, custom hardware using reprogrammable field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA). If an event is passed by the Level 1 trigger all the data still buffered in the detector is sent over fibre-optic links to the "High Level" trigger, which is software (mainly written in C++) running on o rdinary computer servers. The lower event rate in the High Level trigger allows time for much more detailed an alysis of the event to be done than in the Level 1 trigger. The High Level trigger reduces the event rate by a furth er factor of about a thousand down to around 100 events per second. These are then stored on tape for future analysis. Data analysis Data that has passed the triggering stages and been stored on tape is duplicated using the Grid to additional sites around the world for easier access and redundancy. Physicists are then able to u se the Grid to access and run their analyses on the data. Some possible analyses might be: Looking at events with large amounts of apparently missing energy, which implies

the presence of particles that have passed through the detector without leaving a signature, such as neutrinos. Looking at the kinematics of pairs of particles produced by the decay of a paren t, such as the Z boson decaying to a pair of electrons or the Higgs boson decaying to a pair of tau leptons or phot ons, to determine the properties and mass of the parent. Looking at jets of particles to study the way the quarks in the collided protons have interacted. Milestones 1998 Construction of surface buildings for CMS begins. 2000 LEP shut down, construction of cavern begins. 2004 Cavern completed. 10 September 2008 First beam in CMS. 23 November 2009 First collisions in CMS. 30 March 2010 First 7 TeV collisions in CMS. 29 April 2012 Announcement of the 2011 discovery of the first new particle gener ated here, the excited neutral Xi-b baryon. The insertion of the vacuum tank, June 2002 YE+2 descent into the cavern YE+1, a component of CMS weighing 1,270 tonnes, finishes its 100 m descent into the CMS cavern, January 2007 Computer-generated event display of protons hitting a tungsten block just upstream of CMS on the first beam day, September 2008 CMS 49 References [1] (http:/ / cms. web. cern. ch/ content/ cms-collaboration) [2] http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 922757/ files/ lhcc-2006-001. pdf [3] CMS installs the world's largest silicon detector (http:/ / cerncourier. com / cws/ article/ cern/ 32915), CERN Courier, Feb 15, 2008 [4] CMS HCAL history - CERN (http:/ / cms. web. cern. ch/ cms/ Detector/ HCAL/ H istory. html) [5] http:/ / iopscience. iop. org/ 1748-0221/ 5/ 03/ T03021/ pdf/ 1748-0221_5_03 _T03021. pdf Precise mapping of the magnetic field in the CMS barrel yoke using cosmic rays Della Negra, Michel; Petrilli, Achille; Herve, Alain; Foa, Lorenzo; (2006) (PDF) . CMS Physics Technical Design Report Volume I: Software and Detector Performance (http:/ / doc. cern. ch/ / ar chive/ electronic/ cern/ preprints/ lhcc/ public/ lhcc-2006-001. pdf). CERN. External links CMS home page (http:/ / cern. ch/ cms) CMS Outreach (http:/ / cms. web. cern. ch/ content/ cms-education) CMS Times (http:/ / cmsinfo. cern. ch/ outreach/ CMSTimes. html) CMS section from US/LHC Website (http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Exper iments/ CMS) http:/ / petermccready. com/ portfolio/ 07041601. html (http:/ / petermccready. com/ portfolio/ 07041601. html) Panoramic view - click and drag to look around the experiment under construction (with sound!) (requires Quicktime) The assembly of the CMS detector, step by step, through a 3D animation (http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=7FiLC2m4oR8) The CMS Collaboration, S Chatrchyan et al. (2008-08-14). "The CMS experiment at

the CERN LHC" (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ journal/ -page=extra. lhc/ jinst). Journal of Instrumentation 3 (08): S08004. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8004T. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004. Retrieved 2008-0 8-26 (Full design documentation) LHCb 50 LHCb Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron SPS Super Proton Synchrotron LHCb (standing for "Large Hadron Collider beauty") is one of six particle physic s detector experiments collecting data at the Large Hadron Collider accelerator at CERN. LHCb is a specialized b-p hysics experiment, that is measuring the parameters of CP violation in the interactions of b-hadrons (heavy particles containing a bottom quark). Such studies can help to explain the Matter-Antimatter asymmetry of the Universe. The detector is also able to perform measurements of production cross sections and electroweak physics in the forward region. Approximately 760 people from 54 scientific institutes, representing 14 countries form the col laboration who built and now operate the detector.[1] The experiment is located at point 8 on the LHC tunnel close to Ferney-Voltaire, France just over the border from Geneva. The (small) MoEDAL experiment will share the same cavern. LHCb 51 Physics goals The experiment has wide physics program covering many important aspects of Heavy flavor, Electroweak and QCD physics. Six key measurements have been identified involving B mesons and are de scribed in a roadmap document [2] that form the core physics programme for the first high energy LHC running i n 2010 2012. These include: Measuring an upper limit on the branching ratio of the rare Bs ? + - decay. Measuring the forward-backward asymmetry of the muon pair in the flavour changin g neutral current Bd ? K* + - decay. Such a flavour changing neutral current cannot occur at tree-level in th e Standard Model of Particle Physics, and only occurs through box and loop Feynman diagrams; properties of th e decay can be strongly modified by new Physics. Measuring the CP violating phase in the decay Bs ? J/? f, caused by interference between the decays with and without Bs oscillations. This phase is one of the CP observables with the smalle st theoretical uncertainty in the Standard Model, and can be significantly modified by new Physics. Measuring properties of radiative B decays, i.e. B meson decays with photons in

the final states. Specifically, these are again flavour changing neutral current decays. Tree-level determination of the unitarity triangle angle ?. Charmless charged two-body B decays. The LHCb detector The fact that the two b-hadrons are predominantly produced in the same forward c one is exploited in the layout of the LHCb detector. The LHCb detector is a single arm forward spectrometer with a polar angular coverage from 10 to 300 milliradians (mrad) in the horizontal and 250 mrad in the vertical plane. The asymmetry between the horizontal and vertical plane is determined by a large dipole magnet with the ma in component in the vertical direction. LHCb 52 The VELO The vertex detector (known as the vertex locator or VELO) is built around the pr oton interaction region.[3][4] It is used to measure the particle trajectories close to the interaction point in orde r to precisely separate primary and secondary vertices. The detector operates at 7 millimetres (unknown operator: u'strong' in) from the LHC beam. This implies an enormous flux of particles; The VELO has been designed to withstand integrated f luences of more than 1014p/cm2 per year for a period of about three years. The detector operates in vacuum and is cooled to approximately -25 C (-unknown operator: u'strong' F) using a biphase CO2 system. The data of the VELO detector are amplified and read out by the Beetle ASIC. RICH1 The RICH-1 detector (Ring imaging Cherenkov detector) is located directly after the vertex detector. It is used for particle identification of low-momentum tracks. Main Tracker The main tracking system is placed before and after the dipole magnet. It is use d to reconstruct the trajectories of charged particles and to measure their momenta. The tracker consists of three su bdetectors The Tracker Turicensis, a silicon strip detector located before the LHCb dipole magnet The Outer Tracker. A straw-tube based detector located after the dipole magnet c overing the outer part of the detector acceptance The Inner Tracker, silicon strip based detector located after the dipole magnet covering the inner part of the detector acceptance RICH2 Following the tracking system is RICH-2. It allows the identification of the par ticle type of high-momentum tracks. ECAL The electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters provide measurement of the energy of electrons, photons, and hadrons. These measurements are used at trigger level to identify the particles with high transversal moment (high-Pt particles). Muon System The muon system is used to identify and trigger on muons in the events. References

[1] (http:/ / lhcb. cern. ch), Collaboration webpage [2] (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0912. 4179), Roadmap for selected key measurement s of LHCb [3] (http:/ / lhcb-vd. web. cern. ch/ lhcb-vd/ default. htm), The LHCb VELO (fro m the VELO group) [4] (http:/ / lhcb-public. web. cern. ch/ lhcb-public/ en/ Detector/ VELO-en. ht ml), VELO Public Pages LHCb 53 External links LHCb Public Webpage (http:/ / lhcb-public. web. cern. ch/ lhcb-public/ ) LHCb section from US/LHC Website (http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Expe riments/ LHCb) A. Augusto Alves Jr. et al. (LHCb Collaboration) (2008). "The LHCb Detector at t he LHC" (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ journal/ -page=extra. lhc/ jinst). Journal of Instrumentation 3 (08): S 08005. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8005T. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005. (Full design doc umentation) LHCf 54 LHCf The LHCf experiment, the smallest of the seven experiments on the LHC Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron SPS Super Proton Synchrotron The LHCf ("Large Hadron Collider forward") is a special-purpose Large Hadron Col lider experiment for astroparticle (cosmic ray) physics, and one of seven detectors in the LHC accele rator at CERN. The other six are: ATLAS, ALICE, CMS, MoEDAL, TOTEM, and LHCb. LHCf is designed to study the partic les generated in the "forward" region of collisions, those almost directly in line with the colliding proton beams. It therefore consists of two detectors, 140 m on either side of the interaction point. Because of this la rge distance, it can co-exist with a more conventional detector surrounding the interaction point, and shares the interact ion point IP1 with the much larger LHCf 55 general-purpose ATLAS experiment. Purpose The LHCf is intended to measure the energy and numbers of neutral pions (p0) pro duced by the collider. This will hopefully help explain the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. The results will complement other high-energy cosmic ray measurements from the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina, and the Telescope Array Project in Utah. References LHCf section on US/LHC Website [1]

LHCf: a tiny new experiment joins the LHC [2], CERN Courier, Nov 1, 2006, retrie ved on 2009-03-25. (Describes the location of the experiment.) The LHCf experiment at LHC [3] Technical Design Report of LHCf [4] O Adriani et al. (LHCf Collaboration) (2008). "The LHCf detector at the CERN Lar ge Hadron Collider". Journal of Instrumentation 3 (8): S08006. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8006T. doi:10.1088/17480221/3/08/S08006. (Full design documentation) References [1] http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Experiments/ LHCf [2] http:/ / cerncourier. com/ cws/ article/ cern/ 29732 [3] http:/ / www. particle. cz/ conferences/ c2cr2005/ talks/ Adriani. pdf [4] http:/ / doc. cern. ch/ / archive/ electronic/ cern/ preprints/ lhcc/ public / lhcc-2005-032. pdf FP420 The FP420 R&D project or the FP420 experiment was an international collaboration with members from 29 institutes from 10 countries.[1] The aim was to assess the feasibility of instal ling proton tagging detectors at 420 m from the interaction points of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). One notable member of the team was Brian Cox, who has been involved with BBC in the producti on of television science documentaries including Horizon, Wonders of the Solar System in 2010 and Wonders of the Universe in 2011. By detecting protons that have lost less than 1% of their longitudinal momentum, it is possible to obtain information that could yield insight on various phenomena of high-energy physics. These meas urements would be unique at the LHC, and would be difficult to obtain at both existing and future linear collide rs. References [1] "FP420 R&D Project" (http:/ / www. fp420. com/ ). . Retrieved 2010-03-31. External links FP420 R&D Project website (http:/ / www. fp420. com/ ) Papers and Reviews (http:/ / www. fp420. com/ papers. html) TOTEM 56 TOTEM Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron SPS Super Proton Synchrotron TOTal Elastic and diffractive cross section Measurement (TOTEM) is one of the se ven detector experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. The other six are: ATLAS, ALICE, CMS, LHCb, L HCf, and MoEDAL. It shares intersection point IP5 with the Compact Muon Solenoid. The detector aims

at measurement of total cross section, elastic scattering and diffractive processes. Further reading G. Anelli et al. (TOTEM Collaboration) (2008). "The TOTEM Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider". Journal of Instrumentation 3 (8): S08007. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8007T. doi:10.10 88/1748-0221/3/08/S08007. (Full design documentation) External links TOTEM Public Webpage [1] TOTEM section on US/LHC Website [2] TOTEM 57 References [1] http:/ / totem. web. cern. ch/ Totem [2] http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Experiments/ TOTEM 58 Technology Beetle ASIC Beetle chip The Beetle ASIC is an analog readout chip. It is developed for the LHCb experiment at CERN. Overview The chip integrates 128 channels with low-noise charge-sensitive pre-amplifiers and shapers. The pulse shape can be chosen such that it complies with LHCb specifications: a peaking time of 25 ns with a remainder of the peak voltage after 25 ns of less than 30%. A comparator per channel with configurable polarity provides a binary signal. Four adjacent comparator channels are being ORed and brought off chip via LVDS drivers. Either the shaper or comparator output is sampled with the LHC bunch-crossing fr equency of 40 MHz into an analog pipeline. This ring buffer has a programmable latency of a maximum of 160 sampli ng intervals and an integrated derandomising buffer of 16 stages. For analogue readout data is multiplexed with up to 40 MHz onto one or four ports. A binary readout mode operates at up to 80 MHz output rate on two ports. Current drivers bring the serialised data off chip. The chip can accept trigger rates up to 1.1 MHz to perform a dead-timeless reado ut within 900 ns per trigger. For testability and calibration purposes, a charge injector with adjustable pulse he ight is implemented. The bias settings and various other parameters can be controlled via a standard IC-interface. The c hip is radiation hardened to an accumulated dose of more than 100 Mrad. Robustness against single event upset is achieved by redundant logic. External links Beetle - a readout chip for LHCb [1] The Large Hadron Collider beauty experiment [13] References [1] http:/ / wwwasic. kip. uni-heidelberg. de/ lhcb LHC Computing Grid 59 LHC Computing Grid The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid is an international collaborative project that consists of a grid-based computer network infrastructure connecting 140 computing centers in 35 countries . It has been designed by CERN to handle the significant volume of data produced by Large Hadron Collider (LHC) ex periments.[1][2] Description

A design report was published in 2005.[3] It was announced to be ready for data on 3 October 2008.[4] A popular 2008 press article predicted "the internet could soon be made obsolete" by its t echnology.[5] CERN had to publish its own articles trying to clear up the confusion.[6] It incorporates both private f iber optic cable links and existing high-speed portions of the public Internet. At the end of 2010, the Grid consist ed of some 200,000 processing cores and 150 petabytes of disk space, distributed across 34 countries.[7] The data stream from the detectors provides approximately 300 GByte/s of data, w hich after filtering for "interesting events", results in a "raw data" stream of about 300 MByte/s. The CERN computer center, considered "Tier 0" of the LHC Computing Grid, has a dedicated 10 Gbit/s connection to the counting room. The project was expected to generate 27 TB of raw data per day, plus 10 TB of eve nt summary data , which represents the output of calculations done by the CPU farm at the CERN data cent er. This data is sent out from CERN to eleven Tier 1 academic institutions in Europe, Asia, and North America, via dedicated 10 Gbit/s links. This is called the LHC Optical Private Network.[8] More than 150 Tier 2 institutions are connected to the Tier 1 institutions by general-purpose national research and education networks.[9] The data produced by the LHC on all of its distributed computing grid is expected to add up to 10 15 PB of data each year .[10] In total, the four main detectors at the LHC produced 13 petabytes of data in 2010.[7] The Tier 1 institutions receive specific subsets of the raw data, for which they serve as a backup repository for CERN. They also perform reprocessing when recalibration is necessary.[9] The pri mary configuration for the computers used in the grid is based on Scientific Linux. Distributed computing resources for analysis by end-user physicists are provided by the Open Science Grid, Enabling Grids for E-sciencE,[9] and LHC@home projects. References [1] What is the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid? (http:/ / lcg. web. cern. ch/ lcg/ public/ overview. htm), CERN, January 2011, , retrieved 2012-01-11 [2] Welcome (http:/ / lcg. web. cern. ch/ lcg/ public/ ), CERN, January 2011, , retrieved 2012-01-11 [3] LHC Computing Grid: Technical Design Report (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ reco rd/ 840543/ files/ lhcc-2005-024. pdf). The LCG TDR Editorial Board. 20 June 2005. ISBN 92-9083-253-3. . Retrieved 2 October 2011. [4] "LHC GridFest" (http:/ / lcg. web. cern. ch/ LCG/ lhcgridfest). CERN. 2008. . [5] Jonathan Leake (6 April 2008). "Coming soon: superfast internet" (http:/ / w ww. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ science/ article3689881. ece). The Times (London). . Retrieved 3 October 2011. [6] "The Grid: separating fact from fiction" (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ science/ article3689881. ece). CERN. May 2008. . Retrieved 3 October 2011. Adapted from an article originally published in Symmet ry Breaking. [7] Geoff Brumfiel (19 January 2011). "High-energy physics: Down the petabyte hi ghway" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ news/ 2011/ 110119/ full/ 469282a. html). Nature 469: pp. 282 283. doi:10.1038/469282a. . Retrieved 2 Octobe r 2011. [8] "Network transfer architecture" (http:/ / lcg. web. cern. ch/ LCG/ public/ d ata_transfer. htm). CERN. . Retrieved 2 October 2011. [9] final-draft-4-key (http:/ / gridcafe. web. cern. ch/ gridcafe/ animations/ L

HCdata/ LHCdata. html) [10] Brodkin, Jon (28 April 2008). "Parallel Internet: Inside the Worldwide LHC computing grid" (http:/ / www. techworld. com/ mobility/ features/ index. cfm?featureid=4074& pn=2). Techworld.com. . LHC Computing Grid 60 External links Official webpage (http:/ / lcg. web. cern. ch/ LCG/ ) The World Wide LHC Compute r Grid "GridCaf" (http:/ / www. gridcafe. org/ ). Educational web site. LHC@home LHC@home Initial release SixTrack: 1 September 2004 Test4Theory: 1 August 2011 Stable release SixTrack v530.10 Test4Theory 7.03 Development status active Operating system Cross-platform Platform BOINC Website lhcathome.web.cern.ch [1] Average performance SixTrack: 5.3 TFLOPS[2] Test4Theory: 1.9 TFLOPS[3] Active users SixTrack: 7,800 Test4Theory: 1,800 Total users SixTrack: 95,300 Test4Theory: 3,800 Active hosts SixTrack: 12,500 Test4Theory: 2,600 Total hosts SixTrack: 245,600 Test4Theory: 5,200 LHC@home is a distributed computing project for particle physics based on the Be rkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) platform. LHC@home consists of two applications: LHC@h ome Classic, SixTrack, which went live in September 2004 and is used to upgrade and maintain the partic le accelerator Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and LHC @home 2.0, Test4Theory, which went live in August 2011 and is used to simulate high-energy particle coll isions to provide a reference to test the measurements performed at the LHC. The applications are run with the help of about fifteen thousand active volunteered computers processing at a combined more than 7 teraFLOPS on average as of December 2011.[2][3] LHC@home uses idle computer processing resources from volunteers' computers to p erform calculations on individual workunits, which are sent to a central project server upon completion . The project is cross-platform, and runs on a variety of hardware configurations. Test4Theory uses VirtualBox, an x8 6 virtualization software package. SixTrack The project was first introduced as a beta on 1 September 2004 and a record 1000 users signed up within 24 hours. The project went public, with a 5000 user limit, on September 29 to commemorate CERN's 50th anniversary. Currently there is no user limit and qualification. Data from the project is uti lized by engineers to improve the operation and efficiency of the accelerator, and to predict possible problems th at could arise from adjustment or modification of the LHC's equipment. The project is administered by volunteers, and receives no funding from

LHC@home 61 CERN. There are currently no plans to use the project to do computation on the d ata that will be collected by the LHC. The project software involves a program called SixTrack, created by Frank Schmid t, downloaded via BOINC onto participant computers running Windows or Linux. SixTrack simulates particles acc elerating through the 27 km (unknown operator: u'strong' mi)-long LHC to find their orbit stability. In one workunit, 60 particles are simulated travelling 100,000 or 1,000,000 loop s, which would take about 10 seconds in an actual run. This is sixtrack. The orbit stability data is used to detect if a particle in orbit goes off-cours e and runs into the tube wall if this happened too often in actual running, this would cause damage to the accelerator which would need repairs. A new experimental version called SixTrackbnl started to be sent to computers in early November. Garfield is a newer application, although not many workunits have been seen late ly. References [1] http:/ / lhcathome. web. cern. ch/ LHCathome/ [2] Willy de Zutter. "LHC@Home Classic - Credit overview" (http:/ / boincstats. com/ stats/ project_graph. php?pr=lhc). boincstats.com. . Retrieved 16 December 2011. [3] Willy de Zutter. "LHC Test4Theory@Home - Credit overview" (http:/ / boincsta ts. com/ stats/ project_graph. php?pr=test4theory). boincstats.com. . Retrieved 16 December 2011. External links LHC@home Project Page (http:/ / lhcathome. web. cern. ch/ LHCathome/ ) LHC@home Classic Project Page (http:/ / lhcathomeclassic. cern. ch/ sixtrack/ ) SixTrack homepage (http:/ / frs. web. cern. ch/ frs/ ) Test4Theory Project Page (http:/ / lhcathome2. cern. ch/ ) Proton Synchrotron Booster 62 Proton Synchrotron Booster The Proton Synchrotron Booster, a synchrotron, is the first and smallest circula r proton accelerator in the accelerator chain at the CERN Large Hadron Collider injection complex [1]. The a ccelerator was built in 1972, and contains four superimposed rings with a radius of 25 meters. It takes protons wi th an energy of 50 MeV from the linear accelerator Linac2 and accelerates them up to 1.4 GeV, ready to be inject ed into the Proton Synchrotron. External links PS Booster Machine: layout and photographs [2] References [1] http:/ / ps-div. web. cern. ch/ ps-div/ LHC-PS/ LHC-PS. html [2] http:/ / psb-machine. web. cern. ch/ psb-machine/ VELO 63 VELO Large Hadron Collider (LHC) LHC experiments ATLAS A Toroidal LHC Apparatus CMS Compact Muon Solenoid LHCb LHC-beauty ALICE A Large Ion Collider Experiment TOTEM Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation LHCf LHC-forward MoEDAL Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC

LHC preaccelerators p and Pb Linear accelerators for protons (Linac 2) and Lead (Linac 3) (not marked) Proton Synchrotron Booster PS Proton Synchrotron SPS Super Proton Synchrotron LHCb (standing for "Large Hadron Collider beauty") is one of six particle physic s detector experiments collecting data at the Large Hadron Collider accelerator at CERN. LHCb is a specialized b-p hysics experiment, that is measuring the parameters of CP violation in the interactions of b-hadrons (heavy particles containing a bottom quark). Such studies can help to explain the Matter-Antimatter asymmetry of the Universe. The detector is also able to perform measurements of production cross sections and electroweak physics in the forward region. Approximately 760 people from 54 scientific institutes, representing 14 countries form the col laboration who built and now operate the detector.[1] The experiment is located at point 8 on the LHC tunnel close to Ferney-Voltaire, France just over the border from Geneva. The (small) MoEDAL experiment will share the same cavern. VELO 64 Physics goals The experiment has wide physics program covering many important aspects of Heavy flavor, Electroweak and QCD physics. Six key measurements have been identified involving B mesons and are de scribed in a roadmap document [2] that form the core physics programme for the first high energy LHC running i n 2010 2012. These include: Measuring an upper limit on the branching ratio of the rare Bs ? + - decay. Measuring the forward-backward asymmetry of the muon pair in the flavour changin g neutral current Bd ? K* + - decay. Such a flavour changing neutral current cannot occur at tree-level in th e Standard Model of Particle Physics, and only occurs through box and loop Feynman diagrams; properties of th e decay can be strongly modified by new Physics. Measuring the CP violating phase in the decay Bs ? J/? f, caused by interference between the decays with and without Bs oscillations. This phase is one of the CP observables with the smalle st theoretical uncertainty in the Standard Model, and can be significantly modified by new Physics. Measuring properties of radiative B decays, i.e. B meson decays with photons in the final states. Specifically, these are again flavour changing neutral current decays. Tree-level determination of the unitarity triangle angle ?. Charmless charged two-body B decays. The LHCb detector The fact that the two b-hadrons are predominantly produced in the same forward c one is exploited in the layout of the LHCb detector. The LHCb detector is a single arm forward spectrometer with a polar angular coverage from 10 to 300 milliradians (mrad) in the horizontal and 250 mrad in the vertical plane. The asymmetry between the horizontal and vertical plane is determined by a large dipole magnet with the ma in component in the vertical direction. VELO 65 The VELO The vertex detector (known as the vertex locator or VELO) is built around the pr oton interaction region.[3][4] It is

used to measure the particle trajectories close to the interaction point in orde r to precisely separate primary and secondary vertices. The detector operates at 7 millimetres (unknown operator: u'strong' in) from the LHC beam. This implies an enormous flux of particles; The VELO has been designed to withstand integrated f luences of more than 1014p/cm2 per year for a period of about three years. The detector operates in vacuum and is cooled to approximately -25 C (-unknown operator: u'strong' F) using a biphase CO2 system. The data of the VELO detector are amplified and read out by the Beetle ASIC. RICH1 The RICH-1 detector (Ring imaging Cherenkov detector) is located directly after the vertex detector. It is used for particle identification of low-momentum tracks. Main Tracker The main tracking system is placed before and after the dipole magnet. It is use d to reconstruct the trajectories of charged particles and to measure their momenta. The tracker consists of three su bdetectors The Tracker Turicensis, a silicon strip detector located before the LHCb dipole magnet The Outer Tracker. A straw-tube based detector located after the dipole magnet c overing the outer part of the detector acceptance The Inner Tracker, silicon strip based detector located after the dipole magnet covering the inner part of the detector acceptance RICH2 Following the tracking system is RICH-2. It allows the identification of the par ticle type of high-momentum tracks. ECAL The electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters provide measurement of the energy of electrons, photons, and hadrons. These measurements are used at trigger level to identify the particles with high transversal moment (high-Pt particles). Muon System The muon system is used to identify and trigger on muons in the events. References [1] (http:/ / lhcb. cern. ch), Collaboration webpage [2] (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0912. 4179), Roadmap for selected key measurement s of LHCb [3] (http:/ / lhcb-vd. web. cern. ch/ lhcb-vd/ default. htm), The LHCb VELO (fro m the VELO group) [4] (http:/ / lhcb-public. web. cern. ch/ lhcb-public/ en/ Detector/ VELO-en. ht ml), VELO Public Pages VELO 66 External links LHCb Public Webpage (http:/ / lhcb-public. web. cern. ch/ lhcb-public/ ) LHCb section from US/LHC Website (http:/ / www. uslhc. us/ What_is_the_LHC/ Expe riments/ LHCb) A. Augusto Alves Jr. et al. (LHCb Collaboration) (2008). "The LHCb Detector at t he LHC" (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ journal/ -page=extra. lhc/ jinst). Journal of Instrumentation 3 (08): S 08005. Bibcode 2008JInst...3S8005T. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005. (Full design doc umentation)

67 Theory Standard Model The Standard Model of elementary particles, with the gauge bosons in the rightmost column. The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, the current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995) and the tau neutrino (2000) have given further credence to the Standard Model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a "theory of almost everything". The Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of dark energy nor of the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity. The theory does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduce d from observational cosmology. It also does not correctly account for neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero ma sses). Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent, it has several apparently unnatura l properties giving rise to puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem. Nevertheless, the Standard Model is important to theoretical and experimental pa rticle physicists alike. For theorists, the Standard Model is a paradigmatic example of a quantum field theory, which ex hibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative behavior, e tc. It is used as a basis for building more exotic models that incorporate hypothetical particles, extra dimen sions, and elaborate symmetries (such as supersymmetry) in an attempt to explain experimental results at varianc e with the Standard Model, such as the existence of dark matter and neutrino oscillations. In turn, experimenters h ave incorporated the Standard Model into simulators to help search for new physics beyond the Standard Model. Recently, the Standard Model has found applications in fields besides particle p hysics, such as astrophysics, cosmology, and nuclear physics. Standard Model 68 Historical background The first step towards the Standard Model was Sheldon Glashow's discovery in 196 0 of a way to combine the electromagnetic and weak interactions.[1] In 1967 Steven Weinberg[2] and Abdus S alam[3] incorporated the Higgs mechanism[4][5][6] into Glashow's electroweak theory, giving it its modern form. The Higgs mechanism is believed to give rise to the masses of all the elementary particles in the Standard Model. This includes the masses of the W and Z bosons, and the masses of the fermions,

i.e. the quarks and leptons. After the neutral weak currents caused by Z boson exchange were discovered at CE RN in 1973,[7][8][9][10] the electroweak theory became widely accepted and Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg share d the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering it. The W and Z bosons were discovered experimentally in 1981, and their masses were found to be as the Standard Model predicted. The theory of the strong interaction, to which many contributed, acquired its mo dern form around 1973 74, when experiments confirmed that the hadrons were composed of fractionally charged qua rks. Overview At present, matter and energy are best understood in terms of the kinematics and interactions of elementary particles. To date, physics has reduced the laws governing the behavior and interaction of all known forms of matter and energy to a small set of fundamental laws and theories. A major goal of physics is to find the "common ground" that would unite all of these theories into one integrated theory of everything, of w hich all the other known laws would be special cases, and from which the behavior of all matter and energy could be derived (at least in principle).[11] The Standard Model groups two major extant theories quantum electroweak and quantu m chromodynamics into an internally consistent theory that describes the interactions between all know n particles in terms of quantum field theory. For a technical description of the fields and their interactions, see St andard Model (mathematical formulation). Particle content Fermions Organization of Fermions Charge First generation Second generation Third generation Quarks +2/3 Up u Charm c Top t -1/3 Down d Strange s Bottom b Leptons -1 Electron e- Muon - Tau t0 Electron neutrino ?e Muon neutrino ? Tau neutrino ?t The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin known as fermions. A ccording to the spin-statistics theorem, fermions respect the Pauli exclusion principle. Each fermion has a corr esponding antiparticle. The fermions of the Standard Model are classified according to how they interact (or equivalently, by what charges they carry). There are six quarks (up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom), and s ix leptons (electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino). Pairs from each classificatio n are grouped together to form a generation, with corresponding particles exhibiting similar physical behavior (s ee table). The defining property of the quarks is that they carry color charge, and hence, interact via the strong interaction. A phenomenon called color confinement results in quarks being perpetually (or at l east since very soon after the start of Standard Model 69 the Big Bang) bound to one another, forming color-neutral composite particles (h adrons) containing either a quark and an antiquark (mesons) or three quarks (baryons). The familiar proton and the neutron are the two baryons having the smallest mass. Quarks also carry electric charge and weak isospin. Hence the

y interact with other fermions both electromagnetically and via the weak interaction. The remaining six fermions do not carry colour charge and are called leptons. Th e three neutrinos do not carry electric charge either, so their motion is directly influenced only by the weak nuclear force, which makes them notoriously difficult to detect. However, by virtue of carrying an electric char ge, the electron, muon, and tau all interact electromagnetically. Each member of a generation has greater mass than the corresponding particles of lower generations. The first generation charged particles do not decay; hence all ordinary (baryonic) matter is made of such particles. Specifically, all atoms consist of electrons orbiting atomic nuclei ultimately c onstituted of up and down quarks. Second and third generations charged particles, on the other hand, decay with ve ry short half lives, and are observed only in very high-energy environments. Neutrinos of all generations also do not decay, and pervade the universe, but rarely interact with baryonic matter. Gauge bosons Summary of interactions between particles described by the Standard Model. In the Standard Model, gauge bosons are defined as force carriers that mediate the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental interactions. Interactions in physics are the ways that particles influence other particles. At a macroscopic level, electromagnetism allows particles to interact with one another via electric and magnetic fields, and gravitation allows particles with mass to attract one another in accordance with Einstein's theory of general relativity. The Standard Model explains such forces as resulting from matter particles exchanging other particles, known as force mediating particles (strict ly speaking, this is only so if interpreting literally what is actually an approximation method known as perturb ation theory). When a force mediating particle is exchanged, at a macroscopic level the effect is equivalent to a force influencing both of them, and the particle is therefore said to have mediated (i.e., been the agent of) th at force. The Feynman Standard Model 70 The above interactions form the basis of the standard model. Feynman diagrams in the standard model are built from these vertices. Modifications involving Higgs boson interactions and neutrino oscillations are commonly added. The charge of the W bosons are dictated by the fermions they interact with. diagram calculations, which are a graphical representation of the perturbation theory approximation, invoke "force mediating particles", and when applied to analyze high-energy scattering experiments are in reasonable agreement with the data. However, perturbation theory (and with it the concept of a "force-mediating particle") fails in other situations. These include low-energy quantum chromodynamics, bound states, and solitons.

The gauge bosons of the Standard Model all have spin (as do matter particles). The value of the spin is 1, making them bosons. As a result, they do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle that constrains fermions: thus bosons (e.g. photons) do not have a theoretical limit on their spatial density (number per volume). The different types of gauge bosons are described below. Photons mediate the electromagnetic force between electrically charged particles. The photon is massless and is well-described by the theory of quantum electrodynamics. The W+, W-, and Z gauge bosons mediate the weak interactions between particles o f different flavors (all quarks and leptons). They are massive, with the Z being more massive than the W. The wea k interactions involving the W exclusively act on left-handed particles and right-handed antiparticles only. F urthermore, the W carries an electric charge of +1 and -1 and couples to the electromagnetic interaction. The electrically neutral Z boson interacts with both left-handed particles and antiparticles. These three gauge b osons along with the photons are grouped together, as collectively mediating the electroweak interaction. The eight gluons mediate the strong interactions between color charged particles (the quarks). Gluons are massless. The eightfold multiplicity of gluons is labeled by a combination of co lor and anticolor charge (e.g. red antigreen).[12] Because the gluon has an effective color charge, they can also interact among themselves. The gluons and their interactions are described by the theory of quantum chromodynam ics. The interactions between all the particles described by the Standard Model are s ummarized by the diagrams on the right of this section. Standard Model 71 Higgs boson The Higgs particle is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle theorize d by Robert Brout, Franois Englert, Peter Higgs, Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble in 1964 (see 1964 PRL symmetry breaking papers) and is a key building block in the Standard Model.[13][14][15][16] It has no intrins ic spin, and for that reason is classified as a boson (like the gauge bosons, which have integer spin). Because an exceptional ly large amount of energy and beam luminosity are theoretically required to observe a Higgs boson in high ener gy colliders, it is the only fundamental particle predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be observed . The Higgs boson plays a unique role in the Standard Model, by explaining why the other elementary particles, except the photon and gluon, are massive. In particular, the Higgs boson would e xplain why the photon has no mass, while the W and Z bosons are very heavy. Elementary particle masses, and the dif ferences between electromagnetism (mediated by the photon) and the weak force (mediated by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter. In electroweak theory, the Higgs boson generates the masses of the leptons (electron, muon, and tau) and quarks. As yet, no experiment has conclusively detected the existence of the Higgs boson . It is hoped that the Large Hadron

Collider at CERN will confirm the existence of this particle. As of August 2011, a significant portion of the possible masses for the Higgs have been excluded at 95% confidence level: CMS has exclude d the mass ranges 145-216 GeV, 226-288 GeV and 310-400 GeV,[17] while the ATLAS experiment has excluded 14 6-232 GeV, 256-282 GeV and 296-466 GeV.[18] Note that these exclusions apply only to the Standard Model Higgs, and that more complex Higgs sectors which are possible in Beyond the Standard Model scenarios may be s ignificantly more difficult to characterize. CERN director general Rolf Heuer has predicted that by the end of 2012 either the Standard Model Higgs boson will be observed, or excluded in all mass ranges, implying that the Standard Model is not the whole story.[19] On December 13, 2011 CERN announced that both ATLAS and CMS experiments had dete cted 'hints' of the Higgs boson in at approximately 124GeV. These results were not sufficiently strong to announce that the Higgs boson had been found (ATLAS showed a 2.3 sigma level of certainty for an excess at 126GeV, while CMS showed a 1.9 sigma level excess at 124GeV) but the fact that two separate experiments show excesses in the same energy range has led to much excitement in the particle physics world.[20] Field content The Standard Model has the following fields: Spin 1 1. A U(1) gauge field B ? with coupling g' (weak U(1), or weak hypercharge) 2. An SU(2) gauge field W ? with coupling g (weak SU(2), or weak isospin) 3. An SU(3) gauge field G ? with coupling gs (strong SU(3), or color charge) Spin 1/ 2 The spin particles are in representations of the gauge groups. For the U(1) grou p, we list the value of the weak hypercharge instead. The left-handed fermionic fields are: 1. An SU(3) triplet, SU(2) doublet, with U(1) weak hypercharge (left-handed quar ks) 2. An SU(3) triplet, SU(2) singlet, with U(1) weak hypercharge (left-handed down -type antiquark) 3. An SU(3) singlet, SU(2) doublet with U(1) weak hypercharge -1 (left-handed le pton) 4. An SU(3) triplet, SU(2) singlet, with U(1) weak hypercharge (left-handed up-t ype antiquark) 5. An SU(3) singlet, SU(2) singlet with U(1) weak hypercharge 2 (left-handed ant ilepton) By CPT symmetry, there is a set of right-handed fermions with the opposite quant um numbers. Standard Model 72 This describes one generation of leptons and quarks, and there are three generat ions, so there are three copies of each field. Note that there are twice as many left-handed lepton field components as left-handed antilepton field components in each generation, but an equal number of left-handed quark and anti quark fields. Spin 0 1. An SU(2) doublet H with U(1) hyper-charge +1 (Higgs field) Note that , summed over the two SU(2) components, is invariant under both SU(2) and under U(1), and so it can appear as a renormalizable term in the Lagrangian, as can its square. This field acquires a vacuum expectation value, leaving a combination of the wea

k isospin, , and weak hypercharge unbroken. This is the electromagnetic gauge group, and the photon re mains massless. The standard formula for the electric charge (which defines the normalization of the weak hyp ercharge, , which would otherwise be somewhat arbitrary) is:[21] Lagrangian The Lagrangian for the spin 1 and spin 1/ 2 fields is the most general renormalizable gauge field Lagrangian with no fine tunings: Spin 1: where the traces are over the SU(2) and SU(3) indices hidden in W and G respecti vely. The two-index objects are the field strengths derived from W and G the vector fields. There are also two extra hidden parameters: the theta angles for SU(2) and SU(3). The spin-1/ 2 particles can have no mass terms because there is no right/left helicity pair with the same SU(2) and SU(3) representation and the same weak hypercharge. This means that if the gauge charges were conserved in the vacuum, none of the spin 1/ 2 particles could ever swap helicity, and they would all be massless. For a neutral fermion, for example a hypothetical right-handed lepton N (or Na i n relativistic two-spinor notation), with no SU(3), SU(2) representation and zero charge, it is possible to add the t erm: This term gives the neutral fermion a Majorana mass. Since the generic value for M will be of order 1, such a particle would generically be unacceptably heavy. The interactions are completely determi ned by the theory the leptons introduce no extra parameters. Higgs mechanism The Lagrangian for the Higgs includes the most general renormalizable self inter action: The parameter v2 has dimensions of mass squared, and it gives the location where the classical Lagrangian is at a minimum. In order for the Higgs mechanism to work, v2 must be a positive number. v has units of mass, and it is the only parameter in the Standard Model which is not dimensionless. It is also much smaller than the Planck scale; it is approximately equal to the Higgs mass, and sets the scale for the mass of everyt hing else. This is the only real fine-tuning to a small nonzero value in the Standard Model, and it is called the Hierarchy problem. It is traditional to choose the SU(2) gauge so that the Higgs doublet in the vac uum has expectation value (v,0). Standard Model 73 Masses and CKM matrix The rest of the interactions are the most general spin-0 spin-1/ 2 Yukawa interactions, and there are many of these. These constitute most of the free parameters in the model. The Yukawa couplings generate the masses and mixings once the Higgs gets its vacuum expectation value. The terms L*HR generate a mass term for each of the three generations of leptons . There are 9 of these terms, but by relabeling L and R, the matrix can be diagonalized. Since only the upper compone nt of H is nonzero, the upper SU(2) component of L mixes with R to make the electron, the muon, and the tau, l eaving over a lower massless

component, the neutrino. Note: Neutrino oscillations show neutrinos have mass.[2 2] See also: Pontecorvo Maki Nakagawa Sakata matrix. The terms QHU generate up masses, while QHD generate down masses. But since ther e is more than one right-handed singlet in each generation, it is not possible to diagonalize both with a good basis for the fields, and there is an extra CKM matrix. Theoretical aspects Construction of the Standard Model Lagrangian Parameters of the Standard Model Symbol Description Renormalization scheme (point) Value me Electron mass 511 keV m Muon mass 105.7 MeV mt Tau mass 1.78 GeV mu Up quark mass MS = 2 GeV 1.9 MeV md Down quark mass MS = 2 GeV 4.4 MeV ms Strange quark mass MS = 2 GeV 87 MeV mc Charm quark mass MS = mc 1.32 GeV mb Bottom quark mass MS = mb 4.24 GeV mt Top quark mass On-shell scheme 172.7 GeV ?12 CKM 12-mixing angle 13.1 ?23 CKM 23-mixing angle 2.4 ?13 CKM 13-mixing angle 0.2 d CKM CP-violating Phase 0.995 g1 or g' U(1) gauge coupling MS = mZ 0.357 g2 or g SU(2) gauge coupling MS = mZ 0.652 g3 or gs SU(3) gauge coupling MS = mZ 1.221 ?QCD QCD vacuum angle ~0 Higgs quadratic coupling Unknown ? Higgs self-coupling strength Unknown Technically, quantum field theory provides the mathematical framework for the St andard Model, in which a Lagrangian controls the dynamics and kinematics of the theory. Each kind of part icle is described in terms of a Standard Model 74 dynamical field that pervades space-time. The construction of the Standard Model proceeds following the modern method of constructing most field theories: by first postulating a set of symmet ries of the system, and then by writing down the most general renormalizable Lagrangian from its particle (field) conten t that observes these symmetries. The global Poincar symmetry is postulated for all relativistic quantum field theo ries. It consists of the familiar translational symmetry, rotational symmetry and the inertial reference frame inv ariance central to the theory of special relativity. The local SU(3)SU(2)U(1) gauge symmetry is an internal symmetr y that essentially defines the Standard Model. Roughly, the three factors of the gauge symmetry give rise to th e three fundamental interactions. The fields fall into different representations of the various symmetry groups of the Standard Model (see table). Upon writing the most general Lagrangian, one finds that the dynamics depend on 19 pa rameters, whose numerical values are established by experiment. The parameters are summarized in the table at rig ht. Quantum chromodynamics sector The quantum chromodynamics (QCD) sector defines the interactions between quarks

and gluons, with SU(3) symmetry, generated by Ta. Since leptons do not interact with gluons, they are n ot affected by this sector. The Dirac Lagrangian of the quarks coupled to the gluon fields is given by is the SU(3) gauge field containing the gluons, are the Dirac matrices, D and U are the Dirac spinors associated with up- and down-type quarks, and gs is the strong coupling constant . Electroweak sector The electroweak sector is a Yang Mills gauge theory with the symmetry group U(1)SU( 2)L, where B is the U(1) gauge field; YW is the weak hypercharge the generator of the U( 1) group; is the three-component SU(2) gauge field; are the Pauli matrices infinitesimal generators of the SU(2) group. The subscript L indicates that they only act on left fermions; g' and g are coupling constants. Higgs sector In the Standard Model, the Higgs field is a complex spinor of the group SU(2)L: where the indexes + and 0 indicate the electric charge (Q) of the components. Th e weak isospin (YW) of both components is 1. Before symmetry breaking, the Higgs Lagrangian is: which can also be written as: Standard Model 75 Additional symmetries of the Standard Model From the theoretical point of view, the Standard Model exhibits four additional global symmetries, not postulated at the outset of its construction, collectively denoted accidental symmetries, whic h are continuous U(1) global symmetries. The transformations leaving the Lagrangian invariant are: The first transformation rule is shorthand meaning that all quark fields for all generations must be rotated by an identical phase simultaneously. The fields , and , are the 2nd (muon) and 3rd (t au) generation analogs of and fields. By Noether's theorem, each symmetry above has an associated conservation law: th e conservation of baryon number, electron number, muon number, and tau number. Each quark is assigned a baryon nu mber of , while each antiquark is assigned a baryon number of . Conservation of baryon number implies that the number of quarks minus the number of antiquarks is a constant. Within experimental limits, no vio lation of this conservation law has been found. Similarly, each electron and its associated neutrino is assigned an electron num ber of +1, while the anti-electron and the associated anti-neutrino carry a -1 electron number. Similarly, the muons an d their neutrinos are assigned a muon number of +1 and the tau leptons are assigned a tau lepton number of +1. Th e Standard Model predicts that each of these three numbers should be conserved separately in a manner similar t o the way baryon number is conserved. These numbers are collectively known as lepton family numbers (LF). Symmetry works differently for quarks than for leptons, mainly because the Stand ard Model predicts (incorrectly) that neutrinos are massless. However, in 2002 it was discovered that neutrinos h ave mass (now established to be not greater than 0.28 electron volts), and as neutrinos oscillate between flavors (m uon neutrinos have been observed

changing to tau neutrinos) the discovery of neutrino mass indicates that the con servation of lepton family number is violated.[23] In addition to the accidental (but exact) symmetries described above, the Standa rd Model exhibits several approximate symmetries. These are the "SU(2) custodial symmetry" and the "SU(2) or SU(3) quark flavor symmetry." Symmetries of the Standard Model and Associated Conservation Laws Symmetry Lie Group Symmetry Type Conservation Law Poincar TranslationsSO(3,1) Global symmetry Energy, Momentum, Angular momentum Gauge SU(3)SU(2)U(1) Local symmetry Color charge, Weak isospin, Electric charge, W eak hypercharge Baryon phase U(1) Accidental Global symmetry Baryon number Electron phase U(1) Accidental Global symmetry Electron number Muon phase U(1) Accidental Global symmetry Muon number Tau phase U(1) Accidental Global symmetry Tau number Standard Model 76 Field content of the Standard Model Field (1st generation) Spin Gauge group Representation Baryon Number Electron Number Left-handed quark (3, 2, +1/ 3) Left-handed up antiquark Left-handed down antiquark Left-handed lepton ( , , ) Left-handed antielectron ( , , ) Hypercharge gauge field ( , , ) Isospin gauge field ( , , ) Gluon field ( , , ) Higgs field ( , , ) List of Standard Model fermions This table is based in part on data gathered by the Particle Data Group.[24] Left-handed fermions in the Standard Model Generation 1 Fermion (left-handed) Symbol Electric charge Weak isospin Weak hypercharge Color charge [25] Mass [26] Electron 511 keV Positron 511 keV Electron neutrino < 0.28 eV[27][28] Electron antineutrino < 0.28 eV[27][28] Up quark ~ 3 MeV[29] Up antiquark ~ 3 MeV[29]

Down quark ~ 6 MeV[29] Down antiquark ~ 6 MeV[29] Generation 2 Fermion (left-handed) Symbol Electric charge Weak isospin Weak hypercharge Color charge [25] Mass [26] Muon 106 MeV Antimuon 106 MeV Muon neutrino < 0.28 eV[27][28] Muon antineutrino < 0.28 eV[27][28] Standard Model 77 Charm quark ~ 1.337 GeV Charm antiquark ~ 1.3 GeV Strange quark ~ 100 MeV Strange antiquark ~ 100 MeV Generation 3 Fermion (left-handed) Symbol Electric charge Weak isospin Weak hypercharge Color charge [25] Mass [26] Tau 1.78 GeV Antitau 1.78 GeV Tau neutrino < 0.28 eV[27][28] Tau antineutrino < 0.28 eV[27][28] Top quark 171 GeV Top antiquark 171 GeV Bottom quark ~ 4.2 GeV Bottom antiquark ~ 4.2 GeV Log plot of masses in the Standard Model. Tests and predictions The Standard Model (SM) predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision. To give an idea of the success of the SM, the following table compares the measured masses of the W and Z bosons with the masses predicted by the SM: Quantity Measured (GeV) SM prediction (GeV)

Mass of W boson 80.387 0.019 80.390 0.018 Mass of Z boson 91.1876 0.0021 91.1874 0.0021 The SM also makes several predictions about the decay of Z bosons, which have be en experimentally confirmed by the Large Electron-Positron Collider at CERN. Standard Model 78 Challenges Self-consistency of the Standard Model has not been mathematically proven. While computational approximations (for example using lattice gauge theory) exist, it is not known whether they con verge in the limit. A key question related to the consistency is the Yang Mills existence and mass gap problem. There is some experimental evidence consistent with neutrinos having mass, which the Standard Model does not allow.[1] To accommodate such findings, the Standard Model can be modified by ad ding a non-renormalizable interaction of lepton fields with the square of the Higgs field. This is natural in certain grand unified theories, and if new physics appears at about 1016 GeV, the neutrino masses are of the right orde r of magnitude. Currently, there is one elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be observed: the Higgs boson. A major reason for building the Large Hadron Collider is that the high en ergies of which it is capable are expected to make the Higgs boson observable. However, as of January 2012, there is only indirect empirical evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, so that its discovery cannot be c laimed. Moreover, some theoretical concerns have been raised positing that elementary scalar Higgs particles cannot exist (see Quantum triviality). Theoretical and experimental research has attempted to extend the Standard Model into a Unified Field Theory or a Theory of everything, a complete theory explaining all physical phenomena includ ing constants. Inadequacies of the Standard Model that motivate such research include: It does not attempt to explain gravitation, although a theoretical particle know n as a graviton would help explain it, and unlike for the strong and electroweak interactions of the Standard Model , there is no known way of describing general relativity, the canonical theory of gravitation, consistently in terms of quantum field theory. The reason for this is, among other things, that quantum field theories of gravi ty generally break down before reaching the Planck scale. As a consequence, we have no reliable theory for the very early universe; Some consider it to be ad-hoc and inelegant, requiring 19 numerical constants wh ose values are unrelated and arbitrary. Although the Standard Model, as it now stands, can explain why neutri nos have masses, the specifics of neutrino mass are still unclear. It is believed that explaining neutrino mass wi ll require an additional 7 or 8 constants, which are also arbitrary parameters; The Higgs mechanism gives rise to the hierarchy problem if any new physics (such as quantum gravity) is present at high energy scales. In order for the weak scale to be much smaller than the P lanck scale, severe fine tuning of Standard Model parameters is required; It should be modified so as to be consistent with the emerging "Standard Model o f cosmology." In particular, the Standard Model cannot explain the observed amount of cold dark matter (CDM) and

gives contributions to dark energy which are far too large. It is also difficult to accommodate the observed predominance of matter over antimatter (matter/antimatter asymmetry). The isotropy and homogeneity of the vi sible universe over large distances seems to require a mechanism like cosmic inflation, which would also c onstitute an extension of the Standard Model. Currently no proposed Theory of everything has been conclusively verified. Standard Model 79 Notes and references Notes [1] CERN Press Release (http:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Rel eases2010/ PR08. 10E. html) References Further reading R. Oerter (2006). The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsun g Triumph of Modern Physics. Plume. B.A. Schumm (2004). Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physic s. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7971-X. Introductory textbooks I. Aitchison, A. Hey (2003). Gauge Theories in Particle Physics: A Practical Int roduction.. Institute of Physics. ISBN 978-0-585-44550-2. W. Greiner, B. Mller (2000). Gauge Theory of Weak Interactions. Springer. ISBN 3540-67672-4. G.D. Coughlan, J.E. Dodd, B.M. Gripaios (2006). The Ideas of Particle Physics: A n Introduction for Scientists. Cambridge University Press. D.J. Griffiths (1987). Introduction to Elementary Particles. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-60386-4. G.L. Kane (1987). Modern Elementary Particle Physics. Perseus Books. ISBN 0-20111749-5. Advanced textbooks T.P. Cheng, L.F. Li (2006). Gauge theory of elementary particle physics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-851961-3. Highlights the gauge theory aspects of the Standard Model. J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B.R. Holstein (1994). Dynamics of the Standard Model . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-47652-2. Highlights dynamical and phenomenological aspects of the Standard Model. L. O'Raifeartaigh (1988). Group structure of gauge theories. Cambridge Universit y Press. ISBN 0-521-34785-8. Highlights group-theoretical aspects of the Standard Model. Journal articles E.S. Abers, B.W. Lee (1973). "Gauge theories". Physics Reports 9: 1 141. Bibcode 1 973PhR.....9....1A. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(73)90027-6. Y. Hayato et al. (1999). "Search for Proton Decay through p ? ?K+ in a Large Wat er Cherenkov Detector". Physical Review Letters 83 (8): 1529. arXiv:hep-ex/9904020. Bibcode 1999PhRvL..8 3.1529H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1529. S.F. Novaes (2000). "Standard Model: An Introduction". arXiv:hep-ph/0001283 [hep -ph]. D.P. Roy (1999). "Basic Constituents of Matter and their Interactions A Progress Report.". arXiv:hep-ph/9912523 [hep-ph].

F. Wilczek (2004). "The Universe Is A Strange Place". Nuclear Physics B - Procee dings Supplements 134: 3. arXiv:astro-ph/0401347. Bibcode 2004NuPhS.134....3W. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2 004.08.001. Standard Model 80 External links " LHC sees hint of lightweight Higgs boson (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ art icle/ dn21279-lhc-sees-hint-of-lightweight-higgs-boson. html)" "New Scientist". " Standard Model may be found incomplete, (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ news / news. jsp?id=ns9999404)" New Scientist. " Observation of the Top Quark (http:/ / www-cdf. fnal. gov/ top_status/ top. ht ml)" at Fermilab. " The Standard Model Lagrangian. (http:/ / cosmicvariance. com/ 2006/ 11/ 23/ th anksgiving)" After electroweak symmetry breaking, with no explicit Higgs boson. " Standard Model Lagrangian (http:/ / nuclear. ucdavis. edu/ ~tgutierr/ files/ s tmL1. html)" with explicit Higgs terms. PDF, PostScript, and LaTeX versions. " The particle adventure. (http:/ / particleadventure. org/ )" Web tutorial. Nobes, Matthew (2002) "Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics" o n Kuro5hin: Part 1, (http:/ / www. kuro5hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 5/ 1/ 3712/ 31700) Part 2, (http:/ / www. kuro5 hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 5/ 14/ 19363/ 8142) Part 3a, (http:/ / www. kuro5hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 7/ 15/ 173318/ 784) Part 3b. (http:/ / www. kuro5hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 8/ 21/ 195035/ 576) Particle physics Collision of 2 beams of gold atoms recorded by RHIC Particle physics is a branch of physics that studies the existence and interactions of particles that are the constituents of what is usually referred to as matter or radiation. In current understanding, particles are excitations of quantum fields and interact following their dynamics. Most of the interest in this area is in fundamental fields, each of which cannot be described as a bound state of other fields. The current set of fundamental fields and their dynamics are summarized in a theory called the Standard Model, therefore particle physics is largely the study of the Standard Model's particle content and its possible extensions. Particle physics 81 Subatomic particles The Standard Model of Physics. Modern particle physics research is focused on subatomic particles, including atomic constituents such as electrons, protons, and neutrons (protons and neutrons are composite particles called baryons, made of quarks), produced by radioactive and scattering processes, such as photons, neutrinos, and muons, as well as a wide range of exotic particles. To be specific, the term particle is a misnomer from classical physics because the dynamics of particle physics are governed by quantum mechanics. As such, they exhibit wave-particle duality, displaying particle-like behavior under certain

experimental conditions and wave-like behavior in others. In more technical terms, they are described by quantum state vectors in a Hilbert space, which is also treated in quantum field theory. Following the convention of particle physicists, elementary particles refer to objects such as electrons and photons as it is well known that these types of particles display wave-like properties as well. All particles and their interactions observed to date can be described almost en tirely by a quantum field theory called the Standard Model. The Standard Model has 17 species of elementary particles: 1 2 fermions or 24 if distinguishing antiparticles, 4 vector bosons (5 with antiparticles), and 1 scalar boson. These elementary particles can combine to form composite particles, accounting for the hundreds of other species of partic les discovered since the 1960s. The Standard Model has been found to agree with almost all the experimental tests co nducted to date. However, most particle physicists believe that it is an incomplete description of nature, and that a more fundamental theory awaits discovery (See Theory of Everything). In recent years, measurements of neutrino mass have provided the first experimental deviations from the Standard Model. Particle physics has affected the philosophy of science greatly. Some particle p hysicists adhere to reductionism, a point of view that has been criticized and defended by philosophers and scientis ts.[1][2][3][4] Other physicists may defend the philosophy of holism, which has commonly been viewed to be reductioni sm's opposite.[5] History The idea that all matter is composed of elementary particles dates to at least t he 6th century BC. The philosophical doctrine of atomism and the nature of elementary particles were studied by ancie nt Greek philosophers such as Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus; ancient Indian philosophers such as Kanada, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti; medieval scientists such as Alhazen, Avicenna, and Algazel; and early modern Eur opean physicists such as Pierre Gassendi, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton. The particle theory of light was also proposed by Alhazen, Avicenna, Gassendi, and Newton. These early ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than experimentation and empirical observation. Particle physics 82 In the 19th century, John Dalton, through his work on stoichiometry, concluded t hat each element of nature was composed of a single, unique type of particle. Dalton and his contemporaries bel ieved these were the fundamental particles of nature and thus named them atoms, after the Greek word atomos, mean ing "indivisible". However, near the end of the century, physicists discovered that atoms are not, in fact, the f undamental particles of nature, but conglomerates of even smaller particles. The early 20th-century explorations of nuclear physics and quantum physics culminated in proofs of nuclear fission in 1939 by Lise Meitner (based on experi ments by Otto Hahn), and nuclear fusion by Hans Bethe in the same year. These discoveries gave rise to an active industry of generating one atom from another, even rendering possible (although not profitable) the transmutation of

lead into gold (alchemy). They also led to the development of nuclear weapons. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a bew ildering variety of particles were found in scattering experiments. This was referred to as the "particle zoo". Thi s term was deprecated after the formulation of the Standard Model during the 1970s in which the large number of particles was explained as combinations of a (relatively) small number of fundamental particles. Standard Model The very current state of the classification of elementary particles is the Stan dard Model. It describes the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental interactions, using mediating gauge bosons . The species of gauge bosons are the gluons, W-, W+ and Z bosons, and the photons. The model also contains 24 fun damental particles, (12 particles and their associated anti-particles), which are the constituents of matter[6] . Finally, it predicts the existence of a type of boson known as the Higgs boson, which is yet to be discovered. Experimental laboratories In particle physics, the major international laboratories are: Brookhaven National Laboratory (Long Island, United States). Its main facility i s the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which collides heavy ions such as gold ions and polarized proto ns. It is the world's first heavy ion collider, and the world's only polarized proton collider. Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (Novosibirsk, Russia). Its main projects are now the electron-positron colliders VEPP-2000 [7], operated since 2006, and VEPP-4 [8], started experiment s in 1994. Earlier facilities include the first electron-electron beam-beam collider VEP-1, which conducted ex periments from 1964 to 1968; the electron-positron colliders VEPP-2, operated from 1965 to 1974; and its succ essor VEPP-2M [9], performed experiments in 1974-2000. CERN, (Franco-Swiss border, near Geneva). Its main project is now the Large Hadr on Collider (LHC), which had its first beam circulation on 10 September 2008, and is now the world's most ene rgetic collider of protons. It will also be the most energetic collider of heavy ions when it begins colliding lead ions in 2010. Earlier facilities include the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP), which was stopped in 2001 and then dismantled to give way for LHC; and the Super Proton Synchrotron, which is being reused as a pre-accele rator for LHC. DESY (Hamburg, Germany). Its main facility is the Hadron Elektron Ring Anlage (H ERA), which collides electrons and positrons with protons. Fermilab, (Batavia, United States). Its main facility is the Tevatron, which col lides protons and antiprotons and was the highest-energy particle collider in the world until the Large Hadron Col lider surpassed it on 29 November 2009. KEK, (Tsukuba, Japan). It is the home of a number of experiments such as the K2K experiment, a neutrino oscillation experiment and Belle, an experiment measuring the CP violation of B mesons. Many other particle accelerators exist. The techniques required to do modern experimental particle physics are quite var ied and complex, constituting a sub-specialty nearly completely distinct from the theoretical side of the field.

Particle physics 83 Theory Theoretical particle physics attempts to develop the models, theoretical framewo rk, and mathematical tools to understand current experiments and make predictions for future experiments. See also theoretical physics. There are several major interrelated efforts in theoretical particle physics today. One im portant branch attempts to better understand the Standard Model and its tests. By extracting the parameters of the Standard Model from experiments with less uncertainty, this work probes the limits of the Standard Model and the refore expands our understanding of nature's building blocks. These efforts are made challenging by the difficulty o f calculating quantities in quantum chromodynamics. Some theorists working in this area refer to themselves as pheno menologists and may use the tools of quantum field theory and effective field theory. Others make use of lat tice field theory and call themselves lattice theorists. Another major effort is in model building where model builders develop ideas for what physics may lie beyond the Standard Model (at higher energies or smaller distances). This work is often mot ivated by the hierarchy problem and is constrained by existing experimental data. It may involve work on supersymmet ry, alternatives to the Higgs mechanism, extra spatial dimensions (such as the Randall-Sundrum models), Preon theory, combinations of these, or other ideas. A third major effort in theoretical particle physics is string theory. String th eorists attempt to construct a unified description of quantum mechanics and general relativity by building a theory bas ed on small strings, and branes rather than particles. If the theory is successful, it may be considered a "Theo ry of Everything". There are also other areas of work in theoretical particle physics ranging from particle cosmology to loop quantum gravity. This division of efforts in particle physics is reflected in the names of catego ries on the arXiv, a preprint archive [10]: hep-th (theory), hep-ph (phenomenology), hep-ex (experiments), hep-lat (la ttice gauge theory). Practical applications As generations build upon others, potential applications increase in the use of particle physics technology. In 1930, the first hand-held cyclotron was built at Berkeley, California by Ernest O. Law rence. More powerful accelerators were built soon after. The Berkeley cyclotron was later used to produce medical isotopes for research and treatment. The first application of this technology in the treatment of cancer was by Lawre nce himself with his own mother as a patient. Medical science now uses particle beams in life saving technologies. This technology is also used in the superconducting of wires and cables. This is used for magneticic resonance, imaging magnets and ultimately the World Wide Web. Less known uses also include behavioral study of fluids and motions. Additional applications are found in medicine, homeland security, industry, comp uting, science, and workforce development illustrate a long and growing list of beneficial practical applicati ons with contributions from particle

physics.[11] Future The overarching goal, which is pursued in several distinct ways, is to find and understand what physics may lie beyond the standard model. There are several powerful experimental reasons to ex pect new physics, including dark matter and neutrino mass. There are also theoretical hints that this new physics should be found at accessible energy scales. Furthermore, there may be unexpected and unpredicted surprises that will give us the most opportunity to learn about nature. Much of the efforts to find this new physics are focused on new collider experim ents. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was completed in 2008 to help continue the search for the Higgs boson, sup ersymmetric particles, and other Particle physics 84 new physics. An intermediate goal is the construction of the International Linea r Collider (ILC), which will complement the LHC by allowing more precise measurements of the properties of ne wly found particles. In August 2004, a decision for the technology of the ILC was taken but the site has still to be agreed upon. In addition, there are important non-collider experiments that also attempt to f ind and understand physics beyond the Standard Model. One important non-collider effort is the determination of the ne utrino masses, since these masses may arise from neutrinos mixing with very heavy particles. In addition, cosmolog ical observations provide many useful constraints on the dark matter, although it may be impossible to determin e the exact nature of the dark matter without the colliders. Finally, lower bounds on the very long lifetime of the pr oton put constraints on Grand Unified Theories at energy scales much higher than collider experiments will be able to probe any time soon. References [1] "Review of particle physics" (http:/ / pdg. lbl. gov/ ). . [2] "Particle Physics News and Resources" (http:/ / www. interactions. org/ ). . [3] "CERN Courier - International Journal of High-Energy Physics" (http:/ / cern courier. com). . [4] "Particle physics in 60 seconds" (http:/ / www. symmetrymagazine. org/ cms/ ?pid=1000345). . [5] "Quantum Holism" (http:/ / www. bu. edu/ wcp/ Papers/ Scie/ ScieTsek. htm). . [6] Nakamura, K (1 July 2010). "Review of Particle Physics". Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 37 (7A): 075021. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7A/075021. [7] http:/ / vepp2k. inp. nsk. su/ [8] http:/ / v4. inp. nsk. su/ index. en. html [9] http:/ / www. inp. nsk. su/ activity/ old/ vepp2m/ index. ru. shtml [10] http:/ / www. arxiv. org [11] http:/ / www. fnal. gov/ pub/ science/ benefits/ Further reading General readers Frank Close (2004) Particle Physics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Universit y Press. ISBN 0-19-280434-0. Close, Frank; Marten, Michael; Sutton, Christine (2004). The particle odyssey: a journey to the heart of the matter (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=PX87qqj5B2UC& dq=rolf+ wideroe,+ l awrence& source=gbs_navlinks_s). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198609438.

Ford, Kenneth W. (2005) The Quantum World. Harvard Univ. Press. Oerter, Robert (2006) The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the U nsung Triumph of Modern Physics. Plume. Schumm, Bruce A. (2004) Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Ph ysics. John Hopkins Univ. Press. ISBN 0-8018-7971-X. Riazuddin, PhD. "An Overview of Particle Physics and Cosmology" (http:/ / indico . ncp. edu. pk/ indico/ getFile. py/ access?sessionId=0& resId=0& materialId=0& confId=10). NCP Journal of Physic s (Dr. Professor Riazuddin, High Energy Theory Group, and senior scientist at the National Center for Nuclea r Physics) 1 (1): 50. Particle physics 85 Gentle texts Frank Close (2006) The New Cosmic Onion. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 1-58488-798-2. Harder A survey article: Robinson, Matthew B., Gerald Cleaver, and J. R. Dittmann (2008) "A Simple Introd uction to Particle Physics" Part 1, 135pp. (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0810. 3328v1) and Part 2, nnnpp. (http :/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0908. 1395v1) Baylor University Dept. of Physics. Texts: Griffiths, David J. (1987). Introduction to Elementary Particles. Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-60386-4. Kane, Gordon L. (1987). Modern Elementary Particle Physics. Perseus Books. ISBN 0-201-11749-5. Perkins, Donald H. (1999). Introduction to High Energy Physics. Cambridge Univer sity Press. ISBN 0-521-62196-8. Povh, Bogdan (1995). Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Physical Conce pts. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-59439-6. Boyarkin, Oleg (2011). Advanced Particle Physics Two-Volume Set. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4398-0412-4. External links The Particle Adventure (http:/ / particleadventure. org/ ) - educational project sponsored by the Particle Data Group of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) symmetry magazine (http:/ / www. symmetrymagazine. org) Particle physics it matters (http:/ / www. iop. org/ publications/ iop/ 2009/ pa ge_38211. html) - the Institute of Physics Nobes, Matthew (2002) "Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics" o n Kuro5hin: Part 1, (http:/ / www. kuro5hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 5/ 1/ 3712/ 31700) Part 2, (http:/ / www. kuro5 hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 5/ 14/ 19363/ 8142) Part 3a, (http:/ / www. kuro5hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 7/ 15/ 173318/ 784) Part 3b. (http:/ / www. kuro5hin. org/ story/ 2002/ 8/ 21/ 195035/ 576) CERN (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ ) - European Organization for Nucl ear Research Fermilab (http:/ / www. fnal. gov/ ) Superpartner 86 Superpartner In particle physics, a superpartner (also sparticle) is a hypothetical elementar y particle. Supersymmetry is one of the synergistic theories in current high-energy physics which predicts the exist ence of these "shadow" particles.[1][2]

The word superpartner is a portmanteau of the words supersymmetry and partner (s particle is a portmanteau of supersymmetry and particle). Theoretical predictions According to the supersymmetry theory, each fermion should have a partner boson, the fermion's superpartner and each boson should have a partner fermion. Exact unbroken supersymmetry would pre dict that a particle and its superpartners would have the same mass. No superpartners of the Standard Model p articles have yet been found. This may indicate that supersymmetry is incorrect, or it may also be the result of the fact that supersymmetry is not an exact, unbroken symmetry of nature. If superpartners are found, its mass woul d determine the scale at which supersymmetry is broken.[1][3] For particles that are real scalars (such as an axion), there is a fermion super partner as well as a second, real scalar field. For axions, these particles are often referred to as axinos and saxions. In extended supersymmetry there may be more than one superparticle for a given p article. For instance, with two copies of supersymmetry in four dimensions, a photon would have two fermion supe rpartners and a scalar superpartner. In zero dimensions (often known as matrix mechanics), it is possible to have sup ersymmetry, but no superpartners. However, this is the only situation where supersymmetry does not imply the exist ence of superpartners. Recreating superpartners If the supersymmetry theory is correct, it should be possible to recreate these particles in high-energy particle accelerators. Doing so will not be an easy task; these particles may have masses up to a thousand times greater than their corresponding "real" particles.[1] Until recently, colliders did not have the power to create these supermassive pa rticles, but the newly built Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland and France will be able to achieve collis ions in the 14 TeV (tera-electron-volt) range, which may be adequate to determine if these superpar tner particles exist.[1] References [1] Langacker, Paul (November 22, 2010). Sprouse, Gene D.. ed. "Meet a superpart ner at the LHC" (http:/ / wikiwix. com/ cache/ ?url=http:/ / physics. aps. org/ articles/ v3/ 98). Physics (New York: American Physical Socie ty) 3 (98). Bibcode 2010PhyOJ...3...98L. doi:10.1103/Physics.3.98. ISSN 1943-2879. OCLC 233971234. Archived from the orig inal (http:/ / physics. aps. org/ articles/ v3/ 98) on 2011-02-22. . Retrieved 21 February 2011. [2] Overbye, Dennis (May 15, 2007). "A Giant Takes On Physics Biggest Questions" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2007/ 05/ 15/ science/ 15cern. html?_r=1& pagewanted=all). The New York Times (Manhattan, New York: Art hur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.): p. F1. ISSN 0362-4331. OCLC 1645522. . Retrieved 21 February 2011. [3] Quigg, Chris (January 17, 2008). "Sidebar: Solving the Higgs Puzzle" (http:/ / wikiwix. com/ cache/ ?url=http:/ / www. scientificamerican. com/ article. cfm?id=solving-the-higgs-puzzle). Scientific American (Nature Publ ishing Group). ISSN 0036-8733. OCLC 1775222. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. scientificamerican. com/ article. cfm?id=solvin g-the-higgs-puzzle) on 2011-02-22. . Retrieved 21 February 2011. Superpartner 87

External links Argonne National Laboratory (http:/ / www. anl. gov/ OPA/ Frontiers2000/ b5excel l. html) Large Hadron Collider (https:/ / edms. cern. ch/ cedar/ plsql/ cedarw. site_home ) CERN homepage (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ ) Supersymmetry In particle physics, supersymmetry (often abbreviated SUSY) is a symmetry that r elates elementary particles of one spin to other particles that differ by half a unit of spin and are known as supe rpartners. In a theory with unbroken supersymmetry, for every type of boson there exists a corresponding type of ferm ion with the same mass and internal quantum numbers, and vice-versa. There is no direct evidence for the existence of supersymmetry.[1] It is motivat ed by possible solutions to several theoretical problems. Since the superpartners of the Standard Model particles ha ve not been observed, supersymmetry, if it exists, must be a broken symmetry, allowing the superpartic les to be heavier than the corresponding Standard Model particles. If supersymmetry exists close to the TeV energy scale, it allows for a solution of the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model, i.e., the fact that the Higgs boson mass is subject to quantum c orrections which barring extremely fine-tuned cancellations among independent contributions would make it so large as to undermine the internal consistency of the theory. In supersymmetric theories, on the other han d, the contributions to the quantum corrections coming from Standard Model particles are naturally canceled by the c ontributions of the corresponding superpartners. Other attractive features of TeV-scale supersymmetry are the fact that it allows for the high-energy unification of the weak interactions, the strong interactions and electromagneti sm, and the fact that it provides a candidate for dark matter and a natural mechanism for electroweak symmetry break ing. Therefore, scenarios where supersymmetric partners appear with masses not much greater than 1 TeV are consi dered the most well-motivated by theorists[2]. These scenarios would imply that experimental traces of the superp artners should begin to emerge in high-energy collisions at the LHC relatively soon. As of September 2011, no mean ingful signs of the superpartners have been observed[3][4], which is beginning to significantly constrain the most popular incarnations of supersymmetry. However, the total parameter space of consistent supersymmetric e xtensions of the Standard Model is extremely diverse and can not be definitively ruled out at the LHC. Another theoretically appealing property of supersymmetry is that it offers the only "loophole" to the Coleman Mandula theorem, which prohibits spacetime and internal symmetries from be ing combined in any nontrivial way, for quantum field theories like the Standard Model under very ge neral assumptions. The Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem demonstrates that supersymmetry is the only way spacetime and internal symmetries can be consistently combined.[5] In general, supersymmetric quantum field theory is often much easier to work wit h, as many more problems become exactly solvable. Supersymmetry is also a feature of most versions of string the

ory, though it may exist in nature even if string theory is incorrect. The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model is one of the best studied candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model. Theories of gravity that are also invariant under supersymmetry are known as supergravity theories. Supersymmetry 88 History A supersymmetry relating mesons and baryons was first proposed, in the context o f hadronic physics, by Hironari Miyazawa in 1966, but his work was ignored at the time.[6][7][8][9] In the early 1970s, J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita (in 1971), Yu. A. Golfand and E.P. Likhtman (also in 1971), D.V. Volkov and V.P. Aku lov (in 1972) and J. Wess and B. Zumino (in 1974) independently rediscovered supersymmetry, a radically new ty pe of symmetry of spacetime and fundamental fields, which establishes a relationship between elementary particle s of different quantum nature, bosons and fermions, and unifies spacetime and internal symmetries of the micros copic world. Supersymmetry first arose in 1971 in the context of an early version of string theory by Pierre Ramo nd, John H. Schwarz and Andre Neveu, but the mathematical structure of supersymmetry has subsequently been app lied successfully to other areas of physics; firstly by Wess, Zumino, and Abdus Salam and their fellow researcher s to particle physics, and later to a variety of fields, ranging from quantum mechanics to statistical physics. It rem ains a vital part of many proposed theories of physics. The first realistic supersymmetric version of the Standard Model was proposed in 1981 by Howard Georgi and Savas Dimopoulos and is called the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model or MSSM for s hort. It was proposed to solve the hierarchy problem and predicts superpartners with masses between 100 GeV and 1 TeV. As of 2009 there is no irrefutable experimental evidence that supersymmetry is a symmetry of nature. Si nce 2010, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is producing the world's highest energy collisions and offers t he best chance at discovering superparticles for the foreseeable future. Applications Extension of possible symmetry groups One reason that physicists explored supersymmetry is because it offers an extens ion to the more familiar symmetries of quantum field theory. These symmetries are grouped into the Poincar group and internal symmetries and the Coleman Mandula theorem showed that under certain assumptions, the symmetries of t he S-matrix must be a direct product of the Poincar group with a compact internal symmetry group or if there i s no mass gap, the conformal group with a compact internal symmetry group. In 1971 Golfand and Likhtman were the first to show that the Poincar algebra can be extended through introduction of four anticommuting spinor generators (in four dimensions), which later became known as supercharges. In 1975 the Haag-Lopuszan ski-Sohnius theorem analyzed all possible superalgebras in the general form, including those with an extended number of the supergenerators and central charges. This extended super-Poincar algebra paved the way for obtaining a very large and important class

of supersymmetric field theories. The supersymmetry algebra Traditional symmetries in physics are generated by objects that transform under the tensor representations of the Poincar group and internal symmetries. Supersymmetries, on the other hand, are ge nerated by objects that transform under the spinor representations. According to the spin-statistics theorem, boso nic fields commute while fermionic fields anticommute. Combining the two kinds of fields into a single algebra requ ires the introduction of a Z 2-grading under which the bosons are the even elements and the fermions are the odd elemen ts. Such an algebra is called a Lie superalgebra. The simplest supersymmetric extension of the Poincar algebra is the Super-Poincar algebra. Expressed in terms of two Weyl spinors, has the following anti-commutation relation: and all other anti-commutation relations between the Qs and commutation relation s between the Qs and Ps vanish. In the above expression are the generators of translation and are the Pauli matrice s. Supersymmetry 89 There are representations of a Lie superalgebra that are analogous to representa tions of a Lie algebra. Each Lie algebra has an associated Lie group and a Lie superalgebra can sometimes be exte nded into representations of a Lie supergroup. The Supersymmetric Standard Model Incorporating supersymmetry into the Standard Model requires doubling the number of particles since there is no way that any of the particles in the Standard Model can be superpartners of each other. With the addition of new particles, there are many possible new interactions. The simplest possible super symmetric model consistent with the Standard Model is the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) which can inc lude the necessary additional new particles that are able to be superpartners of those in the Stand ard Model. Cancellation of the Higgs boson quadratic mass renormalization between fermionic top quark loop and scalar stop squark tadpole Feynman diagrams in a supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model One of the main motivations for SUSY comes from the quadratically divergent contributions to the Higgs mass squared. The quantum mechanical interactions of the Higgs boson causes a large renormalization of the Higgs mass and unless there is an accidental cancellation, the natural size of the Higgs mass is the highest scale possible. This problem is known as the hierarchy problem. Supersymmetry reduces the size of the quantum corrections by having automatic cancellations between fermionic and bosonic Higgs interactions. If supersymmetry is restored at the weak scale, then the Higgs mass is related to supersymmetry breaking which can be induced from small non-perturbative effects explaining the vastly different scales in the weak interactions and gravitational interactions.

In many supersymmetric Standard Models there is a heavy stable particle (such as neutralino) which could serve as a Weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter candidate. The existence of a supersymmetric dark matter candidate is closely tied to R-parity. The standard paradigm for incorporating supersymmetry into a realistic theory is to have the underlying dynamics of the theory be supersymmetric, but the ground state of the theory does not respec t the symmetry and supersymmetry is broken spontaneously. The supersymmetry break can not be done permanently by the particles of the MSSM as they currently appear. This means that there is a new sector of the theory that is responsible for the breaking. The only constraint on this new sector is that it must break supersymmetry permanent ly and must give superparticles TeV scale masses. There are many models that can do this and most of their details d o not currently matter. In order to parameterize the relevant features of supersymmetry breaking, arbitrary soft SUS Y breaking terms are added to the theory which temporarily break SUSY explicitly but could never arise from a comp lete theory of supersymmetry breaking. Supersymmetry 90 Gauge Coupling Unification One piece of evidence for supersymmetry existing is gauge coupling unification. The renormalization group evolution of the three gauge coupling constants of the Standard Model is somewha t sensitive to the present particle content of the theory. These coupling constants do not quite meet together at a common energy scale if we run the renormalization group using the Standard Model.[1] With the addition of minimal SUSY joint convergence of the coupling constants is projected at approximately 1016 GeV.[1] Supersymmetric quantum mechanics Supersymmetric quantum mechanics adds the SUSY superalgebra to quantum mechanics as opposed to quantum field theory. Supersymmetric quantum mechanics often comes up when studying the dynamics of supersymmetric solitons and due to the simplified nature of having fields only functions of tim e (rather than space-time), a great deal of progress has been made in this subject and is now studied in its own right. SUSY quantum mechanics involves pairs of Hamiltonians which share a particular m athematical relationship, which are called partner Hamiltonians. (The potential energy terms which occur in the Hamiltonians are then called partner potentials.) An introductory theorem shows that for every eigenstate of one Hamiltonian, its partner Hamiltonian has a corresponding eigenstate with the same energy. This fact can b e exploited to deduce many properties of the eigenstate spectrum. It is analogous to the original descripti on of SUSY, which referred to bosons and fermions. We can imagine a "bosonic Hamiltonian", whose eigenstates are the various bosons of our theory. The SUSY partner of this Hamiltonian would be "fermionic", and its eigenstates would be the theory's fermions. Each boson would have a fermionic partner of equal energy. SUSY concepts have provided useful extensions to the WKB approximation. In addit ion, SUSY has been applied to non-quantum statistical mechanics through the Fokker-Planck equation. Mathematics

SUSY is also sometimes studied mathematically for its intrinsic properties. This is because it describes complex fields satisfying a property known as holomorphy, which allows holomorphic quant ities to be exactly computed. This makes supersymmetric models useful toy models of more realistic theories. A prime example of this has been the demonstration of S-duality in four-dimensional gauge theories that interchan ges particles and monopoles. General supersymmetry Supersymmetry appears in many different contexts in theoretical physics that are closely related. It is possible to have multiple supersymmetries and also have supersymmetric extra dimensions. Extended supersymmetry It is possible to have more than one kind of supersymmetry transformation. Theor ies with more than one supersymmetry transformation are known as extended supersymmetric theories. The more supersymmetry a theory has, the more constrained the field content and interactions are. Typically the number of copies of a supersymmetry is a power of 2, i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8. In four dimensions, a spinor has four degrees of freedom and thus the minimal number of supersymmetry generators is four in four dimensions and having eight copies o f supersymmetry means that there are 32 supersymmetry generators. The maximal number of supersymmetry generators possible is 32. Theories with mor e than 32 supersymmetry generators automatically have massless fields with spin greater than 2. It is no t known how to make massless fields with spin greater than two interact, so the maximal number of supersymmetry gene rators considered is 32. This corresponds to an N = 8 supersymmetry theory. Theories with 32 supersymmetries a utomatically have a graviton. Supersymmetry 91 In four dimensions there are the following theories, with the corresponding mult iplets[10](CPT adds a copy, whenever they are not invariant under such symmetry) N = 1 Chiral multiplet: (0,1/ 2) Vector multiplet: (1/ 2,1) Gravitino multiplet: (1,3/ 2) Graviton multiplet: (3/ 2,2) N = 2 hypermultiplet: (-1/ 2,02,1/ 2) vector multiplet: (0,1/ 2 2,1) supergravity multiplet: (1,3/ 2 2,2) N = 4 Vector multiplet: (-1,-1/ 2 4,06,1/ 2 4,1) Supergravity multiplet: (0,1/ 2 4,16,3/ 2 4,2)

N = 8 Supergravity multiplet: (-2,-3/ 2 8,-128,-1/ 2 56,070,1/ 2 56,128,3/ 2 8,2) Supersymmetry in alternate numbers of dimensions It is possible to have supersymmetry in dimensions other than four. Because the properties of spinors change drastically between different dimensions, each dimension has its characteristic. In d dimensions, the size of spinors is roughly 2d/2 or 2(d - 1)/2. Since the maximum number of supersymmetries is 32, t he greatest number of dimensions in which a supersymmetric theory can exist is eleven. Supersymmetry as a quantum group Supersymmetry can be reinterpreted in the language of noncommutative geometry an d quantum groups. In particular, it involves a mild form of noncommutativity, namely supercommutativi ty. See the main article for more details. Supersymmetry in quantum gravity Supersymmetry is part of a larger enterprise of theoretical physics to unify eve rything we know about the physical world into a single fundamental framework of physical laws, known as the quest f or a Theory of Everything (TOE). A significant part of this larger enterprise is the quest for a theory of quantu m gravity, which would unify the classical theory of general relativity and the Standard Model, which explains th e other three basic forces in physics (electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction), and provid es a palette of fundamental particles upon which all four forces act. Two of the most active approaches to forming a t heory of quantum gravity are string theory and loop quantum gravity (LQG), although in theory, supersymmetry could b e a component of other theoretical approaches as well. For string theory to be consistent, supersymmetry appears to be required at some level (although it may be a strongly broken symmetry). In particle theory, supersymmetry is recognized as a way to st abilize the hierarchy between the unification scale and the electroweak scale (or the Higgs boson mass), and can a lso provide a natural dark matter candidate. String theory also requires extra spatial dimensions which have to be compactified as in Kaluza-Klein theory. Loop quantum gravity (LQG), in its current formulation, predicts no additional s patial dimensions, nor anything else about particle physics. These theories can be formulated in three spatial dimens ions and one dimension of time, although in some LQG theories dimensionality is an emergent property of the theo ry, rather than a fundamental assumption of the theory. Also, LQG is a theory of quantum gravity which does no t require supersymmetry. Lee Smolin, one of the originators of LQG, has proposed that a loop quantum gravity theory incorporating either supersymmetry or extra dimensions, or both, be called "loop quantum gravity II".

If experimental evidence confirms supersymmetry in the form of supersymmetric pa rticles such as the neutralino that is often believed to be the lightest superpartner, some people believe this woul d be a major boost to string theory. Supersymmetry 92 Since supersymmetry is a required component of string theory, any discovered sup ersymmetry would be consistent with string theory. If the Large Hadron Collider and other major particle physic s experiments fail to detect supersymmetric partners or evidence of extra dimensions, many versions of string theory which had predicted certain low mass superpartners to existing particles may need to be significantly revise d. The failure of experiments to discover either supersymmetric partners or extra spatial dimensions, as of 2009, has encouraged loop quantum gravity researchers. Current limits The tightest limits will of course come from direct production at colliders. Bot h the Large Electron Positron Collider and Tevatron had set limits for specific models which have now been exceeded by the Large Hadron Collider. Searches are only applicable for a finite set of tested points because simulatio n using the Monte Carlo method must be made so that limits for that particular model can be calculated. This complic ates matters because different experiments have looked at different sets of points. Some extrapolation between points can be made within particular models but it is difficult to set general limits even for the Minimal Supersymme tric Standard Model. The first mass limits for squarks and gluinos were made at CERN by the UA1 exper iment and the UA2 experiment at the Super Proton Synchrotron. LEP later set very strong limits.[11] In 2006 t hese limits were extended by the D0 experiment[12][13] As of 2009, prior to the launch of the LHC, fits of available data to CMSSM and NUHM1 indicated that squarks and gluinos were most likely to have masses in 500 to 800 GeV range, though values as high as 2.5 TeV were allowed with low probabilities. Neutralinos and sleptons were ex pected to be quite light, with the lightest neutralino and the lightest stau most likely to be found between 100 to 150 GeV.[14] The LHC has now extended the experimental limits and partially excluded these ranges, with no si gn of supersymmetry.[15][16][17][18] Based on the data sample collected by the CMS detector at the LHC through the su mmer of 2011, CMSSM squarks have been excluded up to the mass of 1.1 TeV and gluinos have been excluded up t o 500 GeV.[19] MSSM predicts that the mass of the lightest Higgs boson should not be much highe r than the mass of the Z boson, and, in the absence of fine tuning (with the supersymmetry breaking scale on the order of 1 TeV), should not exceed 130 GeV. Furthermore, for values of the MSSM parameter tan = 3, it predicts Higg s mass below 114 GeV over most of the parameter space.[20] This region of Higgs mass was excluded by LEP b y 2000. As of December 2011, preliminary results from the LHC point towards a possible Higgs with the mass ar ound 125 GeV. This is seen as somewhat problematic for the minimal supersymmetric model, as the value of 125 G eV is relatively large for the model and it considerably constrains the parameter space.[21]

References [1] Gordon L. Kane, The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Scientific Am erican, June 2003, page 60 and The frontiers of physics, special edition, Vol 15, #3, page 8 "Indirect evidence for supersymmetry comes f rom the extrapolation of interactions to high energies." [2] (http:/ / profmattstrassler. com/ articles-and-posts/ lhcposts/ what-do-curr ent-mid-august-2011-lhc-results-imply-about-supersymmetry/ ) [3] ATLAS SUSY search documents (https:/ / twiki. cern. ch/ twiki/ bin/ view/ At lasPublic/ SupersymmetryPublicResults#Early_2011_Data_5_CONF_Notes) [4] CMS SUSY search documents (https:/ / twiki. cern. ch/ twiki/ bin/ view/ CMSP ublic/ PhysicsResultsSUS) [5] R. Haag, J. T. Lopuszanski and M. Sohnius, " All Possible Generators Of Supe rsymmetries Of The S Matrix (http:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science/ article/ B6TVC-4718W97-YF/ 1/ bc160d55fb6a0faddac181fcff6871ce)", Nucl. Phys. B 88 (1975) 257 [6] H. Miyazawa (1966). "Baryon Number Changing Currents". Prog. Theor. Phys. 36 (6): 1266 1276. Bibcode 1966PThPh..36.1266M. doi:10.1143/PTP.36.1266. [7] H. Miyazawa (1968). "Spinor Currents and Symmetries of Baryons and Mesons". Phys. Rev. 170 (5): 1586 1590. Bibcode 1968PhRv..170.1586M. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.170.1586. [8] Michio Kaku, Quantum Field Theory, ISBN 0-19-509158-2, pg 663. [9] Peter Freund, Introduction to Supersymmetry, ISBN 0-521-35675-X, pages 26-27 , 138. [10] Polchinski,J. String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond, Appendi x B [11] LEPSUSYWG, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments, Charginos, large m0 LEPS USYWG/01-03.1 Supersymmetry 93 [12] The D0-Collaboration, Search for associated production of charginos and neu tralinos in the trilepton final state using 2.3 $fb^-1$ of data, arXiv:/0901.0646 [hep-ex] [13] The D0 Collaboration, V. Abazov, et al., Search for Squarks and Gluinos in events with jets and missing transverse energy using 2.1 $fb^-1$ of $p\bar{p}$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.96 TeV , arXiv:0712.3805v2 [hep-e x] [14] O. Buchmueller et al.. Likelihood Functions for Supersymmetric Observables in Frequentist Analyses of the CMSSM and NUHM1 (http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ pdf/ 0907. 5568v1. pdf). . [15] Implications of Initial LHC Searches for Supersymmetry (http:/ / www. math. columbia. edu/ ~woit/ wordpress/ ?p=3479) [16] Fine-tuning implications for complementary dark matter and LHC SUSY searche s (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 1101. 4664) [17] What LHC tells about SUSY (http:/ / resonaances. blogspot. com/ 2011/ 02/ w hat-lhc-tells-about-susy. html) [18] Early SUSY searches at the LHC (http:/ / www. hep. ph. ic. ac. uk/ susytalk s/ iop-susytapper. pdf) [19] CMS Collaboration (November 2011). "Search for Supersymmetry at the LHC in Events with Jets and Missing Transverse Energy" (http:/ / physics. aps. org/ featured-article-pdf/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevLett. 107. 221804). Ph ysical Review Letters. . [20] Marcela Carena and Howard E. Haber. Higgs Boson Theory and Phenomenology (h ttp:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-ph/ 0208209v3. pdf). . [21] Patrick Draper et al (December 2011). Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs for t he MSSM and Low-Scale SUSY Breaking (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 1112. 3068v1. pdf). . Further reading A Supersymmetry Primer (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ hep-ph/ 9709356) by S. Martin, 2011

Introduction to Supersymmetry (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-th/ 9612114) By Jos eph D. Lykken, 1996 An Introduction to Supersymmetry (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-ph/ 9611409) By Manuel Drees, 1996 Introduction to Supersymmetry (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-th/ 0101055) By Ade l Bilal, 2001 An Introduction to Global Supersymmetry (http:/ / www. physics. uc. edu/ ~argyre s/ 661/ susy2001. pdf) by Philip Arygres, 2001 Weak Scale Supersymmetry (http:/ / www. cambridge. org/ uk/ catalogue/ catalogue . asp?isbn=0521857864) by Howard Baer and Xerxes Tata, 2006. Cooper, F., A. Khare and U. Sukhatme. "Supersymmetry in Quantum Mechanics." Phys . Rep. 251 (1995) 267-85 (arXiv:hep-th/9405029). Junker, G. Supersymmetric Methods in Quantum and Statistical Physics, Springer-V erlag (1996). Gordon L. Kane.Supersymmetry: Unveiling the Ultimate Laws of Nature Basic Books, New York (2001). ISBN 0-7382-0489-7. Gordon L. Kane and Shifman, M., eds. The Supersymmetric World: The Beginnings of the Theory, World Scientific, Singapore (2000). ISBN 981-02-4522-X. D.V. Volkov, V.P. Akulov, Pisma Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 16 (1972) 621; Phys.Lett. B46 (1973) 109. V.P. Akulov, D.V. Volkov, Teor.Mat.Fiz. 18 (1974) 39. Weinberg, Steven, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 3: Supersymmetry, Cambrid ge University Press, Cambridge, (1999). ISBN 0-521-66000-9. Wess, Julius, and Jonathan Bagger, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Princeton Uni versity Press, Princeton, (1992). ISBN 0-691-02530-4. Bennett GW, et al.; Muon (g-2) Collaboration (2004). "Measurement of the negativ e muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7 ppm". Physical Review Letters 92 (16): 161802. arXiv:hep-ex/040100 8. Bibcode 2004PhRvL..92p1802B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.161802. PMID 15169217. Brookhaven National Laboratory (Jan. 8, 2004). New g-2 measurement deviates furt her from Standard Model (http:/ / www. bnl. gov/ bnlweb/ pubaf/ pr/ 2004/ bnlpr010804. htm). Press Relea se. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Sept 25, 2006). Fermilab's CDF scientists have discovered the quick-change behavior of the B-sub-s meson. (http:/ / www. fnal. gov/ pub/ press pass/ press_releases/ CDF_meson. html) Press Release. Supersymmetry 94 External links What do current LHC results (mid-August 2011) imply about supersymmetry? (http:/ / profmattstrassler. com/ articles-and-posts/ lhcposts/ what-do-current-mid-august-2011-lhc-results-implyabout-supersymmetry/ ) Matt Strassler ATLAS Experiment Supersymmetry search documents (https:/ / twiki. cern. ch/ twik i/ bin/ view/ AtlasPublic/ SupersymmetryPublicResults#Early_2011_Data_5_CONF_Notes) CMS Experiment Supersymmetry search documents (https:/ / twiki. cern. ch/ twiki/ bin/ view/ CMSPublic/ PhysicsResultsSUS) "Particle wobble shakes up supersymmetry" (http:/ / www. cosmosmagazine. com/ no

de/ 714), Cosmos magazine, September 2006 LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot' (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ n ews/ science-environment-14680570) BBC news 27/8/2011 Higgs boson 95 Higgs boson Higgs boson One possible signature of a Higgs boson from a simulated proton-proton collision . It decays almost immediately into two jets of hadrons and two electrons, visible as lines. Composition Elementary particle Statistics Bosonic Status Hypothetical Symbol H0 Theorized F. Englert, R. Brout, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble (1964) Discovered Not yet (as of December 2011); searches ongoing at the LHC Types 1, according to the Standard Model; 5 or more, according to supersymmetric models Mass likely 115 130 GeV/c2[1] Spin 0 The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. It belongs to a class of particles known as bosons, characterized by an integer val ue of their spin quantum number. The Higgs field is a quantum field with a non-zero value that fills all of space, an d explains why fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state. The existence of the Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model to explain h ow spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass.[2] Its discovery would further validate the Standard Model as essentially correct, as it is the only elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not yet been observ ed in particle physics experiments.[3] The Standard Model completely fixes the properties of the Higgs boson, except for its mass. It is expected to have no spin and no electric or color charge, and it interacts with other particles through weak interaction and Yukawa interactions. Alternative sources of the Higgs mechanism that do not need the Higgs boson are also possible and would be considered if the existence of the Higgs boson were ruled out. They are known as Higgsless models. Experiments to determine whether the Higgs boson exists are currently being perf ormed using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until its clos ure in late 2011. Mathematical consistency of the Standard Model requires that any mechanism capable of generat ing the masses of elementary particles become visible at energies above 1.4 TeV;[4] therefore, the LHC (desig ned to collide two 7-TeV proton beams) is expected to be able to answer the question of whether or not the Higgs boson actually exists.[5] In Higgs boson 96 December 2011, Fabiola Gianotti and Guido Tonelli, spokespersons of the two main

experiments at the LHC (ATLAS and CMS) both reported independently that their data hints at a possibili ty the Higgs may exist with a mass around 125 GeV/c2 (about 133 proton masses, on the order of 10-25 kg). They also reported that the original range under investigation has been narrowed down considerably and that a mass outside approximately 115 130 GeV/c2 is almost ruled out.[6] No conclusive answer yet exists, although it is expected th at the LHC will provide sufficient data by the end of 2012 for a definite answer.[1][7][8][9] In the popular media, the particle is sometimes referred to as the God particle, a title generally disliked by the scientific community as media hyperbole that misleads readers.[10] History The six authors of the 1964 PRL papers, who received the 2010 J. J. Sakurai Priz e for their work. From left to right: Kibble, Guralnik, Hagen, Englert, Brout. Right: Higgs. Particle physicists believe matter to be made from fundamental particles whose i nteractions are mediated by exchange particles known as force carriers. At the start of the 1960s a number o f these particles had been discovered or proposed, along with theories suggesting how they relate to each other. Howev er these theories were known to be incomplete. One omission was that they could not explain the origins of mass as a property of matter. Goldstone's theorem, relating to continuous symmetries within some theories, also appeared t o rule out many obvious solutions. The Higgs mechanism is a process by which vector bosons can get rest mass withou t explicitly breaking gauge invariance. The proposal for such a spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism was originally suggested in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson[11] and developed into a full relativistic model in 1964 independently and almost simultaneously by three groups of physicists: by Franois Englert and Robert Brout ;[12] by Peter Higgs;[13] and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble (GHK).[14] Properties of the model were further considered by Guralnik in 1965[15] and by Higgs in 1966.[16] The papers showed that when a gau ge theory is combined with an additional field which spontaneously breaks the symmetry group, the gauge bosons can consistently acquire a finite mass. In 1967, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam were the first to apply the Higgs mechanism to the breaking of the electroweak symmetry, and showed how a Higgs mechanism could be incorporated into Sheldon Glashow's electroweak theory,[17][18][19] in what became the Standard Model of particle ph ysics. The three papers written in 1964 were each recognized as milestone papers during Physical Review Letters's 50th anniversary celebration.[20] Their six authors were also awarded the 2010 J. J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics for this work.[21] (A dispute also arose the same year; in the event of a Nobel Prize up to 3 scientists would be eligible, with 6 authors credited for the papers.[22] ) Two of the three PRL papers (by Higgs and by GHK) contained equations for the hypothetical field that would eventually become know n as the Higgs field and its hypothetical quantum, the Higgs boson. Higgs' subsequent 1966 paper showed the d ecay mechanism of the boson; only a massive boson can decay and the decays can prove the mechanism.

In the paper by Higgs the boson is massive, and in a closing sentence Higgs writ es that "an essential feature" of the theory "is the prediction of incomplete multiplets of scalar and vector bosons". In the paper by GHK the boson is massless and decoupled from the massive states. In reviews dated 2009 and 2011, Guralnik states that in the GHK model the boson is massless only in a lowest-order approximation, but it is not subject to any constraint and acquires mass at higher orders, and adds that the GHK paper was the only one to show that there are no massless Higgs boson 97 Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the model and to give a complete analysis of the gener al Higgs mechanism.[23][24] In addition to explaining how mass is acquired by vector bosons, the Higgs mecha nism also predicts the ratio between the W boson and Z boson masses as well as their couplings with each othe r and with the Standard Model quarks and leptons. Many of these predictions have subsequently been verified by precise measurements performed at the LEP and the SLC colliders, thus overwhelmingly confirming that some kind of Higgs mechanism does take place in nature,[25] but the exact manner by which it happens is not yet proven. The results of searching for the Higgs boson are expected to provide evidence about how this is realized in nature. Theoretical properties Summary of interactions between particles described by the Standard Model. A one-loop Feynman diagram of the first-order correction to the Higgs mass. The Higgs boson couples strongly to the top quark so it might decay into top anti-top quark pairs if it were heavy enough. The Standard Model predicts the existence of a field (called the Higgs field) which has a non-zero amplitude in its ground state; i.e. a non-zero vacuum expectation value. The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry which in turn gives rise to the Higgs mechanism. It is the simplest process capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories. The field can be pictured as a pool of molasses that "sticks" to the otherwise massless fundamental particles that travel through the field, converting them into particles with mass that form (for example) the components of atoms. Its quantum would be a scalar boson, known as the Higgs boson. In the Standard Model, the Higgs field consists of two neutral and two charged component fields. Both of the charged components and one of the neutral fields are Goldstone bosons, which act as the longitudinal third-polarization components of the massive W+, W , and Z bosons. The quantum of the remaining neutral component corresponds to (and is theoretically realized as) the massive Higgs bo son. Since the Higgs field is a scalar field, the Higgs boson has no spin. The Higgs boson is also its own antiparticle and is CP-even, and has zero electric

and colour charge. The Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson. If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck sc ale (1016 TeV). Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based o n unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model. The highest possible mass scale allowed for the Higgs boson (or some other electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism) is 1.4 TeV; beyond this point, the Standard Model becomes in consistent without such a mechanism, because unitarity is violated in certain scattering processes. Higgs boson 98 In theory the mass of the Higgs boson can be estimated indirectly. In the Standa rd Model, the Higgs boson has a number of indirect effects; most notably, Higgs loops result in tiny corrections to masses of W and Z bosons. Precision measurements of electroweak parameters, such as the Fermi constant and masses of W/Z bosons, can be used to constrain the mass of the Higgs. As of July 2011, the precision electrow eak measurements tell us that the mass of the Higgs boson is lower than about 161 GeV/c2 at 95% confidence level ( CL). This upper bound increases to 185 GeV/c2 when including the LEP-2 direct search lower bound of 114.4 GeV/c2 .[25] These indirect constraints rely on the assumption that the Standard Model is correct. It may still be possi ble to discover a Higgs boson above 185 GeV/c2 if it is accompanied by other particles beyond those predicted by the Standard Model. Extensions to the Standard Model including supersymmetry (SUSY) predict the exis tence of families of Higgs bosons, rather than the one Higgs particle of the Standard Model. Among the SUSY models, in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) the Higgs mechanism yields the smallest num ber of Higgs bosons; there are two Higgs doublets, leading to the existence of a quintet of scalar particle s: two CP-even neutral Higgs bosons h0 and H0, a CP-odd neutral Higgs boson A0, and two charged Higgs particles H. Many supersymmetric models predict that the lightest Higgs boson will have a mass only slightly above the c urrent experimental limits, at around 120 GeV/c2 or less. Alternative mechanisms for electroweak symmetry breaking In the years since the Higgs field and boson were proposed, several alternative models have been proposed by which the Higgs mechanism might be realized. The Higgs boson exists in some but not al l theories. For example, it exists in the Standard Model and extensions such as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Mo del yet is not expected to exist in alternative models such as Technicolor. Models which do not include a Higgs f ield or a Higgs boson are known as Higgsless models. In these models, strongly interacting dynamics rather than an additional (Higgs) field produce the non-zero vacuum expectation value that breaks electroweak symmetry. A partial li st of these alternative mechanisms are: Technicolor,[26] a class of models that attempts to mimic the dynamics of the st rong force as a way of breaking electroweak symmetry. Extra dimensional Higgsless models where the role of the Higgs field is played b

y the fifth component of the gauge field.[27] Abbott-Farhi models of composite W and Z vector bosons.[28] Top quark condensate theory in which a fundamental scalar Higgs field is replace d by a composite field composed of the top quark and its antiquark. The braid model of Standard Model particles by Sundance Bilson-Thompson, compati ble with loop quantum gravity and similar theories.[29] A goal of the LHC and Tevatron experiments is to distinguish between these model s and determine if the Higgs boson exists or not. Higgs boson 99 Experimental search Status as of March 2011. Colored sections have been ruled out to the stated conf idence intervals either by indirect measurements and LEP experiments (green) or by Teva tron experiments (orange). Feynman diagrams showing two ways the Higgs boson might be produced at the LHC. Left: two gluons convert to top/anti-top quark pairs, which combine. Right: two quarks emit W or Z bosons, which combine. As of December 2011, the Higgs boson has yet to be confirmed experimentally,[30] despite large efforts invested in accelerator experiments at CERN and Fermilab, and media reports of possible evid ence.[31][32][33] Like other massive particles (e.g. the top quark and W and Z bosons), Higgs boso ns created in particle accelerators decay long before they reach any of the detectors. However, the Standard Model p recisely predicts the possible modes of decay and their probabilities. This allows events in which a Higgs was created to be identified by examining the decay products. Prior to the year 2000, the data gathered at the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) at CERN allowed an experimental lower bound to be set for the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boso n of 114.4 GeV/c2 at the 95% confidence level (CL). The same experiment has produced a small number of events that could be interpreted as resulting from Higgs bosons with a mass just above this cut off around 115 GeV b ut the number of events was insufficient to draw definite conclusions.[34] The LEP was shut down in 2000 due to construction of its successor, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Full operation at the LHC was delayed for 14 months from its initial successful tests on 10 September 2008, until mid-November 2009,[35][36] following a magnet quench event 9 days after its inau gural tests that damaged over 50 superconducting magnets and contaminated the vacuum system.[37] The quench was t raced to a faulty electrical connection and repairs took several months;[38][39] electrical fault detection a nd rapid quench-handling systems were also upgraded. At the Fermilab Tevatron, there were also ongoing experiments searching for the Higgs boson. As of July 2010, combined data from CDF and D experiments at the Tevatron were sufficient to exclu de the Higgs boson in the range 158-175 GeV/c2 at 95% CL.[40][41] Preliminary results as of July 2011 exte nded the excluded region to the range 156-177 GeV/c2 at 95% CL.[42]

Data collection and analysis in search of Higgs intensified from 30 March 2010 w hen the LHC began operating at 3.5 TeV.[43] Preliminary results from the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC a s of July 2011 exclude a Standard Model Higgs boson in the mass range 155-190 GeV/c2[44] and 149-206 GeV/ c2,[45] respectively, at 95% CL. All of the above confidence intervals were derived using the CLs method. Higgs boson 100 As of December 2011 the search has narrowed to the approximate region 115 130 GeV with a specific focus around 125 GeV where both the ATLAS and CMS experiments independently report an excess of events,[1][8][46][47] meaning that a higher than expected number of particle patterns compatible with the decay of a Higgs boson were detected in this energy range. The data is not yet sufficient to show whether or not these excesses are due to background fluctuations (i.e. random chance or other causes), and its statistica l significance is not large enough to draw conclusions yet or even formally to count as an "observation", but the fact that the two independent experiments have shown excesses at around the same mass has led to considerable excitement in the particle physics community.[48] On 22 December 2011, the D Collaboration also reported limitations on the Higgs b oson within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, an extension to the Standard Model. Proton-antipr oton (pp) collisions with a centre-of-mass energy of 1.96 TeV had allowed them to set an upper limit for Hig gs boson production within MSSM ranging from 90 to 300 GeV, and excluding tan > 20 30 for masses of the Higgs boson below 180 GeV (tan is the ratio of the two Higgs doublet vacuum expectation values).[49] On 7 March 2012, the D and CDF Collaborations announced that, after analyzing the full data set from the Tevatron accelerator, they found excesses in their data that might be interprete d as coming from a Higgs boson with a mass in the region of 115 to 135 GeV/c2. The significance of the excesses is q uantified as 2.2 standard deviations, not enough to rule out that they are due to a statistical fluctuation. This new result also extends the range of Higgs-mass values excluded by the Tevatron experiments at 95% CL, which becomes 147-179 GeV/c2.[50][51] It is expected that the LHC will provide sufficient data to either exclude or co nfirm the existence of the Standard Model Higgs boson by the end of 2012.[52] Timeline of experimental evidence All results refer to the Standard Model Higgs boson, unless otherwise stated. Prior to 2000 Large Electron Positron Collider experiments set a lower bound for t he Higgs boson of 114.4 GeV/c2 at the 95% confidence level (CL), with a small number of events aro und 115 GeV.[34] July 2010 data from CDF (Fermilab) and D (Tevatron) experiments exclude the Higgs boson in the range 158 175 GeV/c2 at 95% CL.[40][41] 24 April 2011 media reports 'rumors' of a find;[53] these were debunked by May 2 011.[54] They had not been a hoax, but were based on unofficial, unreviewed results.[55] 24 July 2011 the LHC reported possible signs of the particle, the ATLAS Note con cluding: "In the low mass range (c. 120 140 GeV) an excess of events with a significance of approximately 2.

8 sigma above the background expectation is observed" and the BBC reporting that "interesting part icle events at a mass of between 140 and 145 GeV" were found.[56][57] These findings were repeated shortly therea fter by researchers at the Tevatron with a spokesman stating that: "There are some intriguing things going on around a mass of 140GeV."[56] On 22 August 2011 it was reported that these anomalous results had become insignificant on the inclusion of more data from ATLAS and CMS and that the non-existence of the part icle had been confirmed by LHC collisions to 95% certainty between 145 466 GeV (except for a few small island s around 250 GeV).[58] 23 24 July 2011 Preliminary LHC results exclude the ranges 155 190 GeV/c2 (ATLAS)[44 ] and 149 206 GeV/c2 (CMS)[45] at 95% CL. 27 July 2011 preliminary CDF/D results extend the excluded range to 156 177 GeV/c2 at 95% CL.[42] 18 November 2011 a combined analysis of ATLAS and CMS data further narrowed the window for the allowed values of the Higgs boson mass to 114 141 GeV.[59] 13 December 2011 experimental results were announced from the ATLAS and CMS expe riments, indicating that if the Higgs boson exists, its mass is limited to the range 116 130 GeV (ATLA S) or 115 127 GeV (CMS), with other masses excluded at 95% CL. Observed excesses of events at around 124 GeV (CMS) and 125 126 GeV (ATLAS) are consistent with the presence of a Higgs boson signal, but also consistent with Higgs boson 101 fluctuations in the background. The global statistical significances of the exce sses are 1.9 sigma (CMS) and 2.6 sigma (ATLAS) after correction for the look elsewhere effect.[1][8] As of 13 Dec ember 2011, a combined result is not yet available. 22 December 2011 the D Collaboration also sets limits on Higgs boson masses withi n the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (an extension of the Standard Model), with an uppe r limit for production ranging from 90 to 300 GeV, and excluding tan>20 30 for Higgs boson masses below 18 0 GeV at 95% CL.[49] 7 March 2012 the D and CDF Collaborations announced that they found excesses that might be interpreted as coming from a Higgs boson with a mass in the region of 115 to 135 GeV/c2 in the full sample of data from Tevatron. The significance of the excesses is quantified as 2.2 standard deviati ons, corresponding to a 1 in 250 probability of being due to a statistical fluctuation. This is a lower significa nce, but consistent with and independent of the ATLAS and CMS data at the LHC.[60][61] "The God particle" The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media,[62] aft er the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answe r, What Is the Question?[63][64] While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest,[64] man y scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of Quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak interaction and gravity,

and the ultimate origin of the universe.[62] Lederman said he gave it the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusiv e,"[62][63][65] but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Par ticle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."[6 3] A renaming competition conducted by the science correspondent for the British Gu ardian newspaper chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best from among their submissions: "The bott om of a champagne bottle is in the shape of the Higgs potential and is often used as an illustration in physics lec tures. So it's not an embarrassingly grandiose name, it is memorable, and [it] has some physics connection too."[66] Notes [1] "ATLAS experiment presents latest Higgs search status" (http:/ / www. atlas. ch/ news/ 2011/ status-report-dec-2011. html). CERN. 13 December 2011. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [2] Only 1% of the mass of composite particles, such as the proton and neutron, is due to the Higgs mechanism. The other 99% is due to the strong interaction. [3] Griffiths, David (2008). "12.1 The Higgs Boson". Introduction to Elementary Particles (Second, Revised ed.). Wiley-VCH. p. 403. ISBN 978-3-527-40601-2. "The Higgs particle is the only element in the Standard Model for which there is as yet no compelling experimental evidence." [4] Lee, Benjamin W.; Quigg, C.; Thacker, H. B. (1977). "Weak interactions at ve ry high energies: The role of the Higgs-boson mass". Physical Review D 16 (5): 1519 1531. Bibcode 1977PhRvD..16.1519L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1 519. [5] "Huge $10 billion collider resumes hunt for 'God particle' - CNN.com" (http: / / www. cnn. com/ 2009/ TECH/ 11/ 11/ lhc. large. hadron. collider. beam/ index. html). CNN. 11 November 2009. . Retrieved 4 May 2010. [6] As of 13 December 2011 ATLAS excludes at the 95% confidence level energies o utside 116 130 GeV/c2 and CMS excludes at the 95% confidence level energies outside 115 127 GeV/c2. [7] "Detectors home in on Higgs boson" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ news/ detecto rs-home-in-on-higgs-boson-1. 9632). Nature News. 13 December 2011. . [8] "CMS search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson in LHC data from 2010 and 201 1" (http:/ / cms. web. cern. ch/ news/ cms-search-standard-model-higgs-boson-lhc-data-2010-and-2011). CERN. 13 December 2011. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [9] "ATLAS and CMS experiments present Higgs search status" (http:/ / press. web . cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2011/ PR25. 11E. html). CERN. 13 December 2011. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [10] "The Higgs boson: Why scientists hate that you call it the 'God particle'" (http:/ / news. nationalpost. com/ 2011/ 12/ 14/ the-higgs-boson-why-scientists-hate-that-you-call-it-the-god-particle/ ). Nation al Post. 14 December 2011. . Higgs boson 102 [11] Anderson, P. (1963). "Plasmons, gauge invariance and mass". Physical Review 130: 439. Bibcode 1963PhRv..130..439A. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.130.439. [12] Englert, Franois; Brout, Robert (1964). "Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gau ge Vector Mesons". Physical Review Letters 13 (9): 321 23. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..13..321E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.

[13] Higgs, Peter (1964). "Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons". Ph ysical Review Letters 13 (16): 508 509. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..13..508H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508. [14] Guralnik, Gerald; Hagen, C. R.; Kibble, T. W. B. (1964). "Global Conservati on Laws and Massless Particles". Physical Review Letters 13 (20): 585 587. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..13..585G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585. [15] G.S. Guralnik (2011). "GAUGE INVARIANCE AND THE GOLDSTONE THEOREM 1965 Feld afing talk". Modern Physics Letters A 26 (19): 1381 1392. arXiv:1107.4592v1. Bibcode 2011MPLA...26.1381G. doi:10.1142/S0 217732311036188. [16] Higgs, Peter (1966). "Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Boson s". Physical Review 145 (4): 1156 1163. Bibcode 1966PhRv..145.1156H. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156. [17] S.L. Glashow (1961). "Partial-symmetries of weak interactions". Nuclear Phy sics 22 (4): 579 588. Bibcode 1961NucPh..22..579G. doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2. [18] S. Weinberg (1967). "A Model of Leptons". Physical Review Letters 19 (21): 1264 1266. Bibcode 1967PhRvL..19.1264W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264. [19] A. Salam (1968). N. Svartholm. ed. Elementary Particle Physics: Relativisti c Groups and Analyticity. Eighth Nobel Symposium. Stockholm: Almquvist and Wiksell. pp. 367. [20] Physical Review Letters 50th Anniversary Milestone Papers (http:/ / prl. ap s. org/ 50years/ milestones#1964). Physical Review Letters. . [21] "American Physical Society J. J. Sakurai Prize Winners" (http:/ / www. aps. org/ units/ dpf/ awards/ sakurai. cfm). . [22] Merali, Zeeya (4 August 2010). "Physicists get political over Higgs" (http: / / www. nature. com/ news/ 2010/ 100804/ full/ news. 2010. 390. html). Nature Magazine. . Retrieved 28 December 2011. [23] G.S. Guralnik (2009). "The History of the Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble develo pment of the Theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Gauge Particles". International Journal of Modern Physics A 24 (14): 2601 2627. ar Xiv:0907.3466. Bibcode 2009IJMPA..24.2601G. doi:10.1142/S0217751X09045431. [24] Guralnik (11 October 2011). "Guralnik, G.S. The Beginnings of Spontaneous S ymmetry Breaking in Particle Physics. Proceedings of the DPF-2011 Conference, Providence, RI, 8 13 August 2011". arXiv:1110.2253v1 [physics .hist-ph]. [25] "LEP Electroweak Working Group" (http:/ / lepewwg. web. cern. ch/ LEPEWWG/ ). . [26] S. Dimopoulos and Leonard Susskind (1979). "Mass Without Scalars". Nuclear Physics B 155: 237 252. Bibcode 1979NuPhB.155..237D. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90364-X. [27] C. Csaki and C. Grojean and L. Pilo and J. Terning (2004). "Towards a reali stic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking". Physical Review Letters 92 (10): 101802. arXiv:hep-ph/0308038. Bibcode 2004PhRvL ..92j1802C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.101802. PMID 15089195. [28] L. F. Abbott and E. Farhi (1981). "Are the Weak Interactions Strong?". Phys ics Letters B 101: 69. Bibcode 1981PhLB..101...69A. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90492-5. [29] Bilson-Thompson, Sundance O.; Markopoulou, Fotini; Smolin, Lee (2007). "Qua ntum gravity and the standard model". Class. Quantum Grav. 24 (16): 3975 3993. arXiv:hep-th/0603022. Bibcode 2007CQGra..24.3975B. doi:1 0.1088/0264-9381/24/16/002. [30] Scientists present first bread-and-butter results from LHC collisions (http:/ / www. symmetrymagazine. org/ breaking/ 2010/ 06/ 08/ scientists-present-first-bread-and-butter-results-from-lhc-collisions/ ) Symmetr y Breaking, 8 June 2010 [31] Potential Higgs Boson discovery: " Higgs Boson: Glimpses of the God particl

e. (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ channel/ fundamentals/ mg19325934. 600-higgs-boson-glimpses-of-the-god-particle. html)" New Scientist, 2 March 2007 [32] Rincon, Paul (10 March 2004). "'God particle' may have been seen" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 3546973. stm). BBC News. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [33] Rincon, Paul (14 June 2010). "US experiment hints at 'multiple God particle s'" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ 10313875). BBC News. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [34] W.-M. Yao et al (2006). Searches for Higgs Bosons "Review of Particle Physi cs" (http:/ / pdg. lbl. gov/ 2006/ reviews/ higgs_s055. pdf). Journal of Physics G 33: 1. arXiv:astro-ph/0601168. Bibcode 2006JPhG...33....1Y. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/33/1/001. Searches for Higgs Bosons. [35] "CERN management confirms new LHC restart schedule" (http:/ / press. web. c ern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2009/ PR02. 09E. html). CERN Press Office. 9 February 2009. . Retrieved 10 February 2009. [36] "CERN reports on progress towards LHC restart" (http:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2009/ PR09. 09E. html). CERN Press Office. 19 June 2009. . Retrieved 21 July 2009. [37] "Interim Summary Report on the Analysis of the 19 September 2008 Incident a t the LHC" (https:/ / edms. cern. ch/ file/ 973073/ 1/ Report_on_080919_incident_at_LHC__2_. pdf) (PDF). CERN. 15 October 2008. EDMS 97 3073. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [38] "CERN releases analysis of LHC incident" (http:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ pr ess/ PressReleases/ Releases2008/ PR14. 08E. html) (Press release). CERN Press Office. 16 October 2008. . Retrieved 2009-09-28. [39] "LHC to restart in 2009" (http:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleas es/ Releases2008/ PR17. 08E. html) (Press release). CERN Press Office. 5 December 2008. . Retrieved 8 December 2008. Higgs boson 103 [40] T. Aaltonen (CDF and D Collaborations) (2010). "Combination of Tevatron sear ches for the standard model Higgs boson in the W+Wdecay mode". Physical Review Letters 104 (6). arXiv:1001.4162. Bibcode 2010PhRvL .104f1802A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.061802. [41] "Fermilab experiments narrow allowed mass range for Higgs boson" (http:/ / www. fnal. gov/ pub/ presspass/ press_releases/ Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images. html). Fermilab. 26 July 2010. . Retriev ed 26 July 2010. [42] The CDF & D0 Collaborations (27 July 2011). "Combined CDF and D0 Upper Limi ts on Standard Model Higgs Boson Production with up to 8.6 fb-1 of Data". arXiv:1107.5518 [hep-ex]. [43] "''CERN Bulletin'' Issue No. 18-20/2010 Monday 3 May 2010" (http:/ / cdsweb . cern. ch/ journal/ CERNBulletin/ 2010/ 18/ News Articles/ 1262593?ln=en). Cdsweb.cern.ch. 3 May 2010. . Retrieved 7 December 201 1. [44] "Combined Standard Model Higgs Boson Searches in pp Collisions at root-s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS Experiment at the LHC" (https:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ GROUPS/ PHYSICS/ CONFNOTES/ ATLAS-CONF-2011-112/ ). 24 July 2011. ATLAS-CONF-2011-112. . [45] "Search for standard model Higgs boson in pp collisions at sqrt{s}=7 TeV" ( http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 1370076/ ). 23 July 2011. CMS-PAS-HIG-11-011. . [46] ATLAS Collaboration (2012). "Combined search for the Standard Model Higgs b oson using up to 4.9 fb-1 of pp collision data at s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC". Physics Letters B 710 (1): 49-66. arXiv:120 2.1408. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.044. [47] CMS Collaboration (2012). "Combined results of searches for the standard mo del Higgs boson in pp collisions at s=7 TeV". Physics Letters B 710 (1): 26-48. arXiv:1202.1488. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.064.

[48] LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed' BBC News, 13 December 2011 (http: / / www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ science-environment-16158374) "two experiments at the LHC see hints of the Higgs at the same mass, fuelling huge excitement" ... "the simple fact that both Atlas and CMS seem to be seeing a data spike at the same m ass has been enough to cause enormous excitement in the particle physics community." [49] "Search for Higgs bosons of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in [[ proton|p (http:/ / arxiv. org/ PS_cache/ arxiv/ pdf/ 1112/ 1112. 5431v1. pdf)]-p collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV"]. D Collaboration. 22 December 20 11. . Retrieved 23 December 2011. [50] "Tevatron experiments report latest results in search for Higgs" (http:/ / www. interactions. org/ cms/ ?pid=1031511). 7 March 2012. . [51] Overbye, Dennis (7 March 2012). "Data Hint at Hypothetical Particle, Key to Mass in the Universe" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2012/ 03/ 07/ science/ higgs-boson-may-be-indicated-in-new-data. html). NYT. . Retrieved 7 March 2012. [52] CERN press release #25.11, 13 December 2011 (http:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2011/ PR25. 11E. html) "the statistical significance is not large enough to say anything conclusive. As of t oday what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson. Refined analyses and additional d ata delivered in 2012 by this magnificent machine will definitely give an answer" [53] "Mass hysteria! Science world buzzing over rumours the elusive 'God Particl e' has finally been found- dailymail.co.uk" (http:/ / www. dailymail. co. uk/ sciencetech/ article-1379844/ Science-world-buzzing-rumours-e lusive-God-particle-found. html). Mail Online. 24 April 2011. . Retrieved 24 April 2011. [54] Brumfiel, Geoff (2011). "The collider that cried 'Higgs'". Nature. Bibcode 2011Natur.473..136B. doi:10.1038/473136a. [55] Butterworth, Jon (24 April 2011). "The Guardian, "Rumours of the Higgs at A TLAS"" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ life-and-physics/ 2011/ apr/ 24/ 1?CMP=twt_fd). Guardian. . Retrieved 7 December 2011. [56] Rincon, Paul (24 July 2011). "Higgs boson 'hints' also seen by US lab" (htt p:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ science-environment-14266358). BBC News. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [57] "Combined Standard Model Higgs Boson Searches in pp Collisions at vs = 7 Te V with the ATLAS Experiment at the LHC" (https:/ / atlas. web. cern. ch/ Atlas/ GROUPS/ PHYSICS/ CONFNOTES/ ATLAS-CONF-2011-112/ ATLAS-CON F-2011-112. pdf) ATLAS Note (24 July 2011) (pdf) The ATLAS Collaboration. Retrieved 26 July 2011. [58] Ghosh, Pallab (22 August 2011). "Higgs boson range narrows at European coll ider" (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ science-environment-14596367). BBC News. . Retrieved 13 December 2011. [59] Geoff Brumfiel (18 November 2011). "Higgs hunt enters endgame" (http:/ / ww w. nature. com/ news/ higgs-hunt-enters-endgame-1. 9399). Nature News. . Retrieved 22 November 2011. [60] Higgs boson coming into focus, say scientists (+video) (http:/ / www. csmon itor. com/ Science/ 2012/ 0307/ Higgs-boson-coming-into-focus-say-scientists-video). CSMonitor.com (2012-03-07). Retrieved on 2012-03-09. [61] Lemonick, Michael D.. (2012-02-22) Higgs Boson: Found at Last? (http:/ / ww w. time. com/ time/ health/ article/ 0,8599,2108525,00. html). TIME. Retrieved on 2012-03-09. [62] Ian Sample (29 May 2009). "Anything but the God particle" (http:/ / www. gu ardian. co. uk/ science/ blog/ 2009/ may/ 29/ why-call-it-the-god-particle-higgs-boson-cern-lhc). London: The Guardian. . Retr ieved 24 June 2009.

[63] Leon M. Lederman and Dick Teresi (1993). The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question. Houghton Mifflin Company. [64] Ian Sample (3 March 2009). "Father of the God particle: Portrait of Peter H iggs unveiled" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ blog/ 2009/ mar/ 02/ god-particle-peter-higgs-portrait-lhc). London: The Guardian. . R etrieved 24 June 2009. [65] Alister McGrath, Higgs boson: the particle of faith (http:/ / www. telegrap h. co. uk/ science/ 8956938/ Higgs-boson-the-particle-of-faith. html), The Daily Telegraph, Published 15 December 2011, Retrieved 15 December 20 11. [66] Ian Sample (12 June 2009). "Higgs competition: Crack open the bubbly, the G od particle is dead" (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ science/ blog/ 2009/ jun/ 05/ cern-lhc-god-particle-higgs-boson). The Guardian (London). . Retrieved 4 May 2010. Higgs boson 104 References Further reading G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen and T.W.B. Kibble (1964). "Global Conservation Laws an d Massless Particles". Physical Review Letters 13 (20): 585. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..13..585G. doi:10.1103/P hysRevLett.13.585. G.S. Guralnik (2009). "The History of the Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble development of the Theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Gauge Particles". International Journal of Mod ern Physics A 24 (14): 2601 2627. arXiv:0907.3466. Bibcode 2009IJMPA..24.2601G. doi:10.1142/S0217751X0904 5431. Guralnik, G S; Hagen, C R and Kibble, T W B (1967). Broken Symmetries and the Go ldstone Theorem. Advances in Physics, vol. 2 (http:/ / www. datafilehost. com/ download-7d512618. html) F. Englert and R. Brout (1964). "Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Me sons". Physical Review Letters 13 (9): 321. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..13..321E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321 . P. Higgs (1964). "Broken Symmetries, Massless Particles and Gauge Fields". Physi cs Letters 12 (2): 132. Bibcode 1964PhL....12..132H. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9. P. Higgs (1964). "Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons". Physical Re view Letters 13 (16): 508. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..13..508H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508. P. Higgs (1966). "Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons". Physi cal Review 145 (4): 1156. Bibcode 1966PhRv..145.1156H. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156. Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio (1961). "Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Ba sed on an Analogy with Superconductivity". Physical Review 122: 345 358. Bibcode 1961PhRv..122..345N. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.122.345. J. Goldstone, A. Salam and S. Weinberg (1962). "Broken Symmetries". Physical Rev iew 127 (3): 965. Bibcode 1962PhRv..127..965G. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.127.965. P.W. Anderson (1963). "Plasmons, Gauge Invariance, and Mass". Physical Review 13 0: 439. Bibcode 1963PhRv..130..439A. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.130.439. A. Klein and B.W. Lee (1964). "Does Spontaneous Breakdown of Symmetry Imply Zero -Mass Particles?". Physical Review Letters 12 (10): 266. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..12..266K. doi:10.1103/P hysRevLett.12.266. W. Gilbert (1964). "Broken Symmetries and Massless Particles". Physical Review L

etters 12 (25): 713. Bibcode 1964PhRvL..12..713G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.12.713. External links Hunting the Higgs boson at C.M.S. Experiment, at CERN (http:/ / cms. web. cern. ch/ news/ about-higgs-boson) The Higgs boson (http:/ / www. exploratorium. edu/ origins/ cern/ ideas/ higgs. html)" by the CERN exploratorium. Particle Data Group: Review of searches for Higgs bosons. (http:/ / pdg. lbl. go v/ 2005/ reviews/ contents_sports. html#hyppartetc) The Atom Smashers, a documentary film about the search for the Higgs boson at Fe rmilab. (http:/ / www. 137films. org/ The-Atom-Smashers. aspx) 2001, a spacetime odyssey: proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Michig an Center for Theoretical Physics : Michigan, USA, 21 25 May 2001, (p.86 88) (http:/ / books. google. com/ b ooks?id=ONhnbpq00xIC& pg=PA86& lpg=PA86& dq="+ incomplete+ multiplets+ "& source=bl& ots=qO0OxclPIV& sig=W92Xy2LmoV7U08BdZbyQVH2FN2I& hl=en& sa=X& ei=jg3zTvrsIYKHhQfMv-2uDQ& redir_esc=y#v=onepage& q& f=false), ed. Michael J. Duff, James T. Liu, ISBN 978981-238-231-3, containing Higgs' story of the Higgs Boson. Why the HIggs particle is so important! (http:/ / www. higgsboson. nl) 105 Safety Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider A simulated particle collision in the LHC. The safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) - the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator - was a topic of widespread discussion and topical interest during the time when the LHC was being constructed and commissioned at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva, in Switzerland. Concerns arose that the high energy experiments - designed to produce novel particles and forms of matter - had the potential to create harmful states of matter or even doomsday scenarios. Claims escalated as commissioning of the LHC drew closer, around 2008 - 2010. The claimed dangers included the production of stable micro black holes and the creation of hypothetical particles called strangelets,[1] and these questions were explored in the media, on the Internet and at times through the courts. To address such concerns, CERN mandated a group of independent scientists to rev iew these scenarios. In a report issued in 2003, they concluded that, like current particle experiments such as t he Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the LHC particle collisions pose no conceivable threat.[2] A second revi ew of the evidence commissioned by CERN was released in 2008. The report, prepared by a group of physicists affilia ted to CERN but not involved in the LHC experiments, reaffirmed the safety of the LHC collisions in light of further research conducted since the 2003 assessment.[3][4] It was reviewed and endorsed by a CERN committee of 20 externa l scientists and by the Executive Committee of the Division of Particles & Fields of the American Physical Society ,[5][6] and was later published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Physics G by the UK Institute of Physics, which als

o endorsed its conclusions.[3][7] The report ruled out any doomsday scenario at the LHC, noting that the physical conditions and events that will be created in the LHC experiments occur naturally and routinely in the universe wit hout hazardous consequences.[3] These include ultra-high-energy cosmic rays that are observed impacting Earth wi th energies considerably higher than those reached in any man-made collider. Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 106 Particle accelerator The LHC's CMS detector. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex, intended to collide opposing beams of either protons or lead nuclei with very high kinetic energy.[8][9] It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva, in Switzerland. The LHC's main purpose is to explore the validity and limitations o f the Standard Model, the current theoretical picture for particle physics. The fi rst particle collisions at the LHC took place shortly after startup in November 2009 , at energies up to 1.2 TeV per beam.[10] On 30 March 2010, the first planned collisions took place between two 3.5 TeV beams, which set another new world record for the highest energy man-made particle collisions.[11] Due to problematic connections between the superconducting magnets that guide the beams, the LHC will not run at its designed 7 TeV per beam (14 TeV center-of-mass) until after a long shutdown that is scheduled to begin at the en d of 2012.[12] Safety concerns In the run up to the commissioning of the LHC, Walter L. Wagner (an original opp onent of the RHIC), Luis Sancho (a Spanish science writer) and Otto Rssler (a German biochemist) have expressed c oncerns over the safety of the LHC, and have attempted to halt the beginning of the experiments through petitio ns to the US and European Courts.[13][14][15][16][17] These opponents assert that the LHC experiments have the potential to create low velocity micro black holes that could grow in mass or release dangerous radiation leading to doomsday scenarios, such as the destruction of the Earth.[1][18] Other claimed potential risks include the creat ion of theoretical particles called strangelets, magnetic monopoles and vacuum bubbles.[1][18] Based on such safety concerns, US federal judge Richard Posner,[19] Future of Hu manity Institute research associate Toby Ord[20] and others[21][22][23][24] have argued that the LHC experiments are too risky to undertake. In the book Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century?, Englis h cosmologist and astrophysicist Martin Rees calculated an upper limit of 1 in 50 million for the probability tha t the Large Hadron Collider will produce a global catastrophe or black hole.[14] However, Rees has also reported not to be "losing sleep over the collider," and trusts the scientists who have built it.[25] He has stated: "My b ook has been misquoted in one or two places. I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study."[26] These risk assessments of catastrophic scenarios at the LHC have sparked fears a mong the public,[13] and scientists associated with the project have received protests. The Large Hadron Collider te am revealed that they had received

death threats and threatening emails and phone calls demanding the experiment be halted.[26] On 9 September 2008, Romania's Conservative Party held a protest before the European Commission missi on to Bucharest, demanding that the experiment be halted because it feared that the LHC could create dangerous b lack holes.[27][28] Media coverage of safety concerns The safety concerns regarding the LHC collisions have attracted widespread media attention.[13][29] Various widely circulated newspapers have reported doomsday fears in connection with the collid er, including The Times,[30] The Guardian,[31] The Independent,[32] The Sydney Morning Herald,[33] and Time.[34] Among other media sources, CNN mentioned that "Some have expressed fears that the project could lead to the Ear th's demise,"[35] but it assured its readers with comments from scientists like John Huth, who said that it was "balo ney".[35] MSNBC said that, "there are more serious things to worry about"[36] and allayed fears that "the atom-sma sher might set off earthquakes or Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 107 other dangerous rumblings".[36] The results of an online survey it conducted "in dicate that a lot of [the public] know enough not to panic".[36] The BBC stated, "the scientific consensus appears to b e on the side of CERN's theorists"[37] who say the LHC poses "no conceivable danger".[37] Brian Greene in the New York Times reassured readers by saying, "If a black hole is produced under Geneva, might it swallow Switzerland and continue on a ravenous rampage until the Earth is devoured? It s a reasonable question with a definite an swer: no."[38] The tabloids also covered the safety concerns. The Daily Mail produced headlines such as "Are we all going to die next Wednesday?"[39] and "End of the world postponed as broken Hadron Collider o ut of commission until the spring".[40] The Sun quoted Otto Rssler saying, "The weather will change complete ly, wiping out life. There will be a Biblical Armageddon."[41] After the launch of the collider, it had a story ent itled, "Success! The world hasn't ended".[42] On 10 September 2008, a 16-year-old girl from Sarangpur, Madhya Pradesh, India c ommitted suicide, having become distressed about predictions of an impending "doomsday" made on an Indian news channel (Aaj Tak) covering the LHC.[43] After the dismissal of the federal lawsuit, The Daily Show's correspondent John Oliver interviewed Walter L. Wagner, who declared that he believed the chance of the LHC destroying the Earth to be 50%, since it will either happen or it won't.[44][45] Safety reviews Concerns similar to those for the LHC were raised in connection with the RHIC pa rticle accelerator.[46][47][48][49] After detailed studies, scientists reached such conclusions as "beyond reasonabl e doubt, heavy-ion experiments at RHIC will not endanger our planet"[50] and that there is "powerful empirical evi dence against the possibility of dangerous strangelet production."[51] CERN-commissioned reports Drawing from research performed to assess the safety of the RHIC collisions, the LHC Safety Study Group, a group

of independent scientists, performed a safety analysis of the LHC, and released their findings in the 2003 report Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC. Th e report concluded that there is "no basis for any conceivable threat".[2] Several of its arguments were based on the predicted evaporation of hypothetical micro black holes by Hawking radiation and on the theoretical predi ctions of the Standard Model with regard to the outcome of events to be studied in the LHC. One argument raised ag ainst doomsday fears was that collisions at energies equivalent to and higher than those of the LHC have been happening in nature for billions of years apparently without hazardous effects, as ultra-high-energy cosmic rays imp act Earth's atmosphere and other bodies in the universe.[2] In 2007, CERN mandated a group of five particle physicists not involved in the L HC experiments the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), consisting of John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Ma ngano and Urs Wiedemann, of CERN, and Igor Tkachev, of the Institute for Nuclear Research in Moscow to monit or the latest concerns about the LHC collisions.[4] On 20 June 2008, in light of new experimental data and th eoretical understanding, the LSAG issued a report updating the 2003 safety review, in which they reaffirmed and ex tended its conclusions that "LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern".[3][4] T he LSAG report was then reviewed by CERN s Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), a group of external scientists that advi ses CERN s governing body, its Council.[5][16][52] The report was reviewed and endorsed by a panel of five inde pendent scientists, Peter Braun-Munzinger, Matteo Cavalli-Sforza, Gerard 't Hooft, Bryan Webber and Fabio Zwirner, and their conclusions were unanimously approved by the full 20 members of the SPC.[52] On 5 September 2008, the LSAG's "Review of the safety of LHC collisions" was published in the Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics by the UK Institute of Physics, which endorsed its conclusions in a press release that ann ounced the publication.[3][7] Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 108 Following the July 2008 release of the LSAG safety report,[3] the Executive Comm ittee of the Division of Particles and Fields (DPF) of the American Physical Society, the world's second largest or ganization of physicists, issued a statement approving the LSAG's conclusions and noting that "this report explains why there is nothing to fear from particles created at the LHC".[6] On 1 August 2008, a group of German quantum ph ysicists, the Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET),[53] published an open letter further dismissi ng concerns about the LHC experiments and carrying assurances that they are safe based on the LSAG safety review.[54][55] Other publications On 20 June 2008, Steven Giddings and Michelangelo Mangano issued a research pape r titled the "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes", where they develop a rguments to exclude any risk of dangerous black hole production at the LHC.[56] On 18 August 2008, this safety r eview was published in the Physical Review D,[57] and a commentary article which appeared the same day in t

he journal Physics endorsed Giddings' and Mangano's conclusions.[58] The LSAG report draws heavily on this r esearch.[16] On 9 February 2009, a paper titled "Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios a t the LHC" was published in the journal Physics Letters B.[59] The article, which summarizes proofs aimed at rul ing out any possible black hole disaster at the LHC, relies on a number of new safety arguments as well as certa in arguments already present in Giddings' and Mangano's paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes".[56] Safety arguments Micro black holes Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are f ar too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimen sions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC at a rate of the order of one per second. [60][61][62][63][64] According to the standard calculations these are harmless because they would quickly decay by Haw king radiation.[62] Hawking radiation is a thermal radiation predicted to be emitted by black holes due to q uantum effects. Because Hawking radiation allows black holes to lose mass, black holes that lose more matter tha n they gain through other means are expected to dissipate, shrink, and ultimately vanish. Smaller micro black holes (MBHs), which could be produced at the LHC, are currently predicted by theory to be larger net emitters of radiatio n than larger black holes, and to shrink and dissipate instantly.[65] The LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) indicates th at "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation, but so far no experiment h as had the sensitivity required to find direct evidence for it."[3] According to the LSAG, even if micro black holes were produced by the LHC and we re stable, they would be unable to accrete matter in a manner dangerous for the Earth. They would also have been produced by cosmic rays and have stopped in neutron stars and white dwarfs, and the stability of these astronomic al bodies means that they cannot be dangerous:[3][66] Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral. [...] If sta ble microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those pro duced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dw arf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.[4] Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 109 Strangelets Strangelets are small fragments of strange matter a hypothetical form of quark mat ter that contain roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks and that are more stable than ordinary n uclei (strangelets would range in

size from a few femtometers to a few meters across).[3] If strangelets can actua lly exist, and if they were produced at the LHC, they could conceivably initiate a runaway fusion process in which all t he nuclei in the planet would be converted to strange matter, similar to a strange star.[3] The probability of the creation of strangelets decreases at higher energies.[3] As the LHC operates at higher energies than the RHIC or the heavy ion programs of the 1980s and 1990s, the LHC is less likely to produce strangelets than its predecessors.[3] Furthermore, models indicate that strangelets are only stab le or long-lived at low temperatures. Strangelets are bound at low energies (in the range of 1 10 MeV), while the collis ions in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be illustrated b y the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling water.[3] Specific concerns and responses Otto Rssler, a German chemistry professor at the University of Tbingen, argues tha t micro black holes created in the LHC could grow exponentially.[67][68][69][70][71] On 4 July 2008, Rssler met with a CERN physicist, Rolf Landua, with whom he discussed his safety concerns.[72] Following the meeting, L andua asked another expert, Hermann Nicolai, Director of the Albert Einstein Institute, in Germany, to exami ne Rssler's arguments.[72] Nicolai reviewed Otto Rssler's research paper on the safety of the LHC[68] and issued a s tatement highlighting logical inconsistencies and physical misunderstandings in Rssler's arguments.[73] Nicolai concluded that "this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal."[71][73] Domenico Giulini als o commented with Hermann Nicolai on Otto Rssler's thesis, concluding that "his argument concerns only the General The ory of Relativity (GRT), and makes no logical connection to LHC physics; the argument is not valid; the argum ent is not self-consistent."[74] On 1 August 2008, a group of German physicists, the Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET),[53] published an open letter further dismissing Rssler's concerns and carrying assurances that the LHC is safe.[54][55] Otto Rssler was due to meet Swiss president Pascal Couchepin in August 2008 to discuss this concern,[75] but it was later reported that the meeting had been canceled as it was believed Rssler and his fel low opponents would have used the meeting for their own publicity.[76] On 10 August 2008, Rainer Plaga, a German astrophysicist, posted a research pape r on the arXiv Web archive concluding that LHC safety studies have not definitely ruled out the potential c atastrophic threat from microscopic black holes, including the possible danger from Hawking radiation emitted by bla ck holes.[1][77][78][79] In a follow-up paper posted on the arXiv on 29 August 2008, Steven Giddings and Miche langelo Mangano, the authors of the research paper "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-sca le black holes",[56] responded to Plaga's concerns.[80] They pointed out what they see as a basic inconsistency in Plaga's calculation, and argued that their own conclusions on the safety of the collider, as referred to in the LHC s afety assessment (LSAG) report,[3]

remain robust.[80] Giddings and Mangano also referred to the research paper "Exc lusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC", which relies on a number of new arguments to conclude tha t there is no risk due to mini black holes at the LHC.[1][59] On 19 January 2009 Roberto Casadio, Sergio Fabi and Ben jamin Harms posted on the arXiv a paper, later published on Physical Review D, ruling out the catastrophic growt h of black holes in the scenario considered by Plaga.[81] In reaction to the criticisms, Plaga updated his paper on the arXiv on 26 September 2008 and again on 9 August 2009.[77] So far, Plaga's paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 110 Legal challenges On 21 March 2008, a complaint requesting an injunction to halt the LHC's startup was filed by Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho against CERN and its American collaborators, the US Department o f Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, before the United Stat es District Court for the District of Hawaii.[18][82][83] The plaintiffs demanded an injunction against the LHC's acti vation for 4 months after issuance of the LHC Safety Assessment Group's (LSAG) most recent safety documentation, and a permanent injunction until the LHC can be demonstrated to be reasonably safe within industry standards.[84] The US Federal Court scheduled trial to begin 16 June 2009.[85] The LSAG review, issued on 20 June 2008 after outside review, found "no basis fo r any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced by the LHC".[3] The US Government, in response, called for summary dismissal of the suit against the go vernment defendants as untimely due to the expiration of a six-year statute of limitations (since funding began by 1999 and has essentially been completed already), and also called the hazards claimed by the plaintiffs "overl y speculative and not credible".[86] The Hawaii District Court heard the government's motion to dismiss on 2 Septembe r 2008,[13] and on 26 September the Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction over the LHC project.[87] A subsequent appeal by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Court on 24 August 2010.[88][89] On 26 August 2008, a group of European citizens, led by German biochemist Otto Rs sler, filed a suit against CERN in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.[69] The suit, which was sum marily rejected on the same day, alleged that the Large Hadron Collider posed grave risks for the safety of the 2 7 member states of the European Union and their citizens.[30][34][69] Late in 2009 a review of the legal situation by Eric Johnson, a lawyer, was publ ished in the Tennessee Law Review.[90][91][92] In February 2010 a summary of Johnson's article appeared as an opinion piece in New Scientist.[93] In February 2010, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rej ected an injunction petition to halt the LHC's operation as unfounded, without hearing the case, stating that th e opponents had failed to produce plausible evidence for their theories.[94] A subsequent petition was rejected by

the Administrative Court of Cologne in January 2011.[95] References [1] Boyle, Alan (19 August 2008). " Twists in the Doomsday debate (http:/ / cosm iclog. msnbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 08/ 19/ 1276192. aspx?Ajax_CallBack=true)". Cosmic Log. msnbc.com. [2] Blaizot JP, Iliopoulos J, Madsen J, Ross GG, Sonderegger P, Specht HJ (2003) . Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC (http:/ / doc. cern. ch/ yellowrep/ 2003/ 2003-001/ p1. pd f) (PDF, 176 KiB). CERN. Geneva. CERN-2003-001 (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ search?sysno=002372601cer). [3] Ellis J, [[Gian Francesco Giudice|Giudice G], Mangano ML, Tkachev I, Wiedema nn U (LHC Safety Assessment Group) (5 September 2008). " Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0806. 3414)" (PDF, 586 KiB). ''Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. 35, 115004 (18pp). doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/11/115004. arXiv:0806.3414. CERN record (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 1111112?ln=fr). [4] " The safety of the LHC (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ en/ LHC/ Sa fety-en. html)". CERN 2008 (CERN website). [5] CERN Scientific Policy Committee (2008). SPC Report on LSAG Documents (http: / / indico. cern. ch/ getFile. py/ access?contribId=20& resId=0& materialId=0& confId=35065). CERN record (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ re cord/ 1113558?ln=fr). [6] " Statement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collision s at the Large Hadron Collider (http:/ / www. aps. org/ units/ dpf/ governance/ reports/ upload/ lhc_saftey_statement. pdf)" (PDF, 40 KiB) issu ed by the Division of Particles & Fields (http:/ / www. aps. org/ units/ dpf/ ) (DPF) of the American Physical Society (APS) [7] " LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded (http:/ / www. iop. org/ Medi a/ Press Releases/ press_31275. html)". The Institute of Physics. PR 48 (08). 5 September 2008. LHC: the guide (http:/ / [8] CERN Communication Group (January 2008). " CERN FAQ cdsmedia. cern. ch/ img/ CERN-Brochure-2008-001-Eng. pdf)" (PDF). CERN. Geneva (44p). [9] Achenbach, Joel (1 March 2008). " The God Particle (http:/ / ngm. nationalge ographic. com/ 2008/ 03/ god-particle/ achenbach-text)". National Geographic Magazine. Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 111 [10] CERN press release (2009)" LHC ends 2009 run on a high note. (http:/ / pres s. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2009/ PR20. 09E. html)" [11] "CERN LHC sees high-energy success" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ sci ence/ nature/ 8593780. stm) (Press release). BBC News. 30 March 2010. . Retrieved 2010-03-30. [12] CERN Press Office (31 January 2011). "CERN announces LHC to run in 2012" (h ttp:/ / press. web. cern. ch/ press/ PressReleases/ Releases2011/ PR01. 11E. html). CERN. . [13] Boyle, Alan (2 September 2008). " Courts weigh doomsday claims (http:/ / co smiclog. msnbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 09/ 02/ 1326534. aspx)". Cosmic Log. msnbc.com. [14] " Some fear debut of powerful atom-smasher (http:/ / edition. cnn. com/ 200 8/ TECH/ 06/ 30/ doomsdaycollider. ap/ index. html)" CNN.com. 30 June 2008. [15] Muir, Hazel. (28 March 2008). " Particle smasher 'not a threat to the Earth ' (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ dn13555)". NewScientist.com. [16] Overbye, Dennis (21 June 2008). " Earth Will Survive After All, Physicists Say (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 06/ 21/ science/ 21cernw. html)". The New York Times.

[17] Sancho, Luis (June 2008). " Fear review (http:/ / www. harpers. org/ archiv e/ 2008/ 06/ 0082053)". Harper's Magazine. [18] Boyle, Alan (27 March 2008). " Doomsday Fears Spark Lawsuit (http:/ / cosmi clog. msnbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 03/ 27/ 823924. aspx)". Cosmic Log. msnbc.com. [19] Catastrophe: "Risk and Response"; http:/ / www. bsos. umd. edu/ gvpt/ lpbr/ subpages/ reviews/ posner505. htm [20] Toby Ord, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Anders Sandberg Probing the Improbable: Meth odological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and High Stakes (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0810. 5515v1) (PDF). arXiv:0810.5515 Jour nal of Risk Research, Volume 13, Issue 2 March 2010, pages 191 - 205. [21] Bailey, Ronald (2 September 2008). " A 1-in-1,000 Chance of Gtterdmmerung: Wi ll European physicists destroy the world? (http:/ / www. reason. com/ news/ show/ 128492. html)". Reason Magazine. [22] Crease, Robert P. (May 2005). " Are accelerators dangerous? (http:/ / physi csworldarchive. iop. org/ index. cfm?action=summary& doc=18/ 5/ phwv18i5a24@pwa-xml& qt=)" Physics World. [23] Warner, Gerald (10 September 2008). " We must be wary of scientific researc h (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ opinion/ main. jhtml?xml=/ opinion/ 2008/ 09/ 10/ do1005. xml)". telegraph.co.uk. [24] Deatrick, Sherry R. (May June 2008). " Large Hadron Collider: Cause for ConCE RN or Tempest in a Teapot? (http:/ / www. system-safety. org/ ejss/ past/ mayjune2008ejss/ focus_p1. php)" Journal of System Safety. Vol. 44, No. 3. [25] Overbye, Dennis (15 April 2008). " Gauging a Collider s Odds of Creating a Bl ack Hole (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 04/ 15/ science/ 15risk. html)". The New York Times. [26] Highfield, Roger (5 September 2008). " Scientists get death threats over La rge Hadron Collider (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ earth/ main. jhtml?xml=/ earth/ 2008/ 09/ 05/ scilhc105. xml)". Telegraph.co.uk. [27] " UPDATE: Small Romanian party sparks mockery saying LHC experiment may cre ate tiny black holes and that CERN experiment should be halted (http:/ / english. hotnews. ro/ stiri-top_news-4283851-update-small-romanian-party-sparks-mockery-saying-lhc-exp eriment-may-create-tiny-black-holes-and-that-cern-experiment-should-halted. htm)". Hotnews.ro. 9 septembrie 2008. [28] " Threats Won't Stop Collider (http:/ / www. photonics. com/ content/ news/ 2008/ September/ 9/ 93181. aspx)". Photonics.Com. 9 September 2008. [29] Henderson, Mark (5 September 2008). " The Large Hadron Collider: how the pr ess demeans science (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ comment/ columnists/ guest_contributors/ article4677821. ece)". The Times. [30] Sugden, Joanna (6 September 2008). " Large Hadron Collider will not turn wo rld to goo, promise scientists (http:/ / www. timesonline. co. uk/ tol/ news/ uk/ article4682260. ece)". Times Online. [31] Carus, Felicity (7 September 2008). " Should we be concerned when the world 's largest subatomic particle experiment is switched on in Geneva? (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ news/ blog/ 2008/ sep/ 07/ 1)" guardian .co.uk. [32] Connor, Steve (5 September 2008). " The Big Question: Is our understanding of the Universe about to be transformed? (http:/ / www. independent. co. uk/ news/ science/ the-big-question-is-our-understanding-of-the -universe-about-to-be-transformed-919480. html)". The Independent. [33] " Massive physics experiment on Wednesday (http:/ / news. smh. com. au/ wor ld/ massive-physics-experiment-on-wednesday-20080908-4byr. html)". The Sydney Mornin g Herald. 8 September 2008. [34] Harrell, Eben (4 September 2008). " Collider Triggers End-of-World Fears (h

ttp:/ / www. time. com/ time/ health/ article/ 0,8599,1838947,00. html?imw=Y)". Time.com. [35] Landau, Elizabeth (8 September 2008). " Multibillion-dollar collider to pro be nature's mysteries (http:/ / edition. cnn. com/ 2008/ TECH/ 09/ 08/ lhc. collider/ ?iref=mpstoryview)". CNN. [36] Boyle, Alan (12 September 2008). " Big Bang sparks big reaction (http:/ / c osmiclog. msnbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 09/ 12/ 1386080. aspx)". Cosmic Log. msnbc. [37] Rincon, Paul (23 June 2008). " Earth 'not at risk' from collider (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 1/ hi/ sci/ tech/ 7468966. stm)". BBC News. [38] Greene, Brian (11 September 2008). " The Origins of the Universe: A Crash C ourse (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 09/ 12/ opinion/ 12greene. html?_r=1& pagewanted=1& ref=opinion& oref=slogin)." The New York Time s. Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 112 [39] " Are we all going to die next Wednesday? (http:/ / www. dailymail. co. uk/ sciencetech/ article-1052354/ Are-going-die-Wednesday. html)". Daily Mail. [40] " End of the world postponed as broken Hadron Collider out of commission un til the spring (http:/ / www. dailymail. co. uk/ sciencetech/ article-1058710/ End-world-postponed-broken-Hadron-Collider-commission-spring. h tml)". Daily Mail. 24 September 2008. [41] " Boffins set to cause Big Bang (http:/ / www. thesun. co. uk/ sol/ homepag e/ news/ article1660207. ece)". The Sun. 8 September 2008. [42] " Success! The world hasn't ended (http:/ / www. thesun. co. uk/ sol/ homep age/ news/ article1668971. ece)". The Sun. 10 September 2008. [43] " Girl suicide 'over Big Bang fear' (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ sou th_asia/ 7609631. stm)". BBC News. 11 September 2008. [44] Andersen, Kurt The Genesis 2.0 Project (http:/ / www. vanityfair. com/ cult ure/ features/ 2010/ 01/ hadron-collider-201001) published in Vanity Fair Jan. 2010. p.96 [45] The Daily Show April 30, 2009: Large Hadron Collider (http:/ / www. thedail yshow. com/ watch/ thu-april-30-2009/ large-hadron-collider) [46] Matthews, Robert (28 August 1999). " A Black Hole Ate My Planet (http:/ / w ww. newscientist. com/ article/ mg16322014. 700-a-black-hole-ate-my-planet. html)". New Scientist. [47] Horizon: End Day. BBC. 2005. [48] Wagner, Walter (July 1999). "Black holes at Brookhaven?". (Letters to the E ditors) Scientific American. 281: 8. [49] Wilczek, Frank (July 1999). "Reply to Black holes at Brookhaven by W.L. Wagne r". Scientific American. 281(1): 5. [50] Dar, Arnon; De Rjula, Alvaro; & Heinz, Ulrich (16 December 1999). " Will rel ativistic heavy ion colliders destroy our planet? (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-ph/ 9910471v1)" (PDF). Physics Letters B. 470(1): 142-48. d oi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01307-6. arXiv:hep-ph/9910471. CERN-TH/99-324 (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 479729?ln=fr). [51] Jaffe, Robert L.; Busza, Wit; Sandweiss, Jack; & Wilczek, Frank. (14 July 2 000). " Review of Speculative Disaster Scenarios at RHIC (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-ph/ 9910333v3)" (PDF). Reviews of Modern Physics. 72(4): 1125-140. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1125. arXiv:hep-ph/9910333. MIT-CTP-2908 (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 403566?ln =fr). [52] " CERN Council looks forward to LHC start-up (http:/ / press. web. cern. ch / press/ PressReleases/ Releases2008/ PR05. 08E. html)". PR05.08 (20 June 2008). CERN 2008. [53] Website of the Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET) (http:/ / ww w. ketweb. de/ ) (in German). [54] Hawley, Charles (6 August 2008). " Physicists Allay Fears of the End of the World (http:/ / www. spiegel. de/ international/ world/ 0,1518,570487,00. html)". Spiegel Online.

[55] Mttig, Peter (1 August 2008). " Official statement of the German Committee f or Elementary Particle Physics (KET) (http:/ / www. ketweb. de/ pressemitteilungen/ 20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher. pdf)" (in German) (PDF, 21 KiB). Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET). [56] Giddings, Steven B.; & Mangano, Michelangelo L. (18 August 2008). " Astroph ysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes (http:/ / physics. aps. org/ pdf/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevD. 78. 035009. pdf)" (P DF, 919 KiB). Physical Review D. 78, 035009 (47 pages). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.035009. arXiv:0806.3381v1. CERN-PH-TH/2008-025 (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 1111084?ln=fr). [57] Mgrdichian, Laura (1 September 2008). " Physicists Rule Out the Production of Dangerous Black Holes at the LHC (http:/ / www. physorg. com/ news139467844. html)". PhysOrg.com. [58] Peskin, Michael (18 August 2008). " The end of the world at the Large Hadro n Collider? (http:/ / physics. aps. org/ articles/ v1/ 14)". Physics. 1 (14). American Physical Society. doi:10.1103/Physics.1.14. [59] Koch B, Bleicher M, Stcker H (9 February 2009). Exclusion of black hole disa ster scenarios at the LHC (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0807. 3349v2) (PDF). Physics Letters B. 672 (1): 71 76. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.0 03. arXiv:0807.3349. CERN record (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 1116656) [60] Giddings, Steven B. and Thomas, Scott D. (19 June 2001), " High-energy coll iders as black hole factories: The End of short distance physics (http:/ / arXiv. org/ abs/ hep-ph/ 0106219)" (PDF), arXiv:hep-ph/0106219, "Physi cal Review" D65: 056010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010. [61] Dimopoulos, Savas; & Landsberg, Greg (27 June 2001). " Black Holes at the L HC (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ hep-ph/ 0106295v1)" (PDF), arXiv:hep-ph/0106295v1, Physical Review Letters 87: 161602 (4p). doi:10.1103/Phy sRevLett.87.161602. [62] Barrau, Aurlien; & Grain, Julien (12 November 2004). " The case for mini bla ck holes (http:/ / cerncourier. com/ cws/ article/ cern/ 29199)". CERN Courier. CERN. [63] Panagiota Kanti (2008). "Black Holes at the LHC". Lect.Notes Phys.769:387-4 23,2009 769: 387 423. arXiv:0802.2218. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88460-6_10. [64] Choptuik, M. and Pretorius, F. (17 March 2010) " Ultra Relativistic Particl e Collisions (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0908. 1780v1)" (PDF), Physical Review Letters 104, 111101 (2010) (http:/ / prl. aps. org/ abstract/ PR L/ v104/ i11/ e111101) [65] Cavagli, Marco (29 January 2007). " Particle accelerators as black hole fact ories? (http:/ / www. einstein-online. info/ en/ spotlights/ accelerators_bh/ index. html)". Einstein-Online. Max Planck Institute for Gravit ational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute). [66] Schewe, Phil (9 September 2008). " Mini Black Holes No Danger (http:/ / www . aip. org/ pnu/ 2008/ split/ 871-1. html)". Inside Science Research Physics news update. Number 871 #1. American Institute of Physics. [67] Rssler, Otto (2008). " A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma (http:/ / www. wissensnavigator. com/ documents/ spiritualottoeroessler. pdf)" (PDF, 24 KiB). [68] Rssler, Otto (2008). " Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk (http:/ / www. wissensnavigator. com/ documents/ OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE. pdf)" (PDF, 88 KiB). Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 113 [69] Gray, Richard (9 September 2008). " Legal bid to stop CERN atom smasher fro m destroying the world (http:/ / www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ worldnews/ europe/ 2650665/ Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destr oying-the-world. html)". Telegraph.co.uk.

[70] Patorski, Gregor (10 September 2008). " Grsstes Verbrechen der Menschheit (h ttp:/ / www. 20min. ch/ news/ wissen/ story/ 24668213)" (in German). 20 Minuten. [71] " Publicity fr eine fragwrdige Hypothese (http:/ / www. nzz. ch/ nachrichten/ wissenschaft/ unverstaendnis_fuer_couchepins_dialog_mit_einem_kritiker_des_cern_1. 790605. htm l)" (in German). NZZ Online. 23 July 2008. [72] Schmidt, Von Wolf (7 September 2008). " Der Prophet des Planetentods (http: / / www. taz. de/ 1/ zukunft/ wissen/ artikel/ 1/ der-prophet-des-planetentods/ )" (in German). Taz.de. [73] "Comments from Prof. Dr. Hermann Nicolai, Director, Max Planck-Institut fr G ravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut) Potsdam, Germany on speculations raised by Professor Otto Rssler about the production of b lack holes at the LHC." (July 2008) (http:/ / environmental-impact. web. cern. ch/ environmental-impact/ Objects/ LHCSafety/ N icolaiComment-en. pdf) (PDF, 16 KiB). [74] Giulini, Domenico; and Nicolai, Hermann (August 2008). On the arguments of O.E. Rssler (http:/ / environmental-impact. web. cern. ch/ environmental-impact/ Objects/ LHCSafety/ NicolaiFurtherComment-en. pdf) (PDF, 9 6 KiB). [75] " Couchepin trifft Cern-Kritiker Rssler (http:/ / www. nzz. ch/ nachrichten/ kultur/ literatur_und_kunst/ roessler_schwarze_loecher_cern_couchepin_1. 789024. html)" (in German). NZZ Onli ne. 21 July 2008. [76] " Kein Gesprch zwischen Couchepin und Cern-Kritiker (http:/ / www. nzz. ch/ nachrichten/ wissenschaft/ kein_gespraech_zwischen_couchepin_und_cern-kritiker_1. 810880. html)" (in German ). NZZ Online. 20 August 2008. [77] Plaga, Rainer (10 August 2008). On the potential catastrophic risk from met astable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0808. 1415v3) (PDF). arXiv:0808.1415v3. [78] Clery, Daniel; & Cho, Adrian (5 September 2008). "Large Hadron Collider: Is the LHC a Doomsday Machine?" Science. Vol. 321. no. 5894, p. 1291. doi:10.1126/science.321.5894.1291. [79] Brean, Joseph (9 September 2008). " Is the end nigh? Science experiment cou ld swallow Earth, critics say (http:/ / www. nationalpost. com/ news/ story. html?id=777940& p=1)". National Post. [80] Giddings, Steven B.; & Mangano, Michelangelo L. (29 August 2008). Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes (http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0808. 4087v1) (PDF). arXiv:0808.4087. CERN-PH-TH/2008-184. [81] R. Casadio, S. Fabi and B. Harms Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Gro wth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC (http:/ / prd. aps. org/ abstract/ PRD/ v80/ i8/ e084036) (PDF). [82] Overbye, Dennis (29 March 2008). " Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Ma ybe a Whole Lot More (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 03/ 29/ science/ 29collider. html)". The New York Times. [83] " Sancho v. U.S. Department of Energy et al. (1:2008cv00136) (http:/ / dock ets. justia. com/ docket/ court-hidce/ case_no-1:2008cv00136/ case_id-78717/ )". Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets. 21 March 200 8. [84] " Documentation submitted by plaintiff (http:/ / www. lhcdefense. org/ lhc_ legal. php)". LHCDefense.org. [85] Boyle, Alan (16 June 2008). " Doomsday under debate (http:/ / cosmiclog. ms nbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 06/ 16/ 1146317. aspx)". Cosmic Log. msnbc.com. [86] Overbye, Dennis (27 June 2008). " Government Seeks Dismissal of End-of-Worl d Suit Against Collider (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 06/ 27/ science/ 27collider. html)". The New York Times. [87] Boyle, Alan (26 September 2008). " Doomsday Lawsuit Dismissed (http:/ / cos miclog. msnbc. msn. com/ archive/ 2008/ 09/ 26/ 1457536.

aspx)". Cosmic Log. msnbc.com. [88] Harris, David (26 August 2010). " LHC lawsuit dismissed by US court (http:/ / www. symmetrymagazine. org/ breaking/ 2010/ 08/ 26/ lhc-lawsuit-dismissed-by-us-court/ )". symmetrybreaking. SLAC/Fermilab. [89] US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, " Memorandum on W. Wagner's Appeal (http:/ / www. ca9. uscourts. gov/ datastore/ memoranda/ 2010/ 08/ 24/ 08-17389. pdf)", filed on 24 August 2010 [90] Johnson, Eric E.. "The Black Hole Case". Tennessee Law Review 76: 819 908. [91] Johnson (2009). "The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World". Tenn. L. Rev. 76 (819). arXiv:0912.5480. Bibcode 2009arXiv0912.5480J. [92] Cartlidge, Edwin (Feb 2, 2010). "Law and the end of the world" (http:/ / ph ysicsworld. com/ cws/ article/ indepth/ 41564). physicsworld.com (Institute of Physics). . Retrieved 2010-04-01. [93] Johnson, Eric E. (23 February 2010). "CERN on trial: could a lawsuit shut t he LHC down?" (http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ mg20527485. 700-cern-on-trial-could-a-lawsuit-shut-the-lhc-down. html?full=true) . New Scientist. . Retrieved 2010-04-01. [94] BVerfG, 2 BvR 2502/08 vom 18.2.2010 (http:/ / www. bundesverfassungsgericht . de/ entscheidungen/ rk20100218_2bvr250208. html) [95] Ruling of the Administrative Court of Cologne, Case Nr. 13 K 5693/08 (in Ge rman) (http:/ / www. justiz. nrw. de/ nrwe/ ovgs/ vg_koeln/ j2011/ 13_K_5693_08urteil20110127. html) Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider 114 External links "The safety of the LHC" (http:/ / public. web. cern. ch/ public/ en/ LHC/ Safety -en. html), CERN webpage. "The LHC is safe" (video) (http:/ / cdsweb. cern. ch/ record/ 1120625?ln=en), ta lk by John Ellis at CERN, on 14 August 2008. Micro black hole MBH redirects here. For other uses see MBH (disambiguation) Micro black holes are predicted as tiny black holes, also called quantum mechani cal black holes or mini black holes, for which quantum mechanical effects play an important role.[1] None have been found so far. It is possible that such quantum primordial black holes were created in the high -density environment of the early Universe (or big bang), or possibly through subsequent phase transitions. They m ight be observed by astrophysicists in the near future, through the particles they are expected to emit by Hawking r adiation. Some theories involving additional space dimensions predict that micro black hol es could be formed at an energy as low as the TeV range, which are available in particle accelerators such as the L HC (Large Hadron Collider). Popular concerns have then been raised over end-of-the-world scenarios (see Safety of pa rticle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider). However, such quantum black holes would instantly evaporate, either t otally or leaving only a very weakly interacting residue. Beside the theoretical arguments, we can notice that the co smic rays bombarding the Earth do not produce any damage, although they reach center of mass energies in the range of hundreds of TeV. Minimum mass of a black hole In principle, a black hole can have any mass equal to or above the Planck mass ( about 22 micrograms). To make a black hole, one must concentrate mass or energy sufficiently that the escape vel ocity from the region in which it is concentrated exceeds the speed of light. This condition gives the Schwarzschild

radius, , where G is Gravitational constant and c is the speed of light, of a black hole of mass M . On the other hand, the Compton wavelength, , where h is Planck's constant, represents a limit on the minimum si ze of the region in which a mass M at rest can be localized. For sufficiently small M, the reduced C ompton wavelength ( , where h is Dirac's constant) exceeds half the Schwarzschild radius, and no black hole description exists. This smallest mass for a black hole is thus approximately the Planck mass. Some extensions of present physics posit the existence of extra dimensions of sp ace. In higher-dimensional spacetime, the strength of gravity increases more rapidly with decreasing distan ce than in three dimensions. With certain special configurations of the extra dimensions, this effect can lower th e Planck scale to the TeV range. Examples of such extensions include large extra dimensions, special cases of the Randall-Sundrum model, and String theory configurations like the GKP solutions. In such scenarios, black ho le production could possibly be an important and observable effect at the LHC.[1][2][3][4][5] It would also be a co mmon natural phenomenon induced by the cosmic rays. All this asumes that the theory of general relativity remains valid at these sma ll distances. If it does not, then other, presently unknown effects, will limit the minimum size of a black hole. Micro black hole 115 Stability of a micro black hole Hawking radiation In 1974 Stephen Hawking argued that due to quantum effects, black holes "evapora te" by a process now referred to as Hawking radiation in which elementary particles (photons, electrons, quarks, gluons, etc.) are emitted.[6] His calculations show that the smaller the size of the black hole, the faster the ev aporation rate, resulting in a sudden burst of particles as the micro black hole suddenly explodes. Any primordial black hole of sufficiently low mass will Hawking evaporate to nea r the Planck mass within the lifetime of the Universe. In this process, these small black holes radiate away matter. A rough picture of this is that pairs of virtual particles emerge from the vacuum near the event horizon, with o ne member of a pair being captured, and the other escaping the vicinity of the black hole. The net result is the bla ck hole loses mass (due to conservation of energy). According to the formulae of black hole thermodynamics, the more the black hole loses mass the hotter it becomes, and the faster it evaporates, until it approaches the Planck mass. At t his stage a black hole would have a Hawking temperature of TP / 8p (5.61032 K), which means an emitted Hawking partic le would have an energy comparable to the mass of the black hole. Thus a thermodynamic description break s down. Such a mini-black hole would also have an entropy of only 4p nats, approximately the minimum possible v alue. At this point then, the object can no longer be described as a classical black hole, and Hawking's calcu lations also break down. While Hawking radiation is sometimes questioned,[7] Leonard Susskind summarizes an expert perspective in his recent book:[8] "Every so often, a physics paper will appear claiming that black holes don't evaporate. Such papers

quickly disappear into the infinite junk heap of fringe ideas." Conjectures for the final state Conjectures for the final fate of the black hole include total evaporation and p roduction of a Planck mass-sized black hole remnant. It is possible that such Planck-mass black holes, no longer able e ither to absorb energy gravitationally like a classical black hole because of the quantised gaps between their allowed energy levels, nor to emit Hawking particles for the same reason, may in effect be stable objects. In such case, th ey would be WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles); this could explain dark matter. Primordial black holes Formation in the early Universe Production of a black hole requires concentration of mass or energy within the c orresponding Schwarzschild radius. It is hypothesized that shortly after the big bang the Universe was dense enough for any given region of space to fit within its own Schwarzschild radius. Even so, at that time the Universe was not able to collapse into a singularity due to its uniform mass distribution and rapid growth. This, however, does not f ully exclude the possibility that black holes of various sizes may have emerged locally. A black hole formed in this way is called a primordial black hole and is the most widely accepted theory for the possible creation of micro black holes. Computer simulations made suggest that the probability of formation of a primordial black hole is reversel y proportional to its mass. Thus the most likely outcome would be micro black holes. Micro black hole 116 Expected observable effects Primordial black holes of initial masses around 1015 grams would be completing t heir evaporation today; lighter primordial black holes would have already evaporated.[1] In optimistic circumsta nces, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope satellite, launched in June 2008, might detect experimental evidence f or evaporation of nearby black holes by observing gamma ray bursts.[9][10][11] It is unlikely that a collision betwee n a microscopic black hole and an object such as a star or a planet would be noticeable. This is due to the fact t hat the small radius and high density of the black hole would allow it to pass straight through any object consisting of normal atoms, interacting with only few of its atoms while doing so. It has, however, been suggested that a small bl ack hole (of sufficient mass) passing through the Earth would produce a detectable acoustic or seismic signal.[12][13] [14][15] Manmade micro black holes Can we produce micro black holes? In familiar three-dimensional gravity, the minimum energy of a microscopic black hole is 1019 GeV, which would have to be condensed into a region on the order of the Planck length. This is fa r beyond the limits of any current technology. It is estimated that to collide two particles to within a distance o f a Planck length with currently achievable magnetic field strengths would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the particles on track. Stephen Hawking also said in chapter 6 of his Brief History of Time that physicist John Archibald Wheeler once calculated that a very powerful hydrogen bomb using all the deuteri um in all the water on Earth could

also generate such a black hole, but Hawking does not provide this calculation o r any reference to it to support this assertion. However, in some scenarios involving extra dimensions of space, the Planck mass can be as low as the TeV range. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has a design energy of 14 TeV for proton-proton collisions and 1150 TeV for Pb-Pb collisions. It was argued in 2001 that in these circumstances black hole p roduction could be an important and observable effect at the LHC[2][3][4][5][16] or future higher-energy colliders. Such quantum black holes should decay emitting sprays of particles that could be seen by detectors at these facilities .[2][3] A paper by Choptuik and Pretorius, published on March 17, 2010 in Physical Review Letters, presented a computer-gen erated proof that micro black holes must form from two colliding particles with sufficient energy, which might be allowable at the energies of the LHC if additional dimensions are present other than the customary four (three sp ace, one time).[17][18] Safety arguments Hawking's calculation[6] and more general quantum mechanical arguments predict t hat micro black holes evaporate almost instantaneously. Additional safety arguments beyond those based on Hawkin g radiation were given in the paper,[19][20] which showed that in hypothetical scenarios with stable black hol es that could damage Earth, such black holes would have been produced by cosmic rays and would have already destr oyed known astronomical objects such as the Earth, Sun, neutron stars, or white dwarfs. Black holes in quantum theories of gravity It is possible, in some theories of quantum gravity, to calculate the quantum co rrections to ordinary, classical black holes. Contrarily to conventional black holes which are solutions of gravitation al field equations of the general theory of relativity, quantum gravity black holes incorporate quantum gravity ef fects in the vicinity of the origin, where classically a curvature singularity occurs. According to the theory employ ed to model quantum gravity effects, there are different kinds of quantum gravity black holes, namely loop quantum bl ack holes, noncommutative black holes, asympotically safe black holes. In these approaches black holes are singu larity free. Micro black hole 117 Fiction In David Brin's novel Earth an artificial micro black hole slips into the core o f the earth. In Dan Simmons's novels Ilium and Olympos, a major landmark is "Paris Crater", t he site where a man made micro black hole's containment field failed, and the black hole sank toward the centre of the earth before collapsing (presumably in accordance with the Hawking radiation theory), leaving a volcanic crater in its wake. In the short story How We Lost the Moon, A True Story by Frank W. Allen, which i s actually written by Paul J. McAuley, a micro black hole is accidentally created on the Moon and gradually co nsumes it.[21] Larry Niven's Hugo Award-winning stories The Hole Man and The Borderland of Sol deal with "quantum black holes". In Martin Caidin's novel Star Bright, an object is created during an implosion-f

usion test that has essentially the properties of a micro black hole, though it is not given that name. The object i s eventually destroyed, but the resulting explosion destroys a huge area around it. In Steven R. Donaldson's 5 volume Gap series of books he presents singularity gr enades as anti-spaceship cosmic weapons that release a micro black hole on impact with a ship. In Bungie's award-winning Halo Series, the method of faster-than-light travel fo r spacecraft is through an nondimensional domain known as 'Slipspace', and is made possible by ripping the space-time continuum by having slipspace drives artificially generating thousands of micro black holes t hat quickly evaporate via Hawking radiation. In the computer game Master of Orion II one of the weapons a player can use is a micro black hole generator, which is used to immobilize and destroy enemy ships. In a promotional video for the video game Portal 2, the Aperture Science Handhel d Dual Portal Device is shown to have a miniature black hole and event horizon approximation ring. In Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation, a video game by Banpresto, the origi nal Huckebein is using black hole engine as power source which eventually exploded during test run. In the Star Trek universe, the Romulans are known to utilize artificial black ho les (generally referred to as "artificial quantum singularities") as a power source. In at least two episodes, malfunctions cause "temporal anomalies" (abnormal time flow). Notes [1] B.J. Carr and S.B. Giddings, "Quantum black holes," Scientific American 292N 5 (2005) 30. (http:/ / www. sciam. com/ article. cfm?id=quantum-black-holes) [2] Giddings, S. B. & Thomas, S. D. (2002). "High-energy colliders as black hole factories: The End of short distance physics". Phys. Rev. D 65 (5): 056010. arXiv:hep-ph/0106219. Bibcode 2002PhRvD..65e6010G. doi:10.1103/Phys RevD.65.056010. [3] Dimopoulos, S.; Landsberg, G. L. (2001). "Black Holes at the Large Hadron Co llider". Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (16): 161602. arXiv:hep-ph/0106295. Bibcode 2001PhRvL..87p1602D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.16 1602. PMID 11690198. [4] Johnson, George (September 11, 2001). "Physicists Strive to Build A Black Ho le" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2001/ 09/ 11/ science/ physicists-strive-to-build-a-black-hole. html). The New York Times. . Retrieved 2010-05-12. [5] "The case for mini black holes" (http:/ / cerncourier. com/ cws/ article/ ce rn/ 29199). CERN courier. Nov 2004. . [6] Hawking, S. W. (1975). "Particle Creation by Black Holes". Commun. Math. Phy s. 43 (3): 199 220. Bibcode 1975CMaPh..43..199H. doi:10.1007/BF02345020. [7] Helfer, A. D. (2003). "Do black holes radiate?". Reports on Progress in Phys ics 66 (6): 943. arXiv:gr-qc/0304042. Bibcode 2003RPPh...66..943H. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/6/202. [8] Susskind, L. (2008). The Black Hole War: My battle with Stephen Hawking to m ake the world safe for quantum mechanics. New York: Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-01640-7. [9] Barrau, A. (2000). "Primordial black holes as a source of extremely high ene rgy cosmic rays". Astroparticle Physics 12 (4): 269 275. arXiv:astro-ph/9907347. Bibcode 2000APh....12..269B. doi:10.1016/S0927-6505(99)0 0103-6. [10] McKee, M. (30 May 2006). "Satellite could open door on extra dimension" (ht

tp:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ dn9240-satellite-could-open-door-on-extra-dimension. html). New Scientist. . [11] "Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope: "Mini" black hole detection" (http:/ / fe rmi. gsfc. nasa. gov/ help/ tech/ minibh. html). . [12] Khriplovich, I. B.; Pomeransky, A. A.; Produit, N. & Ruban, G. Yu. (2008). "Can one detect passage of small black hole through the Earth?". Physical Review D 77 (6): 064017. Bibcode 2008PhRvD..77f4017K. doi:10.1 103/PhysRevD.77.064017. Micro black hole 118 [13] Khriplovich, I. B.; Pomeransky, A. A.; Produit, N. & Ruban, G. Yu. (2008). "Passage of small black hole through the Earth. Is it detectable?". Pre-Print 0801: 4623. arXiv:0801.4623. Bibcode 2008arXiv0801.4623K . [14] Cain, Fraser (20 June 2007). "Are Microscopic Black Holes Buzzing Inside th e Earth?" (http:/ / www. universetoday. com/ 2007/ 06/ 20/ are-microscopic-black-holes-buzzing-inside-the-earth). Universe Today. . [15] The Schwarzschild radius of a 1015 grams black hole is ~148 fm (148 ? 10?15 m) (which is much smaller than an atom, but larger than an atomic nucleus) [16] Schewe, Phillip F.; Stein, Ben & Riordon, James (September 26, 2001). "??". Bulletin of Physics News (American Institute of Physics) 558. [17] Choptuik, Matthew W. & Pretorius, Frans (2010). "Ultrarelativistic Particle Collisions". Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (11): 111101. arXiv:0908.1780. Bibcode 2010PhRvL.104k1101C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.111101. PMID 20366461. [18] Peng, G. X.; Wen, X. J.; Chen, Y. D. (2006). "New solutions for the color-f lavor locked strangelets". Physics Letters B 633 (2 3): 314 318. arXiv:hep-ph/0512112. Bibcode 2006PhLB..633..314P. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.1 1.081. [19] S.B. Giddings and M.L. Mangano, "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes," arXiv:0806.3381 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0806. 3381), Phys. Rev. D78: 035009, 2008 (http:/ / link. aps. org/ doi/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevD. 78. 035009) [20] M.E. Peskin, "The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider?" Physics 1 , 14 (2008) (http:/ / physics. aps. org/ articles/ v1/ 14) [21] http:/ / www. bestsf. net/ reviews/ mcauleylittlemachines. html References D. Page, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 198 (http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PRD/ v13 / i2/ p198_1) : first detailed studies of the evaporation mechanism B.J. Carr & S.W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc 168 (1974) 399 (http:/ / ad sabs. harvard. edu/ cgi-bin/ nph-bib_query?bibcode=1974MNRAS. 168. . 399C) : links between primordial black h oles and the early universe A. Barrau et al., Astron. Astrophys. 388 (2002) 676 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ a stro-ph/ 0112486), Astron. Astrophys. 398 (2003) 403 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ astro-ph/ 0207395), Astroph ys. J. 630 (2005) 1015 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ astro-ph/ 0505436) : experimental searches for primordial black holes thanks to the emitted antimatter A. Barrau & G. Boudoul, Review talk given at the International Conference on The oretical Physics TH2002 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ astro-ph/ 0212225) : cosmology with primordial black holes A. Barrau & J. Grain, Phys. Lett. B 584 (2004) 114 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ he p-ph/ 0311238) : searches for new physics (quantum gravity) with primordial black holes P. Kanti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19 (2004) 4899 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ hep-ph/ 0402168) : evaporating black holes and extra-dimensions

D. Ida, K.-y. Oda & S.C.Park, (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ hep-th/ 0602188): deter mination of black hole's life and extra-dimensions Sabine Hossenfelder: What Black Holes Can Teach Us, hep-ph/0412265 (http:/ / www . arxiv. org/ abs/ hep-ph/ 0412265) L. Modesto, PhysRevD.70.124009 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ gr-qc/ 0407097): Disap pearance of Black Hole Singularity in Quantum Gravity P. Nicolini, A. Smailacic, E. Spallucci, j.physletb.2005.11.004 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ gr-qc/ 0510112): Noncommutative geometry inspired Schwarzschild black hole A. Bonanno, M. Reuter, PhysRevD.73.083005 (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ hep-th/ 060 2159): Spacetime Structure of an Evaporating Black Hole in Quantum Gravity S. Fujioka et al., Nature Physics 5, 821 - 825 (2009) (http:/ / www. nature. com / nphys/ journal/ v5/ n11/ abs/ nphys1402. html): X-ray astronomy in the laboratory with a miniature compact obj ect produced by laser-driven implosion Micro black hole 119 External links Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0806. 3381) A. Barrau & J. Grain, The Case for mini black holes (http:/ / www. cerncourier. com/ main/ article/ 44/ 9/ 22) : a review of the searches for new physics with micro black holes possibly formed at colliders Mini Black Holes Might Reveal 5th Dimension (http:/ / www. space. com/ scienceas tronomy/ 060626_mystery_monday. html) - Space.com Doomsday Machine Large Hadron Collider? (http:/ / www. ostina. org/ content/ vie w/ 3547/ 1077/ ) - A scientific essay about energies, dimensions, black holes, and the associated public attenti on to CERN, by Norbert Frischauf (also available as Podcast) Strangelet A strangelet is a hypothetical particle consisting of a bound state of roughly e qual numbers of up, down, and strange quarks. Its size would be a minimum of a few femtometres across (with the mass o f a light nucleus). Once the size becomes macroscopic (on the order of metres across), such an object is usually c alled a quark star or "strange star" rather than a strangelet. An equivalent description is that a strangelet is a sm all fragment of strange matter. The term "strangelet" originates with E. Farhi and R. Jaffe.[1] Strangelets have been sug gested as a dark matter candidate.[2] Theoretical possibility Strange matter hypothesis The known particles with strange quarks are unstable because the strange quark i s heavier than the up and down quarks, so strange particles, such as the Lambda particle, which contains an up, down, and strange quark, always lose their strangeness, by decaying via the weak interaction to lighter particles con taining only up and down quarks. But states with a larger number of quarks might not suffer from this instability. Th is is the "strange matter hypothesis" of Bodmer [3] and Witten.[2] According to this hypothesis, when a large enough numb er of quarks are collected together, the lowest energy state is one which has roughly equal numbers of up,

down, and strange quarks, namely a strangelet. This stability would occur because of the Pauli exclusion principle; having three types of quarks, rather than two as in normal nuclear matter, allows more quarks to be placed in lower e nergy levels. Relationship with nuclei A nucleus is a collection of a large number of up and down quarks, confined into triplets (neutrons and protons). According to the strange matter hypothesis, strangelets are more stable than nuc lei, so nuclei are expected to decay into strangelets. But this process may be extremely slow because there is a larg e energy barrier to overcome: as the weak interaction starts making a nucleus into a strangelet, the first few strang e quarks form strange baryons, such as the Lambda, which are heavy. Only if many conversions occur almost simultaneousl y will the number of strange quarks reach the critical proportion required to achieve a lower energy state. T his is very unlikely to happen, so even if the strange matter hypothesis were correct, nuclei would never be seen to dec ay to strangelets because their lifetime would be longer than the age of the universe. Strangelet 120 Size The stability of strangelets depends on their size. This is because of (a) surfa ce tension at the interface between quark matter and vacuum (which affects small strangelets more than big ones), and (b) screening of charges, which allows small strangelets to be charged, with a neutralizing cloud of electrons/positron s around them, but requires large strangelets, like any large piece of matter, to be electrically neutral in their interior. The charge screening distance tends to be of the order of a few femtometers, so only the outer few femtometers of a strangelet can carry charge.[4] The surface tension of strange matter is unknown. If it is smaller than a critic al value (a few MeV per square femtometer[5]) then large strangelets are unstable and will tend to fission into smaller strangelets (strange stars would still be stabilized by gravity). If it is larger than the critical value, then s trangelets become more stable as they get bigger. Natural or artificial occurrence Although nuclei do not decay to strangelets, there are other ways to create stra ngelets, so if the strange matter hypothesis is correct there should be strangelets in the universe. There are at least three ways they might be created in nature: Cosmogonically, i.e., in the early universe when the QCD confinement phase trans ition occurred. It is possible that strangelets were created along with the neutrons and protons which form ord inary matter. High energy processes. The universe is full of very high-energy particles (cosmi c rays). It is possible that when these collide with each other or with neutron stars they may provide enough ener gy to overcome the energy barrier and create strangelets from nuclear matter. Cosmic ray impacts. In addition to head-on collisions of cosmic rays, ultra high energy cosmic rays impacting on Earth's atmosphere may create strangelets. These scenarios offer possibilities for observing strangelets. If there are stra ngelets flying around the universe, then

occasionally a strangelet should hit Earth, where it would appear as an exotic t ype of cosmic ray. If strangelets can be produced in high energy collisions, then we might make them at heavy-ion coll iders. Accelerator production At heavy ion accelerators like RHIC, nuclei are collided at relativistic speeds, creating strange and antistrange quarks which could conceivably lead to strangelet production. The experimental signatur e of a strangelet would be its very high ratio of mass to charge, which would cause its trajectory in a magnetic fie ld to be very nearly, but not quite, straight. The STAR collaboration has searched for strangelets produced at the Re lativistic Heavy Ion Collider,[6] but none were found. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is even less likely to produce strangelets,[7] but searches are planned[8] for the LHC ALICE detector. Space-based detection The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), an instrument which is mounted on the Int ernational Space Station, could detect strangelets.[9] Possible seismic detection In May 2002, a group of researchers at Southern Methodist University reported th e possibility that strangelets may have been responsible for seismic events recorded on October 22 and November 24 in 1993.[10] The authors later retracted their claim, after finding that the clock of one of the seismic statio ns had a large error during the relevant period.[11] It has been suggested that the International Monitoring System being set up to v erify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) after entry into force may be useful as a sort of "strang elet observatory" using the entire Strangelet 121 Earth as its detector. The IMS will be designed to detect anomalous seismic dist urbances down to 1 kiloton of TNT's equivalent energy release or less, and could be able to track strangelets passin g through Earth in real time if properly exploited. Impacts on Solar System Bodies It has been suggested that strangelets of subplanetary i.e. heavy metorite mass, would puncture solar bodies, leading to impact (exit) craters which show characteristic features. [12] Dangers If the strange matter hypothesis is correct and its surface tension is larger th an the aforementioned critical value, then a larger strangelet would be more stable than a smaller one. One speculation tha t has resulted from the idea is that a strangelet coming into contact with a lump of ordinary matter could convert the ordinary matter to strange matter.[13][14] This "ice-nine"-like disaster scenario is as follows: one strang elet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, producing a large r, more stable strangelet, which in turn hits another nucleus, catalyzing its conversion to strange matter. In the e nd, all the nuclei of all the atoms of Earth are converted, and Earth is reduced to a hot, large lump of strange matter . This is not a concern for strangelets in cosmic rays because they are produced f ar from Earth and have had time to decay to their ground state, which is predicted by most models to be positively

charged, so they are electrostatically repelled by nuclei, and would rarely merge with them.[15][16] But high-energy co llisions could produce negatively charged strangelet states which live long enough to interact with the nuclei of ordinary matter.[17] The danger of catalyzed conversion by strangelets produced in heavy-ion collider s has received some media attention,[18][19] and concerns of this type were raised[13][20] at the commence ment of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experiment at Brookhaven, which could potentially have created s trangelets. A detailed analysis[14] concluded that the RHIC collisions were comparable to ones which naturally occur as cosmic rays traverse the solar system, so we would already have seen such a disaster if it were possible. RHIC has been operating since 2000 without incident. Similar concerns have been raised about the operation of the L arge Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN[21] but such fears are dismissed as far-fetched by scientists.[21][22][23] In the case of a neutron star, the conversion scenario seems much more plausible . A neutron star is in a sense a giant nucleus (20 km across), held together by gravity, but it is electrically neutral and so does not electrostatically repel strangelets. If a strangelet hit a neutron star, it could convert a small region of it, and that region would grow to consume the entire star, creating a quark star.[24] Debate about the strange matter hypothesis The strange matter hypothesis remains unproven. No direct search for strangelets in cosmic rays or particle accelerators has seen a strangelet (see references in earlier sections). If any of the objects we call neutron stars could be shown to have a surface made of strange matter, this would indicate that stra nge matter is stable at zero pressure, which would vindicate the strange matter hypothesis. But there is no strong evid ence for strange matter surfaces on neutron stars (see below). Another argument against the hypothesis is that if it were true, all neutron sta rs should be made of strange matter, and otherwise none should be.[25] Even if there were only a few strange stars in itially, violent events such as collisions would soon create many strangelets flying around the universe. Becaus e one strangelet will convert a neutron star to strange matter, by now all neutron stars would have been convert ed. This argument is still debated,[26][27][28][29] but if it is correct then showing that one neutron star has a conventional nuclear matter crust would disprove the strange matter hypothesis. Strangelet 122 Because of its importance for the strange matter hypothesis, there is an ongoing effort to determine whether the surfaces of neutron stars are made of strange matter or nuclear matter. The evid ence currently favors nuclear matter. This comes from the phenomenology of X-ray bursts, which is well-explained in te rms of a nuclear matter crust,[30] and from measurement of seismic vibrations in magnetars.[31] In fiction An episode of Odyssey 5 featured an attempt to destroy the planet by intentional ly creating negatively charged strangelets in a particle accelerator.[32] The BBC docudrama End Day features a scenario where a particle accelerator in Ne w York City explodes,

creating a strangelet and starting a catastrophic chain reaction which destroys Earth. The story A Matter most Strange in the collection Indistinguishable from Magic b y Robert L. Forward deals with the making of strangelet in a particle accelerator. Impact, published in 2010 and written by Douglas Preston, deals with an alien ma chine that creates strangelets. The machine's strangelets impact the Earth and Moon and pass through.