ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Building the future of physics

Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:39 PM by Alan Boyle


Alan Boyle / msnbc.com

Workers at Fermilab line up the first segments for
an experiment that could set the stage for the
multibillion-dollar International Linear Collider.


Particle physicists can't afford to get too sentimental about where they work. They need bigger and bigger machines to focus on smaller and smaller frontiers - and when they just can't make the machines bigger, they have to blaze a completely new trail to those frontiers.

That's the situation facing researchers at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, near Chicago: Some researchers are squeezing the last ounce of performance out of the 24-year-old Tevatron accelerator, looking for a mysterious particle called the Higgs boson. Others are working on the next big machine, Europe's Large Hadron Collider. And still others have begun building something called "Project X," the prototype for a radically different kind of multibillion-dollar physics machine.

That mega-machine, known as the International Linear Collider, won't become a reality until well after 2012. But lots of experts are already working on the ILC's design - and how to pay for it - because it takes years to go from one generation of supercollider to the next.

"You're completing your experiment, but you're also always looking to the future," said the University of Florida's Jacobo Konigsberg, co-spokesman for the CDF experiment at the aging Tevatron.

The current plan (PDF file) calls for the Tevatron to keep going until at least 2009, and Fermilab's managers have recommended extending its life even further, into the federal government's 2010 fiscal year. "To me, it looks like a pretty straightforward decision," the lab's director, Pier Oddone, told me last week after I toured the site.

Oddone's rationale was that the teams using the Tevatron were "very close to making an important measurement" in the quest for the Higgs boson, the only particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not yet been detected. The Higgs boson has been called the "God particle," because it is thought to be responsible for the masses of other particles. But a better nickname might be the "goad particle," since the quest itself has become a goad for increasingly complex experiments in particle physics.

A major reason for building the Large Hadron Collider is to study the Higgs boson and its effects, and the commonly accepted view is that the LHC will render the Tevatron obsolete. "At some point, when the LHC is working well, it will wipe us out," Oddone told me.

But the LHC's official startup has been delayed from this fall to next spring, and it may take more time than expected for the next top gun to start shooting subatomic bullets. Keeping the Tevatron running through 2010, at an estimated cost of $30 million, would ensure that there's no break in the action. What's more, an analysis of the attributes of other subatomic particles recently hinted that the Higgs boson may actually be lighter than some theorists had thought - and lying in a sweet spot for the Tevatron, between 114 billion and 144 billion electron volts.

"If it is very light, it's not easy to get it in the LHC," Oddone said. "It's not a Day 1 experiment. It's one of the hardest things that the LHC can do. Eventually, they'll get it, no question. But it wouldn't be quickly. ... So there is some reason to run the Tevatron in this very important area."

Colleagues as well as competitors
Once the Tevatron is shut down, that won't be the end for Fermilab. Ironically, teams based at Fermilab play big roles at the Large Hadron Collider as well.

One of those roles was to provide superconducting magnets for the LHC's 17-mile accelerator ring. Earlier this year, Fermilab came in for some unwelcome attention when one of those magnets broke during pressure testing. The magnet failure was cited as a factor behind the decision to delay the LHC's start-up until next spring. 


CERN / CMS Outreach

Scientists can see what's up at Europe's Large Hadron
Collider from Fermilab's Remote Operations Center.


Fortunately, the magnets' design flaw was something that could be fixed in place, and Fermilab spokesman Kurt Riesselmann told me that all the magnets have gone through the required modifications. No problems have turned up in the tests so far, he said.

Once the LHC begins operation, Fermilab will serve as America's primary center for dealing with the data flowing from the accelerator in Europe. A brand-new remote operations center can be seen through a glassed-in wall on the first floor of Wilson Hall, Fermilab's headquarters building.

Particle physics isn't restricted to miles-wide accelerator rings, of course. Oddone also points to Fermilab's role in a plethora of experiments probing the mysteries of the neutrino, dark matter and dark energy, on Earth and perhaps in space. Elsewhere on the astrophysics front, Fermilab is a collaborator in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey as well as the Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory.

Building a subatomic dragstrip
The most advanced project on Oddone's agenda is Project X, which involves developing the technology for the International Linear Collider. Fermilab's Riesselmann said the Project X linear accelerator would be a "1.5 percent ILC." If Project X gets fully built out, the cost estimates would be in the range of $500 million or more. But if an international consortium gives the go-ahead for building the ILC sometime in the 2010-2012 time frame, Project X would give Fermilab a head start toward playing a lead role in that multibillion-dollar project.

Project X and the ILC would be fundamentally different from ring accelerators such as the Tevatron and the LHC. If you compare the rings to Indy-style racetracks, linear colliders are more like dragstrips. Magnetic forces pull charged particles through a series of "cavities" chained together in one straight line, revving them up to nearly the speed of light.


Alan Boyle / msnbc.com

Workers prepare Fermilab's New Muon Lab for
experiments that could set the stage for a new linear
collider. Blue-green blocks of concrete have been set
up as a radiation shield.


The proposed 20-mile-long International Linear Collider, which currently carries an estimated price tag of $6.7 billion (detectors not included), would not be as powerful as the LHC. But it could smash together electrons and positrons, rather than protons. That's good, because the readings from electron collisions are much more precise than the data from messy proton collisions.

When you're playing with protons, it's like playing pool with a collection of beanbags rather than billiard balls. The electrons are more like balls, and thus easier to manage. But you need a long, straight shot rather than a curved roll to accelerate those electrons to the required energies. That's why Fermilab and other physics labs are turning their attention to linear accelerators.

Project X would start out working with protons, not electrons, and it would be used primarily for neutrino studies. But the technology could be applied to building the electron-smashing ILC - as well as other next-generation linear accelerators. Riesselmann said the applications would likely benefit the general public as well as particle physicists - just as past advances sparked revolutions in medical imaging and cancer therapy.

"With this technology, you can envision hospitals having accelerators for medical applications, or homeland security using them for cargo scanning," Riesselmann told me.

Fermilab has already built its first series of eight cavities for its Project X accelerator, modeled on a German design. Last week, I watched as one group of workers tinkered with the assembly on a shoproom floor, while another group worked on the building space set aside for the project.

Project X would put Fermilab in a good position for getting a piece of the action if the ILC project moves forward, but would yield benefits even if the ILC discussions are hung up in limbo, Oddone said.

"If we've made a lot of progress by 2010 on site selection, on international arrangements, if the LHC is popping out physics that tells us this is exactly what we need to do, then we would move straightforwardly to the ILC," he explained. "If the LHC takes more time to turn on, if the physics is not easy to get, if the countries haven't engaged in discussions on site selection, then you know you have time. In the meantime ... you haven't wasted the technology. You have a vehicle by which you can industrialize in the U.S. This has many virtues."

Oddone hopes Project X will help get America back in the game for international physics projects, after fumbling the ball with the aborted Superconducting Super Collider. But that hope rests on at least one big assumption: that there will be an international physics project to bid on. Like the Superconducting Super Collider, the International Linear Collider could fade away as it gets closer, like a mirage.

The future could well depend on how much comes out of the experiments at the Tevatron and the Large Hadron Collider. If those experiments shed new light on cosmic questions - for example, what we're made of, and where we came from - it may be easier to sell the public on the prospects for more.

"It is a question of priority: Is this important?" Oddone said. "That ultimately rests with the taxpayer. Is this exciting to them, that the country gets involved in exploring this frontier? Or would we much rather have something that's economically competitive tomorrow, and we don't care about the fundamental questions? When you look at a country that is trying to be at the edge of science, as a way to the future, it seems to me that asking these questions - which are the hardest questions in physics - is an important thing to be engaged in."

More dispatches from the Big Science Tour:

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Alan, you forgot to mention that the usual neighbors of the LHC are also concerned with safety.

As with earlier toy particle accelerators, people (religious) both inside and outside the physics playground cult have expressed worry that the LHC might cause one of quite a few imaginary disasters capable of destroying the Earth or even the entire Universe (Or at least our reality). This has raised controversy as to motive to put the universe in jeopardy.

Although I believe we still don’t have the resources and the technical knowledge to reach higher energy levels require playing with bigger and more dangerous toys and to make things worse the inherited wildcard behavior on us Humans.

For CERN has pointed out that the probability of such events is extremely small. –I don’t personally believe them, anything can happen, it doesn’t matter the systems of control, the probability is not equal to zero.

Though the standard model (The one occulted from high school studens) predicts that LCH energies are far too low to create black holes, Crazy ideas…

Creation of strange matter that is more stable than ordinary matter.
Creation of magnetic monopoles that could catalyze proton decay.
Creation of a strangelet.

What about while some higher energy toys are on, what will happen with particles that might cause Spontaneous symmetry breaking, what will happen if some random particles get in contact with organic matter?

All is good as long all the mess is for scientific breakthrough and human knowledge.
I will be the first to say that I am somewhat scientifically chanllenged but I am all for doing whatever it takes to further our knowledge in that feild...or any scientific feild for that matter(no pun intended). If you think back to the early to mid 1900's and even well before that we had some great thinkers across the globe. I am still fairly young but it just seems like there were radical advancements in the scientific world that we haven't seen for a while now. It seems like all we do now is build on what has already been invented. People like Einstein, Galileo, Edison, Bell, etc. all came up with new inventions that drastically changed the way we live our day-to-day lives. Not to get of subject,but the same thing I beleive can be said about artist of current. There hasn't been any real significant advancements in either feild.
Go ahead and vaporize the Earth before the US Government does.  
The reason that the pace of practical scientific advancement has slowed is that all the major practical applications of physics have already been discovered, so that it now takes more people longer, at a far greater cost, than in previous eras. Now only governments can afford to undertake "cutting edge" science, though now even they have to pool resources.  It remains to be seen whether all those billions of dollars aren't just wasted--a great hog slop for physicists, despite the merely theoretical nature of the returns. What are the practical, which is to say, useful results of smashing subatomic particles? It seems to me that theoretical physicists have no more clue as to what use their experi-ments are than do theoreti-cal astronomers. All of them are sipmly fighting over the limited funds available for such pie-in-the-sky science.  Personally, I think science as we have known it is at an end, even if only because it has become too expensive. What justification other than the self-serving tautolo-gy, "Because it's science!" can scientists give taxpayers for squandering billions of dollars just to "identify" another subatomic particle that nobody can perceive or make us of? I'm not against science, but I am against useless science.    
I know NOTHING about any of this.  So somebody who does please indulge my question: Why aren't we building this out in space?  Without Earth's gravity, it will be easier to attain the desired speeds and there certainly is plenty of 'free' space.  

One obvious drawback is the need to manufacture here and assemble there, but from where I sit, the positives outweigh the negatives.  Someone please help me to see where I'm wrong.

Thanks in advance.
"I am still fairly young but it just seems like there were radical advancements in the scientific world that we haven't seen for a while now"

And what did you enter this message on?  Look at the keyboard at your finger tips and the monitor in front of your face for the current scientific revolution.  All thanks to a couple of guys you didn't mention: Turing and Shannon.

In other words, compute power and digital simulations have revolutionized many areas of science.
Corbin, my dictionary has a picture of Oprah Winfrey in it. It has no entry for Jack Kilby (Nobel Prize winner and co inventor of the integrated circuit).  Science has moved beyond individual contributors, but the next Tesla may be still be out there. Don't give up on it yet.
To David, please understand before speaking next time.

To Alan; is the importance of finding the Higgs Boson the fact that it confirms the Higgs field?  Also I was wondering that if this is the particle responsible for the masses of other particles would that also include the particle responsible for dark matter?  If the higgs boson is responsible for mass it's responsible for it's own mass as well?
Even though the velocities and temperatures of the collisions are high, the particles are so small that the total energy is akin to two mosquitos having a head on collision, thus I doubt we will see any world threatning effects from the LHC or Project X.
To adress the question of building in space from the limited knowledge I have even though friction is reduced by leaving earth's gravity you would still need a considerable amount of both space and energy.  Now while space wouldn't be an issue power could be and another snag could be that the enviroment isn't condusive to research on a particle level.  Remember these installations are below the surface for a reason.
Why not such an effort to solve our social problems that the politicans have been screwing up for the last several thousands years?
Hey Dean, Im no expert either, but I do believe that the effects of gravity, while present, are not sufficiently strong enough to result in any 'slowing down' of experimental particles. Remember that gravity is an effect that draws objects together, so BOTH 'particles' (ie the planet, and the little tiny particle in the accelerator) are pulling each other together, but its an extremely weak vector. Also, the amount of energy required on these experiments are way too high and we just dont have the technology to deliver these energy levels in a space environment. Hope that helps. cheers!
"What justification other than the self-serving tautology, "Because it's science!" can scientists give taxpayers for squandering billions of dollars just to "identify" another subatomic particle that nobody can perceive or make us of? I'm not against science, but I am against useless science."

What relevance did investigating the structure of a useless molecule found in cells have at the time?  Before Watson and Crick 'discovered' the double helical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA was thought to be 'junk' in cells, it had no known purpose.  That was what?  1950?

The payoffs of fundamental research have been well documented.  Maybe that would be a good blog topic?
Personally, i think that this is a wonderful acheivement! And i hope that it leads to the advancements that the scientific community and others are hoping for!
I can help you Dean. You're right: it is a better idea to relocate all of these experiments to outer space. So if you'll kindly write a check to cover all of the space travel, scientists will get started on that right away.

Also, David, I'd just like to point out that while the probability of one the particles in a nuclear accelerator accidentally destroying the universe is greater than zero, so too is the probability of any of the nearly-infinite identical particles composing the sun, the earth, and even your own body. In fact, you are much more likely to spontaneously destroy the universe than a nuclear accelerator. Why? Well, you're made of more particles. Aren't you thoughtless?
Well,one day if you find yourself driving in one direction on one road then in another on another road the next instant, you can bet they were successful.
You may not have a home to return too or the city you were in is actually a farmers field IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE, but don't worry you can start all over again.

I'd sure like to get some understanding of how the Higgs particle is even detectable since it exists on paper at least in mathmatical physics. Is it as difficult to detect as gravity waves? Black holes? If so I think the 10 billion dollars for the collider should be spent on far more important issues on earth.
Pete, I believe that the issue is not delivering the necessary power to space.  The technology available today could deliver the power necessary to produce the necessary power in space.  The problem is the various countries do not trust eachother to allow such power levels to be transmitted or produced in space, because it is then possible for that power to be used as a weapon.

And to everyone who says the money should be spent in "practical ways."  Discovery raises the human spirit.  I'm an engineer and I'm surrounded by people who are engineers because of the wasted space race.  You can't put a price on inspiration.  We don't know what will come of these experiments, what we do know is that throwing money at the problems on earth doesn't fix them.  To fix those problems we need to make hard choices but in the end its easier to just throw money at them instead.
Hi, Alan  --  good response to this one, eh?  I think people need to remember that taking money from something like science or education, or NASA even, will not mean the funds are automatically diverted to poverty relief or gasoline rebates but will become the subject of the politicians' magic acts, appearing suddenly in their pork barrels.

All the various colliders are like the primitive microscopes and telescopes, revealing new concepts to observers gradually as both the instruments and their users evolve and get better and better at what they do.  The rest of us get dragged along willy-nilly in that progress and are always much the better for it.  Isn't that why God gave us brains?  
Going into space you really do not escape gravity you are just moving fast enough over the horizon that you are actually falling over the horizon, that is how orbit works.  The thing with space is there is no atmosphere to slow down the space craft.  If you could move fast enough and maintain the speed you could orbit in the earths atmosphere.  

Also all the great minds of the past also built on their predicessors.  Einstein could not have done the work he did with out the work of Newton.  So if it just seems like todays minds are just building on the work of others that is because that is the way it is done.  

There will be benefits to this work but the work has to be done before someone can figure out a benefit.
Answering the question about Higgs is akin to being blindfolded and dropped somewhere and tasting seawater with only 2 choices. Oh yes, it's an ocean...Atlantic or Pacific?
I thought that the colliders were underground to shield them from stray interactions from space.  Such as cosmic rays?
I thought that the colliders were underground to shield them from stray interactions from space.  Such as cosmic rays?
This talk about a single particle being able to "destroy" the universe is utter nonsense.  You guys need to watch a little less Sci-Fi channel.  I'd like one of you who mentioned it to explain how this would be possible.  

After a little research and asking a friend; I'm being told that space is not an option for a laundry list of reasons from consumables for the reseachers to high Z particles interfearing with measurements.

Last, I want to know if the HB has no charge how do they "trap" it in order to observe it?  Also, this is way out of my league, but as far as aceleration goes isn't a black hole king?  and what if any observations could be made about particles within the event horizon?  
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23752

This is a step toward answering why cosmic "rays" are so energetic and many fold more energetic than any man-made accelerators can or will be able to re-produce.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=380932

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google