A Quantum Diaries Survivor

Here is an excerpt of the latest LHC schedule for the following few months, as agreed in a meeting at CERN chaired by the Director-General, with the experiments and LHC machine heads.

Based on the good progress for the cool down of the LHC sectors, and on the powering tests from two sectors, the following planning was arrived at:

1. End of June: The LHC is expected to be cooled down. [...]
2. Mid of July: The experimental caverns will be closed [...]
3. End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with beams and collisions will start.
4. It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions at 10 TeV.
5. Energy of the 2008 run: Agreed to be 10 TeV. The machine considers this to be a safe setting to optimize up-time of the machine util the winter shut-down (starting likely around end of November).[...]
6. The winter shut-down will then be used to commissioning and train the magnets up to full current, such that the 2009 run will start at the full 14 TeV design energy.

The above means that the machine will deliver collisions from the end of September on, for at most nine weeks in 2008. More safely, one can assume 6 full weeks of data-taking. What luminosity do we expect to collect ?

A state-of-the-art estimate was made by a colleague, who used his past experience with LEP as well as the information on the current limitations of the RF system -which will make the proton bunches shorter than planned (RMS of 5.4 cm), and with a transverse size of 46 microns. At the lower energy the low-beta squeeze will also be loosened from 2 to 3 meters. These figures reduce the instantaneous luminosity, and the estimate for 6 weeks of collisions are of about 40 inverse picobarns of data in 2008.

If ATLAS and CMS will be fully on during the weeks of collisions, these 40 inverse picobarns will fruit, in my opinion:

• A top pair production cross section with 10-15% accuracy
• A sizable sample of vector boson decays to leptons, very useful for calibrations and checks of lepton efficiency studies
• The first estimates of b-tagging and tau-tagging capabilities of current algorithms
• no information on the Higgs
• no SUSY discovery (of course!)

All the above will have a chance of being ready for the 2009 winter conferences, if all goes well…

I stumbled today into two old booklets advertising a concert. One in Conegliano, on Friday, March 13th 1981; the other in Udine on Wednesday, May 28th, 1980. These were times when I toured north-eastern Italy with the orchestra of the Venice Conservatory, directed by m. Fabio Pirona. I was a teenager, but I could already play the recorder (straight flute) rather well.

I remember that already back then I did not really think that a career in music would suit my taste nor my talents -my interest was not focused on Physics yet but I had a pretty good idea I liked science already- but I nevertheless enjoyed playing the part of the musician. Probably this has been some sort of constant in my life: I have been an amateur musician, an amateur astronomer, an amateur chessplayer, an amateur reporter and photographer, but then I decided to become a professional physicist. In other words I seem to have applied to arts, sports, and intellectual activities what is commonplace to do with sentimental relationships: women and men flirt with the most attractive counterparts, but end up marrying the one which promises more stability.

So what were we playing back then, in Conegliano and Udine (but also in Venice, Mirano, and other places I can’t even recall) ? The offer was a trio of concerts by Johann Sebastian Bach: the Brandemburg Concerts number V, IV, and III. I was the second flutist in the fourth concert, as you can see in the scans I paste below.

Above, the front page of the booklet of Concert season in Conegliano, 1981

…and the page with the three concerts, and a few signatures from my colleagues.

The one above is instead the leaflet advertising the concert in Udine…

…and the back, with the program of the afternoon.

I have warm memories of those concerts. In the one in Conegliano, we performed excellently the fourth concert (I remember I was really pleased of the outcome and by my own performance) until -at the very end of the third movement- my instrument had become soaked with condensed breath, and it literally dripped. The condensed moisture flowed down the hole at the end and, what’s worse, down the hole on the back, which is closed by the left thumb to play bass tones and only closed halfways -by using the fingernail- to play high pitches. And one of those high pitches was needed towards the end of the Presto, when in the culmination of a forte I had to play a high mi. The thumb was unable to close the hole the way it should have, and my instrument let out a broken note which was probably heard even by the ticket seller outside the hall. That evening was spent on a pleasant restaurant on the hills of Conegliano, with the whole orchestra having fun of me -but it was cheerful and I did not resent it.

In the concert in Udine another incident happened. I was rather tense (I think it was the first time we performed the concert outside the walls of our Conservatory) and when the fifth concert was over, the solists came backstage, and I went on stage with my buddy Francesco and the first violin Andrea. As we were about to sit down, I realized I had left my scoresheet backstage! A better player would have acted nonchalantly and played by heart, but I was too nervous -so I rushed back and grabbed it, re-entering on stage with the eyes of the public on me but, what’s worse, those of my director following me like a missile approaches a plane to be taken down.

Ah, memories… I wish I had a recording of those concerts! I remember the one in Conegliano was indeed recorded, and I was promised a copy of the tape which never came.

Here is a selected list of interesting links from blogs I read:

• Bee at Backreaction has the most complete list of reasons why you should not be bothered by the LHC destroying the Earth. Instructive, entertaining, to the point. With useful furthering of the matter in the comments thread.
• Peter at Not Even Wrong has two interesting posts out. In one he reports about Witten’s take on dark energy. In the other the question on what string theorists would do if their pet theory was proven wrong is discussed. Don’t miss the comments thread.
• Carl at Mass explains in detail why the current cosmology does not explain the angular correlations in the fluctuations of cosmic microwave background for large angles, while a changing speed of light would fit the data better. Controversial!
• Lubos at the Reference Frame discusses whether a theory that makes no predictions is to be preferred or disfavored, in relation to one that is more predictive. He also has a poll. Let’s all ask him to add a bullet, “A and B are equally unlikely because they are both favored by Lubos”,
• Jester at Resonaances has a short but poignant post on how to be a good crackpot. Recommended.
• Kea at Arcadian Functor has reached lesson 182 in category theory. Her explanations make you believe you know those things, and there are a bunch of graphs you cannot miss. Esthetically pleasing.
• Chad at Uncertain Principles has one of his imperdible dog dialogues out. Highly recommended.

Long overdue, here is the final part of a long post on the searches for new particles that may be the solution of a long-standing problem in astrophysics today: the missing mass in our Universe.

The large majority of cosmologists have become convinced, through the analysis of masses of data collected in the last two decades, that four-fifths of the matter in the Universe is non-baryonic. If we neglect particles which can only be created in high-energy collisions and decay in ridiculously small amounts of time, Baryons exists in just two forms: protons and neutrons. These make up the nuclei of atoms, and provide the fuel for stars to shine as they fuse into helium nuclei.

Non-baryonic matter does exist, and we know it well: we have electrons and neutrinos; but these are irrelevant. Electrons weigh less than a thousandth of a proton -and there are just as many electrons as protons around, to a very good approximation. As for neutrinos, despite our ignorance on their mass, they cannot make up the deficit of mass observed in the rotation speed of galaxies (exhibit one in support to Dark Matter: the speed of rotation does not decrease as much as it should if their mass was concentrated in stars) or in clusters of galaxies (exhibit two: gravitational effects we may detect visually do not match the observed distribution of galaxies in these agglomerates).

One intriguing solution to the problem lies in hypothesizing that a massive particle called neutralino wanders around in huge amounts, slow and unbothered by its close encounters with ordinary matter. Neutralinos would be electrically neutral, they would not interact strongly with matter, and they would be perfectly stable, lest they violate a very convenient quantum-mechanical conservation law. For more details on these hypotheses, see part II of this post.

So how can collider experiments detect this evanescent particle ? By producing pairs of higher-mass supersymmetric particles, which would chain-decay into non-supersymmetric ones plus a pair of those lightest supersymmetric particles, LSP. On the right you can see a decay chain whereby a gluino - a SUSY particle produced in large amounts in hadron collisions, due to its strongly interacting nature - emits a squark, the squark in turn emits another quark and decays into an excited neutralino, this emits a slepton, and the slepton ends up producing the lightest neutralino. All in all, from each of these chains (one per decay of each of the produced gluinos) one should observe two jets of hadrons from the quark hadronization, two leptons, and some missing energy. The missing transverse energy stolen by each neutralino would add as two vectors add in a plane: only rarely they would cancel each other out. In the graph below, for instance, two neutralinos leaving in different directions (the two dashed lines pointing towards the upper and lower left, in the transverse cut-away view of the ATLAS detector) would create a missing transverse energy vector pointing roughly mid-way between their exit directions.

The Tevatron experiments have searched for these events in their Run II data. The search in CDF considered the signature of two, three, or four hadronic jets plus a significant amount of missing energy from the neutralinos. This signature can be mimicked very effectively by the frequent, generic production of many jets by quantum chromodynamics interactions between quarks and gluons; the missing energy is thus required to be large and significant to suppress these processes.

The CDF experiment applied three different sets of selection cuts on their data to seek sensitivity to different regions of the parameter space of Supersymmetry. Indeed, as the mass of gluinos, squarks, and sleptons varies, so does the visible final state. For instance, if squarks and gluinos have a similar mass one is unlikely to detect a hadronic jet from the quark that is emitted in the transformation of the former into the latter. The signature pf pair-produced gluinos then more closely resembles one with only two jets and missing energy.

The figure on the right shows the final selection of the data in one of the three search regions. It is clear that known Standard Model processes provide a good modeling of the observed distribution of missing transverse energy in the data (black points with error bars), whereas a supersymmetric signal (the empty histogram in green, overlaid to SM contributions) would have instead stood out and created a disagreement.

From the distributions an upper limit can be extracted on the amount of signal contained in the data, and from the latter a limit is obtained in the cross section of gluino pair production: this translates into a mass exclusion range for squarks and gluinos. The final summarizing plot is shown below.

The plane is spanned by the mass of the two hypothetical particles. Colored areas have been excluded by different experiments; the CDF search extends the excluded region by the size of the red-painted area. We thus learn that gluinos cannot be lighter than 300 GeV, whatever the squark mass, otherwise CDF would have seen a bunch of anomalous events with large missing energy and jets.

The Tevatron protons and antiprotons do not have enough energy to investigate supersymmetric particles of mass much larger than the limit discussed above: so if Supersymmetry is the right theory of Nature, it may turn out to be the job of the Large Hadron Collider to discover it. With its 7-fold increase in energy and hundred-fold increase in interaction rates, the LHC is expected to provide a clear-cut answer: discover supersymmetry, or rule it out for good. As you can see in the plot below (where the plane is spanned by two convenient parameters among the multitude of choices: and ), the discovery reach of the CMS experiment extends to mass values in excess of a TeV - where supersymmetric particles would be close to useless, because they would not have a chance to solve the problems of electroweak symmetry breaking for which they were once invented.

The graph is complicated and it requires some more explanation: the blue areas are excluded by theoretical constraints and experimental searches, and the green area is also excluded. The colored wavy lines show instead the limits that CMS will be able to set in the plane -intending it will exclude anything to the left of the curves - with different searches, labeled by their respective “smoking guns”. The red curve is labeled for missing transverse energy, and it is one of the most performant in excluding the parameter space.

So, indeed, CMS and ATLAS will have an easy way to find signals of supersymmetry across the table -the wide space of parameters: they just need to study their distribution of missing transverse energy, just as we saw CDF do in the analysis mentioned above. The fanthom signal of a neutralino, which cannot interact with the detector and leaves unseen, turns out to be more striking at the end of the day than the multitude of jets and charged leptons the pyroclastic Supersymmetric production events would give rise to. Seeing events with a large amount of missing transverse energy would not allow us to determine which form of supersymmetry we are dealing with - whether a minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model with two higgs boson doublets, or more complicated schemes. However, it would still allow us to claim that we have evidence for THE candidate particle which constitutes 80% of the stuff the Universe is made of.

I need to warn the reader here: of course, ATLAS and CMS have already studied dozens of methods, some of which are quite complicated, to extract very detailed information on Supersymmetry and very clean signatures of its presence from LHC data. These analyses focus on kinematical properties of the supersymmetric decays which are very model-dependent, and very complicated to explain. Although I reported about these methods in my seminar, I take the liberty here of jumping ahead a little…

So what instead if SUSY is not, after all, the right idea ?

Despite the general enthusiasm of theorists, phenomenologists, and other assorted believers, in fact, we have to keep a cool mind. Let’s review the cost of the purchase we have to make if we are to marry Supersymmetry:

• twenty brand-new particles, never before seen
• at least 104 new parameters, whose value is unknown and to be determined by improbable experiments
• a strict conservation of R-parity, the number you get by adding together spin, baryon, and lepton number in a suitable combination - the combination allows the proton and the lightest neutralino to remain stable
• We also have to agree that despite the fact that in principle the Tevatron and LEP colliders could have well stumbled into Supersymmetry, they haven’t - new physics chose to hide in the far away corner, just like the small coin that you dropped from your pocket.

Some of us think the above is too much to buy, for a theory which “solves” the mystery of a unnaturally small mass of the Higgs boson (provided the Higgs exists and is light as every evidence still suggests) and which collapses two crossings between running coupling constants into one single point. Ockham’s razor comes a-slashing: “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem“, one must not multiply entities. The most economical explanation is the best one… The razor cuts unnecessary entities.

One should mention, at the end of this long post which focused on the searches for just one candidate for dark matter - the one which hadron colliders may have a chance to find, the neutralino - that there is a long list of alternatives, of many flavors: kaluza-klein gravitons, sneutrinos, gravitinos, little higgses, axions, primordial black holes, charged massive particles, heavy neutrinos, sterile neutrinos, you name them.

It is for this very reason that in the end, LHC searches will require to follow the very important two-step procedure outlined by M.Mangano in a recent paper: first establish that an anomaly exists in the data, and only after it has been demonstrated to be utterly unexplainable by known phenomena, proceed with an exotic explanation.

To conclude, dark matter candidates have been searched at past and present collider experiments with no success. LHC appears to have the right energy and the potential to finally discover the source of this astounding enigma. In any case, we will know in a few years whether Supersymmetry is real or just a crazy concoction. If SUSY exists, new accelerators will be needed to investigate it in detail, but if it doesn’t, particle physics may be at a dead end. Despite this threatening possibility, we have extremely exciting years ahead of us!

Although ten short meaningless posts won’t outvalue a longer thoughtful one, for today I stick with the former. So let me just paste here a link to a post about me at sci.bzaar.net, the site of a workshop I will attend virtually next week.

In a few days I plan to provide the site owner, Gianandrea Giacoma, with a couple of short videos where I discuss some limits of blogs in the context of scientific outreach. If I am not too lazy I will produce an English version of those (the event is for an italian audience).

Since I am temporarily hampered in my typing ability because of a bulky bandage on my left hand, this morning I thought I’d post a few pictures from last weekend’s vacation on Achensee, a pleasant alpine lake in Austria.

Here Filippo (left) and Ilaria (right) are pirates relaxing on their ship with their colleagues Achille and Olga.

A closeup of Ilaria.

And to be democratic, a picture of Filippo.

What is the name of these funny, beautiful flowers ?

The indoor pool of our hotel, where we spent the better part of our afternoon -kids loved it.

Ilaria in the pool.

A bit of the lake towards Maurach.

Filippo studying the dynamics of stones bouncing on the water.

Everybody loved the big jacuzzi.

“The probability that there’s a bomb on your flight is really small, and yet still non negligible for anxious people like me. But the probability that there are two bombs is really ridiculously tiny! That’s why I always take one with me in my carry-on“.

Anonymous

I am writing this single-handedly because of a stupid mistake. I am  spending this long week-end (1st of May is a holiday in Italy) in a nice mountain place in the austrian alps with family and friends, and I found a way to make things interesting…

I was carving a small wooden ship for Ilaria this afternoon, on the terrace of our hotel room, and I forgot that the blade should be always aimed in the opposite direction of your flesh. So as a hard piece of wood gave in all of a sudden, I found myself shocked, looking at a wide cut on the second finger of my left hand. The skin layer was parted, allowing a entertaining view of the bone, partly attacked by the violent blow. Blood was copious but fortunately not threatening.

After some initial trouble - arranging for a trip to an emergency room isn’t straightforward with two kids, one of them sleeping - things were straightened out. The tendon was not damaged, and four stitches did the job. I am still shocked, though, by how stupid I have been. In cases such as this, however, I tend to feel happy for the fact that things are easily repaired - bad luck could see me impaired in my playing the piano or typing for what’s left to live… And since I intend to live for a long while more, it would have really been disappointing!

Upon coming back from a shor vacation on the Alps, I rushed to connect my laptop to the internet. And one of the first things I did was to check for recent results by CDF. The experiment has been producing new beautiful results at an impressive pace during the last few months: it is as if the work of years of preparations, refining algorithms, tools, thinking hard at new methods, and a parallel strong push for the collection and processing of data had converged to a singularity, and now results are popping up like flowers in a garden.

My interest in the new analyses is boosted by the fact that in less than a month I will be describing them at PPC2008, a conference in Albuquerque where I am going to give a talk on new CDF results. So it is about time for me to start thinking about the organization of my talk.

As I browsed the recent talks in the Higgs Discovery Group, I found a new blessed (i.e., internally approved for public consumption) result that warmed my heart. It is the first Run II limit on associated Higgs boson production based on the 4-jet signature of WH or ZH decay. This signature arises when the Higgs boson is produced by the process called “higgs-strahlung” off a virtual W or Z boson, and both bosons then decay in a pair of hadronic jets (see picture). The Higgs, if it is lighter than 135 GeV, most of the times decays to a pair of b-quarks (in red), while W and Z bosons decay to all available quarks (in blue) more democratically.

Hadronic decays of vector bosons are the most common ones: W bosons decay to two quark jets 66% of the time, and Z bosons 70% of the time. So, with a large fraction of Higgs bosons also materializing into two jets, looking for four-jet final states to see a WH or ZH signal might look like a no-brainer. Quite the contrary!

Indeed, the 4-jet final state has always been considered absolutely hopeless. 4-jet events are among the most common final states of a proton-antiproton collision, and the kinematic handles one can use to try and discriminate associated WH or ZH production from generic QCD 4-jet production are absolutely insufficient. One can consider the invariant mass of pairs of jets, in the knowledge that W, Z, H all have a well-defined mass, while QCD produces jet pairs without any constraint on their common mass.

Hopeless, in particle physics, is a very attractive word for some of us. Out-smarting our colleagues is one of the highest forms of satisfaction in a scientific workplace… So, after my group demonstrated against all odds the possibility to see top pair decays in their 6-jet final state (one that arises when both W bosons emitted in the chain decay to jet pairs), in 1996, we started thinking at what would be the best way to exploit the experience we had formed in reconstructing high-mass states with jets.

One branch had already born fruit: my PhD was already in full swing, and I would show a first signal of decays soon thereafter. But that is another long story. Instead, in 1998 we started working at the idea of reconstructing the WH or ZH signal in events with four hadronic jets. In Run I the analysis had already been undertaken by Juan Valls and Jorge Troconiz, and they had indeed produced a fine piece of physics, with a limit on Higgs production which challenged those in the “golden” leptonic channels.

We aimed at Run II, and started working at the most critical issue: the one of triggering on 4-jet events with b-quarks. The multijet trigger which had been the basis of both the and the analyses was very inefficient on the latter signal, because of inefficiencies in the online jet reconstruction.

Enter the SVT (silicon vertex tracker), a fantastic device which measures online the impact parameter of tracks, allowing the collection of B-decays with high efficiency. SVT had been designed for B-physics purposes and was thus aimed at low-energy events, so we needed to verify it would work fine for 4-jet events too. This implied determining that those complicated, high-track-multiplicity events were reconstructable in the 20 microseconds available for a trigger decision at Level 2; and then designing a set of selection cuts that would allow the maximum efficiency on signal events while keeping the data acquisition rate at an acceptable level. In parallel, we also studied alternative strategies involving the semileptonic decay of B-hadrons, by combining jet signatures with soft lepton detection.

This job kept us busy for three years, and fruited a graduation to Giorgio Cortiana, a PhD to Luca Scodellaro and Mario Paolo Giordani (and I am certainly forgetting some other students). But as Run II started for real, and multijet events started being collected with high efficiency, we gradually lost interest: Luca Scodellaro’s analysis had shown that the signal was really, really hopeless. Too hopeless even for us - or maybe we were already growing old and disillusioned ?

The recent analysis by Song-Ming Wang, Rong-Shyang Lu, and Ankush Mitra (Academia Sinica), Daniel Whiteson (UC Irvine), and Aart Heijboer and Joe Kroll (University of Pennsylvania) shows otherwise. Sure, they do not reach a sensitivity sufficient to exclude Standard Model production of WH and ZH events in any region of Higgs masses, but they nevertheless extract an excellent result which will be successfully combined with the other searches, improving the global Tevatron limits on Higgs production. Since this post has become much longer than I wanted, I will only describe it shortly, and jump to the results.

The analysis selects events with four jets, two of which have to contain a signal of B-hadron decay, and then uses a Matrix-Element approach to determine the probability that the observed final state is the result of the decay of a WH or ZH pair, and the probability that it is instead due to background processes. The information is merged in a discriminant which separates the processes on a statistical basis. One thus ends up fitting the distribution of the discriminant as a sum of background and signal, as in the plot below.

To put in evidence the small contribution from top pair production (in blue), diboson and single top (in green), and WH/ZH processes (in red), a logarithmic plot is appropriate:

As you see, the signal would contribute mainly in the right part of the distribution, but with a tiny fraction of the events: Standard Model predicts a contribution of less than 10 events in a sample of more than 20,000.

The maximum amount of signal allowed by the fit determines a limit on the production cross-section of Higgs and vector bosons. The limit on the cross-section depends on the Higgs boson mass for two reasons: one is the increase in collection efficiency as the Higgs mass grows, and the other is the decrease in Higgs branching fraction to b-jet pairs. In the end, one obtains a limit on the ratio between cross section and SM expected cross section, as a function of Higgs mass. The limit is always larger than 1 -it actually is higher than 30- so no Higgs mass is excluded by this search. It is shown below with a red line; the limit the analysis would predict to set, based on pseudo-experiments, is shown by the hatched black line and 1-sigma and 2-sigma yellow and green bands.

This result really makes me feel that the work we did eight years ago was not wasted!

If you just visited this blog (that is as I post this message, between 11.40 and 11.50PM on May 1st), you have a 10% chance of having generated its 500,000th view. Sorry, no red carpet, band with trumpets, or prize.

I believe about a third of the visitors are colleagues with some degree of parenthood -meaning they work in the same field I do, or similar ones. The rest are a 50-50 mix of non-physicists who are just interested in science, and occasional visitors who are not likely to hang around.

While I do enjoy the increased interaction I obtained in these years with fellow physicists, particularly theorists and people from whom I have a chance of learning something new, the class of readers that are dearest to me are the non-physicists who try to understand physics. It is to them that this blog is mostly aimed at.
Of course, I not always manage to write something that is both at the right level and interesting enough for them, but I do try to.

In any case, I thank all of you who visit this blog occasionally or regularly for giving me the encouragement and the stimulus to make this site worth the time I spend making it better and keeping it -hopefully- interesting and informative. I also use this occasion to encourage any of you who has something potentially worth a post, to submit it to me. You can get a feeling of what guest posts here may be by looking at the “guest post” page up here.