LHC Update and new records

ATLAS and CMS are now reporting about 4.2/fb recorded while LHCb recently celebrated their first 1/fb. There are 20 days of proton physics left this year, enough time to bring the total to about 5/fb each for the big two. Some time is being reserved for extra machine development studies looking forward to next years runs.

Last week they collided bunches with 25ns spacing for the first time. Next week they will do this again with more bunches and will also run some pile-up tests. I think this means they will collide some high intensity bunches so the experiments can test their algorithms to see how well they can deal with even higher event pile-ups.

Meanwhile the physics runs continue to collect data and today they established a new peak luminosity record of 3.42/nb/s , beating the record of 3.3/nb/s from a few weeks ago. This suggests that they are returning to some adiabatic intensity increases as the end of the run approaches.

If you are following the physics results don’t miss “Heavy flavor physics with the CMS experiment” this Tuesday and “Searches for Exotic Physics with the ATLAS Detector” next Tuesday. Both talks will probably be webcast live from CERN.

Update 14-Oct-2011: The all-time delivered luminosity for the LHC has now passed 5/fb per experiment. The more important figure for recorded luminosity in ATLAS and CMS is over 4.5/fb with two weeks of proton physics remaining for 2011.

40 Responses to LHC Update and new records

  1. Jin He says:

    Congratulation to viXra!
    The Alexa Traffic Rank for viXra is 945,557, passing the critical point of 1,000,000:
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/vixra.org#

    But 85 percent of its visitors go to
    blog.vixra.org

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Yes we have had big increases in traffic this year, both for the blog and the archive. We also entered into Wikipedia.

  2. David George says:

    According to the story in the link below, it now may be a year before the LHC Higgs search results are made public. Is that not a substantial change in the “schedule”?

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre79568h-us-higgs/

    “I think by this time next year I will be able to bring you either the Higgs boson or the message that it doesn’t exist,” declared Rolf Heuer, director general of CERN whose Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is at the focus of the search.

    (Also, thank you Philip for your response to my earlier inquiry about the two different search scenarios Tevatron versus LHC.)

  3. Kea says:

    The CMS talk appears to have already happened, no? Did anyone catch it?

  4. Marc says:

    Phil–curious about your 5040/pb at the top. Where do you get this? If I look at http://lhc-statistics.web.cern.ch/LHC-Statistics/index.html#, for CMS they has 4961/pb for 2011, and I think it was 35/pb for 2010, so that adds to around 5000, not 5040. Not that it make a bit of difference, of course, but I was just curious.

  5. Lubos told about newest results concerning Higgs search. The 144 GeV state having interpretation as M_89 pion is now established with 6 sigma (!!) significance. Does anyone remember that I have been the only one defending the reality of the CDF bump in viXra log;-).

    There are also other states which have a beautiful interpretation in TGD framework with the conclusion that SUSY in TGD sense has been also discovered (already in ordinary hadron physics for 8 years ago as weirdly behaving X meson was discovered).

    See my blog posting Triumph for TGD: M_89 hadron physics finally established?!.

    • wl59 says:

      This is a complete misinterpretation of the situation. Nowhere someone said that at 119, 144 … GeV was registered any signal of this significance. It’s only guessed, that with the amount of date obtained until now, how significant in certain areas of the expected mass a Higgs could be excluded or confirmed. The data themselve (i.e., if there was observed something or not), we don’t know. We also should remember that such an exclusion probability is only senseful if there is NO significant signal; but if there is one, then instead should be represented the signal together with its mean error (or probability).

    • Kea says:

      No, you were not the only one. Other people have other interpretations.

  6. ondra says:

    Matti, Lubos blog is about expected significance in case of no fluctulations, not about search results! Point was that if there is sm or light non sm higgs there could/should be enough information in atlas/cms data by now. Thats all.
    Another important achievement is 1 fb-1 recorded by LHCb, by analysing them we could get a good idea about bsm physics contribution to the rare decay modes.
    Btw this triple b channel is very difficult at LHC since it produces large amount of these quarks.

  7. Thank you ondra. You are right. I was too hasty.

  8. ondra says:

    Its fine Matti, i think we are all restless and eager to know :).
    Btw as Philip said i also recommend using official experiments plots for lumi
    https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/LumiPublicResults
    https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/LuminosityPublicResults
    https://lbweb.cern.ch/groups/online/OperationsPlots/index.htm

  9. carla says:

    Once they get past 5/fb recorded – probably within the penultimate week, will they continue data collecting or will they intensify 25ns MD?

    • ondra says:

      Carla, todays 20.10.2011 report says there will be more 25ns MD on Friday. They will hopefully finish 90 m run tonight, which looks finally successful after several desperate tries :).
      Anyway looks like 5 fb-1 recorded is the goal, they dont really try to get every pb-1 they can.

  10. Still warm thanks for ondra. I rewrote a tamed version of the posting and added still more details this morning. Now one must just wait. Thank you for the links.

    • Anonymous says:

      You have misunderstood the graph. The graph is about the “projected significance” of a potential Higgs discovery. The different curves represent different amounts of data, and the Y axis is the significance of the discovery, if Higgs had mass X. The graph has NOTHING to do whether Higgs actually exists or what is mass might be.

  11. Dear Anonymous, read carefully my posting. I am not talking about projected significance. I am only assuming that there are *bumps around the mass valued claimed by Lubos* and interpreting them- not as Higgs- but in TGD framework as possible evidence of M_89 hadron physics.

    I do not know which are the sources where Lubos has picked up the mass values for bumps: he does not mention them. The candidates for Higgs mass values might be cooked up by Lubos on basis of his expectations and hopes. Or maybe Lubos uses earlier published data or perhaps data which he has been leaked to him via some channels from CERN.

    I repeat: the sole purpose of the posting is to look whether these masses could be understood in TGD framework in terms of M_89 hadron physics. Just that.

    *This might be indeed possible if mesons are accompanied by exotic partners which are either mesons formed from colored excitations of quarks or from squarks- both predicted by TGD. So called X and Y mesons of ordinary hadron physics have a nice explanation in terms of this kind of states.

    *Shadronization naturally occurring with a rate faster than selectro-weak decays of squarks followed by transformation to hadrons by gluino exchanges would explain why the signatures of SUSY have not been observed at LHC. For this option SUSY would be discovered already for 8 years ago in ordinary hadron physics.

    This is my basic message.

    • Anonymous says:

      Your assumption is incorrect. Lubos does not claim any mass values, and there certainly are no bumps around.

      The correct interpretation is that IF Higgs particle existed with a mass of 144 GeV, there would be now enough data to claim a 6-sigma discovery.

      It is absurd to claim that the projected significance could be interpreted as a possible sign of “M_89 hadron physics”.

      • wl59 says:

        I agree with anonymus. The mass values given by Lubos seems to be just the earlier-most-discussed values, most discused not because there would have been any affirmative signal, but in opposite because there hadn’t data (specially at 119) or only few data, i.e. just because there the statistical data uncertainty (or amount of data) was most poor so that also the exclusion certainty was most weak.

        In his blog, Lubos just wanted to demonstrate and project, that the total amount of data meanwhile available may be sufficient to exclude also these areas. I agree roughly with Lubos, however I’m afraid that on 119 the amount of merasured (all negative) data still is very low, what isn’t any indication that Higgs would be there (as suggested by Matti), but what makes simply the statistical uncertainty (or mean error, or weight of observation matter) still too poor to exclude with 95% that Higgs couldn’t be there, for what we perhaps need 2-3 weeks more data.

        For a maximal understanding for Matti, I try it to explain as follows. Saying Higgs is at 1.0 , no-Higgs at 0.0. Now you measure: 0.0 +/- 20 . Then the measurement formally is zero (a ‘negative’ result = no Higgs), but your observation by reasons of the experiment is very uncertain, within the uncertainty of 20 it also could be 1.0, so that it don’t exclude Higgs. Repeating the measurement 100 times, then the uncertainty or mean error (67% probability) would go back to +/- 2.0 , repeating it 400 times, then it would go down to +/- 1.0 , after 40000 measurements it would be +/- 0.1 what’s enough for exclude or affirm reasonable Higgs or no-Higgs. But which of this two possibilities, this will tell you only the VALUE or average of the mesaurements — it could be f.ex. 0.98 +/- 0.10 or 0.05 +/- 0.10 and then in the 1st case we have an afirmation of Higgs and in the 2nd case we have an affirmation of no-Higgs. Now, the common yellow-green pictures show not the VALUES of the measurements (or their average values), but they show just the explained UNCERTAINTY (renormed to a 95% probability rather than to 1 sigma). They show the projection what uncertainty we would expect by simulations after a certain number of hours running ATLAS etc, and they also show the real uncertainty or amount of data obtained by the LHC — so that rougly spoken a higher measured uncertainty even means an unexpected lack of data (or a fewer number data than expected), what don’t tell us nothing about the value, but a lack of expected ‘visibility’ generally is more a contra-indication than an indication of an existing Higgs too. Now, if there would be really any indication of a Higgs from the measurements themselves together with their uncertainty, then CERN would change from this exclusion-probability or MEAN ERRORS presentations to a presentation of the measurements or VALUES themselves plus their mean error (or plus their 95% probability). Insofar is also the critics against this blog correct, that in the alternative blue-violet plots wrongly is indicated that they would mean the VALUES or measurement or average-of-data (in the sense, 1 = Higgs, 0 = no-Higgs), because the data NEVER can be reconstructed from the +/- or uncertainties (only the NUMBER of data or data-weight what determines the unknown value 0.0 – 1.0 for the corresponding Higgs mass). If I tell you, any quantity was measured many times and the uncertainty is +/- 5 , then from this you cannot reconstruct that the measurement was f.ex. 7 +/- 5 or 18 +/- 5 .

        If now in next green-yellow plots, at 119 still is a high value, absolute or over the prediction, then this means just that there are still too few data, at all or compared with the expection after so much running hours, not enough for exclude or for affirm Higgs with 119 mass. It don’t mean that there would be a Higgs — you don’t know the value of the measurement.

  12. Dear Anonymous,

    a) I agree completely that 144 GeV bump is not Higgs, this my whole point! In TGD framework the natural interpretation would be as M_89 pion: this interpetation predices the masses of rho_89 and omega_89 to be around 256 GeV: Tommaso Dorigo told few days ago about additional evidence for this kind of bump.

    b) It is indeed absurd to claim that projected significance would be evidence for M_89 hadron physics. Therefore I do not claim this. I think that I already said this, maybe you should exercise your skills in listening and attentive reading, Dear Anonymous.

    c) As I said Lubos does not tell about his information sources concerning the mass values. There is of course earlier data well known to Lubos and also to me and it is quite possible that Lubos has data not known to us. I am just looking whether one can understand these mass values in TGD framework. Just that.

    Already earlier reported bumps give indications for pion 144 GeV bump) , rho, and omega of M_89 hadron physics and even some other resonances. These are of course just indications. Explaining *all* the mass values claimed by Lubos would require SUSY in TGD sense: it would allow interpret the mysterious X and Y mesons of ordinary hadron physics as scharmonium states.

    • wl59 says:

      To avoid continuous misunderstandings for readers which find ocasionally this thread:

      Lubos don’t claim any data which indicates something – whatever – at the said mass values, nor seems to have any informations hidden to us. The values what he quotes in his blog, were just and nothing else these mass values where previously the mean error or weight (rouhgly the amount/number) of observations, refered to 95% rather than to 1sigma, was still poor. Specially at 119 during long time had no observations at all, so that, obviously, the uncertainty there was very high.

      Worser even, according to the last published data, 144 was already excluded with or better than 95% . With harder words: according to this accepted criterion, there is nothing at 144, and if any theory predict there something, then that theory is now experimentally proved to be wrong.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        Dear wl59,

        let me confirm that I am a for of the 144 GeV Higgs and I believe it’s excluded by now, maybe even as the second Higgs. You’re also right that I don’t claim that there are data supporting the particular other figures for the masses; however, I also don’t claim that I don’t have such data. ;-)

        In fact, one of these other masses is being intensely discussed right now both in CMS and ATLAS and there’s a disagreement whether they see a signal. The other may have been given a signal at least by one collaboration. But that’s been enough: of course, I am not going to say which is which and so on so you have learned pretty much nothing here, anyway. ;-)

        Cheers
        LM

      • Dilaton says:

        LOL :-)

        Maybe Lumo is just bluffing :-P …?

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        no comment ;-)

      • carla says:

        I’m confused, well confused ;) Bill Murray gave a talk a few weeks back using tommaso’s graphs of expected signal against mass for various integrated luminosity and thought the graphs were perhaps a little too optimistic – predicts 5/fb enough for a 3-sigma 115Gev . Bill suggests a 5+5/fb combination from Atlas and Cms gives a greater than 2-sigma signal for a 115Gev Higgs.

        Therefore if either of Atlas or Cms, but not both, has seen as signal then it must be around 3-sigma. Also, it must be around 4-sigma according to Tomasso’s graphs for 2/fb of data, let’s say, if Bills’s estimate is right. Which means they must be looking at a signal around 130Gev. But then a few weeks back Tomasso suggested that the Higgs is at 119Gev in a light hearted way, as if not to be taken seriously; and i don’t think it can if Bill Murray is right.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        Don’t take Tommaso’s 119 thing seriously.

        Some of the plots used to predict signal strength are based on old data from last year. I will do some updated ones.

        Bill posted some plots of old data labelled HCP 11 on the ATLAS twiki which suggests there will be no new data used at that conference. They will just add the full combo fro LP data.

        Perhaps they will change their mind but we could have to wait for some time to see new results if they want to have a full combo ready at the same time. Expect more rumours to fly.

      • chris says:

        he’s not bluffing. there are indeed people within atlas and cms that claim a higgs at ~120GeV. there are also people shaking their heads over these claims.

        we’ll just have to wait and see what they will come to agree upon.

      • Dilaton says:

        Yes Chris, from the drop down list in Lumo’s higgs poll post I`ve ordered a higgs @ ~120GeV… ;-)

        Now I want to get it soon or I`ll explode with impatiance not only into the macroscopic directions (will have enough energy for that …) :-P!

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        If they show us the plots they wont need to tell us if its a Higgs or not. We can work that out for ourselves.

  13. Philip Gibbs says:

    The ATLAS talk will be webcast in about an hours time. The slides are up and do include some new results recently posted as conference notes, but nothing with positive results. It should be an interesting talk covering some of the searches less often reported.

    He said that he had hoped to present further new results but they were not yet released.

    Next week there will be an LHCb talk

  14. The masses of Higgs around 140 GeV were disfavored already month or two ago (Tommas Dorigo). Let us emphasize: Higgs. There was however some structure in this region so that something else than Higgs might be there.

    Just recalling what claims has been made by experimentalists during this single year, it seems better to avoid strong statements. Nature does not care much about our besser-wisserisms.

    In any sase, it seems that this 144 GeV creates strong emotions. Maybe we should try to take a humbler attitude and wait what experimentalists say and modify our simple models if needed.

  15. David George says:

    If committees disagree about what they see, why should anyone have confidence that what emerges from the committees will represent some confirmation about some hypothesis relative to physical reality? It is like fixing a question to give the desired answer. Neither the questioner nor the statistician can be trusted (in this case, neither the theoreticians nor the experimenters). I never had much faith in the particle-field paradigm as representing physical reality, and now I have none. Higgs, schmiggs. And the same goes for the rest of the ‘particles’.

  16. Tony Smith says:

    Slide 69 of the ATLAS talk by Fortin on 18 October 2011 which is based on ATLAS-CONF-2011-123 (30 August 2011) about
    searches for T Tbar resonances in the Dilepton channel
    shows
    an excess of about 100 events over the expected number (about 750 events) in the 200 GeV to 300 GeV bin.

    If the CDF Wjj bump around 120 to 160 GeV were to be attributed to single-Tquark events in a low mass state (as in my 3-state model of Tquarks and Higgs)
    then
    the corresponding low-mass T Tbar would be around
    240 to 320 GeV.

    Could the excess seen by ATLAS be supportive of the CDF Wjj bump ?

    Tony

  17. As I told about TGD explanation of apparent neutrino super-luminality also in this blog I predicted that string theorists will soon propose the same explanation.

    Now someone in blog tells that Michael Duff has done this publicly in BBC2: see below. String theorists of course have the first night privilege to good ideas in the feudal community of theoretical physics and as a peasants of the community I can only take a philosophical attitude!;-)

    “Here in England, tonight BBC2 TV just screened a “Faster than Light” program with Michael Duff giving some string theory hype to explain the alleged 60 ns “faster than light” neutrinos. Duff stated that the results could be explained by neutrinos leaving our 4-d brane, taking a super-fast short-cut through the 11-d bulk, and then appearing again on the 4-d brane nearer the detector”.

    Replace brane with a world sheet along with particles propagate, add the notions of induced metric and light-like geodesic in induced metric distinguishing it light-like geodesics of imbedding space and here it is.

    Or at least almost! Something is still lacking: what does one really mean with the neutrino space-time sheet (shortcut)? Why the maximal signal velocity at neutrino space-time sheets would be higher than at photon space-time sheets? Why it depends on length scale, why not on energy? And so on…? Here one cannot avoid TGD and induced gauge field concept and TGD unavoidably creeps in. See for the details in my blog.

    • Ervin Goldfain says:

      When troubleshooting the OPERA anomaly, it is wise to first rule out ALL possible sources of statistical, systematic and interpretation errors before claiming new physics and/or throwing Lorentz symmetry under the bus. Invoking exotic theories make sense only when one runs out of simple (and often times counter-intuitive) explanations. We are no way near this point.

      • Lawrence B. Crowell says:

        I and a couple of others have been going through possible gravitational effects and relativity which might explain the anomaly. If the algorithm failed to take these into account we should be able to compute that. So far nothing, and frankly the error attributed to faster than light neutrinos is quite large. The paper by Elburg is clearly wrong, and I so far fail to see how a computation which does not compute something relativistic can account for this. I do though agree that something is probably wrong in the way data is being computed or compiled.

        LC

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 270 other followers

%d bloggers like this: