• John
  • Felde
  • University of Maryland
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • James
  • Doherty
  • Open University
  • United Kingdom

Latest Posts

  • Andrea
  • Signori
  • Nikhef
  • Netherlands

Latest Posts

  • CERN
  • Geneva
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Aidan
  • Randle-Conde
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles
  • Belgium

Latest Posts

  • Sally
  • Shaw
  • University College London
  • UK

Latest Posts

  • Richard
  • Ruiz
  • Univ. of Pittsburgh
  • U.S.A.

Latest Posts

  • Laura
  • Gladstone
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Seth
  • Zenz
  • Imperial College London
  • UK

Latest Posts

  • Michael
  • DuVernois
  • Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Mandeep
  • Gill

  • Emily
  • Thompson
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Ken
  • Bloom
  • USA

Latest Posts

Seth Zenz | Imperial College London | UK

View Blog | Read Bio

Can We “Point” the LHC, Too?

The Bad Astronomy blog is publicizing a chance to choose what the Hubble Space Telescope looks at.  The basic idea is that there’s going to be an internet vote between six objects that Hubble has never looked at, and Hubble will be pointed at the winner and send out pictures of it by April.  It seems like a fun way to get the public to learn more about, and feel more involved in, the Hubble project.

I’ll let you read more details at one of the links above, but I have another question to consider: can we do something similar with the LHC? That is, could we put up some kind of page where people could vote on what kind of physics we would study over the course of some particular week?  Maybe a choice between searching for Supersymmetry, or a high-mass Higgs boson, or a low-mass Higgs boson?  At first glance, the answer would seem to be “no.”  We obviously have no control over what kind of physics happens when the protons of the LHC collide — we just look at what comes out.  And it seems unlikely that any physicist would volunteer to put their work hours into a particular analysis because of a public vote, and anyway we’ll have people working on all the high-profile analyses and many low-profile ones besides.

But there actually is a sense in which ATLAS or CMS could to something similar.  Remember that our detectors can only record a few hundred events every second, out of the almost forty million times the beams cross during that second.  There are lots of collisions we have to throw out because we can’t store enough data, and it’s the trigger system that decides which few we keep.  In practice, there are a number of different signals that we program the trigger system to be interested in: we take a certain number of random low-energy events to help us calibrate what we see in our other events, and we have separate “trigger paths” for hadronic jets, for muons, for electrons, and so on.  We try to record all the events that might represent interesting new physics, but as the collision rate at the LHC increases, we’ll have to throw away even some of those.  When the committee meets to decide how to balance the different possible triggers, what is at issue is precisely which kinds of events the detector will “point at,” i.e. recognize as important and save.  People with different interests in terms of physics might make different choices about how to achieve that balance, and every study would always love more trigger bandwidth if it were available, and that’s why we have committees to argue about it in the first place.

So why not reserve 5% of the ATLAS or CMS trigger bandwidth for a public vote on what physics to look for, to give a little extra oomph to one study or another?  Actually, I can think of several good and practical reasons why not — but it’s fun to think about!


Tags: , , ,

7 Responses to “Can We “Point” the LHC, Too?”

  1. Harbles says:

    Interesting idea.
    I’m not sure how many ‘lay’ persons have the technical chops to suggest particles or phenomena that aren’t already being looked for though.
    I was wondering if during the next few months of downtime and with all the detector people are itching to play with their new toys if it would be at all productive to have the various detectors time coordinate their cosmic ray tracking? I have no idea if this would be at all usefull.
    Meanwhile wrt your idea I propose that the ‘Sparkle Pony Particle’ be searched for. I have no idea what the signature of said particle may be however. I can only assume it has not been yet found because no one thought to look for it before. LOL

  2. Ted Kolberg says:

    Hi Seth–

    Good idea! In fact, CMS already has plans for an “outreach trigger” that sets aside some small fraction of our trigger bandwidth for events to stream to an audience of high school teachers and their students. They have a hand in choosing what types of events they want to look like. If I’m not mistaken, we will start with a high-pT double isolated electron trigger that will show a nice Z peak.

  3. Seth Zenz says:

    We were doing combined ATLAS cosmic ray runs during the fall — just coordinating all the pieces of our one detector was a challenge, although we made good progress. Right now, ATLAS is using the downtime to open the detector up and do various repairs and upgrades.

    Regarding the “Sparkle Pony Particle,” one of my colleagues always talks about “pink elephants,” a generic term for proposed particles that are spectacular but highly implausible.

  4. Seth Zenz says:

    Ted — argh, just when I thought I was being original, you (mumble grumble) CMS people have to show me up! Presumably the audience won’t really be changing the CMS trigger, though, just the subset of it that they see?

  5. Ben Lillie says:

    Ted (or anyone on CMS), can you say more about how the outreach program works? It sounds like a very cool idea, but I’m curious to what extent they help decide what to put in the trigger. There’s clearly a difference between Hubble, where you know you’re going to get something interesting, both visually and scientifically, whichever object you image, and this, where a poorly chosen trigger represents a lot of lost opportunity.

  6. [...] Meanwhile, Seth at the US LHC blogs wonders if the LHC experiments can do something similar. I kinda hope they don’t. Do we really need national TV exposure of all the ways the [...]

  7. Ben Lillie says:

    Ouch, I’d like to apologize for how that trackback excerpting turned out. The bits you can’t see should make it clear it’s a joke. I would, in fact, love to see an outreach effort like this.

    Note to self: don’t let the software automatically pick the excerpt.

Leave a Reply

Commenting Policy