• Frank
  • Simon
  • MPI for Physics
  • Germany

Latest Posts

  • Flip
  • Tanedo
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Aidan
  • Randle-Conde
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Karen
  • Andeen
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Latest Posts

  • Jonathan
  • Asaadi
  • Syracuse University
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Byron
  • Jennings
  • TRIUMF
  • Canada

Latest Posts

  • Adam
  • Davis
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Seth
  • Zenz
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Alexandre
  • Fauré
  • CEA/IRFU
  • FRANCE

Latest Posts

  • Jim
  • Rohlf
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Emily
  • Thompson
  • USLHC
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Ken
  • Bloom
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

Fermilab | Batavia, IL | USA

Read Bio

Revolutionary muon experiment to begin with 3,200-mile move of 50-foot-wide particle storage ring

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

This Fermilab press release came out on May 8. Read the original press release.

A model of the truck that will be used to transport the Muon g-2 ring, placed on a streetscape for scale. The truck will be escorted by police and other vehicles when it moves from Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York to a barge, and then from the barge to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois. Credit: Fermilab

Scientists from 26 institutions around the world are planning a new experiment that could open the doors to new realms of particle physics. But first, they have to bring the core of this experiment, a complex electromagnet that spans 50 feet in diameter, from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York to the DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois.

The experiment is called Muon g-2 (pronounced gee-minus-two), and will study the properties of muons, tiny subatomic particles that exist for only 2.2 millionths of a second. The core of the experiment is a machine built at Brookhaven in the 1990s, and the centerpiece of that machine is a circular electromagnet made of steel and aluminum, 50 feet wide, with superconducting cable inside.

“It costs about 10 times less to move the magnet from Brookhaven to Illinois than it would to build a new one,” said Lee Roberts of Boston University, spokesperson for the Muon g-2 experiment. “So that’s what we’re going to do. It’s an enormous effort from all sides, but it will be worth it.”

While most of the machine can be disassembled and brought to Fermilab in trucks, the massive electromagnet must be transported in one piece. It also cannot tilt or twist more than a few degrees, or the complex wiring inside will be irreparably damaged. The Muon g-2 team has devised a plan to make the 3,200-mile journey that involves loading the ring onto a specially prepared barge and bringing it down the East Coast, around the tip of Florida and up the Mississippi River to Illinois.

The ring is expected to leave New York in early June, and land in Illinois in late July. Once it arrives, the ring will be placed onto a truck built just for this purpose, and driven to Fermilab in Batavia, a suburb of Chicago. The land transport portions on both the New York and Illinois ends of the trip will occur at night—to minimize traffic delays—and the truck will only travel, at most, 10 miles per hour. On the New York end, the trip from Brookhaven Lab’s gate to the departure port should take one night. The complete trip from the Illinois port to Fermilab should take two consecutive nights.

“The transport of the ring from Brookhaven to Fermilab is a great example of the cooperation that exists between national laboratories,” said James Siegrist, associate director of science for high-energy physics with the U.S. Department of Energy. “The Muon g-2 experiment is an important component of the future of particle physics in the United States.”

Once at Fermilab, the storage ring will be used to hold muons created in the laboratory’s accelerators. Muons “wobble” when placed in a magnetic field, and based on what we know about the universe, scientists have predicted the exact value of that wobble. An experiment using the same machine at Brookhaven in the 1990s saw evidence for – though not definitive proof of – a departure from that expected value.

“Fermilab can generate a much more intense and pure beam of muons, so the Muon g-2 experiment should be able to close that margin of error,” said Chris Polly, project manager for Fermilab. “If we can do that, this experiment could indicate that there is exciting science awaiting beyond what we have observed.”

The experiment is scheduled to begin taking data in 2016.

“The ring is a wonder of scientific engineering,” said William Morse of Brookhaven. “We’re extremely proud of it, and excited to see it used in this next-generation experiment.”

Share

Snowmass Young Physicists Career and Science Aspirations Survey

Tuesday, May 7th, 2013

The US high-energy physics community is planning the next two or three decades of its future. The process, called Snowmass, is a big deal for everyone interested in astro/particle physics, cosmology and related areas. That is especially important in these times of shrinking budgets and dire job prospects, which affect academic career paths of researchers worldwide — the folks at PhD Comics have a great take on this topic. Brilliant.

At Snowmass, the contribution of all segments of the community is necessary to ensure that its outcome truly reflects our views. The Snowmass Young Physicists group was formed to facilitate the participation of young people in this process. I am one of the organizers of this group and we are pursuing a Career and Science Aspirations Survey as an opportunity for everyone in our field to have their voices heard and help paint the big picture.

We are reaching out to people in all demographics: current, past and prospective students at the undergraduate and graduate levels; postdocs or former postdocs now working in other areas; and you, Quantum Diaries reader.

If you are part of our community, please take 10 minutes to respond the online survey. If you think this doesn’t apply to you, then please help us spread the news! The link is: http://tinyurl.com/snowmassyoung

The survey was launched in April and will be open until mid-July. Results will be published by the Snowmass Young team later this summer.

Marcelle Soares-Santos

Share

Supernovae light the way to dark energy

Monday, April 29th, 2013

This article originally appeared in Fermilab Today on April 26, 2013.

Images from the Dark Energy Camera before (left) and after (right) a supernova explosion in a galaxy about 2 billion light-years away.

Images from the Dark Energy Camera before (left) and after (right) a supernova explosion in a galaxy about 2 billion light-years away.

The Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration has captured images of 176 star explosions, called supernovae, including 16 that occurred farther than 7 billion light-years away and when the universe was only about half as old as it is today. A new type of CCD detector contained in the Dark Energy Camera enabled identification of the distant supernovae, making DECam about 10 times more sensitive than other optical cameras to the long-wavelength (red and near-infrared) light coming from these very distant explosions. This improved sensitivity will allow the DES collaboration to find more supernovae from this period in the history of the universe than any other project.

Our current understanding is that the universe is made up of about 70 percent dark energy and that this dark energy is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Measuring Type 1a supernovae is a way to study dark energy. The fainter the observed explosion, the further away it is, similar to the difference in brightness between nearby and distant candles. As the light of the explosion travels to us, it is stretched by the expansion of the universe and becomes redder. By combining the measured brightness and information about how much the light is stretched, cosmologists can calculate the expansion rate of the universe.

The Dark Energy Survey collaboration includes scientists, postdocs and graduate students from around the world, who worked together to build the camera, collect the images and identify the supernovae described in this result.

The Dark Energy Survey collaboration includes scientists, postdocs and graduate students from around the world, who worked together to build the camera, collect the images and identify the supernovae described in this result.

The amount and wavelength of a supernova’s light determines its age and type. Researchers use filters that divide optical light into four separate parts, with each filter allowing only certain wavelengths to pass through. We know these 16 supernovae are about 7 billion light-years away because most of the light was observed with the filter that allowed only the reddest light to pass through and be measured by the special red-sensitive detectors in the camera. Less sensitive cameras require time-consuming follow-up observations to determine the supernova age.

To search for supernovae, the DES observers take images of the same patch of sky every four to seven days. Then they subtract the images from each other and search for differences. Computers and teams of people looked at thousands of sets of DECam images to find the 176 candidate supernovae. So far five of the candidates have been followed up, and all five were confirmed to be type 1a supernovae.

The Dark Energy Survey will measure more than 3,000 type-1a supernovae in the next five years and provide new information about the mysterious nature of dark energy. For more information, see the Dark Energy Survey website.

Brenna Flaugher

Share

Naturalness

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

This article originally appeared in symmetry on April 16, 2013.

When a scientific result fails the test of “naturalness,” it can point to new physics.

Suppose a team of auditors is tasked with understanding a particular billionaire’s bank account. Each month, millions of dollars flow into and out of the account. If the auditors look at the account on random days, they see varying amounts of money. However, on the last day of every month, the balance is briefly set to exactly zero dollars.

It’s hard to imagine that this zero balance is an accident; it seems as if something is causing the account to follow this pattern. In physics, theorists consider improbable cancellations like this one to be signs of undiscovered principles governing the interactions of particles and forces. This concept is called “naturalness”—the idea that theories should make seeming coincidences feel reasonable.

In the case of the billionaire, the surprising thing is that, on a set schedule, the cash flow reaches perfect equilibrium. But one would expect it to be more erratic. The ups and downs of the stock market should cause monthly variations in the tycoon’s dividends. A successful corporate raid could lead to a windfall. And an occasional splurge on a Lamborghini could cause a bigger withdrawal than usual.

This unnatural fiscal balance simply screams for an explanation. One explanation that would make this ebb and flow of funds make sense would be if this account worked as a charity fund. Each month, on the first day of the month, a specific amount would be deposited. Over the course of the month, a series of checks would be cut for various charities, with the outflow carefully planned to match identically the initial deposit. Under this situation, it would be easy to explain the recurring monthly zero balance. In essence, the “charity account principle” makes what at first seemed to be unnatural now appear to be natural indeed.

In physics, we see a similar phenomenon when we predict the mass of the Higgs boson. While Higgs bosons get their mass in the same way as all other fundamental particles (by interacting with the Higgs field), that mass is also affected by another process—one in which the Higgs boson temporarily fluctuates into a pair of virtual particles, either two bosons or two fermions, and then returns to its normal state. These fluctuations affect the mass of the Higgs boson, and the size of this effect can be calculated using the Standard Model—a theory that predicts, among other things, the behavior of Higgs bosons.

To calculate how much these quantum fluctuations affect the mass, scientists multiply two terms. The first involves the maximum energy for which the Standard Model applies—a huge number. The second is the sum of the effect of the fluctuations to different virtual bosons minus the sum of the effect of the fluctuations to different virtual fermions. If the Higgs mass is small, as recent measurements at the LHC suggest, the product of these two numbers must also be small.  This means the sum effect of the bosons must be almost identical to the sum effect of the fermions, an unlikely scenario that turns out to be true. For this near cancellation to happen “just by accident” is so utterly improbable that it beggars the imagination. A coincidence like this is simply unnatural.

Without some underlying (and currently unknown) physical principle that makes it obvious why this occurs, it is quite strange for the mass of the Higgs to be so low. That is why discovering the Higgs boson is not the end of the story. Theorists have come up with several different explanations for its low mass, and now it is up to the experimentalists to test them.

Don Lincoln

Share

Dark-matter search results from CDMS II silicon detectors

Monday, April 15th, 2013

This article first appeared in Fermilab Today on April 15, 2013.

Scientists around the world are working to understand the nature of dark matter, which accounts for most of the mass of the universe. The earth seems to be moving through a cloud of dark-matter particles that encompasses the visible parts of our galaxy. We should be able to sense this dark matter if we can deploy detectors that are sensitive to the ‘billiard ball’ scatter of a dark matter particle from an atomic nucleus inside these detectors.

Experimental upper limits (90 percent confidence level) for the WIMP-nucleon spin-independent cross section as a function of WIMP mass. The black dotted line is from the present analysis, and the blue solid line includes previous CDMS II silicon-detector data. Also shown are limits from the CDMS II germanium-detector standard and low-threshold analyses (dark and light dashed red), as well as limits from the XENON collaboration (dark and light dash-dotted green). The magenta oval shows a possible WIMP signal region proposed to explain data from CoGeNT. The light and dark blue regions indicate the 68 percent and 90 percent contours obtained if the present result were to be interpreted as a WIMP signal. The asterisk shows the maximum likelihood point under this interpretation.

The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) experiment was designed to do exactly that, using germanium and silicon detectors cooled to very low temperatures in order to detect the electric charge and heat liberated by single dark-matter particle collisions with nuclei and distinguish them from the messier interactions created by normal matter.

At the American Physical Society April meeting in Denver, the CDMS collaboration presented on Saturday its blind-analysis results from data taken with silicon detectors during CDMS II operation at the Soudan Underground Laboratory. Kevin McCarthy, a graduate student from MIT, presented the results, which were submitted to Physical Review Letters.

The blind analysis resulted in three candidate events. Although this number is higher than the expected background of roughly half an event, this is far from a discovery. Simulations of the known backgrounds indicate that a statistical fluctuation could produce three or more events about 5 percent of the time. In other words, if the experiment were done 100 times, five of them would show at least three events in the signal region even if dark-matter particles did not exist.

However, there is more information on the characteristics of the expected background events and the expected signals from weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs, which are the favorite particle explanation for dark matter. A likelihood analysis that includes the measured recoil energies of the three events yields a 0.19 percent probability for the background-only hypothesis when tested against a model that includes a WIMP contribution. This translates into roughly a 3-sigma confidence level for the hypothesis that the three events are due to WIMP interactions. This is exciting but still does not meet the scientific standard for a discovery. Further investigations are necessary.

Nevertheless, if one indulges in a “what if” scenario and interprets the result as due to a WIMP signal, the WIMP mass would be around 8.5 times the mass of a proton. For the simplest theories of WIMP interactions and using the Standard Model for dark-matter distribution in our galaxy, the rate found for such interactions is in some conflict with the current results from the XENON experiments. The paper presents more details.

In 2010, the CDMS collaboration published results on dark-matter searches with germanium detectors, which resulted in two events in the signal region and an estimated background of 0.8 events. The conclusion at the time was that these events were likely leakage surface electrons rather than true nuclear recoils, and other experiments have not found any signals in this mass region.

The SuperCDMS Soudan experiment is currently taking data with larger, and better, germanium detectors, and hopes to shed additional light on low-mass WIMPs before the end of the year. The collaboration is considering the use of silicon detectors in future experiments.

—Dan Bauer, Deputy Director, Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics

Share

Springfield gets its own super collider

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

Until last evening I thought that The Simpsons game for iPhone and iPad was just another overrated little game. Your task is to rebuild Springfield after an explosion obliterates Homer’s power plant. The game is supposed to be an interesting, easy-going distraction, but it evolves at too slow a pace (unless you are willing to spend money on it, which I am not) and lacks the much-appreciated humorous punch that characterizes the show.

Or so was my impression until, out of the blue, Professor Frink shows up and asks for nothing less than a new … super collider.  Lisa, as a citizen reluctant to spend the taxpayers’ money, asks, “What about the LHC at CERN?”, but Frink argues that’s not powerful enough. So I decide that my Springfield will have its very own super collider and then I find out the new super collider’s building looks like Fermilab’s Wilson Hall. Now, THAT was a Simpsons punch!

Check out the screen shots below.

Marcelle Soares-Santos

Share

Second muon experiment receives Mission Need approval from DOE

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

This article first appeared in Fermilab Today on Sept. 19, 2012

This rendering shows the location of the proposed Muon Campus at Fermilab. The arrow points to the proposed site of the planned Muon g-2 experiment. Image: Muon Department/FESS

Fermilab’s plans for creating a Muon Campus with top-notch Intensity Frontier experiments have received a big boost. The Department of Energy has granted Mission Need approval to the Muon g-2 project, one of two experiments proposed for the new Muon Campus. The other proposed experiment, Mu2e, is a step ahead and already received the next level of DOE approval, known as Critical Decision 1.

“We now are officially on DOE’s roadmap,” said Lee Roberts, professor at Boston University and co-spokesperson for the roughly 100 scientists collaborating on the Muon g-2 (pronounced gee minus two) experiment. “This should make it easier to increase the size of our collaboration and foster international participation. Potential collaborators supported by the National Science Foundation or foreign funding agencies will be happy to see that we now have DOE’s official Mission Need approval.”

At present, the Muon g-2 collaboration includes scientists from institutions in China, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Russia as well as 16 institutions in the United States. Physicists from several institutions in the United Kingdom are in the process of joining the collaboration.

The new Muon Campus at Fermilab will consist of the reconfigured Antiproton Source, which will provide high-intensity muon beams, and two new buildings, which will host the Muon g-2 and Mu2e experiments. The new buildings will be located south of Wilson Hall, between the Booster accelerator and the former Antiproton Source.

“The design of the buildings has progressed a lot,” said Chris Polly, project manager for the Muon g-2 experiment. “We hope to break ground for the Muon Campus by the end of the calendar year.”

The Muon g-2 experiment will be more sensitive to virtual or hidden particles and forces than any previous experiment of its kind. It will measure with high precision a quantity known as the muon magnetic moment. A previous measurement, made with an experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory, yielded a surprise when it produced a result seemingly inconsistent with the magnetic moment predicted by theory. If confirmed, the discovery would open a window on subatomic interactions that go beyond the particles and forces described by the Standard Model.

Since the publication of the final Brookhaven results in 2004, scientists have worked diligently to refine theoretical predictions and devise an experiment that will yield a more precise measurement. Experimenters turned to Fermilab, which is the only laboratory in the world that currently has the capability to make high-intensity muon beams that meet the experiment’s requirements.

Fermilab is reconfiguring the Debuncher ring, part of the former Antiproton Source, to create high-intensity muon beams for the Muon g-2 experiment. Earlier this year, a team of scientists successfully circulated the first muons in the Debuncher. Photo: Reidar Hahn

The Muon g-2 plans include the transportation of a 50-foot-diameter ring with a set of one-of-a-kind superconducting magnets from Brookhaven to Fermilab. The circular ring would be transported by a special truck and barge to Illinois and then by truck to Fermilab. Project managers are beginning to work with transportation specialists and local authorities on the details of this endeavor. The truck would move at about 5 mph at night, with escort from police and transportation experts.

To prepare for the Muon g-2 experiment, a group of scientists led by Mary Convery of Fermilab’s Muon Department already tested the production and capture of muons with Fermilab’s former Antiproton Source earlier this year. They slammed protons from the Main Injector into a target to create sprays of secondary particles, including muons.

“The team succeeded in capturing and circulating muons in the Debuncher at the energy of 3.1 GeV,” Convery said. “We were able to gain valuable experience with these muon beam studies before the accelerator complex was shut down in April to make upgrades to the accelerators for NOvA.”

Another group of scientists is advancing plans for the state-of-the-art particle detectors that are necessary to measure the muon magnetic moment. In June, DOE recognized Fermilab’s Brendan Casey with an award to support parts of those R&D efforts.

“The Muon g-2 detector group is well established,” said Muon g-2 co-spokesperson Dave Hertzog of the University of Washington. “There are lots of interesting aspects that students can work on. This is a really exciting time for the collaboration.”

The second proposed muon experiment, Mu2e, received CD-1 approval last month (see Fermilab Today, July 20, 2012). It will explore another property of muons predicted by theory, the transformation of muons into electrons.

Share

Higgs in the media: Fermilab Today special online

Monday, August 13th, 2012

A snapshot of the recent media coverage on the recently discovered Higgs-like particle is now online as part of the Fermilab Today archives. View television and newspaper coverage of the Tevatron results, opinion pieces on CERN’s particle discovery and photos of groups around the world who watched the CERN seminar broadcast live. See these and other Higgs media highlights.

Share

It’s “nus” to me about these experiment names

Thursday, August 2nd, 2012

When arriving at Fermilab, one of the first people I spoke to was a graduate student in the g-2 collaboration.

“What’s it like working on Gee Two?” I asked.

“Gee MINUS Two, you mean,” the grad student responded to me wearily, like he’d been through this before.

I hope he could forgive my confusion of a subtraction sign for a more commonplace hyphen, but it got me thinking, all these experiment names are a bit confusing to pronounce sometimes.

There are MicroBooNE and MiniBooNE, whose last two capitalized letters almost seem like a prompt to shout “NEH!” at their termini. There’s the dark-matter experiment COUPP, where I think even those involved are unsure if those two p’s are procedurally pronounced or not.

Even the spelling of the neutrino experiment NOvA, which seems fairly straightforward, presents some challenges. That lowercase v in the middle? It’s not one: instead, it’s a Greek letter masquerading as a Latin character, the lone actor on a stage full of Romans. The letter ν, Romanized nu and shaped like a v, is the symbol for neutrinos, hence its appearance in the name. So begins the confusion: is it NOvA or NO”nu”A?

To set the record straight, if you see a nu – also to be seen in MINERvA – just assume it’s a v and carry on with your day.

But then comes Mu2e to further confuse the situation. It too contains a Greek letter – mu, which stands for muon – yet this time it’s spelled out and Romanized. Perhaps it’s because μ’s shape is agonizingly close to that of the Latin u, and most people can’t be bothered to tell the difference. So to prevent people from saying “You 2 e” and mistaking a sophisticated physics experiment for an outtake of Purple Rain, we may as well spell it out.

Also inconsistent is NuMI – there’s that dastardly nu again, this time also Romanized – but I suppose those folks have the same reasoning as with Mu2e. They probably don’t want people calling it “VEE EM EYE” or, worse, “vmee.”

Keep in mind that all these names stand for something. Mu2e stands for “muon to electron,” which is simple enough. MicroBooNE stands for “Booster Neutrino Experiment, Micro-scale.” Contrast that with MiniBooNE, which officially stands for “Booster Neutrino Experiment, Petite Size.” When did “petite” join the metric scale? NOvA is also uncanny, standing for “NuMI Off-axis Electron Neutrino Appearance.” That’s right, an acronym containing another acronym. A meta-acronym. Crazy stuff.

If you’re still sent on a dizzying spiral regarding the proverbial alphabet soup of acronyms, it’s better than it used to be. Experiments used to be named in a simple E- three digit number format. Imagine carrying on a conversation – “E-345 isn’t happy with E-296’s reluctance to read the papers coming out of E-103.” At least we’ve a little creativity now.

To keep up with all of these names, here are a few rules:

- Pronounce the name in the simplest way possible, with the fewest syllables. So yes, the last E in MicroBooNE and MiniBooNE is silent, despite its capitalization.
- If it looks like a mathematical symbol, it probably is.
- You see a nu, you know what to do.
- Almost every experiment name out there is an acronym. If you want to know what they stand for, it’s a fun game to try to guess before Googling it.

Now you are armed to tackle just about any experiment name we at Fermilab can throw at you. For other labs, you’re on your own. Good luck and keep watching the “nus.”

Joseph Piergrossi

Share

What fills space?

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

This article first appeared in Fermilab Today on July 25.

If you follow the news about physics, you might think that physicists don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to space.

I am not talking about the mysteries of outer space, or cataclysms like black holes. I mean ordinary space itself, the inner space between particles everywhere—what we used to call empty space or vacuum. What’s in it? Sometimes we hear that atoms are “mostly empty space.” Now we read in the papers that the newly discovered Higgs field “fills all of space” and “gives particles mass,” that it acts like a kind of space-filling “molasses,” or that it’s like a space-filling crowd of groupies hanging on as a celebrity’s posse.

On the other hand, astronomers tell us that space is expanding. Last year, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for the discovery that the cosmic expansion is speeding up. Scientists think that this acceleration is propelled by what they call “dark energy,” which fills and refills that ever-expanding void of intergalactic space. Cosmological space is said to be expanding in some places (between galaxies) and not expanding in others (such as Brooklyn, to choose Woody Allen’s example).

It gets even worse if you dig deeper. For example, the Higgs field is much weirder than the comparisons with molasses or crowds suggest, since it does not actually drag or impede particles, but still somehow shares its mass with them.

Stranger still, consider another space-filling field that also adds mass to everyday substances, in a way different from the Higgs field. The gluons of the strong nuclear force field create most of the mass of atoms through the energy of their incessant motion inside tiny bubbles of space that we call protons and neutrons. Since the mass-giving gluons are immune to the Higgs field, they have no mass themselves, but only add energy because of their motion. Moreover, they are held inside those bubbles by a gluon field that fills empty space everywhere between the bubbles…in just those places in space where the added mass isn’t.

Space is the first concept of physics we all learn as little kids, yet it is entangled with some of the deepest mysteries confronting physics. Confusing, koan-like paradoxes about space are not just pablum: They reflect a real and profound disparity of descriptions, at a deep level of mathematics, about what defines a vacuum, a position, a particle or a time.

It may be that all the space of the universe began, and may end, dominated by the energy of the vacuum, an expanding space devoid of particles. It may be that when examined over very short time intervals, space as we know it does not even exist, but dissolves into a cloud of quantum indeterminacy: It may never sit still, but constantly seethe in microscopic motion. It may be that space has many more than three dimensions on very small scales, while there may be only two truly independent dimensions on large scales. It may even be that all of these exotic possibilities actually apply in the real world.

At Fermilab, we are working on experiments including the Dark Energy Survey, the Holometer and the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider that will probe these ideas in very different ways. If you want to find out more—watch this space!

—Craig Hogan, Director of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics

Share