• USLHC
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Frank
  • Simon
  • MPI for Physics
  • Germany

Latest Posts

  • Aidan
  • Randle-Conde
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • TRIUMF
  • Vancouver, BC
  • Canada

Latest Posts

  • Richard
  • Ruiz
  • UW - Madison
  • U.S.A.

Latest Posts

  • Byron
  • Jennings
  • TRIUMF
  • Canada

Latest Posts

  • Seth
  • Zenz
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Anna
  • Phan
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Alexandre
  • Fauré
  • CEA/IRFU
  • FRANCE

Latest Posts

  • Jim
  • Rohlf
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Zoe Louise
  • Matthews
  • ASY-EOS
  • UK

Latest Posts

  • Ken
  • Bloom
  • USLHC
  • USA

Latest Posts

Ken Bloom | USLHC | USA

Read Bio

Not your father’s collaboration meeting…

Friday, July 1st, 2011

Sorry, terrible title, as it references an ancient slogan for a now-defunct car brand. But what do you want — it’s the Friday before a holiday weekend!

Today marked the end of the June CMS week, one of three full-on collaboration meetings that the experiment holds each year. Honestly, I find these things overwhelming. It’s an opportunity to get a full view of everything that is going on within the collaboration. This spans detector operations, the trigger system, computing, plans for future detector upgrades, and all the data analysis that is taking place. Of course there is some talk about the challenges that we face — increasing luminosity, more complex event environments, the pressure to get results out promptly, the issues of keeping such a large collaboration organized and efficient. But we also get to see some of the best work that is being done by our collaborators. Some of the data analyses out there are really creative and clever, and you have to tip your hat to the people who are doing the work.

And I sit there thinking: Why am I not working on this myself? Actually, why didn’t I even know before that the work is going on? There are huge swaths of the experiment that I’m barely following, even though they are important. It’s somewhat demoralizing to have trouble keeping up with all the activity that is out there.

I console myself by saying that this is really an issue of scale. Consider the CLEO experiment at Cornell, where I did my PhD thesis about fifteen years ago. At the time it wasn’t the largest collaboration out there, perhaps half the size of one of the Tevatron collider experiments, but it was still substantial, with about 250 people on the author list. I could identify almost everyone in the collaboration on sight, I was reading pretty much every paper that went out, and I had a pretty good handle on what the hot topics were throughout the experiment.

So I need to keep some perspective and remember that these are different times and the LHC experiments are about a factor of ten larger than my thesis experiment. A single LHC experiment is now on the scale of 1500 PhD scientists, which surely puts it on the scale of a major research university. And who would expect to know everything that’s going on inside a research university?

Looking on the bright side, a group of scientists this large, all focused on the same goal, can really do amazing things. One of the amazing things is the ability to collaborate on these scales of both size and distance. But better still will be what we think and hope is coming — a revision of our understanding of how the universe works. It does take this many people to pull it off, and I shouldn’t be embarrassed by the fact that I don’t know what everyone is actually doing.

CERN and LHC, through new eyes

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Here I am on another trip to CERN, but this one is different. I’m in the midst of a five-week stay here, in the company of my family. Usually my trips are much shorter, and they have always been solo. But we wanted to give this a shot — we figured that it would be a good experience for the family, everyone would get to see a lot of new things, and perhaps we will get a sense of what it would be like to spend a sabbatical-length stay here sometime in the future.

Even though I have been to CERN and Geneva many times before, I am getting to experience it all anew because it is new to my family. The sort of things that I had noted on my own early visits and then filed away have been pulled back into prominence. We brought a college student with us to help take care of the kids, so that my wife and I can both work. She has been accompanying me to CERN most days and getting her own experience of lab life. She is enjoying the international flavor of CERN — hearing so many different languages being spoken and seeing the cultural interaction. And she also gets a sense of my harried days here! (Then again, that is compensated for by leisurely lunches on the Restaurant 1 terrace.) For our children, ages two and four, the new experiences have been much more quotidian, but when you are that small even the quotidian stands out. There are different foods to eat here (nutella! for breakfast!), and in the town where we are staying there is a fresh milk vending machine out on the street. People here tend to hang their laundry to dry instead of using a dryer, so the drying rack is a source of fascination. And so forth.

For myself, I’m really feeling the impact of being in the different time zone. Back at home, seven hours behind CERN, my day is very front-loaded, with all of the CMS meetings happening early in my day. Here, everything is at the end of the day, with the action not really getting going until 3 PM. This interferes with family life quite a bit; I can’t really stay for a late meeting if I’m going to have dinner from the kids. Worse still, I find myself trying to work both time zones while I’m here, as there is plenty of US business happening during the CERN evening hours. When I’m here on my own, I have more time to manage this, but while tending to my family also, I am constantly scrambling to keep up! (Note: blog post being written at 11:30 CERN time….)

But, despite all of that, we’re enjoying our stay here. We’re getting out to see Geneva and environs, and trying to enjoy ourselves. In particle physics, we’re very lucky to be able to visit places all around the world. If we’re going to travel so much, we might as well take advantage of it!

Things fall apart

Monday, May 23rd, 2011

There are lots of physical phenomena that arise from changes in temperature. High-temperature environments are high-energy environments. That energy goes into the kinetic energy of particles. Perhaps the most common manifestation of this is evaporation — when you set a liquid out on a hot day, the molecules gain thermal energy, and some of them gain enough energy to overcome the attractive forces of the other molecules in the liquid; those molecules then float away into the air.

You can see similar phenomena at the atomic level and below. There, binding energies of particles tend to be bigger, and thus it takes more thermal energy to separate the bound states. For instance, at a temperature of about 158,000 degrees above absolute zero (could someone check my math on that?), electrons in hydrogen atoms will gain enough energy for them to separate from the their nuclei. Under such conditions, atoms don’t really exist anymore; you just have a “plasma” of electrons and protons. And we imagine that the early universe, shortly after the Big Bang, was so hot that protons didn’t exist; the quarks and gluons had enough thermal energy to keep from being bound together into hadrons.

A new result from CMS shows just this kind of phenomenon. The upsilon particle is a bound state of a bottom and anti-bottom quark, much like a hydrogen atom is a bound state of an electron and proton. In the ground state of the upsilon, the two particles are pretty tightly bound and require a lot of energy to separate. But the upsilon, like hydrogen, has a number of higher-energy bound states, in which the quarks have greater kinetic energy, and thus are easier to separate. A bit more thermal energy, a few hundred MeV, and these excited upsilon states should just fall apart.

This is what CMS observes. In proton-proton collisions, the excited upsilon states are clearly visible. But in lead-lead collisions, when there is a lot more ambient energy due to all of the colliding nuclei, the excited states begin to disappear. Actually, all of the upsilon states are suppressed, but the excited states are even more so, by about a factor of three, which indicates that the more energetic states are more sensitive to the increased temperature. It’s a pretty neat trick, and the first time that it’s been observed in bound states of bottom quarks.

Bloggers, face to face

Monday, May 9th, 2011

While I certainly enjoy exchanging email with my LHC colleagues (in limited quantities, of course), I don’t get to see many people from the LHC community in person on a regular basis. We’re just a little group of particle physicists here in Lincoln, NE. To see more colleagues face to face, I typically have to take a trip to CERN (I go maybe two or three times a year) or to Fermilab, a big hub for US CMS activity (I go there more often than to CERN).

So, it was a great pleasure to get to see two of my fellow US LHC bloggers within one week, and I didn’t have to go to either Fermilab or CERN! First, I was able to convince my old friend Michael to come to UNL to give a colloquium about electroweak physics at the LHC. Michael is currently co-leader of CMS’s electroweak physics group, and has worked on that slice of particle physics for a long time. I enjoyed the talk (of course); it gave me some perspective on where we are in electroweak physics in general, and where it is at the LHC. The W and Z bosons, the key particles of the electroweak theory, were discovered in the 1980′s — a long time ago, already — and have been characterized in great detail. Just saying that we have observed them at the LHC isn’t really interesting in these times. What is interesting is how we are putting the W and Z to use as probes of other particles. Just as we have long used particles such as electrons and neutrinos to understand the structure of the proton (by scattering them off protons), we are now using the production properties of W’s and Z’s to understand the contents of the protons that were used to create them. Or, as one of my colleagues asked during question time at the end, “Why wasn’t the title of this talk ‘QCD at the LHC’?” I can always count on MIchael to teach me something new.

And then, just one week later, I was at the annual US CMS collaboration meeting, hosted by our colleagues at Notre Dame. I had never been to Notre Dame before, and was impressed by their facilities. I’d have to say that these meetings are a bit more about “business” than “physics”, in that we’re not talking about specific measurements as much as the broader picture of where we are and where we are going with the LHC, and how the US component of the CMS collaboration can best take advantage of our strengths for the benefit of the entire experiment. In the year since the last US CMS meeting, everything has changed — last May, we were just beginning to record collision data, and now we have something like a thousand times more data than we did then (with perhaps another factor of ten to come this year, if we’re lucky.) That gives us a lot to be happy about, but of course we can also see where the challenges are. As collision rates increase, it will be a struggle to keep our trigger rates down to something manageable. Processing all of the data we record will be a strain, in part because of the sheer volume of data, but also because of the increased complexity of individual events. Already we need to start thinking about how we will upgrade the detector to handle collision rates that are anticipated to be a factor of ten to a hundred higher within a few years.

This meeting is always a good chance to catch up with US friends whom I haven’t seen for a while. It’s been ages since I’ve seen fellow US LHC blogger Robin, for instance. Of course the meeting was so busy that I barely had a chance to say hello. But ha, I managed to blog about the meeting before her!

And if all of this wasn’t enough — in between these two events, we also had an event for the Nebraska HEP group. We made the US CMS meeting an excuse to bring just about every member of our group home to Lincoln for a visit. It is extremely rare for all of us to get together, but it is almost always a valuable experience. We spent two and a half days going through everything that’s happening in our group (it’s a lot!), trying to figure out how we can work together more creatively, and just hanging out a bit. I really enjoyed seeing everyone.

I’m looking forward to seeing all of these people again soon…but I’m probably going to have to travel further afield to do so.

LHC sets world record for instantaneous luminosity; wins Pulitzer Prize

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

OK, the second part of the title isn’t actually true, but more on that in a moment….

The fill that is currently in the LHC started at an instantaneous luminosity over 4E32:

Not only is this the highest collision rate ever achieved at the LHC, it’s also the highest ever at a hadron collider, exceeding the largest instantaneous luminosity ever recorded by Fermilab’s venerable Tevatron collider. As has been discussed by many of the US LHC bloggers, luminosity is key at this point — the larger it is, the more collisions we record, and the greater the chance that we can observe something truly new. In the four hours since the fill started, CMS has already recorded about one sixth of the useful data that was recorded in all of 2010!

As for the Pulitzer, this week Mike Keefe of the Denver Post won the 2011 Pulitzer for editorial cartooning for a portfolio of twenty cartoons that included this one about the LHC. (I’d rather not actually run the cartoon here, as I’m not sure we have the rights to it.) Good to see that we are part of journalism history!

A US LHC first

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Some years ago I interviewed for a faculty job at University X. (I won’t name the school as I didn’t get the job; no hard feelings, as I like my current job very much.) During the interview, one professor there asked me, “So, do you plan to be deputy spokesperson of CMS someday?” Being appropriately ambitious, I shot back, “Why not spokesperson?” The professor replied, “There will never be an American spokesperson of an LHC experiment.” A natural thought, perhaps, given the strong role of European countries in experiments at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory.

Last week, that professor was proven wrong when Prof. Joe Incandela of UC Santa Barbara was elected as CMS spokesperson for 2012-13, making him the first spokesperson of an LHC experiment from a United States institution. Joe has been involved in CMS since 1998; since then he has played a leading role in building the silicon tracker, and then served as deputy physics coordinator and currently as deputy spokesperson.

Joe was elected on the first ballot in a three-way race against two other strong and well-qualified (and European) candidates. It was an exciting event for the US collaborators, of course, but also for the experiment as a whole, as we selected our leader for the upcoming two years. Being spokesperson of an LHC experiment is a huge job, with great responsibility and also great opportunity to shape the experiment and the collaboration. What does a spokesperson do? As the name suggests, he is our primary representative to the public, to various agencies that fund the experiment, and to the laboratory management. But he is also essentially the CEO of the experiment. He has to pull together the team that will oversee all aspects of the experiment — the detector operations, the computing and software efforts, the management of data analysis and publication processes, the development and installation of upgraded equipment, the financing of all of the above, and so forth. As a result the spokesperson can have a lot of influence over the personality of the experiment. (After saying all that, I wonder — would I really want that job, like I said in the job interview? Whoo, I’m not sure!)

Joe will be on duty for an exciting couple of years. We might accumulate enough data during 2012 to make a major discovery, and then in 2013 we’ll have the long shutdown to upgrade the LHC energy and make various changes to the detector. No matter what happens, we’re going to be looking at a different physics landscape on the first day of 2014 than we will on the last day of 2011. I had an opportunity to shake Joe’s hand the day after the election. “Don’t screw up,” I advised him.

A modest proposal for new fundamental constants

Friday, April 1st, 2011

This week, the LHC has been in its first technical stop of the 2011 run. So far, the performance of the machine has been quite encouraging. Collision rates have already exceeded the highest rates of 2010, and the total number of collisions recorded this year is already about three quarters as much as we got all of last year.

I always find myself writing in vague terms like “total number of collisions” rather than actually giving a number, because the units that particle physicists use to characterize the amount of data, or “integrated luminosity”, collected at a collider are rather obscure. We usually talk in terms of “inverse picobarns.” What on earth is that? Let’s attack it piece by piece. A barn is a unit of area, as in “you can’t hit the side of a barn”; one barn is 10-28 m2, which of course is a tiny area. (A picobarn is 10-12 barn, even smaller.) Rates for particle production are typically given as “cross sections,” that is, in units of area. This is related to the fact that our experiments are really scattering experiments, in which we shoot a probe (one proton) at a target (another proton), and a cross section is the effective area of the target that will lead to a particular production process. The measure of integrated luminosity is in units of inverse area, such as 1/barn, or 1/picobarn — the inverse picobarn. By multiplying the amount of data recorded (an inverse area) by the cross section for a process (an area), you get the total number of times that process should have occurred. For instance, the cross section for the production of a pair of top quarks at the LHC is roughly 250 picobarns. Since CMS recorded about 35 inverse picobarns last year, you would expect to have 250 * 35 = 8750 top-pair events in the dataset.

All that being said, an inverse picobarn is very hard for most people to visualize. We can imagine what an area — the side of a barn — looks like, but we’re not used to picturing inverse areas. Fortunately, I have a solution to this problem. There is in fact a unit in common usage that is also an inverse area. This is the standard unit of fuel efficiency, the mile per gallon. With a length in the numerator and a volume in the denominator, the mile per gallon does have the dimensions of the reciporical of area. This means that we can express the integrated luminosity of the LHC in miles per gallon, a concept that the typical person on the street, or even an elected official, can understand. So how much mileage has the LHC delivered this year? First, we need to convert the inverse picobarn into miles per gallon:

1 pb-1 = 1012 b-1 * (1 b/10-28 m2) * (10-3 m3/1 liter) * (1 km/103 m) * 3.79 liters/gallon * 0.621 miles/km = 2.35 x 1034 miles/gallon.

The LHC has delivered 26 pb-1 in 2011, or 6.1 x 1035 MPG. This is a huge number! The LHC is thus by far the most fuel efficient machine on Earth, and thus it should be of great interest to people everywhere who are interested in reducing our use of fossil fuels, protecting the environment and so forth. Such a fabulous device is surely worth supporting with taxpayer dollars.

Now, the number 2.35 x 1034 mile pb/gallon is also quite interesting in itself, as it is a dimensionless quantity. Such dimensionless numbers are considered to be fundamental physical quantities. For instance, the atomic fine structure constant, 2 π e2/hc = 1/137 (approximately) is a dimensionless number that determines the strength of electromagnetic interactions, and therefore important physical parameters such as the size of atoms. There are only a few such numbers that occur in particle physics, and we seem to have uncovered a new one through this exercise. So why does the mileage-luminosity conversion constant have that particular value, and why is this value so amazingly large, a factor of 100 billion bigger than Avogadro’s number?

But since the LHC is in Europe, which uses the metric system, we should be computing the integrated luminosity not in miles per gallon, but in kilometers per liter. To get the conversion constant, we do the same calculation as above, but just drop the last two factors to obtain 1034 km pb/liter. It is exactly a power of ten! This suggests that the number ten itself must be a fundamental parameter of the universe, which could well explain why humans have ten fingers and ten toes.

Obviously these issues require further investigations, which in turn will require additional grant funding, preferably an amount that will cover my summer salary (itself perhaps a fundamental constant, given the state of the university budget). I am hoping to come up with more answers within a year from today, so that I can submit a paper for journal publication by April 1, 2012.

The road to the Higgs boson

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Everyone knows that there isn’t enough LHC data yet to learn anything new about the Higgs. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try, and if you do try you might learn some interesting things along the way. Consider for instance this recent paper from CMS. It is a very nice representation of one of the trajectories that the LHC can follow to a discovery of the Higgs boson (should it actually exist).

The analysis makes use of events that have two high-momentum leptons with opposite electric charge, where here we define leptons as electrons or muons. In proton-proton collisions, the production of even one high-momentum lepton is already unusual, and two is quite interesting. There are a variety of physics processes that can lead to this. The most common, by far, is the decay of a Z boson; this was easily observed last summer. Another process is the decay of a pair of top quarks; a few percent of the time both will decay to a lepton. Top quarks are produced only about one sixth as often as Z’s, so that takes a bit more data to find. [Experts will note that I'm only quoting total production rates and not accounting for branching fractions, but stay with me here.]

The next process that can lead to two leptons is the direct production of a pair of W bosons, which happens about four times less frequently than top-pair production. This process is what is observed in the paper; there are a total of thirteen candidate WW events observed, and the estimated number of background events in the sample is about three. It isn’t too hard to separate the WW events from the top background — top decays also tend to include jets of hadrons, whereas the WW events generally don’t. The events observed have the properties expected for WW pairs. In particular, the momenta of the leptons are consistent with what’s expected from the standard model, as opposed to what would be predicted from theories that include different ways for W’s to interact with other particles.

And, finally, another process that can lead to two leptons is the production of a Higgs boson that would be heavy enough to decay to a pair of W’s. Don’t forget that we don’t know what the mass of the Higgs boson is; from other measurements, we have been able to bound the range, but there is no theory that predicts a value, so how you might look for a Higgs depends what mass you might think it has. But should the Higgs be sufficiently heavy, a decay to WW is quite common and the two-lepton signature is quite clean. Separating the Higgs production from the more common direct WW production is more of a challenge, requiring a more careful examination of subtle features of the events, and really we would need a factor of ten more data to have a hope of seeing a Higgs boson this way. But it’s worth making an effort, and thus the paper sets upper limits on the production rate of a standard model Higgs. It’s not competitive with the limits that have been set by the Tevatron experiments, but it establishes that it is possible to do this analysis at the LHC.

There is one more trick that the paper pulls out. We are used to thinking of having three generations of quarks and leptons in our world. There is nothing to suggest that this isn’t so, but if there were a fourth generation of particles that were very, very heavy, it would be very hard to know about it because they would be out of the reach of our current experiments. But if such a scenario were true, it turns out that Higgs particles would be produced at a much greater rate at the LHC. The fact that no Higgs signal is observed in this paper tells us that this scenario is unlikely.

This is not an unusual path to follow in experimental particle physics: observe a high-rate process, then take more data, then look for a lower-rate process with a similar signature, then repeat until you see something truly new. But this is a path that might soon lead to a major discovery.

Publish now?

Friday, February 18th, 2011

It’s a busy time. First, the LHC was closed up today for the first time this year, allowing the start of machine checkout and then, eventually, circulating beams. The beginning of the 2011 run is in sight, although we won’t have collisions for physics for a while yet. Also, we’re getting close to winter conference season. The Recontres de Moriond meetings are traditionally a venue for the presentation of new experimental physics results, and you can be sure that all of the LHC experiments are readying some interesting stuff for that. I have previously discussed the internal review processes of experiments, which can take a while, so even though the conferences are a few weeks away, a lot of analyses are becoming finalized and starting to be reviewed right now. Whether you are a reviewer or reviewee (or both), it can take a lot of time. (Oh, and then there is the recent discussion of federal budget cuts in Washington, which has us all reading the newspapers pretty closely.) So we don’t lack for things to do.

But, meanwhile, here is something to consider. The ATLAS and CMS experiments are ultimately very similar — they both have similar goals (which are different than for ALICE and LHCb, hence their absence from this discussion), and similar enough capabilities (although differing strengths and weaknesses), and they both record pretty much the same amount of data. So why don’t they publish the same measurements at the same time? Just as an example, the two experiments submitted publications on measurements of rates of W and Z bosons three months apart, with the later one analyzing ten times as much data (and having much more precise results) than the first one. Please note, in an attempt to be neutral, I am not naming names here!! Let’s instead take this as an introduction to a broader question — given that the LHC will continue to pile up data over time, when do you stop and say, “OK, let’s publish with what we’ve got?” How much data is enough?

I’m not going to claim to have all the answers to this question, and for any given measurement there will be a unique set of circumstances. But here are a few possible considerations:

  • Is there a break in the action at the LHC? This is a totally pedestrian consideration, but if the LHC isn’t going to run for, say, three months, as is happening right now, for many measurements it might not be worth the wait for more data, so you should just publish with what you’ve got. There are going to be a lot of publications based on the data recorded in 2010. It’s true that in 2011, if the collision rates are as expected, the 2010 data will quickly be superseded, but why wait those few months, especially if you are doing a measurement in which additional statistics might not make a meaningful difference?
  • When can I make a scientific statement that has sufficient impact on the world? If you only have enough data to make a measurement that’s, for instance, ten times less accurate than the most accurate measurement of the same quantity that’s currently available, there’s no point in publishing. But if you are at least in the range of comparable to the best measurement (even if not yet the best), it might make sense to publish, because it’s accurate enough to make a difference in the world’s understanding. If you average two measurements of equal precision, then the average will be a factor of 1/sqrt(2) = 1.4 more accurate than either individual measurement. Seems worth it, right?
  • Am I worried that someone else is going to beat me to something? Let’s face it, there is some glory to being first, especially if there is something new to report. If you are worried that competitors might get to it first, perhaps you will decide that you have to release your result, even if you know you might do a better job yet, either by recording more data or just having more time to work on it.
  • Then again, it’s better to be second than to be wrong. A wrong result would be embarrassing, for sure, so it’s better to do the work necessary to have greater confidence in the result.
  • If you really can do a much better job with not much more time or effort, why not just do that? If you do, then your measurement is going to be the one in the history books, even if you weren’t first.
  • Do I finally have enough data to report a statistically significant result? Well, this is what we’re all waiting for — at some point some new phenomenon is going to emerge from the data. At first, the statistical strength will be marginal, but as more data are analyzed, the signal will stand out more strongly. You can be sure that once any anomaly is observed, even at a low level, it will be tracked very carefully as additional data are recorded, and as soon as an effect reaches some level of statistical significance, it’s going to be published just as quickly as possible, without delay.

These are just a few of my own musings, dashed off quickly — I invite our readers to offer ideas of their own. (OK, and now I click on the “Publish” button on the right….)

News from Chamonix

Monday, January 31st, 2011

Last week, CERN held its annual workshop at Chamonix to consider the LHC run plan for this year and future years. The results of the workshop, and thus the new run plan, were announced today by CERN management. Over the past few months, there has been much speculation about what the findings would be. One significant rumor turned out not to be true, while another one is true.

Many people had expected that the center-of-mass energy of the LHC would be increased from 7 TeV to 8 TeV in 2011; indeed, experimenters were already starting to make plans for such a scenario. The 1/7 increase in energy would also increase the rate of the production of potential new particles, like the Higgs boson, by something like an equivalent amount, and one thing (among many) that we’ve learned from the Tevatron is that a ten percent-ish improvement really can have a significant impact. However, this will not be happening — the LHC energy will remain at 7 TeV for this year. The accelerator physicists studying the issue came to the conclusion that while the probability of failures that could cause damage to the machine are still low at 8 TeV, those failures could be catastrophic enough to wipe out the run for the entire year. Thus, the overall risk was considered too great.

Now, this non-change in the energy actually changes a lot of things for the experiments! It had been possible that the 2010 run was going to be the last run ever at 7 TeV, and thus the last word on some topics. “Is there a Higgs boson?” is a question that you can attack at any energy, but “What’s the production rate of particle X at 7 TeV collision energy?” can be answered only at, well, 7 TeV. Thus, many topics that appeared to be closed have now been re-opened, and by the end of 2011 can be addressed with at least 30 times more data than we had in 2010. This might make it worth revisiting some questions that were not answered well enough with the 2010 data, and thus might change the plans of some researchers for this year.

Then, there is the rumor that turned out to be true: the year-long shutdown of the LHC that had been planned for 2012 has now been moved to 2013. This is good news for all of us: if you want to discover something, you need as much data as you can get your hands on, and now that data is going to come sooner rather than later. Now, it is true that we’ll still be at a collision energy of 7 or 8 TeV during 2012, rather than the 14 TeV that we’ll have after the 2013 shutdown, and of course that big energy increment is going to help. But at the same time, it is looking more and more like we can “make it up in volume.” The detectors are working very well, the collaborations are turning out results quickly, and it seems likely that the experiments should be able to squeeze every last bit out of the data in the search for new physics. Of course this change of plans does have further implications. We had been figuring that we would need less operational staffing in 2012 because we wouldn’t run, and also that we wouldn’t need to buy so many more computers that year because there wouldn’t be any data to analyze them on. Now this is not true, and we already have to start thinking about a period of operations that’s “only” a year away.

But for now, the focus is on 2011 — with much higher collision rates this year than last year, we are going to be very busy!