While searching for new Higgs bosons the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may have just found a surprise. They have observed an excess of events that look to be a new particle, and are reporting high statistical evidence for their claim. The only question is what exactly is this new particle?
The search was initially designed to look for new, heavier, versions of the Higgs boson decaying to a top quark and an anti-top quark. Its well known that the Higgs boson of the Standard Model, discovered jointly by ATLAS and CMS in 2012, underlies the mechanism which gives all fundamental particles their masses. The Higgs boson itself interacts with particles in proportion to their mass, preferring heavier particles over lighter ones. It therefore interacts the most strongly with the heaviest known fundamental particle, the top quark, which has a mass of ~173 GeV. The Higgs boson itself only has a bass of 125 GeV, meaning conservation of energy dictates it can’t decay into a top quark-antiquark pair.
However many theories of physics beyond the the Standard Model predict additional Higgs bosons, heavier cousins of the current one. If these new heavy Higgs bosons had a mass larger than 350 GeV, they would likely decay to a top quark-antiquark pair quite often. CMS therefore was analyzed its data searching for this signature, hoping to find signs of a new Higgs boson. To do so, they had scrutinize very carefully the known production of top quark-antiquark pairs, which are produced copiously at the LHC from other processes. If a new particle was being produced and decaying to top quarks, the mass of the new particle would give the top quarks a characteristic energy. One key sign of a new particle would therefore be an excess of top quark-antiquark events at a particular energy, corresponding to the mass of the new particle.
When CMS scrutinized their data looking for such an excess they found one. But curiously right ~350 GeV, the minimum energy required to produce the top quark-antiquark pair. It would be quite the coincidence for a new particle to show up right at this minimum threshold, which made CMS consider alternative possibilities.
A comparison of the observed CMS data and their estimate of backgrounds as a function of the invariant mass of the top quark antiquark system. CMS observes an excess of events at ~350 GeV, which is well fit with a toponium model (red line).
One unorthodox explanation that seems to fit the bill is ‘toponium’, a short lived bound state of the top quark-antiquark pair is being formed. Toponium would be the heaviest version of ‘quarkonia’ we have seen, bound states of quark antiquark pairs that form bound states similar to atoms. We have observed and measured quarkonia states of the other quarks for decades, however it was long thought that the top quark, whose large mass causes it to decay in just 10^(-25) seconds, would decay too quickly to create observable bound state effects at a hadron collider. Toponium production would happen most often if the top quarks were produced just at the energy threshold, such that they don’t any extra energy. These low energy top quarks would spend more time close to each other than normal, rather than immediately flying away, so they could have time to briefly form a toponium state before decaying. However, once small hints of intriguing excesses started appearing in LHC analyses, updated calculations in the last few years suggested that perhaps such an effect could be observable.
These calculations are approximate, and more work is still being done to refine them. But the preliminary predictions they give for the properties of toponium seem to match well with what CMS is seeing, both in terms of the rate of toponium production and the quantum properties of the toponium state (spin and parity).
Still CMS is being cautious before claiming a discovery of toponium. They claim observation of an ‘excess at the top quark pair production threshold’ which is consistent with toponium. However given the limited present data and incomplete theoretical models of toponium, they cannot rule out that the excess they are seeing is coming from a new Higgs-like particle.
CMS measurement tries to disentangle the quantum properties of the observed excess. The x-axis shows the estimated rate of production a ‘pseudoscalar’ particle producing the excess. The y-axis shows a similar estimate for a ‘scalar’ particle. The allowed region for the scalar still includes zero, while the zero pseudoscalar hypothesis is clearly excluded at larger than 5 standard deviations.
Further work will be needed to develop improved theoretical models of toponium, and detailed studies from CMS assessing the properties of their observed excess. The excess will also need confirmation from CMS’s rival LHC experiment, ATLAS, to ensure it has not merely made a mistake in its analysis.
However, the smart money would say this very likely looks like toponium. Which, while not signaling the long sought overthrow of the standard model, would be an unexpected and cool surprise from the LHC. Understanding the properties of this previously-thought-impossible quasiparticle will spawn much fruitful research in the years to come. Physicists love a surprise!
Discloure: The author is a member of the CMS collaboration but did not directly work on this analysis
Erratum 4/15/2025 : The article was updated to clarify that in the theory literature prior to the LHC toponium was thought possible to form, just that it was thought to be too small an effect to be observable. The article previously incorrectly stated it had been previously thought impossible to form
This is the second part of our coverage of the P5 report and its implications for particle physics. To read the first part, click here
One of the thorniest questions in particle physics is ‘What comes after the LHC?’. This was one of the areas people were most uncertain what the P5 report would say. Globally, the field is trying to decide what to do once the LHC winds down in ~2040 While the LHC is scheduled to get an upgrade in the latter half of the decade and run until the end of the 2030’s, the field must start planning now for what comes next. For better or worse, big smash-y things seem to capture a lot of public interest, so the debate over what large collider project to build has gotten heated. Even Elon Musk is tweeting (X-ing?) memes about it.
Famously, the US’s last large accelerator project, the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), was cancelled in the ’90s partway through its construction. The LHC’s construction itself often faced perilous funding situations, and required a CERN to make the unprecedented move of taking a loan to pay for its construction. So no one takes for granted that future large collider projects will ultimately come to fruition.
Desert or Discovery?
When debating what comes next, dashed hopes of LHC discoveries are top of mind. The LHC experiments were primarily designed to search for the Higgs boson, which they successfully found in 2012. However, many had predicted (perhaps over-confidently) it would also discover a slew of other particles, like those from supersymmetry or those heralding extra-dimensions of spacetime. These predictions stemmed from a favored principle of nature called ‘naturalness’ which argued additional particles nearby in energy to the Higgs were needed to keep its mass at a reasonable value. While there is still much LHC data to analyze, many searches for these particles have been performed so far and no signs of these particles have been seen.
These null results led to some soul-searching within particle physics. The motivations behind the ‘naturalness’ principle that said the Higgs had to be accompanied by other particles has been questioned within the field, and in New York Times op-eds.
No one questions that deep mysteries like the origins of dark matter, matter anti-matter asymmetry, and neutrino masses, remain. But with the Higgs filling in the last piece of the Standard Model, some worry that answers to these questions in the form of new particles may only exist at energy scales entirely out of the reach of human technology. If true, future colliders would have no hope of
A diagram of the particles of the Standard Model laid out as a function of energy. The LHC and other experiments have probed up to around 10^3 GeV, and found all the particles of the Standard Model. Some worry new particles may only exist at the extremely high energies of the Planck or GUT energy scales. This would imply a large large ‘desert’ in energy, many orders of magnitude in which no new particles exist. Figure adapted from here
The situation being faced now is qualitatively different than the pre-LHC era. Prior to the LHC turning on, ‘no lose theorems’, based on the mathematical consistency of the Standard Model, meant that it had to discover the Higgs or some other new particle like it. This made the justification for its construction as bullet-proof as one can get in science; a guaranteed Nobel prize discovery. But now with the last piece of the Standard Model filled in, there are no more free wins; guarantees of the Standard Model’s breakdown don’t occur until energy scales we would need solar-system sized colliders to probe. Now, like all other fields of science, we cannot predict what discoveries we may find with future collider experiments.
Still, optimists hope, and have their reasons to believe, that nature may not be so unkind as to hide its secrets behind walls so far outside our ability to climb. There are compelling models of dark matter that live just outside the energy reach of the LHC, and predict rates too low for direct detection experiments, but would be definitely discovered or ruled out by high energy colliders. The nature of the ‘phase transition’ that occurred in the very early universe, which may explain the prevalence of matter over anti-matter, can also be answered. There are also a slew ofexperimental ‘hints‘, all of which have significant question marks, but could point to new particles within the reach of a future collider.
Many also just advocate for building a future machine to study nature itself, with less emphasis on discovering new particles. They argue that even if we only further confirm the Standard Model, it is a worthwhile endeavor. Though we calculate Standard Model predictions for high energies, unless they are tested in a future collider we will not ‘know’ how if nature actually works like this until we test it in those regimes. They argue this is a fundamental part of the scientific process, and should not be abandoned so easily. Chief among the untested predictions are those surrounding the Higgs boson. The Higgs is a central somewhat mysterious piece of the Standard Model but is difficult to measure precisely in the noisy environment of the LHC. Future colliders would allow us to study it with much better precision, and verify whether it behaves as the Standard Model predicts or not.
Projects
These theoretical debates directly inform what colliders are being proposed and what their scientific case is.
Many are advocating for a “Higgs factory”, a collider of based on clean electron-positron collisions that could be used to study the Higgs in much more detail than the messy proton collisions of the LHC. Such a machine would be sensitive to subtle deviations of Higgs behavior from Standard Model predictions. Such deviations could come from the quantum effects of heavy, yet-undiscovered particles interacting with the Higgs. However, to determine what particles are causing those deviations, its likely one would need a new ‘discovery’ machine which has high enough energy to produce them.
Among the Higgs factory options are the International Linear Collider, a proposed 20km linear machine which would be hosted in Japan. ILC designs have been ‘ready to go’ for the last 10 years but the Japanese government has repeated waffled on whether to approve the project. Sitting in limbo for this long has led to many being pessimistic about the projects future, but certainly many in the global community would be ecstatic to work on such a machine if it was approved.
Designs for the ILC have been ready for nearly a decade, but its unclear if it will receive the greenlight from the Japanese government. Image source
Alternatively, some in the US have proposed building a linear collider based on a ‘cool copper’ cavities (C3) rather than the standard super conducting ones. These copper cavities can achieve more acceleration per meter than the standard super conducting ones, meaning a linear Higgs factory could be constructed with a reduced 8km footprint. A more compact design can significantly cut down on infrastructure costs that governments usually don’t like to use their science funding on. Advocates had proposed it as a cost-effective Higgs factory option, whose small footprint means it could potentially hosted in the US.
The Future-Circular-Collider (FCC), CERN’s successor to the LHC, would kill both birds with one extremely long stone. Similar to the progression from LEP to the LHC, this new proposed 90km collider would run as Higgs factory using electron-positron collisions starting in 2045 before eventually switching to a ~90 TeV proton-proton collider starting in ~2075.
Designs for the massive 90km FCC ring surrounding Geneva
Such a machine would undoubtably answer many of the important questions in particle physics, however many have concerns about the huge infrastructure costs needed to dig such a massive tunnel and the extremely long timescale before direct discoveries could be made. Most of the current field would not be around 50 years from now to see what such a machine finds. The Future-Circular-Collider (FCC), CERN’s successor to the LHC, would kill both birds with one extremely long stone. Similar to the progression from LEP to the LHC, this new proposed 90km collider would run as Higgs factory using electron-positron collisions starting in 2045 before eventually switching to a ~90 TeV proton-proton collider starting in ~2075. Such a machine would undoubtably answer many of the important questions in particle physics, however many have concerns about the extremely long timescale before direct discoveries could be made. Most of the current field would not be around 50 years from now to see what such a machine finds. The FCC is also facing competition as Chinese physicists have proposed a very similar design (CEPC) which could potentially start construction much earlier.
During the snowmass process many in the US starting pushing for an ambitious alternative. They advocated a new type of machine that collides muons, the heavier cousin of electrons. A muon collider could reach the high energies of a discovery machine while also maintaining a clean environment that Higgs measurements can be performed in. However, muons are unstable, and collecting enough of them into formation to form a beam before they decay is a difficult task which has not been done before. The group of dedicated enthusiasts designed t-shirts and Twitter memes to capture the excitement of the community. While everyone agrees such a machine would be amazing, the key technologies necessary for such a collider are less developed than those of electron-positron and proton colliders. However, if the necessary technological hurdles could be overcome, such a machine could turn on decades before the planned proton-proton run of the FCC. It can also presents a much more compact design, at only 10km circumfrence, roughly three times smaller than the LHC. Advocates are particularly excited that this would allow it to be built within the site of Fermilab, the US’s flagship particle physics lab, which would represent a return to collider prominence for the US.
A proposed design for a muon collider. It relies on ambitious new technologies, but could potentially deliver similar physics to the FCC decades sooner and with a ten times smaller footprint. Source
Deliberation & Decision
This plethora of collider options, each coming with a very different vision of the field in 25 years time led to many contentious debates in the community. The extremely long timescales of these projects led to discussions of human lifespans, mortality and legacy being much more being much more prominent than usual scientific discourse.
Ultimately the P5 recommendation walked a fine line through these issues. Their most definitive decision was to recommend against a Higgs factor being hosted in the US, a significant blow to C3 advocates. The panel did recommend US support for any international Higgs factories which come to fruition, at a level ‘commensurate’ with US support for the LHC. What exactly ‘comensurate’ means in this context I’m sure will be debated in the coming years.
However, the big story to many was the panel’s endorsement of the muon collider’s vision. While recognizing the scientific hurdles that would need to be overcome, they called the possibility of muon collider hosted in the US a scientific ‘muon shot‘, that would reap huge gains. They therefore recommended funding for R&D towards they key technological hurdles that need to be addressed.
Because the situation is unclear on both the muon front and international Higgs factory plans, they recommended a follow up panel to convene later this decade when key aspects have clarified. While nothing was decided, many in the muon collider community took the report as a huge positive sign. While just a few years ago many dismissed talk of such a collider as fantastical, now a real path towards its construction has been laid down.
Hitoshi Murayama, chair of the P5 committee, cuts into a ‘Shoot for the Muon’ cake next to a smiling Lia Merminga, the director of Fermilab. Source
While the P5 report is only one step along the path to a future collider, it was an important one. Eyes will now turn towards reports from the different collider advocates. CERN’s FCC ‘feasibility study’, updates around the CEPC and, the International Muon Collider Collaboration detailed design report are all expected in the next few years. These reports will set up the showdown later this decade where concrete funding decisions will be made.
For those interested the full report as well as executive summaries of different areas can be found on the P5 website. Members of the US particle physics community are also encouraged to sign the petition endorsing the recommendations here.
When students first learn quantum field theory, the mathematical language the underpins the behavior of elementary particles, they start with the simplest possible interaction you can write down : a particle with no spin and no charge scattering off another copy of itself. One then eventually moves on to the more complicated interactions that describe the behavior of fundamental particles of the Standard Model. They may quickly forget this simplified interaction as a unrealistic toy example, greatly simplified compared to the complexity the real world. Though most interactions that underpin particle physics are indeed quite a bit more complicated, nature does hold a special place for simplicity. This barebones interaction is predicted to occur in exactly one scenario : a Higgs boson scattering off itself. And one of the next big targets for particle physics is to try and observe it.
A Feynman diagram of the simplest possible interaction in quantum field theory, a spin-zero particle interacting with itself.
The Higgs is the only particle without spin in the Standard Model, and the only one that doesn’t carry any type of charge. So even though particles such as gluons can interact with other gluons, its never two of the same kind of gluons (the two interacting gluons will always carry different color charges). The Higgs is the only one that can have this ‘simplest’ form of self-interaction. Prominent theorist Nima Arkani-Hamed has said that the thought of observing this “simplest possible interaction in nature gives [him] goosebumps“.
But more than being interesting for its simplicity, this self-interaction of the Higgs underlies a crucial piece of the Standard Model: the story of how particles got their mass. The Standard Model tells us that the reason all fundamental particles have mass is their interaction with the Higgs field. Every particle’s mass is proportional to the strength of the Higgs field. The fact that particles have any mass at all is tied to the fact that the lowest energy state of the Higgs field is at a non-zero value. According to the Standard Model, early in the universe’s history when the temperature were much higher, the Higgs potential had a different shape, with its lowest energy state at field value of zero. At this point all the particles we know about were massless. As the universe cooled the shape of the Higgs potential morphed into a ‘wine bottle’ shape, and the Higgs field moved into the new minimum at non-zero value where it sits today. The symmetry of the initial state, in which the Higgs was at the center of its potential, was ‘spontaneously broken’ as its new minimum, at a location away from the center, breaks the rotation symmetry of the potential. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a very deep theoretical idea that shows up not just in particle physics but in exotic phases of matter as well (eg superconductors).
A diagram showing the ‘unbroken’ Higgs potential in the very early universe (left) and the ‘wine bottle’ shape it has today (right). When the Higgs at the center of its potential it has a rotational symmetry, there are no preferred directions. But once it finds it new minimum that symmetry is broken. The Higgs now sits at a particular field value away from the center and a preferred direction exists in the system.
This fantastical story of how particle’s gained their masses, one of the crown jewels of the Standard Model, has not yet been confirmed experimentally. So far we have studied the Higgs’s interactions with other particles, and started to confirm the story that it couples to particles in proportion to their mass. But to confirm this story of symmetry breaking we will to need to study the shape of the Higgs’s potential, which we can probe only through its self-interactions. Many theories of physics beyond the Standard Model, particularly those that attempt explain how the universe ended up with so much matter and very little anti-matter, predict modifications to the shape of this potential, further strengthening the importance of this measurement.
Unfortunately observing the Higgs interacting with itself and thus measuring the shape of its potential will be no easy feat. The key way to observe the Higgs’s self-interaction is to look for a single Higgs boson splitting into two. Unfortunately in the Standard Model additional processes that can produce two Higgs bosons quantum mechanically interfere with the Higgs self interaction process which produces two Higgs bosons, leading to a reduced production rate. It is expected that a Higgs boson scattering off itself occurs around 1000 times less often than the already rare processes which produce a single Higgs boson. A few years ago it was projected that by the end of the LHC’s run (with 20 times more data collected than is available today), we may barely be able to observe the Higgs’s self-interaction by combining data from both the major experiments at the LHC (ATLAS and CMS).
Fortunately, thanks to sophisticated new data analysis techniques, LHC experimentalists are currently significantly outpacing the projected sensitivity. In particular, powerful new machine learning methods have allowed physicists to cut away background events mimicking the di-Higgs signal much more than was previously thought possible. Because each of the two Higgs bosons can decay in a variety of ways, the best sensitivity will be obtained by combining multiple different ‘channels’ targeting different decay modes. It is therefore going to take a village of experimentalists each working hard to improve the sensitivity in various different channels to produce the final measurement. However with the current data set, the sensitivity is still a factor of a few away from the Standard Model prediction. Any signs of this process are only expected to come after the LHC gets an upgrade to its collision rate a few years from now.
Current experimental limits on the simultaneous production of two Higgs bosons, a process sensitive to the Higgs’s self-interaction, from ATLAS (left) and CMS (right). The predicted rate from the Standard Model is shown in red in each plot while the current sensitivity is shown with the black lines. This process is searched for in a variety of different decay modes of the Higgs (various rows on each plot). The combined sensitivity across all decay modes for each experiment allows them currently to rule out the production of two Higgs bosons at 3-4 times the rate predicted by the Standard Model. With more data collected both experiments will gain sensitivity to the range predicted by the Standard Model.
While experimentalists will work as hard as they can to study this process at the LHC, to perform a precision measurement of it, and really confirm the ‘wine bottle’ shape of the potential, its likely a new collider will be needed. Studying this process in detail is one of the main motivations to build a new high energy collider, with the current leading candidates being an even bigger proton-proton collider to succeed the LHC or a new type of high energy muon collider.
A depiction of our current uncertainty on the shape of the Higgs potential (center), our expected uncertainty at the end of the LHC (top right) and the projected uncertainty a new muon collider could achieve (bottom right). The Standard Model expectation is the tan line and the brown band shows the experimental uncertainty. Adapted from Nathaniel Craig’s talkhere
The quest to study nature’s simplest interaction will likely span several decades. But this long journey gives particle physicists a roadmap for the future, and a treasure worth traveling great lengths for.
The anthropic principle posits that the universe's physical constants are fine-tuned for life, a concept scrutinized in light of new theoretical research on ultralight axions. If dark matter isn’t primarily axionic, it poses challenges to this principle, questioning the universe's inherent design while pushing materialists to seek explanations devoid of a Creator.
Recently, physicists at CERN announced that they’d re-discovered an anomaly in the way that certain particles (called B mesons) decay. The anomaly has been noted in multiple other analyses over the years, though most recently it had disappeared. It could indicate that there are particles that we still have yet to discover, or that we need to revise the standard model of physics. Or it could mean
Virtual particles, depending on who you ask, are either a yet-unsolved quirk of the mathematics that we use to calculate physics, or a type of real particle that’s constantly popping into existence before quickly disappearing. In a recent paper, physicists claim that they’ve done an experiment that proves that virtual particles are, indeed, real things. Let’s take a look.
A new theoretical study suggests that black holes may never completely disappear, potentially offering a way to resolve the long-standing black hole information paradox. One of the biggest unsolved problems in modern physics, known as the “black hole information paradox,” may finally have a compelling solution. The proposed answer could also help explain where the [...]
A new analysis of data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory suggests that the energy spectrum of cosmic neutrinos is more complex than was previously thought. Whereas a previous study found that the energies of these ubiquitous, nearly massless particles follow a simple power law distribution, the latest analysis reveals a knee-like bend in the spectrum at around 30 TeV. The discovery could help astrophysicists better understand where cosmic neutrinos come from and what objects and processes in the universe are producing them.
Neutrinos are subatomic particles that are around a million times less massive than electrons. They are known to come in (at least) three different “flavours” – electron, muon and tau – but they have no electrical charge, and they interact with matter only rarely, via the weak nuclear force and gravity. This means they can travel vast distances through the universe without being deflected by magnetic fields or absorbed by interstellar material along the way.
Astrophysicists think cosmic neutrinos are produced in collisions between high-energy cosmic rays and other particles. Since cosmic rays are accelerated by a range of astrophysical sources – including gamma-ray bursts, active galactic nuclei powered by supermassive black holes, and other extreme cosmic processes – the neutrino spectrum is a way of gleaning information about where these sources are and how they work.
The catch is that because neutrinos interact so weakly, they must be studied using detectors with a very large volume. For this reason, neutrino scientists often use natural structures such as deep water or expanses of ice to support their detectors. These locations also have the advantage of being shielded from muons, cosmic rays and other sources of background noise.
Measuring neutrinos since 2010
The 5000 optical sensors that make up the IceCube observatory are suspended within a cubic kilometre of Antarctic ice. They are designed to detect the telltale flashes of visible and ultraviolet light that occur whenever a neutrino interacts with a molecule of ice. During these rare detection events, the neutrino either leaves behind an elongated track or produces a “cascade” in which its energy is contained in a small, spherical volume inside the ice.
IceCube’s detectors have been operating since 2010 and the earliest data they produced suggested that the energies of the detected neutrinos followed a single falling power law distribution. Researchers were initially pleased with this result because it agreed with simple models that related cosmic neutrinos to cosmic rays, says Aswathi Balagopal V, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin, US, and a member of the IceCube collaboration. These models suggested that cosmic ray acceleration takes place exclusively in so-called shock environments where collision events produce neutrinos.
In the new work, Balagopal V and colleagues performed two different, independent, types of analysis on more than 10 years’ worth of neutrino observations in the 1 TeV to 10 PeV range. The first analysis involved measuring a sample of neutrino cascades and a sample of neutrino tracks in the detector. The team then combined the results of both sets of measurements to characterize the neutrino spectrum.
Both analyses arrived at the same conclusion, rejecting a single power law distribution with a confidence of more than 4𝜎 (the usual maximum confidence being 5𝜎). The best fit for the data was instead a broken power law, with the spectrum of neutrino energies falling more steeply at higher energies than at energies below around 30 TeV, Balagopal V tells Physics World.
“This implies that there are fewer lower energy neutrinos when compared to what one would obtain with a simple extrapolation of the prediction from higher energies,” she says. “This changing shape of the spectrum can indicate several things: either a changing population of cosmic neutrino sources; or a change in their production mechanism.” If cosmic neutrinos come from more than one kind of astrophysical source, she adds, then each type may be accelerating cosmic rays in a different way.
A final option, Balagopal V notes, is that some theories suggest that interactions with dark matter can also produce such a spectral feature. “With these measurements, we have opened up the possibility of discoveries in any of these directions,” she says. “With more detailed analyses, we could identify if there are additional features in the energy spectrum and we are already analysing new IceCube data to this end.”
Recently, physicists at CERN announced that they’d re-discovered an anomaly in the way that certain particles (called B mesons) decay. The anomaly has been noted in multiple other analyses over the years, though most recently it had disappeared. It could indicate that there are particles that we still have yet to discover, or that we need to revise the standard model of physics. Or it could mean
Virtual particles, depending on who you ask, are either a yet-unsolved quirk of the mathematics that we use to calculate physics, or a type of real particle that’s constantly popping into existence before quickly disappearing. In a recent paper, physicists claim that they’ve done an experiment that proves that virtual particles are, indeed, real things. Let’s take a look.
Login
