-
There is something about physics
-
that has been really bothering me
since I was a little kid.
-
And it's related to a question
-
that scientists have been asking
for almost 100 years,
-
with no answer.
-
How do the smallest things in nature,
-
the particles of the quantum world,
-
match up with the largest
things in nature --
-
planets and stars and galaxies
held together by gravity?
-
As a kid, I would puzzle
over questions just like this.
-
I would fiddle around
with microscopes and electromagnets,
-
and I would read
about the forces of the small
-
and about quantum mechanics
-
and I would marvel at how well
that description matched up
-
to our observation.
-
Then I would look at the stars,
-
and I would read about how well
we understand gravity,
-
and I would think surely,
there must be some elegant way
-
that these two systems match up.
-
But there's not.
-
And the books would say,
-
yeah, we understand a lot
about these two realms separately,
-
but when we try to link
them mathematically,
-
everything breaks.
-
And for 100 years,
-
none of our ideas as to how to solve
this basically physics disaster,
-
has ever been supported by evidence.
-
And to little old me --
-
little, curious, skeptical James --
-
this was a supremely unsatisfying answer.
-
So, I'm still a skeptical little kid.
-
Flash-forward now
to December of 2015,
-
when I found myself smack in the middle
-
of the physics world
being flipped on its head.
-
It all started when we at CERN
saw something intriguing in our data:
-
a hint of a new particle,
-
an inkling of a possibly extraordinary
answer to this question.
-
So I'm still a skeptical
little kid, I think,
-
but I'm also now a particle hunter.
-
I am a physicist at CERN's
Large Hadron Collider,
-
the largest science
experiment ever mounted.
-
It's a 27-kilometer tunnel
on the border of France and Switzerland
-
buried 100 meters underground.
-
And in this tunnel,
-
we use superconducting magnets
colder than outer space
-
to accelerate protons
to almost the speed of light
-
and slam them into each other
millions of times per second,
-
collecting the debris of these collisions
-
to search for new, undiscovered
fundamental particles.
-
Its design and construction
took decades of work
-
by thousands of physicists
from around the globe,
-
and in the summer of 2015,
-
we had been working tirelessly
to switch on the LHC
-
at the highest energy that humans
have ever used in a collider experiment.
-
Now, higher energy is important
-
because for particles,
there is an equivalence
-
between energy and particle mass,
-
and mass is just a number
put there by nature.
-
To discover new particles,
-
we need to reach these bigger numbers.
-
And to do that, we have to build
a bigger, higher energy collider,
-
and the biggest, highest
energy collider in the world
-
is the Large Hadron Collider.
-
And then, we collide protons
quadrillions of times,
-
and we collect this data very slowly,
over months and months.
-
And then new particles might show up
in our data as bumps --
-
slight deviations from what you expect,
-
little clusters of data points
that make a smooth line not so smooth.
-
For example, this bump,
-
after months of data-taking in 2012,
-
led to the discovery
of the Higgs particle --
-
the Higgs boson --
-
and to a Nobel Prize
for the confirmation of its existence.
-
This jump up in energy in 2015
-
represented the best chance
that we as a species had ever had
-
of discovering new particles --
-
new answers to these
long-standing questions,
-
because it was almost
twice as much energy as we used
-
when we discovered the Higgs boson.
-
Many of my colleagues had been working
their entire careers for this moment,
-
and frankly, to little curious me,
-
this was the moment
I'd been waiting for my entire life.
-
So 2015 was go time.
-
So June 2015,
-
the LHC is switched back on.
-
My colleagues and I held our breath
and bit our fingernails,
-
and then finally we saw
the first proton collisions
-
at this highest energy ever.
-
Applause, champagne, celebration.
-
This was a milestone for science,
-
and we had no idea what we would find
in this brand-new data.
-
And then a few weeks later,
we found a bump.
-
It wasn't a very big bump,
-
but it was big enough to make
you raise your eyebrow.
-
But on a scale of one to 10
for eyebrow raises,
-
if 10 indicates that you've
discovered a new particle,
-
this eyebrow raise is about a four.
-
(Laughter)
-
I spent hours, days, weeks
in secret meetings,
-
arguing with my colleagues
over this little bump,
-
poking and prodding it with our most
ruthless experimental sticks
-
to see if it would withstand scrutiny.
-
But even after months
of working feverishly --
-
sleeping in our offices
and not going home,
-
candy bars for dinner,
-
coffee by the bucketful --
-
physicists are machines
for turning coffee into diagrams --
-
(Laughter)
-
This little bump would not go away.
-
So after a few months,
-
we presented our little bump to the world
with a very clear message:
-
this little bump is interesting
but it's not definitive,
-
so let's keep an eye on it
as we take more data.
-
So we were trying to be
extremely cool about it.
-
And the world ran with it anyway.
-
The news loved it.
-
People said it reminded
them of the little bump
-
that was shown on the way
toward the Higgs boson discovery.
-
Better than that,
my theorist colleagues --
-
I love my theorist colleagues --
-
my theorist colleagues wrote
500 papers about this little bump.
-
(Laughter)
-
The world of particle physics
had been flipped on its head.
-
But what was it about this particular bump
-
that caused thousands of physicists
to collectively lose their cool?
-
This little bump was unique.
-
This little bump indicated
-
that we were seeing an unexpectedly
large number of collisions
-
whose debris consisted
of only two photons,
-
two particles of light.
-
And that's rare.
-
Particle collisions are not
like automobile collisions.
-
They have different rules.
-
When two particles collide
at almost the speed of light,
-
the quantum world takes over.
-
And in the quantum world,
-
these two particles
can briefly create a new particle
-
that lives for a tiny fraction of a second
-
before splitting into other particles
that hit our detector.
-
Imagine a car collision
where the two cars vanish upon impact,
-
a bicycle appears in their place --
-
(Laughter)
-
And then that bicycle explodes
into two skateboards,
-
which hit our detector.
-
(Laughter)
-
Hopefully, not literally.
-
They're very expensive.
-
Events where only two photons
hit out detector are very rare.
-
And because of the special
quantum properties of photons,
-
there's a very small number
of possible new particles --
-
these mythical bicycles --
-
that can give birth to only two photons.
-
But one of these options is huge,
-
and it has to do with
that long-standing question
-
that bothered me as a tiny little kid,
-
about gravity.
-
Gravity may seem super strong to you,
-
but it's actually crazily weak
compared to the other forces of nature.
-
I can briefly beat gravity when I jump,
-
but I can't pick a proton out of my hand.
-
The strength of gravity compared
to the other forces of nature?
-
It's 10 to the minus 39.
-
That's a decimal with 39 zeros after it.
-
Worse than that,
-
all of the other known forces of nature
are perfectly described
-
by this thing we call the Standard Model,
-
which is our current best description
of nature at its smallest scales,
-
and quite frankly,
-
one of the most successful
achievements of humankind --
-
except for gravity, which is absent
from the Standard Model.
-
It's crazy.
-
It's almost as though most
of gravity has gone missing.
-
We feel a little bit of it,
-
but where's the rest of it?
-
No one knows.
-
But one theoretical explanation
proposes a wild solution.
-
You and I --
-
even you in the back --
-
we live in three dimensions of space.
-
I hope that's a
non-controversial statement.
-
(Laughter)
-
All of the known particles also live
in three dimensions of space.
-
In fact, a particle is just another name
-
for an excitation
in a three-dimensional field;
-
a localized wobbling in space.
-
More importantly, all the math
that we use to describe all this stuff
-
assumes that there are only
three dimensions of space.
-
But math is math, and we can play
around with our math however we want.
-
And people have been playing around
with extra dimensions of space
-
for a very long time,
-
but it's always been an abstract
mathematical concept.
-
I mean, just look around you --
you at the back, look around --
-
there's clearly only
three dimensions of space.
-
But what if that's not true?
-
What if the missing gravity is leaking
into an extra-spatial dimension
-
that's invisible to you and I?
-
What if gravity is just as strong
as the other forces
-
if you were to view it in this
extra-spatial dimension,
-
and what you and I experience
is a tiny slice of gravity
-
make it seem very weak?
-
If this were true,
-
we would have to expand
our Standard Model of particles
-
to include an extra particle,
a hyperdimensional particle of gravity,
-
a special graviton that lives
in extra-spatial dimensions.
-
I see the looks on your faces.
-
You should be asking me the question,
-
"How in the world are we going to test
this crazy, science fiction idea,
-
stuck as we are in three dimensions?"
-
The way we always do,
-
by slamming together two protons --
-
(Laughter)
-
Hard enough that
the collision reverberates
-
into any extra-spatial dimensions
that might be there,
-
momentarily creating
this hyperdimensional graviton
-
that then snaps back
into the three dimensions of the LHC
-
and spits off two photons,
-
two particles of light.
-
And this hypothetical,
extra-dimensional graviton
-
is one of the only possible,
hypothetical new particles
-
that has the special quantum properties
-
that could give birth to our little,
two-photon bump.
-
So, the possibility of explaining
the mysteries of gravity
-
and of discovering extra
dimensions of space --
-
perhaps now you get a sense
-
as to why thousands of physics geeks
collectively lost their cool
-
over our little, two-photon bump.
-
A discovery of this type
would rewrite the textbooks.
-
But remember,
-
the message from us experimentalists
-
that actually were doing
this work at the time,
-
was very clear:
-
we need more data.
-
With more data,
-
the little bump will either turn into
a nice, crisp Nobel Prize --
-
(Laughter)
-
Or the extra data will fill in
the space around the bump
-
and turn it into a nice, smooth line.
-
So we took more data,
-
and with five times the data,
several months later,
-
our little bump
-
turned into a smooth line.
-
The news reported on a "huge
disappointment," on "faded hopes,"
-
and on particle physicists "being sad."
-
Given the tone of the coverage,
-
you'd think that we had decided
to shut down the LHC and go home.
-
(Laughter)
-
But that's not what we did.
-
But why not?
-
I mean, if I didn't discover
a particle -- and I didn't --
-
if I didn't discover a particle,
why am I here talking to you?
-
Why didn't I just hang my head in shame
-
and go home?
-
Particle physicists are explorers.
-
And very much of what we do
is cartography.
-
Let me put it this way: forget
about the LHC for a second.
-
Imagine you are a space explorer
arriving at a distant planet,
-
searching for aliens.
-
What is your first task?
-
To immediately orbit the planet,
land, take a quick look around
-
for any big, obvious signs of life,
-
and report back to home base.
-
That's the stage we're at now.
-
We took a first look at the LHC
-
for any new, big,
obvious-to-spot particles,
-
and we can report that there are none.
-
We saw a weird-looking alien bump
on a distant mountain,
-
but once we got closer,
we saw it was a rock.
-
But then what do we do?
Do we just give up and fly away?
-
Absolutely not;
-
we would be terrible scientists if we did.
-
No, we spend the next couple
of decades exploring,
-
mapping out the territory,
-
sifting through the sand
with a fine instrument,
-
peeking under every stone,
-
drilling under the surface.
-
New particles can either
show up immediately
-
as big, obvious-to-spot bumps,
-
or they can only reveal themselves
after years of data taking.
-
Humanity has just begun its exploration
at the LHC at this big high energy,
-
and we have much searching to do.
-
But what if, even after 10 or 20 years,
we still find no new particles?
-
We build a bigger machine.
-
(Laughter)
-
We search at higher energies.
-
We search at higher energies.
-
Planning is already underway
for a 100-kilometer tunnel
-
that will collide particles
at 10 times the energy of the LHC.
-
We don't decide where
nature places new particles.
-
We only decide to keep exploring.
-
But what if, even after
a 100-kilometer tunnel
-
or a 500-kilometer tunnel
-
or a 10,000-kilometer
collider floating in space
-
between the Earth and the Moon,
-
we still find no new particles?
-
Then perhaps we're doing
particle physics wrong.
-
(Laughter)
-
Perhaps we need to rethink things.
-
Maybe we need more resources,
technology, expertise
-
than what we currently have.
-
We already use artificial intelligence
and machine learning techniques
-
in parts of the LHC,
-
but imagine designing
a particle physics experiment
-
using such sophisticated algorithms
-
that it could teach itself to discover
a hyperdimensional graviton.
-
But what if?
-
What if the ultimate question:
-
What if even artificial intelligence
can't help us answer our questions?
-
What if these open questions,
for centuries,
-
are destined to be unanswered
for the foreseeable future?
-
What if the stuff that's bothered me
since I was a little kid
-
is destined to be unanswered
in my lifetime?
-
Then that ...
-
will be even more fascinating.
-
We will be forced to think
in completely new ways.
-
We'll have to go back to our assumptions,
-
and determine if there was
a flaw somewhere.
-
And we'll need to encourage more people
to join us in studying science
-
since we need fresh eyes
on these century-old problems.
-
I don't have the answers,
and I'm still searching for them.
-
But someone -- maybe
she's in school right now,
-
maybe she's not even born yet --
-
could eventually guide us to see physics
in a completely new way,
-
and to point out that perhaps
we're just asking the wrong questions.
-
Which would not be the end of physics,
-
but a novel beginning.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause)