Comsol -leaderboard other pages

Topics

Patience pays at the lifetime frontier

The 16th workshop of the Long-Lived Particle Community (LLP2026) gathered more than 70 theorists, phenomenologists and experimentalists at Cambridge’s Ray Dolby Centre, the new home of the Cavendish Laboratory, from 29 June to 3 July. Discussions centred on particles that live long enough to travel a measurable distance before decaying, and on the searches, algorithms and detectors designed to catch them.

Long-lived particles (LLPs) arise in a wide range of theories beyond the Standard Model (SM), from supersymmetry and extended Higgs sectors to models of neutrino masses or dark matter. Due to their long lifetimes, LLPs could decay far from the collision point and leave signatures that are exotic and hard to identify.

On the hunt

The CMS collaboration presented eight new searches in which displaced muons and dedicated LLP triggers played a central role. Anna Mascellani (ETH Zurich) presented a search for heavy neutral leptons (HNLs). Among the simplest and best-motivated LLP candidates, they could explain the origin of neutrino masses through the so-called “seesaw” mechanism. The new channel targets HNL decays beyond the tracker using standalone displaced muons, reconstructed exclusively in the muon system. The gain in sensitivity at longer lifetimes yields the best expected limits on HNL mixing with muon neutrinos for masses between 2.5 and 4.2 GeV. Celia Fernandez Madrazo (Boston University) presented a search for light, narrow resonances decaying to two displaced muons, recorded with a dedicated scouting trigger stream, in which events are kept at a high rate by recording only a reduced amount of trigger-level information. The saving in bandwidth allows muons with transverse momenta down to 3 GeV to be collected, and relaxed requirements on the number of hits give Run-3 scouting access – for the first time – to muons displaced by more than 11 cm. Together, the two extensions yield the most stringent limits to date on dark-shower models, which predict light, long-lived dark pions decaying after 10 cm or more.

The workshop showed how new triggers and analysis strategies are testing a wide range of theoretical models

ATLAS presented several results with 13 and 13.6 TeV data. Paul Swallow (University of Cambridge) reported a search for displaced vertices and missing transverse momentum built on a novel fuzzy-vertexing algorithm, optimised for displaced decays to heavy quarks. Since b quarks themselves travel a sizeable distance before decaying, an LLP decaying to them need not produce particles pointing back to a single vertex. Rather than forcing one, the algorithm reconstructs several nearby seed vertices and then merges them into a single one, improving efficiency for the high-mass, high-multiplicity displaced vertices expected from such decays.

Models predicting quirks, hypothetical particles charged both under the SM and a new confining force analogous to the strong force, drew particular interest. Produced in pairs and bound to each other by a confining string, quirks would cross a detector slowly, as charged long-lived particles. Arash Jofrehei (University of Geneva) presented the first direct LHC search for quirks with masses above the weak scale, performed with FASER, and Alejandro Novo Cal (IGFAE, University of Santiago de Compostela) proposed a search at LHCb, complementary in reach to those of heavy stable charged particles or monojets at ATLAS and CMS. Thanks to the forward acceptance and lack of magnetic field of the LHCb Vertex Locator (VELO), alongside a flexible trigger design, the approach could probe values of the new confining scale between 0.1 and 10 keV. The stakes reach into cosmology, as Graham Kribs (CERN and University of Oregon) stressed. If macroscopic dark-colour strings were observed, the reheating temperature at which the hot Big Bang began after inflation would have to lie below about 100 GeV, since a hotter start would have left long-lived bound states of dark gluons in conflict with early-universe observations.

Martin Hirsch (IFIC, CSIC and University of Valencia) showed that axion-like particles (ALPs) can couple HNLs to gluons, giving the LHC and proposed LLP detectors high sensitivity to long-lived HNLs for GeV-scale ALP masses. As Oleg Brandt (University of Cambridge) observed, the two candidates are usually treated separately, and their combination offers interesting new benchmarks.

Future facilities

On the facilities side, John Anders (University of Liverpool) reviewed design and detector studies for the proposed Forward Physics Facility, including a full simulation of its cavern. Updates followed from SHiP/NA67, CODEX-b, MATHUSLA and ANUBIS, with sensitivity studies for benchmark models ranging from HNLs and Higgs-portal scalars to dark photons and ALPs. Looking further ahead, Rhitaja Sengupta (BCTP, University of Bonn) presented dedicated LLP detector concepts for FCC-ee and FCC-hh, including DELIGHT, FOREHUNT and DELIGHT-SHIELD, stressing how a future collider’s design phase offers the best opportunity to integrate dedicated LLP detectors within the main detector designs.

Discussions extended beyond CERN. Zeren Simon Wang (Hefei University of Technology) presented prospects for searching for very long-lived HNLs through baryon-number-violating decays of charmed baryons at the Super Tau Charm Facility proposed in Hefei, China. The same symmetry violation motivated Patrick Adolf (TU Dortmund) to propose a new class of nucleon-decay observables involving LLPs, in which a vector mediator produced in the decay travels a macroscopic distance before turning into an electron–positron pair inside a detector such as Super-Kamiokande, leaving temporally correlated “echo” vertices.

LLP2026 opened just as the LHC entered Long Shutdown 3, and the results presented drew on only part of the Run-3 dataset. Even so, the workshop showed how new triggers and analysis strategies are testing a wide range of theoretical models. The detectors and facilities now taking shape promise to go further, so that no new physics remains hidden at the long-lifetime frontier.

Physicists and artists entangle at CERN

From 11 to 18 January 2026, the SciArtDialogue Week brought 36 students, researchers, artists and educators to CERN’s IdeaSquare for a week of joint scientific and artistic work, marking the centenary of the quantum wave function. Organised by art@CMS/ORIGIN, an art-and-science education programme rooted in the CMS collaboration, the event drew support from institutions across Austria, Germany, the US and Australia.

The wave function entered physics in the first half of 1926, when Erwin Schrödinger reformulated quantum theory as a form of wave mechanics. Its meaning, though, was disputed from the beginning. Schrödinger himself took it to be a real wave of matter propagating through space. Within months, Max Born linked its squared modulus to the probabilities of measurement outcomes, and this settled the matter for all practical purposes. Yet whether the wave function describes the world itself or only our knowledge of it is still debated, and the week set scientists and artists to explore this tension together.

A comprehensive visit programme immersed participants in CERN’s unique scientific infrastructure. Based at IdeaSquare, they encountered large-scale experiments, gained insights into how data is collected and processed, reflected on the technological ingenuity behind particle physics and gathered important personal connections with the CERN scientific community. These experiences were complemented by in-depth contributions on quantum mechanics, the historical significance of Schrödinger’s work and the broader evolution of contemporary scientific paradigms.

ORF Ö1 journalist Susanna Niedermayr accompanied the whole workshop, documenting discussions among professors of fine arts, musicology and religious studies, and tracing how scientific concepts migrate into artistic practice. For the Austrian students, the week doubled as the start of a semester-long university course, in which they will further develop their projects. The resulting works, spanning sound, performance, visual media and conceptual installations, will be shown at the ORF festival in Graz, from 8 to 11 October. Whether art can bring an advanced scientific idea to a wider public is the question the initiative exists to test, and the answer will be on display there. The SciArtDialogue Week will return to CERN IdeaSquare in February 2027 to mark the centenary of the fifth Solvay Conference.

Helsinki muses on the FCC

FCC Week 2026

From 8 to 12 June, FCC Week brought 656 scientists, engineers, industry representatives and policymakers from 38 countries to the University of Helsinki. With its primary focus on FCC-ee, the meeting examined how the FCC study can progress from demonstrating feasibility to a coherent reference design, treating physics goals, accelerator parameters, detector concepts, theory, software and the machine–detector interface as parts of a single system.

Paula Eerola, president of the Research Council of Finland, opened the week by reflecting on CERN as a place where scientific responsibility is carried across borders and generations. CERN Director-General Mark Thomson described the coming years as a critical period, in which CERN must deliver the High-Luminosity LHC while advancing the FCC-ee as a possible next flagship project (CERN Courier July/August 2026 p7). Both efforts will rely on CERN’s close cooperation with its Member States, and Costas Fountas, president of the CERN Council, underlined their growing alignment with the laboratory and the particle-physics community. For European Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, the same model of international cooperation underpins Europe’s competitiveness, its technological capacity and its ability to invest over the long term.

Broad programme

The scientific case for the FCC-ee is often summarised in terms of the Higgs boson, but the programme discussed in Helsinki was considerably broader. Runs at the Z resonance, the W-pair threshold, the Higgs-production maximum and the top-quark threshold would yield around six trillion Z bosons and hundreds of millions of W pairs, improving statistical precision by three orders of magnitude and probing the Standard Model as an interconnected whole. The top-threshold run, for example, would determine the top mass, width, Yukawa coupling and strong coupling in a uniquely controlled environment, and a precise top mass is needed in turn to exploit the projected W-mass precision. The FCC-ee would also be a major flavour facility, with its clean initial state, vertex reconstruction and near-complete angular coverage, enabling studies of beauty, charm and tau decays, many of which are statistically limited today. As a precision-QCD machine, it could determine the strong coupling at the per-mille level (see How strong is the strong interaction?).

Discovery potential would not depend solely on producing new particles. Heavy states can alter measured quantities through quantum effects, leaving correlated deviations across electroweak, Higgs, flavour and top observables that global analyses could trace well beyond the machine’s direct reach. Direct searches would complement this programme, with the enormous Z and Higgs samples providing sensitivity to long-lived particles, heavy neutral leptons, axion-like particles and other hidden-sector states. The projected precision also creates a theoretical challenge. For the W-boson mass, a possible experimental uncertainty of about 0.24 MeV stands against a current theoretical uncertainty of several MeV, and closing such gaps will require higher-order calculations, better event generators and improved control of hadronisation, in a coordinated effort lasting many years.

On the accelerator side, the main news concerned the radiofrequency system. Studies indicate that it could be built entirely from 800 MHz superconducting cavities, instead of the planned mix of 400 and 800 MHz, and still reach the target collision rate with the new beam optics, although beam lifetime and the mutual disturbance of the colliding beams remain to be assessed. That collision rate calls for beams that are exceptionally flat, their vertical spread up to 2000 times smaller than the horizontal, demanding tight control of alignment, vibration and focusing. The rings would also need continuous refilling to hold the luminosity steady, a top-up injection that simulations now show can be performed  with efficiencies above 90%.

Advancing hardware

Hardware is advancing too. Drawings for the 400 MHz superconducting cavities are nearly complete, and a first integrated cryomodule demonstrator is due by 2031. The cavities will only be as efficient as the klystrons that power them, and these are gaining ground, with a single-beam device in China reaching 78% and a CERN tristron targeting above 90%. Magnet studies now feed manufacturing imperfections into predictions of field quality, and alignment on the supporting girders aims at 10 to 20 micrometres. The synchrotron radiation emitted by the circulating electrons, an intense X-ray glare, would deposit its power along the vacuum chamber, with absorbers every 5 to 6 m to intercept it. At the Z pole, however, where the circulating current would be highest, the budget for the chamber’s electromagnetic response to the beam remains tight, and the effects of stray-electron clouds in the pipe are not yet fully resolved.

Six detector concepts are under study, providing redundancy and comparative optimisation

The interaction region is where accelerator and detector choices meet most directly. A longitudinal detector-opening scenario is now the baseline, and a full-scale mock-up of the cooled central beam pipe and vertex detector has validated assembly and cooling. Moving the first final-focus element to 2.4 m from the interaction point has reduced the radiation load on the superconducting coils. Synchrotron-radiation backgrounds, however, have emerged as one of the most serious potential problems. Current estimates indicate that unless the radiation can be reduced by orders of magnitude, it would leave unacceptably high hit rates in the trackers. Masks, revised beam-pipe geometry, shielding and optics changes all show promise, but a final solution is still to be defined, making the interaction region a defining test of the integrated design.

Detailed simulation

Six detector concepts are under study, providing redundancy and comparative optimisation. All concepts place silicon pixel sensors closest to the beam, in chips that combine sensor and readout. Ideas diverge further out. Calorimeter concepts range from silicon-tungsten and crystal systems to noble-liquid and dual-readout approaches, while trackers include full-silicon, drift-chamber and time-projection-chamber solutions. Comparing the concepts, and finding their weaknesses early, takes detailed simulation, and simulation in turn calls for common tools. The shared software platform Key4hep has matured, and a distributed computing model is already operating ahead of formal collaborations.

The Industry and Technology Day, opened by Finland’s minister of economic affairs Sakari Puisto, asked how companies can become involved early enough to shape the design, from superconducting RF and cryogenics to civil construction. Many technologies will need to be adapted, scaled up or made more efficient, while others will have to be co-developed.

The FCC-ee tunnel could later host a much higher-energy proton collider, the FCC-hh, which Helsinki discussed as a possible second stage rather than as the justification for the whole programme. The case for the FCC-ee rests on its own precision measurements, flavour physics and direct searches, while the FCC-hh would extend direct searches to masses of tens of TeV and improve the measurement of the Higgs self-coupling.

FCC Week 2026 showed substantial progress in all project domains, and equally how much remains to be done. Synchrotron-radiation backgrounds must fall dramatically, theory precision must catch up with experimental ambition, and industrial capacity and long-term expertise need sustained investment. The central outcome was the growing integration of the many strands of a credible international project.

Copper, klystrons and the Cold War

Memories from Paris to Stanford is a deeply personal account of the fascinating and varied life of Gregory Loew. A renowned accelerator physicist, Loew made seminal contributions to the accelerators at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) that underpinned its Nobel Prize-winning scientific programme. Among them were the klystron drive and phasing systems for the 20 GeV linac, the S-band radiofrequency (RF) particle separators for the initial linac-based experiments, and the electron–positron injection system for the B-factory. He also directed the three-year effort that cured the beam breakup plaguing early operation, and through the 1970s, as head of the Accelerator Physics Department, led all the linac improvement projects. Later, Loew went on to chair two large international committees, whose comparisons of the competing linear-collider proposals paved the way for the 2004 selection of the superconducting technology of the DESY-led TESLA collaboration.

Core values

The memoir is divided into three parts: his early life and education, his career at SLAC, and his later engagement in politics. The diverse cultural environments and upheavals of his pre-college years recur throughout, intertwined with his science and activism, and matched by the value he places on family, friendship and collegiality.

The early chapters follow a childhood scattered by war. Loew was born in Vienna in 1930 to Jewish parents, with roots in Prague and Hamburg. In 1932, the family moved from Bucharest to Paris and switched their home tongue from German to French. In 1939, with antisemitism rife and war declared, they were forced out again, reaching Buenos Aires on 1 January 1940 – two weeks after the German battleship Admiral Graf Spee was scuttled off Montevideo. Somewhat screened in Argentina from the ravages of the war, the family nonetheless followed its perils, finding immense relief in the liberation of Paris in August 1944. A three-month visit to New York at the end of the same year marked his first encounter with the United States of America. There, operas at the Met and concerts conducted by Toscanini and Stravinsky sparked a lifelong love of the performing arts.

Loew knew from an early age that he wanted to pursue a career in physics, a desire cemented by excellent maths and science teachers at his high school in Buenos Aires. He returned to Paris in 1948 for undergraduate studies at the Sorbonne, and his account of those four highly eventful years is captivating. After his licence-ès-sciences in mathematics, physics, chemistry and radioactivity, he chose Caltech for his PhD studies, where he enjoyed easy access to figures such as Richard Feynman, Robert Millikan, Fred Hoyle and James Watson. Gregarious by nature, Loew never quite took to campus life at Caltech and, on completing his master’s in electrical engineering, accepted a generous scholarship from Stanford University to do his PhD. So began an illustrious 54-year career at Stanford and SLAC, including about five years as deputy director from 2001 to 2005.

The heart of the book, and its strongest claim on a physicist’s attention, is Loew’s chronicle of the internationally competitive development of linear electron accelerators from its Stanford origins. It began with William Hansen in the 1930s and advanced when the Varian brothers, Sigurd and Russell, arrived in 1937. That year, they built the first working klystron, a technology that still powers RF cavities today (CERN Courier May/June 2025 p30). After the war, Hansen resumed the work with Ed Ginzton and Richard Neal. Hansen died in 1949, and in 1951 Wolfgang “Pief” Panofsky arrived from Berkeley and carried the programme forward. By the mid-1950s, Stanford had a machine capable of delivering electron beams up to 1 GeV, which Robert Hofstadter used for his Nobel Prize-winning study of the structure of protons and neutrons. Loew himself arrived in 1954 as an electrical-engineering graduate student. His thesis, fortuitous given his later role, involved a microwave amplifier and oscillator system much like those used in the 1 GeV machine.

The Monster

Panofsky had larger ambitions. In 1957, he led a Stanford group that audaciously proposed Project M, the Monster, a two-mile accelerator for electron beams of up to 20 GeV. Loew completed his PhD in 1958 and joined the project, taking on the critical task of designing copper microwave structures to accelerate the electrons. Project M was funded in 1961, with Panofsky as SLAC’s first director, and construction began in 1962.

Memories from Paris to Stanford

SLAC’s scientific breakthroughs resulted from decade after decade of far-reaching technical invention driven by a group of brilliant, ambitious and colourful scientists. And who better to describe that history than Loew? From the start until his retirement in 2008, he contributed to the technical development, the unfolding science and the laboratory’s management. His astute people skills and benevolent character enliven his account and lend it veracity.

One further thread gives these chapters their texture: the laboratory’s role, largely driven by Panofsky, in building relationships and intergovernmental agreements with high-energy physics laboratories in Russia, Japan and China. Those friendships outlasted the science and at times served as back channels during political tension, and Loew’s insider account of those brave endeavours opens a window onto their workings.

Ambassador extraordinaire

As SLAC’s “ambassador extraordinaire”, Loew was often called on to host its most prominent visitors. He describes two, the visits of French president Georges Pompidou in 1970 and of the emperor and empress of Japan in 1994. He also devotes a chapter to his wife of 30 years, Gilda, who passed away in 2001. She was a PhD quantum chemist, with an adjunct professorship at Stanford, and worked with Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg.

A fascinating blend of Stanford and SLAC’s groundbreaking accelerator-based science

The third part of the book steps outside SLAC. Loew had been alert to politics and the causes of war since boyhood, and a call from the Stanford administration prompted him, in 1970, to devise a one-quarter course on the origins of war. It proved popular enough to run for more than a decade. Its range, from international relations and history to economics, anthropology and biology, later fed his first book, The Human Condition: Reality, Science and History (CERN Courier March/April 2020 p68). Since 1995, he has been active in democratic politics, serving on local and national committees and as a delegate to the 2012 convention. He closes with chapters on the threats to democracy and the existential threat of global warming.

Memories from Paris to Stanford is a fascinating blend of Stanford and SLAC’s groundbreaking accelerator-based science from the early 1950s to the present and the socio-political currents that shaped that post-WWII period. The scientific reader will likely be captivated by the discovery potential unleashed by innovative technology in the hands of brilliant practitioners and by how world events played into that adventure. The non-scientific reader can equally appreciate the transformative nature of the technology, but for them the primary fascination may well be how dramatic world events shaped the multifaceted career of a brilliant scientist and humanitarian.

The best science stories and how they work

The Best Science Stories and How They Work

Science journalism has the difficult task of making complex ideas accessible without sacrificing the uncertainty, nuance and sometimes messiness that accompany scientific research. Yet when it succeeds, much of the work involved is invisible. Readers encounter the finished story, not the reporting decisions, discarded approaches, structural choices and conversations with sources that produced it. The Best Science Stories and How They Work turns its attention to this hidden process. Each of its 11 reprinted stories comes with an introduction and annotations by a fellow science journalist, followed by a conversation in which writer and annotator discuss how the piece came together. The result is both an anthology of contemporary science writing and an attempt to take that writing apart and see what makes it work.

A wide world of topics

The subjects are remarkably varied, encompassing medicine, climate change, genetics, conservation, mathematics and space exploration, and drawing on journalism originally published in outlets including Nature, Scientific American, The Atlantic, MIT Technology Review and The New York Times Magazine. Ed Yong’s “Fatigue can shatter a person”, for example, examines the debilitating experience of pathological fatigue, particularly in the context of long COVID, while Kendra Pierre-Louis investigates “How rising groundwater caused by climate change could devastate coastal communities”. Juxtaposing such different stories is crucial, as it shows how similar questions about evidence, explanation, narrative and human experience arise across scientific disciplines.

What makes the collection distinctive, however, is what happens around each article. Rather than asking readers simply to admire a successful piece of journalism, the annotations encourage them to notice its construction. Why does a story begin where it does? How is technical information introduced without interrupting the narrative? What makes a source compelling, and how should a journalist balance curiosity with scepticism? Such questions turn reading into a more active exercise. The conversations between writers and annotators add another layer by focusing attention on the decisions and challenges behind each piece.

A persuasive case for paying closer attention to how science stories are assembled

This emphasis on process makes the book relevant beyond aspiring science journalists. Communicating science is often described as a problem of translation: taking specialist knowledge and making it understandable to a non-specialist audience. The examples collected here suggest something much richer. Good communication also depends on judgement – what a reader needs to know, what can safely be omitted, where uncertainty matters and where explanation should give way to narrative. These decisions will be recognisable to any scientist who has tried to explain a result outside their immediate field.

There is inevitably a degree of artificiality in dismantling writing that was designed to be experienced as a whole. Not every reader will want to interrupt an engaging story to consider its underlying mechanics, and those looking primarily for physics or another particular discipline will find much of the collection removed from the subject of their interest. But that breadth is also one of the book’s strengths. Moving between very different flavours of science and storytelling, it resists the idea that successful science communication can be reduced to a single template. It offers instead something closer to a workshop built around examples: read the story, examine the choices behind it and consider what might be learnt.

The Best Science Stories and How They Work makes a persuasive case for paying closer attention to how science stories are assembled, as well as to what they say. To early-career journalists, it offers an opportunity to examine the working methods behind effective reporting. To scientists, it provides a reminder that making science understandable involves more than simplifying terminology.

This is for everyone

As the recent dramatic improvement in AI leads to its increasingly widespread adoption, many of us are left unsure how to respond. The narrative, particularly among digital natives, is that we are living through an experience without precedent. Of course, to some extent, we are – AI is a technology unlike anything that came before it. However, this does not mean history has nothing to teach us.

Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of the World Wide Web in 1989 went on to transform global communication, economics, and societies, leaving many scrambling to keep up. While his latest book does not attempt to comprehensively answer every question sparked by the rise of AI, it provides a useful reference for anyone grappling with them. This Is for Everyone delivers a detailed yet compact history of the web, accompanied by its inventor’s reflections on what it has and could become.

The book starts by describing Berners-Lee’s childhood in London, where – raised by parents who were both mathematicians and electronic engineers – he was constantly exposed to technology. Born in 1955, he discusses his cohort’s “magic-carpet ride through the wave of tech”, where computing was developing at a perfect pace for their education and career development.

The CERN years

His interest in technology eventually took him to CERN. The book contains a positive description of the Organization, set alongside a relatable caveat of how challenging it was to facilitate communication within its community. It was this challenge that he sought to address through inventing the web, supported by many CERN colleagues he describes with great affection.

The story of the web’s origin is relatively well known within the particle-physics community, but perhaps less so is what happened next. Depicted in detail in the book is the work of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which brought together companies, non-profits, universities and governments to develop standards that would help preserve the web’s “universal” nature. The history of the governance of the web is set alongside Berners-Lee’s own memories of its increasingly widespread adoption. His joy in the many products of his creation leaps off the page, from the first online museum exhibitions of the nascent web to the later growth of Wikipedia and podcasts.

When describing some early side-effects of the web, Berners-Lee is sometimes too dismissive of their significance. He does not, however, shy away from describing how the negative impact of the web has grown with time, alongside his despair at modern social media. While the book regrettably does not thoroughly discuss what could have been done to prevent social media from reaching their current state, it does include some ideas on how to improve them. Berners-Lee believes that online lack of compassion is a design issue, not a human failing, and that the solution is mostly technical. He proposes a switch to algorithms trained for constructive engagement, similar to those used by music apps, which could be designed to give us more of the things we enjoy.

This Is for Everyone

Berners-Lee also outlines his belief in the importance of data privacy and sovereignty, lamenting how web users have often become products for advertisers, as well as the web’s abuse by authoritarian governments. The book explains how this led him to develop the web decentralisation protocol Solid, which gives people ownership of their data through a “pod” they control, and his company Inrupt – a part of his career many may be unfamiliar with. Although Berners-Lee has an obvious vested interest in the protocol, it certainly appears to be an interesting approach to data sovereignty.

The book states Berners-Lee’s concern that the rise of AI risks exacerbating current problems with the web and broader digital landscape. Although he emphasises his excitement about AI’s potential to benefit the world, he also stresses the need to act quickly to mitigate “the risk that it turns into something darker, more coercive and exploitative, as happened with social media.” It is in this area that his experience spearheading a new technology provides some necessary weight to his often bold arguments. His rejection of the false dichotomy between AI “doomers” and “boomers”, and his push for a nuanced discussion of its development, reflect the careful approach of the W3C. His emphasis on the need to avoid monopolies and prioritise the rights of the end user for the AI-powered web is likewise a continuation of his original principles for the web. His belief in the importance of international collaboration, first sparked during his time at CERN, leads him to call for “a CERN-like institution for AI before something catastrophic happens.”

Although the book is not the most fluently written, it is generally easy to understand, even for readers with no expertise in web development or computing. The anecdotes included about the early web community will likely pique the interest of many Courier readers. As seems characteristic of its author, the book presents a very idealistic vision of the future of technology. Given the often toxic nature of debate in this area, however, such optimism is refreshing.

This Is for Everyone will leave you in no doubt that building an AI-powered web with humanity’s best interest at heart is one of the most significant global challenges today. Luckily, as Berners-Lee concludes, “There’s still time.”

François Englert 1932–2026

François Englert died on 18 June in Uccle, in the Brussels region, aged 93. Beyond his major contributions to fundamental physics, he had a profound, if discreet, influence on the Belgian scientific community.

He was born on 6 November 1932 in Etterbeek (Brussels), to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. During World War II, François and his older brother Marc became enfants cachés – hidden children – finding refuge in the countryside at great risk to those who sheltered them. For a child so young, it was a traumatic experience, which François long kept to himself. After the war, he enrolled at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) in the Faculty of Applied Sciences, a frequent choice at the time, as it guaranteed employment and claimed to offer the same training as a physics degree. After graduating in 1955 he switched to physics, quickly completing a licence in 1958 and a PhD, under the supervision of Jules Géhéniau, the following year.

A turning point in his career came with a postdoctoral stay at Cornell University, where Robert Brout, at first his adviser, became a lifelong colleague. He came back to ULB in 1961, as a lecturer in general physics, and Robert soon followed him. Only later, in 1980, would they formally found the Theoretical Physics group – a generic name chosen to avoid dissecting physics into separate specialities.

Open culture

From Cornell, they had brought back an informal culture: the door was always open to anyone who wanted to discuss physics. As students, we were completely immersed in the research, spending whole afternoons with the two leaders in a sort of musical-chairs brainstorming at the blackboard. They also made sure that a permanent position could be considered only after a postdoctoral stay abroad, an attitude that eventually spread to other departments, reversing a long tradition of internal recruitment.

In the early 1960s, François and Robert were looking for a way to formulate short-distance interactions in the formalism of quantum field theory (QFT). Gauge-invariant QFT was known to describe quantum electrodynamics, but dealt only with massless gauge bosons and hence long-distance interactions. The mechanism they found was submitted to Physical Review Letters in June 1964, in a paper that showed diagrammatically how gauge bosons could acquire mass. Independently, in July, Peter Higgs approached the problem focusing on the elimination of unwanted Goldstone bosons, and included the mass of the gauge bosons in a later paper.

That short paper by François and Robert was in fact remarkably complete: it included the basic spontaneous symmetry breaking by a fundamental scalar field, as is now standard, but also a dynamical approach assuming fermion condensates, and it covered the non-abelian case. The mechanism also opened the way to the proof of the renormalisability of the theory. At the time, both the strong and the weak interactions were candidates for such symmetry breaking, but a concrete realisation awaited a 1967 paper by Steven Weinberg. A different mechanism, confinement, was eventually shown to operate in strong interactions.

François and Robert soon turned their attention to cosmology, first joined by Edgard Gunzig, then by Philippe Spindel and eventually by the whole Brussels group – an exceptional case, as they had insisted that its members operate as independent individuals. One puzzle, in particular, drew them. In an expanding universe, regions thought never to have been in causal contact show almost the same temperature in the cosmic microwave background, the fossil radiation of the Big Bang. Their explanation relied on a fast initial expansion phase, a scenario they called the “causal universe”. Here, too, they were precursors. François’s curiosity extended to a wide variety of topics, with more interest in finding mechanisms than in a tedious zoology of nature. These ranged from generating the spacetime metric out of a fractal structure to the classification of monopoles and even the structure of viruses!

While François and Robert played a formative role in the Belgian physics community, François never mentioned his role in the student revolts at ULB in 1968, since the structures that emerged from them had fallen short of his hopes. In fact, he kept clear of institutional academic roles altogether. His influence was felt otherwise. Formal recognition, too, was long in coming. It began with the Gravity Research Foundation award (1978), followed by the Francqui Prize (1982), the European Physical Society Prize (1997), the Wolf Prize (2004) and the Sakurai Prize (2010). In 2013 came the Prince of Asturias Award and the Nobel Prize, awarded to François and Peter Higgs, Robert Brout having died in 2011. King Albert II made François a baron in the same year, and he was also appointed professor at Tel Aviv University.

A point of reference

It must be realised that, by the time of François’s and Robert’s seminal paper, QFT itself had fallen out of fashion. Despite its success in quantum electrodynamics, the framework could not be applied to short-distance interactions, and many preferred more holistic approaches, such as the unitary S-matrix. Interest returned progressively as spontaneous symmetry breaking gained acceptance, a shift that can be followed in the paper’s own citation curve, and François and Robert embarked on an inter-university series of lectures and seminars. Despite the philosophical and linguistic differences between the universities, this seeded or cemented the contacts between the theoretical physics groups of Brussels, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve. The effort made them a point of reference for Belgian physics.

Interestingly, this path had been trodden before them by Monsignor Georges Lemaître, father of the Big Bang, who visited ULB frequently. To celebrate these unifying efforts, the Belgian Senate, later joined by the Brussels Region, encouraged the formation of the Brout–Englert–Lemaître (BEL) Centre, common to ULB, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), the Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven).

Guenakh Mitselmakher 1945–2026

Guenakh Mitselmakher, an experimental high-energy physicist of international stature, passed away on 28 January at the age of 80. He was born on 5 December 1945 in Vilnius, Lithuania. After graduating from Moscow State University in 1968, Guenakh started his professional career at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia. He often recalled that his mentor Bruno Pontecorvo made the largest impact on his scientific vision and “physics taste”.

For his PhD, he joined a collaboration of four that was designing an experiment to search for the charged-lepton flavour violating decay μ → 3e. The result, published in 1976, improved on the best previous limit by two orders of magnitude. Next, he took part in the first measurement of the charged-pion radius at the Serpukhov accelerator, published in 1974. He then proposed and co-led an experiment that yielded the first measurements of the pion’s polarisability and the γ → 3π coupling in 1983 and 1986, respectively. In the mid-1980s, he and his group joined the DELPHI experiment at LEP. Guenakh co-led the construction of the DELPHI hadron calorimeter and made critical contributions to the measurement of the number of light neutrinos coupling to the Z boson. To this end, he co-initiated the collaboration of theorists and experimentalists that developed the analysis framework later known as ZFITTER.

Guenakh moved to the US in 1991, to join the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) laboratory in Texas. After the closure of the SSC, in 1993, and having worked briefly at Fermilab, he joined the University of Florida (UF) physics department in 1995. There, he spearheaded a vigorous experimental hadron-collider programme, building a group that at its peak counted seven faculty and more than 40 members, including students, postdocs and engineers. Together they made major contributions to the CDF experiment at Fermilab and to the CMS experiment at CERN, where Guenakh led the design and construction of the endcap muon system.

In both experiments, the UF group held leading roles in the physics programme, most notably in the Higgs-boson discovery in 2012, in precision measurements of the new particle’s properties, and in many searches for new physics. Among them, the recent search for the charged-lepton flavour violating decay τ → 3μ echoes Guenakh’s research from the early years of his career. He was also the driving force behind UF joining the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in 1996, where the group contributed prominently to the design and construction of the apparatus and to data analysis. Indeed, the first gravitational-wave event, in 2015, was initially identified by coherent WaveBurst, a real-time analysis algorithm conceived in a 2008 paper that Guenakh co-authored.

Guenakh Mitselmakher was a relentless advocate for the pursuit of physics of pivotal significance. His scientific legacy will persist through the many scientists he mentored during his career.

George Kalmus 1935–2026

It is with great sadness that we learned George Kalmus passed away on 27 May, at the age of 91. George had a long and distinguished career in particle physics, which took him from the early days of bubble chambers to the LHC and beyond.

Born in Beočin, Yugoslavia, on 21 April 1935, George moved to London with his family in 1939. He obtained his physics degrees at University College London (UCL), gaining his PhD in 1959 with the pioneering study “Physical properties of bubble chambers”. As a research assistant at UCL, he was responsible for the design and specification of the magnet for the British Heavy Liquid Bubble Chamber. He also studied semileptonic decays of Λ hyperons with UCL colleagues and a group at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, later the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), using their 30-inch heavy liquid chamber.

From 1962 to 1967, apart from one year back at UCL, he worked at LBL as a research assistant, studying semileptonic Λ decays and all aspects of K+ meson decays, especially the rare semileptonic four-body K+e4 channel. He became a tenured senior physicist at LBL in 1967, switching to the study of hadron resonances using K– and π+ beams.

In 1972, George returned to Europe to lead the bubble-chamber group at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL). His large group participated in various collaborations, with George himself proposing and working on K–p and K0Lp experiments in the 2 m hydrogen bubble chamber at CERN.

Following the discovery of open charm in 1976, he proposed and led a major experiment to investigate direct electron production by hadrons using a track-sensitive target in the Big European Bubble Chamber at CERN. He subsequently led a collaboration at the SLAC Hybrid Facility, where he instigated the addition of a high-resolution camera. This was crucial to the successful measurement, in 1982, of the decays of D mesons produced by 20 GeV photons in the 1 m hydrogen bubble chamber. His exploitation of bubble chambers and work on kaon and charm physics contributed to his election as fellow of the Royal Society in 1988.

George went on to establish the UK collaboration working on DELPHI at CERN’s LEP collider, where he applied his formidable expertise to all aspects of the experiment: design, realisation and analysis. He led RAL’s involvement in the construction of the superconducting solenoid – at the time the largest in the world – and pushed for the addition of a silicon microvertex detector, one of the first at LEP. He was elected deputy spokesman for DELPHI and chaired its collaboration board from 1986 to 1993.

George was director of RAL’s Particle Physics Department from 1986 to 1997, with wide-ranging responsibilities for the whole of the UK’s particle-physics programme, latterly including the preparation of the LHC experiments. He was appointed to CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee from 1990 to 1997 – a time that saw the approval of the LHC – and chaired it from 1999 to 2001.

In 1998 George returned to his earlier interest in ultra-rare kaon decays by joining the NA48 experiment at CERN. He retired from RAL in 2000, but not from physics, joining the ZEPLIN-III experiment to search for dark matter in the Boulby Underground Laboratory in Yorkshire, UK.

George had a special combination of scientific ability, integrity and human skills, all greatly appreciated by those who knew and worked with him. He helped many careers and led UK particle physics with a sure hand through sometimes tempestuous waters for more than a decade. We owe him a great deal. He was survived by his brother, Peter, professor at Queen Mary University of London, his three daughters and his grandchildren. Our deepest sympathy goes to the whole family.

• We are very saddened to have learned that Peter Kalmus passed away on 2 August. A full obituary will appear in a later edition of CERN Courier.

Norman McCubbin 1948–2026

To the shock of family, colleagues and friends, Norman McCubbin died suddenly at his home in Oxford on 22 June. His long and distinguished career included vital roles in UK particle physics and at CERN.

Norman was born in north London on 27 June 1948, the eldest of three sons. His family later left Leicester for Kenya, where Norman attended Kenton College in Nairobi. He then boarded at the prestigious Repton School in Derbyshire, to which he jokingly ascribed his success in winning ballot tickets to England test cricket matches. He attended New College, University of Oxford, achieving a first-class honours degree and a doctorate. His thesis contained an analysis of K–p interactions in the CERN 2 m bubble chamber.

Norman moved to CERN as a Lancaster postdoc, working on the CHLM experiment at the Intersecting Storage Rings. After joining the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) as a postdoc in 1976, he moved to the British–French–Scandinavian collaboration on the Wide-Angle Spectrometer and then the Axial Field Spectrometer, where he worked on the world’s first uranium compensating calorimeter. After getting tenure at RAL, Norman joined the HELIOS fixed-target heavy-ion experiment, of which he became spokesperson.

He was involved in the early stages of the ZEUS experiment at DESY, becoming leader of the RAL ZEUS group in 1990, and managed a large group of capable technical staff and research associates who worked on the construction and commissioning of the central tracking detector. Norman also played an important role in developing the experiment’s software and held senior positions, including simulation coordinator. He remained closely involved throughout ZEUS’s running.

As ZEUS matured, he began to work on ATLAS, again leading the development of the software. He was computing coordinator from 1999 to 2003, steering the decision on computing language with typically consummate tact. His advice was greatly valued by successive ATLAS spokespersons, who gave him numerous important responsibilities, including chairing the committee that in 2007 recommended task-sharing algorithms and criteria for ATLAS membership, authorship and financial contributions. He was assiduous in employing his exceptional command of English to correct and polish ATLAS papers, and maintained his keen interest in heavy ions as an expert within ATLAS.

Norman was a leader of UK particle physics, becoming first division leader and, from 2007, director of RAL’s Particle Physics Department, while gaining the admiration and respect of all who worked with him. After officially retiring from RAL in 2012, Norman continued to contribute to ATLAS and taught physics to undergraduates at St Anne’s College, Oxford. He inspired many generations of students and was an extremely popular tutor, relishing the core subjects of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, relativity and symmetries.

Norman McCubbin was a Renaissance man, learned but never pedantic, broad in interests and expertise. He loved cricket and golf, music and current affairs. He was an exceptional physicist, publishing both cutting-edge particle-physics papers and articles on the history of physics. He will be greatly missed by his family and his many colleagues and friends.

• A fund has been set up in Norman’s memory to endow an annual prize for the best physics student at the college at which he taught, St. Anne’s Oxford.

bright-rec iop pub iop-science physcis connect