Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Molasses or crowds: making sense of the Higgs boson with two popular analogies

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text. 2013 Phys. Educ. 48 670 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/48/5/670) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details: IP Address: 69.169.131.210 This content was downloaded on 25/10/2013 at 04:41

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

PAPERS
iopscience.org/ped

Molasses or crowds: making sense of the Higgs boson with two popular analogies
S Alsop and S Beale
Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

E-mail: SAlsop@edu.yorku.ca and Steven Beale@edu.yorku.ca

Abstract The recent discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has contributed to a surge of interest in particle physics and science education in general. Given the conceptual difculty of the phenomenon in question, it is inevitable that teachers and science communicators rely on analogies to explain the Higgs physics and its meaning. Here, we review two popular analogies for explaining the Higgs boson, eld and mechanism and their complex relationships. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these analogies and their pedagogical implications.

Introduction
How do you explain the Higgs boson? As The Guardian newspaper (Dowling 2012) recently commented, it depends on who you are talking to, and what they want to hear. The paper links different audiences with potentially engaging explanations; a scientic-dictionary-type one for those you would like to impress; an IKEA play ball pit area analogy for harassed, sleep-deprived parents; a grammatical quip for English undergraduates; a form of economic apology for taxpayers; and, of course, almost inevitably, a statement of denial for religious fundamentalists. So, an efcacious explanation of the Higgs, or God, particle (depending on your preference), hinges partly on who you are, as well as on which particular communities you might or might not be part of, or self-identify with1 . In this paper we offer critical reections
1 The Higgs might in this respect be conceived as a

on two widely circulating non-specialist explanations for the Higgs boson and eldthe crowdand molasses-based analogies. These are likely to be familiar to readers of this journal. Indeed, we select them because of their overwhelming popularity. They have been used by a number of high-prole public intellectuals (Professors Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene) and are mentioned in numerous online teacher-orientated websites (Eustice 2012, CERN 2002) and secondary-school and undergraduate curriculum materials. We have used them in our
and standpoints. Popular media, as Latour (1993, p 3) famously claims, effortlessly churn things up into hybrids (or imbroglios, to use his term). In this manner, the Higgs in public life becomes attached to economics, politics, religion, interests, power and even parenting and IKEA. The largest-selling UK newspaper, The Sun, announced the recent Higgs breakthrough at CERN with a large picture of the Large Hadron Collider accompanied by the label Lets get physical (The Sun 2012). Imbroglios, it seems, are often devised with different agendas, audiences and, of course, literacy cultural traditions in mind.

hybrid cultural phenomenon, coalescing different sensitivities

670

PHYSICS EDUCATION

48 (5)

0031-9120/13/050670+07$33.00

c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd

Molasses or crowds

teaching and they also feature in a number of different newspaper reports (for example, CBC News 2012, Thanh Ha 2012). Our intention is to briey trace the origins and nature of these analogies and then reect on some possible strengths and weaknesses that they might have within physics education. In so doing, our concluding discussions raise questions regarding how physics educators might wish to pedagogically differentiate these analogies from each other, as well as how analogies can sometimes seemingly have an educational life all of their own.

The Higgs within the standard model

Subatomic phenomena can be represented in a variety of different ways. In a recent issue of this journal Johannson and Watkins (2013), offered a comprehensive summary of the Higgs particle and eld within the standard model of physics. They explored the fundamental importance of the particle and eld within this model. Their paper was authored soon after the 4 July 2012 announcement at CERN of the Higgs discovery. Publications documenting the discovery from the two contributing collaborations followed shortly thereafter (ATLAS Collaboration 2012, CMS Collaboration 2012). Analyzis of additional data collected prior to the February 2013 LHC shutdown has further conrmed the initial discovery (ATLAS Collaboration 2013, CMS Collaboration 2013), but is yet to fully determine the nature of the new Higgs particle.

Education, the non-specialist and the Higgs

How can you best represent the standard model and the Higgs particle and eld to non-specialists? The question, in part, hinges on the audience as well as on what it means to represent, understand and experience abstract theoretical concepts outside of their specialized communities of practice and associated academic elds. Here we explore use of conceptual analogies. There is a fairly extensive body of literature in physics education exploring analogies, metaphors and similes as potential conceptual mediators between unfamiliar and more familiar phenomena (see Glynn and Takahashi 1998, Kim 2009). Analogy reasoning is a cognitive process characterized by
September 2013

relational mapping, networking associations and correspondences between elements of base and target domains. Popular examples of analogies in physics education include: water in a hose to represent electricity in a wire; a cannonball on a stretched rubber sheet to represent gravitational attraction as relativistic distortions in spacetime; and Niels Bohrs model of the atom as analogous to the solar system. Analogic reasoning is ubiquitous and plays an axiomatic role in problem solving and linguistic and scientic thought (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Our particular analyzis uses the language of Gentner and Gentners (1983, p 101) structural mapping theory of analogical reasoning in which analogies convey relations among objects within systems2 . In this manner, analogical models in physics and physics education might be characterized as structural mappings between complex systems. What types of cognitive processes does analogical reasoning evoke? Using the terminology of Gentner and Gentner (1983) within analogical reasoning, predictors of the base domain (the familiar system of objects) are applied to the target domain (in our case, the domain of public pedagogical enquiry). In structural mapping both domains are conceived of as systems of objects and predicates (p102). By way of illustration, in the aforementioned case of the Niels Bohrs model of the atom as analogous to the solar system the object nodes of the base domain (the Sun and planets in the solar system) are mapped onto the object nodes (the nucleus and electrons in the atom) of the target domain. Given this correspondence of nodes, analogic reasoning conveys that relationships between these nodes are predictive. In this case, there are three distinctive predicate relationships between the base and target domain; (i) a force of attraction, (ii) relative orbital motion and (iii) spacing and object size differentials. Incidentally, of course, there are other possible predicate relationships that clearly do not hold, such as temperature. The relative temperature between the Sun and the planets in the solar system is certainly not predicative of the relative temperature between the nucleus and electrons within the Bohr model
2 This is part of Gentner and Stevenss (1983, p 101) seminal

work on mental models.

PHYSICS EDUCATION

671

S Alsop and S Beale

of the atom. While the Bohr analogy has a considerable overlap between the domain and target, it should not be taken that these are similar. As Gentner and Gentners (1983, p 102) note, in these particular cases the analogy conveys overlap in relations among objects, but no particular overlap in the characteristic of the objects themselves. Within science educational research, pedagogical use of analogies has been studied extensively. Given the diversity of different analogies and associated pedagogies they defy a straightforward generic checklist of benets and gains, however, different studies carry their own distinctive characteristic and some have brought attention to advantages and disadvantages associated with particular analogies in particular educational contexts (see views by Kim 2009, Harrison and Treagust 1993, Paris and Glynn 2004, Clement 1993, Duit 1991). A distinction is sometimes drawn between elaborate analogies that are multisensory (for example, students representing particles and different states of matter) and analogies of a purely visual nature (Glynn and Takahashi 1998). There are now a number of different pedagogical approaches that explicitly incorporate analogic reasoning. Proposed by Glynn (1991), the teaching-withanalogies model (TAM) is one example. Using the lexicon of Gentner and Gentners (1983) structural mapping theory, we now turn our attention to two popular Higgs analogies.

the magnitude of celebrity are additional object nodes mapped to the particles inertial mass and the coupling strength to the Higgs eld. The action of the cluster in impeding changes in motion is a predicative relation that is equivalent to inertia in the target domain. Narrative versions of the analogy may include descriptions of the activities of the crowd and the celebrity (signing autographs, stopping to chat, etc) to provide some imagery for the process. In addition to establishing the base domain, this description serves to elucidate the predicates that relate the object nodes in each domain. As originally posed, the celebrity has difculty starting, stopping or redirecting her motion, in the same way that inertial mass resists changes to motion. One of the weaknesses of this analogy is the complex and by no means obvious dynamics of the crowd. The utility of the analogy hinges, to a large extent, on the clarity of this dynamics. As originally posed, the base domain used a rumour as the object node to be mapped to the Higgs boson. The rumour causes an excitation of gossipers, forming a cluster that propagates the rumour (gures 1(c) and (d)) in analogy to an excitation of the Higgs eld creating a Higgs boson. A simplied version of the analogy has members of the crowd as object nodes mapped to the Higgs boson. In these two cases the predicated relationship between the boson and eld is very different; in the rst, the boson originates from the eld, in the second, the eld is composed of a collection of bosons.

The crowd analogy

Miller originally proposed this analogy twenty years ago (Miller 1993), where the base domain is a cocktail party. The primary base object nodes are a celebrity (originally Margaret Thatcher) and the crowd comprizing the party. The corresponding nodes in the target domain are a massive particle and the Higgs eld, respectively. The dynamics of the crowd responding to the celebrity may be considered a base object node that is mapped to the action of the Higgs mechanism giving mass to a particle in the target domain. Initially, the crowd is uniformly distributed around the room with the celebrity on the threshold (gure 1(a)). The crowd clusters around the celebrity when she enters, impeding her progress (gure 1(b)). The cluster itself and
672
PHYSICS EDUCATION

The molasses analogy

This class of analogy includes the popular cosmic molasses (or treacle) description and is often credited to Wilczek (1999). The primary distinguishing factor is that a physical medium is the object node in the base domain to be mapped to the Higgs eld. The medium may take many forms besides molasses (water, snow and sand are common examples). An object moving in the medium (marble, swimmer, snowshoe) is the object node to be mapped to a massive particle. The drag force resultant from the medium is an object node mapped to the Higgs mechanism (resultant from the Higgs eld). The impedance to motion from the drag force is the predicate
September 2013

Molasses or crowds

Figure 1. The crowd analogy. (Figure produced with permission from CERN.)

relationship analogous to the Higgs mechanism imparting an inertial mass. Again, there are two versions of the analogy used to describe the relationship between the Higgs boson and eld. In the same manner as before, the primacy of the Higgs boson or eld determines the shape of the analogy. In one version, the medium is composed of discrete elements; snow and snowakes, for example. In this analogy, the emphasis has been placed on the nature of the Higgs boson as a quanta of the Higgs eld (eld from the boson, FB). In the second version, a ripple or vortex in the medium is the object node that is mapped to the Higgs boson. Here the emphasis is placed on the Higgs eld excitation as the origin of the Higgs boson (boson from the eld, BF). However, the metaphor is often concluded without any discussion of the bosoneld relationship. The key features of these analogies are summarized in table 1.
September 2013

Discussion
As physics educators how should we select our analogies? In this paper we selected two analogies based largely on their popularity. Gentner and Gentners (1983) mapping theory offers one way of breaking down the reasoning patterns that these subsume in terms of domains and predicates. Our analyzis here turns to questions of representation. One way to select an analogy is to consider how accurately the options represent the target phenomenon. Analogical reasoning offers the possibility of understanding something partially that cannot be comprehended fully due to its complexity. Provided that the appropriate logic is followed, it is possible to partially represent the Higgs (a complex, abstract phenomenon) to the non-expert in terms of the more familiar, embodied notions of crowds and molasses. Such analogical thinking varies in its conceptual demands, with some key considerations being the learners familiarity with the base domain; the number and types of nodes; and the complexities
PHYSICS EDUCATION

673

S Alsop and S Beale

Table 1. Summary of analogy features. Crowd (simple) Particle Higgs boson Higgs eld Higgs mech. Celebrity Member of crowd Crowd Crowd/drag Crowd (complex) Celebrity Cluster of crowd Crowd Crowd Medium (FB) Various Element of eld Fluid Drag Medium (BF) Various Excit. of eld Fluid Drag

of the relationships between base and target (see Kim 2009). These analogies can have more and less complex variations, as we partially demonstrate in table 1. While the basic forms of the analogies have been recounted here, they may be embellished with additional analogical detail or their relations may be simplied and reduced. In our experience, it is common to conate the roles of inertia and inertial mass with velocity and gravitational mass. The confusion results from the use of a velocity-dependent drag force to represent the velocity-independent inertia. This creates additional conceptual demands from mapping object nodes between domains, as the predicates that relate them become analogical themselves. Such problems may be avoided by emphasizing how the action (predicate) of the medium (crowd or molasses) causes a resistance to change in motion (despite being an inaccurate representation of drag). While these relations may be mapped seamlessly into the target domain with the analogy conned to the object nodes and their attributes, it is rare for the analogy to be presented in such a careful manner in our experience. At some point, of course, all analogical thinking breaks downthe Higgs phenomena is not a crowd or molasses. Perhaps a weakness with these analogies is their reliance on a medium as the object node mapped to the Higgs eld. This is probably unavoidable, but it results in a number of points of potential confusion. The concept of a medium is generally understood to be a volume lled with a physical substance that can be manipulated and controlled. This is not the case in the standard model of the Higgs eld, which is understood to be uniform and constant. The familiar conception of a medium is insufcient to fully understand the Higgs eld in this respect. A medium can be entered and exited because it is localized, it can be concentrated in one location and minimized in another, and it is composed of matter and has its own mass and
674
PHYSICS EDUCATION

energy. Mapping these attributes onto the Higgs eld leads to a line of reasoning reminiscent of 19th century aether theories. Indeed, the extent to which the Higgs eld might be conceived as analogous to aether theories is itself a complex consideration, which we have not explored. The differential treatment of the particle eld duality is also a potential shortcoming for these analogies. Each analogy has a formulation which gives precedence to the Higgs as either a particle or a eld. In the rst case, the eld is subordinate to the particle from which it is composed; in the second, the particle is subordinate to the eld from which it manifests. The spontaneous symmetry breaking upon choosing a formulation is surprisingly appropriate. While each analogy excels at representing one side of the particle eld duality, neither gives the complete story. Perhaps the chief stumbling block is the fact that these analogies do not explicitly address the non-zero vacuum expectation of the Higgs eld, despite its central role for the Higgs mechanism. This makes the Higgs eld unlike other phenomena and difcult to describe analogically. For example, in contrast to the more familiar electromagnetic domain with electrons and photons, there is no Higgs charge that creates the Higgs eld. One of the principal features of the Higgs eld is that it has a uniform value in a vacuum, a property that is not shared by any other phenomenon. So what might physics educators draw from these examples? It is widely accepted that analogies play a central role in physics and physics education. They make complex phenomena coherent by drawing on aspects of our experiences. The crowd and molasses analogies offer a means of partially representing and thinking about the standard model of the Higgs. Analogies, once adopted, start to organize future thought about phenomena and guide predictions that t the analogy. Analogical reasoning, as Clement (1993, p 1241) and many others note,
September 2013

Molasses or crowds

plays a very important role in science instruction and as such much more pedagogical attention should be focused on helping learners make careful sense of analogies. In the case of the Higgs, we have found the structural mapping language of Gentner and Gentner (1983) helpful in elucidating the conceptual predicate processes involved. As the above discussions begin to illustrate, analogical representations have an internal logic (which can be overlooked), and they all have boundaries (in which predictions break down). As a postdoctoral researcher with ATLAS, I reect on my (SB) conversations regarding subatomic particles acquiring mass by moving through the Higgs eld. In these discussions metaphors of channel and chain became so central to describing subatomic processes. A critical examination of these analogies may serve to test the limits of the boundaries they impose, as well as strengthening our grasp of the target domain. Perhaps a central question to ask in the case of the Higgs ishow is the Higgs mechanism like (and unlike) a drag force? Also, what might be lost or gained by this form of comparative representation? We started with The Guardian newspaper (Dowling 2012) and the ways in which different analogies might be crafted to appeal to different interests and identities. How you introduce the Higgs depends partly upon whom you are talking to, and what they want to hear. In this paper we have focused on the logic of two representations. While analogies might be judged on their predictive reasoning (their logos), there is also the pressing question of their appeal. We leave the question open as to which of these two analogies is more compelling and why; is it easier to identify and reason with your experience of molasses or crowds? Or perhaps, is it easier to teach with molasses or crowds? Notwithstanding the need for a more contemporary and suitable celebrity for our likely audience than Margaret Thatcher, we have found the crowd metaphor appealing because it offers the opportunity of involving our classes in more elaborate multisensory situations, with them being a member of the crowd or the celebrity.
Received 10 June 2013 doi:10.1088/0031-9120/48/5/670

References
ATLAS Collaboration 2012 Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC Phys. Lett. B 716 129 ATLAS Collaboration 2013 Combined measurements of the mass and signal strength of the Higgs-like boson with the ATLAS detector using up to 25 fb1 of protonproton collision data CERN-CONF-2013-014 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/ record/1523727 CBC News 2012 God particle likely discovered CBC News online www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/ 07/04/higgs-boson-god-particle-discovery.html CERN 2002 Higgs Boson, High School Teachers at CERN http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/ archiv/HST2000/teaching/resource/lessons/higgs. htm Clement J 1993 Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students misconceptions in physics J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30 124157 CMS Collaboration 2012 Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC Phys. Lett. B 716 3061 CMS Collaboration 2013 Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV J. High Energy Phys. JHEP06(2013)081 Dowling T 2012 Shortcuts blog. A sideways look at the news. How to explain Higgs boson discovery The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/ shortcuts/2012/jul/04/how-explain-higgs-bosondiscovery Duit R 1991 The role of analogies and metaphors in learning science Sci. Educ. 75 64972 Eustice K 2012 Higgs boson for teachers: a roundup of news, multimedia and resources The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/jul/ 08/higgs-boson-resources-teachers Gentner D and Gentner D 1983 Flowing waters or teaming crowds: mental models of electricity Mental Models ed D Gentner and A Stevens (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) pp 99127 Gentner D and Stevens A 1983 Mental Models (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) Glynn M and Takahashi T 1998 Learning from analogy-enhanced science text J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35 112949 Glynn S 1991 Explaining science concepts: a teaching-with-analogies model The Psychology of Learning Science ed S Glynn, R Yeany and B Britton (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) pp 21940 Harrison A and Treagust D 1993 Teaching with anaologies: a case study in grade10 optics J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30 1291307
PHYSICS EDUCATION

September 2013

675

S Alsop and S Beale

Johannson K E and Watkins P M 2013 Exploring the standard model of particles Phys. Educ. 48 10514 Kim J-H J 2009 Learning grade 7 science concepts by elaborate analogies: mainstream and east and south Asian ESL students experiences PhD Thesis University of Toronto Lakoff G and Johnson M 1980 Metaphors We Live by (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) Latour B 1993 We have Never been Modern (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) Miller D 1993 Politics, solid state and the Higgs Phys. World 6 (9) p 27 Paris A and Glynn M 2004 Elaborate analogies in science text: tolls ofr enhancing preservice teachers knowledge and attitudes Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 29 23047 Thanh Ha T 2012 Imagine a room full of Bieber fans...: the scramble to explain Higgs boson The Globe and Mail www.theglobeandmail.com/ news/world/imagine-a-room-full-of-bieber-fansthe-scramble-to-explain-higgs-boson/ article4389387/ The Sun 2012 Is the Higgs boson the genuine particle? The Sun www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sunwebchats/4410950/Is-Higgs-boson-the-genuineparticle.html Wilczek F 1999 Masses and molasses New Scientist no. 2181 p 327
Steve Alsop is a professor in the Faculty of Education and Department of Science and Technologies Studies at York University, Canada. Steve has held a series of academic positions, including associate dean, academic director, coordinator, honorary professor and secondary and primary school teacher. He has a wide range of research interests, embracing (and embodying) the personal, social and political organization of scientic and technological knowledge, pedagogies of science and technology and environmental sustainability. He lives in Toronto, Canada.

Steve Beale has a PhD in physics from York University. He has worked as a graduate student and post-doctoral researcher in high-energy particle physics for eight years as a member of the D0 and ATLAS Collaborations. He is currently completing a masters degree in the Faculty of Education at York University. His research interests include student and public perceptions of science, the sociology of science and holistic and sustainable approaches in science education.

676

PHYSICS EDUCATION

September 2013