The Particle Zoo, Part Two

By Charles William Johnson

"The treasure map is not the land".

The super-production of sub-atomic particles during the 1950s-1960s was called the Particle Zoo. Out of the methodology of splitting the atom for wartime purposes, research continued exploring the inner realms of the atom. A peaceful search was on to find the fundamental particles of matter-energy, the building blocks of existence itself. Fundamental particles have been defined as sub-atomic particles that have no internal structure, in other words they are particles that are not made up of smaller particles. Today, many scientists disagree that the particle is actually a particle, being more like a field, an indeterminate space. For, now let us call them particles.

The Standard Model of particles came about as a theoretical interpretation to cap the super-production of sub-atomic particles. It constitutes an effort to offer a theoretical ordering of the most elementary particles, the fundamental ones. In spite of that effort, or because of it, the 150-200 (and still counting) sub-atomic particles being identified today within collision physics is once again being referred to as the Particle Zoo.

The case may be, that with collision physics there is no way to avoid creating so many subdivisions, since collisions of matter-energy precisely produce those subdivisions ---possibly infinitely so. The very methodology of slamming particles/sub-particles into one another creates bursts of energy that are commensurable, but whose classification and significance may be questioned.

Behind the search for the fundamental particles exists an explicit idea. That when particles are made to collide with one another, specific quanta of mass and energy result from the collisions. No one seems to think that from the random/controlled collisions simply bits and pieces of particles, i.e., scraps of their mass and energy will obtain. Controlled collisions in crash-car tests produce pieces of scrap metal as well as recognizable parts of the cars. One wonders why should two colliding particles produce only recognizable parts and not bits and pieces. Could there be a basic conceptual and methodological error in collision physics?

For example, years ago when I first read about a massless neutrino the idea came to my mind that a massless spacetime event simply could not exist; measureless maybe ---but not one without mass. In my view, space and mass are synonyms, so, using the word massless is like saying spaceless. The very concept of spacetime denies such a possibility. Today, physicists have finally recognized that the neutrino has mass. But, to my dismay this recognition does not mean that the concept of massless has been overturned. The physicists are now assigning the identifier "massless" to numerous sub-atomic particles. Some of the identifiers in use today, some of which are hypothetical, are:

A massless scalar particle (Nambu-Goldstone boson)
Massless gauge bosons
Massless gluons
Massless photon

My error was to think that the scientists had finally come to understand that a massless spacetime event is contradictory to the theoretical posits of spacetime itself. But, the question remains, what kind of spacetime could produce an event of matter-energy without mass and still be considered to be an event of spacetime.

According to the self-defined concept of a fundamental particle, I would expect that if a massless spacetime event (a sub-atomic particle) has been identified, then the fundamental particles themselves have been found. And, with that, the definition of the most elementary particle would thus be fulfilled. Think about it. The basic definition of a fundamental particle is that it represents an indivisible event, with no constituent parts or internal structure. A spacetime event without mass (without matter), having only pure force or energy would be, in my mind, the absolute end of the search for the fundamental particle, again, in as much as massless is totally indivisible, without internal structure.

From the definition of a fundamental particle, or sub-particle rather, one might expect to find only one essential massless particle that represents the building-block of all the other larger particles and sub-particles that do have mass. But, as one can see, the search is evidently turning up not one but multiple sub-particles that have no mass. That fact (if it is indeed a fact) means that the initial search and definition have undergone the need for serious theoretical revision. Therefore, after the identification of massless particles, why has the announcement not been made that the fundamental particles, the building blocks of matter-energy have finally been found? And, that the search is now over, and may be declared so. The reasons why this has not occurred are obvious. There is the recognition that these are not the fundamental particles, which in turn means that the definition as conceptualized is itself a theoretical misapprehension.

Opposite statements are appearing at this time, as even larger colliders are being built. Instead of reading statements about the impossibility to continue searching beyond the internal structure of a massless particle, a search is now on for the Higgs field or Higgs boson. And, instead of the hypothetical Higgs boson representing the fundamental, indivisible sub-particle of matter-energy (spacetime), it is actually theorized to be a sub-particle that is probably "120 times greater in mass than the proton". The Higgs boson is now purported to be the particle that gives mass to all elementary particles/sub-particles.

Upon reading that, again I thought I had missed something. I thought that the self-defined search of particle physics, based on the idea of building blocks, has been that of finding the indivisible, tiniest of spacetime events ---in a sense, where all of matter-energy existence begins. From my perspective, if the Higgs boson has 120 times more mass than the proton, that would place it somewhere in the middle of the periodic table of the elements. Something that massive and potentially that heavy contradicts the thesis enunciated in the initial search for fundamental particles. The fundamental particle was defined as the one that was going to be indivisible, without any internal structure. But even this apparent contradiction of terms is not being brought out after all the searches in collision physics.

The definition of "fundamental particle" has changed. It is no longer the tiniest of sub-particles, but possibly a supra-particle, or superparticle. This, plus the fact that the Higgs boson is not being postulated as another element (nuclide or isotope), but as a unique particle itself that outdoes all particles in terms of mass. It surpasses even the proton/neutron level on an incremental scale of mass. The question remains then: from where did the Higgs boson get its mass? Once the Higgs boson is found will it need to be split down to its massless sub-particles, its constituent parts?

If the Higgs boson is found within the next couple of years, as it seems likely to be according to the scientists, then matter-energy will be identified as being made up of supra-particles, particles and, sub-particles, with the fundamental particle at the level of the supra-particle and not at the lowest limit of mass among the sub-particles. By size, the fundamental supra-particle that grants mass to the other particles/sub-particles will be situated between these and the elements which they compose. No wonder many scientists think that the Higgs boson does not exist as theorized.

Further, if all the particles and sub-particles actually exist as described in the Particle Zoo (and, here I have my doubts), then serious thought must be given to reformulating the theoretical interpretation of how spacetime/motion exists and behaves. Personally, I think we know how spacetime/motion exists in theory, but some are having a difficult time at interpreting the empirical evidence.

The thesis being postulated today no longer holds that the search is on for the tiny particles that create the bigger ones, but the search is for a bigger bigger particle/field that creates the smaller ones. The initial idea of finding the smallest, indivisible sub-particles derives from the concept of building blocks; but, instead of the bricks making up the building, we now have the building creating the blocks. That, to my knowledge, is a serious deviation from the initial theoretical interpretation being forwarded about the fundamental particles of matter-energy. Yet, since it comes about within the idea of collision physics, its announcement appears to simply follow upon the heels of larger/smaller pieces of mass and energy, as though it were a logical consequence of the initial search.

The equation cited in physics as the basis for matter-energy, E = mc² reflect the isolated concepts of space (mass), time (moment/process), and movement (energy/force). When a spacetime event is identified as being massless, it tilts towards the extreme side of the equation, that of energy. Those two extremes, the equivalency and conservation of mass and energy (or, mass-energy), are so defined by the terms of the equation itself. It appears, however, that physicists propose the possibility of having pure energy but not pure mass.

In a sense, we are being asked to believe that relational (relativity) spacetime is equationless, with either stand-alone energy or stand-alone mass as a possibility of the existence of matter-energy. Equationless would mean having the essential equation of matter-energy with a zero on either side of the equation at some point:

Zero·Energy = mc²

[pure mass] where energy equals zero and mass equals 100%

E = zero·massc²

[pure energy] where mass equals zero and energy equals 100%

If mass is zero, massless, then energy-force is everything in that event; and vice versa, if energy is zero, then mass is everything. I know, that is not quite how it works, for mass is energy and energy is mass; matter-energy inseparable in spacetime, just as space and time cannot be separated other than in our minds or as in the wording of this sentence.

Another alternative is to seek an event that is massless and energyless. This is obviously a contradiction of terms, and implies the absence of spacetime, not its presence. Massless is indivisible by definition. A spacetime event that has no mass and no energy, would be a massless/energyless event. This possibility would mean a spaceless/timeless event, something that appears to be non-relational to our reality, i.e., non-existent by definition. Spacetime events with a certain mass and a certain energy represent spacetime, basically reality, as we know it.

Possibly the definitions and wording in the search for fundamental particles require attention. As well as, and more essentially, there may exist a flaw in the theoretical reasoning behind collision physics.

Home

Books

Author