The Large Hadron Collider [LHC]

The Large Hadron Collider [LHC] Particle Zoo Three

Charles William Johnson

Here we go again. Particle physics has been a creator of explosive knowledge time and again. Next month the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] in Geneva will begin colliding protons into one another near the speed of light. This has many scientists worried. So much so, that some scientists have initiated legal proceedings to stop the activities of the LHC until the safety and security of the world, nay, that of the entire Universe is assured by the builders of the LHC. Counter-legal measures have been taken to avoid any stoppage of the LHC’s activities and everything is to proceed as planned.

We are told that there is no danger of creating micro-black holes by the LHC, that could destroy the Earth at least. Yes, simply that; we are told not to worry by the builders of the LHC. Now, what if they are wrong in their calculations and a black hole opens up and devours the Earth. Well, there is no need to worry about that either, because then there would be nobody around to say “I told you so”. The best we can do once again in the face of the dominant system of cognitive control is to keep our fingers crossed at the start-up of the LHC, and hope that its backers are correct in their surmising.

Aside from the contentious nature of the start-up of the LHC, I wonder about the theoretical conception behind the particle colliders or atom smashers. With the early history of particle colliders, so many sub-atomic particles were discovered that the physicists had to step back, eliminate a few hundred self-identified sub-particles and begin again with a clean slate. That was Particle Zoo number one back in the 1960s and 1970s. Then, more recently, as I have also commented, we have been observing Particle Zoo number two where once again the atom smashers are producing all kinds of sub-atomic particles.

Besides the questionable theoretical posits behind particle collision physics, there is the practical aspect: atomic particles that are made to collide with one another produce all kinds of sub-atomic particles. The theory behind the collisions matters little. I have been asking myself for a while now, what is the theoretical basis of collision physics. I can only relate it to my own reality, as I have no access to the particle colliders.

The elementary analogy always comes to mind of colliding automobiles. This is a question that I have been asking particle physicists for a while now. The only responses that I observe are anger over the question itself. What is the difference between crashing two automobiles together, with fenders and bumpers flying off into broken pieces, and colliding two [sub]atomic particles together and watching gluons [sic], quarks [sic] and muons [sic] fly off into broken pieces? That question asked of any particle physicist is totally bothersome. There should most certainly be a theoretical distinction however in their answer. Some physicists respond impatiently that the particles are flying around at breakneck speeds near the velocity of light, and that fact distinguishes their collisions from the obviously slower moving automobiles. In that response, speed alone seems to be the distinguishing factor.

Photons travel at the speed of light; whatever a photon may be, as it appears scientists do not agree on its specificity. Yet, the Large Hadron Collider, is going to collide two protons into one another at that near breakneck speed. That fact appears to be unnatural, something that does not occur in spacetime/motion, in matter-energy. But, they cite cosmic rays, for example, that crash into planet Earth. They even cite this fact as proof that there is no worry about creating a micro black hole with the LHC, because Nature has already been crashing solar and extra-solar cosmic waves into the Earth for billennia now and no black hole has appeared around or on the Earth.

One thing is to observe photons and cosmic rays speeding about the Universe as a natural event in spacetime. Another is to propose smashing protons into protons near those same speeds in a controlled environment [LHC], and suggest that these events will produce new matter or represent a re-enactment of the Big Bang, the creation of the Universe.

Protons, electrons, neutrons make up what we know as life. They make up the constituent matter of sperms and eggs in human beings and all animal life on Earth. Protons/neutrons/electrons make up everything that exists in fact. They are life. Pro-life people on Earth want to protect the level of life represented by the moment of conception between the sperm and the egg. Life begins, it is said, with the union of sperm and egg, at conception. Life begins, in fact, with the proton/neutron/electron if one wishes to be exact in terms of a time-line for matter-energy.

Destroying protons is destroying life, matter-energy. But, since protons have no apparent expression of their feelings, one can imagine smashing protons together and not really affecting life or matter-energy (as supposedly occurs in particle collisions). No one in their right mind, especially among physicists, look at the smashing of an atom as killing life or, as killing matter-energy [unless one considers the effects of an atomic bomb on human beings as in Nagasaki and Hiroshima].

But, when one considers the issue along a time-line of the existence of matter-energy, destroying a proton-particle, or any [sub]particle, is actually that: said destruction represents the transformation of matter-energy. The law of conservation of matter-energy does not allow for the actual destruction or disappearance of matter-energy, but only for its transformation from one state to another. Supposedly, according to collision physics, splitting the atom, smashing the atom, breaking up a proton into its supposed constituent parts is fair game for science. No one has asked a proton, how does it feel to be on your own and collided.

By analogy one must question the theoretical posits behind those suppositions about collision physics. It has never occurred to anyone, as far as I know, to collide two automobiles together in order to see how an automobile works, or to see what an automobile is made of. Controlled automobiles crashes are to see what happens to people [driver/passengers] in an automobile accident ---note “accident”, not purposeful impacts. One knows that by colliding two cars together at high speeds one is going to obtain a lot of twisted, broken automobile parts [fenders, bumpers, doors, hoods, grills, motors, carburetors, radiators, whatever]. It is difficult to imagine how that kind of common sense regarding automobile crashes is not manifested at the level of collision particle physics. Things that we know at the level of automobiles appear to be forgotten or placed aside when considering atoms and their sub-atomic particles.

The collision physicists reason [sic] that there are building-blocks of matter-energy [sub-particles] within matter-energy [particles]. If one is able to collide the atomic particles together, then the sub-atomic particles will make their appearance, the so-called building blocks within the building blocks as it were. The bits and pieces flying out of the particle chambers are then viewed theoretically not as bits and pieces but, rather as whole matter-energy events, self-contained sub-atomic particles that in fact supposedly are the constituent elements of the atomic particles. So, sub-atomic particles, such as a quark, a gluon, a muon and so on are purported to be self-contained whole events, even as they are perceived to be parts of the atomic events. Just as the atomic particles represent packets of quanta, so it is considered that the sub-particles are made up of specific quanta of energy-matter.

The breakneck speeds of the particle collisions are supposedly producing not bits and pieces of fenders and bumpers, but rather self-contained motors, autonomous sub-events. The only problem with this is, that each time a series of particle collisions are carried out by the colliders, so many sub-atomic particles are then produced, that when catalogued, the collision physicists become frustrated with their findings. The very number of the parts [sub-particles] appear to be greater than the whole [particle]. They somehow conclude that it is impossible for so many self-contained sub-atomic bits and pieces to exist within the atomic particles. They then erase their notes [Particle Zoo One] and, then erase their notes again [Particle Zoo Two] and, then begin again…now, with Particle Zoo Three, with the Large Hadron Collider.

In my mind, after Particle Zoo One, it was necessary to admit what was obvious from the start: the theoretical posits behind colliding atomic particles are deficient. Sure, [sub]particles crash into one another all around us as in the form of solar and extra-solar cosmic rays. Some cosmic rays come from all directions, some come from a particular direction. But none of that represents the creation of new matter-energy, nor with those collisions are we witnessing the Big Bang as such. The supposed primordial explosion of the Big Bang, which signifies the creation of the Universe, nay of spacetime itself, from a singularity, suggests the idea of a central point of creation. Yet, the multi-directional nature of cosmic rays does not reflect such a singular eventpoint.

The energy expended in the events of cosmic rays is far greater than any level of energy attained in the controlled environment of the particle colliders. It would seem more logical to apply the theoretical logic of collision physics to studying the sub-particles produced by cosmic ray collisions. The point is, that from the collision of [sub]atomic particles, one does not obtain a limited number of self-contained, autonomous sub-atomic particles, sub-building blocks as it were. Rather, one obtains lots of puzzling matter-energy events, which defy cataloguing or naming. Hence the various particle zoos. Such an impression is obtained, when I read that one meaningful reading from an old bubble chamber would come after thousands upon thousands of attempts to produce a meaningful sub-particle event. In other words, it is not possible to [re-]create a collision and know that from that collision a specific self-contained sub-atomic particle will be derived; much less predicted.

Obviously, with so many theoretical particle physicists wrapped up in the LHC endeavor, anything that I write will be totally and immediately dismissed. How dare anyone question an eight-billion-dollar project with a few thousand bytes on a computer screen. It is said that around 1200 US physicists will participate in the LHC project. They cannot possibly be wrong, they cannot possibly have overlooked the analogy between automobile collisions and [sub]particle collisions. Everyone knows that my theoretical questioning is incorrect, yet, no one seems to be able to explain the difference between automobile collisions and their parts and particle collisions and their parts. Again breakneck speeds do not do the trick. Speed alone [the motion of matter-energy, spacetime/motion] is but one aspect of how matter-energy exists. An atomic particle is an atomic particle at any speed; a collided atomic particle is still an atomic particle only in a broken-down state, at any speed.

When two atomic particles or sub-atomic particles collide, one must question at what speed do they travel after the collision. They are said to collide into one another at a speed near that of the velocity of light. Yet, as the [sub]atomic particles are stopped in their tracks [literally] they fly off at a much lesser speed. Everyone knows what happens to the inner organs of someone traveling in an automobile that crashes into another automobile. The human body stops with the stopping of the car, but the internal organs keep traveling thus causing internal bruises and even bleeding. One should not expect the laws of physics for automobile crashes and the impact of the human body’s internal organs to cease, as one nears the speed of light for the atomic and sub-atomic particles.

The distortion of the internal organs in a crashing, suddenly stopping human body may be surmised to exist for the sub-atomic particles “inside” the atomic particles being collided together in the LHC. Whenever the post-collision measurements of those minute sub-atomic particles occur, one can only imagine that there exists a relational degree of distortion, as exists with the internal organs of the human body under such circumstances. In other words, the exactness of the measurements of the sub-atomic particles is probably not as exact as stated by the particle physicists. We all know the differences and deficiencies in the comparative measuring of bodies at rest and bodies in motion. In other words, what does a sub-atomic particle look like prior to impact/collision and what does it look like post-impact/collision. I doubt that they are the same. Particle physicists speak about sub-atomic particles as though they were the same prior to impact as they are after the collisions. There are too many discrepancies to list in this brief essay. But one point is significant.

The patterns of science obtained in Particle Zoo One are similar to those obtained now in Particle Zoo Two: the identification of scores of sub-atomic particles. One would expect that those same/similar patterns of identifying numerous sub-atomic particles will make their appearance in Particle Zoo Three [with the LHC]. This is the best one can expect. The worse would be to see a change in the patterns with the appearance of a micro black hole that destroys all of human endeavor. What I hope for is that the common sense queries observed in the crash-tests of automobiles is finally adopted in the collision physics of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

Metairie, Louisiana

Earth/matiX
SCIENCE TODAY
10 September 2009 Earth/matriX
©2008-2012 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.
Earth/matriX: Science in Ancient Artwork.
Earth/matriX Editions
email:johnson@earthmatrix.com