I just watched a documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26FRAk8I2hs)about a new particle that was discovered by the Large Hadron Collider. If it, in fact, turns out to be something other than the Higgs boson (which is theorized to provide the proton with its quality of mass), what then should it be named, and what is it’s place in the proton, which was previously believed to be composed only of quarks? Furthermore, can the process whereby this particle is distilled be made more efficient? It was found to occur only 200 times in 400 trillion collisions between two protons. If it were possible to increase yields, the new particle could be studied in greater numbers and captured, manipulated, collimated, and collided around tracks, in a manner similar to the way in which protons are studied, such that it could be observed in novel interactions with other fundamental particles. This process might prove difficult, as the discovered particle was observed as an emission occurring roughly 125 times more energetic than the protons from which it was derived, and it might not travel in a straight path towards the detector after the collision from which it is created took place and exhibited signs of spin. Obviously, this would be much easier if the particle exhibited some form of attraction or repulsion in relation to other forms of matter, like electromagnetic particles. Additionally, the pictures I saw of the Berkeley Atlas detector showed a device with a relatively low resolutional capability to detect particle emissions, as it is essentially a collection of concentric cylindrical tubes, layered with sensitive panels on it, that filters out known particles until the desired range of energy can be studied for a captured novel element without all their background noise present, and the panels appeared to be rather large in size. It is quite possible that many more of these new particles resulted from the proton collisions than were able to be detected by the large, mosaic panels of the Atlas device. It is also possible that the filters used denied the ability to discover constituent elements of the particles that were filtered out in the study, if they themselves were to be smashed at the higher energies utilized by the Large Hadron Collider, or maybe also possible that interactions between the filtered particles and the newly discovered particle went overlooked, unnoticed, or changed the outcome of the experiment to make this new find no more than a highly specialized, and therefore meaningless way of looking at a particularly creative destruction of particles (no pun intended). As a hypercritical way of looking at the results, one possible hypothesis is that the detected particle was simply a very high-energy lump of a deflected proton that occurs as a result of a commonly occurring shearing point, which would appear quantitatively different than the incident protons, negating any conception that there is a novel discovery of a new fundamental particle taking place altogether. As an analogy, throwing two snowballs at one another 400 trillion times would eventually generate a blip of a pattern as the two balls are likely to break in the same way more than once, but the mess you’re dealing with is still just snow (Protons = Snowballs, Quarks = Snowflakes, Electron Sheaths = Steam Clouds, Free Electrons = Condensed Steam).
If you asked my honest opinion, I think protons have nothing to do with this, and all they’re doing is taking extremely heavy elements and smashing them together in order to create novel elements that aren’t yet discovered or present on the periodic table, in order to gather them and test them for commercial viability. Why subatomic particles beneath Hydrogen aren’t already presented alongside the elements on the periodic table in chemistry classes is a mystery. College chemistry classes are more inclined to teach about electron clouds and probability densities in contrast with high school chemistry classes, but the periodic table remains quiet in regards to the quanta that constitute the ingredients of all heavier forms of matter.
Another pet theory of mine is that someone made up the idea of gluons because they correlated the idea of a particle collision with a breaking coffee cup, and postulated that in order to reconstruct the leftover elements “from the ground up” after it had already been broken, some “glue” would be needed. I guess the only way to find out is to melt some quark bundles and see if there’s anything *preventing* them from falling apart as the collision is taking place. It would have to be something that doesn’t just instantly decay and snap out of existence, and can be observed from within the temporal window of it’s ephemerally short lifespan.
I also suspect that the proposed Higgs boson has nothing to do with giving “Dark Matter” its mass. Dark matter is what provides the component elements for creating larger cosmological phenomenon, and I find it likely to be made up of merely neutrinos (that which we see when looking at a shadow), with stars consisting of bounded oscillating neutrinos that generate phenomenon that are observable to our senses, and empty tracts of space containing unbounded, resting neutrinos that are not observable.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.