Problems of the Hadron Collider

Dean L. Sinclair's image for:
"Problems of the Hadron Collider"
Image by: 

The Large Hadron Collider: Greatest Physics Experiment in the World

Introductory summary:  This writer takes the view that, although the Hadron Collider is, undoubtedly,  the "Greatest Physics Experiment in the World,"  it may also go down in history as the most expensive, colossal failure of an experiment ever attempted.  The writer is of the opinion that, because the scientific premises of the experiments that it is designed to carry out are flawed, the Collider will not operate as expected.

The lead article of this title, does a magnificent job of describing the Collider and the expectations of what it was designed to do. However, the scientific premises for the experiments to be carried out are based on very shaky grounds. The theoretical basis of the experiments to be carried out are based on the "Standard Model of Particle Physics," which received a Nobel Prize in Physics in the 1970's and has been cited as "The Crowning Achievement of Particle Physics."  Despite these impressive credentials, the Model is based on very shaky premises and is coming under strong questioning.

The Standard Model considers that there are Four Forces of Nature, Gravitation, Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear Force, and the Weak Nuclear Force.  It then decides that Gravitation has negligible effect at the atomic level and can be ignored. Additionally, it is assumed that the units created in atom-smashing experiments are fundamental units, somehow released. A further assumption is that units called Quarks are even more fundamental particles. 

A long paper could be written on the above points.   This will try to be a brief summary of some of the problems with these ideas.  None of the "Four Forces of Nature" meets the definition of a "Force."  That is, none has an "equal and opposite, reactive  Force."  Electromagnetism and Gravitation describe sets of observations which can be described mathematically; but, they are not "Forces."  The two "Nuclear Forces" appear to be totally imaginary constructions which are necessitated by the Proton-Neutron Model of Atomic Nuclei.  This model, itself, although it has been accepted since the 1930's, has  logical inconsistencies and is, itself, being questioned.

As to the question of "Quarks-"  When the writer, as a young graduate student, some years ago, read the first paper that proposed the Quark, the strong impression came through, that-although the paper was presented "Straight-faced-" it was actually a satirical "send-up"  on the tendency of science to complicate things with increasingly more esoteric and incomprehensible models. Although the idea has been taken seriously for many years, the first impression seems to this writer to be a real possibility...The electron scattering data which has been considered as proving the existence of "Quarks," may well be simply a misinterpretation caused by a lack of knowledge of the oscillatory nature of the electron and proton.

The construction of the Hadron Collider, designed primarily to "smash protons into protons" to prove ideas from a theory whose base is very shaky-to say the least-probably dooms its primary experimental premise to continual failure. This is particularly true if insights from a relatively new model, the Oscillator/Substance Model be correct.   The "O/S" Model is a simple-in-principle, but very comprehensive, model which arises from  reinterpretation of basic data, some of which is over a century old. It considers existence as being within a Substance/Substrate which is controlled by/consisting of oscillators. From this model arise descriptions of the electron and proton as "rotating. inverting vortexes" of grossly different sizes-the electron inverting through a radius 1832 times that of the proton-and having opposite rotation/inversion senses.

This model also contends that any "vacuum" actually is occupied by the "Substance/Substrate;" and, furthermore, that a rather common unit within this substrate will likely be a spherical, pulsating oscillator, dubbed the "Zerotron"-as the zero point from which the Negatron and Positron diverge-which is splittable to the afore mentioned electron-anti-electron pair and deformable into a neutron.

 If this model be valid, it can be seen that pushing a spinning vortex-which can couple with like vortexes-through some sort of a medium is a far different situation from lining up positive particles-which will mutually repulse-and firing them through a void! The O/S Model suggests that, as soon as they try to get their machine up to any real degree of power, the operators have a "tiger by the tail," which they do not realize exists. 

The coupling of protons to proton, the possible formation of electron and anti-electrons from the "medium" suggests that-instead of having a simple accelerator-very soon after start up, the machine will operate as a gas-fusion reactor.  "Energy feedback" is inevitable.  Considering the above, it is no wonder that the Hadron Machine appears to have a history of almost immediate breakdown. There is good reason to believe that a stream of protons entering into an atmosphere of Hydrogen Molecules, would create Hydrogen Molecular Mono-cations which would "spin-down" to Deuterons. 

Similarly, if such a stream of protons entered an atmosphere of Deuterium, there would be formed  Deuterons which could couple with protons to form Triterons and, thence, Helium 3, and couple with each other deuteron's to "spin down" to a Helium Cation.  These processes would probably be close to what happens in the early formation of stars from clouds of Hydrogen gas. Not only would studies of these gas phase reactions have scientific value; but,also, would be of great economic interest from the "Energy" release.

  A possibly optimistic thought:   "Perhaps the Hadron could have a useful future, if it were modified to be an experimental gas-fusion reactor, exploring the early processes of star formation,  rather than trying to continue with the project of finding the 'HIggs Boson,' which is a 'will-of-the-wisp' based upon some very questionable science."   

More about this author: Dean L. Sinclair

From Around the Web