Is CERN set to Uncover the holy grail of particle physics?
The newly refurbished Large Hadron Collider could transform our knowledge of the universe.
The holy grail of particle physics – the discovery of a new fundamental force in nature – could be a step closer with the revamp of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the CERN laboratory, near Geneva.
The LHC is the world’s most advanced particle accelerator – a vast machine that smashes atoms together to break them apart and discover what is inside them.
Ten years ago, it made one of the most significant scientific discoveries of recent times – namely, the existence of the Higgs boson, a subatomic particle without which many of the other particles we know about would not have mass. Now, after a three-year-long revamp, the LHC is about to fire up again.
This could herald a leap forward in terms of our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. The LHC’s instruments are now more sensitive, allowing researchers to study the collision of particles from the inside of atoms in higher definition; its software has been enhanced so that it can record data at a rate of 30million times each second; and its beams are narrower, which significantly increases the number of collisions.
This could allow for the discovery of new particles that physicists believe hold the key to unlocking an entirely new view of the universe. This would represent the biggest shift in physics since Einstein’s theories of relativity over 100 years ago.
The current theory of subatomic physics is called the Standard Model. This has been excellent at explaining how subatomic particles come together to create atoms which make up the world around us. It also describes how the particles interact through the forces of nature, such as electromagnetism and the nuclear forces that hold the components of atoms together.
But the Standard Model does fall short. It can’t explain how gravity operates. It can’t explain what 95 per cent of the universe is made of. And it can’t explain the behaviour of the invisible parts of the universe, which physicists call dark matter and dark energy.
Scientists know these invisible particles and forces must exist from the movement of galaxies in space. But no one has yet been able to prove their existence or to determine what they are. Physicists therefore know that a more advanced framework of knowledge must eventually replace the Standard Model.
If CERN scientists were able to find further evidence of the invisible substance that makes up most of the universe, they would be on the cusp of discovering a fifth force of nature – after gravity, electromagnetism and two nuclear forces. The data collected by researchers at the LHC already hints at the unexpected behaviour of a subatomic particle, called the beauty quark – this may be the result of an as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle exerting a force.
So the revamped LHC promises so much. It could advance our knowledge of the very fabric of the universe. This should be welcomed as another giant leap in mankind’s ability to understand and control nature.
It is now fully cooled down to -271C, and the various systems are undergoing their final checks before the new campaign starts.
Yet not everyone today is excited about the potential expansion of human knowledge. Many among our cultural and political elites are deeply suspicious of science, progress and of mankind’s desire to ‘control’ nature.
They tend to embrace the precautionary principle, which inhibits experimentation. And they also tend to instrumentalise science – much as they did during the pandemic – using it to justify political decision-making.
This partly explains why we must not take for granted CERN’s existence, and its ongoing pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself. The publicly funded £3.6 billion LHC, with its annual costs of £1.1 billion, hasn’t made a significant discovery since the Higgs boson 10 years ago.
So there’s a lot riding on the outcomes of the revamp, not least because CERN will soon be putting forward proposals for an even larger hadron collider. At an estimated cost of £20 billion, there is no guarantee it will go ahead.
Moreover, today’s geopolitical and global economic realities could also have a significant impact on CERN’s future. After all, CERN, a collaboration between over 20 nation states, is a product of a period of postwar optimism in the 1940s and 1950s, when a small number of visionary scientists in Europe and North America identified the need for Europe to have a world-class physics research facility.
As such, the laboratory, established in 1954, became a prime example of international collaboration – indeed, CERN is one of the few remaining supranational institutions with any real credibility.
New divisive geopolitical realities will surely challenge CERN’s founding commitment to ‘unite people from all over the world to push the frontiers of science and technology, for the benefit of all’.
Historical precedents suggest this might be an unsustainable ideal.
But it is an ideal that we should do our utmost to uphold.
See more here: spiked-online.com
Header image: Encyclopedia Britannica
Editor’s note: There are, or rather were, four Fundamental Forces that govern the way matter interacts; electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and gravity. Theoretically, these apparently separate forces should be different manifestations of the same all-encompassing force that governs everything from the very small to the very large, what Einstein termed his ‘Unified Field Theory’, and that is what the particle physics labs have been working towards.
In 1983, with the discovery in the Intersecting Storage Rings project at Cern of the W & Z bosons, theorists were able to unify electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, calling the ‘new’ force electro-weak interactions. There have been hints from the LHC that a second unification with the strong nuclear force may be just around the corner, and this new campaign will be looking for results to support this.
The big stumbling block remains gravity however. We really do not understand how gravity is created, and how it could be included in a unified field theory, so while big accelerators like the LHC will continue to produce new particles that the theories suggest should be there (for instance there could be three other Higgs-like particles waiting to be discovered, and hints of a seventh quark), we may never fully understand how gravity is created, and therefore may never be able to produce a true unified field theory.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Particle accelerators are the tea leave reading of physics. You look at garbage and see what you want to see. They are a tremendous waste of money, used by physicist to try to convince everyone that what they believe is right, instead of admitting the obvious that their theories are an ever expanding pile of crap trying to cover up the contradictions and nonsense they accept as reality. They are quite willing to spend any amount of money in order to avoid admitting that they are wrong, as long as it is not their money and they get some of the money.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
All of this particle accelerator stuff is way over my education level but I think as you indicate, we need to be very dubious about lots of what is reported by the controlled media. It is easy to trace the phony climate change back to the Rockefeller’s and The Club of Rome in 1969. There is also a trail of medical fraud and deceit going back all the way to the establishment con man Pasteur and his germ theory of pathogenic transmission, supercharged by the antiquated notion of “vaccines.” Within the last couple of weeks I have posted the video twice of Bezos CGI space flight and attempted to get responses from PSI readers with no result. I believe Bezos “Blue Origin” is just the tip of a massive fraud that began over fifty years ago with the Apollo program and was even admitted by Buzz Aldrin in his reply to the 8 year old girl as shown in the video I posted recently.
I recommend you download the PDF (book was quickly pulled) of Michael Palmer MD “Hiroshima Revisited.” With your physics background it would, I believe be very revealing as to the nuclear explosion (quick fussion or is it fission) question. One thing is for sure, if something is true it can stand on its own, rather than require constant MSM repetition, establishment “experts” and puppet actor politicians to maintain the narrative at the exclusion of other opinions. Almost everything the governments do is a lie and a fraud. But after all, what can be said of a bunch of obsequious sheep who bought into the fake virus allopathic control scam. Reagan’s CIA director (we have reliable witnesses) told him the truth long ago:
William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Reply
kopot42466
| #
https://principia-scientific.com/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/#comment-70271
Reply
kopot42466
| #
I basically make about $6,000-$8,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it….
HERE ➤➤ https://www.workbz.com
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
There has to always be new and exciting ways to launder tax money and fleece the flock. Can’t always just rely on massive “:stimulus” programs to Black Rock, NASA fake space programs, fake wars, climate change and fake viruses. The livestock must be constantly stimulated by new and more creative methods of financial predation. Until they are completely plundered. Then you just have a bunch of “useless eaters” wasting the elite’s resources.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Let’s not forget, finding NO dark matter particle would, in itself, be a “significant discovery”. If this happens, then it will simply be a matter of how we can interpret current knowledge to give us solutions to the galactic rotation anomaly, the mechanism of gravitation, etc.
Of course, we could do this without waiting for some magic new particle.
Reply
Mervyn
| #
Such scientific opulence is on a par with the quest to send astronauts to Mars. There are far better ways to spend such vast amounts of money than on projects like this. Remember, governments provide the money but we know governments don’t have any money because its taxpayers’ money.
Reply
Andy
| #
As someone who studied particle physics in detail, I find these comments rather amusing.
Reply
Opus P.
| #
As someone who has studied history and understands human nature, I find them alarming.
As Grounds Keeper Willy said at the end of “Bart’s Comet”, “Let’s burn the observatory before this happens again.”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Andy,
I am sure that Mark who has studied the Bible in detail finds comments about Geology amusing.
Please explain to everyone how it is that when the weak nuclear force expends energy by emitting an electron and gamma ray from the nucleus of an atom, it is then able to form a stable element and nucleus, even though the repelling force within the nucleus has increased?
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
IMO Herb, the answer to this conundrum is our misunderstanding of the electron. The electron is not a fundamental particle, because it consists of two particles – a positron and a negatron. The negatron is very close to an electron in mass, but a bit less. These two particles allow the negatron to form into gravitons (at black holes) leaving the positron to stabilise the free neutron which is the answer to the query you posit above.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
You haven’t explained where the electrongetsenough energy to overcome the electrical attraction of y’all the protons in the nucleus and escape the atom.
Here’s another question. Plank’s law states that the energy of light is a function of frequency. The shorter the frequency the greater the energy. Some light coming from distant stars exhibits a red shift (We’ll ignore the blue shift to make it easy.) which means the light has lost energy (V^2). How can it lose energy and still have a constant velocity?
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb. At a black hole there forms a high concentration of gravitons. This produces a gravity field, which observations show, is strong enough to pull the atomic structure apart. The proton, electrons, and neutrons become separated. The question then arises why are the free neutrons stable? The answer is because the positrons associate with them to stabilise the neutrons, which remain at the bh increasing its mass. The energy for this process seems to come from the reversible nature of e=mc^2
Your other light query is considered at https://bosmin.com/PSL/ExposedLight.pdf which includes previous help from you and other PSI correspondents.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Don’t you see a problem in not believing that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and still believing in e=mc^2? Without e=mc^2 there are no “black holes” and mass and energy do not change from one to the other.
The question also arises that if the positrons remain in the “black hole” associated with free neutrons how do you distinguish this combination from a proton and why isn’t there a large positive electric field coming from the “black hole”? Why doesn’t that charge and gravity pull electrons back into the “black hole”?
Herb
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
It was interesting to read the PSI article “Astronomers Discover Massive Radio Galaxy” at https://principia-scientific.com/astronomers-discover-massive-radio-galaxy/
My reaction to this information is at https://principia-scientific.com/discover-connected-gravispheres/ which illustrates how the proton stream emerges from a black hole, therefore no retained positive charge at the bh, and, importantly, this flow of protons can tie Gravispheres together. This is a point you have raised in the past without providing a mechanism for it to happen.
E=mc^2 IMO happens in an ephemeral manner, providing a mass component, when light changes from magnetic to electric during its propagation. The mass component allows light to display gravitational properties and therefore red and blue shifts depending on the ambient gravity fields, as discussed in my exposed light paper.
So the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, provided there is not a gravity field present. There appears to be a second element to this in that after a light beam has passed through and emerged from a high gravity field, some of the slowing is retained in the light beam. Hence light from more distant stars shows greater red shift than light from closer stars.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
My problem with your reasoning is that it keeps changing the definitions of things.
A “black hole” is defined as where the force of gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape and yet you contend that protons with considerable mass can escape this gravitational attraction. Are you saying that light has more mass than a proton?
Gravitational fields decrease with distance, they don’t disappear but merge with the gravitational fields from other objects, so where in the universe is there an area with no gravitational field and where the speed of light is constant?
An object with mass cannot reach the speed of light while an object without mass must travel at the speed of light. How can light, when gaining mass when converting from a magnetic wave to an electric wave (with the accompanying loss of energy (e=mc^2)) then regain energy without that energy being converted into more mass?
If traveling light continuously goes through a mass phase and therefore experiences an increase in time, how can there be a blue shift where the speed of light increases?
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
The nature of a bh is poorly understood with many people denying they even exist. Definitions must therefore be open to new interpretations. Hubble has observed cosmic rays coming from the axis of some bh, so protons – which are a significant portion of cosmic rays do emerge from bh regions. As for light not emerging. If there is nothing to see here then light will not emerge. This is a conclusion we can draw from a body composed solely of neutrons. However, a bh is not transparent either, as there are examples of gravitational lens effects occurring due to the presumed presence of a bh. The strong gravity associated with a bh is another point worthy of investigation. The apparent answer to my mind is a bh must be a good place to look for the mysterious graviton particle. And sure enough, there is a plausible explanation for that to be so.
Gravity fields certainly follow the inverse square law, and therefore never completely cease to exist, but between galaxies gravity would be so low as to effectively be zero, and light will then travel at maximum speed. IMO gravity gets very low between the arms of a spiral galaxy, which explains why these are regions not populated by Gravispheres.
The energy phase in a light wave is similar to a pendulum converting PE into KE. The electric phase converts to the magnetic phase through the medium of mass, because the direct conversion is not viable, but the effect is similar to a pendulum.
Blue shift occurs when light comes from a region of low gravity to one of higher gravity. The solar system is located a calculated 3,343ly from the centre of our Gravisphere at V616. The solar system is a location of comparatively low gravity as most Gravispheres exhibit higher average gravity. However, some nearby stars at the edge of their Gravispheres are in a weaker gravity field than the solar system. So light from those stars comes from a lower gravity region to our higher gravity which causes the light to gain velocity, and shines as blue, as illustrated in figure 4 of my exposed light paper.
Reply