Even though there is confidence that the values of physical constants are valid in time, it cannot be excluded that during the very first period of saying some ‘seconds,’ the physical laws and constants could have been different.
If something has the potential to happen, then under unknown circumstances, it might happen again in different situations. always and everywhere. The conditions under which this could reoccur are extremely difficult to investigate as the universe is hardly open for experiments, so most answers to such questions will stay unknown.
Was it chaos at the start?
We can state that we have not observed deviations of these physical constants so far. We do not know what happened in the first “Planck period” of “time,” but we do know that eventually, physical constants stabilized. Also, for the Planck period itself. What is happening due to energy transformations before the first Planck period under stable conditions is regularly seen as a mystery.
The Dutch Paradigm introduced in the chapter Big Bang a model of the first principles that allow for a basic understanding of the role of free electric energy.
Understanding the causalities of energy transformations is crucial for research on natural phenomena. To recall Feynman’s description of energy:
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
What tricks is nature performing during such a transformation?
Moreover, how are we able to reproduce what happened in that period?
Regular science extensively uses the method of experimental reduction for this purpose. The Large Hadron Collider in Geneva can conduct experiments on a scale never before seen in Particle Physics.
This type of investigation enforces collisions of protons accelerated to almost the speed of light. After the collision, we observe the decay processes with an impressive measuring instrument, the Atlas.
This method of destroying particles, particularly protons, to break them down into more fundamental components has resulted in the discovery of many new “particles.” However, they all share a distinctive characteristic: they have an extremely short lifespan. Relative to the Planck time, which is 10⁻⁴⁴ seconds, a particle with a lifespan of 10⁻²⁰ seconds can be considered “stable.” Yet, this still represents an incredibly brief period from a macroscopic perspective. The idea is that these short-lived particles are also fundamental particles that play an important role in forming stable particles like protons and neutrons. Both protons and neutrons possess invariant mass, although the origin of this property remains unclear. Over the years, the number of particles discovered in this manner has become quite large, and it has required significant creative thinking to consolidate these findings into a more comprehensible format. These new particles are also believed to exhibit invariant mass.
However, as we continue to witness and measure energy transformations, it raises questions while we are searching for manifestations of mass.
Fortunately, we find that under the same test conditions, the results are consistent. Although there is some variation in the findings, this scatter is well understood and relates to the methods of investigation and measurement.
It’s possible that these short-lived particles possess substance and eventually exhibit mass-like behavior. It may also be the case that we are observing a decay process that is so precise that it demonstrates the same energy transformation characteristics every time under identical conditions. In other words, this decay process could be another example of a perfect transformation of energy from one state to another.
A thought-provoking question arises:
Why are we so intensely searching for fundamental particles with invariant mass?
Considering Einstein’s equation, E = mc², it seems more logical that we should focus on exploring energy transformations from the very beginning. However, how can we carry out such an investigation?
If we use a lot of energy trying to conclude that all fundamental particles are essentially “just” made of energy, how can we actually observe and measure such phenomena?
In the context of The Dutch Paradigm, a different investigation method will be adopted.
A well-known one is to do experiments of thought.
There is no issue with utilizing thought experiments, as they are an accepted method for advancing understanding, as long as the data gathered from precise experimental observations is acknowledged. Almost every new idea in physics begins in this manner.
Thought experiments can be effective by creatively assembling ideas based on assumed relevant first principles related to the subject being studied. This approach can lead to the construction of models that are challenging to create through a reductionist perspective.
Questioning the validity of theories supported by experimental results from remarkable technological achievements, such as the Large Hadron Collider, is often met with resistance. This machine is designed to confirm certain theories, including the search for the Higgs boson.
What if the results we obtain are biased by interpretation? Do we truly understand the nature of what we are measuring?
Additionally:
Why is there such an intense search for fundamental particles with invariant mass?