When discussing the laws of nature or science, we must remember that their assumed validity is limited by the conditions and timeframes we can emulate based on underlying observations.
The principle of falsification of theories, as described by Karl Popper, highlights the value of observations that arise when we explore new territory. Encountering the unknown may reveal a hidden variable that has an unexpected effect. Alternatively, it could expose a concealed assumption that obstructs a valid interpretation of our observations.
Sometimes it is a mix.
The electric charge and high velocity of the electron prevent it from reaching a physically stable form, as discussed by Poincaré and Lorentz. Albert Einstein suggested that we treat the electron as a point particle. This assumption has been widely accepted ever since, despite the observable evidence that contradicts it.
We face a similar issue with the proton, but we cannot overlook its physical dimensions. We believe that the neutron is the particle responsible for binding the repelling protons together within the nucleus. At present, we do not have a more effective physical model to explain this phenomenon.
In the Large Hadron Collider, protons are accelerated to nearly the speed of light. The Lorentz argument, which states that this acceleration will deform the protons’ shape, applies just as it does for electrons. At such high speeds, relativistic effects will influence the linear momentum of the particles. Experimental physicists will certainly consider these effects, but they highlight the challenges in interpreting observations in particle physics. Protons typically travel through space at relatively modest velocities, well below the speed of light. So, one may question the value of attempting to collide them at near-light speeds and what relevant information can be gained from such an experiment.
Thus, the question arises: what is relevant and observable when we make a significant attempt to destroy protons at the speed of light?
The fundamental idea is that we recreate conditions that may have existed in the early universe. We understand that from that point onwards, numerous processes occurred, leading to the formation of protons and neutrons, which are the basic building blocks of atomic nuclei. This environment allowed for the development of higher levels of complexity. Rather than destruction, it was likely a precise sequence of events that set the stage for our physical world today.
Thus, what is the reasoning behind the belief that an attempt to destroy something will help us understand the process of increased complexity? For instance, killing a bird does not provide much insight into its original state as an egg.
While attempting to destroy protons may seem insightful, it is not immediately clear how this will contribute to our understanding of the laws of nature that govern the formation of these composite particles.
It is essential to recognize that more regulating principles govern nature. These principles can be challenging to evaluate, particularly when we observe higher levels of organization in matter. In our environment, aside from the second law of thermodynamics, we notice consciousness’s gradual and observable influence on organized physical matter. We see plants, animals, and fellow human beings around us. So far, we have not discovered any analogous forms of life on other planets. We exist on Earth, a habitable planet with various complex minerals in different thermal states, including solids, liquids, and gases. The thermal conditions necessary for life, as we know them, are quite specific.
It is not the role of particle physicists to consider all potential limitations when formulating scientific laws. However, we must accept that there could be unknown limitations in the applicability of these laws. We accept these limitations until proven false, which is a reasonable approach. There may be hidden variables within these assumed laws that will reveal themselves over time, especially in relation to the amount of matter involved. While these factors may not be noticeable in isolated observations over a short time frame, they likely exist and are active.
The assumption that we are the only observable living and conscious beings in physical form could also be a sign of our own limitations. If there are other forms of consciousness, we might not recognize or be able to identify these specific phenomena. Instead, we tend to focus on other beings that can use free energy to create devices with a limited lifespan due to the second law of thermodynamics. We are searching for reflections of ourselves, believing they are relevant for understanding consciousness.
Their work may be no longer visible to us due to the second law of thermodynamics.
However, when we observe composite particles such as protons and neutrons, as well as complex nuclei and atoms, which are nearly indestructible, we can’t help but feel a bit envious. These constructs have formed under very complex conditions and have an extraordinarily long lifespan. As of now, we are not yet able to replicate such a self-induced process.