Think of the universe as a giant information transfer machine. It will help in this section, because:
If it has to, the universe will override almost every established rule or physical law, known or unknown, to accomplish its task. If the need arises for a particle to appear for only a bit, and it doesn't need to be a permanent particle, fine. The universe will whip up a virtual particle pair, using probability as the engine of its creation and not energy. The virtual particle pair, its longevity dictated by Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, is granted reality just long enough to get the job done before it disappears back into the nothing. If the universe needs a particular particle that is even more shady, like a lone particle having imaginary mass which moves five times the speed of light, 5C, that is a job for those little rascals the imaginary particles... how far can an imaginary proton traveling at five times the speed of light go before it disappears? I don't know, but my guess would be that it goes as far as it needs to go to transfer some arcane bit of quantum information and no farther.
When the universe breaks its own set of rules, it doesn't do so chaotically. There are still rules to follow, more fundamental rules. The universe is clever, all right. It follows the rules whenever it breaks the rules. The basic truth outlined in the above paragraph is so important, that it even regulates, to a point, how the universe looks and functions.
Now, what am I going on about? It all started over two thousand years ago, when the idea of the atom was first conceived. The actual concept of the atom had been around a long time, originating in ancient Greece around the 5th century BCE with philosophers like Democritus and his mentor Leucippus. They proposed that all matter was composed of small, indivisible particles they called "atomos", which translates to 'indivisible'. They imagined atoms as varying in shape depending on the type of atom. They pondered whether a piece of matter like gold could be divided indefinitely or if there was a fundamental limit. This inquiry into the nature of matter laid the groundwork for our understanding of atoms as the indivisible building blocks of all substances.
As scientific knowledge grew over time, our perception of atoms evolved. We learned that atoms are made up of smaller particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. These subatomic particles combine in specific ways to form atoms. These atoms then bond together to create a vast array of chemical compounds that constitute everything in the universe. Much like peeling back the layers of an onion, we began to uncover even more complex structures within the atom.
To delve deeper into these structures, we engineered machines that collide beams of these sub-atomic particles into each other. These monumental collisions generate a cascade of particles, which are recorded using sensors positioned around the collision point. We discovered that the particles we thought we were familiar with, namely protons and neutrons, disintegrated into other particles. Furthermore, we found that as we collided these particle beams at increasingly higher energy levels, more particles were produced, adding to our ever expanding collection. The renowned physicist Enrico Fermi humorously remarked, "If I could remember the names of all these particles, I would have been a botanist."
Now, the particles we have managed to create with these huge machines, are unstable, and don't last very long before they revert to the more stable variety once more, but it was already too late. The first generation of machines designed to break up particles (called particle colliders appropriately enough) were small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Today, they are circular machines many kilometers in diameter, with the current generation being the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that is basically an underground circular tunnel 16.6 miles in circumference straddling the border of Switzerland and France. There are also plans for even larger, more powerful accelerators on the drawing board, mainly because as the power levels increase, so do the numbers of different types of particles discovered. Today we have a whole zoology of particles, which fall under 2 different classifications: Bosons, particles such as photons and mesons, with integral spin, Spin 0, 1, 2 etc., and Fermions, particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, that have half-integer spin, Spin 0.5, 1.5, etc... The Large Hadron Collider's main contribution to this particle zoo is the Higgs particle - and if we want to understand nature more thoroughly we are going to need to keep building more and more powerful (and more expensive) machines... or so the current thinking goes.
This way of thinking is starting to meet with some pushback amongst the scientific community. Theoretical physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, for example, are starting to question if the money spent on particle colliders is actually being spent wisely. The LHC is reported to have cost around 5 billion dollars to build, and for all its glory, it has only made a single important discovery: The Higgs particle. The next machine on the menu, the Future Circular Collider (FCC), is designed to be many times larger, more powerful. and more costly than the LHC, weighing in at a conservative cost estimate (as of 2024) of 22 billion US dollars... and that means 22 billion dollars that wont get spent on other science. The pot is only so big, and for particle physicists to experience a feast, other sectors of physics must endure famine. Hossenfelder argues this is not going to end well for anyone, and I tend to agree with her.
Here is why I think we are barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Regardless of the number and variety of particles we discover, they all share one common trait: they transfer information. Each particle, be it a photon, neutrino, electron, z-particle, Higgs particle, or any other, is equipped with the right properties to transfer a specific type of information. If the information transfer is temporary, the particle is unstable and decays into more stable particles once its task is complete. Conversely, if the information transfer is long-term or permanent, the particle never decays. For instance, electrons, which we’ve never managed to ‘crack open’ despite numerous collisions, seem to transfer permanent information, making them permanent entities themselves.
When we use high-energy particle accelerators to ‘look inside’ a particle like a proton, the proton is destroyed, and other particles appear. Physicists may claim to have discovered a new particle and assign it a catchy name. This is a human perspective, often leading to fame. But how does the universe perceive this event? The universe temporarily creates a particle capable of handling the new lab conditions. This particle contains the high energy long enough to dissipate it into lower, more stable forms. The primary purpose of this created particle is to transfer the information we generate, such as energy and spin, into a stable state. These collider-created particles have short lifetimes because their existence is transient.
Even in quantum physics, there are rules. One such rule is that particle creation is not random. If we repeat the same experiment at different sites, the same process produces the same particles, making the experiment repeatable, a hallmark of good science. However, we may have misinterpreted the results of these experiments.
The ‘new’ particles aren’t new at all. They exist temporarily because the universe needs them. We create conditions of extremely high energy density in a small region, prompting the universe to generate these particles anew. We aren’t necessarily uncovering any hidden structures within the universe; we’re merely observing how the universe responds to our manipulations.
This realization can be disappointing for particle physicists who believe the universe is revealing unknown aspects of itself in the form of new particles. In reality, the universe is merely accommodating the new, unstable information created in these experiments until it can be stabilized into familiar, longer-lived, less exciting particles.
In performing these particle accelerator experiments, we might just be observing how the universe ‘takes out the trash’. If someone only observed me on trash day, they might falsely conclude that my life revolves around garbage. To reveal my true nature, and that of the universe, we need experiments covering all aspects of the universe’s ‘life’. This comprehensive understanding won’t be achieved if most science funding is allocated to building larger colliders.
While these experiments do increase our total knowledge base, misinterpreting their results can lead to errors in our understanding of how the universe works. Over time, these small errors can amplify into significant misconceptions, leading us down a dead end. This could result in theories that become increasingly detached from reality.
In essence, this is how the universe operates.
Why should the universe break its own rules? Again, look at the universe as a giant information transfer machine. Try entangled states. This is a good example because it involves zero force or energy transfer. It seems, keeping particle spin states balanced is important. So important, in fact, that, if a particle anti-particle pair is created, if the spin state of one of the particles is changed, the other particles' spin must instantly change for this balance to be maintained. This is referred to as conservation of spin angular momentum. This spin modification happens instantly, even if the two particles are only a meter, or a light year (or ten) apart. Distance plays no part in this particular process. Why does this happen? Information must be transferred between the two particles. It has to be immediate, so the universe violates energy conservation, or gets around it by simply not using energy at all. Either way, this is still a causal reaction. It takes a spin flip to make the other spin flip. Yet, nothing carried the information from point A to point B. That's why it happens FTL. We can even do this ourselves in controlled experiments - but the information transferred, though FTL, is random in nature and can't be used to make a FTL radio. Or, maybe, we just don't yet understand the language the universe speaks to itself in, so it sounds like random noise to our ears.
The thing to remember is information is information. Even random information. I can't speak Italian, yet Italians seem to do just fine communicating with each other. If we can't understand the language the universe speaks to itself in, OK. But perhaps we can make use of some of the same techniques... this is where the answer to imaginary forces causing real effects come in, and why imaginary particles are going to be so important, and I guess I need to make another page or two...