What Do They Actually Probe at LHC?
The existence of the omnipresent Higgs field providing the fundamental origin of elementary particle mass is the main theoretical concept behind the ongoing large-scale experiments at the LHC accelerator. We critically reconsider the properties of this concept of mass, noting that it contains man...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2013 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут металофізики ім. Г.В. Курдюмова НАН України
2013
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології |
| Online Zugang: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/75927 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? / A.P. Kirilyuk // Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: РВВ ІМФ, 2013. — Т. 11, № 2. — С. 217-248. — Бібліогр.: 56 назв. — анг. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-75927 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-759272016-10-13T22:33:57Z What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? Kirilyuk, A.P. The existence of the omnipresent Higgs field providing the fundamental origin of elementary particle mass is the main theoretical concept behind the ongoing large-scale experiments at the LHC accelerator. We critically reconsider the properties of this concept of mass, noting that it contains many fundamental deficiencies and hard problems leaving serious doubts about this interpretation, without feasible progress in view. We then present another, dynamic and universal concept of mass avoiding these problems and thus opening a competitive new possibility for the LHC result interpretation. It is based on the unreduced, nonperturbative solution to (arbitrary) manybody interaction problem providing the universal origin of relativistic inertial and gravitational mass in the form of emerging complex (chaotic) dynamics within the properly specified elementary field–particle, thus rigorously completing the double-solution ideas of Louis de Broglie. As practically all other old ‘mysteries’ and new problems of fundamental physics are also naturally resolved within this unified complex-dynamic solution due to its essential mathematical novelty and provable completeness, we propose to consider it as a viable alternative possibility in interpretation of the LHC and other high-energy facilities’ results. Існування всюдисущого Хіґґсового поля, яке надає фундаментальне джерело маси елементарних частинок, є головною теоретичною концепцію триваючих широкомасштабних експериментів на прискорювачі ВАК. Ми критично переглядаємо властивості цієї концепції маси, відмічаючи, що її численні фундаментальні недоліки та тяжкі проблеми залишають серйозні сумніви щодо цієї інтерпретації, без передбачуваної можливости реального проґресу. Ми далі представляємо іншу, динамічну й універсальну концепцію маси, яка не має цих труднощів і, таким чином, відкриває конкурентоздатну нову можливість інтерпретації експериментів на ВАК. Вона ґрунтується на нередукованому, непертурбативному розв’язку задачі (довільної) взаємодії багатьох тіл, який дає універсальне джерело релятивістської інерційної та гравітаційної маси у вигляді виникаючої складної (хаотичної) динаміки всередині належним чином конкретизованої елементарної поле-частинки, що у такий спосіб строго доповнює ідеї подвійного розв’язку Луї де Бройля. Оскільки практично всі інші старі «таємниці» та нові проблеми фундаментальної фізики також природнім чином вирішуються у цьому об’єднаному складно-динамічному розв’язку завдяки його істотній математичній новині та доведеній повноті, ми пропонуємо розглядати його як життєздатну альтернативну можливість у інтерпретації результатів ВАК та інших високоенергетичних установок. Существование вездесущего поля Хиггса, дающего фундаментальный источник массы элементарных частиц, является основной теоретической концепцией продолжающихся широкомасштабных экспериментов на ускорителе БАК. Мы критически пересматриваем свойства этой концепции массы, отмечая, что многие её фундаментальные недостатки и трудные проблемы оставляют серьёзные сомнения относительно этой интер- претации, без видимой возможности реального прогресса. Мы представляем затем другую, динамическую и универсальную концепцию массы, которая избегает этих трудностей и открывает, таким образом, конкурентоспособную новую возможность интерпретации результатов БАК. Она основана на нередуцированном, непертурбативном решении задачи (произвольного) взаимодействия многих тел, дающем универсальный источ- ник релятивистской инерционной и гравитационной массы в виде возникающей сложной (хаотической) динамики внутри должным образом конкретизированной элементарной поле-частицы, что таким образом строго дополняет идеи двойного решения Луи де Бройля. Поскольку практически все другие старые «тайны» и новые проблемы фундаментальной физики также естественным образом разрешаются в этом объединённом сложно-динамическом решении благодаря его существенной математической новизне и доказуемой полноте, мы предлагаем рассматривать его как жизнеспособную альтернативную возможность в интерпретации результатов БАК и других высокоэнергетических установок. 2013 Article What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? / A.P. Kirilyuk // Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: РВВ ІМФ, 2013. — Т. 11, № 2. — С. 217-248. — Бібліогр.: 56 назв. — анг. 1816-5230 PACSnumbers:03.30.+p,03.65.Ta,05.45.-a,11.10.Lm,12.10.-g,14.80.Bn,89.75.-k http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/75927 en Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології Інститут металофізики ім. Г.В. Курдюмова НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| description |
The existence of the omnipresent Higgs field providing the fundamental
origin of elementary particle mass is the main theoretical concept behind the
ongoing large-scale experiments at the LHC accelerator. We critically reconsider
the properties of this concept of mass, noting that it contains many
fundamental deficiencies and hard problems leaving serious doubts about
this interpretation, without feasible progress in view. We then present another,
dynamic and universal concept of mass avoiding these problems and
thus opening a competitive new possibility for the LHC result interpretation.
It is based on the unreduced, nonperturbative solution to (arbitrary) manybody
interaction problem providing the universal origin of relativistic inertial
and gravitational mass in the form of emerging complex (chaotic) dynamics
within the properly specified elementary field–particle, thus rigorously
completing the double-solution ideas of Louis de Broglie. As practically all
other old ‘mysteries’ and new problems of fundamental physics are also naturally
resolved within this unified complex-dynamic solution due to its essential
mathematical novelty and provable completeness, we propose to consider
it as a viable alternative possibility in interpretation of the LHC and other
high-energy facilities’ results. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Kirilyuk, A.P. |
| spellingShingle |
Kirilyuk, A.P. What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології |
| author_facet |
Kirilyuk, A.P. |
| author_sort |
Kirilyuk, A.P. |
| title |
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? |
| title_short |
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? |
| title_full |
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? |
| title_fullStr |
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? |
| title_sort |
what do they actually probe at lhc? |
| publisher |
Інститут металофізики ім. Г.В. Курдюмова НАН України |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/75927 |
| citation_txt |
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC? / A.P. Kirilyuk
// Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: РВВ ІМФ, 2013. — Т. 11, № 2. — С. 217-248. — Бібліогр.: 56 назв. — анг. |
| series |
Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT kirilyukap whatdotheyactuallyprobeatlhc |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-06T00:10:07Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-06T00:10:07Z |
| _version_ |
1836854132077494272 |
| fulltext |
217
PACS numbers: 03.30.+p, 03.65.Ta, 05.45.-a, 11.10.Lm, 12.10.-g, 14.80.Bn, 89.75.-k
What Do They Actually Probe at LHC?
A. P. Kirilyuk
G. V. Kurdyumov Institute for Metal Physics, N.A.S. of Ukraine,
36 Academician Vernadsky Blvd.,
UA-03680 Kyyiv-142, Ukraine
The existence of the omnipresent Higgs field providing the fundamental
origin of elementary particle mass is the main theoretical concept behind the
ongoing large-scale experiments at the LHC accelerator. We critically recon-
sider the properties of this concept of mass, noting that it contains many
fundamental deficiencies and hard problems leaving serious doubts about
this interpretation, without feasible progress in view. We then present an-
other, dynamic and universal concept of mass avoiding these problems and
thus opening a competitive new possibility for the LHC result interpretation.
It is based on the unreduced, nonperturbative solution to (arbitrary) many-
body interaction problem providing the universal origin of relativistic iner-
tial and gravitational mass in the form of emerging complex (chaotic) dynam-
ics within the properly specified elementary field–particle, thus rigorously
completing the double-solution ideas of Louis de Broglie. As practically all
other old ‘mysteries’ and new problems of fundamental physics are also natu-
rally resolved within this unified complex-dynamic solution due to its essen-
tial mathematical novelty and provable completeness, we propose to consider
it as a viable alternative possibility in interpretation of the LHC and other
high-energy facilities’ results.
Існування всюдисущого Хіґґсового поля, яке надає фундаментальне дже-
рело маси елементарних частинок, є головною теоретичною концепцію
триваючих широкомасштабних експериментів на прискорювачі ВАК. Ми
критично переглядаємо властивості цієї концепції маси, відмічаючи, що
її численні фундаментальні недоліки та тяжкі проблеми залишають сер-
йозні сумніви щодо цієї інтерпретації, без передбачуваної можливости
реального проґресу. Ми далі представляємо іншу, динамічну й універса-
льну концепцію маси, яка не має цих труднощів і, таким чином, відкри-
ває конкурентоздатну нову можливість інтерпретації експериментів на
ВАК. Вона ґрунтується на нередукованому, непертурбативному розв’язку
задачі (довільної) взаємодії багатьох тіл, який дає універсальне джерело
релятивістської інерційної та гравітаційної маси у вигляді виникаючої
складної (хаотичної) динаміки всередині належним чином конкретизова-
Наносистеми, наноматеріали, нанотехнології
Nanosystems, Nanomaterials, Nanotechnologies
2013, т. 11, № 2, сс. 217–248
2013 ІÌÔ (Іíñòèòóò ìåòàëîôіçèêè
іì. Ã. Â. Êóðäþìîâà ÍÀÍ Óêðàїíи)
Надруковано в Óкраїні.
Ôотокопіювання дозволено
тільки відповідно до ліцензії
218 A. P. KIRILYUK
ної елементарної поле-частинки, що у такий спосіб строго доповнює ідеї
подвійного розв’язку Луї де Бройля. Оскільки практично всі інші старі
«таємниці» та нові проблеми фундаментальної фізики також природнім
чином вирішуються у цьому об’єднаному складно-динамічному розв’язку
завдяки його істотній математичній новині та доведеній повноті, ми про-
понуємо розглядати його як життєздатну альтернативну можливість у
інтерпретації результатів ВАК та інших високоенергетичних установок.
Существование вездесущего поля Хиггса, дающего фундаментальный ис-
точник массы элементарных частиц, является основной теоретической
концепцией продолжающихся широкомасштабных экспериментов на
ускорителе БАК. Мы критически пересматриваем свойства этой концеп-
ции массы, отмечая, что многие её фундаментальные недостатки и труд-
ные проблемы оставляют серьёзные сомнения относительно этой интер-
претации, без видимой возможности реального прогресса. Мы представ-
ляем затем другую, динамическую и универсальную концепцию массы,
которая избегает этих трудностей и открывает, таким образом, конкурен-
тоспособную новую возможность интерпретации результатов БАК. Она
основана на нередуцированном, непертурбативном решении задачи (про-
извольного) взаимодействия многих тел, дающем универсальный источ-
ник релятивистской инерционной и гравитационной массы в виде возни-
кающей сложной (хаотической) динамики внутри должным образом кон-
кретизированной элементарной поле-частицы, что таким образом строго
дополняет идеи двойного решения Луи де Бройля. Поскольку практиче-
ски все другие старые «тайны» и новые проблемы фундаментальной фи-
зики также естественным образом разрешаются в этом объединённом
сложно-динамическом решении благодаря его существенной математиче-
ской новизне и доказуемой полноте, мы предлагаем рассматривать его
как жизнеспособную альтернативную возможность в интерпретации ре-
зультатов БАК и других высокоэнергетических установок.
Key words: complexity, chaos, self-organisation, many-body problem, origin
of time, origin of mass, Higgs field, relativity, quantum mechanics, Louis de
Broglie’s double solution, hidden thermodynamics, hierarchy problem, high-
energy physics.
(Received 11 October, 2012; in final version, 26 December, 2012)
1. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR?
These days, after the triumphal announcement of the triumphant dis-
covery of the ‘officially expected’ Higgs boson at the greatest accelera-
tor factory of all times LHC [1, 2], it may be just the right time to try to
understand the background, the purpose and the actual meaning of this
huge effort at a deeper, more consistent level. Indeed, while this exper-
imental search itself is concentrated on its well-elaborated empirical
framework of ‘smash and detect’, the underlying ideas of fundamental
world structure are far from any completeness, with a risk of being to-
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 219
tally misguided in interpretation of that tremendous experimental en-
deavour (even despite the actively discussed Nobel Prizes).
In this paper, we first provide a transparent non-technical descrip-
tion of limitations of the dominating interpretation of particle mass
origin in the Higgs field [3–8] (sec. 2).
We then present a much more complete (presumably totally com-
plete) framework of microworld structure and dynamics related to the
ideas of founding fathers of new physics and providing a purely dynam-
ic origin of mass, including its dynamically derived relativistic (special
and general) properties [9–23] (sec. 3). Contrary to conventional theo-
ry, this causally complete description includes both inertial and gravi-
tational aspects of mass, in their dynamically emerging equivalence.
Other unifying aspects of the new framework additionally contribute to
emerging picture consistency, including the origin and properties of
(exactly four) fundamental forces, exactly three spatial dimensions and
irreversibly flowing time, as well as other intrinsic and dynamic parti-
cle properties, such as electric charge, spin and now naturally unified,
causally explained quantum and relativistic behaviour.
We proceed, in sec. 4, by the new consistent interpretation of all LHC
efforts and the Higgs boson results within the proposed causally com-
plete framework, which finally leads to the necessary important shift in
accelerator research strategy, now well beyond arbitrary model as-
sumptions and related wild empiricism. As a result, we definitely move
thus towards a mathematically and experimentally consistent, physi-
cally real, unified and causally complete picture basically confirmed by
all known observations (including cosmology and recent accelerator re-
sults) that would need then only further detail clarification within the
already attained accelerator parameters, without resource waste and
inefficient energy race implied by traditional theoretical scopes.
We finally argue, in sec. 5, that this intrinsically complete frame-
work, originating in some less popular approaches by the founding fa-
thers of modern physics, deserves comparison with the standard and
other major interpretations of conducted tremendous experiments (also
with other instruments), so as to enable at last the definite and optimal
solution of old and accumulating new problems of fundamental physics.
As we arrive today at practical, technical and economic, limits of such
huge experimental efforts (let alone too numerous theoretical models),
we must finally be able to derive a truly consistent and causally com-
plete picture of the fundamental physical world construction, allowing
also for the emerging real (e.g., energy) problem solution, beyond usual
‘infinite’, always abstract and practically lost research agenda.
2. WHAT THE HIGGS IS GOING ON?
We start with a tentative list of fundamental deficiencies of the Higgs
220 A. P. KIRILYUK
field/particle concept (and thus also related to Standard Model particle
theory), appearing already at the level of theoretical concept con-
sistency, even before its direct experimental trial. We avoid easily ac-
cessible special references and technical details of this truly main-
stream concept [1–8] being mainly of general fundamental interest
here (thus further elaboration of details may be expected where it is
necessary).
Thus, the Higgs field/particle concept reveals the following funda-
mental deficiencies (to be eventually compared to respective causally
complete approach properties in sec. 3).
(1) A non-dynamic, mechanistic origin of mass (and other proper-
ties), by way of additional, ‘vast’, basically abstract entity introduc-
tion comparable to insertion of a new large dimension. This entity
would inevitably produce not only the ‘desired’ but also other, unob-
served and thus undesired properties that cannot be ignored (see below
for details). As we shall see later (sec. 3), any non-dynamic origin of
mass is unacceptable already because of the basic quality of its main
inertia property and especially relativistic extensions of the latter.
(2) Manifestly non-universal origin of the universal property of
mass to be further completed by various separated, artificial/special
and quite technically complicated mechanisms for various particle spe-
cies (see, e.g., [24, 25]). Indeed, the Higgs field is directly introduced as
a means to give finite mass to originally massless species of exotic W
and Z bosons (transmitting weak interaction on a very small scale),
while eventual extension of this mechanism to other particles (in a
properly unified theory) would include many cumbersome and quite
special details.
(3) This and other standard origins of mass directly refer only to ele-
mentary particles and become useless for compound, including macro-
scopic, bodies, in contradiction to classical, e.g., relativistic effect, de-
scription (which can be considered as a separate aspect of (1) and (2)).
(4) It is not only non-dynamic (see (1)) but also basically non-chaotic,
unitary mechanism of mass generation, which in itself contradicts the
property of inertia truly compatible only with an internal chaotic (or
‘thermal’) dynamics like in the famous concept of ‘hidden thermody-
namics of (isolated) particle’ by Louis de Broglie [26–29] (see sec. 3).
(5) A fundamental physical origin of mass should include a clear and
universal explanation of relativistic mass behaviour, including mass–
energy equivalence, which is not the case of the Higgs mechanism (and
neither of other standard mechanisms for various elementary parti-
cles).
(6) There is no link between the origin of mass, a major intrinsic
property of elementary particles, and their physical nature, remaining
uncertain.
(7) Any fundamental origin of mass should include the basic mean-
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 221
ing of the (universal) ‘quantity of matter’, which is hardly the case for
such (Higgs) mass generation. In particular, the origin and universali-
ty of mass/energy conservation appears uncertain.
(8) The same property/mechanism of mass refers to other particles
and the Higgs boson itself, the latter being at the origin of mass (an-
other manifestation of (1)).
(9) Normally, there should exist an additional interaction between
particles through the Higgs field, which would variously influence
many observed features, in contradiction to real observations. In par-
ticular, Higgs boson appear to be the unique boson species that does not
transmit interaction but exists only for its own sake (which otherwise
can be the case only for fermions). But contrary to fermions, it is not a
matter-forming species and interaction source either. This is another
series of manifestations of the artificial, mechanistic nature of the en-
tire Higgs construction (see item (1)). In other words, ‘symmetry-
breaking’ mass generation (justified by special demands of a particular
abstract theory) can hardly be the only observable consequence of the
Higgs field existence.
(10) Major limitation to only inertial manifestations of mass, its
equally important (and universal) gravitational manifestations being
ignored or left to separate mechanisms and additional entities, includ-
ing thus the principle of equivalence and other fundamentally im-
portant implications. Knowing the underlying huge difficulties of
(quantum) gravity inclusion into the Standard Model, it is easy to see
that any such inclusion would change so much the existing schemes
that hypothetical preservation of the same mechanism of mass genera-
tion looks quite illusive.
(11) Within this (or any standard) mechanism, there is no apparent
origin of the main features of particle-mass spectra, including espe-
cially its observed limitation to electroweak scale (the hierarchy prob-
lem).
(12) And finally, we note that global, cosmological origin and prop-
erties of the omnipresent and everywhere homogeneous Higgs field
remain inevitably dubious and will always need additional strong (and
thus problematic) postulates within the already quite unstable Big
Bang construction full of its own difficulties.
One may add that many of these difficulties will also persist for pro-
posed non-Higgs mechanisms of mass-generating ‘symmetry breaking’
or other schemes of scholar theory within and beyond the Standard
Model. Staggering non-universality is characteristic of mass origins
proposed within the usual theory models (e.g., [24, 25]), in striking
contrast to the observed and needed absolute universality of all mass
manifestations and relativistic properties. Therefore, an approach of
another kind is necessary in order to definitely avoid these (and other
related) problems, and we briefly review such a provably consistent de-
222 A. P. KIRILYUK
scription in the next section.
3. WHAT IS MASS, PARTICLE AND REALITY?
The desired deeper insight into the nature and purpose of today fun-
damental physical quest brings us back to the entire new physics en-
deavour beginning a hundred years ago. While the new-born disci-
plines of quantum mechanics, relativity and emerging field theory
have progressively accepted in their officially established and always
separated frameworks, their respective series of formally correct
mathematical rules, artificially mystified postulates and abstract
principles, leaving aside the true physical origin of the main entities
and laws, a few founding fathers, such as Max Planck, Erwin Schrö-
dinger and Louis de Broglie persisted in their ‘stubborn’ efforts to find
the unified, physically real and truly consistent basis for the emerging
microworld reality.
In particular, Louis de Broglie, the discoverer of the most ‘mysteri-
ous’ quantum feature of wave–particle duality and related formula for
the length of ‘particle wave’ inquired from the very beginning [30–33]
into the unreduced dynamics of tangible physical entities liberated
from any supernatural mystification [34–36]. Extended through a
turbulent half-century, the difficult and contradictory intellectual op-
position to the dominating abstract approach [37] had finally brought
him to the ‘double solution’ concept [38, 39] trying to provide the
causally complete foundation for quantum mechanics but inevitably
involving also the physical origin of elementary particles and their in-
trinsic properties, such as wave and mass. As a result, a simple elemen-
tary particle like an electron appeared as a nonlinear ‘peak’ of the sur-
rounding quasi-linear smooth field, moving in its carrying wave but
also performing permanent ‘thermodynamic’ (chaotic) motions ac-
counting for particle mass and its relativistic transformation. This
‘(hidden) thermodynamics of isolated particle’ [26–29] have extended
the causally interpreted wave–particle duality to the basis for a still
somewhat incomplete and locally contradictory but generally realistic
and unified picture of particle origin and dynamics. While this causal
description attempt is either totally ignored by the mainstream ap-
proach or strongly simplified down to separated formal schemes (like
‘pilot-wave theory’), today, we are brought back to the necessity of the
physically and mathematically consistent theory of particle structure
and properties [9–11, 13] actually completing the unreduced version of
those double solution ideas of Louis de Broglie.
Contrary to positivistic formal description of observed results of
occurring processes, our search for the consistent origin of particle
properties naturally starts from the unified source of those processes
that can be only due to the simplest possible interaction between the
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 223
minimum number of omnipresent and initially structureless observed
entities. Thus, we start with two homogeneous, uniformly interacting
(mutually attracting) primordial media, or (tangible) ‘protofields’, the
electromagnetic (e/m) and gravitational ones, further specified later
and eventually giving rise to respective observed long-range interac-
tions and fields, as well as local structures observed as particles. There
is no other, redundant entities, postulated laws, simplified ‘models’ or
abstract ‘principles’ in this approach, and we rigorously derive instead
the intrinsically unified particle/field origin, dynamics, internal
properties and all (correct) laws only due to unreduced, universally
nonperturbative analysis of this underlying complex-dynamic, struc-
ture-forming interaction process [9–12, 16–19, 22, 23].
A provably universal and quite general Hamiltonian description of
that underlying interaction between two protofields takes a familiar
form termed ‘existence equation’ in this case [9–12, 16–18, 22, 23]:
g eg e
( ) ( , ) ( ) ( , ) ( , )h V q h q q E q , (1)
where ( , )q is the compound system state-function totally describing
its configuration; g ( )h and e
( )h q are the generalised Hamiltonians for
non-interacting gravitational and e/m protofields, respectively;
eg ( , )V q is their (attractive) interaction potential, and E—the Hamil-
tonian eigenvalue (generalised energy) for the resulting system con-
figuration. Note that these protofield Hamiltonians and their interac-
tion can naturally be further specified to include all detailed interac-
tions between individual protofield elements [22, 23], but there is no
immediate need to do it explicitly as this won’t change the form and
major results of our analysis, the more so that while certainly having
definite internal structures (generally specified later), the protofields
are considered basically structureless at this stage and instead giving
rise to all observed world structures. Although the Hamiltonian form
of this starting equation resembles among others the classical Hamil-
ton–Jacobi equation or quantum-mechanical Schrödinger formalism,
we do not really use any of these as the basis for our description and
rather show later, in the emerging formalism of universal dynamic
complexity [9, 18, 23, 40–42], that this is indeed the universal form of
any interaction description, with a new, deeper and physically speci-
fied meaning of participating quantities. In particular, the generalised
Hamiltonians and energy emerge as expressions of a differential
measure of unreduced dynamic complexity (see below). Note also that
using any special (and always limited) ‘models’ for this interaction
Hamiltonians and potential would hardly be useful at this stage, since
the detailed protofield properties remain basically unknown and can-
not be directly measured within this world totally emerging as a result
of this interaction development.
224 A. P. KIRILYUK
The existence equation, Eq. (1), can be conveniently analysed in
terms of eigen-solutions for the Hamiltonian e
( )h q of a system compo-
nent, the e/m protofield, leading to an equivalent system of equations:
g
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n n
nn n nn n n nh V V
, (2)
where ( )
n
and n are state-function components and eigenvalues to
be found, and ( )
nn
V are matrix elements of the interaction potential
[9–12, 16–19, 22, 23]. Generally, the system of equations (2) is as non-
integrable as the starting Eq. (1) and usual theory approach would con-
sist in replacing this nonintegrable problem with a ‘close’ but integra-
ble one such as
g
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )nn n n nh V . (3)
The underlying (unproved) assumption is that the exact solution of this
integrable problem is also close enough, at least qualitatively, to that of
the unreduced problem of Eqs. (1), (2). It is evident, however, that the
latter is qualitatively different from the simplified version of Eq. (3) by
numerous entangled and ‘propagating’ links between state-function
components ( )
n
. Using the generalised effective potential method [9,
20, 43], we further specify this difference and reveal the qualitatively
new features of the unreduced interaction problem solution just leading
to the desired universal origin of elementary particles, their relativistic
mass and other intrinsic and dynamic properties [9–23].
If we do not simplify anything in the unreduced interaction problem
formulation of Eqs. (2), but try instead to arrive at its ‘integrable’ form
by the generalised method of exclusion of variables expressed with the
help of the Green function [9, 20, 43, 44], then we obtain a seemingly
‘integrable’ equation for only one state-function component,
g eff 0 0( ) ( ; ) ( ) ( )h V , (4)
where 0 and the effective potential (EP) eff
( ; )V actually contains
the unreduced problem complexity in a compact form of nonlinear de-
pendence on the eigenvalues () and eigenfunctions to be found:
0 0
0
0 0eff
0 0
00 0
0,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ; ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n ni ni n
ni nn i
V d V
V V
, (5)
with 0 0n n
( 0,
n
are eigenvalues of the free e/m protofield
Hamiltonian e
( )h q );
0
{ ( )}ni ,
0
{ }
ni
—complete sets of (unknown) eigen-
functions and eigenvalues for a system of equations similar to Eqs. (2)
but of smaller dimensionality and 0n [9, 10, 16–18, 22, 23].
It is not difficult to see, due to this nonlinear EP dependence on the
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 225
eigenvalues to be found, the eigen-solution number maxN of the effec-
tive existence Eq. (4) (equivalent to the unreduced problem of Eqs. (1),
(2)), is many times greater than the ‘ordinary’ one extended (incorrect-
ly) from perturbative models like Eq. (3) [9, 10, 16–18, 22, 23]:
max
1
q q
N N N N N N N
, (6)
where qN and N are the numbers of terms in the sums over n and i in
Eq. (5) (usually, qN N N
—the number of interacting degrees of
freedom), q qN N N
is the ‘ordinary’ eigen-solution number for a
physically complete system configuration substituted (incorrectly) for
max
N , and N N
is the number of system realisations, i.e. of its real-
ly emerging, equally possible configurations, each of them corresponds
to a physically complete ‘ordinary’ eigen-solution number. The rela-
tion of Eq. (6) clearly implies then that the unreduced system dynamics
driven by the same interaction consists of permanent, unceasing pro-
cess of realisation change ‘chosen’ by the system itself in a truly and
causally random order thus defined. The last term of a reduced eigen-
value number N in Eq. (6) corresponds to a special, ‘main’ or ‘inter-
mediate’, system realisation necessarily taken by interacting compo-
nents during system transition between its two consecutive ‘regular’
realisations as a result of component rearrangement. This intermedi-
ate realisation contains transiently quasi-free interaction components
(hence, its reduced eigenvalue number) and represents the causally
complete, physically real extension of the quantum-mechanical wave-
function [9–11, 15–19, 22, 23]. Note that all these conclusions and the
unreduced solution structure are confirmed by the independent graph-
ical analysis of the same problem [9, 20].
The dynamic probability of each r-th causally random realisation
emergence, r, is then derived as
1
with 1
r r
rN
, (7)
and generalised as r r
N N
for compound realisation structure at
higher complexity levels, with r
N elementary realisations within the
r-th actually observed realisation. We thus obtain a universally valid
and now consistent concept of dynamical chaos (including genuine
quantum chaos [9, 18, 20, 22]) closely related to equally universal con-
cept of dynamic complexity, C, defined as any growing function of the
number of system realisations (or related rate of their change) equal to
zero for the unrealistic case of only one realisation (exclusively consid-
ered in usual theory) [9, 18–20, 23, 40–42]:
, ( ), 0 (1) 0C C N dC dN C
, (8)
226 A. P. KIRILYUK
with, for example, 0
( ) 1C N C N
or 0
( ) ln( )C N C N
1. It is im-
portant to note that, whereas in any real situation 1N
and most
often 1N
, any usual exact-solution or perturbative theory analy-
sis (including scholar chaos and complexity concepts) corresponds to
1N
, implying strictly zero value of genuine dynamic complexity
and absent true chaoticity (which does not exclude their imitations).
Whereas real, dynamically multivalued interactions and structures
emerging from them (starting from elementary particles) are always
internally chaotic (dynamically random) and complex ( 1)N , their
dynamically single-valued, or unitary, images in usual theory are basi-
cally regular and non-complex ( 1)N
, though maybe appearing ex-
ternally ‘intricate’ and ‘irregular’.
We can further specify the emerging system configuration (interac-
tion result) for our concrete system of two coupled protofields. The
measured system density ( , )Q in the unreduced EP formalism of
Eqs. (4), (5) is given by the dynamically probabilistic sum (marked by
sign) of densities ( , )
r
Q of all chaotically changing realisations [9,
10, 16–19, 22, 23]:
2 2
1 1
( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , )
r r
r r
N N
Q Q Q Q
, (9)
,
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0
*
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( , ) ( ) ( ) ,
r
n ni ni n i
r r
r i i r
i n i i ni n
Q d V
Q c Q
(10)
where 0n ; 0( )Q , ( )
n
Q are (known) eigenfunctions of the e/m
protofield Hamiltonian e
( )h q ;
r
i
c are matching coefficients related to
causal Born’s rule for realisation probabilities [9, 10, 16–19, 22, 23]
and 0
{ ( ), }
r r
i i are the r-th realisation eigen-solutions of the effective
existence equation, Eqs. (4), (5). If we make the proper choice of the
e/m protofield eigenfunctions 0( )Q , ( )
n
Q in the form of narrow
peaks corresponding to its actual (though maybe unknown and practi-
cally indiscernible) elements, then we can see from Eqs. (5), (10) that
each r-th emerging realisation tends to concentrate around a particular
eigenvalue
r
r
interpreted as emerging space coordinate [9–11, 16–19,
22, 23]. As complex interaction dynamics consists in unceasing reali-
sation change in random order, it means that protofield attraction
1
In this universal complexity definition, ‘realisation’ means any system realisation,
including the special intermediate realisation of the generalised wavefunction (or dis-
tribution function), contrary to our usual realisation number N from Eq. (6) includ-
ing only regular, ‘localised’ realisations containing the complete eigenvalue number.
However, one can hardly have any confusion here as practically always 1N
.
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 227
ends up in a permanent process of alternating protofield squeeze (with
entanglement) and extension (with disentanglement) around different
centres randomly chosen in the vicinity of certain, also eventually ar-
bitrary locations (separated by larger distances).
We call each such local, spatially chaotic (dynamically multivalued)
process of permanent nonlinear pulsation of coupled protofields as the
quantum beat and argue that it forms the essential dynamical struc-
ture and physical origin of properties of a simple elementary particle,
or (thus intrinsically dualistic) field–particle, such as the electron.
Compound particles are constituted by a number of such (variously)
mixed processes. Note that complex quantum-beat dynamics of the
coupled protofields thus derived by our unreduced interaction analysis
has a clear physical origin in the form of evident system instability
with respect to self-amplifying local deformation and squeeze followed
by extension and the next squeeze, each time around a randomly cho-
sen centre [9–11, 16–19, 22, 23].
This complex quantum-beat dynamics also realises the universal
mechanism of physically real space and time emergence as a result of
unreduced interaction development. A highly inhomogeneous local pro-
tofield squeeze in the initially totally homogeneous system of two cou-
pled protofields gives rise to the fundamental, naturally discrete and
tangible physical space structure dynamically ‘woven’ from two entan-
gled protofields, while permanent dynamically random change of the
dynamical squeeze centre (system realisation) is the clearly specified
origin of unceasing and irreversible time flow. Specifically, the emerg-
ing physical space point size r0 is given by the characteristic eigenvalue
separation for a regular realisation of the effective existence equation,
Eqs. (4), (5),
0
r
i i ir x , while the elementary length of the same
complexity level is given by the characteristic eigenvalue separation of
two different, neighbouring realisations,
r
r r ix . Elementary
time interval is naturally obtained as the quantum-beat period,
1t , with standing for its frequency measuring the intensity
of its spatially chaotic realisation change process. Its value can be de-
rived from that of the above elementary length (obtained from solu-
tion of Eqs. (4), (5)) and v0, the excitation propagation speed for the
(coupled) e/m protofield material, 0
v , where this speed is natural-
ly identified with the speed of light c, c , since the e/m protofield
excitations are observed as photons. We obtain thus the clearly speci-
fied physical origin of space (naturally quantised due to realisation dis-
creteness) and time (permanently and irreversibly flowing due to spa-
tially chaotic realisation change) in the same quantum-beat process that
forms the field–particle structure [9–11, 16–19, 22, 23].
As physically real space and time are made by system realisation
change, while dynamic complexity is determined by realisation number
and rate of change, a basic integral complexity measure is provided by
228 A. P. KIRILYUK
the simplest combination of these dynamically emerging space and
time elements, action-complexity , extending the usual mechanical
action concept and actually expressing the number of realisations pro-
gressively taken by the system [9, 11, 16–19, 22, 23, 40–42]:
p x E t , (11)
where coefficients p and E are recognised as (generalised) momentum
and energy, which can be interpreted thus as differential complexity
measures (realisation change rates):
0
consttp
x
, (12)
0
constxE
t
, (13)
with the characteristic action value 0
, and x, p generally expressed
by vectors.
It becomes clear that at the lowest complexity levels considered this
characteristic value of action-complexity is given by the Planck con-
stant h, 0 h , which reveals its physically real, dynamic origin as the
fundamental quantum of action-complexity and explains its finite val-
ue (realisation discreteness) and universality at all those lowest com-
plexity sublevels [9, 11, 14, 16–19, 22, 23]:
constx
h
E h
t
. (14)
For the state of rest ( 0p ) of the elementary particle specified now
as a quantum-beat process, one derives thus the following expression
for its rest energy:
0 0
0
h
E h
(15)
coinciding with the famous de Broglie’s conjecture [30–33] that leads
to the idea of wave–particle duality and the particle wavelength expres-
sion, but now with a totally specified origin of the ‘periodic phenome-
non’ and related duality within the elementary field–particle (quantum
beat) constituting its physical nature. As the rest energy E0 in Eq. (15)
is a (differential) complexity measure of spatially chaotic reduction and
extension cycles of quantum beat, the latter can be characterised as a
random wandering of the ‘flickering’ squeezed state, or virtual soliton,
of a particle within its (physically real) wavefunction, giving rise to the
property of inertia, in agreement with de Broglie’s hidden thermody-
namic concept [26–29]. Particle (or actually any object) inertia is there-
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 229
fore due to its internal multivalued (chaotic) dynamics, so that its par-
tial ordering for the global motion in certain direction meets a finite
‘resistance’ of this ‘hidden thermostat’ trying to preserve its internal
motions’ ‘temperature’. Instead of direct introduction of mass measur-
ing thus explained inertia, we shall better try to derive this key proper-
ty in a more rigorous way from global motion dynamics.
We can now rigorously define the state of rest of an isolated system
as the one with the lowest (always positive) value of its energy-
complexity E (as defined by Eq. (13)) and the state of (any global) mo-
tion as anyone with the energy-complexity value greater than the min-
imum of the state of rest [9, 11, 16–18, 23]. The state of rest is charac-
terised by the most homogeneous distribution of dynamic realisation
probabilities, Eq. (7) (totally homogeneous one for an elementary
field–particle at rest), also called uniform chaos, while the state of mo-
tion is realised as a less uniform distribution of realisation probabili-
ties within the partially ordered, or self-organised, dynamics where
the direction (probabilistic tendency) of this global motion is deter-
mined by higher values of respective realisation probabilities. Corre-
spondingly, action-complexity for an elementary field–particle at
rest does not contain any space (coordinate) dependence and acquires
such dependence on (emerging) space coordinate for a moving particle,
( , )x t , so that
const constx t
x
pv E
t t x t
,
or
h h
E pv v h pv
t
, (16)
where the total energy E of a moving field–particle is given by Eq.
(14), and its global-motion momentum p universally defined by Eq.
(12) is now specified as
constt
h
p
x
; (17)
v is the global motion velocity:
x
v
t
; (18)
constxt is the quantum-beat (realisation-change) period meas-
ured at a fixed space point; consttx is the fixed-time size of spa-
tial inhomogeneity emerging in the average, global part of moving sys-
tem structure, t and x are the ‘total’ quantum-beat period
230 A. P. KIRILYUK
and space inhomogeneity ( 1 is the respective frequency) [9, 11,
16–18, 23].
The complex-dynamic total energy partition of Eq. (16) and related
expression for the global motion momentum of Eq. (17) provide the
new, causally complete insight into the structure of unreduced motion
dynamics. The latter contains the proper global, externally regular
(though internally chaotic) motion tendency given by the second sum-
mand, pv, in the total energy partition of Eq. (16). Its first summand,
h , describes the complementary tendency of totally random system
deviations from that global motion tendency (here chaotic wandering
of particle virtual soliton). Moreover, Eq. (17) shows that there is an
emerging structure with the characteristic length associated with
the global motion, which is easily recognised in our case as particle de
Broglie wave with the wavelength B
h p . There is nothing mys-
terious thus in this emergent wave–particle duality phenomenon, be-
ing a manifestation of the universal complex-dynamical structure-
formation process within the system global motion. The global-motion
tendency emerges as more frequent chaotic jumps (here, of the virtual
soliton) between system realisations with similar configuration (undu-
lar shape of interacting protofields for this case).
There is a direct link here to the above property of inertia, as the dy-
namically multivalued interaction process ‘resisting’ to the externally
imposed motion tendency becomes ‘corrugated’ in proportion to its
complex-dynamic inertia and performs that global motion in a ‘caterpil-
lar’ fashion. Since the (dynamically multivalued) system cannot avoid
performing those inertial chaotic deviations around its global motion
tendency, the velocity v of the latter will always be smaller than the
speed of any single jump between realisations occurring at the speed of
perturbation propagation in the interacting component material, v0c,
the speed of light thus causally introduced (without any abstract postu-
lates) for our case of e/m protofield coupled to the gravitational proto-
field, together with the corresponding ‘relativistic’ limitation, vc
[12, 13, 16–18, 23]. To obtain a quantitative relation, note that, during
a period of one jump within the global motion tendency, 1 c , the
system (virtual soliton) should perform 1
n c v jumps of duration
(from Eq. (14)) of totally random deviation from that tendency. Thus,
1 1
n , or phV , where
2
ph
V c v is the fictitious, superluminal
‘phase velocity’ of matter wave propagation appearing in the original
de Broglie wavelength derivation [33] that does not take into account
the chaotic, multivalued part of particle dynamics. It remains to insert
the definitions of and , Eqs. (14), (17), into the obtained relation, and
we obtain the famous relativistic dispersion formula:
2
v
p E mv
c
, (19)
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 231
which provides the desired rigorous definition of inertial mass–
energy-complexity,
2m E c [12, 13, 16–18, 23]. We can return now
to the state of rest, where
2
0 0
E m c , with m0 being the dynamically
defined rest mass of the quantum-beat process, so that the basic rela-
tion of Eq. (15) postulated by de Broglie [30–33] can be rewritten in its
complete form
2
0 0 0
E m c h . (15)
In the same way, the dynamically determined inertial mass–energy
for a state of motion is obtained from Eq. (14) as the spatially chaotic
quantum-beat frequency:
2 h
E mc h
. (14)
Even though our complex-dynamic mass definition is not yet com-
plete in all its aspects (to follow below), we can already at this stage
certify the rigorously substantiated absence or natural solution of
problems (1)–(8) of Standard-Model mass concept involving the Higgs
field (sec. 2). In particular, one can emphasize the universality of the
above mass–energy definition as temporal rate of (spatially) chaotic
realisation change of (all) underlying interaction processes, in their
unreduced, dynamically multivalued version, Eqs. (11)–(19). Inertia
and (generally relativistic) mass–energy of a system is therefore a ma-
jor manifestation and (differential) measure of unreduced dynamic
complexity of all system interactions (where one can often exclude cer-
tain complexity levels, which are not involved in particular observa-
tions, e.g., in nonrelativistic mechanics).
In close relation to these basic properties of mass, there is the ‘evi-
dent’ (actually postulated in usual theory) but now rigorously derived
relation of Eq. (19), p mv , which is equivalent to laws of Newtonian
mechanics, now not simply postulated (yet since Newton) but mathe-
matically derived in their nontrivial complex-dynamic and relativistic
content (totally lost in usual version). Newton’s second law is obtained
by taking (generally discrete) time derivative of this relation, with now
causally complete physical meaning of mass, energy, momentum,
space and time in terms of complex (multivalued) dynamics of all un-
derlying (protofield and higher-level) interaction processes. This de-
gree of rigour and universality is impossible for the Higgs and other
non-dynamic, new entity-dependent mechanisms.
We proceed by inserting the basic relation of Eq. (19) into the causal
particle wavelength definition of Eq. (17) to obtain the familiar but
now causally complete expression for the de Broglie wavelength within
the physically real version of wave–particle duality (due to the dynam-
ically multivalued quantum-beat process):
232 A. P. KIRILYUK
B
h
mv
. (20)
For a particle at rest, one can further derive the length of its virtual
soliton jump (with the speed of light, c) by noting that the quantum-
beat frequency
2
0 0
m c h from Eq. (15) corresponds to the wave-
length
0
0 0
c h
m c
, (21)
which could be obtained from Eq. (20) with formally incorrect but
physically understandable parameters 0
m m , v c . For the electron
with the rest mass 0 em m , the length 0 of virtual soliton jump be-
tween two ‘corpuscular’ (squeezed) quantum-beat realisations coin-
cides with the Compton wavelength C
, providing thus its additional
interpretation in terms of internal (complex) dynamics of isolated elec-
tron (see also below):
C
e
h
m c
. (21)
Due to the fundamental link between mass–energy and time, Eq.
(14), the complex-dynamic dispersion relation of Eq. (19) has further
consequences for time relativity. Substituting Eq. (19) into the energy
partition relation of Eq. (16) and using Eq. (14), we obtain the causally
explained expression for time relativity as relation between the exter-
nally and internally measured time (quantum-beat) periods and for
a moving particle:
2
2
1
v
c
. (22)
We can clearly see here the physically real, complex-dynamic origin
of time relativity (as opposed to formal relativity postulates in stand-
ard theory) [9, 11–13, 16–18, 23]. As it is the same complex-dynamic
quantum-beat process that gives rise to both physically real clock ‘tick-
ing’ (by the totally random tendency, first summand in Eq. (16)) and
particle global motion (by the partially ordered tendency, second sum-
mand in Eq. (16)), the internal system clock will slow down with grow-
ing global motion speed v, , because an ever greater part of the
total energy will go from the former (clock) to the latter (motion). Due
to universality of our time and mass–energy concepts, this result re-
mains valid for any real clock size and mechanism (thus resolving an-
other ‘mystery’ of usual theory).
In order to get the standard, directly measurable expression for thus
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 233
causally derived time relativity, we shall use a supplementary relation
between , and the rest-frame quantum-beat period 0 or respective
frequencies , and 0:
2
0
,
2
0
. (23)
This relation expresses a physically transparent manifestation of con-
servation of system realisation number measured by frequencies,
which is a version of the universal complexity conservation law [9, 11–
13, 16–18, 23]. Excluding not directly measurable from Eq. (22) with
the help of Eq. (23), we obtain the familiar expression of time relativi-
ty, but where both time and its relativity regain their physically real
and universal origin:
2
2
0
1
v
c
,
2
20
1
v
c
. (24)
Using this causal time relativity expression together with Eqs. (19)
and (15) in Eq. (16), we arrive at the causally explained mass relativi-
ty:
0
2 2
2
1
mE
m
c v
c
. (25)
It further extends our complex-dynamic mass concept (cf. item 5 in
sec. 2) and implies that any global, externally regular motion is real-
ised only as a partially ordered tendency of dynamically random sys-
tem jumps between realisations, where each jump even within this
‘self-organised’ global tendency is performed probabilistically (with a
greater probability to fall within this tendency).
We can now proceed with other dynamically emerging features of
the same unreduced process of protofield interaction completing the
consistent picture of observed particle properties and behaviour and in
particular solving the remaining problems of sec. 2. We start with ex-
plaining the observed number of global space dimensions, Ndim3, as
being due to the global realisation number of protofield interaction
equal to the number of interacting entities (see above, after Eq. (6)),
two protofields plus the coupling interaction itself. In general, a uni-
verse emerging from n protofields coupled by m (global) interactions
should have dim
N n m global space dimensions showing already
that each additional fundamental entity implies an additional space
dimension. It is important that our physically real space emerges as
tangible complex-dynamic entanglement of interacting entities, where
234 A. P. KIRILYUK
the observed similarity between spatial dimensions implies an equally
globally homogeneous and direct mixture of interacting entities, with-
out a ‘special’, separated status of any entity.
Now, this protofield interaction process with Ndim global realisations
(space dimensions) splits, as we have seen, into a hierarchy of local re-
alisations, starting from massive particles in the form of dynamically
multivalued quantum-beat processes forming the observed tangible
matter. The quantum-beat process constituting each massive, matter-
forming particle produces (propagating) deformations in the sur-
rounding material of each protofield that influence its properties and
naturally give rise to (maximum) mn long-range fundamental inter-
action forces of n kinds between field–particles (where each kind is
transmitted through its ‘native’ protofield). For our two protofields
with a single coupling, we obtain two (actually observed) long-range
interactions different in kind, the electromagnetic (e/m) and gravita-
tional ones, which explain both their real origin and the protofield
names, number and roles.
We shall also have n short-range fundamental interaction forces
originating in direct interaction between (usually unresolved) elemen-
tary protofield constituents. Indeed, we observe exactly two short-
range interaction forces for our universe (n2), where the ‘weak’ force
is naturally attributed to the direct interaction between the e/m proto-
field constituents (thus including a physically real explanation for the
standard formal ‘electroweak symmetry’, now causally ‘broken’ from
the outset), while the ‘strong’ force is due to the direct interaction be-
tween the gravitational protofield elements (thus providing an inter-
esting new relation between gravitational and strong interactions yet
to be confirmed). Moreover, since strong interaction occurs between
practically unresolved quarks, it follows that our gravitational proto-
field can be described as a dense quark condensate (where a ‘quark’ can
actually be represented by an ephemeral and quickly changing quan-
tum-beat mode of a deeper complexity sublevel). This conclusion is in-
dependently confirmed by recent high-energy nuclei collision experi-
ments [45], where the expected ‘quark–gluon plasma’ behaved as a
dense liquid rather than ‘gas’ from the Standard Model related to its
interpretation of quark confinement (the latter also acquires a new,
physically real and consistent explanation in our picture). One can add
that real world structures are certainly asymmetrically ‘displaced’ to-
wards much lighter and more deformable/elastic e/m protofield, which
explains world essentially electromagnetic dynamics and contributes
to relative weakness of gravitational interactions (see also below).
It is important that thus causally obtained fundamental interaction
forces with correct properties emerge in their naturally quantised and
dynamically unified version [9, 11, 12, 16–19, 23], both due to their
common quantum-beat origin. All four fundamental forces are dynam-
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 235
ically unified in the quantum-beat process (especially its maximum
squeeze state of virtual soliton for more massive, hadronic species);
while their internally discrete, quantum structure is due to quantum-
beat cycles. In the case of e/m interaction, this quantum structure is
realised as exchange of physically real (rather than ‘virtual’) photons,
the latter being small enough, quasi-linear and therefore massless e/m
protofield wave-like deformations. Note that such physically trans-
parent photon origin in our description, as opposed to the abstract
‘gauge symmetry’ of the Standard Model that must then be ‘spontane-
ously’ broken by the artificially inserted Higgs field, confirms self-
consistently the redundant and contradictory nature of the latter due
exclusively to speciality of purely abstract approach of usual field the-
ory, with its simplified ‘fundamental’ but actually non-existent ‘sym-
metries’. In the case of gravitational interactions, the high density and
strong interactions in the gravitational protofield can hardly permit
for any real ‘graviton’ propagation, so that interaction is practically
transmitted by quantised density modulations quickly losing their in-
dividuality with distance. It is evident also that both e/m and gravita-
tional interactions naturally obey the inverse square law of distance
dependence, simply due to the number three of spatial dimensions (now
causally explained).
The obtained causally defined and internally unified connection be-
tween the numbers of (assumed) fundamental entities (like our proto-
fields), emerging space dimensions and fundamental interaction forces
implies that any additional entity, like the omnipresent Higgs field
should give rise to more forces and dimensions, in contradiction with
observations totally confirming our minimal number of fundamental
entities (item (9) in sec. 2). One could speculate that the Higgs field
may actually play the role of protofield coupling in our picture, but
such vision contradicts both protofield coupling origin (being rather
due to separation of previously unified entities) and properties of the
Higgs field already possessing massive quanta, interacting with other
particles, etc. Any additional entity would be definitely redundant at
this stage and could be added only in the case of necessity, in order to
explain basic properties not accounted for in the present description
(now absent).
It is especially important that the proposed concept of complex-
dynamical mass emerging in the system of two interacting protofields
includes naturally unified (or ‘equivalent’) inertial and gravitational
aspects of mass, thus avoiding this heavy deficiency of the Higgs mod-
el (item (10) in sec. 2). According to the above general picture, gravita-
tional interaction between particles (and macroscopic bodies) occurs
through the gravitational protofield deformed by respective quantum-
beat processes and it is naturally proportional to the quantum-beat
rate or (relativistic) inertial mass. Gravitational protofield density de-
236 A. P. KIRILYUK
termining local quantum-beat frequency becomes inhomogeneous in
the presence of massive bodies (other quantum-beat processes), so that
instead of Eq. (14) one gets:
2 2
00
( ) ( ) ( )M x c h x mc g x . (26)
Here, ( )x is the local quantum-beat frequency of a test particle,
( )M x —its total mass, m—its relativistic mass in the absence of gravi-
tational field; conventional ‘metric’ 00
( ) 1g x actually describes local
gravitational protofield density. In weak fields, 00
2
g
( ) 1 2 ( )g x x c ,
where the gravitational field potential g ( ) 0x [46]. Since ( )x de-
termines the local rate of our causally specified time, one obtains the
physical origin of (causal) time retardation effect in gravitational field
[9, 11, 12, 16–18, 23], instead of formal postulates about ‘deformed’
geometric ‘mixture’ of abstract space and time variables.
In summary, our complex-dynamic mass concept includes not only
special-relativistic and gravitational but also general-relativistic ef-
fects, now in their causal and naturally quantised version. The equiva-
lence between inertial and gravitational mass properties is an integral
part of this complex quantum-beat dynamics. This is the degree of uni-
fication going very far beyond the limits of the Standard-Model
scheme (sec. 2). Note that this complex-dynamic quantisation of gravi-
ty in our description does not need introduction of yet another addi-
tional field of ‘gravitons’ and related too complicated constructions of
usual theory, whereas real gravitons, similar to conventional gravita-
tional waves in the opposite limit, may actually not exist as such with-
in the gravitational protofield due to high dissipativity of its dense
quark condensate (see above), contrary to their photonic analogues in
the light and elastic e/m protofield.
The same complex-dynamic construction of two interacting proto-
fields, giving rise to the observed variety of massive field–particles and
their now unified interaction forces, provides a natural explanation for
major features of observed particle species spectrum (thus solving the
problem of item (11) from sec. 2), including the notorious ‘hierarchy
problem’ limiting the heaviest observed particles (within their quite
sufficient variety) to the electroweak energy scale of 100 GeV, with the
conventional Planck mass–energy unit exceeding this quantity by 17
orders of magnitude. In our complex-dynamic mass interpretation, it
becomes evident [9, 12, 16, 18, 23] that this huge difference between
Planck units and the ultimate observed values of particle properties
comes from the incorrect use of the long-range (Newton’s) gravitational
interaction constant in the formal dimensional Planck’s formulas for
particle parameters describing actually the short-range state of virtual
soliton, i.e. the corpuscular state of maximum quantum-beat squeeze of
the coupled protofields. That usual, long-range gravitational constant
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 237
actually accounts for a qualitatively very ‘long’ and indirect way of
gravitational interaction transmission from the e/m protofield pertur-
bation by quantum-beat processes of a gravitational interaction partic-
ipant to respective local changes of the gravitational protofield matrix,
then through gravitational protofield towards the location of another
gravitational interaction partner and then back from gravitational to
e/m protofield. All those links are effectively weak by their ‘induced’
and ‘media-transmission’ character (as well as due to the above world
‘displacement’ from effectively hidden and only weakly connected
gravitational protofield towards the directly observed e/m protofield
interface), which also accounts for the well-known weakness of gravita-
tional interaction with respect to e/m interaction (being thus another
qualitative confirmation of our picture). By contrast, short-range in-
teraction processes accounting for the heaviest virtual soliton for-
mation involve practically direct protofield (self-)interactions, where
the long-range and weak-interaction value should be replaced by the
effective short-range and strong-interaction value 0
, which can
be derived just from the huge difference between the really observed
(mexpc
2
102
GeV) and traditional (
2 19
10 GeVPm c ) Planck mass val-
ues, 0
2 34
exp
( ) 10Pm m .
All the really observed extreme values of particle mass and other pa-
rameters obtain thus a causal and realistic explanation, without re-
dundant species or ‘hidden dimensions’ [47, 48] and in agreement with
the evident sufficiency of the observed particle spectrum [9, 12, 16,
18, 23]. Actually meaningless traditional values of Planck units should
thus be excluded from various other fundamental considerations of
usual theory (e.g., in cosmology or quantum gravity), implying their
essential modification. Another independent confirmation of the real
Planck mass–energy value of the order of 100 GeV (determining the
maximum amplitude of non-destructive protofield interaction) comes
from its proximity to the heaviest (meta)stable nuclei mass, since an
atomic nucleus, with strong interaction between its components, can
be considered as complex-dynamic quark agglomerate similar to a had-
ronic elementary particle. The mass of any such compact hadronic ob-
ject (be it an elementary particle or a nucleus) greater than exp
m would
involve local protofield interaction magnitude greater than the bind-
ing energy of the e/m protofield elements, just providing the causal
interpretation of the (electro)weak scale,
2 2
exp
10 GeVm c .
In addition to mass, other intrinsic properties of elementary parti-
cles find their causally complete explanations within the same picture
of complex-dynamic particle structure [9–23]. Thus, the electric
charge is but another measure of the same quantum-beat complexity,
in agreement with the standard connection between the elementary
charge e and the Planck constant h (now understood as the quantum of
action complexity; see above):
2e c (where is the fine-structure
238 A. P. KIRILYUK
constant and (2 )h ). It explains the universal (dynamic) quanti-
sation of electric charge similar to that of action complexity, but em-
phasizes the e/m interaction properties of elementary quantum-beat
processes. Universal time flow implies phase synchronisation of all el-
ementary quantum-beat processes up to phase reversal, which explains
the existence of two and only two opposite kinds of electric charge (cor-
responding to opposite-phase quantum-beat processes), with their
known interaction properties [9, 11, 12, 16–18, 23].
The next major intrinsic property, elementary particle spin, also
emerges dynamically as inevitable, here highly nonlinear vorticity of
the e/m protofield dynamically squeezed towards its corpuscular, vir-
tual-soliton state [9, 11, 12, 16–18, 23]. Because of the protofield
shear instability, such highly uneven squeeze cannot practically occur
along straight lines and will give rise to protofield curling, spiral mo-
tion around each reduction centre. The quantum-beat rest energy, Eq.
(15), can now be presented in another form reflecting this internal spin
dynamics: 0 0 0 0 0
2E h h s , where 0 0
2 is the quan-
tum-beat circular frequency and 2s is the elementary spin angular
momentum (for the simplest fermion case). The summands in this ex-
pression, 0
2h and s0, can be considered as quantum-beat energy
parts due to its ‘oscillatory’ and ‘spinning’ components. In addition to
the spin origin and key value, we obtain here the causal origin of mag-
netic field (from the extended phase of the same vorticity) in agree-
ment with the laws of electrodynamics [9].
Another important connection of the obtained complex-dynamic
mass origin emerges as additional, causal interpretation of the fine-
structure and Planck’s constants, if we rewrite the mentioned stand-
ard relation between e, and h in a new form:
2 2
2 2 e
e e
C C
e e
E m c N
,
C
e
h
m c
,
1eN
,
2
C
C
, (27)
where me is the electron rest mass and C
the Compton wavelength (see
Eq. (21)). It means that 1
eN
(137) can be interpreted as the
electron realisation number and (2 )
C C
(
11
3.9 10 cm
) as the
length of elementary jump between electron realisations (both up to a
numerical factor of the order of ) [9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 23], the latter in
agreement with a previous interpretation of Eqs. (21), (21). According
to the universal interpretation of this jump length (see above, before
Eq. (11)), the Compton wavelength corresponds to the emerging ele-
mentary length of this complexity level,
r
r r ix . Note also the
remarkable coincidence between thus interpreted fine-structure con-
stant 1
eN
and electron realisation probability r defined accord-
ing to our universal dynamic probability expression of Eq. (7).
Further insight into the complex-dynamic origin of fundamental
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 239
constants is obtained from yet another form of the same e– relation:
2
e
C e
e
N p
c
, e
C e
N r
, (28)
where e e e
p m c E c and
2 2
( )e er e m c (
13
2.8 10 cm
) is the usual
‘classical radius’ of the electron. As each particle quantum-beat process
is a realisation of the protofield interaction EP (Eqs. (4), (5)), the first
equation (28) shows that
eN
or C can be interpreted as this EP width,
e2/c or p0—its respective depth, and —its ‘volume’. While EP width
and depth are different for different particle species, their product, or
volume of EP well, is a universal quantity characterising the balance
between protofield interaction strength and their deformation proper-
ties (expressed, not accidentally, in terms of action-complexity). It pro-
vides the ultimate causal origin of the Planck constant and its abso-
lute universality at the lowest complexity sublevels, including various
particle agglomerates such as nuclei [16, 18, 19, 23]. Large-width and
small-depth EP realisations, like the one for the electron of Eqs. (28),
correspond to light-mass, leptonic particles with 1
eN
and
, 1
r
(for respective interaction constant). In the opposite limit,
the ultimately deep and narrow EP realisations, with , 1
e
r
N
, corre-
spond to the heaviest hadronic species or agglomerates.
The second Eq. (28) shows also that the electron EP width C con-
tains
eN
sizes of re, meaning that each corpuscular realisation of vir-
tual soliton for the electron has the size of re, so that the complete real-
isation set densely fills in the accessible EP width. According to the
above general interpretation, this is the size of the emerging space
point
0
r
i i ir x thus equal to the classical electron radius (up to a
coefficient close to ) and providing its new, deeper meaning [16, 18,
19, 23].
We thus obtain a whole unified and causally complete picture of par-
ticle properties around this complex-dynamic mass interpretation, in-
cluding the origin, structure and spectrum of elementary particles,
their intrinsic and dynamic properties unifying quantum and relativ-
istic behaviour as manifestations of the same complex-dynamic inter-
action, dynamically unified interaction forces and transparent dynam-
ic interpretation of fundamental constants c, h, , e and , resolving
numerous stagnating mysteries and contradictions of usual theory,
without artificial introduction of abstract and actually redundant en-
tities, such as additional fields, hidden dimensions and dark matter
(see also [9–23] for more details, including causally complete interpre-
tation of all quantum and relativistic phenomena, genuine quantum
chaos, quantum measurement, transition to classicality, etc.). This
unified complex-dynamic interpretation includes also complex-
dynamic (dynamically multivalued) cosmology with dynamically self-
adjusted parameters naturally avoiding or solving respective problems
240 A. P. KIRILYUK
of usual, dynamically single-valued, zero-complexity models, includ-
ing dark matter and energy being but artefacts of this unitary theory
due to its artificial limitations [18, 19] (cf. to item (12) in sec. 2).
The obtained ultimately large spectrum of mutually related problem
solutions provides a rarely strong support for the entire underlying
picture of unreduced, complex interaction dynamics and its purely dy-
namic mass concept, including the above unified causal solution to
problems (1)–(12) (sec. 2) of the Standard-Model, Higgs and other
schemes of mechanistic mass generation. Further development and
complication of this simplest world interaction configuration (e.g., by
additional interaction partners) is not excluded, of course, but should
be performed, as follows from the above analysis, only as far as the ex-
tremely rich possibilities of this initially simple but unreduced com-
plex-dynamic interaction will appear provably insufficient for expla-
nation of the observed properties.
Let us finally emphasize that such essential extension beyond the
limits of usual theory towards the causally complete understanding of
the universal origin of mass–energy, matter and elementary particles
is possible only due to qualitatively new mathematics based on dynamic
multivaluedness of unreduced, causally complete solution to any real
(many-body interaction) problem [9, 18, 40–42], contrary to always
dynamically single-valued (unitary) framework of usual theory replac-
ing the real problem solution with a perturbative or ‘exact’ (and thus
illusively ‘unique’) solution to another, abstract problem of ultimately
reduced dimensionality (including recent imitations of causality in
fundamental physics; see [23] for references). As this dynamic multi-
valuedness of all real systems and objects (starting already from the
elementary particles) gives rise to the provably universal concept of
complexity and chaos/emergence, one can call this new, realistic math-
ematical framework (genuine) mathematics of complexity and emer-
gence (to be distinguished from numerous dynamically single-valued
imitations of complexity and its usual mathematical description with-
out true, qualitative novelty). This unreduced mathematics of com-
plexity provides the truly rigorous (because of solution completeness)
and naturally unified extension of all (correct) structures, laws and
principles, reducing them to only one, unified structure of world dy-
namics in the form of generalised, dynamically probabilistic fractal
obeying the unique, unified law of the universal symmetry, or conser-
vation and transformation of (unreduced dynamic) complexity [9, 18,
19, 22, 23, 40–42, 49]. This omnipresent and permanently probabilis-
tically changing world fractal takes the entire variety of real object
forms, while the universal symmetry of complexity remains always
exact and never broken, but relates irreducibly irregular configura-
tions of observed objects (interaction results), contrary to any usual,
unitary symmetry dealing with regular links of regular objects and be-
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 241
coming always broken because of this artificial regularity (inevitable
in the dynamically single-valued underlying framework).
It is important to see this essential mathematical extension behind
the obtained progress in physical properties explanation. Its power is
confirmed not only by the emerging causally complete fundamental
physics, but also by further applications to higher complexity levels,
up to conscious brain dynamics and sustainable development transi-
tion [40–42], without any rupture or loss of rigour and completeness in
description of any higher-level phenomena usually only externally de-
scribed in the humanities. Our dynamically multivalued, self-
developing process of two starting protofield interaction provides thus
the ultimately complete and well-specified answer to the question
‘what is reality?’ increasingly emerging in fundamental science papers
and discussions (without consistent answer within the unitary science
framework).
4. WHAT DO THEY REALLY PROBE AT THOSE HUGE
EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES?
Referring to the results of the previous section demonstrating the
causally complete complex-dynamic solution to intrinsic problems of
the Higgs and other Standard-Model mechanisms of mass generation
(sec. 2), we can state that the last LHC experiments as if showing ‘con-
vincing signs of the Higgs boson’ [1, 2] in reality probe and measure
various manifestations of the underlying complex (dynamically multi-
valued) quantum-beat dynamics within the elementary particles and in
their interaction in emerging agglomerates (sec. 3), in this case at the
highest values of protofield interaction magnitude [23]. The observed
features of the collision product spectra [1, 2] should therefore be in-
terpreted not as signs of new physical entities (Higgs field and bosons)
existence, but as results of resonances in those complicated (strong)
interaction processes between high-energy collision products, where
the probed ultimately high protofield coupling energy (of the order of
2 2
exp
10 GeVm c ) could be a general reason for resonant behaviour. At
least, some of these resonances could well result just from those prod-
uct interaction processes (such as ‘gluon fusion’) that would give rise
to the Higgs boson emergence according to the accepted Standard-
Model analysis, but actually without any such qualitatively new entity
existence, the latter being replaced by generally quite ephemeral but
sometimes perceptible resonances between those interacting collision
products. We thus get rid of an entire redundant, purely abstract enti-
ty, the Higgs field (remaining unnecessary beyond Standard-Model
limitations eventually due to its unitary reduction scheme; see the end
of sec. 3) and the related heavy, fundamental and stagnating problems
(items (1)–(12) in sec. 2). We obtain instead the totally universal, con-
242 A. P. KIRILYUK
sistent and realistic (causally complete) complex-dynamic interpreta-
tion of the origin of mass intrinsically unified with solution of all other
mystified problems of unitary fundamental physics (sec. 3) and actual-
ly completing the basic ideas put forward and strongly defended by
Louis de Broglie [26–39], one of the founding fathers of the new phys-
ics [37].
Whereas complicated features of those collision-product resonances
would certainly need more detailed analysis (now within the above new
vision), a general confirmation of the proposed parsimonious interpre-
tation comes from a variety of other, smaller features seen, e.g., in the
emerging photon spectra (like in Fig. 3 in [2]) that should account for
other occurring resonances apparently not related to Higgs boson de-
composition. The entire picture of this new, much more consistent in-
terpretation becomes qualitatively shifted towards a multitude of gen-
erally occasional interaction processes showing a complicated ‘por-
trait’ of complex many-body interactions involved and not revealing
the ‘spectacular’ but illusive existence of a new physical entity (now
seen as truly redundant and inconsistent in its supposed role and con-
nections; see sec. 2). And although the seducing ambition of a ‘great
discovery’ seems to be lost in this Higgs-free interpretation, it actually
contains something much more important, the unified solution not on-
ly to the mass origin problem, but to practically all stagnating prob-
lems and difficulties of fundamental physics, simultaneously opening
quite new perspectives for its further development [16, 23], otherwise
seriously compromised today [9, 22, 50–55].
In particular, as a result of this new interpretation in terms of dy-
namically multivalued interaction dynamics, one can see the emerging
qualitatively new strategy and perspective of accelerator and other
big-scale research in experimental fundamental physics. Since particle
species mass spectrum is now basically limited, as we have seen above
(sec. 3), to already observed mass values of the order of 100 GeV, being
the physically real, now consistently explained value of the Planck
mass unit (replacing the unrealistically high and incorrect convention-
al value), there is no need to randomly and uselessly hunt for other, ev-
er higher-mass species that are not only redundant for the known
world structure (the fact evident already empirically), but provably
cannot exist in the self-consistent universe dynamics (together with
ever heavier atomic nuclei exceeding their known largest masses of the
same order of magnitude). One also gets rid of so many useless but oth-
erwise persisting, ever more numerous entities arbitrarily ‘assumed’
within the deficient unitary models, such as ‘supersymmetry’ or vari-
ous ‘brane worlds’ and ‘dark matter’ species, however, without bring-
ing any true consistency and now becoming provably unnecessary. By
contrast, instead of this purely empirical and thus basically blind, but
quite expensive and therefore ultimately inefficient (if not potentially
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 243
dangerous) search, one can now concentrate on a much more reasona-
ble, causally substantiated detailed study of already attained, quite
accessible energy scales with potentially important applications (e.g.,
new energy sources) acquiring their qualitatively new perspectives just
due to that internal complex (multivalued) interaction dynamics with-
in the particles and their agglomerates.
In that sense, one gets here another, more general and eventually
much more important answer to the main question of this paper: they
also probe the fundamental limits of the entire standard theory and
approach at LHC and other huge experimental facilities, with now
emerging important and consistently specified (above) conclusions
about the necessary changes in both theory and experimental strategy.
It involves not only LHC but all other huge facilities, including those
used in cosmological studies, space telescopes, etc. From that point of
view, one deals not with a disappointing or indefinite result, but with a
large window of qualitatively new opportunities for the entire funda-
mental physics (otherwise stagnating in an unpleasant impasse), where
‘negative’ results with respect to various abstract but now definitely
illusive entities are very comfortably compensated by that new, quali-
tatively extended and causally complete outlook pointing to various
practically important discoveries without huge new investments (in
the time of lasting crisis!), but with reasonably expected high output.
The unavoidable ‘payment’ for that huge efficiency growth comes in
the form of the necessary extension from dynamically single-valued
world projection (of entire usual framework, including its imitations
of ‘complexity’, ‘self-organisation’ and ‘chaos’ [9, 22, 23, 50]) to the
unreduced, multivalued and much richer picture of its real dynamics
(already largely outlined in the presented approach [9–23, 40–42, 49,
50]), but that ‘additional work’ will itself appear rather as a gift, en-
suring much deeper (eventually provably complete), more interesting
and practically rewarding insight into the nature of reality.
This future work may certainly involve more detailed description of
the fundamental protofield interaction process and its higher
sublevels. In this paper, we only summarised basic results of unre-
duced many-body interaction analysis [9–23], already demonstrating
its qualitatively higher efficiency for particular fundamental (new and
old) problem solution. This unified solution is strongly supported by a
large variety of experimental observations, from special experimental
detection of quantum-beat pulsation, to qualitative results of recent
quark-gluon plasma experiments and solution of numerous stagnating
contradictions and ‘mysteries’ of the (old) new physics (see, e.g., papers
[14, 16, 18, 23] for extensive lists of major confirmation points). It
seems therefore that there was no sense at this stage to pass immedi-
ately to special models of interaction processes and entities residing
largely beyond (or right on the border of) accessibility by experimental
244 A. P. KIRILYUK
facilities of this world just fundamentally emerging as higher interac-
tion complexity levels. However, such more detailed analysis can be
expected as a part of further work within this qualitatively new fun-
damental research strategy.
5. FURTHER SCIENCE PROGRESS: TO BE OR NOT TO BE?
Finally, yet higher level of the answer to the main question of this pa-
per involves the structure and operation mode of fundamental science
as a whole, because those ultimately complicated and resource-
consuming, potentially critically important fundamental research ef-
forts certainly probe the efficiency and perspectives of modern science
as a major human enterprise on the scale of entire planetary civilisa-
tion development, the latter strongly asking for qualitatively new ad-
vances right now, at this moment of critically stagnating results of
spectacular previous progress. Moreover, that probing of the overall
science efficiency provides ever more definite and unfortunately dis-
appointing conclusions revealing, like especially in the case of recent
LHC activity, a strangely low creativity in the theoretical, conceptual
part, accompanied by disproportionally loud glorification of ‘our sci-
ence’, the best in the universe (or rather the only one we know), and ev-
er greater indifference of society remaining however the only source
and the ultimate purpose of scientific endeavour.
Returning to the results of different LHC experiment interpreta-
tions and their comparison elucidated in this paper, one could ask, just
for one example, why the striking difference between ‘usual’ and our
complex-dynamic mass (and other properties) interpretations lacks
any reference in wider professional and popular science literature and
discussion, despite being clearly presented in quite accessible sources
already for a long enough time (at least, since 1997–1998) and despite
strong and practically important advantages provided by our explicitly
extended analysis results. The answer will be delusively simple and
similar to that for any other ‘alternative’ explanation effort, actually
ever since original de Broglie’s studies back in 1923–1924 [13–15, 36,
37]. The problem is that in the current system of research organisation
and practice, there is only one approach and group of interpretations,
which is accepted for comparison with even very expensive and effort-
consuming experiments, for years and decades, irrespective of its effi-
ciency and results. It means that whatever the results of that probing
(on the whole quite efficient as such!) by those huge facilities of the
state and practice of fundamental science, nothing will change in the
ongoing research, intentionally liberated from any real alternative,
both at the professional and public levels. Therefore, today fundamen-
tal science is the only field of human activity where, contrary to its
unique and now critically high importance for the entire human civili-
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 245
sation development, a single interpretation or approach is most often
accepted for competition on purely subjective grounds, even when it
not only lacks visible advantages over other really existing approaches
(though such advantages are generally asserted, without comparison!),
but actually represents close to the worst possible choice for interpre-
tation of extremely difficult and professionally highly elaborated ex-
perimental work. In our case, we have even a rigorous expression of
such situation, since the conventional, ‘dynamically single-valued’
projection of the real, ‘dynamically multivalued’ interaction dynamics
evidently represents the strongest, most incorrect possible reduction
of reality (from extremely many system realisations to only one, ‘aver-
age’ realisation) [9, 18, 19, 22, 50].
However, there is time for everything, and now this increasingly
alarming test of the real state of science by LHC and other huge facili-
ties, showing critically low efficiency due to practical and thoroughly
maintained absence of free, creative competition of professional scien-
tific ideas, cries out for the necessity of definite change in a well-
specified direction of multiple (and different) interpretations practi-
cally participating in experimental result analysis, with respective at-
tention and resources allocated, at least, in approximate proportion to
those interpretations efficiency (cf. sections 2–4). One can say that we
are living now a ‘super-critical’ phase of famous ‘paradigm change’
process [56], which, due to accumulating severe problems in science
and society, even exceeds the entire concept of those conventional ‘sci-
entific revolutions’. Taking into account today speed of development
and ‘distributed criticality’ omnipresent in practically all aspects of
life and human activity, it become evident that starting from now this
highly technically, empirically developed civilisation cannot permit
itself any more to remain within those traditional long periods of stag-
nation followed by unpredictable ‘revolutions’: the next revolution
may actually come too late to have any importance at the level of a to-
tally corrupt science system and inevitably destroyed civilisation. In
reality, one doesn’t need to start with any revolution, but simply to ac-
cept more than one (essentially different) approach in interpretation of
extremely important and resource-consuming experiments (giving
otherwise strongly incomplete results, without real progress). The bal-
ance between the expected outcome and the necessary change is defi-
nitely in favour of the former, and it can only increase.
These necessary changes in science organisation and practice, thus
constantly probed and clearly detected by huge facilities and their ex-
periments interpretation, do have however a much more extended and
this time indeed qualitatively big realisation in the form of the ‘last
scientific revolution’ [50], after which one doesn’t need any more to
make special efforts to ‘liberate research creativity’, as this one will be
permanently ensured by the qualitatively new science system. It is in-
246 A. P. KIRILYUK
teresting that organisation and dynamics of the latter, as well as the
transition to this new system from the current degrading unitary sci-
ence organisation, can be objectively specified within the same univer-
sal complexity concept that underlies consistent mass interpretation
defended in this paper. Keeping in mind that additional and not acci-
dental correlation, one can start with a reasonable and feasible applica-
tion of dynamic complexity ideas to LHC and other fundamental exper-
iment interpretation as demonstrated in this paper, thus suitably de-
veloping, just at the right moment, the old and wrongfully forgotten
ideas of Louis de Broglie and other realistically thinking fathers of the
new physics.
REFERENCES
1. The ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B, 716, Iss. 1: 1 (2012);
ArXiv:1207.7214.
2. The CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B, 716, Iss. 1: 30 (2012); ArXiv:1207.7235.
3. F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, Iss. 9: 321 (1964).
4. P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett., 12, Iss. 2: 132 (1964).
5. P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, Iss. 16: 508 (1964).
6. G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, Iss. 20:
585 (1964).
7. P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev., 145, Iss. 4: 1156 (1966).
8. T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev., 155, Iss. 5: 1554 (1967).
9. A. P. Kirilyuk, Universal Concept of Complexity by the Dynamic Redundance
Paradigm: Causal Randomness, Complete Wave Mechanics, and the Ultimate
Unification of Knowledge (Kyiv: Naukova Dumka: 1997). (For a non-technical
review, see also ArXiv:physics/9806002.)
10. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Double Solution with Chaos: Dynamic Redundance and Causal
Wave-Particle Duality’, ArXiv:quant-ph/9902015.
11. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Double Solution with Chaos: Completion of de Broglie’s Nonlin-
ear Wave Mechanics and Its Intrinsic Unification with the Causally Extended
Relativity’, ArXiv:quant-ph/9902016.
12. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Universal Gravitation as a Complex-Dynamical Process,
Renormalised Planckian Units, and the Spectrum of Elementary Particles’,
ArXiv:gr-qc/9906077.
13. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘75 Years of Matter Wave: Louis de Broglie and Renaissance of
the Causally Complete Knowledge’, ArXiv:quant-ph/9911107.
14. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘100 Years of Quanta: Complex-Dynamical Origin of Planck’s
Constant and Causally Complete Extension of Quantum Mechanics’,
ArXiv:quant-ph/0012069.
15. A.P. Kirilyuk, ‘75 Years of the Wavefunction: Complex-Dynamical Extension
of the Original Wave Realism and the Universal Schrödinger Equation’,
ArXiv:quant-ph/0101129.
16. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Quantum Field Mechanics: Complex-Dynamical Completion of
Fundamental Physics and Its Experimental Implications’,
ArXiv:physics/0401164.
17. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Electron as a Complex-Dynamical Interaction Process’,
WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY PROBE AT LHC? 247
ArXiv:physics/0410269.
18. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Consistent Cosmology, Dynamic Relativity and Causal Quan-
tum Mechanics as Unified Manifestations of the Symmetry of Complexity’,
ArXiv: physics/0601140.
19. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Complex-Dynamical Approach to Cosmological Problem Solu-
tion’, ArXiv:physics/0510240.
20. A. P. Kirilyuk, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 21, Iss. 4: 455 (1996);
ArXiv:quant-ph/9511034, quant-ph/9511035, quant-ph/9511036.
21. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Causal Wave Mechanics and the Advent of Complexity. IV. Dy-
namical Origin of Quantum Indeterminacy and Wave Reduction’,
ArXiv:quant-ph/9511037.
22. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Dynamically Multivalued, Not Unitary or Stochastic, Opera-
tion of Real Quantum, Classical and Hybrid Micro-Machines’,
ArXiv:physics/0211071.
23. A. P. Kirilyuk, Nanosistemi, Nanomateriali, Nanotehnologii, 10, Iss. 2: 217
(2012).
24. F. Wilczek, ‘Origins of Mass’, to appear in Central European Journal of Phys-
ics; ArXiv:1206.7114.
25. A. S. Kronfeld, ‘Lattice Gauge Theory and the Origin of Mass’, to appear in 100
Years of Subatomic Physics (Eds. E. Henley and S. Ellis); ArXiv:1209.3468.
26. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc., 253: 1078 (1961).
27. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc., 255: 1052 (1962).
28. L. de Broglie, La Thermodynamique de la Particule Isolée (Thermodynamique
Cachée des Particules) (Paris: Gauthier–Villars: 1964).
29. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc. (série B), 264: 1041 (1967).
30. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc., 177: 507 (1923).
31. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc., 177: 548 (1923).
32. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc., 177: 630 (1923).
33. L. de Broglie, Thèse de doctorat soutenue à Paris le 25 novembre 1924, Annales
de Physique (10e série), III: 22 (1925); Reproduced in: L. de Broglie, Re-
cherches sur la Théorie des Quanta (Paris: Fondation Louis de Broglie: 1992).
34. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc., 234: 265 (1952).
35. L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sc. (série B), 277: 71 (1973).
36. L. de Broglie, Recherches d’un Demi-Siècle (Paris: Albin Michel: 1976).
37. G. Lochak, Louis de Broglie: Un Prince de la Science (Paris: Flammarion: 1992).
38. L. de Broglie, Une Tentative d’Interprétation Causale et Non-Linéaire de la Mé-
canique Ondulatoire: la Théorie de la Double Solution (Paris: Gauthier–Villars:
1956) ; L. de Broglie, Nonlinear Wave Mechanics (Amsterdam: Elsevier: 1960).
39. L. de Broglie, Journal de Physique, 20: 963 (1959); L. de Broglie, ‘Divers Pro-
blèmes Concernant les Ondes et les Corpuscules. (P. III) La Théorie de la Double
Solution et la Loi du Guidage’, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 22:
336 (1997).
40. A. P. Kirilyuk, ‘Universal Science of Complexity: Consistent Understanding of
Ecological, Living and Intelligent System Dynamics’, ArXiv:0706.3219.
41. A.P. Kirilyuk, The Future of Life and the Future of Our Civilisation. Vol. IV
(Ed. V. Burdyuzha) (Dordrecht: Springer: 2006), p. 411;
ArXiv:physics/0509234.
42. A.P. Kirilyuk, Network Control and Engineering for QoS, Security, and Mobili-
ty, IV, IFIP. Vol. 229 (Ed. D. Gaïti) (Boston: Springer: 2007), p. 1;
ArXiv:physics/0603132.
248 A. P. KIRILYUK
43. A. P. Kirilyuk, Nucl. Instr. and Meth., B69, Iss. 2–3: 200 (1992).
44. P. H. Dederichs, Solid State Physics: Advances in Research and Applications.
Vol. 27 (Eds. H. Ehrenreich, F. Seitz, and D. Turnbull) (New York: Academic
Press: 1972), p. 136.
45. J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A, 757: 102 (2005);
ArXiv:nucl-ex/0501009.
46. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Field Theory. 6th Russian Edition (Moscow:
Nauka: 1989).
47. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, Iss. 17: 3370 (1999);
ArXiv:hep-ph/9905221.
48. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, Iss. 23: 4690 (1999);
ArXiv:hep-th/9906064.
49. A.P. Kirilyuk, Proceedings of Institute of Mathematics of N.A.S. of Ukraine,
50, Part 2: 821 (2004); ArXiv:physics/0404006.
50. A.P. Kirilyuk, Against the Tide: A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics
& Astronomy Get Done (Eds. M. López Corredoira and C. Castro Perelman) (Bo-
ca Raton: Universal Publishers: 2008), p. 179; ArXiv:0705.4562.
51. J. Horgan, The End of Science. Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight
of the Scientific Age (Helix: Addison–Wesley: 1996).
52. N. Maxwell, Is Science Neurotic? (London: Imperial College Press: 2004).
53. L. Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a
Science, and What Comes Next (Boston: Houghton Mifflin: 2006).
54. S. Weinberg, ‘The Crisis of Big Science’, The New-York Review of Books, 10
May (2012); http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-
big-science/.
55. H. Ghassib, ‘Is Physics Sick? [In Praise of Classical Physics]’,
ArXiv:1209.0592.
56. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago University Press:
1970).
|