I am not a physicist, but I have a somewhat philosophical question regarding particle physics.
In chemistry, and biology, there is a notion of synthesis, which has led to the creation of novel molecules and organisms (i.e., ones that did not exist ``naturally'') by the discovery of clever pathways and genetic sequences.
My question is this: is it possible to do this in physics? For example, does the notion of an engineered particle or field make any sense? Note that I don't mean the creation of an instance of an already known or existing but unknown particle, but rather, the creation of a new type of particle that is known NOT to exist naturally.
If the answer is "yes," then I'd like some discussion of theoretical efforts and barriers in that direction. If the answer is a "no," then I'd like a discussion of how that argument can be made and what it relies on, fundamentally.
If the answer is "we don't know yet," then I'd like a discussion of the reason for this uncertainty, and what makes it plausible or implausible.
Update: Nuclear-powered submarines capable of shooting long range ballistic missiles don't occur naturally. They are designed and built from specific functional requirements and disparate raw materials, by human beings. Likewise, my question is this: suppose I specify some requirements for a particle's properties, then is it possible to design and "build" it? Or even this: could we change the property of an existing particle to an unnatural value? I think this must be possible given that particles are just fields. I know this is far fetched, could require humongous energies etc., and is somewhat of a philosophical question, but I'd like to know what, in principle, prevents it.
Or, are particles like integers: there are many of them, and it doesn't make sense to say "we made a new integer that did not exist before"?