OK - so give me an example of a particle with a short lifetime that is NOT a particle, explaining why differ from everyone else in this? You made this up -->you have to answer
I stop here. The best of the best model physics has (as said by THH!) QED/QFT highly exact - is not even able to measure its most basic particles being quarks. Up & down quarks are supposed to represent proton & neutrons that form 99.9% of our universal matter. Their masses (up down quarks) simply are unknown in common thinking as they are less precise as a wether forecasts. E.g up quark with 50% error margin.
(CERN freely states that it was never able to separate the two up quarks...)
Most particles QED/QFT claims to be real are virtual particles wherein we should not mix up such particles that are long time stable as p, e, n, muon, neutrino and some extra heavy ones we don't yet understand.
QED/QFT is a theory about a virtual possibility how kinetic experiments can be predicted. If you live in a virtual world like CERN physicists do, then you can be happy with the current model as it tells you some qualities of the virtual outcome of your virtual particle experiments. On the other side of the field, in solid state physics, QM and virtual particles are very helpful.
The impact of CERN for real live and basic physics understanding is virtually 0. CERN misses all neutral particles that cannot be generated by an accelerator because these particles would need a symmetric generation environment like LENR reactions provide it. There is enough evidence such particles do exist. (Urutskov)
If CERN manages to switch back into providing some help with real physics as e.g. Holmlid does, it could again gain some reputation.
The construction of a larger storage ring for CERN would simply be nuts as the next higher allowed proton resonance would need a ring around Europe or may be even a bit larger ....It's also a question of the magnets used...