/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12005307]

Can someone explain the standard model to me please?

[Anonymous No.12005308]

fundamental particles have different properties, so we've collected them here organized by some of these properties

[Anonymous No.12005322]

>>12005308
Have they only confirmed particles which fit the model or were there phenomenon detected which wasn't part of the model? At what point was the model predicted and how many of the particles were confirmed after the model was introduced?

[Anonymous No.12005338]

>>12005307
Read a book.

[Anonymous No.12005345]

>>12005322
The standard model evolved over time to match the fundamental particles that we've observed.
All of your other questions are simple google searches and can be found on the wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.12005798]

>>12005307
It was discovered in the 50s through observations of particle decay paths in bubble chambers that the statistics of the angles they travelled in lined up with the operations on several distinct symmetry groups. Everything since then except for neutrino flavors has been predicted prior to observation.

[Anonymous No.12005959]

>>12005307

[Anonymous No.12006400]

>>12005307
Explains everything, forgets to include why things fall.
Cats spend rest of eternity working on problem

[Anonymous No.12006459]

>>12005307
some big lagrangian with a bunch of terms in it the end

[El Arcón No.12006544]

>Can someone explain the standard model to me please?
After people invented quantum field theory, they couldn't get it to predict the fundamental particles they were seeing in experiments. So, in order to make the best use of quantum field theory, they built this model which adds to QFT all the stuff that got learned about fundamental particles over the years. If someone ever figures out why we have the fundamental particles that we have, then the standard model will go away and we will use the thing that explains the particles instead of the thing that supposes they are the ones we already saw. I call this problem "the fundamental problem of quantum field theory."

When they build QFT from the classical mattress problem, which is to model a continuous field as a large number of discrete oscillators such as a mattress made of springs, there is a pretty simple way to describe the photon as a vibration of the lattice. Pic related, I showed how all the possible types of vibrations in my cosmological lattice are exactly the same as the types of particles which are granted by the standard model (which reflects experiment.) So, in the future someone will build a 14D mattress and workout the spectrum of vibrations and then that will replace the standard model because i solved the fundamental problem of QFT in early 2013.

[El Arcón No.12006596]

>>12005322
Neutrino mass proves the standard model is wrong. The SM requires left-chiral neutrinos only but for flavor oscillation to occur, something which is observed, right-chirality has to be allowed. So when you take "almost right except with one little problem" as a subset of things that are wrong, the SM is wrong.

This is actually an interesting problem. Clocks don't measure the passage of time on the lightlike interval but time passage is required for oscillation. Since neutrino flavor oscillates, neutrinos must move on timelike intervals, meaning that the move slower than the speed of light. Massless particles move on lightlike intervals and neutrinos can't be that if they have characteristics which oscillate. A left-chiral particle has its spin and momentum vectors pointing oppositely, and the SM all neutrinos have to to be left-chiral. However, if you speed up faster than the neutrino, then relative to your frame of reverence, the momentum vector would point in the other way, meaning it is a right-chiral particle. This is like how a car passing you looks like it has momentum in one direction but if you pass the car, it looks like the car you're passing is moving in the other direction relative to your own inertial frame.

So, if neutrinos oscillate, then they must move slower than the speed of light, and that means they must have left- and right- chiral states. This can also be expressed in terms of all massive particles having to move slower than light.

[Anonymous No.12006610]

>>12006596
the standard model isn't necessarily "wrong," but it's better to say it's "incomplete"
we've known for a while that it isn't the full description of the universe, but it doesn't lead to any inaccurate predictions

your diagram also conflates chirality with helicity

[El Arcón No.12006628]

>>12005798
>Everything since then except for neutrino flavors has been predicted prior to observation.
There's some nuance there. No one knows why there's three generations of particles. No one know why matter particles are split into two groups (leptons and quarks) instead of just one group or five groups, or eleven. Why are there a few force carriers but not several? Literally none of that stuff has been predicted. Basically he meant, "We were able to make an accurate prediction for the W and Z mass before we observed those particles, and a few other things worked out too." W and Z were big successes, but even with the particle they found in 2012 no one had any idea what the mass would be. There were guesses from 100GeV all the way up to 1TeV, and the SM would have allowed any value in there. If the 2012 particle turns out not to have spin-0, meaning it is not the Higgs, then that will mean most people didn't know what the spin would be either. Poster here
>>12005798
makes a huge overstatement of the extent of the things we've been able to predict without first measuring them, though there are several big successes. Besides neutrino oscillations not being predicted, there is now an emergent and well recognized anomaly in the nuclear radius of muonic hydrogen. SM says the radius of the nucleus shouldn't depend on whether the atomic lepton is an electron or a muon, and now we have several experiments which show it does depend on that. This
>Muonic Hydrogen and the Proton Radius Puzzle
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0905
is as in violation of the SM as neutrino oscillations.

[El Arcón No.12006634]

>>12006610
If the SM said, "We don't know what chirality states are allowed for neutrinos," then I would agree. However, it says, "LEFT-CHIRAL ONLY!!!" For this reason, I say that it is wrong. Pic related, SM is wrong due to neutrino experiments.

[El Arcón No.12006638]

>>12006610
>your diagram also conflates chirality with helicity
yes, oops

[Anonymous No.12006651]

>>12006634
I still assert that it's incomplete, because if we discover sterile RH neutrinos then all we have to do is extend the SM, not that anything that's currently predicted is "wrong," just that saying "LEFT-CHIRAL ONLY!!!" is true in the sense that only LH neutrinos interact via the weak force.
I agree that we need to find a new breakthrough in physics but I'm more hesitant than you to claim that what we currently have is wrong.

[Anonymous No.12006654]

>>12006628
>proton radius puzzle
this was solved late 2019. see:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/1007

granted we don't know why the earlier experiments for electronic hydrogen gave the wrong radius, but we now have two experiments where electronic hydrogen and muonic hydrogen yield the same radius, so it's pretty reasonable to assume that it has been resolved.

[Anonymous No.12006665]

The Higgs shouldn't be considered part of the standard model. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is epistemologically questionable.

[Anonymous No.12006679]

>>12006665
>the standard model shouldn't include something we know exists

[El Arcón No.12006845]

>>12006651
I would make the distinction, however, that every LH neutrino is an RH neutrino in another Lorentz frame but a weak interaction involving conserved lepton number is always going to a weak interaction in any frame

>I'm more hesitant than you to claim that what we currently have is wrong.
That makes sense since I'm deliberately naysaying something that works pretty well. Really my grievance against SM that it gets credit for answering everything when it doesn't even try to answer any of the fundamental questions. That leads to the importance of the passed over questions getting glossed over in the minds of certain parties.

>>12006654
that paywall doesn't explain much. this says it's unsolved in pubic olain text:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle
>The proton radius puzzle is an unanswered problem in physics relating to the size of the proton.
Someone would have updated it if it was solved, likely one of the people who created it, IMO.

>>12006665
>>12006679
We could never say that the particle discovered in 2012 is the Higgs before we know what the particle's spin is. If that particle has spin not equal to zero, then we still don't know if the Higgs exists.

>>12006665
>Spontaneous symmetry breaking is epistemologically questionable.
This statement is not only based, but it is red-pilled as well. My spin-1 particle is one million times more like a thing in normal physics where spontaneity is not an ingredient. The particles or my model are the lattice vibrations, nothing fancy. It's completely mundane once the lattice is in place, and the lattice wasn't much of a leap to begin with.