Is the "Standard Model" bullshit?

[Anonymous No.15305281]

Why is it called the "standard model" when there's so much that it doesn't account for?
>Gravity
>Dark energy
>Dark matter
>Baryon asymmetry
>Neutrino oscillations
More things that I probably don't understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model

Shouldn't it be called the "Standard Theory" or something like that?
"Standard Model" sounds way too cocky given all of the limitations of this "model".

[Anonymous No.15305309]

Other problems: Most of the "particles" are only found in the insane environments of a particle accelerator, and thus may not even be "elementary particles", but the result of experiments in particle accelerators.
For example, there are approximately 10^90 particles in the universe (not counting dark matter/energy), and we've only found ONE Higgs Boson, which decayed within 1.56 x 10^-22 s.

Which begs the question: are these man-made particles? What does it matter if these particles don't exist outside of particle accelerators?

[Anonymous No.15305332]

>Higgs Boson: decays within 1.56 x 10^-22 s
>Charm quark: decays into Strange quark
>Strange quark: decays into up quark (Fuck off Kurzgesaget)
>Top quark: decays into bottom quark
>Bottom quark: decays into up quark
>Muon: decays within 2.197 ×10^−6 s
>Tau: decays within 2.903 ×10^−13 s
>Tau neutrino: don't really know much about it
>W and Z bosons: created in particle accelerators, and decay rapidly. Never observed outside of particle accelerators?
>Gluons - haven't been directly observed yet

[Anonymous No.15307241]

These physicists man, it's never enough. They always want more money from taxpayers to fund their bullshit.
https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2023/020878/muon-accelerator

[Anonymous No.15307246]

>>15305281
>another schizo science denial thread on sci

Yeah, I'm sure all the PhD physicists who work at MIT and Stanford and Harvard are all wrong, and some qanon poltard internet schizo has it all figured out.

Take your fucking meds.

[Anonymous No.15307254]

>>15307246
Well, what do you think? Do you have an opinion?
Do you think all of these particles that decay insanely rapidly exist outside of particle accelerators?
Do you think we may detect them around the sun, or a neutron star one day?
Do you think there's a CHANCE they are entirely man-made and don't actually exist in nature?

[Anonymous No.15307259]

>>15307246
>standardtard immediately brings up politics
Imagine my shock.

[Anonymous No.15307275]

>>15307246
imagine getting in defensive position this quick, you have nothing to back your standard meme up kike

[Anonymous No.15307282]

>>15305281
>Is the "Standard Model" bullshit?
yes

[Anonymous No.15307287]

>>15305281
It's the STANDARD model, not the COMPLETE model. Why is this confusing to you? Are you ESL?

[Anonymous No.15307295]

>>15307287
So you don't think the word "standard" denotes any semblance of completeness? Are you sure about that??
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard

Physicists (and scientists in general) have a poor and oftentimes unscientific use of language. For example, astrophysicists still refer to red giant explosions (which result in Neutron stars) as "planetary nebular", instead of coming up with a new term for it that isn't a misnomer.

That's why I am no longer going to use the term "Standard Model" when referring to this.
More appropriate terminology would be the "Theory of Elementary Particles". Especially when considering all the glaring holes that it has, and the fact that it included particles which may only be man-made.

[Anonymous No.15307297]

>>15307295
>So you don't think the word "standard" denotes any semblance of completeness?
It literally doesn't. You are an ESL retard and your thread is extremely low quality.

[Anonymous No.15307306]

>>15307246
As an aside, physicists have no incentive to disprove something that would cost them their jobs.
They have every incentive to create bullshit that justifies their spending, including multi-billion dollar particle accelerators, which of course are all paid for by taxpayers.
Have any of these discoveries had any ROI for regular people?
CERN has only found ONE "Higgs Boson", which apparently is a super important particle? But if that's the case then why is there only one? Shouldn't there be millions? Shouldn't Higgs Bosons be all over the place? Shouldn't they not decay within trillionths of a second?
Since 2008, CERN hasn't discovered anything that has improved the lives of people who aren't particle physicists.

[Anonymous No.15307307]

>>15307297
Okay, you're wrong.
Anyways, what do you think of this: >>15305332
Should particles that decay this quickly be a part of the Theory of Elementary Particles? Or should they be excluded since they do not exist outside of particle accelerators?

[Anonymous No.15307319]

>>15305281
>Gravity
The Higgs boson is right fucking there in your pic. It does not contradict with GR (which may or may not be BS) in any way.
>Dark energy
Skill issue.
>Dark matter
Cold interstellar gas is neither mysterious nor unexpected.
>Baryon asymmetry
Not a problem at all, nothing in the theory implies the universe _should_ have symmetry. This is a cosmology issue.
>Neutrino oscillations
Only valid complaint.

[Anonymous No.15307349]

>>15307319
Okay so explain gravity using the current Theory of Elementary particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model
>Higgs Boson
Only exists in particle accelerators.
>Dark energy
Not accounted for yet, so the theory is incomplete
>Baryon asymmetry
Okay, not an expert on that.
Also I forgot to mention the Strong CP problem, and no one else brought it up yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem

[Anonymous No.15307363]

>>15307319
>Cold interstellar gas is neither mysterious nor unexpected.
It's a little more complicated than that. Dark matter is something we haven't seen before. It's cold interstellar gas, yeah, but it's also non-interacting, which makes it weird. It's got all the properties of neutrinos except neutrinos are hot and very lightweight.

[Jealous No.15307400]

[Jealous No.15307401]

>>15307400
>>15307400

[Anonymous No.15307413]

>>15307400
>>15307401
Is that really worth reading? Not sure if I trust his story for why his papers were rejected.
https://vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker
https://jonathantooker.com/
https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ukbz6/i_am_the_anonymous_physicist_featured_in_the/
https://old.reddit.com/user/Anonazon

[Anonymous No.15307438]

>>15307349
>Okay so explain gravity using the current Theory of Elementary particles?
Gravity is an observable force which exists between particles containing mass due to the Higgs mechanism. Without the Higgs mechanism you could not have spontaneous symmetry breaking in bosons and they would be massless contrary to what we measure.

>Only exists in particle accelerators.
No, it is only detectable in accelerators, the Higgs field exists everywhere.

As an analogy you can experience forces in an electromagnetic field easily, but producing and observing a single photon is much more difficult.

>Not accounted for yet, so the theory is incomplete
It is predicted by GR, so GR is incomplete, not the SM. No one has developed an accurate field theory as far as predicting gravity yet, but this is certainly possible without discovering new particles.

>unsolved problems
All of these tend to be posed as more fundamental questions than what the standard model is about. Their proposed solutions usually do not violate the SM.

Standard ia a good term.

[Anonymous No.15307451]

>>15307413
No, it's not worth reading in the slightest unless you enjoy polluting your mind with schizophrenic arrogance.

[Anonymous No.15307549]

>>15307451
Yeah, reminds me of this by the Bogdanoff twins and their schizo-babble.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230978143_Topological_field_theory_of_the_initial_singularity_of_spacetime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12626

[Cult of Passion No.15307788]

>>15307451
>The best way to learn...is to not.

[Anonymous No.15307824]

>>15307788
Listen Jonathan, I hate to say this, but some books aren't worth reading.
Just because something is in a book doesn't make it accurate or correct.

[Anonymous No.15308108]

>>15307788
I have read your "manuscripts", Tooker. It's very clear to me that you don't understand any of the topics you write about fully. Your problem is that you're reading books and trying to insert your own ideas before you even fully understand the topic. This happens when you have no other honest professionals around you to keep you honest.

You are honestly not stupid, just very ill-disciplined and suffer from delusions of grandeur like most midwits.

[Anonymous No.15308653]

>>15307363
Dark matter might not exist. It might be a fudge in the equations. It’s not “cold interstellar gas” even if it’s real. Not cold in any meaningful way, not interstellar only, and gas isn’t a phase of dark matter.

[Anonymous No.15308661]

>>15305332
>my dick quark: thrusts into your vagina quark

[Anonymous No.15308885]

>>15308653
No, it definitely exists. It's cold, and it's a diffuse gas. Read about the Bullet Cluster.

[Anonymous No.15308892]

>>15305281
It will be exciting when ai can make their own models. It will be entirely about predictive capability and not beauty

[Anonymous No.15309114]

>>15305332
>Gluons - haven't been directly observed yet

I thought that due to confinement they aren't expected to be observed.

[Anonymous No.15309115]

>>15307246
Mods please ban this anti-science poster. He does not add to discussions in any way.

[Anonymous No.15309834]

>>15309114
Possibly, but in that case gluons are just as unlikely to be particles between quarks, and instead would just be the strong nuclear force between quarks.

The fiction that physisists come up with is no doubt creative, but it also likely isn't what is happening in the real world.
For example, "color confinement" doesn't include any colors at all, but is a way for them to describe what they can't explain, namely how quarks use energy to create new quarks instead of being separated into single quarks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement

[Anonymous No.15310185]

>>15309115
All humans are ignorant to some degree. Doesn't meant schizos on image boards are saying anything meaningful.

[Anonymous No.15310347]

>>15307254
you do realise that the conditions inside particle accelerators aren't rare in nature right?
They are pathetically tiny and weak versions of the high energy physics seen daily in the stars
this other anon is right, you're literally just dumbfuck schizo instacontrarians incapable of even considering even the basics of the decades of work that goes into building these modern marvels.

[Anonymous No.15310445]

>>15305309
>are these man-made particles?
They aren't particles at all; they've merely spent their time classifying different collisions with the same particles over and over. That's what happens when you wrongly assume that charge has no velocity dependence. Physicists believe charge is an innate property of particles rather than a convenient mathematical model for the classical interaction that is actually taking place.

[Anonymous No.15310470]

>>15305281
because it accounts for everything else just fine
Model and theory mean the same fucking thing you nitpicking nigger

[Anonymous No.15310544]

>>15307319
Retard. The Higgs boson has nothing to do with gravity.

[Anonymous No.15310550]

>>15305309
"elementary particles" means they are associated to fields in the standard model Lagrangian. No more no less. The relationship between fields in the Lagrangian and observable particles is not straightforward at all in quantum field theory.

[Anonymous No.15310555]

>>15310544
Yeah it does, it explains why force carriers have rest mass. Mass is the fundamental unit of gravity.

[Anonymous No.15310562]

>>15310555
You have no idea what you are talking about. A particle does not need to have a mass term in the Lagrangian in order to couple to gravity. Please don't write posts in an authoritative tone when you are some college dropout that saw a popsci video on Youtube. This forum has enough noise.

[Cult of Passion No.15310563]

>>15307246
>Harvard are all wrong
Yes.

https://youtu.be/wCjlt6otk8Y

[Anonymous No.15310613]

>>15307246
What do you expect, it's an anti-science board now. That's why so many people lately shit on materialism and try to reintroduce mysticism

[Anonymous No.15310626]

>>15310562
What, exactly, do you think a Lagrangian is?

[Anonymous No.15310649]

>>15310347
It's not my fault the current "Theory of Elementary Particles" doesn't cover everything, that's why I made this thread. I never said all of it was wrong, you're just a dickhead-cum-lately who didn't take the time to read everything.
>They are pathetically tiny and weak versions of the high energy physics seen daily in the stars
I suppose, but either way there's a greater than ZERO chance that particle accelerators are creating (i.e. man-made) particles that aren't seen in nature. And if these rapidly decaying particles only exist in extreme environments --like in the accretion disk of a black hole-- I question what their use is to us. >>15305332
Maybe that money would be better spent first developing fusion power? If particle accelerators are necessary for figuring out fusion then I'd like to know which experiments they think will help them out with that.

>>15310470
My gripe was with the two words together.
So if you don't like "Theory of Elementary particles", how about "Theoretical Model of Elementary Particles"?

[Anonymous No.15310725]

>>15310626
Look it up. It's how quantum field theories like the Standard Model are formulated

[Anonymous No.15310763]

>>15310185
>Doesn't meant schizos on image boards are saying anything meaningful.

Then that begs the question, why do you spend all your time trying to interrupt meaningless schizo ramblings?

Unless it is, you don't actually consider them to be that....

[Anonymous No.15310771]

>>15309834
I am aware of color confinement and I don't think anyone brings up the concept without explaining that 'color' in the context of particle physics has nothing to do with light or eyes.

>The fiction that physisists come up with is no doubt creative, but it also likely isn't what is happening in the real world.

Well, isn't one of the amazing things about math that you can create two very different looking equations that mean the same thing?

What is 'really happening'? That may not even be a meaningful conception. Maybe the best we can hope for is mathematical models that produce the correct results. Some models will be simpler and easier to work with, some more powerful.

[Anonymous No.15310776]

>>15305281
I just explain everything in terms of Gauss's Law

[Anonymous No.15310832]

>>15307306
\thread

[Anonymous No.15310880]

>>15310725
I know what a Langrangian is you mouth breathing undergrad, I'm fairly certain you don't.