Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?

From: Landle (landlematt_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: 20 Jan 2005 17:23:51 -0800

Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? That is the
question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
sharing some passages.

In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated

"Other reasons for extending the Standard Model arise from
phenomena it cannot explain or cannot even accommodate:

1. All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should
contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the
emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this
so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the
universe long ago or expanded it to much greater size. The
Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the
cosmological constant problem.

2. The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing
down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the
matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is
accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed
"dark energy") cannot be Standard Model physics.

3. There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a
second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of
extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields
responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.

4. If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of
energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and
antimatter (CP symmetry). But instead the stars and nebulae are
made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their an.
tiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). This matter asymmetry
cannot be explained by the Standard Model.

5. About a quarter of the universe is invisible cold dark matter
that cannot be particles of the Standard Model.

6. In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field
(which is associated with the Higgs boson) cause particles to
have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the very special
forms that the Higgs interactions must take.

7. Quantum corrections apparently make the calculated Higgs boson
mass huge, which in turn would make all particle masses huge.
That result cannot be avoided in the Standard Model and thus
causes a serious conceptual problem.

8. The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not
have the same structure as the other three forces.

9. The values of the masses of the quarks and leptons (such as
the electron and neutrinos) cannot be explained by the Standard
Model.

10. The Standard Model has three "generations" of particles. The
everyday world is made up entirely of first-generation particles,
and that generation appears to form a consistent theory on its
own. The Standard Model describes all three generations, but it
cannot explain why more than one exists."

(The author continues:) "In expressing these mysteries, when I
say the Standard Model cannot explain a given phenomenon, I do
not mean that the theory has not yet explained it but might do so
one day. The Standard Model is a highly constrained theory, and
it cannot ever explain the phenomena listed above. Possible
explanations do exist. One reason the supersymmetric extension is
attractive to many physicists is that it can address all but the
second and the last three of these mysteries. String theory (in
which particles are represented by tiny, one-dimensional entities
instead of point objects) addresses the last three [see "The
Theory Formerly Known as Strings," by Michael J. Duff; SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN, February 1998. The phenomena that the Standard Model
cannot explain are clues to how it will be extended. It is not
surprising that there are questions that the Standard Model
cannot answer - every successful theory in science has increased
the number of answered questions but has left some unanswered.
And even though improved understanding has led to new questions
that could not be formulated earlier, the number of unanswered
fundamental questions has continued to decrease. Some of these 10
mysteries demonstrate another reason why particle physics today
is entering a new era. It has become clear that many of the
deepest problems in cosmology have their solutions in particle
physics, so the fields have merged into "particle cosmology."
Only from cosmological studies could we learn that the universe
is matter (and not antimatter) or that the universe is about a
quarter cold dark matter. Any theoretical understanding of these
phenomena must explain how they arise as part of the e volution
of the universe after the big bang. But cosmology alone cannot
tell us what particles make up cold dark matter, or how the
matter asymmetry is actually generated, or how inflation
originates. Understanding of the largest and the smallest
phenomena must come together."

---------------

Back to Landle....

You are assuming String theory and supersymmetric particles can
solve them. But what if the Standard Model is misunderstood. What
if the forces were not really caused by virtual particles but by
something else like interplay of the Aether and matter. Thomson
has a very clever mechanism by which the forces are caused by
Aether dynamics with complete mathematics. But like I said. Let's
consider their work as preliminary with many mistakes that should
be corrected. I pointed out their work again because it
demonstrate that there are other ways to derive at the forces
without virtual particles. Now exploring other mechanisms is
important.. because you know. If the Standard Model could be
modified, but it was not.. and scientists further add more
assumptions to it like inventing a whole generation of
supersymmetic particles, etc. and using arbitrary constants to
make the equations work, you are further messing up the entire
physics framework. I hope some physicists may instead opt to
rework or remodel the the Standard Model rather than extending
it. We need balance. Don't assume the Standard Model is perfect
and putting all the resources to adding more particles and
theoretical construct to it the explain dark matter, etc. Go back
to the time when Schrodinger was wondering what the wave
probability amplitude represent. Max Born assumed it is just
probability and mathematics and it gets stuck to this day. What
if there are hidden variables not yet discovered (so not yet
debunked) that can explain Quantum Mechanics objectively? Then
the same principle can restructure QED, QCD, etc. So rather than
extending Standard Model. Maybe we should take it apart and
rework from scratch.

Landle

Relevant Pages

  • What is the Standard Model
    ... The Standard Model refers to the consensus of the best estimate at ... mechanical viewpoint which includes electroweak and stong force ... particles; this consensus includes specifying particles mass of all ... These effects are tiny under high-energy Physics situations, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... > so-called Standard Model of particle physics. ... The Standard Model is that which is given by the Standard Model ... > mechanical viewpoint which includes electroweak and stong force ... > particles; this consensus includes specifying particles mass of all ...
    (sci.physics)
  • What is the Standard Model
    ... The Standard Model refers to the consensus of the best estimate at ... mechanical viewpoint which includes electroweak and stong force ... particles; this consensus includes specifying particles mass of all ... These effects are tiny under high-energy Physics situations, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... > so-called Standard Model of particle physics. ... The Standard Model is that which is given by the Standard Model ... > mechanical viewpoint which includes electroweak and stong force ... > particles; this consensus includes specifying particles mass of all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?
    ... >Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? ... All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should ... >matter in the universe. ... >that cannot be particles of the Standard Model. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast