Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?
From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 01/21/05
- Next message: keith: "Re: [OT] I hate being American"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc."
- In reply to: Landle: "Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?"
- Reply: FrediFizzx: "Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:42:10 -0500
On 20 Jan 2005 17:23:51 -0800, "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>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.
No, but it can in Dual Space theory. Here we begin with a universe of
e-p+ pairs, of which some electrons are taken out and accelerated to
the speed of light (our standard condition). This forms the particle
world-ours. The positrons left behind automatically form a mirror
image (that should be clear) in the form of an equal number of
antiparticles.
Our physical laws can only operate in the solid (Espace) where the
positrons exists, not in the dismal vacuum! Removing the electron half
of the pairs during the creationn weakens Espace, allowing the Navier
Stokes equation to take hold as shown in Eq. 1 of my paper at
http://www.dualspace.net.
I left out all the preliminary stuff to get right to the gravity part
in the paper, to tempt the neophyte who knew a bit about relativity
but was ready to quit, but I am beginning to see that even this
rudimentary approach is too much for most.
JP
>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
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
- Next message: keith: "Re: [OT] I hate being American"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Taking Apart Quantum Mechanics, etc."
- In reply to: Landle: "Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?"
- Reply: FrediFizzx: "Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
