Beyond the Standard Model: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with '== Dominion Lede == I have a number of not well worked out presentiments about Modern physics which I can draft out here. en:Beyond the Standard Model was pretty much a stu...') |
No edit summary |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Dominion Lede == | == Dominion Lede == | ||
{{TOCright}} | |||
I have a number of strongly held but not well worked out presentiments about Modern physics which I can draft out here. [[:en:Beyond the Standard Model]] was pretty much a stub at the point it was cloned here. Some of the presentiments: | |||
# [[:en:General Relativity]] and the concept of spacetime generally. It seems to me that saying that space or space time have a non-Euclidean geometry is while true and an advance over the previous situation. vacuous. Space and spacetime are both ideas, cognitions and perceptions ''of'' physical realities. This theory seems to be nothing more than a mathematical advance not an an advance in physics per se. | |||
# [[:en:Quark Confinement]] similar situation. Underlying these is the question: what does it mean for a thing to exist as a physical object? I would say it must first of all be a thing not a nothing, i.e. it must be matter or energy. Unlike space-time quarks may be assumed to be real objects. At this point I haven't been able to understand that they are and therefore suspect they aren't. More specifically. I reject the assertion that partons have been "observed" based on observation of the production of actual particles in experiments where inference of an internal structure composed of the partons or "quarks". I don't deny that the heretofore fundamental particles may have structure, but I do deny that any has been observed, rather than merely inferred. | |||
# [[:en:General Relativity]] and the concept of spacetime generally. It seems to me that saying that space or space time have a non-Euclidean geometry is while true and an advance over the previous situation. vacuous. Space and spacetime are both ideas, perceptions physical realities. This theory seems to be | # Development Rut. Modern physics has not completed and the current social structure of the sciences I suspect inhibits the synthesis of the available information on the fine structure of the universe begun in the late 19th century with the modern atomic theory. Moreover it seems to me the mathematical understanding has become an end or has been erroneously presumed to lead inevitably to an end. In any case with the first significant [[:en:LHC]] results coming now there could be some movement here soon. | ||
# [[:en:Quark Confinement]] similar situation. Underlying these is the question: what does it mean for a thing to exist as a physical object? I would say it must first of all be a thing not a nothing, i.e. it must be matter or energy. Unlike space-time quarks may be assumed to be real objects. At this point I haven't been able to understand that they are and therefore suspect they aren't. | |||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
In [[physics]], the [[Standard Model]] of [[particle physics]] is currently the best description of all experimental data.<ref>[http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory.html Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Virtual Visitor Center]</ref> | In [[:en:physics]], the [[:en:Standard Model]] of [[:en:particle physics]] is currently the best description of all experimental data.<ref>[http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory.html Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Virtual Visitor Center]</ref> | ||
Nevertheless, there are reasons to think that there are phenomena that are not accurately described by this theory and | Nevertheless, there are reasons to think that there are phenomena that are not accurately described by this theory and | ||
"Beyond the Standard Model" physics studies possible extensions to the Standard Model that will be probed in | "Beyond the Standard Model" physics studies possible extensions to the Standard Model that will be probed in | ||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
* a theory of [[:en:Neutrino#Mass|neutrino masses]] and mixings | * a theory of [[:en:Neutrino#Mass|neutrino masses]] and mixings | ||
=== Commentary === | |||
The above is fallacious in saying that it is the best description of all data because the standard model isn't a unified theory at all. Modern physics is really the Standard Model + Gravitation. Gravitation isn't a part of the standard model. Gravitation is dismissed in particle physics because its magnitude there is negligible. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Latest revision as of 18:19, 26 November 2011
Dominion Lede
I have a number of strongly held but not well worked out presentiments about Modern physics which I can draft out here. en:Beyond the Standard Model was pretty much a stub at the point it was cloned here. Some of the presentiments:
- en:General Relativity and the concept of spacetime generally. It seems to me that saying that space or space time have a non-Euclidean geometry is while true and an advance over the previous situation. vacuous. Space and spacetime are both ideas, cognitions and perceptions of physical realities. This theory seems to be nothing more than a mathematical advance not an an advance in physics per se.
- en:Quark Confinement similar situation. Underlying these is the question: what does it mean for a thing to exist as a physical object? I would say it must first of all be a thing not a nothing, i.e. it must be matter or energy. Unlike space-time quarks may be assumed to be real objects. At this point I haven't been able to understand that they are and therefore suspect they aren't. More specifically. I reject the assertion that partons have been "observed" based on observation of the production of actual particles in experiments where inference of an internal structure composed of the partons or "quarks". I don't deny that the heretofore fundamental particles may have structure, but I do deny that any has been observed, rather than merely inferred.
- Development Rut. Modern physics has not completed and the current social structure of the sciences I suspect inhibits the synthesis of the available information on the fine structure of the universe begun in the late 19th century with the modern atomic theory. Moreover it seems to me the mathematical understanding has become an end or has been erroneously presumed to lead inevitably to an end. In any case with the first significant en:LHC results coming now there could be some movement here soon.
Overview
In en:physics, the en:Standard Model of en:particle physics is currently the best description of all experimental data.[1] Nevertheless, there are reasons to think that there are phenomena that are not accurately described by this theory and "Beyond the Standard Model" physics studies possible extensions to the Standard Model that will be probed in up-coming experiments.
There are several areas where "Beyond the Standard Model" physics focuses:
- the en:hierarchy problem
- the missing matter problem (en:dark matter and en:dark energy)
- the cosmological constant problem
- the strong CP problem
In addition to these subjects, there are also attempts at relating different phenomena and parameters to a more fundamental theory. A partial classification of these attempts are
- gauge coupling unification
- a theory of quark masses and mixings
- a theory of neutrino masses and mixings
Commentary
The above is fallacious in saying that it is the best description of all data because the standard model isn't a unified theory at all. Modern physics is really the Standard Model + Gravitation. Gravitation isn't a part of the standard model. Gravitation is dismissed in particle physics because its magnitude there is negligible.
See also
- en:Big Bang
- Fundamental physical constants: The Standard Model
- en:Holographic principle
- en:String theory
- en:Theory of everything
- en:Unsolved problems in physics
- en:Quantum mechanics
- en:Quantum triviality
