Is the Standard Model overly speculative ?

[RaymondKennethPetry]

Is the Standard Model overly speculative ... Or does it need intelligent, freer interpretation ...?--

cf "One part of the Standard Model is not yet well established. We do not know what causes the fundamental particles to have masses. The simplest idea is called the Higgs mechanism. This mechanism involves one additional particle, called the Higgs boson, and one additional force type, mediated by exchanges of this boson.

The Higgs particle has not yet been observed. Today we can only say that if it exists, it must have a mass greater than about 80GeV/c2. Searches for a more massive the Higgs boson are beyond the scope of the present facilities at SLAC or elsewhere. Future facilities, such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, or upgrades of present facilities to higher energies are intended to search for the Higgs particle and distinguish between competing concepts.

Thus, this one aspect of the Standard Model does not yet have the status of "theory" but still remains in the realm of hypothesis or model."

"...Thus, this one aspect of the Standard Model does not yet have the status of "theory" but still remains in the realm of hypothesis or model."

Mass, -and its equivalent, energy,- are fundamental to physics theory ... The whole Standard Model is just a model, not yet a theory...

Ray.

REF: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/model.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Before you play "quote some website", try to UNDERSTAND the content and the physics of the thing you are challenging. If not, you know nothing else beyond the superficial quotations. This is not a religious forum where quoting some holy books is a necessary and sufficient criteria. Physics is NOT done this way.

Either you understand the exact physics, or quit playing this game. You are ignoring the tons of experimental evidence of the standard model, yet you don't have any qualm at making claims that have ZERO experimental evidence.

Zz.

 

[ahrkron]

"...Thus, this one aspect of the Standard Model does not yet have the status of "theory" but still remains in the realm of hypothesis or model."

The story is more or less like this: there are thousands of independent measurements that have been put together in what we call the "Standard Model". The development has been guided by very precise experiments and, for many years now, ALL predictions of the model have been confirmed by experiment.

Just to make it clear: when I write "thousands of independent measurements" I'm referring to the facts that:
1. All particle properties (mass, lifetime, probabilities of decay to different types of particles, the width of their mass distributions, charges, electric and magnetic moments, etc), published every two years in a one-thousand page summary that you can consult in http://pdg.lbl.gov,
2. Each of those properties is often measured by more than one group of people, each group independent of others.

The experimental support for the SM is extremely solid. The issue is that it also predicts a Higgs particle, which has not been discovered yet but, as we speak, thousands of people are working on the construction of the LHC, which has as one of its main goals the search for this particle.

It would be fantastic to find it, since it will allow us to measure its mass and to understand better how the full scheme is put together.

On the other hand, if not found, we'll need to think very hard about how on Earth all the rest of the predictions work so well. A new explanation for the origin of mass would be needed, but such new explanation has to be compatible with all those thousands of measurements that are already well established. Personally, I think that would be a more interesting challenge for this generation.

 

[dextercioby]

Actually theoretical physics works with models. A theory is a model of reality seen through the eyes of mathematics and physical terminology. The concept of 'model' in theoretical physics is crucial.

SM=hypothesis, no way.

Daniel.

 

[Hans de Vries]

"Thus, this one aspect of the Standard Model does not yet have the status of "theory" but still remains in the realm of hypothesis or model."

Mass, -and its equivalent, energy,- are fundamental to physics theory ... The whole Standard Model is just a model, not yet a theory...

Ray.

You're contradicting the quote you make. Throwing the whole
Standard Model away because one aspect has a more hypo-
thetical nature? You would also throw away Maxwells equations
because they are part of the Standard Model.

The Higgs field isn't just made up. It stems from the theory that
very successfully models the unification of the ElectroMagnetic and
Weak forces with scores of testable (and tested!) predictions.

This doesn't mean that the mass-generation mechanism via Higgs
coupling is the therefor the only possibility, and also, the current
Standard Model doesn't tell anything about the mechanism which
determines the amount of coupling and therefor the lepton masses.


Regards, Hans

 

[arivero]

Mass, -and its equivalent, energy,- are fundamental to physics theory ... The whole Standard Model is just a model, not yet a theory...
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/model.html

Yep, it is a model to guide the research. Actually two models are used by experimentalists, the Minimal Standard Model and the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, and they check how the observed measurements fit or do not fit into the calculations from the model.

 

[RaymondKennethPetry]

It's been thirty-some years, on this model, and they still don't have the obvious notion that fundamental particles are doubly-convolved "smoke-rings" in the aether (Kelvin's model for atoms), which thus exhibit mass because they internally roll and bi-roll as they go (helical rings lefthand or righthand for charge-type), which rolling takes time, and is slower, and whence is mass,-ive ...

I therefor assume they are searching for Higgs-crusher virtual-particles to explain why masses exist only at certain values,- not what constitutes mass itself: as 80GeV can't constitute fundamental particles themselves but may act as spawning surfaces or crushers in the aether ... indeed getting, their, notion is not an easy presumption: I do not take lightly.

Old Models:
I just read a 1928 article on electron reflection on nickel crystals, and thought a phrase about direction of the electric field was perpendicular to what we know ... but, just now reading all your replies (thank you), I remembered that before about 1940's physicists thought that light was a longitudinal wave, rather than the transversal we know better ... Models are like parts of speech in a developing language ... I came because I understand physics, not just to learn the language. So I ask questions.

New Models:
In college spacetime physics of the early standard-model era (1970's) we were presented with "evidence" for Newton-Euclidean classical physics as verified millions times over,- and likewise the Einsteinian relativistic physics millions times over ... And I proved the headlight effect (it was just a little mathematics from high school college-concurrent calculus), and got A's ... But we weren't shown the starlight aberration as in-model or out-model, and I read recently that that was complained-of ca 1913 ... long ago: These models are old.

If it weren't for the fact that high-speed muons "confirmed" Special Relativity, I suppose I shouldn't mention it on this subforum for high energy physics, since last I read, it wasn't all compatible ... Or is it, now?

(At times I feel physicists want to pave the way over the hill, and not bother with what the hill is.)

Ray.

 

[vanesch]

Think I'm going to help this thread out of its suffering...