Is the Standard Model consistent with current observation?

[rwjefferson]

Is the Standard Model consistent with current observation?

If not, how does the Standard Model fail?

 

ron

[ajb]

The standard model seems to fit annoyingly well with observations.

The only real hint if failing is B meson decays [1].

 

The standard model is rather ugly and so one would expect to find a better theory, but nature has been not so good at providing the hints.


Reference
[1] The BaBar Collaboration, Evidence for an excess of B -> D(*) Tau Nu decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012) (http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5442)

[JohnCli]

I second him ^

 

Everything's messy

[rwjefferson]

I agree.

Standard Models are rather ugly. The current Standard Model fits annoying well with observations; just like the old Standard Model of Epicycles. The hint that they are based on fallacy is that neither accurately predicts gravity or dark matter. I recognize one force that unifies all and everything. How many forces does the Standard Model currently recognize? Is Charisma is the force of the Higg's Boson? Really?

 

One seeking truth expects to find a better theory, but the hints provided by nature are hidden and cloaked by immoderate alphanumeric dogma. Have you or the brains at Cornell ever tried to calculate the drag of weakly interactive massive particles? My estimate predicts a 1kg mass at the surface of earth will be accelerated at 9.78 m/s^2 and weigh 2.20462 lbs no matter density.

 

How do your calculations differ?

 

ron

 

ignorance and power is not the same as intelligence

[juanrga]

Is the Standard Model consistent with current observation?

If not, how does the Standard Model fail?

 

ron

 

The Standard Model explains a broad set of particle physics experiments but cannot deal with:

 

• Arbitrary bound states.
• Mechanics (e.g. position and time are not observables in the Standard Model).
• Arbitrary many-body systems.
• Gravity.
• Unstable particles.
• Irreversible phenomena.
• Cosmology (e.g. dark energy).

[rwjefferson]

The list goes on and on. Yet no one else in this forum seems to have a clue how a mathematical model based on geometry will never hold always true.

ItS

peace

r~

[ajb]

The list goes on and on. Yet no one else in this forum seems to have a clue how a mathematical model based on geometry will never hold always true.

Unless it is completely off topic, care to elaborate?

[swansont]

 

The list goes on and on.

 

Yes, it does. Because we don't have any theory that has unlimited scope. Meaning that the fact that the standard model doesn't address e.g. gravity should not surprise anyone. It doesn't explain evolution, either. It's not meant to. Is there a point to this?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Gravitation is essential part of the Universe. Organic evolution is not.

The most of planets, or billion of billions to 1, have no life, But they all have gravitation.

Even the smallest "grain of sand" in vacuum in the space will "feel it" and join with other surrounding barely visible grain of sands and forming bigger and bigger objects.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But they all have gravitation.

Even the smallest "grain of sand" in vacuum in the space will "feel it" and join with other surrounding barely visible grain of sands and forming bigger and bigger objects.

 

Is this what is happening in the acretion disc, as the planets started to form in the very early solar system ?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Gravitation is essential part of the Universe. Organic evolution is not.

The most of planets, or billion of billions to 1, have no life, But they all have gravitation.

Even the smallest "grain of sand" in vacuum in the space will "feel it" and join with other surrounding barely visible grain of sands and forming bigger and bigger objects.

 

Which is completely beside the point.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Which is completely beside the point.

 

The question was whether SM is consistent with observations. And the most obvious visible observation of nature is gravitation.

[ajb]

The question was whether SM is consistent with observations. And the most obvious visible observation of nature is gravitation.

 

Okay, it was assumed that the question came with the proviso: taking into account the domain of validity and the experimental errors.

 

You are right that the standard model does not include gravity, this does tell us that the theory must be part of some larger theory. However, gravity is not important in particle collisions at the range of energies that the standard model deals with. Simply put, the other forces dominate over gravity.

 

At high enough energies, or strong enough gravitational fields, one would have to incorporate gravity into the description. If we keep gravity classical, we have a good idea how to do that. If we want to examine the quantum effects of gravity, then we are a bit stumped.

[swansont]

The question was whether SM is consistent with observations. And the most obvious visible observation of nature is gravitation.

 

Which is not covered by the SM, making it beside the point. ajb's caveat about the domain of validity being assumed to be part of the discussion is correct. To proceed otherwise requires one to be obtuse, which was the point of my earlier comment in response to rwjefferson.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If we assume that Einstein was right (otherwise why to use his special relativity equations in the first place?), then gravitation is not force, but bending of space.

 

Either macro scale and micro scale object should bend space, accordingly to their masses.

 

Either proton, electron, neutrino and photon should be bending space.

Bending of space in cosmic scale is result of sum of bending in micro scale.

 

In that case electron orbiting around proton is simply traveling straight line from it's own point of view, but space around proton is bend, therefor we're observing it's orbiting proton..

[elfmotat]

If we assume that Einstein was right (otherwise why to use his special relativity equations in the first place?), then gravitation is not force, but bending of space.

 

Either macro scale and micro scale object should bend space, accordingly to their masses.

 

Either proton, electron, neutrino and photon should be bending space.

Bending of space in cosmic scale is result of sum of bending in micro scale.

 

In that case electron orbiting around proton is simply traveling straight line from it's own point of view, but space around proton is bend, therefor we're observing it's orbiting proton..

 

You're over-simplifying. We know how to do quantum physics in curved backgrounds, but (as ajb said) when it comes to actual quantum gravity we don't know how it works yet.