Jump to content
Alan McDougall

Physics Beyond the Standard Model?

Recommended Posts

Physics Beyond the Standard Model?

 

The discovery of the Higgs Boson in July 2012 by the Large Hadron Collider team, was a triumph for particle physicists. However could there be a downside to this discovery? Is there a need for any physics beyond the Standard Model?

 

Does the Standard Model not successfully explains the data?. Why generate extremely far out difficult to comprehend theories, based on particles and extra dimensions that might not exist, and so far have never being detected, when a far simpler theory might suffice?

 

Occam s Razor should it apply in this case?

 

Super- symmetry and String Theory , has there there any good scientific evidence to accept them as real possibilities?

 

The Standard Model has 61 elementary particles? are there more still to be discovered if so should we add them to the Standard Model

Edited by Alan McDougall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a need for any physics beyond the Standard Model?

 

 

Yes. The existence of neutrino mass, inferred from oscillations, demands it. Also, the SM fails to predict the matter/antimatter asymmetry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. The existence of neutrino mass, inferred from oscillations, demands it. Also, the SM fails to predict the matter/antimatter asymmetry.

 

Matter /antimatter asymmetry exists as a reality of our universe, luckily for us or our universe, would like be a gamma ray soup. You are right it is one of the great mysteries of physics. If the mass of neutrino's could be measured accurately, maybe there combined mass would account for the missing mass of the universe or dark matter. However, in all the previously mentioned, still to be solved physics, the Higgs Boson must play a part. Has the Higgs Boson been included into the SM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Matter /antimatter asymmetry exists as a reality of our universe, luckily for us or our universe, would like be a gamma ray soup. You are right it is one of the great mysteries of physics. If the mass of neutrino's could be measured accurately, maybe there combined mass would account for the missing mass of the universe or dark matter. However, in all the previously mentioned, still to be solved physics, the Higgs Boson must play a part. Has the Higgs Boson been included into the SM?

 

Yes, the Higgs is a prediction of the SM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, the Higgs is a prediction of the SM.

The Higgs boson was the only particle predicted by the standard model of physics that remained undetected , thus must we accept the SM as complete, and back to my question must we now develop new theories/physics beyond the SM.

 

The Higgs boson is what leads to matter having mass to matter, so does it also have mass, if so where does it get its mass own from?.

 

The Higgs particle is a ripple in the Higgs field, and studying the Higgs particle will tell us something about the Higgs field.

 

Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass, and since the Higgs field is responsible for giving most known fundamental particles mass, is there a close relationship between gravity and the Higgs Field?.

 

How different would our universe be without the Higgs Field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Higgs boson was the only particle predicted by the standard model of physics that remained undetected , thus must we accept the SM as complete, and back to my question must we now develop new theories/physics beyond the SM.

 

 

Asked and answered. Yes, there is physics we must develop beyond the standard model. I gave two examples already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Asked and answered. Yes, there is physics we must develop beyond the standard model. I gave two examples already.

 

 

I know that!, but I added some facts and information about the Higgs boson and the Higgs field, that might interest those with less knowledge than yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I know that!, but I added some facts and information about the Higgs boson and the Higgs field, that might interest those with less knowledge than yours

 

If you ask a question that I can address, I try and answer it. I don't know what your goal is here, but I have to wonder why you would offer something as a question if you know the answer. I would prefer not to play such games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you ask a question that I can address, I try and answer it. I don't know what your goal is here, but I have to wonder why you would offer something as a question if you know the answer. I would prefer not to play such games.

 

What is the future of theoretical physics beyond the SM, can the SM be said to be complete with the discovery of the Higgs boson/Higgs field?

 

Again I mentioned the Higgs boson for those visitors to our forum that might be interested in it, can't the forum serve as a "source of information" as well as a "place to debate", I am not playing games , that is an insult and you should know better by now that I do not do such inane things on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how we define things as "complete." A theory is complete if it accurately predicts all results we see in nature. It is not complete when we find results that match everything it predicts if there are also results it does not predict.

 

Science doesn't "complete" a theory by finding all of the things it predicts and then moving on. It "completes" a theory by finding everything the theory doesn't predict and then figuring out a way to modify or replace it so that those things are accounted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how we define things as "complete." A theory is complete if it accurately predicts all results we see in nature. It is not complete when we find results that match everything it predicts if there are also results it does not predict.

 

Science doesn't "complete" a theory by finding all of the things it predicts and then moving on. It "completes" a theory by finding everything the theory doesn't predict and then figuring out a way to modify or replace it so that those things are accounted for.

 

The finding of the Higgs Boson , completes the discovery of all the predicted fundamental particles of the Standard Model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The finding of the Higgs Boson , completes the discovery of all the predicted fundamental particles of the Standard Model.

 

Discovery, but the properties are not correct, as I have mentioned, with the neutrino. And it's missing the explanation of matter/antimatter asymmetry. It's not complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with a glancing knowledge of theory will tell you that of course there are reasons why SUSY and strings should be considered. Is the SM complete now that the Higgs has is all likelihood been detected? It could be argued. Does the SM still have significant problems? Yes.

 

One obvious problem is that there is no gravity. But even if this is not a problem for you (maybe you no like TOEs?) there are still theoretical issues. Some have been expanded upon in this thread. For one thing, it seems that SUSY is probably needed in order to achieve gauge coupling unification. But maybe you no like GUTs either?

 

Yes the SM describes low-energy stuff that we're used to very well, but there are still some theoretical issues and, to be honest, it's a bit of a messy theory. If you desire any kind of mathematical eloquence in your theories of nature, the gauge group U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) might strike you as a bit ugly. And all those parameters! All need to be fine tuned and are not predicted by the theory.

 

No, if you desire beauty and completeness and a theory free from errors, you're definitely looking at physics beyond the SM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matter distorts the fabric of space, and so does light, so what's the actual difference between matter and energy? In both instances, you would need the fabric of space-time to be distorted or a coupling mechanism with higg's particles, which conflicts the notion that light doesn't have mass because of it's lack of coupling with higg's particles. How can both light and a wood block distort space, yet only the wood block has mass, especially considering that they can theoretically be converted into each other?

Edited by Colic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you desire any kind of mathematical eloquence in your theories of nature, the gauge group U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) might strike you as a bit ugly.

Understanding what the group U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) has to do with the diffeomorphism group of a 4-d manifold seems to be a pertinent, but very difficult question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ajb, we do need new physics to explain an alternative 3D universe as SM even with Higgs is insufficient in my view to stabalize the universe.

All the evidence from WMAP is that their is no dark matter detectible in the solar system and certainly no dark energy has been witnessed pushing the stars apart in any of the galaxies. Could be there are 3D electric force in deep space but to date that has not been detected either.

CliveS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.