In current physics 'The Standard Model Theory' might maybe now be better called 'Undefined Model Theory'. Two different basic types of Standard Model theory are current - Cartesian particle versions where its 'forces' are simple particle exchanges exchanging momentums, and field energy versions where its 'particles' are energy or field quanta. But in both version theories the particles or quanta have poorly defined 'charges' including 'colour-charges' and other aspects that do not seem to fit any Descartes-type particle definition (only size, shape and motion), and the alternative energy or field quanta seem to be equally poorly defined energies of nothing or fields of nothing based on waves of nothing ?
Maybe the study of the heavens is Astronomy, the study of physical matter is Chemistry and the study of physical forces is Physics. Then we should maybe talk of Standard Model Chemistry as being the extension of Periodic Table Chemistry. But the three areas do have strong real connection and are not really separate.
Standard Model physics is based around matter being composed of
some specified set of elementary particles (or wave-packets), taking Protons and Neutrons that were formerly considered 'elementary particles' as being compound particles or Hadrons along with some others like LHC in 2012 called Xib' and Xib*. In current Standard
Model theory, elementary particles include Fermion particles involving 1 stable family pair
of Quarks with 1 stable family pair of Leptons (electrons, muons and taons)
plus 2 unstable family pairs of Quarks with 2 unstable family pairs
of Leptons. And additional Boson particles are also postulated,
including 'massless' Gluon, Photon and Graviton 'particles'.
up quark ............... 0.005000000
down quark .......... 0.009000000
electron ................ 0.000510000
electron neutrino .. 0.000000007 ?
charm quark ......... 1.350000000
strange quark ....... 0.175000000
muon .................... 0.106000000
muon neutrino ...... 0.000270000 ?
top quark ......... 174.000000000
bottom quark ....... 4.500000000
tau ....................... 1.780000000
tau neutrino ......... 0.030000000 ?
sterile neutrino (x?) ................... ?
neutralino (x4) ........................... ?
(eg WIMP neutralino ... 100.000000000 ?)
gluon (x8) ............. 0.000000000
photon .................. 0.000000000
graviton ................ 0.000000000 ?
axion .................... 0.000000001 ?
W+ ..................... 60.200000000
W- ...................... 80.200000000
Z ......................... 91.200000000
higgs ................ 500.000000000 ?
..................... or 126.000000000 ?
Currently the existence of some of these Standard Model particles is hypothetical only and not supported by experimental evidence to date, and some other such hypothetical particles have also been theoretically postulated.
Gluons are claimed to have 8 'colour-charge' types being forms of red + blue + anti-red + anti-blue, or red + green + anti-red + anti-green, or blue + green + anti-blue + anti-green. And the various quarks are claimed to combine to help form neutrons, protons and other composite particles termed Hadrons.
Fermions are claimed to have half-integer 'spin' and to obey Fermi-Dirac behaviour with multiple fermions being unable to exist in the same quantum state or same space. They basically are Descartes push-particles.
Bosons are claimed to have integer 'spin' and to obey Bose-Einstein behaviour in that multiple bosons can occupy the same quantum state or same space. They basically are more like energy wave packets than like classical mass particles. While some bosons are claimed to have 'mass' others are claimed to not, and some bosons like photons are readily detected but others seem impossible to detect.
Bosons are generally problematic in standard model physics, as is its explanation of at-a-distance-forces as being due to 'virtual boson' exchange. Protons and Electrons are claimed to electrically attract eachother by Virtual Photon exchange in an Electrical Interaction force, and Protons and Neutrons composed of Quarks are claimed to internally bond by Virtual Gluon exchange attraction in a Strong Interaction force that increases with distance unlike other forces. Protons and Electrons are also claimed to weakly attract eachother by Virtual W and Z boson exchange in an Electroweak Interaction force. Mass particles are claimed to gravitationally attract eachother by Virtual Graviton exchange in a Gravitational Interaction force that may be mediated by the Higgs boson.
These virtual particle exchanges are said to be unobservables, and have no well defined mechanisms for their appearing or vanishing in a vacuum or in any medium. Of course normal particle exchange in a Descartes particle physics might seem a reasonable recoil explanation for a universal repulsion force if there was any such, but is trickier for the attractive forces and for the selectivity of forces actually shown by nature. Of course simple particle contact collisions could look similar to repulsions. Virtual particle exchange may seem to need some attraction mechanism as well as a signal mechanism for prompting exchanges. Forces cannot be directly shown to be due to 'force-carrying particles', since eg a photon beam does not produce electric attraction and a static-electricity charged object does not produce a photon beam. And of course photons show a wide range of variation that electric charge does not show.
Standard Model physicists Peter Higgs and Francois Englertis got a 2013 Nobel prize for their theory prediction for the Higgs Boson being that it would be around 500GeV, though the new particle being acclaimed as being the Higgs Boson is actually around 126GeV. Now 500GeV is nearly 400% of 126GeV, so modern physics theories having errors of around 400% is OK. But the same physicists claim that Newtonian physics is entirely disproved because in some cases it gives a below 1% error !
Standard Model physics uses Feynman diagrams, where only lines entering or leaving a diagram represent observable particles. Below two electrons enter a repulsion interaction, exchanging unobservable virtual photons, and then exit ;
Charged fermion 'particles' are all claimed by some to have
'anti-particles' of similar mass but opposite charge that can form
'anti-matter' - eg Anti-Hydrogen composed of an Antiproton and a
Positron akin to Hydrogen composed of a Proton and an Electron.
But the 'charges' of matter particles and anti-matter particles are
claimed to differ so as not to affect each other, and a particle and its
'oppositely charged' anti-particle are claimed to undergo spontaneous
'annihilation interactions' where both fully convert to photons. Some fermion particles are also claimed
to spontaneously or magically convert into eachother. Uncharged
anti-particles are generally unexplained and evidence on anti-particle
behaviour is very thin, with strangely little anti-matter seeming to exist.
There are more reasonable claims that much 'dark matter' exists, probably being just uncharged free non-atomic particles like neutrinos. Claims of 'dark energy' look weaker, as noted in our Gravity section. Multi-particle composites like atoms composed of an even number of half-spin fermions, or any number of interger-spin bosons, may have overall interger spin like bosons yet not behave as bosons. And some Standard Model particles are, like some radioactive atoms, very unstable and may be of little significance in nature.
There are four fundamental forces in Standard Model physics, the activities of which are generally defined as being ;
This might perhaps be better redefined, explaining particle properties and better for a signal physics, as ;
Of course signal-response systems have been built that produce several responses to one signal,
or produce different responses to different signals. So the above are not the only possible
definitions of forces and/or of 'particles', and several sets of such definitions might well
allow of the same force response event mathematics.
There is strong evidence that forces seem to become very digital at close distances, so sub-atomic particle bindings/ energies/ masses/ lifetimes all seem to involve very narrow and possibly specific mass/energy levels. This contrasts greatly with the apparent gradation of force effects in the universe at macroscopic levels. It is not clear if this applies to only some forces like the strong force, or to all forces including whatever collision force is. So it is not clear what the real general explanation is, or if there is one general real explanation involved or maybe more than one. It is not clear if sub-atomic force evidence favours some one general physics theory or may fit with some several general physics theories if appropriately specified.
There have been some perhaps poorly defined claims that at very close distances these forces may be the same strength and effectively be just one force. But it is claimed by David Toms that the electric charge force which generally get stronger closer to its source, in fact very close to its source starts getting weaker the closer the distance - with this effect claimed to be somehow caused by gravity !? There are also claims that these forces are all due to the sending of some 'Messenger Particles' or 'Force Photons' back and forth. Of course some physicists do support Einstein's view that gravitational force differs fundamentally from the other forces.
You can listen to some interesting recent lectures by some physicists on related experiments and some interpretations of them, at http://viavca.in2p3.fr/site.html Or regarding claims for an increasing variety of unstable multi-quark hadrons such as 'charged charmoniums', see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jun/18/charged-charmonium-confounds-particle-physicists
Of course some physicists now support contradiction-allowed duality physics where the 'elementary particles' both are 'wave packets' and are 'not-wave particles'. Others prefer to go with only one of these alternatives. One option involving no contradiction might be taking 'elementary particles' as being multi-particle 'vibrations' composed of many standard particles allowing standard wave motion among their parts ? And anything claimed to be 'massless' can maybe only be proved to not have a big mass, since a claim that something has zero mass can be taken as requiring proof that A.) it produces zero gravity and/or proof that B.) it shows zero response to gravity. But this may be impossible to definitely prove if 'infinitely close to zero' cannot be definitely measured ? And it may be even more complicated because where gravity is stronger, some other forces may also be stronger.
Standard Model physics is mostly used by those employed in particle physics, often along with some version of Quantum Mechanics. But particle physics experiment is now often statistical experiment physics, and the real physics often boils down to statistical significance interpretation - and most physicists are poor statisticians. Modern physics 'experiment' often has the same basic statistics weakness as much modern medical 'experiment'. Standard Model theories perhaps realistically represent more a promising physics awaiting a properly defined theory ?
otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32 7AT.
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/the-standard-model.php
© new-science-theory.com, 2017 - taking
care with your privacy, see New Science Theory HOME.