albert einstein graphic

Standard Model physics theories

standard model science graphic Homepage . William Gilbert . Rene Descartes . Isaac Newton . Albert Einstein ....... Probability Science ........ General Image Theory standard model science graphic - Site Search at bottom v - standard model science graphic
picture of particle collisions

In current physics 'The Standard Model Theory' might maybe now be better called 'Undefined Model Theory'. And two different basic types of Standard Model theory are current - a Cartesian particle version where its 'forces' are simple particle exchanges exchanging momentums, and a field energy version 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 science graphic

Standard Model theories.

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 commonly postulated, including 'massless' Gluon, Photon and Graviton 'particles', though some favour rather more particles and others favour somewhat less particles.

Particle ........... Mass Equivalents, GeV

Fermions :
up quark ............... 0.005000000
down quark .......... 0.009000000
electron ................ 0.000510000
electron neutrino .. 0 or 0.000000007 ?

charm quark ......... 1.350000000
strange quark ....... 0.175000000
muon .................... 0.106000000
muon neutrino ...... 0 or 0.000270000 ?

top quark ......... 173.000000000
bottom quark ....... 4.500000000
tau ....................... 1.780000000
tau neutrino ......... 0 or 0.030000000 ?

sterile neutrino (x?) ................. 0 ?
neutralino (x4) ........................... ?
(eg WIMP neutralino ... 7-99.000000000 ?)

Bosons :
gluon (x8) ............. 0.000000000
photon .................. 0.000000000
graviton ................ 0.000000000 ?
graviton spin-0 ..... 0.000000001 ?
graviton spin-2 ..... 0.000000001 ?
axion .................... 0.000000001 ?
W+ ..................... 60.200000000
W- ...................... 80.200000000
Z ......................... 91.200000000
higgs ................ 500.000000000 ?
..................... or 125.000000000 ?
X17 ...................... 0.017000000 ?

And with maybe many more particles suggested by different versions of Standard Model and by different versions of String Theory ?

Currently the existence of some of the above Standard Model particles is hypothetical only and not supported by experimental evidence to date, including such hypothetical particles as have been theoretically postulated most recently like the X17 Boson which is also claimed by some to produce some new force.

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 ;

particle exchange photo

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 massive WIMP neutrinos or tiny Axions. 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 Or regarding claims for an increasing variety of unstable multi-quark hadrons such as 'charged charmoniums', see

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'. Some of the very different Standard Model theories maybe look like actually being image theories though no published Standard Model physicist seems to have studied that issue yet. Standard Model theories perhaps realistically represent more a promising physics awaiting a properly defined theory, and currently offer no real explanation for the strange assortments of particle masses observed to date ?

standard model science graphic

Tell a friend about this website simply,
and they will thank you for showing them the newest deepest thinking on the important basics of science ;

OR if you like this site you could maybe make a donation ;
It will help with site development, and just possibly with some key physics experiments long planned but never afforded.
[PS. and you may perhaps help make history for science ?]
(The fictional time-travel and multi-universe type ideas of modern physics theory have long totally discouraged certain lines of physics experiment despite there being strong reasons to believe them to be very promising if not essential lines of experiment. Some such lines of experiment considered here identified as early as the 1960s seem still to have had no work done on them and there is maybe not much more time here for this. Science funding both government and private unfortunately now all goes to basically safe standard mainstream science, and no money at all goes to any really innovative risky science though that might pay a thousand times greater.)

standard model science graphic

You can do a good search of this website below ;
on this site, with Google custom search logo.
PS. DuckDuckGo has its own additional version of the Chrome browser that is anonymous and gives more complete search results - DuckDuckChrome

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.

standard model science graphic

You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg

©, 2021 - taking care with your privacy, see New Science Theory HOME.