5 ms·

Does anyone here know of a good account (something I could read, preferably) suitable for someone without much knowledge of modern physics of how the Standard M

Does anyone here know of a good account (something I could read, preferably) suitable for someone without much knowledge of modern physics of how the Standard Model came to be constructed on the basis of experimental evidence? Most descriptions of particle physics that I have encountered begin right away with an enumeration of the different types of particles, and the statement that some of them are composed of various combinations of quarks, but don't include (at least not without investing some hours of my time) any indication of how these things are observed, what set of data this model fits, what is the nature(if any) of a quark independent of the hadron in which it is a constituent, what are the laws governing quarks that cause these particles to arise, etc. I don't feel I'm learning much of anything by just memorizing the names of all the members of the particle zoo. But it seems I must spend some hours doing this before I can gain any understanding of what particle physics means, or how particle physics is done?

ddavis 8y ago
The introductory chapter of "Introduction to Elementary Particles" by David Griffiths. It doesn't require much knowledge of physics but tells the story of how the theory came to be over the 20th century (based on experimental evidence and the theoretical work happening in parallel).
- bobmarley1 8y ago
  Idk if I would recommend Griffiths, his texts are usually extremely rigorous. I can't speak for this one but certainly his ED and QM books.
  - mhh__ 8y ago
    His elementary particles book - I say having skimmed and the not bought it, so a I may be wrong - looks a good place to start by virtue of both containing a full introduction to the phenomenology behind particle physics and also an introduction (but only an introduction, compared to (say) Weinberg) the mathematics behind it.
  - ddavis 8y ago
    Yes I agree that he has a full semester+ of undergraduate/early graduate "course work" in his books... but the first chapter of his particle physics book has almost zero math -- it's just a great story.
jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
The book "Fields of Color" is short, math free, and largely organized by the historical progression of discovery. > any indication of how these things are observed In the last 50 years or so, the bulk of the evidence has come from particle accelerators, but there's been meaningful results from other experiments as well. Sean Carrol organizes the current state of physics into two broad categories: intensity experiments, like the LHC, which are attempting to reach energy concentrations we haven't probed before, and sensitivity experiments, which observe natural but rarely produced or interacting particles, like neutrino detectors. > what set of data this model fits All the data. The standard model is the best model we've found to explain all experiments observed in the history of physics. > what is the nature(if any) of a quark independent of the hadron in which it is a constituent Quarks and Gluons are bound together in the nucleus by the strong force. This force is, as its name indicates, very strong, however it falls off with distance sharply. The way it works out, the force is such that if you try to pull two bound quarks apart, the energy you add is sufficient to create new quarks. So lone quarks never appear, they're always bound into a composite of two or three, and if you try to pull them apart, you just end up making a second composite when they separate. > But it seems I must spend some hours doing this before I can gain any understanding of what particle physics means, or how particle physics is done? The blunt truth is fully understanding the standard model requires a lot of non trivial mathematics. I can't work with the math, but I've read through enough textbooks I've got some intuition for the big picture now. This isn't a topic where you can swoop in, spend 15 minutes, and suddenly understand it all. It's not going to just take some hours, it'll take much much more time than that. Some topics cannot be simplified into a tidy summary that can be skimmed in a couple hours.
- ddavis 8y ago
  >> what set of data this model fits > All the data. The standard model is the best model we've found to explain all experiments observed in the history of physics. This isn't the full story. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino mass (which we know exists from neutrino oscillations) or dark matter & dark energy. These are very big open questions!
  - deleted 8y ago
empath75 8y ago
https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/particle-physics-2-standard-model/2010/winter https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/particle-physics-2-st... Not something you can read, but that's what you're looking for.
T-A 8y ago
Try https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0401010 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0401010 (maybe with some Wikipedia lookups along the way) by one (arguably the greatest) of its masterminds.

ddavis 8y ago

The introductory chapter of "Introduction to Elementary Particles" by David Griffiths. It doesn't require much knowledge of physics but tells the story of how the theory came to be over the 20th century (based on experimental evidence and the theoretical work happening in parallel).

bobmarley1 8y ago
Idk if I would recommend Griffiths, his texts are usually extremely rigorous. I can't speak for this one but certainly his ED and QM books.
- mhh__ 8y ago
  His elementary particles book - I say having skimmed and the not bought it, so a I may be wrong - looks a good place to start by virtue of both containing a full introduction to the phenomenology behind particle physics and also an introduction (but only an introduction, compared to (say) Weinberg) the mathematics behind it.
- ddavis 8y ago
  Yes I agree that he has a full semester+ of undergraduate/early graduate "course work" in his books... but the first chapter of his particle physics book has almost zero math -- it's just a great story.

jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago

The book "Fields of Color" is short, math free, and largely organized by the historical progression of discovery. > any indication of how these things are observed In the last 50 years or so, the bulk of the evidence has come from particle accelerators, but there's been meaningful results from other experiments as well. Sean Carrol organizes the current state of physics into two broad categories: intensity experiments, like the LHC, which are attempting to reach energy concentrations we haven't probed before, and sensitivity experiments, which observe natural but rarely produced or interacting particles, like neutrino detectors. > what set of data this model fits All the data. The standard model is the best model we've found to explain all experiments observed in the history of physics. > what is the nature(if any) of a quark independent of the hadron in which it is a constituent Quarks and Gluons are bound together in the nucleus by the strong force. This force is, as its name indicates, very strong, however it falls off with distance sharply. The way it works out, the force is such that if you try to pull two bound quarks apart, the energy you add is sufficient to create new quarks. So lone quarks never appear, they're always bound into a composite of two or three, and if you try to pull them apart, you just end up making a second composite when they separate. > But it seems I must spend some hours doing this before I can gain any understanding of what particle physics means, or how particle physics is done? The blunt truth is fully understanding the standard model requires a lot of non trivial mathematics. I can't work with the math, but I've read through enough textbooks I've got some intuition for the big picture now. This isn't a topic where you can swoop in, spend 15 minutes, and suddenly understand it all. It's not going to just take some hours, it'll take much much more time than that. Some topics cannot be simplified into a tidy summary that can be skimmed in a couple hours.

ddavis 8y ago
>> what set of data this model fits > All the data. The standard model is the best model we've found to explain all experiments observed in the history of physics. This isn't the full story. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino mass (which we know exists from neutrino oscillations) or dark matter & dark energy. These are very big open questions!
- deleted 8y ago

empath75 8y ago

https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/particle-physics-2-standard-model/2010/winter https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/particle-physics-2-st... Not something you can read, but that's what you're looking for.

T-A 8y ago

Try https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0401010 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0401010 (maybe with some Wikipedia lookups along the way) by one (arguably the greatest) of its masterminds.