4 ms·

Yes and no. First off, "the sm is correct" isn't how to think about this. Newtonian mechanics is "correct" for airplane flight, or even to calculate rocket traj

Yes and no. First off, "the sm is correct" isn't how to think about this. Newtonian mechanics is "correct" for airplane flight, or even to calculate rocket trajectories. It's a low order approximant of relatavistic mechanics, though. It's incomplete, and you need to add higher order effects to correctly describe the orbit of Mercury, for example. The SM is incomplete. Among many other things, it dramatically misses the amount of matter generated during the big bang (by about 10^7). To read about the generation of matter over antimatter, check out the Sakharov criteria. (Sakharov was also an interesting dude, but that's for another day.) Matter/antimatter asymmetry is coupled to symmetry violating processes, which also inevitably generate nonzero EDMs. The SM includes a bit of this asymmetry, which is why it predicts an eEDM at all. The SM's prediction is so small that any detection has to come from beyond SM sources.

dogma1138 4y ago
That was what I wanted to raise, SM doesn’t have an allowance for Dark Matter, and also doesn’t not have an explanation for the matter anti matter asymmetry so the article was quite confusing.
- MengerSponge 4y ago
  The SM does have a bit of matter/antimatter asymmetry, as this asymmetry was first observed in the 60's by Cronin and Fitch (1980 Nobel). It's just not a big enough asymmetry to account for all this matter we see.
- elashri 4y ago
  By now, there is a concessions among the particle physics community that SM is incomplete. The same way that we all agree that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and doesn't describe anything on atomic/quantum level so we don't use it or talk about Newton mechanics when we are in this scale. The same thing happens here, people mostly talk about SM for what it predict and have an answer for not what it lacks (again because it is obviously incomplete).
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    Hence my confusion with the title and the article at large. We know we need new particles if for nothing else than to explain dark matter (unless we will come with a non-MOND non-matter theory that fits current observations and hopefully is compatible with other well tested theories too). We also have “known” for a while that the standard model is incomplete but so far actual physics beyond it has been eluding us. That was to me missing in this article.

dogma1138 4y ago

That was what I wanted to raise, SM doesn’t have an allowance for Dark Matter, and also doesn’t not have an explanation for the matter anti matter asymmetry so the article was quite confusing.

MengerSponge 4y ago
The SM does have a bit of matter/antimatter asymmetry, as this asymmetry was first observed in the 60's by Cronin and Fitch (1980 Nobel). It's just not a big enough asymmetry to account for all this matter we see.
elashri 4y ago
By now, there is a concessions among the particle physics community that SM is incomplete. The same way that we all agree that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and doesn't describe anything on atomic/quantum level so we don't use it or talk about Newton mechanics when we are in this scale. The same thing happens here, people mostly talk about SM for what it predict and have an answer for not what it lacks (again because it is obviously incomplete).
- dogma1138 4y ago
  Hence my confusion with the title and the article at large. We know we need new particles if for nothing else than to explain dark matter (unless we will come with a non-MOND non-matter theory that fits current observations and hopefully is compatible with other well tested theories too). We also have “known” for a while that the standard model is incomplete but so far actual physics beyond it has been eluding us. That was to me missing in this article.