5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoBy 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 agoHence 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.