3 ms·
I was just poking fun at the avalanche of breathless papers that claim some anomalous experimental result "breaks the standard model". Generally, it doesn't. Ma
by kayo_20211030 1y ago
I was just poking fun at the avalanche of breathless papers that claim some anomalous experimental result "breaks the standard model". Generally, it doesn't. Maybe someday it'll happen. If it does I would still expect any new paradigm to contains within it the kernel of the standard model: as relativity contains within itself the newtonian model, at certain scales and levels of accuracy; and as quantum mechanics contains within itself all the physics and chemistry of an earlier era. I hope the standard model isn't the ne plus ultra, the end, but it just keeps getting reaffirmed despite all the breaks-the-standard-model papers, which seem almost desperate in their pleading.
- vlovich123 1y agoWell we know it's wrong & incomplete in pretty observable ways since gravity isn't part of it (theoretically incomplete) and neutrinos in the model are massless even though we know they have mass (observationally incomplete). But sure, a replacement model has to account for a lot of observations we know do hold for the SM, but I think it'll be closer to how the heliocentric simplified and improved on the Ptolemaic model by providing a simpler perspective that also simplified the math & got rid of various math constructs as "illusions". Similarly, it took time for the heliocentric model to be developed enough to make predictions of higher accuracy because for a long time the Ptolemaic model had much finer prediction powers because the math & supporting data to tune constants was more mature. I think the SM of particle physics is more likely to follow that path to fix the known problems than how special relativity degrades to Newtonian equations at non-relativistic speeds.