Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Deficiencies of the Standard Model of Particle Physics
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 3, 2012, 9:52:10 PM2/3/12
to
I do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative,
but when I read insufficiently qualified evaluations of the
merits of the Standard Model of particle physics,
scientific integrity would seem to demand that the
following well-known facts are also considered.
The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model
with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be
“put in by hand”.
The Standard Model did not and cannot predict
the masses of the fundamental particles that make
up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
The Standard Model did not predict the existence
of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority
of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes
heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a
fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics.
The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy
densities predicted or measured by particle physicists
(microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by
up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120,
depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle
physics VED).
The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e.,
it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature,
and calls into question the foundations of the quantum
chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have
never been directly observed. Rather, their existence
is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary
decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely
built on inference, conjecture and speculation.
It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
;)
Roger Onslow
Feb 4, 2012, 9:48:42 AM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 1:52 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
wrote:
> I do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative,
Yes you do .. clearly because you keep doing it.
PD
Feb 4, 2012, 3:15:45 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 3, 8:52 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
fundamental model of nature because of this.
>
> The Standard Model did not and cannot predict
> the masses of the fundamental particles that make
> up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
This is also true.
>
> The Standard Model did not predict the existence
> of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority
> of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes
> heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
This is also true.
>
> The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a
> fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics.
> The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy
> densities predicted or measured by particle physicists
> (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by
> up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120,
> depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle
> physics VED).
It certainly is a puzzle.
>
> The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e.,
> it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature,
> and calls into question the foundations of the quantum
> chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
The Planck mass has no reason to be even thought of as having any
bearing on a real particle mass. It is an energy scale and nothing
more. This is also true for a Planck length or a Planck time, both of
which are interesting combinations of constants but don't seem to have
any bearing on anything. It *certainly* doesn't mean that quantum
chromodynamics is at risk, because there is absolutely NOTHING from
QCD that feeds into the Planck mass.
>
> Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have
> never been directly observed. Rather, their existence
> is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary
> decay products.
This is true, but that is also true of *any* short lived state,
including short-lived nuclear/isotopic states as well. The presumption
is that the conservation laws observed also hold in these rapid
decays, and as long as that's true, then we can reliably reconstruct
the parent state, no matter how short-lived it is.
> Quantum chromodynamics is entirely
> built on inference, conjecture and speculation.
That's true of ANY physical model. The evidence for QCD is quite
strong.
> It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
That is flatly false. There are a number of definitive tests that are
clearly in support of definite predictions of QCD.
The fact that you can't predict what you want from it is not
particularly relevant.
Quantum mechanics and the electromagnetic interaction should in
principle allow you to calculate protein synthesis from the ground up,
but no one tries because of the complexity of doing so.
>
> ;)
wrote:
> I do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative,
> but when I read insufficiently qualified evaluations of the
> merits of the Standard Model of particle physics,
> scientific integrity would seem to demand that the
> following well-known facts are also considered.
>
> The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model
> with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be
> “put in by hand”.
Completely agree that the Standard Model cannot be the final
> but when I read insufficiently qualified evaluations of the
> merits of the Standard Model of particle physics,
> scientific integrity would seem to demand that the
> following well-known facts are also considered.
>
> The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model
> with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be
> “put in by hand”.
fundamental model of nature because of this.
>
> The Standard Model did not and cannot predict
> the masses of the fundamental particles that make
> up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
>
> The Standard Model did not predict the existence
> of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority
> of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes
> heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
>
> The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a
> fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics.
> The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy
> densities predicted or measured by particle physicists
> (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by
> up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120,
> depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle
> physics VED).
>
> The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e.,
> it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature,
> and calls into question the foundations of the quantum
> chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
bearing on a real particle mass. It is an energy scale and nothing
more. This is also true for a Planck length or a Planck time, both of
which are interesting combinations of constants but don't seem to have
any bearing on anything. It *certainly* doesn't mean that quantum
chromodynamics is at risk, because there is absolutely NOTHING from
QCD that feeds into the Planck mass.
>
> Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have
> never been directly observed. Rather, their existence
> is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary
> decay products.
including short-lived nuclear/isotopic states as well. The presumption
is that the conservation laws observed also hold in these rapid
decays, and as long as that's true, then we can reliably reconstruct
the parent state, no matter how short-lived it is.
> Quantum chromodynamics is entirely
> built on inference, conjecture and speculation.
strong.
> It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
clearly in support of definite predictions of QCD.
The fact that you can't predict what you want from it is not
particularly relevant.
Quantum mechanics and the electromagnetic interaction should in
principle allow you to calculate protein synthesis from the ground up,
but no one tries because of the complexity of doing so.
>
> ;)
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 4:08:44 PM2/4/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
And how do we see subatomic or even nano?
These are too small to measure. Anybody
who says otherwise will have to demonstrate
it.
Science has the wrong idea about its particles...
And it lies to itself and others.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
eric gisse
Feb 7, 2012, 11:18:00 AM2/7/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:7bb3f571-
df30-42cd-bdf...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> I do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative,
> but when I read insufficiently qualified evaluations of the
> merits of the Standard Model of particle physics,
> scientific integrity would seem to demand that the
> following well-known facts are also considered.
>
> The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model
> with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be
> “put in by hand”.
This is well known.
>
> The Standard Model did not and cannot predict
> the masses of the fundamental particles that make
> up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
This is well known.
>
> The Standard Model did not predict the existence
> of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority
> of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes
> heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
This is well known.
>
> The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a
> fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics.
> The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy
> densities predicted or measured by particle physicists
> (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by
> up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120,
> depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle
> physics VED).
This is well known.
>
> The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e.,
> it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature,
> and calls into question the foundations of the quantum
> chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
This is well known.
>
> Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have
> never been directly observed. Rather, their existence
> is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary
> decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely
> built on inference, conjecture and speculation.
> It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
>
> ;)
And this too, is well known.
So now that you have brought up a list of complaints nobody is
disagreeing with, when are you going to show us that your numerology does
a better job?
df30-42cd-bdf...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> I do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative,
> but when I read insufficiently qualified evaluations of the
> merits of the Standard Model of particle physics,
> scientific integrity would seem to demand that the
> following well-known facts are also considered.
>
> The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model
> with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be
> “put in by hand”.
>
> The Standard Model did not and cannot predict
> the masses of the fundamental particles that make
> up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
>
> The Standard Model did not predict the existence
> of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority
> of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes
> heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
>
> The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a
> fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics.
> The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy
> densities predicted or measured by particle physicists
> (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by
> up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120,
> depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle
> physics VED).
>
> The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e.,
> it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature,
> and calls into question the foundations of the quantum
> chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
>
> Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have
> never been directly observed. Rather, their existence
> is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary
> decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely
> built on inference, conjecture and speculation.
> It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
>
> ;)
So now that you have brought up a list of complaints nobody is
disagreeing with, when are you going to show us that your numerology does
a better job?
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 8:55:16 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 8:18 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:7bb3f571-
> df30-42cd-bdfd-a585be8a4...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
The Standard Model is inferior as all theories are incomplete.
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:7bb3f571-
> df30-42cd-bdfd-a585be8a4...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
0 new messages