Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is this just a historical artifact - that the particle physics community decided at some point to call all of the pre-oscillation physics by the name the "Standard Model"? The reason I ask is because I often see articles and books say something to the effect "the strongest hint of physics beyond the SM are the non-zero neutrino masses" as if this is something significant and mysterious - whereas from what I gathered from the answer to a question I asked previously , lepton mixing is something natural and unsurprising. So why aren't neutrino oscillations considered part of the SM? I am not asking out of any sociological interest but because I want to make sure I haven't underestimated the significance of the discovery of neutrino oscillations.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 16 down vote accepted

The historical formulation of the SM involved one Higgs doublet and only renormalizable couplings, the latter being due to the focus at the time on achieving a renormalizable formulation of the weak interactions. With these restrictions neutrinos are massless and do not oscillate. To get neutrino masses you need to extend this framework either by adding non-renormalizable dimension 5 operators, which one would naturally expect to be there in the framework of effective field theory, or you have to add renormalizable couplings involving new fields, typically including SM singlet Weyl fermions (i.e. right-handed neutrinos) and a SM singlet Higgs field. How much of an extension of the SM this really involves is subjective. There were many theoretical papers speculating on such extensions before the actual discovery of neutrino oscillations.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't understand something with this answer. What prevents to add for the 3 $\nu_L$ members of the lepton $SU(2)$ doublet, the 3 corresponding singlets $\nu_R$ as for $e_R, \mu_R, \tau_R$. Then the corresponding Yukawa couplings have just to be added to generate $\nu$ masses as for the charged leptons. It's a trivial extension of the Standard Model. There is nothing being not renormalizable with such trivial extension no? – Paganini Jun 2 '15 at 18:03

Because neutrinos were still widely considered massless at the time "The Standard Model" was formulated.

One could argue that we're on StandardModel v2.3ish at this point and that the up-to-date release includes massive, mixing neutrinos, but that just leads to a confusion of terminology.

share|cite|improve this answer
Just a small comment. The mass scale of neutrino masses is approximately of the order $m_{electroweak}^2 / m_{GUT}$ which justifies the see-saw mechanism. An off-diagonal matrix element at the electroweak scale and diagonal entries being zero and the GUT scale produce one neutrino that is very heavy, near the GUT scale, and one neutrino that is much smaller than the electroweak scale. So the dimension 5 operators that Jeff Harvey explains in the first answer have the right size if there is new physics at the GUT scale. In this sense, the size of neutrino masses is an indirect evidence for GUT. – Luboš Motl Feb 13 '11 at 17:59
-1: the standard mode neutrinos are 100% massless because the theory does not allow masses period. Otherwise it wouldn't be a good theory. – Ron Maimon Sep 9 '11 at 15:34

I'll add reference to the "Ten Lectures on the ElectroWeak Interactions" by Barbieri. In my opinion -- the best reading on the electroweak physics.

share|cite|improve this answer

Because there are different extensions you can use to give mass to the neutrinos. You can put mass only in left neutrinos, or you can add right neutrinos, and it is even unclear how many species to add. Of course, a GUT-like neutrino, as in SO(10) etc, seems preferable, but it is not the only option.

share|cite|improve this answer
Right neutrinos, you said? I probably missed such important achievement of particle physics as discovery of right neutrinos. Could you provide references? – Incnis Mrsi Aug 22 '14 at 12:12

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.