Timeline for What does "Standard Model" really refer to?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2015 at 16:48 | comment | added | Cicero | Oh, thanks @K7PEH. The standard model 2.1 beta then is what we normally think of as the standard model (the whole bit), while the standard model alpha or 1.0 refers to the electroweak theory in specific in the early days of the standard model. | |
| May 25, 2015 at 2:36 | comment | added | K7PEH | @dmckee -- I suppose that Frank Wilczek is still on the early alpha version that focused primarily on the early days of the Electroweak model. I read (just this afternoon, after I posted my original question) that the use of the term Standard Model was first used to describe just the new and emerging electroweak theory. I am guessing that Wilczek's own work on quark confinement and QCD extended the model to include the newer gauge symmetry groups and maybe he still thinks of Standard Model referring to Electroweak only -- the alpha version. | |
| May 25, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | Cicero | Hi @dmckee. What do you mean by 2.1 beta? | |
| May 24, 2015 at 22:26 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | I like to say (in a very casual way) that we're currently on Standard Model 2.1beta. If you are still using the buggy 2.0.5 release or earlier versions you should upgrade at the earliest convenient moment. | |
| May 24, 2015 at 18:40 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 47 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 24, 2015 at 18:29 | answer | added | user81811 | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 24, 2015 at 17:45 | comment | added | CuriousOne | Commonly the standard model refers to a still slightly changing model that includes a purely phenomenological description of the color force and the electroweak force. Whether we will still call the model "the standard model" after supersymmetry is included (if it exists, that is) or after some form of dark matter has been identified with a possible extension of it is a question for the science history of the future. It can not be answered, since it's really a choice that physicists will make based on how different a model we will need (or not). | |
| May 24, 2015 at 17:42 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | Well, Wilczek tells you that you need to look for the context to be sure what you are reading about. To me, it seems the quote already answers your question. | |
| May 24, 2015 at 17:37 | history | asked | K7PEH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |