2
$\begingroup$

My knowledge of the standard model is very limited so please let me spell out my assumptions first (and please let me know when I have mangled concepts, terminology or I am plainly just out of my depth).

My assumptions are:

  • We don't currently have an underlying theory for these parameters, we obtain their values experimentally, not theoretically.

  • The table below lists 19 certain parameters ( I am aware there are more), and my assumption is that, if we ever developed an underlying theory and experimentally verified it, say for one mass, then we have a good chance of explaining the other masses through extensions to that theory.

  • But being lucky enough to be able to explain the mass based parameters would not get us far in explaining say, electric charge.

So my question is, of these parameters, how many are in totally independent groups, or by definition alone, are they all independent?

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Within the standard model alone, all these parameters are independent, and to those you can add the masses and mixing angles of the neutrinos. Possible additional symmetries beyond the standard model suggest some relations between the gauge couplings, since renormalization group analyses based on these symmetries lead to unification of these couplings at very high energies. We are hoping that data from the LHC will give further clues to this. As to the mass parameters, they are still pretty much of a mystery at present.

The masses and mixing angles of the neutrinos add 7 parameters to the 19 in the list above, which is the list currently given in the wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of_the_Standard_Model_Lagrangian

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Mike, won't hold my breath for an underlying theory on masses though. Regards $\endgroup$ – user81619 Jul 26 '15 at 21:02
-1
$\begingroup$

We don't currently have an underlying theory for these parameters, we obtain their values experimentally, not theoretically.

No, but one day I think the Standard Model will be enhanced to derive some of these paramaters from first principles. I've spoken to a medical doctor called Andrew Worsley who has some interesting "quantum harmonics" ideas about this sort of thing. I don't agree with everything he says, but IMHO it's interesting. Get your calculator out, and pay attention.

The table below lists 19 certain parameters ( I am aware there are more), and my assumption is that, if we ever developed an underlying theory and experimentally verified it, say for one mass, then we have a good chance of explaining the other masses through extensions to that theory.

I agree. Planck length is ${\sqrt \frac{ћG}{c^3}}$. Replace the √ћG with 4πn where n has the right dimensionality. Then whilst retaining that dimensionality set n to 1 and work out $\frac {4 \pi}{\sqrt{c^3}}$.

enter image description here

Lose a bit of binding energy as per the spin ½ blue torus here, and that's a length you ought to know well. A wavelength. It's only a couple of trivial steps from there to energy thence mass.

But being lucky enough to be able to explain the mass based parameters would not get us far in explaining say, electric charge.

Don't count on it. Work out ${\sqrt \frac{\varepsilon_0}{4 \pi c^3}}$, then tell me it's just coincidence and numerology.

So my question is, of these parameters, how many are in totally independent groups, or by definition alone, are they all independent?

IMHO there's some interdependence because of the innate simplicity of the wave nature of matter, but that things get trickier as you go down the list.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy