The fact that the bosons of the weak force have mass is something that I think technically poses many problems.

To avoid this and other problems with the masses of the particles devised a mechanism within the standart model $SM$ of particle physics $"smpf"$ called "the Higgs field." This field is transmitted by a boson and the passage of particles interacting with him for the generated field causes an inertia that is what we perceive as "mass". The Higgs mechanism is accepted as part of SMPF, but can not be verified until we find the corresponding Higgs boson in a particle accelerator.

Higgs boson we think we know that its mass is between $115 Gev$ and $200 Gev$, so it is expected to locate in the new collider at CERN: the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). As it is believed, has not been able to fit the force of gravity with quantum mechanics. A partial unification of the force would be the existence of a boson which would transmit the gravitational force, which we call graviton. If there was such a graviton. The graviton would be a hypothetical particle that many physicists believe.

The $smpf$ presents the problem that for the 20 core values ​​to build a coherent theory need a very fine adjustment. String theory and other developments raise the possibility that this model is part of a collection larger particles called supersymmetry. If supersymmetry were valid, this would require fine-tuning the values ​​of the particles. Supersymmetry is the existence of a correspondence between fermions and bosons in the that every fermion has a boson superpartner similar characteristics, and each one boson fermion superpartner.

The problem is that the fermions and bosons we know there is neither a single case of correspondence. That is, if supersymmetry is correct, we should still find the superpartners of all particles in the model. The hypothetical fermions superpartners of bosons be called photino, winos, gluinos, etc.. And the superpartners of fermions bosons be called Selectron, sneutrino, squark, etc.. Is it possible perhaps that the existence of these superpartners dramatically change the established concept of the standard model and open the door to a group of new models that do not understand, or hardly understand?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Comment to the title question(v2): The possible discovery of new phenomena at high energies doesn't affect older well-established effective theories at lower energies. But perhaps OP is really asking about what is beyond the Standard model. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Aug 29, 2012 at 18:14

1 Answer 1


The future of the Standard Model will be the same as the future of any physics theory that has been successful at predicting experimental data: it is here to stay. This is because they are useful theories in the domain they were designed for, i.e. in the limit where the underlying assumptions are true.

Newton's theory of mechanics is still taught at schools, because it works for a vast range of phenomena. Most things we observe do not move at a speed comparable to the speed of light, and this is the limit where Special Relativity is not needed because for $v\ll c$ it reduces to newtonian mechanics.

We also do not need the full power of quantum mechanics to explain physics in everyday dimensions, because most energies, lenghts and times are larger than $\hbar$ (times the appropriate factors to get the dimension right).

Likewise, general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the case where fields are weak.

Any theory that will surpass the Standard Model will have to include it as a limit for the range up to the TeV scale, as it must also explain all the experiments that have proven the Standard Model to be a useful theory.

As you mention supersymmetry and the Higgs mechanism, note that both symmetries are broken, to explain experimental data. There exist massive particles, so we need to find a way to generate mass (and still preserve the symmetries), this is the basis of the Higgs mechanism.

Likewise, if Supersymmetry exists, it must be broken, as otherwise all super-partners would have the same mass as the known particles, selectrons would also have .511 MeV, and already long been observed. Therefore any supersymmetric theory must be broken to accomodate the SM as we know it (no susy particles upto order TeV).

Any theory that will include Gravity and Quantum Mechanics and GR must resemble either in their respective limits.

Theories don't just vanish, they'll stay relevant in the regime they explained well.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would not call the Standard Model a theory, in the same way that I would not call the crystal structure of a diamond a theory. The crystal structure is a shorthand for describing the data, it encapsulates the data. The theory behind the crystal structure is electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. The SM imo is a beautiful shorthand for the data we have accumulated up to now, and yes, it will have to be embedded in any future theory of particle physics, as string theory. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Mar 19, 2012 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ @annav so if electromagnetism & QM are the theory behind the crystal structure, why is the SM Lagrangian not the theory behind particle physics experiments? $\endgroup$
    – luksen
    Commented Mar 19, 2012 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose because in my books a Lagrangian is not a theory but a mathematical tool. QM is much more than a mathematical tool. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Mar 19, 2012 at 14:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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