-4
$\begingroup$

I have read a lot about dark matter and dark energy, the fact that we are spending a small fortune trying to detect their presence, but the only reason they have been postulated it is an effort to protect the standard model. Dark Energy seems to act at a galactic scale, but do we notice it in our solar system? Come on, do we really believe that our solar system is some how special and has no dark energy or dark matter?

What else is wrong - Gravity is still absent from the model, so that is 25% of forces not accounted for (and the only force that actually shapes the universe!). Neutrino mass not accounted for, absence of anti-matter, I could go on.

From my perspective every barrier we come to we make up more and more unbelievable / incredible solutions in order to try and hold on to a model that is clearly flawed. When the standard model was suggested its simplicity was what made it seem so believable.

Do we not need to just get a clean sheet of paper and start again?

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Emilio Pisanty, tpg2114, Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir, John Rennie, jinawee Nov 29 '13 at 14:46

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ How? There are a lot of experimental results, I think you won't clear also them. But, afaik, the SM is the simplest explanation to all of them. Maybe there will be once cheap accelerators based on focused laser beams and they will produce the required input to the physicists. Or a yet newer string theory breakthrough could also happen. $\endgroup$ – peterh Dec 9 '16 at 15:15
5
$\begingroup$

No. You have just named a series of unanswered questions as if the fact they're unanswered somehow invalidates the Standard Model. This is not in general how science works. For the extensive evidence for the Standard Model, please see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9810316 among many other things.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ No. They do NOT contradict the theory. They say things aobut matters that the standard model is 'not built for'. Your layman speculation is not useful if you are not willing to study the Standard Model, yet argue that it is nonsense. $\endgroup$ – Danu Nov 29 '13 at 11:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MattLuckham: There is plenty of evidence that both dark matter and dark energy exist. They are not "supernatural," they are physically observed phenomena that are not well-understood. Wikipedia is a decent jumping-off point for a list of the evidence we have that these phenomena exist. At the same time, the standard model is exquisitely accurate in terms of measurements we can make, and the recent discovery of the Higgs, predicted decades ago, was another triumph. Ultimately, the unexplained phenomena must lead to additions or extensions of the SM as we know it, and not a total replacement. $\endgroup$ – kleingordon Nov 29 '13 at 11:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also, we don't think our solar system is special, it should be filled with dark matter and dark energy just like everywhere else. But those are hard to measure on small scales. Dark energy only really becomes manifest when averaged over the large pockets of empty space between clusters of galaxies. And while dark matter is clearly visible in galaxy size clumps, it's harder to see in smaller regions. But there are plenty of experiments that are currently attempting to directly detect dark matter particles here on earth. Look up CDMS and XENON, for example. $\endgroup$ – kleingordon Nov 29 '13 at 11:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MattLuckham: The point that Danu and I are trying to make is that the standard model is not so much contradicted by experiments, but is evidently incomplete. For example, just because general relativity can't be used to predict the existence of the Higgs boson, and the standard model says nothing about gravitational lensing, doesn't mean that either GR or the SM has been contradicted. They just have a certain realms of applicability in terms of certain sets of known ingredients. Explaining other unknown ingredients requires adding more theory and/or finding unifications of existing theory. $\endgroup$ – kleingordon Nov 29 '13 at 11:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MattLuckham Again, I think the issue is your notion of what it means for a theory to be contradicted. The SM makes predictions about a certain enumerated set of fields/particles. The fields/particles involved in the dark sector are not included, and have thus far eluded theoretical understanding, mostly because they are so hard to detect or experimentally test. That does not mean that the SM is completely wrong, it just means that a complete unification of every observed physical phenomenon has not yet been achieved. $\endgroup$ – kleingordon Nov 29 '13 at 12:02

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