The ongoing disaster of the standard model of particle physics

[sahil5d]

This video from Fermilab on the standard model of particle physics is a disaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg24PovZTXM&ab_channel=Fermilab

Here are a few lines that are very disconcerting, in that Fermilab puts out such content, and that the SM Lagrangian is the epitome of particle physics.

• "But it's kind of fun to see what a mess the equation can be."
• "It describes what are called ghost particles, which aren’t true particles, but they are a mathematical construct that fixes some unwanted predictions of the theory."
• "And this fifth section is more of that ghost cleanup... Again, these are introduced to maintain the integrity of the calculation."
• "If you want to dig more into these ghost particles, make sure to buy some aspirin first. They always gave me headaches when I had to calculate them."
• "If you want to dig more deeply into it, well, you have a fair bit of studying in front of you. I mean I suppose I could do it for you, but I think this would be a great time to duck that responsibility."
• "I know what I’ll do. I’ll do what my professors used to tell me when I asked these kind of questions and say 'the solution is left as an exercise for the student.'"

_

I am curious as to what ACG thinks the future is for particle physics. In what direction should this branch of science go?

I think the future is Weber's formula (Coulomb's 1/r^2 function with a velocity-dependent term and an acceleration-dependent term). André Assis has previously explained how it might enable understanding of the nucleus in how like charges attract at very very small distance.

[HanDeBruijn]

Related stuff is found in thread 200.
Quite in general, I do not understand how a standard understanding of nature can be conceived.
It's the same idiocy as if it would be possible to decide by legislation that the standard value of $\pi$ is $3.0$.

I think the future is Weber's formula

I don't think so but anyway it is formula (2.6) on page 17 in the book Origin of Inertia by Amitabha Ghosh:

$$ F = \frac{e e'}{4\pi\epsilon r^2}\left[1-\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{2r}{c^2}\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}\right] $$

[RedshiftDrift]

I am curious as to what ACG thinks the future is for particle physics. In what direction should this branch of science go?

Same direction as cosmology, in the garbage can.

[HanDeBruijn]

Louis, what specifically are your problems with the standard model of particle physics?

I don't want to interfere, but this sounds like the common 'who is to be blamed' management trick.
Employee: "The system doen't work properly". Employer: "Ah, you have problems with our system".

[RedshiftDrift]

Sabine Hossenfelder has made several videos explaining "the" problems (not my problems) with particle physics. The talk she gave at the Universität Stuttgart explains the problems very well (in German with English subtitles) Was läuft falsch in der gegenwärtigen Physik? Her YouTube channel has many more videos explaining why the standard model of particle physics doesn't work.

Essentially, we have the following progression of knowledge:

1. chemistry which studies small entities that have been detected: molecules,
2. atomic physics which studies the components of interacting molecules: atoms, and photons, all of which have also been detected,
3. nuclear and plasma physics which studies the parts of atoms such as electrons and nuclei and their components, protons and neutrons and other fermions and bosons, all of these particles have been detected.

But then...
4. particle physics which studies the mathematical symmetries of protons, neutrons, and other fermions and bosons, symetries such as U(1), SU(2), etc. and various combinations like U(1) $\times$ SU(2) $\times$ SU(3) that make up what's called quarks and strings in 10-dimensional space...

None of those have been detected and theorists have made up reasons explaining why they cannot be seen!

[budrap00]

Louis,

I generally agree with you here but for the characterization of bosons as having been detected. Of the 5 elementary bosons, only the photon can be said to be detected but the photon is not a particle; it is a wave quanta - the minimum energy of one full wavelength for a given frequency. The other 4 elementary bosons (W, Z, Gluon, Higgs) have never been detected although a model-dependent claim to having detected their "decay products" is passed off as empirical evidence for their existence.

[RedshiftDrift]

That's why I put the photon with 2. atomic physics.

[budrap00]

The elementary bosons being in 3 instead of 4 is what I was getting at - they are not directly detected, only inferred.