[YT] The Standard Model of Particle Physics
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a theory of three of the four known fundamental interactions and the elementary particles that take part in these interactions.
These particles make up all visible matter in the universe. At the broadest level, the elementary particles are divided into three groups
Matter Particles
Gauge Fields (or Force carriers)
The Higgs Boson
Every high energy physics experiment carried out since the mid-20th century has eventually yielded findings consistent with the Standard Model. Still, the Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not include gravitation, dark matter, or dark energy. It is not quite a complete description of leptons either, because it does not describe nonzero neutrino masses, although simple natural extensions do.
At present, matter and energy are best understood in terms of the kinematics and interactions of elementary particles. To date, physics has reduced the laws governing the behavior and interaction of all known forms of matter and energy, to a small set of fundamental laws and theories. A major goal of physics is to find the "common ground" that would unite all of these theories into one integrated theory of everything, of which all the other known laws would be special cases, and from which the behavior of all matter and energy could be derived.
The Standard Model groups two major extant theories — quantum electroweak and quantum chromodynamics — into an internally consistent theory describing the interactions between all experimentally observed particles. The Standard Model describes each type of particle in terms of a mathematical field, via quantum field theory.
The Standard Model includes 12 elementary particles of spin 1⁄2 known as Fermions. According to the spin-statistics theorem, fermions respect the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Each fermion has a corresponding antiparticle.
The fermions of the Standard Model are classified according to how they interact (or equivalently, by whatcharges they carry). There are six quarks (up, down,charm, strange, top, bottom), and six leptons (electron,electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tauon, tauon neutrino). Pairs from each classification are grouped together to form a generation, with corresponding particles exhibiting similar physical behavior.
15 Comments
gwiz665Can we get a theoretical physicist in here to confirm all this? My brain is scattered on the ceiling above me from the explosion...
gwiz665Uh, and *talks
siftbotAdding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.
visionepsays...Zzzz...
He might as well be telling a bible story since there is no mention of the experiments or calculations that give rise to any of these theories.
It would be very interesting to me to see a footnote section to each of these stated theories which there are about a thousand. Anyone want to try? Go ahead and start with the first 10 to the -43rd second and explain why someone thinks the temperature was 10 to the 32nd degrees (C, F, Kelvin?).
srdvisionep:
Zzzz...
He might as well be telling a bible story since there is no mention of the experiments
I think you might be confusing popular science with academia. This is a nice little refresher and a different perspective on what you get in physics courses. Footnotes are usually in books. You know? Reading. The non-comic book kind.
[...]the temperature was 10 to the 32nd degrees (C, F, Kelvin?).
At that temperature level, does it really matter if it's degC, degF or K?
(Edited to fix quoting markup)
visionepsays...srd,
So are you saying this is Science or Academia? I guess I could be confusing them since I thought science was done by academia and private institutions.
Maybe you are confusing science fiction with science since you seem to be fine with taking far flung statements that are non-obvious as fact without questioning how those results were calculated.
I only ask which measurement system they are using because to me, and I assume to any discerning person who strives for knowledge, details are key. If they are actually just talking about a range of temperatures, as you suggest, then why not state it as such?
BTW the YouTube video description has a bunch of good links to look up these theories further. The source of the video doesn't seem to have as much useful information (Cassiopeia Project).
archwaykittenI think this is the worst Physics video I've ever seen. I can't say whether its wrong or not (I'm not well versed in theoretical physics), but I can tell you its not at all convincing.
brainLook, this is very different from a Bible story. The evidence exists, you just need to look further than a youtube video. If you need more information about the subject, try wikipedia. If you need more information, try a book meant for a layman. If you still need more information, try text books or physics classes. The information is accessible, but there probably isn't even a single experiment to point to, and it would probably take advanced physics knowledge to even understand some of them.
Also, keep in mind, this isn't a video that claims to be describing an absolute truth. It's a video describing the standard model. The standard model is a very successful model, but it isn't even a complete theory. As admitted in the video, it doesn't even explain gravity.
But I have to say, this series of videos are some of the best visualizations I've ever seen, and fills a gap by not treating the viewer like a complete idiot.
>> ^visionep:
Zzzz...
He might as well be telling a bible story since there is no mention of the experiments or calculations that give rise to any of these theories.
It would be very interesting to me to see a footnote section to each of these stated theories which there are about a thousand. Anyone want to try? Go ahead and start with the first 10 to the -43rd second and explain why someone thinks the temperature was 10 to the 32nd degrees (C, F, Kelvin?).
StormsingerYou -do- realize that the difference between the systems of measurement would be less than -one- order of magnitude, right? When talking about an estimate that results in a number of that scale, the difference between Farenheit and Kelvin is far smaller than the margin of error, and Kelvin vs Centigrade is -utterly- meaningless. The difference between C and K is 273 degrees...which is not even a measurable deviation from a 32 digit number.
>> ^visionep:
I only ask which measurement system they are using because to me, and I assume to any discerning person who strives for knowledge, details are key.
quantumushroom"Never mind all this professor, how do we disarm it?"
andybesyRecommendation:
Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics
by Bruce A. Schumm. Johns Hopkins Press.
mxxconThis video series was produced by: The Cassiopeia Project - making Science simple!
The Cassiopeia Project is an effort to make high quality science videos available to everyone. If you can visualize it, then understanding is not far behind.
http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/
dannym3141>> ^visionep:
Zzzz...
He might as well be telling a bible story since there is no mention of the experiments or calculations that give rise to any of these theories.
It would be very interesting to me to see a footnote section to each of these stated theories which there are about a thousand. Anyone want to try? Go ahead and start with the first 10 to the -43rd second and explain why someone thinks the temperature was 10 to the 32nd degrees (C, F, Kelvin?).
It's either celsius or farenheit, because kelvin isn't measured in degrees. If anyone says "degrees kelvin", tell them they're wrong.
As for the video itself, i don't really like it. It sounds more or less correct for the standard model, but the explanations are really poor, he just throws stuff in.
jonnyLooks like a *dead playlist. The underlying videos may still be available.
siftbotThis video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.