The Standard Model: Leptons, Quarks & Bosons

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Standard Model of particle physics, specifically focusing on the existence and classification of fundamental particles such as leptons, quarks, and bosons. Participants explore the implications of gravity's absence in the model and the potential inclusion of a graviton.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Standard Model includes only leptons, quarks, and bosons, while neglecting gravitational interactions.
  • There is a discussion about the possibility of including gravity in the Standard Model through a hypothetical graviton, with questions about its status and whether it has been ruled out.
  • One participant presents a detailed analysis of various theories regarding gravity, including self-interacting gravitons and alternative theories like Weyl gravity and Einstein-Cartan gravity.
  • Another participant suggests that if gravity cannot be incorporated into the Standard Model, it implies that the model does not fully describe all existing phenomena.
  • Concerns are raised about the uncertainty of the Standard Model's predictions and its inability to incorporate general relativity, which keeps theoretical high-energy physics an active field of research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the completeness of the Standard Model, particularly regarding its treatment of gravity. While some suggest it has been effectively ruled out, others maintain that the discussion remains open and unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the Standard Model's ability to describe gravitational interactions and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding its predictions. The discussion reflects a variety of theoretical approaches and the complexities involved in unifying gravity with quantum mechanics.

NeutronStar
Messages
419
Reaction score
1
Would it be safe to say that according to the standard model of particle physics all that actually exists at the most fundamental level are leptons, quarks, and bosons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Safe and correct.Fermions:quarks and leptons.Bosons:scalar,vector (massive and not massive).
But the gravitational interraction between such particles is TOTALLY NEGLECTED.ABSENT,IF U LIKE.
 
dextercioby said:
But the gravitational interraction between such particles is TOTALLY NEGLECTED.ABSENT,IF U LIKE.
Ok. But wasn't there some talk about including gravity in the model as a boson called a graviton?

Has that been ruled out? Or is there still some expectation that a graviton might be discovered some day that could fit into this model?
 
Copy of a post in another thread:
Treating GR as an ordinary field theory encountered in the SM is practically useless,because the quantum theory obtained is not renormalizable.
Hilbert-Einstein action describes at quantum level a theory of SELFINTERRACTING gravitons,quanta of gravitational field i.e.particles with spin two.
Other attempts have been made of finding something else instead of the HE action.The linearized theory of gravity (developed by Einstein in 1916) is basically "good" when it comes to quantum behavior (i analyzed this theory using standard BRST antiparanthesis-antifield forrmalism (developed frankly by Batalin&Vilkovisky,but it's usually called Lagrangian BRST (cf.the Hamiltonian approach found independently by Becchi,Rouet,Storra and Tyiutin))),but it has the disadvantage of working with the gauge-fixed Pauli-Fierz action which describes the FREE (i.e.NONSELFINTERRACTING) GRAVITONS.In fact,these gravitons interract with ghost fields.Other attempt was the so-called Weyl gravity (i.e. gravity based not on the Riemann curvature tensor (of the curved manifold called spacetime),but on the conformal Weyl tensor,un ugly (still 4-th order) tensor).This theory is excellent at quantum level (i.e.renormalizable) but the classical (nonrelativistic) limit of the unquantized action gives you 4-th order LODE of motion (cf.2-nd order LODE of motion in the Newtonian limit of Einstein GR).
A step forward was made by Elie Cartan who developed the so called "Einstein-Cartan GR" which used other fields (called vierbeins,usually seen as vielbeins) for describing the gravitational field.This theory is good because it allows coupling with spinor and scalar matter fields in a theory called SUPERGRAVITY.If I'm not mistaking,these theories of Sugra (apud Supergravity),though allow an unifying theory of all 4 fundamental interractions,are,at quantum evel,still nonrenormalizable.I mean,if they were (it doesn't matter how many supemultiplets of particles it envolved),why would ST and LQG be alive today??
And then,ST,the final (??) frontiere.It is said to give a satisfactory behavior of gravitational interraction at the quantum level (this time there are no point-particles like in SM anf SUGRA,but strings,10-dimensional objects).

This a plainy simple and incomplete (probably incorrectas well,at least in its final lines) review on the the work that's been done by theorists worldwide in the last 70 years or so in the field of Quantum Gravidynamics (the name i give for the theory of QG in agreement with common names used in the SM).

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Daniel.
So, in other words, you're basically saying that it's been ruled out.

I can buy that.

But then we'd have to conclude that the Standard Model of particle physics does not describe all that actually exists.

Is that a fair conclusion?

Edited to add:
I should have said that SM cannot describe all that actually exists then. Not merely "does not". Right?
 
Last edited:
Yes,that's why theoretical HEP is still alive these days,either in the presence of strings or not.Incidentally or not,we don't even know,at this present,that all predictions of the SM are correct or not.This,together with the fact that it does not incorporate GR,make us,theorists,live,breathe and probably be able to multiply... :-p
 
Else,we would have been dead like Mr.Max Born said 76 years ago...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K