GUT Unifying Underlying Fields: Is It Beyond the Standard Model?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jnorman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Gut
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) and its relationship with the Standard Model of particle physics. GUT aims to unify the fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong forces—while the Standard Model is a quantum field theory that describes particles as excitations of underlying fields. The Higgs field plays a crucial role by providing mass to weak force carriers, distinguishing it from massless particles like photons. However, the Standard Model does not fully explain the origins of its fields or predict properties like quark masses. The conversation raises questions about how GUT might incorporate additional fields like the Higgs and the challenges of unifying these forces.
jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
i understand GUT to be an effort to unify the 3 (4) basic forces - gravity, EM and electro-weak, and strong. however, i also read that the standard model is not actually a theory of particles - it is a field theory, in that particles are accepted as manifestations of fields, rather than actual "things" - is this correct?.

so, is GUT actually an effort to unify the basic fields found in the universe, rahter than an effort to unify the forces which result from the fields? if so, how would one fit in such other potential fields such as the higgs field? (i don't actually see a place in the standard model for a higgs field - where does it fit? is is another type of force?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jnorman said:
i understand GUT to be an effort to unify the 3 (4) basic forces - gravity, EM and electro-weak, and strong. however, i also read that the standard model is not actually a theory of particles - it is a field theory, in that particles are accepted as manifestations of fields, rather than actual "things" - is this correct?.

Electromagnetism and weak force have already been unified (this brings about the Higgs mechanism and is included in the standard model). The mathematical description of standard model is indeed what is known as quantum field theory, describing particles (both matter and force carriers) as excitations of fields.

jnorman said:
so, is GUT actually an effort to unify the basic fields found in the universe, rahter than an effort to unify the forces which result from the fields?

What's the difference?

jnorman said:
if so, how would one fit in such other potential fields such as the higgs field? (i don't actually see a place in the standard model for a higgs field - where does it fit? is is another type of force?)

The standard model does not explain the fields it contains. It's just a theoretical construction that seems to describe everything we see around us - it does not predict for example the number of quarks or their masses, these are all just experimentally verified "facts of life".

The Higgs field is what causes electromagnetism and weak force to be different - it gives masses to the weak force carriers, while photon remains massless. There is no mathematically consistent way of combining these two forces into one, while still explaining why they are so different without Higgs or something very close to it. That's why it's added to the ingredient list, even though no one has actually seen one yet.

Can you explain what you mean by "room"? Why would there not be room for new particles?
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
18K