Is this outline of particle physics right?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy of an outline of particle physics shared via a link. Participants evaluate the outline's effectiveness as a learning tool for beginners in the field, addressing concepts such as forces, interactions, and the role of the Higgs field in mass generation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant finds the outline a helpful starting point but questions its accessibility for those without a physics background, particularly regarding the concept of color charge.
  • Another participant suggests that the Higgs field's role in mass generation may be overstated, noting that most mass arises from strong interactions rather than the Higgs mechanism.
  • A participant critiques the use of the term "force" in the context of relativistic physics, advocating for a field-based description of interactions instead.
  • Concerns are raised about the stability of neutrino flavors as presented in the outline, with a participant emphasizing the complexity of neutrino behavior and their oscillation properties.
  • One participant mentions that the diagram may aid in rote learning but argues that this approach contradicts the deeper understanding of particle physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and accuracy of the outline, with no consensus reached on its overall effectiveness or the interpretations of key concepts such as forces and mass generation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the outline's explanations, particularly regarding the nuanced understanding of interactions and the role of the Higgs field, as well as the complexities of neutrino behavior.

crastinus
Messages
78
Reaction score
9
Just a quick query here: Is the outline of particle physics at the link below right?

I have found it very helpful in a general way, but I am only just learning this stuff and don't want to be misled.

https://physics.info/standard/concept-map.pdf

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not a bad starting point, so it should be OK to use as a general idea. Although I'm not sure how much someone without any physics or particle physics background will understand the idea of something that "... acts between particles with color... ". And I am not sure if the Higgs is solely responsible in giving all particles their masses.

Have you looked at http://www.particleadventure.org/ ? It has a more extensive explanation on elementary particles at ... er ... an "elementary" level. They also have several charts similar to this that you can download.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and crastinus
I didn't know about that site, thanks.
 
Hm, well, I'd cancel the word "force" as one of the first thing from my dictionary when entering the relativistic realm. Neither classically (i.e., mostly electrodynamics) nor quantum-theoretically forces make much sense anymore, but the most important concept one has to learn about is the field description of interactions. It's the key issue of locality of interactions that let's us formulate the most successful theory created by human mind ever, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics.

Also of course fermions interact with bosons and fermions as do bosons. That's why it's called the interaction, and it must be like this since due to translation invariance of space and time there's energy and momentum conservation. So if bosons "excert forces" on fermions than also fermions must "excert forces" on bosons. As I sad, I'm no quite happy with using the force concept of non-relativistic physics in this context.

In the very left corner, I don't understand, why they say the differen neutrino flavors are stable or become less and less stable, respectively. Neutrinos are pretty complicated objects, given that they never occur in their mass eigenstates (which admits to interpret them as particles) but are created in their flavor eigenstates states and thus are oscillating. Strictly speaking they make only sense as internal lines in Feynman diagrams, i.e., you have to consider the entire process of creating the neutrino and measuring it in some reaction again.

On the upper left corner one should more carefully say that the Higgs field provides the fundamental mass of the fundamental fields in the standard model. Most of the mass of the matter around us is, however not provided by the Higgs field but is "dynamically generated" by the strong interaction (only about 2% of the proton/neutron mass is due to the Higgs mechanism; the entire rest is due to the strong interacion). This is a very complicated issue, not fully understood today. That it's right, however, we know from lattice-QCD calculations which reproduce the observed hadron-mass spectrum at the few percent level of accuracy.

The diagram may be a help for rote learning some facts about the Standard Model, but this is an approach to physics which is against the spirit of this most fascinating subject! The particle-adventure website quoted in #2 is way better.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
19K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K