Particles in the Standard Model - Mass & Size

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of particles in the Standard Model of particle physics, specifically addressing their mass, size, and dimensionality. Participants explore whether particles are treated as dimensionless and massless points in the equations of the Standard Model, and the implications of these characteristics on the model's adequacy and the necessity of the Higgs Mechanism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the Standard Model's equations presuppose that all particles have zero mass and zero dimensions, suggesting they may be purely mathematical points.
  • It is noted that masses are introduced into the equations by hand based on laboratory measurements.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the treatment of dimensions in the Standard Model, with some indicating that the concept becomes fuzzy due to quantum theory.
  • There is a suggestion that the equations may encounter problems when incorporating mass and dimensions, potentially necessitating speculative modifications like the Higgs Mechanism.
  • One participant asserts that the Standard Model treats particles as dimensionless, while another elaborates that the formulation begins with fields rather than particles.
  • Concerns are raised about the inadequacy of the Standard Model, particularly regarding the treatment of particles as dimensionless and massless points, and whether this is why the Higgs Mechanism is proposed.
  • Discussion includes the idea that the process of renormalization is related to particles being point-sized, leading to infinities in calculations as particles are approached mathematically.
  • Some participants mention that string theory offers a different perspective by introducing a length scale to particles, which may address certain infinity problems associated with point particles.
  • One participant emphasizes that the Higgs mechanism is an essential part of the Standard Model, countering the notion that it is speculative, while also noting the lack of direct evidence for the Higgs particle.
  • Another participant argues that the concept of particle size is not well-defined, suggesting that fundamental objects in particle physics are fields rather than particles.
  • A layman contributes a perspective on the relationship between electric and gravitational forces, proposing a view on the nature of matter and its properties.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the treatment of particles in the Standard Model, with some agreeing that particles are treated as dimensionless, while others challenge this notion. There is no consensus on the implications of these characteristics for the model's adequacy or the necessity of the Higgs Mechanism.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the dimensionality and mass of particles, as well as the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps in the discussion.

albroun
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
A quick question from a non-physicist and non-mathematician.

Do the equations of the Standard Model (without the Higgs Mechanism and any other speculative theories) presuppose that all the particles have zero mass and zero dimensions i.e. are they purely "mathematical" points?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the masses are put in by hand from lab measurements.
 
And the dimensions?
 
albroun said:
And the dimensions?

This gets a little fuzzy because of quantum theory, i.e. wave-particle nature.
 
In terms of the Standard Model, however, do the basic set of equations treat the particles as dimensionless?
 
In other words, once the masses and dimensions (understood in the fuzzy way of statistical probabilities and indeterminacy etc) are added to the equations, do the equations run into problems which then require speculative modifications (such as the Higgs Mechanism) to make them work? Or am I on the wrong track here?
 
albroun said:
In terms of the Standard Model, however, do the basic set of equations treat the particles as dimensionless?

Yes.
 
Is this the main reason that the Standard Model is regarded as inadequate (despite its predictive accuracy) - that the particles have to be treated as dimemsionless, massless points? Is that why the Higgs Mechanism is postulated to bring mass into the equations? Is there a similar kind of theory as to how particles gain size?
 
That the whole process of re-normalisation is required is due to particles (quantum field excitations) being point sized. As one approaches a particle (mathematically) the forces go to infinity or zero depending on the force. At high energies you can force particles closer and closer together, if they had a size there would be a natural limit to this.

Why the masses of particles are what they are is a mystery. The Higgs mechanism breaks symmetry and gives mass to some of the vector bosons that carry the weak force, this limits the range of the force. As far as I understand the mechanism does not give mass to all particles.

As for the size I don't think there is any kind of mechanism for this. The dimensionlessness is a mathematical necessity. String theory does get around this problem a little by postulating a length to a string. This does solve one of the infinity problems associated with point particles.
 
  • #10
To dispel a misconception: the standard model contains the Higgs mechanism as an essential part. The Higgs mechanism is not regarded as a speculative theory and the evidence for it is very strong. There is a missing piece of evidence, in that we haven't seen the Higgs particle yet, but if it wasn't found I think it's fair to say that it would be a big surprise.

As to the size of particles: this isn't a particularly well-defined of meaningful question. Particles certainly aren't like little billiard balls whizzing around.
The fundamental objects in particle physics are fields, of which the electromagnetic field is probably the best-known example. Classically, energy and momentum should propagate through the field like ocean waves on water. But the laws of quantum physics mean that energy and momentum are carried by the field only in discrete lumps. When these lumps of energy and momentum are transferred all in one go, it's a bit like the impact of a billiard ball, and so these lumps are called particles.

So in answer to a few of the specific questions raised:
1. Do the basic set of equations treat the particles as dimensionless?
The formulation of the standard model and other quantum field theories don't start with particles at all, only fields. Particles come later as a consequence. So the equations don't have any supposition about particles at all, dimensionless or otherwise.
2. Where do the values of the masses come from?
They're put in by hand; they are free parameters of the theory which can basically be adjusted to fit experiment.
3.Why is the standard model considered inadequate?
There are quite a few reasons why we are looking to go beyond the standard model; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Standard_Model" for a good overview.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
The elctric charge is a definite thing in space that not change in time. In the same "point" is another kind of charge "gravity. That is, i think, in that point must be something that posses both properties : electric force and gravity force. This concentration of force and energy in max. amount near the "point" is colled mater. Mater is alpha and omega of everything because it posses both main forces of natyre. The fields are property of matter, that is of particles that are supporter of mater.
This is the opinion of a layman
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
9K