Is the Standard Model Broken? Physics Debate at FriendZone
Summary
FriendZone | Make Friends & Chat ⋅ Active Social Fun ⋅ Chill ⋅ VC hosts a deep dive into the flaws of the Standard Model of physics. This announcement challenges the necessity of force carriers and the current top-down approach to particle physics, inviting members to discuss topological alternatives to QFT. It is a must-read for science enthusiasts looking to engage in high-level intellectual debate within our active social community.
Physicists see it as their most magnificent equation. Agreed, the Lagrangian is beautiful.
And yet, is it ?
Look into it, and it is missing gravity.
[It is also missing the hallucinated dark matter XD, why, could Cosmologists not convince Particle Physicists about how cool their hallucinations about 95% of the universe are ?]
It uses the gauge group SU(2)xSU(3)xU(1) to account for the symmetries of particles and their degrees of freedom.
And yet, it fails to answer so many questions, theories that use it refuse to answer why they treat particles as points, and point excitations in case of QFT. Why do all these particles, with, as per you, different origins, different force carriers, and even different symmetries, come together to form a universe where everything works like clockwork ? Why does the Higgs Field give mass to all particles, without caring for their independent origins ? Why do these different classes of particles all agree on having interactions as per the same force ? Why do forces need carriers ? Why do you need invisible photons to carry electromagnetism ? And even if they do, why do they allow interactions between these independent classes of particles as per the same equations ? Why do you need to violate mathematics and introduce renormalization if your model is so perfect ?
Further, the SM is more of a top down approach, which relies on mixing in every new particle they find with its independent origin into the same Lagrangian. Why are you doing this ? Why not do it the rigorous way ?
Design a topology with invariants and structure rich enough that particles are emergent as topological entities with unique degrees of freedom, with forces as topological interactions between particles without hallucinating force carriers ?
Next, why are you so hellbent on unifying GR, which is more topological, with your standard model ? Why are you so hellbent on creating imaginary particles to carry a force ? Maybe the actual answer is, particles are topological entities, and have only one sourced origin, that allows different degrees of freedom ? Perhaps the reason SM and GR seem incompatible because they are incomplete ? Perhaps the reason you're looking for particles everywhere as force carriers, is because, particles are topological, and their interactions arise from topology, and hence the reason you're looking for particles that don't need to exist ? What happens if our universe is a topological medium with coloured noise, and could that give rise to non linear quantum mechanics, allow topological interactions as forces without needing to create all these ghost particles ? Why are you trying to assign a force carrier particle to gravity that we already know to be vastly different [atleast for now], and more topological in nature ?
Lastly, the standard model is non linear, why are all your simulations linear approximations ? Embrace non linearity, and perhaps even non locality.
[ Doesn't mean no one is trying, I've seen some bright minds try, theories like TQFTs, LQG, Skyrme's, etc, exist, but never get the spotlight in academia ]
hmmmmmm
?
