Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
So I found this comment under a pop science video. Is /sci/ able to give answers to these questions? Or is he/she right?
Is the standard model full of shit?
>The Standard Model theories are actually based on an utterly false foundation.
>Here are the biggest problems in physics
1. 122 orders of magnitude difference (10 to the power of 122) between the Cosmological Constant (dark energy or vacuum energy at the cosmological scale thought to be responsible for the expansion of our universe) and the quantum vacuum density (the energy density at the Planck scale — Planck density)
2. The inconsistency between quantum forces (especially the Strong Force) and cosmological forces, primarily gravity, which is currently thought of as far too weak at the large scale to address the magnitude of the Strong Force. Hence they have been seen as having different origins, neither of which is explained.
4. What is the source of Mass and therefore, Energy, since the two are convertible through Einstein’s E=mc2 formula?
5. What determines the Speed of Light, that physics deems to be the ultimate “speed limit” of the physical universe?
6. What is the “missing mass-energy” of the universe, called Dark Matter and Dark Energy, that’s currently required to explain large-scale dynamics of galactic structures and the expansion of the universe?
7. Why the disparity of the mass of the Planck and the mass of the proton relative to their size (i.e. the Hierarchy problem between the Planck the proton and thus gravity).
8. What is the mechanism and the source of energy that produces spin for both the cosmological scale in the universe and the quantum scale?
9. What enables atoms and their constituent components (protons, electrons, etc) to remain spinning indefinitely with no known cause or explanation as to why they’re not slowing down due to inertia and entropy?
>>
>>7765721
Even if scientists can only say "I don't know" to all of those questions, what's the point? How does this refute the standard model?
>>
>>7765721
>I found this comment under a pop science video.
Saged because ou are:
1) Asking for simple and mathematics free explanations of things that are heavily dependent on mathematics; therefore the explanation will be incorrect
2) you haven't made the effort to study and understand these things yourself
3) you don't understand the meaning of your question "Is the standard model full of shit?" because of your lack of knowledge of physics. Hence any answer will be meaningless to you.
>>
>>7765721
4. Matter is the source of mass, therefore the source of energy is matter, and the source of matter is energy.
Overall, this person just seems to be asking a bunch of questions that either have already been answered but are too technical for this pop science-viewing "intellectual" to begin to understand or don't have answers to them as of right now.
For all we know, our understanding of the universe might be a tiny bit incorrect or fundamentally incorrect, but we're trying our best to find the truth, however far from it we may be.
>>
>>7765721
the answer to the 9th is that you have misunderstood spin
the particle is not spinning about any rotational axis,
spin is an intrinsic property of the particle, much like charge
it would be really uncool if a structureless particle, such as an electron, were actually spinning
>>
>>7765741
>but we're trying our best to find the truth, however far from it we may be.
It's also possible, that there is no way to find an ultimate truth, and the best we can do is model specific phenomena under special conditions
>>
>>7765735
why are you so butthurt anon?
1) I didn't ask for a simple explanation. Of course I would appreciate some explanation of the mathematics if you include them
2) Physics are not my career choice, I am interested in the universe though, and I don't see how not dedicating my life to such topics would invalidate my thirst for knowledge
3) Stop assuming things and being a killjoy senpai
>>7765730
I am guesisng his/her point is that if the standard model can't explain these things then it must be wrong or at least flawed
>>7765743
thanks, that is a nice explanation
>>7765741
>For all we know, our understanding of the universe might be a tiny bit incorrect or fundamentally incorrect, but we're trying our best to find the truth, however far from it we may be.
Yeah, I understand that, I was not trying to imply otherwise.
>>7765746
I agree with this I guess
>>
>>7765721
>5. What determines the Speed of Light, that physics deems to be the ultimate “speed limit” of the physical universe?
A "percent" of the width of the universe. Time dilation seems to affect this. This is why the expansion of the universe occurred so quickly and why light travels slower in denser masses.
>>
>>7765721
>what enables electrons to spin indefinitely with no known cause
there is no good evidence that particles have angular momentum.
This meme that electrons have angular momentum was caused by the fact that physicists have very few models to explain magnetic moments
>>
>>7765721
he/she is probably right.
However the standard model is the best model we have and has predictive and explanatory power.
Physics isn't concerned with fundamental truth, but physical and explanatory power, the standard model is probably wrong, but it is sufficiently accurate to be a useful model and after all there may be no model which can completely and accurately describe the universe.
>>
>>7765753
>I am guesisng his/her point is that if the standard model can't explain these things then it must be wrong or at least flawed
no shit. The standard model has massless neutrinos, and yet we know they have mass. Everyone knows the standard model has flaws
That guy is an idiot though,
1) big problem everyone knows about
2) the standard model does not include gravity, so this makes no sense
4) no idea what this is supposed to mean
5) it doesnt matetr what it is
6) dark energy is not 'missing mass'. it is the cosmological constant that he talks about in 1.
7) uses words he obviously does not understand, whats the proton have to do with it?
8) wat
9) he doesnt even understand basic QM it seems
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1