Physics - As received

Einstein died trying to find a unified theory called everything theory of cosmic space laws where gravity plays a major part and quantum mechanics laws ie particles visible and non visible inside atom which behave differently from physical world and space and gravity has not much role to play. Einstein even called it spooky world as inside atom these wave like particles did not take a specific shape or position and only when Observed took shape and position. In experiments of quantum mechanics two particles emitted out of atom took same properties even billion light years away like two dice thrown always hit same number unexplained travelling even faster than light. This surprisingly made scientists look at mystic east ancient Bharat for answers. Steve Hawkins too died trying to find origin of universe , how did big bang started from nothing and how it will end. He did discover black hole emitted two particles one negative fell back and positive was emitted and black hole edge has radiation called hawkin radiation when earlier it was believed nothing can come out of black hole. So he said big bang came out of a large black hole with reverse happening called white hole. He said black holes also die. What was puzzling to him why gravity did not pull back and collapse universe coming out of black hole called singularity. This was answered later that gravity weakens as it moves distance. In fact time also weakens as it moves further from core which was proved by two synchronised clocks one kept on earth surface other taken to mountain top. Hence GPS satellites have to be synchronised as time gets slower. In fact both space , time and light itself bends in space . String theory ie universe is made of strings , general theory of relativity. 18 elementary particles have been discovered with its anti particle which makes matter . Neutrinos , quarks boson high called God particle There are 17 elementary particles (neglecting their anti-particles). Doesn't it seem that there are too many particles? Is there any attempt at finding a more fundamental particle which can simplify our understanding of particle physics? We are doing better than we were. In the 1960’s there were thought to be over 150 (maybe even over 400) elementary particles and it was playfully called the particle zoo. Then when quark theory came around, it was found that most of these particles were not fundimental at all but made out of quarks. It's not that confusing. You have four fundimental forces and you need at least one corresponding particle for each force (haven't found the graviton yet though). Then 3 sets of two leptons and quarks. The 3 sets are very similar however they have different masses. Perhaps there are an infinite numb Yes, you are right, there are too many, but anyhow it’s a great success of the Standard Model in reducing the complexity of the “particle zoo” out there to that acceptably small number of the “elementary” particles. From that perspective, it’s not such a big deal, because we have already observed and classified with acceptable accuracy almost everything practically applicable (although our current conceptual representation of our environment might be conceptually quite inaccurate, misleading and wrong). However, for progressing further we have to redefine the “basic” principles . If you are only considering stable particles, there are really only 5 (possibly 6) different kinds: up quark down quark electron neutrino photon and possibly graviton Except for the virtual particles that mediate the strong, weak, and electromagnetic force (and possibly gravity), and except for dark matter and dark energy whose composition we know nothing about, everything in the Universe is composed of the first five items on this list. The higher generations of quarks and leptons are created only under exceptional conditions and exist only for microseconds, decaying into some combination of the first There have indeed been ongoing efforts to find a more fundamental theory that could potentially unify or explain the multitude of known elementary particles. The current Standard Model of particle physics, which describes the fundamental particles and their interactions, contains 17 particles (not counting anti-particles). This may seem like a large number, and physicists have long sought to find a more unified, elegant explanation. One of the main approaches towards this goal is the search for a Theory of Everything (ToE), which could potentially describe all fundamental particles and forces. Oh no, to do that they would have to build enormous particle accelerators and employ theoretical physicists, mathematicians and engineers. I’m sure there can be no attempt of the kind. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is just a giant shooting arcade, nothing has come out of there since they discovered tbe Higgs particle in 2012. Maybe the Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC) in China will make greater progress, or even the Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) will do something more than putting a giant plasma screen for screening the Super Bowl. To many people, yes, it does seem like there are too many particles. There have been several attempts to reduce that number. For example, there is the preon model to explain the origin of quarks and leptons, and there is string theory which models all of those particles as different vibrational modes of a single underlying type of thing (a string). So far, none of them have panned out. “The Standard Model currently accounts for 6 quarks (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top), 6 antiquarks, 6 leptons (electron, muon and tau, and their respective neutrinos), 6 antileptons, 13 gauge bosons (8 gluons, photon, W+, W-, Z and graviton) and 1 Higgs boson. That adds up to 38 distinct elementary particles.” There are some theoretical concepts of more elementary , fundamental particles like preons or strings, but there are no experimental facts which could support this idea, at least at currently available energies of collisions allowing to study properties of elementary particles. Does string theory and preons exclude each other? Does string theory contradict the theory of preons, especially the Harari-Shupe one? If you see bosons as the basis of all our particles we’ve found, yes, there is. The electron and quark group excists both out of a boson combined with a fermion.Rests five real bosons, on their own. Clue behind the idea: the Higgs-boson feels the influence of 6 extra dimensions!( read: bosons!) Doesn't the standard model of elementary particle physics seem too cluttered? Shouldn't there be something more fundamental that gives rise to these particles? Of course there are some attempts to constructut a more fundamental theory than the Standard Model like String Theory or Theory of Preons, but they do not give clear experimental predictions which could validate them, so they stay only as mathematicel constructs. The Standard Model seems to work too well to be replaced soon by another model despite of containing many physical constants which have to be obtained from experiments. Physics beyond the Standard Model - Wikipedia Theories trying to extend known physics Physics beyond the Standard Model ( BSM ) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model , such as the inability to explain the fundamental parameters of the standard model, the strong CP problem , neutrino oscillations , matter–antimatter asymmetry , and the nature of dark matter and dark energy . [1] Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself: the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity , and one or both theories break down under certain conditions, such as spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons . Theories that lie beyond the Standard Model include various extensions of the standard model through supersymmetry , such as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) and Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM), and entirely novel explanations, such as string theory , M-theory , and extra dimensions . As these theories tend to reproduce the entirety of current phenomena, the question of which theory is the right one, or at least the "best step" towards a Theory of Everything , can only be settled via experiments, and is one of the most active areas of research in both theoretical and experimental physics . [2] Problems with the Standard Model [ edit ] Despite being the most successful theory of particle physics to date, the Standard Model is not perfect. [3] A large share of the published output of theoretical physicists consists of proposals for various forms of "Beyond the Standard Model" new physics proposals that would modify the Standard Model in ways subtle enough to be consistent with existing data, yet address its imperfections materially enough to predict non-Standard Model outcomes of new experiments that can be proposed. The Standard Model of elementary particles + hypothetical Graviton Phenomena not explained [ edit ] The Standard Model is inherently an incomplete theory. There are fundamental physical phenomena in nature that the Standard Model does not adequately explain: Gravity . The standard model does not explain gravity. The approach of simply adding a graviton to the Standard Model does not recreate what is observed experimentally without other modifications, as yet undiscovered, to the Standard Model. Moreover, the Standard Model is widely considered to be incompatible with the most successful theory of gravity to date, general relativity . [4] [b] [5] [a] Dark matter . Assuming that general relativity and Lambda CDM are true, cosmological observations tell us the standard model explains about 5% of the mass-energy present in the universe. About 26% should be dark matter (the remaining 69% being dark energy) which would behave just like other matter, but which only interacts weakly (if at all) with the Standard Model fields. Yet, the Standard Model does not supply any fundamental particles that are good dark matter candidates. . What is an elementary particle? An Elementary Particle is a Particle which makes up matter. In other words, it is the building blocks for matter. Elementary Particles are also known as Fundamental Particles, because, these particles cannot be broken down into simpler particles. Elementary Particles are the constituents of all forms of energy and matter. There are three classes of Elementary Particles: Quarks, Leptons and Bosons. There are six Quarks: Up Quark Down Quark Top Quark Bottom Quark Charm Quark Strange Quark But these Quarks also have their antiparticles, meaning that these are the particles which are oppositely charged as opposed to the matter particles. They are: Up Antiquark Down Antiquark Top Antiquark Bottom Antiquark Charm Antiquark Strange Antiquark There are six Leptons: Electron Mu Tau Electron neutrino Mu neutrino Tau neutrino Even these have their antiparticles: Positron Antimu Antitau Electron antineutrino Mu antineutrino Tau antineutrino There are five Bosons: W Boson (there are two types: W+ and W-) Z Boson Photon Higgs Boson Gluon (there are 8 types of Gluons) These are the elementary particles. Quarks 2 up and 1 down form proton and quark 1 up 2 down form neutron. The point is : Will we ever be able to find out the basic building blocks of the matter as we all know electrons, neutrons, protons, quarks, bosons are not the elementary particles? The cosmos universe is accelerating and what's pushing it dark matter or dark energy or both while it should be slowing down as per big bang and laws of physics and gravity. Also we are bombarded by neutrinos invisible to us and of 3 types although we are looking for 4th type too invisible thought to be with zero mass but how can anything with zero mass travel and that too faster than light so now they say it should have some mass or we would be wrong and how quantum particles when emitted in pairs and travelling billions of light years apart have similar state and property. Perhaps only God knows who created this universe and all of us living in it .