The Standard Model of Particle Physics Written Out

by Max Andrews

With the recent discovery of a new boson, which is likely to be the elusive Higgs boson, the standard model for particle physics would not be complete.  Keep in mind that this only confirms the model that has been used for a long time now.  This explains the early moments after the big bang where there was the electroweak force which separated and became the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces (there’s also the strong nuclear force).  This doesn’t unify the theory of gravity. Physicists must still develop a theory of quantum gravity.

This will describe every physical interaction in the universe.  This explains all of particle physics, biology, chemistry, etc. Why is DNA in the form of a double helix? See the above!  There is a term in here that has, for the longest time, but assumed up until the confirmation of the Higgs boson. Can you find it?

Nope?

Not yet?

Still looking?

Well, either way, if you found it or if you didn’t here it is.

It’s about thirteen rows from the top on the left. The H here is the Higgs boson.

For more on the standard model of particle physics in an much easier to read format please see this chart.

 


8 Responses to “The Standard Model of Particle Physics Written Out”

  1. I have been wondering if this has any kind of implication for String theory?

    • Not really. After this we have to find a quantum model of gravity to get us prior to the Planck era of 10^-43 second and then string theory would kick in. So, string theory is still a bit further down the road.

  2. Is there an equal sign in there somewhere?

  3. Possibly the most intriguing thing about this equation is the simple fact that some people can look upon the whole of the mathematicl intricacy required for our Universe to function coherently, and imagine that the whole of it simply exists, without design, without purpose, without intent.

  4. I want to know what every variable in the equation means. Please? Pretty please. I have looked everywhere on the internet and can’t find it. They must have them labeled somewhere or they would not have put them into an equation. It’s not in that link you posted. Even if I tried making guesses off of the chart I don’t see the variable “X” anywhere.

    It is a major tease to write out this equation without labeling the variables and it’s driving me crazy.

    • Variables are more than just “x’s”. Variables are anything that do not remain constant from one conclusion to another. So, I’m not quite sure what it IS that you’re looking for.

  5. Trackbacks

Leave a Reply