Talk:Physics beyond the Standard Model

message: I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is about.  Perhaps it is a little too ambitious and is trying to list/detail every beyond the standard model theory and test rather than trying to list the motivations for the work.  
In addition, there are many mistakes (that anyone could have made in undertaking such an expansive task)... for instance the only dimension 5 operator in the SM are neutrino masses (the other ones are not Lorentz invariant).  I'm hesitating to correct them because I'm pretty sure that this is not the place for a list of those operators.
===Possible organisational strategy===
May be starting with a simple discussion of the failings of the SM -- mainly that there are 20+ parameters of the SM that have no explanation.   May be also state the need to extend the SM to accommodate the Standard Model of Cosmology.  Perhaps finally a word on neutrino masses.  
In its own section, the parameters of the SM can be listed in a simple fashion and what physicists view as needing to be explained: gauge couplings (gauge coupling unification?),  fermion masses/mixings (hierarchical structure), strong CP (axion?), higgs mass (hierarchy problem), etc... 
Then similar fashion do the interface between the SM and the SM of cosmology: inflation, dark matter, CC problem, baryogenesis, etc (is there anything else?)
Finally, if needed, there could be links to beyond the standard model constraints, theories, etc.
-- jay 04:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with most of this.  In particular, insofar as this is a general-use encyclopedia article, we need to start out by explaining the issues in terms that someone with relatively limited knowledge could understand, and only later get to the technical details. -- SCZenz 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this article, as it currently stands, bites off more than it can chew. It looks more like the table of contents for a book, than an article. linas 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some advantages to this style, though. It is now not so difficult to expand some sections and make them articles in their own right. They can then be moved and linked from here.Count Iblis 13:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article contains a lot of useful information.  In particular, the list of operators and terms in the standard model is a good reference, despite a few errors.  However, these lists are good references for information about the standard model, ie, if I were to look for them I'd look on the Standard Model page, not here.  So I'd suggest incorporating them onto the SM page, which is a bit short on details of the operators/interactions anyway.  Then this page can concentrate on, as its title suggests, ways to go beyond the standard model.  I don't really know where neutrino masses fit in there, although they have their own page which I'd guess should be linked to the SM page and this page. JarahE 22:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Discussion (2006)

message: May be starting with a simple discussion of the failings of the SM -- mainly that there are 20+ parameters of the SM that have no explanation.   May be also state the need to extend the SM to accommodate the Standard Model of Cosmology.  Perhaps finally a word on neutrino masses.  
In its own section, the parameters of the SM can be listed in a simple fashion and what physicists view as needing to be explained: gauge couplings (gauge coupling unification?),  fermion masses/mixings (hierarchical structure), strong CP (axion?), higgs mass (hierarchy problem), etc... 
Then similar fashion do the interface between the SM and the SM of cosmology: inflation, dark matter, CC problem, baryogenesis, etc (is there anything else?)
Finally, if needed, there could be links to beyond the standard model constraints, theories, etc.
-- jay 04:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with most of this.  In particular, insofar as this is a general-use encyclopedia article, we need to start out by explaining the issues in terms that someone with relatively limited knowledge could understand, and only later get to the technical details. -- SCZenz 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this article, as it currently stands, bites off more than it can chew. It looks more like the table of contents for a book, than an article. linas 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some advantages to this style, though. It is now not so difficult to expand some sections and make them articles in their own right. They can then be moved and linked from here.Count Iblis 13:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article contains a lot of useful information.  In particular, the list of operators and terms in the standard model is a good reference, despite a few errors.  However, these lists are good references for information about the standard model, ie, if I were to look for them I'd look on the Standard Model page, not here.  So I'd suggest incorporating them onto the SM page, which is a bit short on details of the operators/interactions anyway.  Then this page can concentrate on, as its title suggests, ways to go beyond the standard model.  I don't really know where neutrino masses fit in there, although they have their own page which I'd guess should be linked to the SM page and this page. JarahE 22:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible organisational strategy

message: There seems to be a more complete discussion of physics beyond the Standard Model at Standard Model#Challenges to the standard model.  Would it be better to merge this article back into the Standard Model article, or expand this article based on that information?  Djr32 (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definetaly expand. It's a real shame that BtSM is so stub-like. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge.  This appears to be about a movement or school of thought, so it deserves its own article.  I came to this article by way of Phenomenology (particle physics), in search of an explanation for something someone said in a conversation about alternate ways of thinking, something about phenomenology and whether there were alternatives to it.  I think this article represents what that guy was talking about.--Brambleshire (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Merging is a bad idea. "Beyond the Standard Model physics" is a phrase that is used a LOT in modern physics, and we need an article to explain what it entails.TimothyRias (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge. I think that I would like to develop, or help develop, this article. It seems to be an interesting topic. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everybody opposes the merge - I agree that it would be best not to merge, it just seemed pointless to have an article that had less detail than there was in the section in the Standard Model article.  I think that the article has expanded sufficiently by now that this is no longer an issue (although there's still plenty of room for more).  Djr32 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: There is the point "the missing matter problem (dark energy and dark matter)
As far as I know, Dark energy has nothing to do with a missing matter. I think this should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddimensões (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing matter? 

message: Besides the more obvious PoV pushing issue with the recent additions to this article, there is a more fundamental problem with them. They are off-topic in this article. Unlike string theory other approaches to quantum gravity typically are not beyond the standard model theories in the sense that they do not proclaim to extend the standard model, i.e. do not claim to contain the SM in some limit. (A claim that IS made by string theory, despite problems with reproducing solutions with the proper sign for the cosmological constant.)
As such any discussion of such theories being excluded is off-topic in this article and more appropriate for quantum gravity.TimothyRias (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum gravity is not Beyond the standard model 

message: Should this article be renamed such that the title is actually a noun phrase? For example to "Beyond the Standard Model physics"?TimothyRias (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too hot on that. "Beyond the Standard Model" seems to be the standard phrase. "Standard Model" refers to the "Standard Model of particle physics", so that would make it "Beyond the Standard Model of particle physics physics" in it's long form. If a rename needs to happen (and I'm not convince it does), it should be to "Physics beyond the Standard Model". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Physics beyond the Standard Model" sounds best to me, mainly on grammatical grounds. It's described that way in the article itself (i.e. that's what the first few words are).  It was also suggested back in 2006 in the AfD linked above.  Djr32 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine both with "Physics beyond the Standard Model" and "Beyond the Standard Model physics". Both phrases are fairly common. The current title is unacceptable per WP:NOUN.TimothyRias (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "Physics beyond the Standard Model" is probably best. I got that phrase from the body of the Symmetry Magazine article used for a reference. It seems more descriptive than the phrase "Beyond the Standard Model". I do have the impression that anyone interested in Physics will know what the "Standard Model" is, but this title would be for the general reader. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: I think discussion of Phyiscs beyond the Standard Model should include the Higgs mechanism, or force, or boson, or all three. For one thing, it is a hypothetical particle that helps the Standard Model work. No one can be sure that the HIggs boson actually exists, and there are other competing theories. As I understand the situation, something else besides the Higgs may show up. I think since it is still hypothetical, and not a sure thing it is part of beyond the standard model description. Any opinions? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know physicists who are willing to take bets that it will never show, and are wondering which direction physics will take once that happens, so yes, I think it's relevant. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I think there should probably be a mention of the Higgs mechanism/boson, in the "problems" section in a subsection about predictions that have not been verified.TimothyRias (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Higgs is part of the Standard Model. Since it's hypothetical, I suppose there could be a discussion about what happens if the Higgs isn't found to exist, but discussions of the Higgs itself and the Higgs mechanism is bread and butter Standard Model stuff and better left on these articles (i.e. in Higgs boson, Higgs mechanism, Standard Model, not here). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Headbomb makes a good point, and it makes sense. My only question is - if the Higgs boson is found to exist then do we enter into an area of "new physics"? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it behaves exactly like the SM Higgs boson, then no, this is however deemed unlikely due to various issues like the Hierarchy problem.TimothyRias (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Due to the fact that supersymmetry is almost standard in theoretical physics, you can almost say that if something is found that rules out the most popular supersymmetric scenarios, that this would be evidence for "new physics" :)  . Count Iblis (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Higgs boson

message: I believe that this contains some information under the section "Neutrino masses" and "Matter–antimatter asymmetry" which needs to be revised
I am not sure if section "Neutrino masses" fits into the problematics of SM, because of the predicted Higgs-Boson, as a possible source of mass for the neutrino. Although the HB is not yet discovered it is a part - yet unproven - of SM.
Also I think that "Matter-antimatter asymmetry" has been already figured and explained of basic and tiny inhomogenities of  the "Big Bang" matter which in the inflating period of the Universe - well - inflated into huge non-homogeny, which later caused the imbalanced and thus surviving matter part of the Universe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.221.91 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong on both accounts. According to the standard model neutrinos are massless. (And there is no renormalizible way to add mass to them through coupling with the Higgs boson. Inhomogeneities in the Big Bang cannot explain why there is more matter than anti-matter.TR 06:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the Standard Model

message: "if the Higgs boson is not found at the LHC, then SU(2) breaking and mass generation must involve physics beyond the Standard Model." This isn't true. Upper bounds on the Higgs mass are greatly relaxed by many theories that extend the standard model, but still contain the Higgs mechanism, allowing for the Higgs mass to be out of the reach of the LHC. A more accurate statement would be that if the Higgs is not found below the it's SM-predicted upper bound, then there must be physics beyond the standard model---this physics doesn't have to alter the SU(2) breaking and mass generation, however.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LHC not finding the Higgs boson 

message: The last two points in the theoretical problems section relate to observations at BaBar. Surely this should be in the Experimental observations not explained section? EDIT: Wasn't logged in when I signed this. Orentago (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscategorisation of BaBar Findings

message: "The standard model has three gauge symmetries; the colour SU(3), the weak isospin SU(2), and the hypercharge U(1) symmetry,"
That's wrong, isn't it? I'm not sure what the right classification would be, but at Hypercharge (another distressingly vague article), hypercharge is described as a combination of isospin and flavour, and as "defined by [...] the SU(3) model". 
If the section isn't accurate, I'd like to remove it. This stuff is already difficult enough without poor explanations!
Buster79 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have linked to weak hypercharge. I fixed it. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand unified theories 

message: There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate.  SchreiberBike talk 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of capitalization of ''universe'' 

message: An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of request for comment 

message: Why is the image of Higgs boson decay simulation shown on every page in category "Beyond the Standard Model" while this particle appears to be in compliance with predictions of SM? (so far) Doesn't seem to me to be beyond the SM. Maybe it will change after completing of run II in LHC but until then, there should be maybe some other picture.
Dowrin (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Higgs boson decay

message: As much as I appreciate and enjoyed reading the content of this article, physics that is "beyond" the Standard Model at this time is also "beyond" the scope of articles that can be said to have value as established and peer vetted science suited to encyclopedic or even wikipedic content.
You can't put it in a meta-pedia either.  That name is already taken for content of another kind.
The bibliography is solid, at least. Danshawen (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you flag specific things which you suspect violate WP:OR? Certainly the topic of the article is backed up by thousands of peer-reviewed papers, so I strongly disagree that it's a problem. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 07:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting wikipedia article, but violates "no original research" rule of content 

message: {{We should to look at alternate narratives to inform physics and cosmology beyond the standard model. There are experimental results, models, theories, and narrative. The first three are science research. The narrative is an interpretation. The narrative can inform further science if it is directionally correct or better, or the narrative can take science down blind alleys and conundrums if it is wrong. What I am trying to address here is the narrative. I think physicists and cosmologists have chosen several incorrect narratives to explain their science. In that sense narrative is a meta issue. What I am trying to point out is an alternative narrative, consistent with the existing measurements, and piecewise consistent with the models and math. Piecewise, meaning consistent where the model applies. An example would be the interpretation of the singularity in a black hole. From the literature it is fairly clear that scientists are not sure what to make of it, but they have created a narrative that I think has led them down the wrong path. The singularity can just as well be a phase change in the Higgs condensate. If scientists had chosen that narrative, then that would inform new science in a different way.
QM calls the vacuum the Higgs condensate. A condensate is a gas. See Bose-Einstein condensate. Scientists could choose to interpret the singularity of general relativity as the phase change from Higgs condensate to plasma. That would be far more consistent with other objects in the universe (planets, stars) which experience increasing pressure and temperature at the core.  If the singularity is a Higgs condensate to plasma phase change, then the narrative around SMBH jets would change. The SMBH jets would contain plasma from inside the black hole. Since the singularity narrative is not valid in this narrative, plasma can escape a black hole under certain conditions.
If you keep pulling on the thread of this alternate narrative, it informs galaxy rotation curves and eliminates the narrative for dark matter. The decay of plasma and the decay of Higgs condensate can explain the CMB. The outflow of plasma can be a new narrative for inflation. The Higgs condensate to plasma phase change, outjetting, and condensing back into Higgs condensate provides an alternative narrative to the Big Bang. General relativity effects can now have a new narrative explained by change in Higgs condensate permittivity and permeability as a function of condensate energy. That means the fine structure “constant” varies with energy too, which is known, but the mechanism has not been known. "Gravitational lensing" is refraction of photons based on Higgs condensate permittivity. 
This alterative narrative is much simpler and experimental results stand, and much of the math and theory can be rearranged and refactored to fit the narrative.
Try this narrative on for size yourself and go the the wikipedia page for unsolved problems in physics. It is obvious to me that twenty+ problems fall. 
J Mark Morris (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not accept original research, only material that has been published in reliable, peer-reviewed sources (see WP:RS for details). Mindmatrix 19:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that original research applies to the article itself, not the talk page, which WP:OR suggests for discussion. In any case much of what I wrote above is an alternative narrative for existing experimental results and theories. A close reading of the relevant literature will reveal many cases where physicists or cosmologists express doubt or uncertainty of the existing narratives. J Mark Morris (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression you were suggesting additions to the article, which is why I mentioned the "no original research" policy. If you're simply interested in discussing your proposal, please note that there are better venues for this. Wikipedia talk pages are only for discussions about how to improve the respective article (in this case, Physics beyond the Standard Model), not for general discussion (even if its about the same subject). Please conduct such discussion on a physics-related forum elsewhere on the web. Mindmatrix 02:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a good point. I would like to see changes to the article, but I also understand that my ideas are new and it will take some time to gain acceptance, or rejection based on scientific rebuttal. So my point was to plant a flag here that I think these changes are needed, but I realize that it will take more support before they are accepted by the community.  I will make this clearer in future contributions. J Mark Morris (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you sent any paper(s) to scientific journals for review? Or are you just dumping your "ideas" into a Wikipedia talk page? This is not a forum for any kind of discussion about said "ideas". Also, if you have had papers published, you would be in a conflict of interest when making any contribution to articles that touch on the subject matter of your "ideas". Wikipedia policies require reliable sources independent of the original source, which in this case would be you. ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cush, your response is borderline bullying, and that is not appropriate. You have created several strawman arguments and knocked them down and none apply to my posting above. I did not ask for a discussion. My post on this talk page about physics beyond the standard model has not been published so your other arguments do not apply. In any case, my talk page post above can be archived or deleted (if that is allowed), as far as I am concerned.J Mark Morris (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask what your purpose was in making your talk page post? It clearly seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, maybe even WP:PROMOTION. As I implied before, this talk page in not a platform to publish editor's personal hypotheses, irrespective of any possible merit. I take it, you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, so it would be appropriate to ask you to adhere to the very basic WP policies, even in talk pages (and I do realize WP policies have become quite strict over the last decade). I suggest for you to archive this section, and to seek a suitable publishing platform for your propositions, where you would elaborate further on your views and provide their mathematical formulations. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I look at it this way: There are experimental results, models, theories, and narrative. The first three are science research. The narrative is an interpretation. The narrative can inform further science if it is directionally correct or better, or the narrative can take science down blind alleys and conundrums if it is wrong. What I am trying to address here is the narrative. I think physicists and cosmologists have chosen several incorrect narratives to explain their science. In that sense narrative is a meta issue. What I am trying to point out is an alternative narrative, consistent with the existing measurements, and piecewise consistent with the models and math. Piecewise, meaning consistent where the model applies. An example would be the interpretation of the singularity in a black hole. From the literature it is fairly clear that scientists are not sure what to make of it, but they have created a narrative that I think has led them down the wrong path. The singularity can just as well be a phase change in the Higgs condensate. If scientists had chosen that narrative, then that would inform new science in a different way. I edited my original talk post in this section to clarify with this response, use more standard language, and raise the level of abstraction.J Mark Morris (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I think that the subject "Causal Fermion Systems" should be included in this article. There are already articles about it and it is a candidate for a unified field theory and it is definitely physics beyond the Standard Model. If no one objects, I will add a section about it.  Ed Lulofs  —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Physics Narrative 

message: The section “Experimental results not explained” begins:
But the end of the section has a bullet point about B meson decay, saying “In 2017 it was reported as a 5 sigma deviation from SM.” If this isn't a contradiction (I don't know the subject matter), it merits a bit of explanation—does it not definitively contradict the Standard Model? Or is it not generally accepted that it does so? Or is there some other subtlety?
Luke Maurer (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  5-sigma 

message: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.11769.pdf
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/intriguing-new-result-lhcb-experiment-cern
Morzenmebs (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research 

message: The first paragraph needs to mention that the standard model does not explain the interactions and elementary particles.
They are added "by hand".
I added a few words, but they were deleted after less than an hour.
This was my last attempt to improve this low-quality article.
Too many physicists are making fun of its partly wrong and partly misleading contents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.103.172 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Omission in introduction (2022)