standard model

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: standard model

Re: standard model

Post by thray » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:32 pm

scipf77 wrote:The math that supported the Earth centered solar system was junk.
The standard model math looks a lot like the math that supported
the Earth centered solar system. The standard model math can
always be modified with a new virtual particle or a new field if it
appears to be incompatible with experimental results. Can it
ever be wrong?


Not junk. In fact, planetary orbits in relation to Earth are very nearly circular, but just enough precessed to require constant correction. The results of Kepler were a simplification that led to his first law; however, as Leslie Lamport notes, "Kepler’s first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse. This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler’s law is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be consistent with the predicted ellipse." ("Buridan's PrincipleFound. Phys., Apr 2012".

The SM is preceded by, and crafted from, experimental results. That's why it's so ugly. :lol:

standard model

Post by scipf77 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:02 am

The math that supported the Earth centered solar system was junk.
The standard model math looks a lot like the math that supported
the Earth centered solar system. The standard model math can
always be modified with a new virtual particle or a new field if it
appears to be incompatible with experimental results. Can it
ever be wrong?

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library