The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
symmetrymagazine.org
The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#2Well, when you put it like that... suddenly it all makes sense :p
Seriously though, very neat to see the actual equation used to model the universe.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#3I've been banging my head on QFT and the Standard Model for enough time now that I can actually glimpse more or less what those terms actualy mean, as in , I can translate them into words. It's almost like learning a new language! Pretty awesome.
Still, despite all this complexity, we still have several minor and major theoretical gaps to fill. Exciting times!
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#4Well, when you put it like that... suddenly it all makes sense :p Seriously though, very neat to see the actual equation used to model the universe.
When I was a wee undergrad, a grad student office-mate had printed out these equations and posted them on the office door. He wrote on it: The simplicity of the Standard Model. Or words to that effect; this was in the condensed matter physics division.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#5I've been banging my head on QFT and the Standard Model for enough time now that I can actually glimpse more or less what those terms actualy mean , as in , I can translate them into words. It's almost like learning a new language! Pretty awesome. Still, despite all this complexity, we still have several minor and major theoretical gaps to fill. Exciting times!
I, as a layman with basic college physics knowledge, and passing knowledge of the standard model, want to understand the meaning of those terms. Do you know how I can go about that? Ideally, with something a little less dense than a textbook.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#6I've been banging my head on QFT and the Standard Model for enough time now that I can actually glimpse more or less what those terms actualy mean , as in , I can translate them into words. It's almost like learning a new language! Pretty awesome. Still, despite all this complexity, we still have several minor and major theoretical gaps to fill. Exciting times!
I, as a layman with basic college physics knowledge, and passing knowledge of the standard model, want to understand the meaning of those terms. Do you know how I can go about that? Ideally, with something a little less dense than a textbook.
I have a PhD in physics, though not particle physics. QFT was required, since the methods appear all over in condensed matter physics.
Unfortunately, there is no real shortcut to being able to understand those terms except by studying one of the standard texts. And, physics being what it is, you can expect a pretty hard slog because the texts will assume you know first quantization back and forth. Add to that, it's not just QFT but the domain-specific standard model knowledge.
Dealing with QM requires PDEs, linear algebra, a fair bit of applied analysis (real and complex). Dealing with QFT requires that, plus learning a bunch of new techniques with the typical hand-wavy rigor of physics. (Hand-wavy compared to math.)
If you want to get a feel of the Standard Model without knowing QFT, the text I used when I took senior-level particle physics is great: Introduction to Elementa Particles, by David Griffiths. (He's an excellent writer, btw; I recommend any of his physics books).
As for the standard texts for particle physics, I'm afraid I've been out of the loop for too long to remember what books were used.
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#7I love how everybody uses Gutierrez's typesetting. If I ever meet him and have the presence of mind to put two and two together, I'll buy him a beer.
If you want the TeX source for your own purposes, it's here: http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/stmL1.html
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, as a layman with basic college physics knowledge, and passing knowledge of the standard model, want to understand the meaning of those terms. Do you know how I can go about that? Ideally, with something a little less dense than a textbook.
I have a PhD in physics, though not particle physics. QFT was required, since the methods appear all over in condensed matter physics. Unfortunately, there is no real shortcut to being able to understand those terms except by studying one of the standard texts. And, physics being what it is, you can expect a pretty hard slog because the texts will assume you know first quantization back and forth. Add to that, it's n…
A related question: Feynman's popular book QED claims to explain quantum electrodynamics enough that you could almost do calculations with it, just ridiculously inefficiently. After reading it, I can't: the details left out, I can't easily fill in from the grad-level texts, even with a pretty decent undergrad physics background. Shouldn't it be possible to explain QED to a programmer using a literate program? (Again, an inefficient one.) Was Feynman exaggerating? Or is it just the tininess of the market of programmers who want to understand what QED is really about who aren't out to become professional physicists?
(For others, QED is the part of the standard model about electrons and light -- the most relevant part for everyday physics and apparently the simplest part too.)
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#9What is the sum of terms supposed to be equal to?
Re: The Deconstructed Standard Model Equation
#10I've been banging my head on QFT and the Standard Model for enough time now that I can actually glimpse more or less what those terms actualy mean , as in , I can translate them into words. It's almost like learning a new language! Pretty awesome. Still, despite all this complexity, we still have several minor and major theoretical gaps to fill. Exciting times!
I, as a layman with basic college physics knowledge, and passing knowledge of the standard model, want to understand the meaning of those terms. Do you know how I can go about that? Ideally, with something a little less dense than a textbook.
Zee's QFT in a Nutshell is a very readable, high-level view of what's going on in QFT. Griffiths' book is his one text I haven't read, but I love his others so much I can't help but second the recommendation.