FAQ: Standard model. Beyond the Standard Model: What We Don't Know About the Universe Closing and Opening

standard model is a modern theory of the structure and interactions of elementary particles, repeatedly verified experimentally. This theory is based on a very small number of postulates and allows you to theoretically predict the properties of thousands of different processes in the world of elementary particles. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these predictions are confirmed by experiment, sometimes with exceptionally high accuracy, and those rare cases when the predictions of the Standard Model disagree with experience become the subject of heated debate.

The Standard Model is the boundary that separates the reliably known from the hypothetical in the world of elementary particles. Despite its impressive success in describing experiments, the Standard Model cannot be considered the ultimate theory of elementary particles. Physicists are sure that it must be part of some deeper theory of the structure of the microworld. What kind of theory this is is not yet known for certain. Theorists have developed a large number of candidates for such a theory, but only an experiment should show which of them corresponds to the real situation that has developed in our Universe. That is why physicists are persistently looking for any deviations from the Standard Model, any particles, forces or effects that are not predicted by the Standard Model. Scientists collectively call all these phenomena "New physics"; exactly search for New Physics and is the main task of the Large Hadron Collider.

Main Components of the Standard Model

The working tool of the Standard Model is quantum field theory - a theory that replaces quantum mechanics at speeds close to the speed of light. The key objects in it are not particles, as in classical mechanics, and not "particle-waves", as in quantum mechanics, but quantum fields: electronic, muon, electromagnetic, quark, etc. - one for each variety of "entities of the microworld".

Both vacuum, and what we perceive as separate particles, and more complex formations that cannot be reduced to separate particles - all this is described as different states of fields. When physicists use the word "particle", they actually mean these states of the fields, and not individual point objects.

The standard model includes the following main ingredients:

A set of fundamental "bricks" of matter - six kinds of leptons and six kinds of quarks. All of these particles are spin 1/2 fermions and very naturally organize themselves into three generations. Numerous hadrons - compound particles involved in the strong interaction - are composed of quarks in various combinations.
Three types of forces acting between fundamental fermions - electromagnetic, weak and strong. Weak and electromagnetic interactions are two sides of the same electroweak interaction. The strong force stands apart, and it is this force that binds quarks into hadrons.
All these forces are described on the basis of gauge principle- they are not introduced into the theory “forcibly”, but seem to arise by themselves as a result of the requirement that the theory be symmetrical with respect to certain transformations. Separate types of symmetry give rise to strong and electroweak interactions.
Despite the fact that there is an electroweak symmetry in the theory itself, in our world it is spontaneously violated. Spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry- a necessary element of the theory, and in the framework of the Standard Model, the violation occurs due to the Higgs mechanism.
Numerical values for about two dozen constants: these are the masses of fundamental fermions, the numerical values of the coupling constants of interactions that characterize their strength, and some other quantities. All of them are extracted once and for all from comparison with experience and are no longer adjusted in further calculations.

In addition, the Standard Model is a renormalizable theory, that is, all these elements are introduced into it in such a self-consistent way that, in principle, allows calculations to be carried out with the required degree of accuracy. However, often calculations with the desired degree of accuracy turn out to be unbearably complex, but this is not a problem of the theory itself, but rather of our computational abilities.

What the Standard Model Can and Cannot Do

The Standard Model is, in many ways, a descriptive theory. It does not give answers to many questions that begin with “why”: why are there so many particles and exactly these? where did these interactions come from and exactly with such properties? Why did nature need to create three generations of fermions? Why are the numerical values of the parameters exactly the same? In addition, the Standard Model is unable to describe some of the phenomena observed in nature. In particular, it has no place for neutrino masses and dark matter particles. The Standard Model does not account for gravity, and it is not known what happens to this theory on the Planck energy scale, when gravity becomes extremely important.

If, however, the Standard Model is used for its intended purpose, for predicting the results of collisions of elementary particles, then it allows, depending on the specific process, to perform calculations with varying degrees of accuracy.

For electromagnetic phenomena (electron scattering, energy levels) the accuracy can reach parts per million or even better. The record here is held by the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, which is calculated with an accuracy better than one billionth.
Many high-energy processes that occur due to electroweak interactions are calculated with an accuracy better than a percent.
Worst of all is the strong interaction at not too high energies. The accuracy of calculating such processes varies greatly: in some cases it can reach percent, in other cases, different theoretical approaches can give answers that differ by several times.

It is worth emphasizing that the fact that some processes are difficult to calculate with the required accuracy does not mean that the “theory is bad”. It's just that it's very complicated, and the current mathematical techniques are not yet enough to trace all its consequences. In particular, one of the famous mathematical Millennium Problems concerns the problem of confinement in quantum theory with non-Abelian gauge interaction.

Additional literature:

Basic information about the Higgs mechanism can be found in the book by L. B. Okun "Physics of elementary particles" (at the level of words and pictures) and "Leptons and quarks" (at a serious but accessible level).

What a stupid name for the most accurate scientific theory known to mankind. More than a quarter of the Nobel Prizes in physics of the last century have been awarded to works that are either directly or indirectly related to the Standard Model. Her name, of course, is such that for a couple of hundred rubles you can buy an improvement. Any theoretical physicist would prefer "an amazing theory of almost everything", which, in fact, it is.

Many remember the excitement among scientists and in the media caused by the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012. But his discovery didn't come as a surprise or out of nowhere - it marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Standard Model's string of victories. It includes every fundamental force except gravity. Any attempt to disprove it and demonstrate in the laboratory that it needs to be completely reworked - and there have been many - has failed.

In short, the Standard Model answers this question: what is everything made of, and how does everything hold together?

The smallest building blocks

Physicists love simple things. They want to break everything down to its very essence, to find the most basic building blocks. To do this in the presence of hundreds of chemical elements is not so simple. Our ancestors believed that everything consists of five elements - earth, water, fire, air and ether. Five is much easier than one hundred and eighteen. And also wrong. You certainly know that the world around us is made up of molecules, and molecules are made up of atoms. The chemist Dmitri Mendeleev figured this out in the 1860s and presented atoms in the table of elements that is taught in schools today. But there are 118 of these chemical elements. Antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium ... and 114 more.

In 1932, scientists knew that all these atoms are made up of just three particles - neutrons, protons and electrons. Neutrons and protons are closely related to each other in the nucleus. Electrons, thousands of times lighter than them, circle the nucleus at a speed close to the speed of light. The physicists Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and others introduced a new science - quantum mechanics - to explain this motion.

It would be great to stop there. There are only three particles. It's even easier than five. But how do they stick together? Negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons are held together by the forces of electromagnetism. But the protons clump together in the nucleus and their positive charges should push them away. Even neutral neutrons will not help.

What binds these protons and neutrons together? "Divine Intervention"? But even a divine being would have trouble keeping track of each of the 1080 protons and neutrons in the universe, holding them by willpower.

Expanding the Particle Zoo

Meanwhile, nature desperately refuses to keep only three particles in its zoo. Even four, because we need to take into account the photon, the particle of light described by Einstein. Four became five when Anderson measured the positively charged electrons - positrons - that hit the Earth from outer space. Five became six when the pion holding the nucleus as a whole was discovered and predicted by Yukawa.

Then came the muon - 200 times heavier than the electron, but otherwise its twin. It's already seven. Not so easy.

By the 1960s, there were hundreds of "fundamental" particles. Instead of a well-organized periodic table, there were only long lists of baryons (heavy particles like protons and neutrons), mesons (like Yukawa pions), and leptons (light particles like the electron and elusive neutrinos), without any organization or principles of design.

And in this abyss, the Standard Model was born. There was no illumination. Archimedes didn't jump out of the tub shouting "Eureka!" No, instead, in the mid-1960s, a few smart people made important assumptions that turned this quagmire, first into a mere theory, and then into fifty years of experimental testing and theoretical development.

Quarks. They got six options that we call flavors. Like flowers, but not as delicious. Instead of roses, lilies and lavender, we got up and down, strange and enchanted, lovely and true quarks. In 1964, Gell-Mann and Zweig taught us how to mix three quarks to make a baryon. A proton is two up and one down quark; neutron - two lower and one upper. Take one quark and one antiquark and you get a meson. A pion is an up or down quark associated with an up or down antiquark. All matter we deal with is made up of up and down quarks, antiquarks, and electrons.

Simplicity. Not exactly simple, though, because keeping quarks bound is not easy. They are connected together so tightly that you will never find a quark or an antiquark wandering around on its own. The theory of this connection and the particles that take part in it, namely gluons, is called quantum chromodynamics. This is an important part of the Standard Model, mathematically difficult, and sometimes even unsolvable for basic mathematics. Physicists do their best to make calculations, but sometimes the mathematical apparatus is not developed enough.

Another aspect of the Standard Model is the "lepton model". This is the title of a landmark 1967 paper by Steven Weinberg that combined quantum mechanics with the essential knowledge of how particles interact and organized them into a single theory. He included electromagnetism, associated it with the "weak force" that leads to certain radioactive decays, and explained that these are different manifestations of the same force. This model included the Higgs mechanism, which gives mass to fundamental particles.

Since then, the Standard Model has predicted outcome after outcome, including the discovery of several varieties of quarks and W and Z bosons, heavy particles that play the same role in weak interactions as the photon does in electromagnetism. The possibility that neutrinos have mass was missed in the 1960s, but confirmed by the Standard Model in the 1990s, a few decades later.

The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, long predicted by the Standard Model and long awaited, did not come as a surprise, however. But it was another important victory of the Standard Model over the dark forces that particle physicists regularly wait on the horizon. Physicists don't like the fact that the Standard Model doesn't fit their idea of a simple model, they're worried about its mathematical inconsistencies, and they're also looking for a way to include gravity in the equation. Obviously, this translates into different theories of physics, which may be after the Standard Model. This is how grand unification theories, supersymmetries, technocolor and string theory appeared.

Unfortunately, theories outside the Standard Model have not found successful experimental confirmations and serious gaps in the Standard Model. Fifty years later, it is the Standard Model that comes closest to being the theory of everything. An amazing theory of just about everything.

In physics, elementary particles are physical objects on the scale of the nucleus of an atom, which cannot be divided into constituent parts. However, today, scientists still managed to split some of them. The structure and properties of these smallest objects are studied by elementary particle physics.

The smallest particles that make up all matter have been known since ancient times. However, the founders of the so-called "atomism" are considered to be the philosopher of Ancient Greece Leucippus and his more famous student, Democritus. It is assumed that the latter introduced the term "atom". From the ancient Greek "atomos" is translated as "indivisible", which defines the views of ancient philosophers.

Later it became known that the atom can still be divided into two physical objects - the nucleus and the electron. The latter subsequently became the first elementary particle, when in 1897 the Englishman Joseph Thomson conducted an experiment with cathode rays and found that they are a stream of identical particles with the same mass and charge.

In parallel with the work of Thomson, Henri Becquerel, who is engaged in the study of X-ray radiation, conducts experiments with uranium and discovers a new type of radiation. In 1898, a French physicist couple - Marie and Pierre Curie study various radioactive substances, discovering the same radioactive radiation. Later it will be established that it consists of alpha (2 protons and 2 neutrons) and beta particles (electrons), and Becquerel and Curie will receive the Nobel Prize. Carrying out her research with elements such as uranium, radium and polonium, Marie Sklodowska-Curie did not take any safety measures, including not even using gloves. As a result, in 1934 she was overtaken by leukemia. In memory of the achievements of the great scientist, the element discovered by the Curie couple, polonium, was named after Mary's homeland - Polonia, from Latin - Poland.

Photo from the 5th Solvay Congress, 1927. Try to find all the scientists from this article in this photo.

Beginning in 1905, Albert Einstein devoted his publications to the imperfection of the wave theory of light, the postulates of which diverged from the results of experiments. Which subsequently led the outstanding physicist to the idea of a "light quantum" - a portion of light. Later, in 1926, it was named as "photon", translated from the Greek "phos" ("light"), by the American physiochemist Gilbert N. Lewis.

In 1913, Ernest Rutherford, a British physicist, based on the results of experiments already carried out at that time, noted that the masses of the nuclei of many chemical elements are multiples of the mass of the hydrogen nucleus. Therefore, he suggested that the hydrogen nucleus is a component of the nuclei of other elements. In his experiment, Rutherford irradiated a nitrogen atom with alpha particles, which as a result emitted a certain particle, named by Ernest as a "proton", from other Greek "protos" (first, main). Later it was experimentally confirmed that the proton is the nucleus of hydrogen.

Obviously, the proton is not the only component of the nuclei of chemical elements. This idea is led by the fact that two protons in the nucleus would repel each other, and the atom would instantly decay. Therefore, Rutherford put forward a hypothesis about the presence of another particle, which has a mass equal to the mass of a proton, but is uncharged. Some experiments of scientists on the interaction of radioactive and lighter elements led them to the discovery of another new radiation. In 1932, James Chadwick determined that it consisted of the same neutral particles that he called neutrons.

Thus, the most famous particles were discovered: photon, electron, proton and neutron.

Further, the discovery of new subnuclear objects became an increasingly frequent event, and at the moment about 350 particles are known, which are considered to be "elementary". Those of them that have not yet been able to split are considered structureless and are called "fundamental".

What is spin?

Before proceeding to further innovations in the field of physics, it is necessary to determine the characteristics of all particles. The most famous, apart from mass and electric charge, also includes spin. This value is called otherwise as "intrinsic angular momentum" and is in no way related to the displacement of the subnuclear object as a whole. Scientists have been able to detect particles with spins 0, ½, 1, 3/2 and 2. To visualize, albeit simplified, spin as a property of an object, consider the following example.

Let the object have a spin equal to 1. Then such an object, when rotated by 360 degrees, will return to its original position. On a plane, this object can be a pencil, which, after a 360-degree turn, will be in its original position. In the case of zero spin, with any rotation of the object, it will always look the same, for example, a one-color ball.

For spin ½, you will need an item that retains its appearance when turned 180 degrees. It can be the same pencil, only symmetrically ground on both sides. A spin of 2 would require the shape to be maintained through a 720 degree rotation, while 3/2 would require 540.

This characteristic is of great importance for elementary particle physics.

Standard Model of Particles and Interactions

Having an impressive set of micro-objects that make up the surrounding world, scientists decided to structure them, so a well-known theoretical construction called the "Standard Model" was formed. She describes three interactions and 61 particles using 17 fundamental ones, some of which she predicted long before her discovery.

The three interactions are:

Electromagnetic. It occurs between electrically charged particles. In a simple case, known from school, oppositely charged objects attract, and objects of the same name repel. This happens through the so-called carrier of electromagnetic interaction - a photon.
Strong, otherwise - nuclear interaction. As the name implies, its action extends to objects of the order of the atomic nucleus, it is responsible for the attraction of protons, neutrons and other particles, also consisting of quarks. The strong force is carried by gluons.
Weak. Operates at distances a thousand less than the size of the core. This interaction involves leptons and quarks, as well as their antiparticles. Moreover, in the case of weak interaction, they can transform into each other. The carriers are the bosons W+, W−, and Z0.

So the Standard Model was formed as follows. It includes six quarks that make up all hadrons (particles subject to strong interaction):

Upper (u);
Enchanted (c);
true(t);
lower (d);
strange(s);
Adorable (b).

It can be seen that physicists do not have epithets. The other 6 particles are leptons. These are fundamental particles with spin ½ that do not take part in the strong interaction.

Electron;
Electronic neutrino;
Muon;
Muon neutrino;
Tau lepton;
Tau neutrino.

And the third group of the Standard Model is the gauge bosons, which have a spin equal to 1 and are represented as carriers of interactions:

Gluon - strong;
Photon - electromagnetic;
Z-boson is weak;
W-boson - weak.

They also include the recently discovered particle with spin 0, which, to put it simply, endows all other subnuclear objects with inertial mass.

As a result, according to the Standard Model, our world looks like this: all matter consists of 6 quarks that form hadrons and 6 leptons; all these particles can participate in three interactions, the carriers of which are gauge bosons.

Disadvantages of the Standard Model

However, even before the discovery of the Higgs boson, the last particle predicted by the Standard Model, scientists had gone beyond it. A striking example of this is the so-called. "gravitational interaction", which today is on a par with others. Presumably, its carrier is a particle with spin 2, which has no mass, and which physicists have not yet been able to detect - the "graviton".

Moreover, the Standard Model describes 61 particles, and today more than 350 particles are known to mankind. This means that the work of theoretical physicists is not over.

Particle classification

To make life easier for themselves, physicists have grouped all the particles according to their structure and other characteristics. The classification is based on the following features:

Lifetime.
1. Stable. Among them are proton and antiproton, electron and positron, photon, and also graviton. The existence of stable particles is not limited by time, as long as they are in a free state, i.e. do not interact with anything.
2. Unstable. All other particles after some time decay into their constituent parts, therefore they are called unstable. For example, a muon lives only 2.2 microseconds, and a proton lives 2.9.10*29 years, after which it can decay into a positron and a neutral pion.
Weight.
1. Massless elementary particles, of which there are only three: photon, gluon and graviton.
2. Massive particles are everything else.
Spin value.
1. Whole spin, incl. zero, have particles called bosons.
2. Particles with half-integer spin are fermions.
Participation in interactions.
1. Hadrons (structural particles) are subnuclear objects that take part in all four types of interactions. It was mentioned earlier that they are made up of quarks. Hadrons are divided into two subtypes: mesons (integer spin, are bosons) and baryons (half-integer spin - fermions).
2. Fundamental (structureless particles). These include leptons, quarks and gauge bosons (read earlier - "Standard Model ..").

Having become acquainted with the classification of all particles, it is possible, for example, to accurately determine some of them. So the neutron is a fermion, a hadron, or rather a baryon, and a nucleon, that is, it has a half-integer spin, consists of quarks and participates in 4 interactions. Nucleon is the common name for protons and neutrons.

Interestingly, the opponents of the atomism of Democritus, who predicted the existence of atoms, stated that any substance in the world is divisible to infinity. To some extent, they may turn out to be right, since scientists have already managed to divide the atom into a nucleus and an electron, the nucleus into a proton and a neutron, and these, in turn, into quarks.
Democritus assumed that the atoms have a clear geometric shape, and therefore the “sharp” atoms of fire burn, the rough atoms of solids are firmly held together by their protrusions, and the smooth atoms of water slip during interaction, otherwise they flow.
Joseph Thomson made his own model of the atom, which he imagined as a positively charged body, into which electrons are, as it were, "stuck". His model was called "pudding with raisins" (Plum pudding model).
Quarks got their name from the American physicist Murray Gell-Mann. The scientist wanted to use a word similar to the sound of a duck quacking (kwork). But in James Joyce's novel Finnegans Wake, I encountered the word "quark" in the line "Three quarks for Mr. Mark!", the meaning of which is not exactly defined and it is possible that Joyce used it simply for rhyme. Murray decided to name the particles with this word, since at that time only three quarks were known.
Although photons, particles of light, are massless, near a black hole, they seem to change their trajectory, being attracted to it with the help of gravitational interaction. In fact, a supermassive body bends space-time, due to which any particles, including those without mass, change their trajectory towards a black hole (see).
The Large Hadron Collider is “hadron” precisely because it collides two directed beams of hadrons, particles with dimensions of the order of the nucleus of an atom, which participate in all interactions.

“We wonder why a group of talented and dedicated people would dedicate their lives to chasing objects so tiny that they can't even be seen? In fact, in the classes of particle physicists, human curiosity and a desire to find out how the world in which we live works is manifested. ” Sean Carroll

If you are still afraid of the phrase quantum mechanics and still do not know what the standard model is - welcome to cat. In my publication, I will try to explain the basics of the quantum world, as well as elementary particle physics, as simply and clearly as possible. We will try to figure out what are the main differences between fermions and bosons, why quarks have such strange names, and finally, why everyone was so eager to find the Higgs Boson.

What are we made of?

Well, we will begin our journey into the microcosm with a simple question: what do the objects around us consist of? Our world, like a house, consists of many small bricks, which, when combined in a special way, create something new, not only in appearance, but also in their properties. In fact, if you look closely at them, you can find that there are not so many different types of blocks, it’s just that each time they connect to each other in different ways, forming new forms and phenomena. Each block is an indivisible elementary particle, which will be discussed in my story.

For example, let's take some substance, let it be the second element of the periodic system of Mendeleev, an inert gas, helium. Like other substances in the universe, helium is made up of molecules, which in turn are formed by bonds between atoms. But in this case, for us, helium is a little bit special because it's just one atom.

What is an atom made of?

The helium atom, in turn, consists of two neutrons and two protons, which make up the atomic nucleus, around which two electrons revolve. The most interesting thing is that the only absolutely indivisible here is electron.

An interesting moment of the quantum world

How less the mass of an elementary particle, the more she takes up space. It is for this reason that electrons, which are 2000 times lighter than a proton, take up much more space than the nucleus of an atom.

Neutrons and protons belong to the group of so-called hadrons(particles subject to strong interaction), and to be even more precise, baryons.

Hadrons can be divided into groups
Baryons, which are made up of three quarks

Mesons, which consist of a pair: particle-antiparticle

The neutron, as its name implies, is neutrally charged, and can be divided into two down quarks and one up quark. The proton, a positively charged particle, is divided into one down quark and two up quarks.

Yes, yes, I'm not kidding, they are really called upper and lower. It would seem that if we discovered the top and bottom quarks, and even the electron, we would be able to describe the entire Universe with their help. But this statement would be very far from the truth.

The main problem is that the particles must somehow interact with each other. If the world consisted only of this trinity (neutron, proton and electron), then the particles would simply fly through the vast expanses of space and would never gather into larger formations, like hadrons.

Fermions and Bosons

Quite a long time ago, scientists invented a convenient and concise form of representation of elementary particles, called the standard model. It turns out that all elementary particles are divided into fermions, of which all matter is composed, and bosons, which carry various kinds of interactions between fermions.

The difference between these groups is very clear. The fact is that according to the laws of the quantum world, fermions need some space to survive, while their counterparts, bosons, can easily live right on top of each other in trillions.

Fermions

A group of fermions, as already mentioned, creates visible matter around us. Whatever we see, wherever, is created by fermions. Fermions are divided into quarks, which interact strongly with each other and are trapped inside more complex particles like hadrons, and leptons, which freely exist in space independently of their counterparts.

Quarks are divided into two groups.

Top type. Up quarks, with a charge of +23, include: up, charm and true quarks
Lower type. Down-type quarks, with a charge of -13, include: down, strange and charm quarks

True and lovely are the largest quarks, while up and down are the smallest. Why quarks were given such unusual names, and more correctly, "flavors", is still a subject of controversy for scientists.

Leptons are also divided into two groups.

The first group, with a charge of "-1", includes: an electron, a muon (heavier particle) and a tau particle (the most massive)
The second group, with a neutral charge, contains: electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino

Neutrino is a small particle of matter, which is almost impossible to detect. Its charge is always 0.

The question arises whether physicists will find several more generations of particles that will be even more massive than the previous ones. It is difficult to answer it, but theorists believe that the generations of leptons and quarks are limited to three.

Don't find any similarities? Both quarks and leptons are divided into two groups, which differ from each other in charge per unit? But more on that later...

Bosons

Without them, fermions would fly around the universe in a continuous stream. But exchanging bosons, fermions tell each other some kind of interaction. The bosons themselves do not interact with each other.

The interaction transmitted by bosons is:

electromagnetic, particles - photons. These massless particles transmit light.
strong nuclear, particles are gluons. With their help, quarks from the nucleus of an atom do not decay into separate particles.
Weak nuclear, particles - W and Z bosons. With their help, fermions are transferred by mass, energy, and can turn into each other.
gravitational , particles - gravitons. An extremely weak force on the scale of the microcosm. Becomes visible only on supermassive bodies.

A reservation about gravitational interaction.
The existence of gravitons has not yet been experimentally confirmed. They exist only in the form of a theoretical version. In the standard model, in most cases, they are not considered.

That's it, the standard model is assembled.

Trouble has just begun

Despite the very beautiful representation of the particles in the diagram, two questions remain. Where do particles get their mass and what is Higgs boson, which stands out from the rest of the bosons.

In order to understand the idea of using the Higgs boson, we need to turn to quantum field theory. In simple terms, it can be argued that the whole world, the whole Universe, does not consist of the smallest particles, but of many different fields: gluon, quark, electronic, electromagnetic, etc. In all these fields, slight fluctuations constantly occur. But we perceive the strongest of them as elementary particles. Yes, and this thesis is highly controversial. From the point of view of corpuscular-wave dualism, the same object of the microcosm in different situations behaves like a wave, sometimes like an elementary particle, it depends only on how it is more convenient for a physicist observing the process to model the situation.

Higgs field

It turns out that there is a so-called Higgs field, the average of which does not want to go to zero. As a result, this field tries to take some constant non-zero value throughout the Universe. The field makes up the ubiquitous and constant background, as a result of which the Higgs Boson appears as a result of strong fluctuations.
And it is thanks to the Higgs field that particles are endowed with mass.
The mass of an elementary particle depends on how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field constantly flying inside it.
And it is because of the Higgs boson, and more specifically because of its field, that the standard model has so many similar groups of particles. The Higgs field forced the creation of many additional particles, such as neutrinos.

Results

What I have been told is the most superficial understanding of the nature of the Standard Model and why we need the Higgs Boson. Some scientists still hope in their hearts that a particle found in 2012 that looks like the Higgs boson at the LHC was just a statistical error. After all, the Higgs field breaks many of the beautiful symmetries of nature, making the calculations of physicists more confusing.
Some even believe that the Standard Model is living its last years because of its imperfection. But this has not been experimentally proven, and the standard model of elementary particles remains a valid example of the genius of human thought.

It makes no sense to continue doing the same thing and expect different results.

Albert Einstein

Standard Model (Elementary Particles)(English) Standard model of elementary particles) - a theoretical construction that does not correspond to nature, describing one of the components of electromagnetic interactions artificially separated into electromagnetic interaction, imaginary weak and hypothetical strong interactions of all elementary particles. The Standard Model does not include gravity.

First, a small digression. The field theory of elementary particles, acting within the framework of SCIENCE, relies on a foundation proven by PHYSICS:

classical electrodynamics,
quantum mechanics,
Conservation laws are the fundamental laws of physics.

This is the fundamental difference between the scientific approach used by the field theory of elementary particles - a true theory must strictly operate within the laws of nature: this is what SCIENCE is all about.

Using elementary particles that do not exist in nature, inventing fundamental interactions that do not exist in nature, or replacing the interactions that exist in nature with fabulous ones, ignoring the laws of nature, doing mathematical manipulations on them (creating the appearance of science) - this is the lot of FAIRY TALES masquerading as science. As a result, physics slipped into the world of mathematical fairy tales. Fairy quarks with fabulous gluons, fabulous gravitons and fairy tales of the "Quantum Theory" (given off as reality) have already found their way into physics textbooks - shall we deceive children? Proponents of an honest New Physics tried to resist this, but the forces were not equal. And so it was until 2010 before the advent of the field theory of elementary particles, when the struggle for the revival of PHYSICS-SCIENCE moved to the level of open confrontation between a genuine scientific theory and mathematical fairy tales that seized power in the physics of the microworld (and not only).

The picture is taken from the world's Wikipedia

Initially, the quark model of hadrons was proposed independently in 1964 by Gellmann and Zweig and was limited to only three hypothetical quarks and their antiparticles. This made it possible to correctly describe the spectrum of elementary particles known at that time, without taking into account leptons, which did not fit into the proposed model and therefore were recognized as elementary, along with quarks. The price for this was the introduction of fractional electric charges that do not exist in nature. Then, with the development of physics and the receipt of new experimental data, the quark model gradually grew, transformed, adapting to new experimental data, eventually turning into the Standard Model. - It is interesting that four years later, in 1968, I started working on an idea that in 2010 gave humanity the Field Theory of Elementary Particles, and in 2015 - The Theory of Gravity of Elementary Particles, sending many mathematical tales of physics of the second half to the archive of the history of the development of physics twentieth century, including this one.

1 Basic provisions of the Standard Model of elementary particles

It is assumed that all matter consists of 12 fundamental fermion particles: 6 leptons (electron, muon, tau lepton, electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino) and 6 quarks (u, d, s, c, b, t) .

It is stated that quarks participate in strong, weak and electromagnetic (with the understanding of quantum theory) interactions; charged leptons (electron, muon, tau-lepton) - in the weak and electromagnetic; neutrino - only in weak interaction.

It is postulated that all three types of interactions arise as a consequence of the fact that our world is symmetrical with respect to three types of gauge transformations.

It is stated that the particles-carriers of interactions introduced by the model are:

8 gluons for the hypothetical strong interaction (symmetry group SU(3));
3 heavy gauge bosons (W ± -bosons, Z 0 -boson) for the hypothetical weak interaction (symmetry group SU(2));
1 photon for electromagnetic interaction (symmetry group U(1)).

It is argued that the hypothetical weak force can mix fermions from different generations, which leads to the instability of all but the lightest particles, as well as to such effects as CP violation and hypothetical neutrino oscillations.

2 Standard model and fundamental interactions

In reality, the following types of fundamental interactions exist in nature, as well as the physical fields corresponding to them:

The presence in nature of other really existing fundamental physical fields, except for finitely fabulous fields (fields of quantum "theory": gluon, Higgs field and an.), Physics has not established (but in mathematics there can be as many as you like). The existence in nature of a hypothetical strong and hypothetical weak interaction postulated by quantum theory - not proven, and is justified only by the desires of the Standard Model. These hypothetical interactions are just guesses. - In nature, there are nuclear forces, which are reduced to (really existing in nature) electromagnetic interactions of nucleons in atomic nuclei, but the instability of elementary particles is determined by the presence of decay channels and the absence of a ban on the part of the laws of nature, and has nothing to do with the fabulous weak interaction.

The existence in nature of the key elements of the Standard Model: quarks and gluons has not been proven. What in experiments is interpreted by some physicists as traces of quarks - allows other alternative interpretations. Nature is arranged in such a way that the number of hypothetical quarks coincided with the number of standing waves of the alternating electromagnetic field inside elementary particles. - But in nature there is no fractional electric charge equal to the charge of hypothetical quarks. Even the magnitude of the dipole electric charge does not coincide with the magnitude of the imaginary electric charge of fictitious quarks. And as you understand Without quarks, the Standard Model cannot exist..

From the fact that in 1968, in experiments on deep inelastic scattering at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), it was confirmed that protons have an internal structure, and consist of three objects (two u- and one d-quark - but this is NOT proven), which later, Richard Feynman called partons in the framework of his parton model (1969), one more conclusion can be drawn - in the experiments, standing waves of a wave alternating electromagnetic field were observed, the number of antinodes of which exactly coincides with the number of fabulous quarks (partons) . And the boastful statement of the world's Wikipedia that "the totality of the current experimental facts does not question the validity of the model" is false.

3 Standard model and gauge bosons

The existence of gauge bosons in nature has not been proven - these are just assumptions of quantum theory. (W ± -bosons, Z 0 -boson) are ordinary vector mesons the same as D-mesons.
Quantum theory needed carriers of the interactions it postulated. But since there were no such in nature, the most suitable of the bosons were taken and the ability to be carriers of the required hypothetical interaction was attributed.

4 Standard model and gluons

The fact is that with hypothetical gluons, the Standard Model turned out to be embarrassing.

Recall what a gluon is - these are hypothetical elementary particles responsible for the interactions of hypothetical quarks. Mathematically speaking, gluons are vector gauge bosons responsible for the hypothetical strong color interaction between hypothetical quarks in quantum chromodynamics. In this case, the hypothetical gluons are assumed to themselves carry a color charge and thus are not just carriers of hypothetical strong interactions, but also participate in them themselves. A hypothetical gluon is a quantum of a vector field in quantum chromodynamics, has no rest mass and has unit spin (like a photon). In addition, the hypothetical gluon is its own antiparticle.

So, it is argued that the gluon has a unit spin (like a photon) and is its own antiparticle. - So: according to Quantum mechanics and Classical electrodynamics (and the Field theory of elementary particles, which managed to make them work together for a common result), which determined the spectrum of elementary particles in nature - to have a unit spin (like a photon) and be an antiparticle to itself, only one elementary a particle in nature is a photon, but it is already occupied by electromagnetic interactions. All other elementary particles with unit spin are vector mesons and their excited states, but these are completely different elementary particles, each of which has its own antiparticle.

And if we recall that all vector mesons have a non-zero rest mass (a consequence of the non-zero value of the quantum number L of the field theory), then none of the vector mesons (particles with integer spin) as a fabulous gluon will in any way fit. Well, there are NO more elementary particles with a unit spin in nature. In nature, complex systems can exist, consisting of an even number of leptons, or baryons! But the lifetime of such formations of elementary particles will be much less than the lifetime of the fabulous Higgs boson - or rather, the vector meson. Therefore, hypothetical gluons cannot be found in nature, no matter how much they are searched for and how many billions of Euros or dollars are spent searching for fabulous particles. And if a statement about their discovery is heard somewhere, this will NOT correspond to reality.

Therefore, there is no place in nature for gluons.. Having created a fairy tale about the strong interaction, instead of the nuclear forces actually existing in nature, by analogy with the electromagnetic interaction, the "Quantum Theory" and the "Standard Model", being confident in their infallibility, drove themselves into a dead end. - So maybe it's time to stop and stop believing in mathematical FAIRY TALES.

5 Standard model and the law of conservation of energy

Implementation of interactions of elementary particles through the exchange of virtual particles directly violates the law of conservation of energy and any mathematical manipulations over the laws of nature in science are unacceptable. Nature and the virtual world of mathematics are two different worlds: real and fictional - the world of mathematical fairy tales.

Gluons - hypothetical carriers of the hypothetical strong interaction of hypothetical quarks, having a fabulous ability to create new gluons from nothing (from vacuum) (see article confinement), openly ignore the law of conservation of energy.

In this way, the standard model contradicts the law of conservation of energy.

6 Standard model and electromagnetism.

The Standard Model, unwittingly, was forced to recognize the presence of constant dipole electric fields in elementary particles, the existence of which is confirmed by the Field theory of elementary particles. Asserting that elementary particles consist of hypothetical quarks, which (according to the Standard Model) are carriers of electric charge, the Standard Model thereby recognized the presence inside the proton, in addition to the region with a positive electric charge, also a region with a negative electric charge, and the presence of a pair of regions with opposite electric charges. charges and for an electrically "neutral" neutron. Surprisingly, the magnitudes of the electric charges of these regions almost coincided with the magnitudes of the electric charges arising from the field theory of elementary particles.

So the Standard Model managed to describe the internal electric charges of neutral and positively charged baryons quite well, but with negatively charged baryons, a misfire occurred. Since the negatively charged hypothetical quarks have a charge of –e/3, three negatively charged quarks are required to obtain a total charge of –e, and a dipole electric field analogous to the electric field of a proton will not work. Of course, one could use anti-quarks, but then instead of a baryon, one would get an anti-baryon. So the "success" of the Standard Model in describing the electric fields of baryons was limited only to neutral and positively charged baryons.

If you look at the hypothetical quark structure of mesons with zero spin, then electric dipole fields are obtained only for neutral mesons, and for charged mesons, an electric dipole field cannot be created from two hypothetical quarks - charges do NOT allow. So, when describing the electric fields of mesons with zero spin, the Standard Model obtained only electric fields of neutral mesons. Here, too, the magnitudes of the electric charges of the dipole regions almost coincided with the magnitudes of the electric charges arising from the field theory of elementary particles.

But there is another grouping of elementary particles called vector mesons - these are mesons with unit spin, in which each particle necessarily has its own antiparticle. Experimenters have already begun to discover them in nature, but the Standard Model, in order not to deal with their structure, prefers to label some of them as carriers of interactions invented by it (the spin is equal to one - that's what you need). Here, the Standard Model obtained only the electric fields of neutral mesons, since the number of quarks did not change (their spins were simply rotated so that they did not subtract, but added).
Let's sum up the intermediate result. The success of the Standard Model in describing the structure of the electric fields of elementary particles turned out to be half-hearted. It is understandable: the fit in one place crawled out with a discrepancy in another place.

Now regarding the masses of hypothetical quarks. If we add up the masses of hypothetical quarks in mesons or baryons, we get a small percentage of the rest mass of an elementary particle. Consequently, even within the framework of the Standard Model, inside elementary particles there is a mass of non-quark nature, which is much greater than the total value of the masses of all its hypothetical quarks. Therefore, the statement of the Standard Model that elementary particles consist of quarks is NOT true. Inside elementary particles there are more powerful factors than hypothetical quarks, which create the main value of the gravitational and inertial mass of elementary particles. The field theory of elementary particles together with the Theory of gravitation of elementary particles established that behind all this is a wave polarized alternating electromagnetic field that creates the wave properties of elementary particles that determine their statistical behavior and, of course, Quantum Mechanics.

One more moment. Why, in a bound system of two particles (quarks) with a half-integer spin, the spins of the particles must necessarily be antiparallel (the need for this in the Standard Model in order to obtain the spin of mesons is not yet a law of nature). The spins of the interacting particles can also be parallel, and then you get a duplicate of the meson, but with a single spin and a slightly different rest mass, which nature naturally did not create - it does not care about the needs of the Standard Model with its fairy tales. Physics knows the interaction, with a spin-oriented dependence - these are the interactions of magnetic fields, so unloved by quantum "theory". This means that if hypothetical quarks exist in nature, then their interactions are magnetic (naturally, I don’t remember fabulous gluons) - these interactions create attractive forces for particles with antiparallel magnetic moments (and hence antiparallel spins, if the vectors of the magnetic moment and spin are parallel) and do not allow creating a bound state of a pair of particles with parallel magnetic moments (parallel orientation of spins), because then the attractive forces turn into the same repulsive forces. But if the binding energy of a pair of magnetic moments is a certain value (0.51 MeV for π ± and 0.35 MeV for π 0), then in the magnetic fields of the particles themselves there is (approximately) an order of magnitude more energy, and hence the corresponding mass - electromagnetic mass of a constant magnetic field.

Having admitted the presence of dipole electric fields in elementary particles, the Standard Model forgot about the magnetic fields of elementary particles, the existence of which has been proven experimentally, and the values of the magnetic moments of elementary particles have been measured with a high degree of accuracy.

Inconsistencies between the Standard Model and magnetism are clearly seen in the example of pi-mesons. So, hypothetical quarks have electric charges, which means they also have a constant electric field, and they also have a constant magnetic field. According to the laws of classical electrodynamics, which has not yet been canceled, these fields have internal energy, and hence the mass corresponding to this energy. So the total magnetic mass of constant magnetic fields of a pair of hypothetical quarks of charged π ± -mesons is 5.1 MeV (out of 7.6 MeV), and for π 0 -mesons 3.5 MeV (out of 4 MeV). Let's add to this mass the electric mass of constant electric fields of elementary particles, because it is also different from zero. As the linear dimensions of the charges decrease, the energy of these fields constantly increases, and very quickly there comes a moment when all 100% of the internal energy of a hypothetical quark is concentrated in its constant electromagnetic fields. Then what remains for the quark itself is the answer: NOTHING, which is what the Field theory of elementary particles claims. And the allegedly observed "traces of hypothetical quarks" turn into traces of standing waves of an alternating electromagnetic field, which they actually are. But there is one feature: the standing waves of the wave alternating electromagnetic field, what the Standard Model gives out as "Quarks", cannot create constant electric and magnetic fields that elementary particles have). So we come to the conclusion that there are NO quarks in nature, and elementary particles consist of a wave polarized alternating electromagnetic field, as well as constant electric and magnetic dipole fields associated with it, which is what the Field theory of elementary particles claims.

With mass values, the Standard Model established that all pi-mesons have a residual internal energy, which is consistent with the data of the Field Theory of Elementary Particles about the wave alternating electromagnetic field contained inside the elementary particles. But if more than (95-97)% of the internal energy of elementary particles is not of a quark nature and is concentrated in a wave alternating electromagnetic field, and of the remaining (3-5)% attributed to hypothetical quarks, (80-90)% is concentrated in constant electric and magnetic fields of elementary particles, then the unsubstantiated assertion that these elementary particles consist of quarks not found in nature looks RIDICULAR, even within the framework of the Standard Model itself.

The quark composition of the proton in the Standard Model turned out to be even more deplorable. The total mass of 2 u-quarks and one d-quark is 8.81 MeV, which is less than 1 percent of the proton rest mass (938.2720 MeV). That is, 99 percent of the proton has something that creates its main gravitational and inertial mass along with its nuclear forces and this is NOT related to quarks, but we, with persistence worthy of a better application, continue to be told the pseudoscientific tale that the proton supposedly consists of quarks that have never been found in nature, despite all the effort and financial resources expended, and they want us to believe this SCAM. - Mathematics is able to compose any FAIRY TALE and pass it off as the "highest" achievement of "science". Well, if you use science, then according to the calculations of the fields of the proton using field theory, its constant electric field contains an energy of 3.25 MeV, and the rest of the energy for the mass of hypothetical quarks is borrowed from the much more powerful constant magnetic field of the proton, which creates its nuclear forces.

7 Standard Model and field theory of elementary particles

The field theory of elementary particles denies the existence of quarks and gluons not found in nature, denies the existence of hypothetical strong and weak interactions (postulated by quantum theory) and the correspondence of unitary symmetry to reality.
The tau lepton is the excited state of the muon, and its neutrino is the excited state of the muon neutrino.
(W ± -bosons, Z 0 -boson) are ordinary vector mesons and are not carriers of interactions associated with ignoring the law of conservation of energy, as well as other laws of nature.
A photon exists in nature only in a real state. The virtual state of elementary particles is a mathematical manipulation of the laws of nature.
Nuclear forces are mainly reduced to the interactions of the magnetic fields of nucleons in the near zone.
The reasons for the decay of unstable elementary particles are based on the presence of decay channels and the laws of nature. An elementary particle, like an atom or its nucleus, tends to a state with the lowest energy - only its possibilities are different.
The so-called "neutrino oscillations", or rather reactions, are based on the difference in their rest masses, leading to the decay of a heavier muon neutrino. In general, the fabulous transformation of one elementary particle into another contradicts the laws of electromagnetism and the law of conservation of energy. - Different types of neutrinos have different sets of quantum numbers, as a result of which their electromagnetic fields differ, they have different total internal energy, and, accordingly, different rest mass. Unfortunately, mathematical manipulation of the laws of nature has become the norm for fairy tale theories and models of physics in the 20th century.

8 Particles in physics through the eyes of the world's Wikipedia at the beginning of 2017

This is what Particles in physics look like from the point of view of the world Wikipedia:

I overlaid a couple of colors on this picture, which is passed off as reality, because it needs additions. The green color highlights what is true. It turned out a little, but this is ALL that was found reliable. A lighter color highlights what is also in nature, but they are trying to blow it into us as something else. Well, all colorless creations are from the world of FAIRY TALES. And now the additions themselves:

The fact that there are NO quarks in nature - the supporters of the Standard Model itself do not want to know, slipping us all new FAIRY TALES to "substantiate" the invisibility of quarks in experiments.
Of the ground states of Leptons, according to the Field Theory of Elementary Particles, only an electron with a muon with the corresponding neutrinos and antiparticles exist in nature. The value of the spin of a tau lepton, equal to 1/2, does not yet mean that this particle belongs to the ground states of leptons - they simply have the same spins. Well, the number of excited states for each elementary particle is equal to infinity - a consequence of the Field theory of elementary particles. Experimenters have already begun to discover them and discovered many excited states of other elementary particles, except for the tau lepton, but they themselves have not yet understood this. Well, the fact that for some, the Field theory of elementary particles, like a bone in the throat, will be tolerated, and even better if they relearn.
There are NO gauge bosons in nature - in nature there are just elementary particles with unit spin: these are photon and vector mesons (which they like to pass off as carriers of fabulous interactions, for example, "weak" interaction) with their excited states, as well as the first excited state of mesons.
The fabulous Higgs bosons contradict the Theory of gravitation of elementary particles. We are under the guise of the Higgs boson trying to blow vector meson.
Fundamental particles do NOT exist in nature - just elementary particles exist in nature.
Superpartners are also from the world of FAIRY TALES, like other hypothetical fundamental particles. Today one cannot blindly believe in fairy tales, regardless of the name of the author. You can invent any particle: Dirac's "magnetic monopole", a Planck particle, a parton, different types of quarks, ghosts, "sterile" particles, a graviton (gravitino) ... - that's just ZERO evidence. - Do not pay attention to any pseudo-scientific dummy, issued for the achievement of science.
There are compound particles in nature, but they are not baryons, hyperons and mesons. - These are atoms, atomic nuclei, ions and molecules of baryonic matter, as well as compounds of electronic neutrinos, emitted in gigantic quantities by stars.
According to the field theory of elementary particles, in nature there should be groupings of baryons with different values of half-integer spin: 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2, .... I wish experimenters success in discovering baryons with large spins.
Mesons are divided into simple (with zero spin) with their excited states (historically called resonances), and into vector (with integer spin). Physics has already begun to discover vector mesons in nature, despite the lack of noticeable interest in them among experimenters.
Short-lived artificially created exotic atoms, in which the electron was replaced by another, more massive elementary particle - this is from the world of "physicists having fun." And they have no place in the mega world.
There are no exotic hadrons in nature, since there is NO strong interaction in nature (but there are simply nuclear forces, and these are different concepts), and therefore, there are no hadrons in nature, including exotic ones.

You can invent any particle as a prop for a pseudo-theory, and then pass it off as a triumph of "science", only nature does not care about this.

Today it is clear that it is IMPOSSIBLE to trust information about elementary particles located in the world Wikipedia. To the truly reliable experimental information, they added unfounded statements of abstract theoretical constructions, posing as the highest achievements of science, but in reality ordinary mathematical FAIRY TALES. The world's Wikipedia has burned out on blind trust in the information of publishers who earn money on science, accept articles for publication for the money of authors - that's why those who have money are published, instead of those who have ideas that develop SCIENCE. This is what happens when scientists are pushed aside in the global Wikipedia, and the content of articles is NOT controlled by specialists. Supporters of mathematical fairy tales contemptuously call the fight against their dogmas "alternativeism", forgetting that at the beginning of the 20th century, the very physics of the microcosm arose as an alternative to the then prevailing delusions. While studying the microcosm, physics has found a lot of new things, but along with genuine experimental data, a stream of abstract theoretical constructions has also poured into physics, studying something of their own and posing as the highest achievement of science. Perhaps in the virtual world created by these theoretical constructions, the "laws of nature" invented by them work, but physics studies nature itself and its laws, and mathematicians can have fun as much as they want. Today 21st century physics is just trying to cleanse itself of the delusions and swindle of the 20th century.

9 Standard model and fitting to reality

String theorists, comparing it to the Standard Model and campaigning for string theory, claim that the Standard Model has 19 free parameters to fit experimental data.

They are missing something. When the Standard Model was still called the quark model, only 3 quarks were enough for it. But as it developed, the Standard Model needed to increase the number of quarks to 6 (lower, upper, strange, charmed, lovely, true), and each hypothetical quark was also endowed with three colors (r, g, b) - we get 6 * 3 =18 hypothetical particles. They also needed to add 8 gluons, which had to be endowed with a unique ability called "confinement". 18 fairy quarks plus 8 fairy gluons, for which there was also no place in nature - this is already 26 fictional objects, except for 19 free fitting parameters. – The model grew with new fictional elements to fit new experimental data. But the introduction of colors for fairy quarks was not enough, and some have already started talking about the complex structure of quarks.

The transformation of the quark model into the Standard Model is a process of adjustment to reality, in order to avoid the inevitable collapse, leading to an exorbitant growth of the Lagrangian:

And no matter how the Standard Model is built up with new "abilities", it will not become scientific from this - the foundation is false.

10 Physics of the 21st century: The Standard Model - summary

The Standard Model (of elementary particles) is just a hypothetical construction that does not correlate well with reality, no matter how it is customized:

The symmetry of our world with respect to the three types of gauge transformations has not been proven;
Quarks are not found in nature at any energy - There are NO quarks in nature;
Gluons cannot exist in nature at all.;
The existence of a weak interaction in nature has not been proven, and nature does not need it;
The strong force was invented instead of nuclear forces (actually existing in nature);
Virtual particles contradict the law of conservation of energy- the fundamental law of nature;
The existence of gauge bosons in nature has not been proven - there are simply bosons in nature.

I hope you can clearly see: on what foundation the Standard Model is built.

Not found, not proven, etc. this does not mean it has not yet been found and has not yet been proven - it means that there is no evidence of the existence in nature of the key elements of the Standard Model. Thus, the Standard Model is based on a false foundation that does not correspond to nature. Therefore, the Standard Model is a fallacy in physics. Supporters of the Standard Model want people to continue believing the Standard Model's tales or they will have to relearn. They simply ignore criticism of the Standard Model, presenting their opinion as the solution of science. But when misconceptions in physics continue to be replicated, despite their inconsistency proven by science, misconceptions in physics turn into a SCAM in physics.

The main patron of the Standard Model, a collection of unproven mathematical assumptions (simply speaking, a collection of mathematical FAIRY TALES, or according to Einstein) can also be attributed to misconceptions in physics: a set of crazy ideas concocted from incoherent scraps of thoughts") called "Quantum Theory", which does not want to reckon with the fundamental law of nature - the law of conservation of energy. As long as quantum theory continues to selectively take into account the laws of nature and engage in mathematical manipulations, its achievements will hardly be attributed to scientific ones. A scientific theory must strictly operate within laws of nature, or to prove the inaccuracy of such, otherwise it will be beyond the bounds of science.

At one time, the Standard Model played a certain positive role in the accumulation of experimental data on the microworld - but that time has come to an end. Well, since the experimental data were obtained and continue to be obtained using the Standard Model, the question arises about their reliability. The quark composition of discovered elementary particles has nothing to do with reality. - Therefore, the experimental data obtained using the Standard Model need additional verification, outside the framework of the model.

In the twentieth century, great hopes were placed on the Standard Model, it was presented as the highest achievement of science, but the twentieth century ended, and with it the time of domination in physics of another mathematical fairy tale, built on a false foundation, called: "The Standard Model of Elementary Particles" . Today, the fallacy of the Standard Model is NOT noticed by those who do NOT want to notice it.

Vladimir Gorunovich