Talk:Physics beyond the Standard Model

General Discussion (2006)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A physics question ~ neutrinos

Reading this article made me wonder something, probably it's got an obvious answer (I've only thought about it for 5 minutes), but I'd guess that for you people that understand 4d physics it'd take less. In school they taught us that there are only 3 flavors because neutrinos used to be massless when I was young (before Jay came) so you'd see the extra flavors running around loops, now that neutrinos are massive that argument's gone. Then there's the argument about big Yukawa couplings, this is based on a single scalar Higgs and its not very convincing. But would the following be an experimental ramification of more flavors?

Neutrinos are different from the other fermions in that their mass matrix has really big mixing angles. So if there are extra generations waiting up there, say one every few orders of magnitude until the Planck scale (so much for asymptotic freedom, but really its pretty useless to free the SU(2) and not the U(1) anyway, unless you like GUTs) then you'd expect them to have big mixing angles with the 3 generations we know. My first question is if this is ruled out experimentally. My second is if this is just what you'd want for the see-saw mechanism (which seems to suppose some supermassive neutrinos anyway)? That is, are the neutrinos we know light because they have big mixing angles, and so they get to use the see-saw and their friends don't?

The bigger question then would be whether you can turn this argument around and try to use low energy physics, like neutrino oscillation, to learn about neutrino generations that are way too massive to be formed anywhere but the big bang or a black hole? Anyway, I'd suspect that I'm wrong, or this is the whole point of the see-saw idea so it's old news, or both (or maybe the big mixing angle is a red herring, and the different thing here is that I'm not using a GUT scale but just considering a long progression of extra generations, which to me seems more Hierarchy-free). In which case I'd just like to say that I'm hoping for evidence for more flavors at the LHC, an infinite number seems easier to explain than 3. JarahE 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're that different in age... I think your question comes down a little bit to semantics -- specifically what does one mean when one says "neutrino".

If you mean something like our neutrino which is part of an anomaly free chiral family, then there are only 3 generations of neutrinos -- you'd see them running around in various loops and causing deviations in the couplings of the W&Z (to decouple chiral fermions requires symmetry breaking and to make all of the fermions heavy enough, you have to go to strong couplings since we've measured the electroweak vev).

If you mean a dirac lepton doublet, then they are allowed and can be made however heavy you want. However, their effects are pretty negligible (you can integrate them out to figure out what they actually do and it isn't much). They could become interesting when they start becoming 1 to 10 TeV-ish. (having the Z mediating flavour changing processes)

You could also think about sterile neutrinos... but they are pretty invisible once you make the active (ie the ones who couple to the Z) light enough.

jay 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, of course it does depend on the theory that I have in mind. I'm thinking of adding full generations, with all of the same charges and particles as SM generations so you get the same anomaly cancellation in each generation. But I want each successive generation to be more massive than the previous one, and in particular I want the neutrinos in generations 4 and up to be sufficiently massive that the deviations to the W&Z couplings haven't yet been excluded, but maybe would show up at the LHC. As they're massive, I guess I have to decide whether they have Majorana mass terms or if they are part of full Dirac spinors. I'm really interested in both possibilities, but I think I prefer Dirac for aesthetic reasons (for example, so that F=B+L meaning that parity is always plus or minus one).

You point out that light (less than the W mass) Weyl neutrinos of all generations contribute to these couplings, this is what I remembered from school (I remember they can each run around a loop and you get a factor equal to the number of generations which matches experiment very well, but it was important that the neutrinos were light). My extra neutrinos are not at all light. The big Yukawa coupling responsible for these high masses doesn't bother me. I don't even think that the coupling has to be big if you just add more scalars with big VEVs to give the masses. However, in practice I think that fundamental scalars are like epicycles, they can solve any problem but we've never seen one. I hope that at the LHC we'll kill the Higgs sector of the SM. I don't know what can replace it, maybe masses come from some internal degree of freedom like quantum gravity fuzzball orbitals or from vibrating string modes (but with generation-indep quantum numbers) or from internal directions wrapping some compactification cycles, its not clear to me that they should have perturbative gravity-free explanations, and if they do, I don't see why it should be a single scalar Higgs (with lots of Yukawa couplings, which are like VEVs of other scalars anyway so you don't really save anything by considering a single Higgs), so I don't worry about the big Yukawa couplings in the Higgs scenario. If we find a single scalar Higgs at the LHC, I'll start worrying.

Summary: I want usual SM generations (maybe an infinite number) with high masses, and I don't care about the big Yukawa coupling because I don't want the masses to come from the SM Higgs. Is this excluded?

Thanks for your answer! Sorry to be a bit longwinded JarahE 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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)

Definetaly expand. It's a real shame that BtSM is so stub-like. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Missing matter?

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)

Quantum gravity is not Beyond the standard model

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)

Elimination of Lorentz-violating theories.

"Thus, at the moment string theory is the only remaining body for the redress of shortcomings of the Standard Model, and currently the only route in the search for viable candidate theories of Everything."

There is no possible way to cite this sentence.

That's like asking someone to cite the phrase, "Mickey Mouse is not the President of the United States." Nowhere on earth (in any credible source) does this phrase appear, in any direct likeness. I can show you Mickey Mouse is a fictional character, and I can say Barack Obama is president. Logically then, that sentence follows (from either premise), yet it is uncited. Similarly, I can show that all Lorentz-violating theories have been falsified, and I can show that string theory (or the body of work that term encompasses) is currently the only non-Lorentz violating theory ( / body of work): thus it is the only remaining viable body of work. That statement is entirely obvious the given previous sentences, and its premises are well sourced, yet it itself is uncited. Riddle me that boy wonder (or are you simply looking for proof string theory doesn't violate lorentz or poincaré invariance, because I can give you that)

Wing gundam (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1)For exactly that reason you won't find a statement on wikipedia that "Mickey Mouse is not the President of the United States".

2)The problem with your claim is that your premises are simply inaccurate.

Some example:

I can show that all Lorentz-violating theories have been falsified

No, you cannot. The Fermi article you seem to hold in such high regard only puts a limit on certain five dimensional Lorentz-Violating effective operators. This puts constraints on Lorentz violating theories, but saying that it falsifies ALL Lorentz-Violating theories is simply not true. (In fact there are good reasons to argue that five dimensional Lorentz-Violating effective operators should not appear in the first place for unitarity reasons.)

I can show that string theory (or the body of work that term encompasses) is currently the only non-Lorentz violating theory

Some counter examples: Causal dynamical triangulations and causal sets both are non-Lorentz violating theories.

TimothyRias (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the problematic section into something I believe is much more neutral and in line with our content policies. However I'm still not sure if my wording is representative of the actual situation with the status of quantum gravities post-Fermi results as I'm unsure if I'm allowed to rewrite the article's "... disfavour quantum-gravity theories in which the quantum nature of space–time on a very small scale linearly alters the speed of light" into "... disfavour current models of quantum gravity." Also, the claim that String Theory is the only remaining option needs a damned good source to remain in this article, because as far as I'm aware, the Fermi results imply no such thing. I'm not an expert in the field of quantum gravity, or string theory, but I can certainly recognized bias when I see it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would not exchange "... disfavour quantum-gravity theories in which the quantum nature of space–time on a very small scale linearly alters the speed of light" for "... disfavour current models of quantum gravity.". The first is an accurate statement based on the source provided. It is not at all clear that all quantum gravity theories do this. (In fact that is a claim that is pretty much impossible to support, since there are so many theories on the market.)TimothyRias (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is unnecessary for the article, so I removed it altogether. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually CDT does violate Lorentz symmetry. And yes, by falsify existant violating theories, I did mean reduce the statistical confidence that their current predictions are correct down to ~10^-15, not completely throw them out. And it's not by necessity that theories with strings (ie non-particles) are the only body of active theoretical work left, it's just that they happen to be the only one; that's what's unique about string theory, that it satisfactorily mathematically describes all interactions unified together without quantizing spacetime. Unrelatedly, extensions to the standard model don't need their own sections; they already have articles. A list of them should suffice (ie GUTs, different supersymmetries, etc). Wing gundam (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MoS (summary style article) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Establishing a focus

I have begun an article rewrite to establish a focus for this article. The first paragraph was written in non-neutral langauge, so I did a fresh rewrite, and this helps to establish the focus for the article. I moved other material into a new section entitled "String theory", and left some other material in the introduction. This is still a work in progress. I will be basing it on reliable sources. It appears that Physics beyond the Standard Model is a common topic among physicists, along with a search for such "physics". This could be a good article, if we use reliable sources based on the topic and avoid POV, imho. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Beyond the Standard Model" physics is a very common topic in the current LHC era. (And arxiv search for articles mentioning "Beyond the Standard Model" in the abstract in the last year already gives 100+ hits) Pretty much each PhD school held in High Energy Physics in the last decade or so has had a course on "Beyond the Standard Model", I recommend searching for lecture notes of those for good sources. I started some rewriting last week by introducing a section that details the reasons why people are looking for physics beyond the standard model, i.e. what are the short comings of the current model. I would purpose making it the first section, following the example of many lecture notes on the subject, like Lykken's notes in cited in that section. It can then be followed by sections detailing various proposals for beyond the standard model physics and how they solve on or more of the problems. This should include: Supersymmetry (in particular the MSSM), technicolor, Peccei-Quinn theory, Seesaw mechanism. (I'm probably forgetting somethings here.)

There should probably also be short summary style sections of Grand unified theorys (GUTs) and Theories of Everything. The latter of which should mention string theory. I'm not sure we should mention quantum gravity at all, since it typically is not an extension of the standard model. (see my note above)TimothyRias (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback about the structure of the article. I think this is a good organizational structure. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record - I was going to seek out some better sources for the introduction. However, we have a much better introduction now. Thanks Headbomb. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Since our articles are sometimes inappropriately capitalized, it wouldn't be immediately clear that it's the Standard Model and not just a standard model. And might there not be a Standard Model in some other field? I'll move to the most agreed-on name here; we can move again if people don't like it. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Higgs boson

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Problems with the Standard Model

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)

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)

There is however a problem with respect to neutrinos in this section: "Mass terms for the neutrinos can be added to the standard model by hand, but these lead to new theoretical problems. (For example, the mass terms need to be extraordinarily small)." The smallness of the mass terms is not a problem. It is could be an inconvenience. And their smallness doesn't make the fact that you are putting them in by hand more worrisome than that you have to put in the charged lepton masses by hand as well. In fact, it is their smallness that motivates mechanisms for the generation of their masses---more theories than have been proposed for the generation of the charged lepton masses.--Certain (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

LHC not finding the Higgs boson

"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)

Miscategorisation of BaBar Findings

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)

also, why is the time-reversal symmetry violation presented as a violation of the standard model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.23.250 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this result even noteworthy enough to be here? The section is quite badly written for a start (clearly going off a press release or a news article). There are plenty of other >3-sigma deviations from the Standard Model like muon g-2 and K*mumu. These kind of things do tend to disappear with more data (like D0->hh). --128.141.230.223 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Grand unified theories

"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)

It should have linked to weak hypercharge. I fixed it. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

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)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Image of Higgs boson decay

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)

Interesting wikipedia article, but violates "no original research" rule of content

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)danshawen

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)

New Physics Narrative

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)}}

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)

5-sigma

The section “Experimental results not explained” begins:

No experimental result is accepted as definitively contradicting the Standard Model at the five-sigma level

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)

New research

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)

Omission in introduction (2022)

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)

Number of parameters question

In the Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model#Theoretical_problems section, is there no suitable candidate article to delve into the topic? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)