January 5th, 2025

A video tour of the Standard Model (2021)

The Standard Model of particle physics successfully predicts experimental outcomes but fails to explain gravity and dark matter. Efforts continue to develop a more comprehensive theory integrating mathematics and quantum field theory.

Read original articleLink Icon
A video tour of the Standard Model (2021)

The Standard Model of particle physics is recognized as the most successful scientific theory, having accurately predicted the outcomes of numerous experiments. In a video by Cambridge physicist David Tong, the model is explained in detail, illustrating how fundamental particles and forces are interconnected through a comprehensive equation. Despite its effectiveness in explaining phenomena within our universe, the Standard Model has limitations; it does not account for gravity at short distances or the existence of dark matter and dark energy. This has led physicists to seek a more comprehensive theory that extends beyond the Standard Model. The relationship between mathematics and quantum field theory (QFT) is crucial in this pursuit, as mathematicians are encouraged to develop new perspectives to address unresolved questions in physics. The integration of QFT into mathematics is ongoing and may take considerable time, but it holds promise for advancing our understanding of the universe.

- The Standard Model is the most successful scientific theory, accurately predicting experimental results.

- It describes the interactions of fundamental particles and forces through a unified equation.

- Limitations of the Standard Model include its inability to explain gravity at short distances and dark matter.

- There is a push for a more comprehensive theory that goes beyond the Standard Model.

- The collaboration between mathematics and quantum field theory is essential for resolving major open questions in physics.

Link Icon 5 comments
By @thekevan - 4 months
When I see "explanation of the Standard Model", my mind immediately goes to my favorite YT video, which is Dr Tong's talk at the Royal Institution. I started watching this video and it took me a second to recognize the voice, it's him as well!

If you want a long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

By @westurner - 4 months
Standard Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_th...

Physics beyond the Standard Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo...

Story of the LaTeX representation of the standard model, from a comment re: "The deconstructed Standard Model equation" (2016): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41753471#41772385

Can manim work with sympy expressions?

A standard model demo video could vary each (or a few) highlighted variables and visualize the [geometric,] impact/sensitivity of each

By @leoc - 4 months
“Four hundred years ago, Galileo started piecing together the basic principles …” oh no https://aeon.co/ideas/galileo-s-reputation-is-more-hyperbole...
By @lcuff - 4 months
I confess I was disappointed in the video. As someone who decades ago read Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time, it doesn't substantially add to my (lame!) understanding of the Standard Model. It names the 17 entities in the model, classifies them (fermions vs bosons), makes the distinction between matter particles and force particles, chats about each of the four forces, and drops in a number of other factoids. All well and good, and if you had no previous exposure to the standard model, you'd learn a lot. But the contrast to videos in other realms I explore (3Blue1Brown in mathematics, Guitar instructional videos by folks who include tab + video of actual fingers + sound, and woodworking videos where tricky constructions are shown from many angles) casts this Standard Model video in a poor light. The visuals just recapitulate the words that are being spoken. Sigh. Maybe there's nothing else to show, but, as I led with, I ended up disappointed....
By @jiggawatts - 4 months
I’m so fed up with “icons and cartoons” particle physics. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

It’s like trying to teach someone AI/ML and only ever showing them vendor logos as illustrations and never the code or even pictorial representations of the models.

It’s absurd, yet 99% of such presentations for physics look like this — unnecessarily — because it is possible to show a rendering of fields, their various properties changing over time and space, etc…

You can’t learn anything from a thousand such videos that already exist, so what’s the point of a thousand and one? It adds nothing.

PS: To gauge if the content is meaningful or valueless, just ask yourself if anything would change about its educational value if you arbitrarily but consistently replaced the icons and/or their labels. If you’re still exactly as mystified as before, then their information content was zero. “The three quarks, rock, paper, and scissors have a three-way symmetry, blah blah blah”. Congratulations, you now know the quantum theory of roshambo!