The answer to this question depends on what is meant by the “Standard Model”.
As defined by present day physics, there is actually more than one Standard Model. There is a Standard Model of particle and nuclear physics, which incorporates quantum mechanics and quark theory which, in a recent non-scientific survey, 10 out of 11 authors chose to address. Then there is a Standard Model of cosmology and astrophysics, which incorporates the “Big Bang” theory of universal creation and inflated expansion, which would be better published under an astronomy or astrophysics heading. In a brief effort to illuminate both Standard Models for the casual non-scientific reader and any confused or mistaken authors I offer the following:
Yes! As of early fall 2009, a preponderance of scientific data has shown the astrophysical, “Inflationary Big Bang”, standard model to be correct after replacing the “Steady State”, eternal universe hypothesis, championed by astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001). Hoyle swore by this theory, despite the mounting evidence against it ’til his dying day. Hoyle actually coined the term, “Big Bang”, when speaking in a derogatory way about the hypothesis, which eventually proved to be supported by a majority of the scientific evidence, and the name stuck. Though wrong about universal structure in a cosmological sense, Hoyle made great contributions about the knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis. That is how the atoms of all the various chemical elements that compose everything tangible were created, from primordial hydrogen and helium in extreme heat and tremendous pressures, by various stellar processes. These processes range from fusion and fission to supernovas, to create all the chemical elements in existence.
If, by referring to the Standard Model one means Quantum Mechanics or the basic concept that it is based on, the answer is Yes!
Energy-mass, at the infinitesimally tiny level of the electron and photon (light) appears to be portioned into packets or specific amounts termed “quanta”. Energy is fractionated, unitized and exists in the form of these individual miniscule quanta, rather than an uninterrupted energy continuum, as it seems to be at our level of perception. There’s something very unusual about these tiny entities. They are wave-particles. That is, in some experiments they act like particles and in others they appear to be waves. Quantum mechanics can make no statement as to why this is so, only that, that’s how nature is or appears to be structured. This property has been researched and verified extensively; it is an axiom of nature.
If, by referring to the Standard Model one means, “Quark Theory”, the nuclear hypothesis, the answer is NO!
Science has taught us that as we delve into the smaller realms of our existence, systems seem to become more basic, simpler, down to the level of the atom. The basic model of an atom is relatively simple. It’s often been described as being analogous to our sun with the planets orbiting around it. The difference is, all the negatively charged electrons orbiting the positively charged nucleus at specific energy orbital shells have the same negative charge magnitude and are all the same size (mass). The centrally located nucleus is composed of two types of particles that are more than 1860 times as massive as any of the tiny orbiting electrons. The protons are the positively charged particles in the nucleus with a charge magnitude that is equal but opposite to the tiny electrons. The neutrons are the other nuclear component. They’re slightly more massive than the proton and have no charge; they’re electrically neutral. An unbound neutron will decay into a positive proton by usually emitting an electron and an essentially mass less anti-neutrino.
Searching for a simple mathematical solution that could account for these phenomena, in 1964 two independent groups of theoretical physicists, one lead by Murray Gell-Mann (quarks) and the other by George Zweig (aces) came up with essentially the same nucleon model at nearly the same time. This coincidence, in the mind of physicists, as well as, the press and anyone who was interested, seemed almost a conformation of the quark model. Two esteemed groups of particle physicists arriving at essentially the same conclusion independently made it seem, that it just had to be right. It is the simplest, flat, one dimensional positive and negative fractional numbering system that will work to describe the charges or lack of, on the nucleons. Assuming the proton to be +1 as opposed to the orbiting electron being -1 and the uncharged neutron being 0, further, that basic charge units (particles contained in the nucleons) come in 1/3 negative and 2/3 positive charge units, it’s a hard model to dispute. There are, however, some problems. Around 1930, an anti-matter particle called the positron was discovered. It was found to be the exact same mass and charge value as the negatively charged electron, only it carried a positive charge.
It has been observed and confirmed extensively that the positron and the electron, being basic particles of opposite charge, are attracted to and annihilate each other in a violent collision when they meet, decaying in a flash of two high energy gamma-ray photons. Quarks are proposed to be positively and negatively charged entities that compose the nucleons. Why don’t positively and negatively charged quarks within the nucleons seek out and annihilate each other violently as electrons and positrons do?
Quark theory, an initially simple mathematical supposition of positive and negative numbers; (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = (+3/3) = +1 for the proton, which is opposite the charge of -1 for the electron, and (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = 0, for the neutron has evolved, according to modern particle physics into:
“The context of the proton debates has been QCD, (Quantum Chromo-Dynamics) which includes 8 gluon fields, and where the quarks live in 3 continuous complex dimensions called “color”. There are no point-like particles, it is all continuum jell-o, and the color charges swapped among the gluons and quarks flow in patterns nobody really understands. It has to be true that the color charge flows “in and out” because it’s allowed.”
And that’s just for the proton! Allowed means any forces and or properties can be assumed as axioms, if the mathematics can be made to work, according to the “Uncertainty Principle”. It seems that adding positive and negative numbers together on paper to equal zero is easier than, combining actual positive and negative particles which don’t and that’s the rub.
Blinded or Baffled;
Back in the early 1980s, some particle colliders had reached the energy threshold that would allow quarks to be observed for the very first time ever, but, after testing, searching extensively as they might, no quarks could be found! Eventually, a new basic force was hypothesized to account for this phenomenon called the, “Principle of Color Confinement”, a new, very odd, mysterious force that prevented single quarks from being observed singularly. They could only exist in pairs, as alleged in muons or in triplets, like in the individual nucleons. This new assumed force is not inversely proportional to the square of the distance between objects, like the electro-magnetic and gravitational forces, where force strength gets weaker with distance. Color force is proposed to be like no other force in nature. It is directly proportional to the distance between objects; it gets stronger with distance, like a rubber band being stretched. Beside holding the quarks together to form protons and neutrons this convenient force also prevents quarks of differing polarities from annihilating each other, as mediated by gluons, another assumed particle, to substantiate an assumed force, which works only at or below the observable level of the nuclei of atoms. At the time, I remembered an old adage I’d heard way back in electronics technician school about how to explain an unknown problem to a military superior, “If you can’t blind them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your Bullsh*t”. The rest mass of a quark is calculated to be about five times as massive as the protons that they exist in. Doesn’t that mean that a part is greater than the whole? Oh, I see, the mass and energy are contained and momentarily reside in three other dimensions from which they partially shuffle into ours, in the form of six different types of quarks, which in turn shuffle around amongst themselves in our dimension to form the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of the atoms, of which everything in our realm of existence is made. There is no direct proof of the color confinement force, or quarks for that matter. The force was created to prop up quark theory and the lack of any observable quarks. Upon closer examination quark theory appears to be house of cards with a flawed foundation, built up and patched over with mathematical construct upon construct. It assumes new forces, a myriad of new particles and at least three other dimensions, at least three other realities to explain our reality at the center of the atom.
It’s always prudent to remember, everything tangible that exists in our universe can be described by mathematics, but, everything that can be described by mathematics doesn’t necessarily exist in our universe.
It’s not that physicist hadn’t been truly working on a solution. It seems that almost everyone had jumped on the quark bandwagon, which caused them to ignore some vital data in understanding how the nucleus actually works. If you’re curious, I urge you to read: http://www.helium.com/items/1273960-how-atoms-work.
There is a benchmark in physics know as Ockham’s razor, which has become known to mean, “When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities”, basically, keep it simple. If you’ve read and understand the hypothesis at the link above the answer is obvious.
It seems that particle physicists have become far too enamored with the far-out, unrestricted, uncertainty world of Heisenberg and lost sight of physical reality.
Well, if not quark theory then what? Is there a model that can explain the duality of the quantized wave-particle, the dynamics of the nucleus, show that the four forces of physics are just variations of one basic force, explain what causes gravity and do it in just the three dimensions of space and one of time that we’ve all come to know and love?
The Oscillator Model
Back in 1899 nobody knew how the atom was structured or if it had structure at all. Max Planck, a respected pioneering researcher of that era, proposed that the whole atom was an “ideal oscillator”. An oscillator is something that flips, flows or moves, back and forth and or, on and off, repetitively. Planck’s oscillator hypothesis would certainly help to answer the wave particle duality of the photon, quite nicely. Unfortunately, Planck’s “ideal oscillator” atom model proved to be wrong. When tested it failed and was abandoned. About ten years later, Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus of the atom, which is exquisitely tiny and composed of positively charged particles called protons. In 1932 the other uncharged nuclear component, the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick and then all the weights, energies and masses of the elements, which are made of atoms, added up to what was being measured.
Actual data from recent work being done within the last few years at Jefferson Lab Linear Accelerator in Virginia, (http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1000978&printable=1 where they fire polarized beams of electrons at liquid hydrogen and deuterium targets and analyze the results with super-computers, seem to suggests that the positive proton particles of the nucleus are the “ideal oscillators” that Max Planck sought, so long ago. The new data goes along way to confirm that the proton is an internally driven spherical oscillator, an electro-dynamic perpetual motion machine. If you’re curious about the details of how the oscillating cosmological model works, which are too lengthy to go into now, it’s published at Helium.com under the heading, “How to look inside a proton”, at this link: http://www.helium.com/items/1322952 . It is a classical model and unfortunately, since the time of the Copenhagen group, quantum physicists have been trained to spurn, reject and initially, in the time of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, even hate classical concepts like the sphere and oscillations within atoms. This dogmatic view has stalled real progress in nuclear physics for the last eighty years.
The oscillating fundamental mechanics model can also describe the cause of gravitation and of gravitational mass as a space-time field distortion effect. Again, if interested see: http://www.helium.com/items/1263059-gravitational-propulsion. Gravitation is not even addressed by quark theory or quantum mechanics.
Martin Bojowald a physicist at Penn State University Gravitational Research Group believes in an oscillating “Big Bounce” or quantum loop universe and assumes that space time is fractionated into quanta that he refers to as space-time atoms. These atoms can contain only so much energy-mass per unit, anything over that limit is repulsed, meaning there may be black holes, but, there are no singularities. The oscillating proton model agrees with this assumption. It’s a nuclear model that can explain how the nucleus of the atom works according to the known laws and field mechanics of electro-dynamics, in just the three dimensions of space and one of time that we are conscious of.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
Some sections of this article have been copied or modified from other articles I’ve published.