The Standard Model of Particle Physics
Over the past three decades a compelling case has emerged for the now widely accepted standard model of elementary particles and forces. A “Standard Model” is a theoretical framework built from observation that predicts and correlates new data. The Mendeleev table of elements was an early example in chemistry; from the periodic table one could predict the properties of many hitherto unstudied elements and compounds. Nonrelativistic quantum theory is another standard model that has correlated the results of countless experiments. Like its precursors in other fields, the standard model of particle physics has been enormously successful in predicting a wide range of phenomena. And, just as ordinary quantum mechanics fails in the relativistic limit, we do not expect the standard model to be valid at arbitrarily short distances. However, its remarkable success strongly suggests that the standard model will remain an excellent approximation to nature at distance scales as small as 10–18 m.
KeywordsManifold GAll Posit Refraction Calorimeter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Darriulat, P., in Proceedings of the XXVII International Conference on High Energy Physics.Google Scholar
- Glasgow, Scotland, 1995, edited by P. J. Bussey and I. G. Knowles (Institute of Physics, Bristol), p. 367.Google Scholar
- Dawson, S., 1998, in Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Divisional Meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1996, in press.Google Scholar
- Quigg, C., 1983, Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic Interactions(Benjamin/ Cummings, New York).Google Scholar
- Veneziano, G., 1996, in Proceedings of the XXVII International Conference on High Energy Physics, Warsaw, Poland, 1996, edited by Z. Ajduk and A. K. Wroblewski (World Scientific, Singapore), p. 449.Google Scholar
- Weinberg, S., 1993, inProceeding of the XXVI International Conference on High Energy Physics,Dallas, Texas 1992, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 272, edited by J. R. Sanford (AIP, New York), p. 346.Google Scholar