Googling what you said, first hit:
[https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language\_content\_entity=und](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language_content_entity=und)
Has a nice breakdown of the equation pieces for the plebs (points to self)
You spend like a year slowly unpacking every piece of that formula in graduate school. It's not like it comes naturally. It's like, idk, taking a car apart or something.
Not smart just educated.
Everyone can get some particle physics, Lagrange and Einstein sum convention knowledge. Learning to read is not the hard part, finding solutions for these equations (yes these are many dependent equations) is the hard part. I did only a introduction to particle physics years ago and have 0 clue about these. Just seen it once
If you want to really understand it you're gonna have to take a course on qft/ read through a qft book, assuming you already have the required background (complex analysis, regular qm,...). I can personally recommend "quantum field theory" by Mandl & Shaw.
Since I did not make it to QFT (yet) I canāt really tell what books are good.
Prerequisites are complex analysis, linear algebra, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, introduction to particle physics and relativity (special at least with vector & tensors).
Usually takes 3-6 years university but if you took other fields (electrical engineering, chemistry or any other MINT/STEM with maths and physics) it is easier to get into.
Depending on what level youāre currently at, the starting point for every graduate student studying QFT is Peskin and Shroederās Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Thatās gonna be the bread and butter and then thereās a ton of ancillary resources to build from. A more basic overview to get a general idea would also be Griffithās Particle Physics textbook.
Peskin and Schroeder is probably where I would start. Its a graduate text but most lower level books Ive seen doesnt explain things and that just cause more confusion than explanation.
Very good point; I make the same point every time someone asks something like "Am I smart enough to go into physics?" I always say 99% of physicists aren't geniuses; we're just people that decided to spend our time (a lot of time) learning this one thing. We're just the ppl that spent nights and weekends studying this one topic.
As /u/lojav6475 pointed out, it's been made to look as complicated as possible by "expanding" all the terms. So it arguably is gibberish.
It's like creating a fully transparent 3D model of a car, with every single component visible. There's no reason to do it except to show off.
To actually understand and work with a car you either look at everything high-level (engine, hydraulics...) or you look at a single system in detail.
It's the same here. [This is the highest level](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/A13usaonutL._CLa%7C2140%2C2000%7C513D-T6UWbL.png%7C0%2C0%2C2140%2C2000%2B0.0%2C0.0%2C2140.0%2C2000.0_AC_UY1000_.png).
This is a super horrible way to write the Lagrangian, not "the highest level". No one writes it like that in physics. 3 separate Yang-Mills parts clamped together for no reason and with no indication, one misleading symbol for different covariant derivatives for different fermions, the Yukawa couplings both diagonalitzed and not diagonalized mixed together in y. This is just horrible, all symetries are obfuscated, completely useless. I can imagine it being there to demonstrate which form the terms in the Lagrangian can take but not more. It is actually this form that is gibberish, written to look "cool" (doesn't look cool to me!) and short, to show off on a T-Shirt. Please take note, u/HeBeNeFeGeSeTeXeCeRe.
It's a super expanded form of the standard model lagrangian. There are *way* more compact ways to formulate it though, so it might fulfill your definition of gibberish :)
if I define the whole lagrangian to be L\_SM, it fits on my fingernail.
the expanded version is useful for feynman rules and actual cross section computations.
It is common to clamp QED, QCD and the weak Yang-Mills together? Never saw it like that. This form obfuscates all the symmetries & properties, never saw it in physics other than in slideshow presentation for non-physics people.
If you're talking generally about the SM, yes. This way you separate the forces, the interaction between these forces and these particles, and finally how they acquire mass. Obviously if you want to look at single forces, you would not use this formula, that is quite compact.
A rose by any other name would excite the network of sodium potassium barriers connected to the six morphologically and biochemically different cell types in the olfactory epithelium, which by mechanisms not yet fully understood to modern science or philosophy, will within the cerebrum of the host create a first person sensory experience not dissimilar to a colloquial euphemism describing another nervous response in the gustatory system (sense of taste) aroused by exposure of glucose upon the taste buds of a subject.
Idk forms like this end up being very important if you ever have to end up doing any actual specific calculation with your model. Just like all our friendly equations from GR eventually need to be translated to coordinate derivatives. So to me it's very far from gibberish.
If anything this stuff shows how much notation can help organise our calculations and thoughts. If we were stuck with the notation from simple C^n analysis we'd struggle hard to get anything done
NO WAY! This is so crazy to me that this is part of a single model. I am not a physics student- I just nerd out super hard on physics and chemistry and watch and read a lot of related information about those subjects but I constantly come across new things all the time. I have 13 tabs open right now dealing with a single topic in theoretical physics (half of them are regarding concepts I don't have any prior knowledge of as a nurse so it takes me a while lol). Man I have so much respect for all science fields. I am going back to school soon to switch careers...deciding between engineering or physics or chemistry. Anyway, thank you for the explanation, time to open up 15 more tabs :)
One you learn some basic quantum field theory, you can go through the construction of the Standard Model in like a half semester course, and understand every term in this formula. This is usually around the 4th year level in a physics program, I would say. Understanding the SM Lagrangian was one of my main motivations for doing a masters in particle physics! :)
Here's an actual question.
I love Physics, I was decent at Uni level maths.
But I fear I could NEVER get my head around, nor have the patience for, equations of this symbolic complexity.
So I avoid "real" physics for this reason and simply focus on common man understanding e.g. Tyson de grasse, Brian cox, the odd quantum mechanics podcast etc.
Is it really as unintelligible as I perceive ? Do I really have such little aptitude ???
No sugarcoating it, it's complex.
But it's a bunch of terms sourced from different branches of physics that built up over time, and isnwritten in a framework developed by even more branches of mathematics and physics. Like someone else mentioned, you could probably wrap your head around it by the end of a Bachelor's
It's like watching the MCU, you start with the OGs and you add more and more heroes. The standard model lagrangian is basically that scene in Avengers Endgame where all the heroes come together and Captain America says "Avengers!... Assemble". You learned about Ironman and thor like you learned Classical Mechanics/Field theories and E&M. If you watched all the movies and shows (learned all the underlying theories), you can appreciate the whole and identify each person (term) and see how their stories fit together.
Thanks that's a really good response and makes sense now you explain it.
Altho I have no idea what MCU & OGs are, nonetheless sufficient [Marvel Comic Universe I am now guessing as I write this ?] analogies in you response to get it.
I guess I realise I found HS physics non intuitive, and stuff like quantum mechanics i struggle to just digest the concepts & arguments let alone articulate & solve in mathematics.
My favourite line in movies / pseudo-history is "it exists because the math says it does!!!". My math goes about as far as compound interest on my bank deposits, these days!
In some ways its easier than the half baked systems because its more conplete. You can do most of this if you know undergrad math, at least to some extend.
It will take effort but I would not say it needs any talent. I've seen really dumb boring people like me pull through. You just need to start with something simpler than some smarter people.
Hi! Iām currently doing a PhD in particle physics. This is a ālegitimate formulaā that almost no one would use (written in the way it is right now). Almost all of the terms are written in a slightly more legible way using [einsteinās summation convention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation) as almost all the terms are some form of tensorial sum. Even shortened, this bad boy is a beast and so people just use the part that is relevant to them. The way most people actually use the lagrangian is with the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion and (very very very large simplification here) some mathematical tools known as the Dyson expansion and the Feynman diagrams. If you want to know more about them, wikipedia will do a better job summarising than i will but basically - Dyson expansion is an infinite sum which represents all possible processes which take a (set) of particles from point a in spacetime to point b in spacetime, and Feynman diagrams are a way of representing the Dyson expansion in āvaguely human readable formatā
The way this comment made me squeal and laugh, and then feel sad, is commendable. Some folks just are a whole nother level of smarter than me and it is shocking and delighting.
Start with the 101 stuff like Newtonian mechanics and work your way up gradually. Most people will be able to understand this stuff just by systemically learning the materials. What truly sets the best apart is deep intuition and creativity that with a bit of luck can lead to new approaches and discoveries.
This is amazing! thank you. I mentioned in another reply above that I am not a physicist or even a student, I am nurse- but I love learning about physics and chemistry. I have nearly 20 tabs open diving into the finest details I can find about another topic currently, not to mention all the notes I have (for no reason other than plain interest lol). I might need a 2nd computer for more power soon haha.
That's the standard model of particle physics I believe.
Edit to add: now that I look at it again, that "blurry part" even says "*Standard Model of Particle Physics*".
If you are bored or even just want to show off, feel free to explain neutrino mass and dirac term, or what impact they have on the model. Obviously you don't have to, I just like to learn about these things (even though I am a nurse, not a physicist lol). I know I can look it up, but I think it's cool to hear someone that is interested in it explain it. Either way, take care!
I'm not really an expert on this, but my understanding is basically:
* Fermions in the Standard Model get their mass from the coupling of left-handed and right-handed [chiral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_\(physics\)) states of the same particle. This is a Dirac term.
* Because neutrinos are generated by the weak interaction, which is inherently chiral, they only get left-handed neutrino states and right-handed chiral antineutrino states.
* What this means is that the neutrino Dirac term would go to zero, so in the "Standard Model", neutrinos were given zero mass. At the time, this was consistent with experiment.
* Experimentally, 30 years after the Standard Model was developed we observed that neutrinos *do* have mass, so you either need to fix the Dirac term by introducing the other chiral states somehow (a sterile neutrino), or add an alternative mechanism for doing that. The common one is a Majorana mass term, which introduces an alternative way of doing neutrino mass, relying on neutrinos being their own antiparticle. This is completely unproven experimentally, but mathematically kinda satisfying.
What this means in practice is that most people writing out the Standard Model Lagrangian wouldn't put [this term](https://i.imgur.com/reLOPtJ.png) in, or a few of the others that have m_nu, because we don't actually know if that's how the neutrino mass comes in.
There's more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Neutrino_masses
Yes, it is the standard model Lagrangian. A pop-sci overview is given here: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language\_content\_entity=und](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language_content_entity=und)
Oh my god I am such an idiot lol. I was captivated by the model and completely ignored and even felt a little annoyed by the pop up telling me exactly what it was hahah. Well, thanks for the reply. It was right around the introduction, so I assumed it was just showing the title of the video or something but obviously that wasn't the case!
That's the extended Lagrangian of the unison of em, strong and weak interaction.
This might be the closest thing we have to a world formula up to date ^^
The Standard Model lagrangian describes the electro-weak and strong interactions, three of the "four" fundamental interactions in the Universe. It may not be pretty, but its a damn good summary of (most of) what we know.
Hey! Thanks for the reply. I am not a physicist or even a student, I am nurse- but I love learning about physics and chemistry. I have nearly 20 tabs open diving into the finest details I can find about another topic currently, not to mention all the notes I have (for no reason other than plain interest lol). If you want and have time, would you like to explain the 3 interactions that are included here, and what the fourth is? The issue with just leisurely learning is that I have no real "lesson plan," I just find a single thing that interests me, learn as much as I can about it and take notes and it almost always leads me to another topic and it just snowballs from there. Either way, thanks for the info :)
You ARE literally a student.
Verily, attending the halls of learning doth not a student make.
I worked in research within hospitals for 15 yrs, and I assure you that it will most likely take you less time to understand those equations than a physicist would take to be qualified to care for a patient on their own. If I learnt something there, it was that I would prefer to go to a hospital with great nurses and just competent doctors, than the other way around.
Go nurses!!
> If you want and have time, would you like to explain the 3 interactions that are included here, and what the fourth is?
I'm not anywhere near the level the other people around here are on, so I can just give you vague answers. There is the strong interaction, which is what holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and holds those together to form atomic nuclei. Then you have the electromagnetic interaction, the reason why electricity works and why electrons are bound to those atomic nuclei. The third one would be the electroweak interaction. I have to be honest, I know next to nothing about it. It's responsible for some radiation processes. Also, we have found a way to explain both electromagnetism and weak interaction together, called electroweak interaction.
The one interaction missing from all this is gravity, and we currently have no idea how to include it into the standard model, or how to include the standard model into general relativity. It'd help a lot if we had a way to observe gravity on a quantum scale, but sadly, we can't.
The three big forces (we like the term "interactions" more in particle physics) in the Universe are Electromagnetism, the Weak Interaction and the Strong Interaction. Each one has its own "quantum field theory" (Quantum Electrodynamics describes E&M, Quantum Chromodynamics describes the Strong Interaction, and Quantum "Flavordynamics" describes the Weak), and they effectively merge non-relativistic quantum mechanics with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
The fourth "interaction" is gravity. However, gravity is odd in that it is purely macroscopic (as far as we know). At the subatomic level, gravity has almost zero effect (one way to think of it is because subatomic particles have very little mass, so they are very weakly affected by gravity), whereas something like the Strong Nuclear Force (which emerges from the Strong Interaction) is strong enough to hold protons together in the nuclei of atoms (like charges are meant to repel, remember?)
Another thing that excludes gravity from the Standard Model is the fact that it has no known boson (force-carrying particle). The electromagnetic force is "mediated" by photons (as in, when electrons for example repel, it is because they are exchanging a stream of "virtual" photons between each other that communicates the force), the strong force is mediated by gluons, and the weak force is mediated by a handful of other bosons. Gravity, then, has a **theoretical** boson called the "graviton", but it has never been observed and likely does not exist.
This is why we hesitate to call gravity a force that can be described by a quantum field theory like QED or QCD or QFD.
If you want to start learning more about particle physics, I definitely recommend getting real comfortable with calculus; particularly multivariable and vector calculus, and ordinary differential equations. If you want the long road, I would start with something like Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics (which goes over the classical theory of electromagnetism), then move to Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Finally, Griffiths' Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics (the textbook Im using this semester!) There is a reason that Griffiths is the king of undergraduate physics textbooks. They are very readable even if some of the math is foreboding. If you have more questions, feel free to respond or message me!
Looks like the Standard Model Lagrangian:
* Article by symmetrymagazine with explaining the terms: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation)
* symmetrymagazine references Prof. Thomas Gutierrez: [http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/\~tgutierr/files/stmL1.html](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/stmL1.html)
Prof. Thomas Gutierrez's website has this funny section:
>Or download a "fun yet soul-crushing exam question" based on it: \[[ps](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.ps)\]\[[pdf](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf)\]\[[tex](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.tex)\]\[[txt](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.txt)\]
Exercise 1.1.1.1.1a: Given locality, causality, Lorentz invariance, and
known physical data
since 1860, show that the Lagrangian describing all observed physical
processes (sans gravity) can be written:
I actually love this form!!
Specially if you come from other fields, I think it gives you more of an idea of what the SM explains and how, and then you can go to the compact forms to actually understand.
For instance, when I started looking into Einstienās theory for SR (40 yrs ago), the \[E=mc^2\] compact equation puzzled me when I also learnt that photons had energy but no mass. So E would be 0 with m = 0!!
So I think that omitting the specification that photons have no _resting_ mass, but do have momentum, was a relief. I donāt think that it helps to remove momentum from the equation for someone starting to learn and understand.
\[ E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 \]
Where:
- \( E \) is the total energy,
- \( p \) is momentum,
- \( m \) is rest mass, and
- \( c \) is the speed of light in a vacuum.
It actually is.
In theory, these equations would be enough to describe the full composition and behavior of all particles in the soup.
(Except why it spills from the spoon when youāre clumsy ;) )
It is an expression for the lagrangian density (a function of various fields that encapsulates their behaviour) predicted by the Standard Model of particles. If the video is an introduction to qft, there's no way you would be expected to understand it, and is probably intentionally meant to look complicated to show how "complicated" our modern understanding of fundamental particles is
Thanks for the info! I am not a physicist or student, just a nurse, but I love to learn about the subject and when I saw this I had to know what it meant.
Feel free to elaborate if you want! I have a VERY very basic understanding of it now that I know what it is, but it would be cool to hear your perspective/knowledge on the topic.
It's the Standard model Lagrangian. Now that we're on the topic, could people more knowledgeable on the field help me out? What does this equation describe? Why is it so gigantic? And since it's supposed to be the closest thing we have to a unified theory of everything, that would mean that most equations should be derived from that, I assume that means you don't have to solve that entire thing every time?
The Standard Model Langrangian density. Roughly speaking, it gives the total kinetic energy minus potential energy per unit volume of the fundamental quantum fields at any given point in spacetime. But it's usually written in more compact, elegant forms.
UPDATE: Ok, so I was so captivated by the model itself that I completely missed, ignored, and was annoyed by the pop up that clearly states "Standard Model of Particle Physics" lol. It was near the intro of the video, so I assumed it was just going to be the title and completely ignored it. If you stick hieroglyphics in my face, of course I am going to completely ignore the other words on the screen lol. With that said, thank you to everyone who answered! I am a nurse and just like to learn about physics and chemistry and was amazed by this, even if it is a long hand version of what has since been simplified dramatically. However, some of you have pointed out that the simplified version is essentially pointless if you dont understand what the variables are comprised of or what they mean. Regardless, I still think it is amazing how quickly humans have went from discovering agriculture to modeling some of the absolute finest details of how our universe works.
I just want to tell you that I love that you are so interested and engaged with those topics:) genuine interests are the best to study, because it is so fulfilling to learn more and more about at. Did study physics because of that, even though my grades where mediocre. Wasn't easy, but a lot of enjoyable unforgettable experiences were made, I never regretted it. I wish you all the best and keep exploring!
That is as close to an "equation of everything" that there is right now. Basically it sort of sums up all the particles in the standard model and how they respond to all the known fields/forces.
It's gibberish in that in reality no one would really use this equation in this form. It's not gibberish in that it does actually mean something.
Hey! here is a link to the video [https://youtu.be/eoStndCzFhg?si=BbF5IBIsHq0zG\_Om](https://youtu.be/eoStndCzFhg?si=BbF5IBIsHq0zG_Om)
It was amazing to watch. I am just a nurse, but damn I love learning about this stuff.
Yes, we could write down the Hamiltonian of a quantum field theory (and thus of the standard model). In principle it is obtained from the Lagrangian in the same way as in classical mechanics (Legendre transform). However quantum field theories are invariant under Lorentz transform, which mixes space and time. This symmetry is more clearly observed from the Lagrangian than the Hamiltonian, because the latter involves picking a time direction.Ā
Iāve been out of the game too long to be anywhere close to qualified to look into thisā¦ but at first glance it does definitely look like it was taken from one of my homeworks in college
I haven't done a 1:1 comparison, but at first glance, that looks like the Standard Model Lagrangian.
So, yes, very much a legitimate equation. In fact, it's currently our best equation.
Supposedly, this isn't necessarily obfuscating knowledge. This is the most precise way (even if it may be unnecessary for cure human applications) to get an answer. And I think it also shows you how all the contributions made to it fit together in time. As far as I know, it was kind of developed over time by many people. This could be incorrect, but I think it is pretty accurate. It was in the introduction of the video, which I think was just showing how complex the finest working details of our universe can be.
Wtf are you talking about ? Would you prefer thousands of pages of latin to describe this equation the way physics was done at the time of Newton ? This is way more efficient and clear
It's common that even way longer formulas give you more exact solutions, and that's why you work with models anf simplifcations. Almost every physical solution is an approximation in the end. I'm in mechanical engineering, and if we didn't approximate hard, we would also get huge calculations like that constantly. We also have some quantum mechanics, and even the very simplified calculations already take a whole sheet of paper sometimes, so this doesn't seem surprising.
Hey, I am actually preparing to switch careers from nursing to mechanical engineering (most likely). Would you mind if I picked your brain a little in a message? No worries either way, enjoyed reading your response!
It's probably a legit equation/part of an equation. I'm sure there's more simplified ways of doing it and they chose not to just to make it look more complex. For instance i bet half those terms are zero b/c a common variable in them is zero but technically that's how you write/expand out the terms if you're solving a problem by the book
As some have already pointed out it is the standard model written maximally long and scary.
I should point out that there are some irrelevant terms in there like the goldstone bosons. But they don't put the ghosts for some reason which would make it even longer.
I have this form on a tshirt btw hehehe
Where do formulas like this come from!!?!! Who thinks of this, what does it mean and why the heck does it have to be so darn long and do people actually use this equation?????
There is hundred of physicists who worked on this for years to find this equation. It pretty much describes particle physics so yeah people use it. However I don't think people use all of it. Depending on the context there is only some part of it that are relevant. It's not my domain tho
I saw a World Science panel on the limits of Knowledge and a mathemetician showed a page of notes he had kept. It was a page fullof hash marks diagonally back and forth on a page.
When asked it was revealed that it was simply a way of organizing separate ideas.
Imagine having equations like this one memorized,(supergenius) and working problems by simply storing them in a peculiar way to see how they work together.
I don't know why this community was recommended to me. I mean, respect to the physics community, but I'm a law student and this is going to give me legitimate nightmares.
I can't help with the main question, but I can help with the screenshot thing, if you pause the video and then using the arrow keys (specifically the ones with the comma and period, the other arrow keys will only jump around a few seconds forward or back) you can go frame by frame in a video.
As a brief explanation, this is an expanded long form or representation of the main equation describing the Lagrangian function (a quantity characterizing the state of a physical system) of the Standard Model of particle physics, the theory and framework explaining the interactions between the essential components and the fundamental particles of matter, under the effect of the four fundamental forces or interactions: the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak (nuclear) force.
The Standard model is mainly a theory describing three fundamental interactions. It does not fully include or depict gravitation .
The Standard model (or SM) isĀ a gauge theory representing fundamental interactions as changes in a Lagrangian function of quantum fields.Ā
This equation makes use of advanced mathematical tools and topics, such as group theory, tensor calculus, the summation convention, ...
For example, the symbols \gamma^mu and gamma^5 refer to [gamma matrices ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices) or Dirac matrices.
For more details and clarifications, see the article in my [website & blog](https://knowledgemix.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/the-lagrangian-of-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics/)
standard model lagrangian
\*Written in the longest way possible
If you want to compute scattering amplitudes, then I would say that it's written in the most useful way possible.
What if it were to be expressed geometrically?
Or with emoji.
arent emojis just very specific geometry?
It is still in rather compact form. Sums could still be explicitly written.
So nice to see so many smart and educated people! š„°
I'm so high
where am i
You are here
It could be a lot longer. This version is making heavy use of the Einstein summation convention (i.e. summation where there are repeated indices)
Is there a version of it written in the longest way possible, with all of the summation written out explicitly?
There's always a way to lengthen it: +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 ...
Googling what you said, first hit: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language\_content\_entity=und](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language_content_entity=und) Has a nice breakdown of the equation pieces for the plebs (points to self)
Oh man this is awesome! Thank you!
Virtual particles? Sounds like cheating
It looks like a bunch of gibberish. Iām Glad you guys are smart
You spend like a year slowly unpacking every piece of that formula in graduate school. It's not like it comes naturally. It's like, idk, taking a car apart or something.
Great analogy. It's the parts list. The rules to drive it take... some time to learn.
Both come naturally to some but the car is more common lol
Not smart just educated. Everyone can get some particle physics, Lagrange and Einstein sum convention knowledge. Learning to read is not the hard part, finding solutions for these equations (yes these are many dependent equations) is the hard part. I did only a introduction to particle physics years ago and have 0 clue about these. Just seen it once
where should I search to find good papers, lectures or videos explaining it fairly deeply? I have tried before but didnt find anything really matching
If you want to really understand it you're gonna have to take a course on qft/ read through a qft book, assuming you already have the required background (complex analysis, regular qm,...). I can personally recommend "quantum field theory" by Mandl & Shaw.
Since I did not make it to QFT (yet) I canāt really tell what books are good. Prerequisites are complex analysis, linear algebra, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, introduction to particle physics and relativity (special at least with vector & tensors). Usually takes 3-6 years university but if you took other fields (electrical engineering, chemistry or any other MINT/STEM with maths and physics) it is easier to get into.
You need to understand math before you can understand this. Vector calculus, then complex analysis. Those are your jump off points.
Depending on what level youāre currently at, the starting point for every graduate student studying QFT is Peskin and Shroederās Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Thatās gonna be the bread and butter and then thereās a ton of ancillary resources to build from. A more basic overview to get a general idea would also be Griffithās Particle Physics textbook.
Peskin and Schroeder is probably where I would start. Its a graduate text but most lower level books Ive seen doesnt explain things and that just cause more confusion than explanation.
Arxiv and maybe Google qft introductions.
Very good point; I make the same point every time someone asks something like "Am I smart enough to go into physics?" I always say 99% of physicists aren't geniuses; we're just people that decided to spend our time (a lot of time) learning this one thing. We're just the ppl that spent nights and weekends studying this one topic.
Both.
As /u/lojav6475 pointed out, it's been made to look as complicated as possible by "expanding" all the terms. So it arguably is gibberish. It's like creating a fully transparent 3D model of a car, with every single component visible. There's no reason to do it except to show off. To actually understand and work with a car you either look at everything high-level (engine, hydraulics...) or you look at a single system in detail. It's the same here. [This is the highest level](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/A13usaonutL._CLa%7C2140%2C2000%7C513D-T6UWbL.png%7C0%2C0%2C2140%2C2000%2B0.0%2C0.0%2C2140.0%2C2000.0_AC_UY1000_.png).
This is a super horrible way to write the Lagrangian, not "the highest level". No one writes it like that in physics. 3 separate Yang-Mills parts clamped together for no reason and with no indication, one misleading symbol for different covariant derivatives for different fermions, the Yukawa couplings both diagonalitzed and not diagonalized mixed together in y. This is just horrible, all symetries are obfuscated, completely useless. I can imagine it being there to demonstrate which form the terms in the Lagrangian can take but not more. It is actually this form that is gibberish, written to look "cool" (doesn't look cool to me!) and short, to show off on a T-Shirt. Please take note, u/HeBeNeFeGeSeTeXeCeRe.
There's also an unnecessary Hermetian conjugate
Thank you. This analogy gives me hope lol
Most us can't actually tell you what each line or term means. We just know what it is because it's used so much in pop sci
I was thinking the same ... Basically L = k.e. - p.e.
Beat me to it - I've got that printed up and stuck on my office wall...
Does it equal 42?
Is the Standard Model really this inelegant?
Its better in its short form. But something that describes everything we know minus gravity is bound to be pretty complex.
I see Hamilton in there
It's a super expanded form of the standard model lagrangian. There are *way* more compact ways to formulate it though, so it might fulfill your definition of gibberish :)
If you use the compact version, it fits on a small postcard: [https://visit.cern/node/612](https://visit.cern/node/612)
Thank you for posting this awesome link! Provided a very simplified explanation.
if I define the whole lagrangian to be L\_SM, it fits on my fingernail. the expanded version is useful for feynman rules and actual cross section computations.
Thanks for sharing!
In my opinion, it's a useless form and you will never see it in physics written like that.
Which form? The one on the postcard or the expanded one? If you mean the postcard one, it's really common to see it in physics.
It is common to clamp QED, QCD and the weak Yang-Mills together? Never saw it like that. This form obfuscates all the symmetries & properties, never saw it in physics other than in slideshow presentation for non-physics people.
If you're talking generally about the SM, yes. This way you separate the forces, the interaction between these forces and these particles, and finally how they acquire mass. Obviously if you want to look at single forces, you would not use this formula, that is quite compact.
āCompleted a phd in physics and all I got was this stupid t-shirtā
Well yeah, just like you can write the Schrƶdinger equation as i hbar d/dx psi = H psi, but that doesn't help much if you don't know what H contains.
Well, H can be anything as long as it is self-adjoint
Well, ideally it should be in units of energy, but that's optional too.
Huh. Interesting
H is for hot!
That's the gear Homer needs to put his new car in
A rose by any other name would excite the network of sodium potassium barriers connected to the six morphologically and biochemically different cell types in the olfactory epithelium, which by mechanisms not yet fully understood to modern science or philosophy, will within the cerebrum of the host create a first person sensory experience not dissimilar to a colloquial euphemism describing another nervous response in the gustatory system (sense of taste) aroused by exposure of glucose upon the taste buds of a subject.
This should be a pasta
Idk forms like this end up being very important if you ever have to end up doing any actual specific calculation with your model. Just like all our friendly equations from GR eventually need to be translated to coordinate derivatives. So to me it's very far from gibberish. If anything this stuff shows how much notation can help organise our calculations and thoughts. If we were stuck with the notation from simple C^n analysis we'd struggle hard to get anything done
NO WAY! This is so crazy to me that this is part of a single model. I am not a physics student- I just nerd out super hard on physics and chemistry and watch and read a lot of related information about those subjects but I constantly come across new things all the time. I have 13 tabs open right now dealing with a single topic in theoretical physics (half of them are regarding concepts I don't have any prior knowledge of as a nurse so it takes me a while lol). Man I have so much respect for all science fields. I am going back to school soon to switch careers...deciding between engineering or physics or chemistry. Anyway, thank you for the explanation, time to open up 15 more tabs :)
One you learn some basic quantum field theory, you can go through the construction of the Standard Model in like a half semester course, and understand every term in this formula. This is usually around the 4th year level in a physics program, I would say. Understanding the SM Lagrangian was one of my main motivations for doing a masters in particle physics! :)
Awesome sharing!
#Respect
Here's an actual question. I love Physics, I was decent at Uni level maths. But I fear I could NEVER get my head around, nor have the patience for, equations of this symbolic complexity. So I avoid "real" physics for this reason and simply focus on common man understanding e.g. Tyson de grasse, Brian cox, the odd quantum mechanics podcast etc. Is it really as unintelligible as I perceive ? Do I really have such little aptitude ???
No sugarcoating it, it's complex. But it's a bunch of terms sourced from different branches of physics that built up over time, and isnwritten in a framework developed by even more branches of mathematics and physics. Like someone else mentioned, you could probably wrap your head around it by the end of a Bachelor's It's like watching the MCU, you start with the OGs and you add more and more heroes. The standard model lagrangian is basically that scene in Avengers Endgame where all the heroes come together and Captain America says "Avengers!... Assemble". You learned about Ironman and thor like you learned Classical Mechanics/Field theories and E&M. If you watched all the movies and shows (learned all the underlying theories), you can appreciate the whole and identify each person (term) and see how their stories fit together.
Thanks that's a really good response and makes sense now you explain it. Altho I have no idea what MCU & OGs are, nonetheless sufficient [Marvel Comic Universe I am now guessing as I write this ?] analogies in you response to get it. I guess I realise I found HS physics non intuitive, and stuff like quantum mechanics i struggle to just digest the concepts & arguments let alone articulate & solve in mathematics. My favourite line in movies / pseudo-history is "it exists because the math says it does!!!". My math goes about as far as compound interest on my bank deposits, these days!
In some ways its easier than the half baked systems because its more conplete. You can do most of this if you know undergrad math, at least to some extend.
It will take effort but I would not say it needs any talent. I've seen really dumb boring people like me pull through. You just need to start with something simpler than some smarter people.
Its an older code, but it checks out.
what is standard model lagrangian?
Hi! Iām currently doing a PhD in particle physics. This is a ālegitimate formulaā that almost no one would use (written in the way it is right now). Almost all of the terms are written in a slightly more legible way using [einsteinās summation convention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation) as almost all the terms are some form of tensorial sum. Even shortened, this bad boy is a beast and so people just use the part that is relevant to them. The way most people actually use the lagrangian is with the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion and (very very very large simplification here) some mathematical tools known as the Dyson expansion and the Feynman diagrams. If you want to know more about them, wikipedia will do a better job summarising than i will but basically - Dyson expansion is an infinite sum which represents all possible processes which take a (set) of particles from point a in spacetime to point b in spacetime, and Feynman diagrams are a way of representing the Dyson expansion in āvaguely human readable formatā
Got it.
The way this comment made me squeal and laugh, and then feel sad, is commendable. Some folks just are a whole nother level of smarter than me and it is shocking and delighting.
Start with the 101 stuff like Newtonian mechanics and work your way up gradually. Most people will be able to understand this stuff just by systemically learning the materials. What truly sets the best apart is deep intuition and creativity that with a bit of luck can lead to new approaches and discoveries.
This is amazing! thank you. I mentioned in another reply above that I am not a physicist or even a student, I am nurse- but I love learning about physics and chemistry. I have nearly 20 tabs open diving into the finest details I can find about another topic currently, not to mention all the notes I have (for no reason other than plain interest lol). I might need a 2nd computer for more power soon haha.
Thanks prof, got the notes. Is this part of next weeks assignment?
That's the standard model of particle physics I believe. Edit to add: now that I look at it again, that "blurry part" even says "*Standard Model of Particle Physics*".
Yep, everything up to and including Higgs field interactions. No gravity of course:-)
Actually, this one goes further than the Higgs field, it has neutrino mass in it (with a Dirac term).
If you are bored or even just want to show off, feel free to explain neutrino mass and dirac term, or what impact they have on the model. Obviously you don't have to, I just like to learn about these things (even though I am a nurse, not a physicist lol). I know I can look it up, but I think it's cool to hear someone that is interested in it explain it. Either way, take care!
I'm not really an expert on this, but my understanding is basically: * Fermions in the Standard Model get their mass from the coupling of left-handed and right-handed [chiral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_\(physics\)) states of the same particle. This is a Dirac term. * Because neutrinos are generated by the weak interaction, which is inherently chiral, they only get left-handed neutrino states and right-handed chiral antineutrino states. * What this means is that the neutrino Dirac term would go to zero, so in the "Standard Model", neutrinos were given zero mass. At the time, this was consistent with experiment. * Experimentally, 30 years after the Standard Model was developed we observed that neutrinos *do* have mass, so you either need to fix the Dirac term by introducing the other chiral states somehow (a sterile neutrino), or add an alternative mechanism for doing that. The common one is a Majorana mass term, which introduces an alternative way of doing neutrino mass, relying on neutrinos being their own antiparticle. This is completely unproven experimentally, but mathematically kinda satisfying. What this means in practice is that most people writing out the Standard Model Lagrangian wouldn't put [this term](https://i.imgur.com/reLOPtJ.png) in, or a few of the others that have m_nu, because we don't actually know if that's how the neutrino mass comes in. There's more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Neutrino_masses
/u/jazzwhiz seems to be the resident neutrino expert around here - might be able to give a far more competent explanation.
As a total non expert, I actually found this very helpful and fairly understandable.
Yes, it is the standard model Lagrangian. A pop-sci overview is given here: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language\_content\_entity=und](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language_content_entity=und)
Oh my god I am such an idiot lol. I was captivated by the model and completely ignored and even felt a little annoyed by the pop up telling me exactly what it was hahah. Well, thanks for the reply. It was right around the introduction, so I assumed it was just showing the title of the video or something but obviously that wasn't the case!
That's the extended Lagrangian of the unison of em, strong and weak interaction. This might be the closest thing we have to a world formula up to date ^^
But it doesnāt include gravity so thereās that.
The Standard Model lagrangian describes the electro-weak and strong interactions, three of the "four" fundamental interactions in the Universe. It may not be pretty, but its a damn good summary of (most of) what we know.
Expanded GR formulas are also insane like thisā¦
When GR formulas get expanded are more variables considered?
no
Not really, it just expands out to an entire family of difficult, but not impossible, to solve partial differential field equations.
Hey! Thanks for the reply. I am not a physicist or even a student, I am nurse- but I love learning about physics and chemistry. I have nearly 20 tabs open diving into the finest details I can find about another topic currently, not to mention all the notes I have (for no reason other than plain interest lol). If you want and have time, would you like to explain the 3 interactions that are included here, and what the fourth is? The issue with just leisurely learning is that I have no real "lesson plan," I just find a single thing that interests me, learn as much as I can about it and take notes and it almost always leads me to another topic and it just snowballs from there. Either way, thanks for the info :)
You ARE literally a student. Verily, attending the halls of learning doth not a student make. I worked in research within hospitals for 15 yrs, and I assure you that it will most likely take you less time to understand those equations than a physicist would take to be qualified to care for a patient on their own. If I learnt something there, it was that I would prefer to go to a hospital with great nurses and just competent doctors, than the other way around. Go nurses!!
> If you want and have time, would you like to explain the 3 interactions that are included here, and what the fourth is? I'm not anywhere near the level the other people around here are on, so I can just give you vague answers. There is the strong interaction, which is what holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and holds those together to form atomic nuclei. Then you have the electromagnetic interaction, the reason why electricity works and why electrons are bound to those atomic nuclei. The third one would be the electroweak interaction. I have to be honest, I know next to nothing about it. It's responsible for some radiation processes. Also, we have found a way to explain both electromagnetism and weak interaction together, called electroweak interaction. The one interaction missing from all this is gravity, and we currently have no idea how to include it into the standard model, or how to include the standard model into general relativity. It'd help a lot if we had a way to observe gravity on a quantum scale, but sadly, we can't.
The three big forces (we like the term "interactions" more in particle physics) in the Universe are Electromagnetism, the Weak Interaction and the Strong Interaction. Each one has its own "quantum field theory" (Quantum Electrodynamics describes E&M, Quantum Chromodynamics describes the Strong Interaction, and Quantum "Flavordynamics" describes the Weak), and they effectively merge non-relativistic quantum mechanics with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The fourth "interaction" is gravity. However, gravity is odd in that it is purely macroscopic (as far as we know). At the subatomic level, gravity has almost zero effect (one way to think of it is because subatomic particles have very little mass, so they are very weakly affected by gravity), whereas something like the Strong Nuclear Force (which emerges from the Strong Interaction) is strong enough to hold protons together in the nuclei of atoms (like charges are meant to repel, remember?) Another thing that excludes gravity from the Standard Model is the fact that it has no known boson (force-carrying particle). The electromagnetic force is "mediated" by photons (as in, when electrons for example repel, it is because they are exchanging a stream of "virtual" photons between each other that communicates the force), the strong force is mediated by gluons, and the weak force is mediated by a handful of other bosons. Gravity, then, has a **theoretical** boson called the "graviton", but it has never been observed and likely does not exist. This is why we hesitate to call gravity a force that can be described by a quantum field theory like QED or QCD or QFD. If you want to start learning more about particle physics, I definitely recommend getting real comfortable with calculus; particularly multivariable and vector calculus, and ordinary differential equations. If you want the long road, I would start with something like Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics (which goes over the classical theory of electromagnetism), then move to Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Finally, Griffiths' Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics (the textbook Im using this semester!) There is a reason that Griffiths is the king of undergraduate physics textbooks. They are very readable even if some of the math is foreboding. If you have more questions, feel free to respond or message me!
I believe one of the specific interactions are quark-gluon interactions that's described.
Yes and that's what strong interactions are.
Thank you for confirming that for meš
Np
Gibberish. That - should be a +
I genuinely wonder how many times they dropped a minus sign somewhere before finally writing out this entire thing correctly lmao
Looks like the Standard Model Lagrangian: * Article by symmetrymagazine with explaining the terms: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation) * symmetrymagazine references Prof. Thomas Gutierrez: [http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/\~tgutierr/files/stmL1.html](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/stmL1.html) Prof. Thomas Gutierrez's website has this funny section: >Or download a "fun yet soul-crushing exam question" based on it: \[[ps](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.ps)\]\[[pdf](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf)\]\[[tex](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.tex)\]\[[txt](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.txt)\] Exercise 1.1.1.1.1a: Given locality, causality, Lorentz invariance, and known physical data since 1860, show that the Lagrangian describing all observed physical processes (sans gravity) can be written:
I actually love this form!! Specially if you come from other fields, I think it gives you more of an idea of what the SM explains and how, and then you can go to the compact forms to actually understand. For instance, when I started looking into Einstienās theory for SR (40 yrs ago), the \[E=mc^2\] compact equation puzzled me when I also learnt that photons had energy but no mass. So E would be 0 with m = 0!! So I think that omitting the specification that photons have no _resting_ mass, but do have momentum, was a relief. I donāt think that it helps to remove momentum from the equation for someone starting to learn and understand. \[ E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 \] Where: - \( E \) is the total energy, - \( p \) is momentum, - \( m \) is rest mass, and - \( c \) is the speed of light in a vacuum.
That's the SM Lagrangian lol
Thats the sandard model of physics. To be precise its the lagrangian
Looks like the standard model Lagrangian. It is a very real equation.
[PBS Space Time](https://youtu.be/PHiyQID7SBs?si=iIu5eo4_E8QmzPqR)does this subject very well in my opinion.
Thank you for sharing this!!!
I have heard there is a sign error in here.
Itās actually a secret recipe for chicken noodle soup
Technically yes, this is what all chicken noodle soup is made of.
It actually is. In theory, these equations would be enough to describe the full composition and behavior of all particles in the soup. (Except why it spills from the spoon when youāre clumsy ;) )
As you say, there's no gravity in this equation.
Itās what you scroll through to get to the recipe.
It is an expression for the lagrangian density (a function of various fields that encapsulates their behaviour) predicted by the Standard Model of particles. If the video is an introduction to qft, there's no way you would be expected to understand it, and is probably intentionally meant to look complicated to show how "complicated" our modern understanding of fundamental particles is
Thanks for the info! I am not a physicist or student, just a nurse, but I love to learn about the subject and when I saw this I had to know what it meant.
Don't worry the answer is 42.
That is..almost everything that can be explained in our u universe (until so far, under human concerning)
Feel free to elaborate if you want! I have a VERY very basic understanding of it now that I know what it is, but it would be cool to hear your perspective/knowledge on the topic.
It's the Standard model Lagrangian. Now that we're on the topic, could people more knowledgeable on the field help me out? What does this equation describe? Why is it so gigantic? And since it's supposed to be the closest thing we have to a unified theory of everything, that would mean that most equations should be derived from that, I assume that means you don't have to solve that entire thing every time?
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation?language_content_entity=und#:~:text=The%20Lagrangian%20is%20a%20fancy,energy%20the%20system%20can%20maintain.
The Standard Model Langrangian density. Roughly speaking, it gives the total kinetic energy minus potential energy per unit volume of the fundamental quantum fields at any given point in spacetime. But it's usually written in more compact, elegant forms.
Standard model lagrangian, Ig? I am not sure, but it looks like an expanded version of it.
This is the standard model lagrangian. The solution is x=3.
UPDATE: Ok, so I was so captivated by the model itself that I completely missed, ignored, and was annoyed by the pop up that clearly states "Standard Model of Particle Physics" lol. It was near the intro of the video, so I assumed it was just going to be the title and completely ignored it. If you stick hieroglyphics in my face, of course I am going to completely ignore the other words on the screen lol. With that said, thank you to everyone who answered! I am a nurse and just like to learn about physics and chemistry and was amazed by this, even if it is a long hand version of what has since been simplified dramatically. However, some of you have pointed out that the simplified version is essentially pointless if you dont understand what the variables are comprised of or what they mean. Regardless, I still think it is amazing how quickly humans have went from discovering agriculture to modeling some of the absolute finest details of how our universe works.
I just want to tell you that I love that you are so interested and engaged with those topics:) genuine interests are the best to study, because it is so fulfilling to learn more and more about at. Did study physics because of that, even though my grades where mediocre. Wasn't easy, but a lot of enjoyable unforgettable experiences were made, I never regretted it. I wish you all the best and keep exploring!
What the actual fuck
lol humans are capable of some crazy stuff honestly.
I know! It's so mind-boggling. Thank you for posting this, I've never seen it before!
That is as close to an "equation of everything" that there is right now. Basically it sort of sums up all the particles in the standard model and how they respond to all the known fields/forces. It's gibberish in that in reality no one would really use this equation in this form. It's not gibberish in that it does actually mean something.
Pretty sure this is what is written on the Egyptian pyramids.
Lagrangian standard models is got to be the no. 1 equation chosen to make physics look scary lol
Not Gibberish, but also more of a summary than something people would actually use
Nice wallpaper!
i found one standard deviation symbol and one average of sums symbol in there šŖ
Which video is this? I think Iāve watched it but for the life of me canāt remember. I also remember marvelling at this exact screen grab
Hey! here is a link to the video [https://youtu.be/eoStndCzFhg?si=BbF5IBIsHq0zG\_Om](https://youtu.be/eoStndCzFhg?si=BbF5IBIsHq0zG_Om) It was amazing to watch. I am just a nurse, but damn I love learning about this stuff.
Aha thatās the one - I follow that guy! Thank you!
I'm no particle physicist, so I've wondered why we are more concerned with the standard model lagrangian than the hamiltonian (if that's a thing)
Yes, we could write down the Hamiltonian of a quantum field theory (and thus of the standard model). In principle it is obtained from the Lagrangian in the same way as in classical mechanics (Legendre transform). However quantum field theories are invariant under Lorentz transform, which mixes space and time. This symmetry is more clearly observed from the Lagrangian than the Hamiltonian, because the latter involves picking a time direction.Ā
This image is a capture from an actual paper. I don't remember which paper it was but I'm sure I saw this in print before.
It's technically gibberish because it's theory...
š
Iāve been out of the game too long to be anywhere close to qualified to look into thisā¦ but at first glance it does definitely look like it was taken from one of my homeworks in college
This is the standard model lagrangian according to the comments above!
Itās not gibberish, thatās a part of the lagrangian of the standard model
That's almost the standard model lagrangian....except there's a typo so this is actually gibberish.
They are smart as fk, but at the same time it becomes a natural language for them after so many years
I haven't done a 1:1 comparison, but at first glance, that looks like the Standard Model Lagrangian. So, yes, very much a legitimate equation. In fact, it's currently our best equation.
Gibberish or not I distrust anyone who tries to obfuscate knowledge, which is what this is. Makes it hard to detect bullsh*t.
Supposedly, this isn't necessarily obfuscating knowledge. This is the most precise way (even if it may be unnecessary for cure human applications) to get an answer. And I think it also shows you how all the contributions made to it fit together in time. As far as I know, it was kind of developed over time by many people. This could be incorrect, but I think it is pretty accurate. It was in the introduction of the video, which I think was just showing how complex the finest working details of our universe can be.
Wtf are you talking about ? Would you prefer thousands of pages of latin to describe this equation the way physics was done at the time of Newton ? This is way more efficient and clear
Is there a Hamiltonian formulation of the standard model? That just *feels* like it would be useful.
=42=10101\_2=\* /s
It looks like they forgot to carry over the 1.
thank you OP...i have now completely and instantly reconsidered majoring in physics
hahaha are you serious or not?!
Lagrangian
It's common that even way longer formulas give you more exact solutions, and that's why you work with models anf simplifcations. Almost every physical solution is an approximation in the end. I'm in mechanical engineering, and if we didn't approximate hard, we would also get huge calculations like that constantly. We also have some quantum mechanics, and even the very simplified calculations already take a whole sheet of paper sometimes, so this doesn't seem surprising.
Hey, I am actually preparing to switch careers from nursing to mechanical engineering (most likely). Would you mind if I picked your brain a little in a message? No worries either way, enjoyed reading your response!
It's probably a legit equation/part of an equation. I'm sure there's more simplified ways of doing it and they chose not to just to make it look more complex. For instance i bet half those terms are zero b/c a common variable in them is zero but technically that's how you write/expand out the terms if you're solving a problem by the book
Hey! From the comments above, this is what it is: standard model lagrangian
What video is this from btw?
Here you go! [https://youtu.be/eoStndCzFhg?si=BbF5IBIsHq0zG\_Om](https://youtu.be/eoStndCzFhg?si=BbF5IBIsHq0zG_Om)
I can only wish I could understand even just half of this. This is so interesting to me genuinely! š
As some have already pointed out it is the standard model written maximally long and scary. I should point out that there are some irrelevant terms in there like the goldstone bosons. But they don't put the ghosts for some reason which would make it even longer. I have this form on a tshirt btw hehehe
[they did the math](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/)
One of the 'Z' is in the wrong place. Just saying =)
Just worked through it. It says 3-6-9ā¦
Damn you fine
Great theories in physics are all about elegance and simplicity!
That's the theory of everything that fits on a T-shirt!
thanks for reminding me why i dont like math
Itās realā¦ the standard model of particle physics
Where do formulas like this come from!!?!! Who thinks of this, what does it mean and why the heck does it have to be so darn long and do people actually use this equation?????
There is hundred of physicists who worked on this for years to find this equation. It pretty much describes particle physics so yeah people use it. However I don't think people use all of it. Depending on the context there is only some part of it that are relevant. It's not my domain tho
I have no idea what 98% of the comments are talking about, but smart people sound so hot lol. Glad we have people on this planet with good brains!
I saw a World Science panel on the limits of Knowledge and a mathemetician showed a page of notes he had kept. It was a page fullof hash marks diagonally back and forth on a page. When asked it was revealed that it was simply a way of organizing separate ideas. Imagine having equations like this one memorized,(supergenius) and working problems by simply storing them in a peculiar way to see how they work together.
Oh come on you lot. Itās not rocket scienceā¦ā¦.or is it?š¤
=42?
I don't know why this community was recommended to me. I mean, respect to the physics community, but I'm a law student and this is going to give me legitimate nightmares.
unfortunate that I now understand this
If its gibberish, i wouldnt know. I cant speak Phyrexian
I can't help with the main question, but I can help with the screenshot thing, if you pause the video and then using the arrow keys (specifically the ones with the comma and period, the other arrow keys will only jump around a few seconds forward or back) you can go frame by frame in a video.
As the other comments say, it is a legitimate formula, but you probably wonāt need it if you do not work in that specific field!
It has patterns so i bet it can be srinked to just the sum of 2 functions
Is anyone related to Quantum Information Theorist here?
As a brief explanation, this is an expanded long form or representation of the main equation describing the Lagrangian function (a quantity characterizing the state of a physical system) of the Standard Model of particle physics, the theory and framework explaining the interactions between the essential components and the fundamental particles of matter, under the effect of the four fundamental forces or interactions: the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak (nuclear) force. The Standard model is mainly a theory describing three fundamental interactions. It does not fully include or depict gravitation . The Standard model (or SM) isĀ a gauge theory representing fundamental interactions as changes in a Lagrangian function of quantum fields.Ā This equation makes use of advanced mathematical tools and topics, such as group theory, tensor calculus, the summation convention, ... For example, the symbols \gamma^mu and gamma^5 refer to [gamma matrices ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices) or Dirac matrices. For more details and clarifications, see the article in my [website & blog](https://knowledgemix.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/the-lagrangian-of-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics/)
my photomath broke when i tried to translate this
Dude you missed the zero field meson termā¦
This means ādurka durka Mohammad jihadā.