Really? So what's the gravity term in the Standard Model Lagrangian? [1]
> Page one of any book of the Standard Model discusses the 4 fundamental forces. Guess what one of them is: GRAVITY.
Well, let's just test this assertion of yours.
Right at hand I have Halzen & Martin [2] and "gravity" appears in the index (on p. 389) pointing to pp 27 and 348. Section 1.8 (pp 27-28) explains why gravity is not addressed in the book, and at p. 348 there is a brief discussion following the Weinberg-Salam unification scale at eq 15.58 about whether, given it is large, the gravitational interaction can still be neglected. The treatment there is unsurprisingly fully classical.
Maybe you don't like this particular textbook.
How about Cottingham & Greenwood [3]? This is an excellent book aimed at grad students, and has the advantage of having its introductory chapter online:
"The Standard Model excludes from consideration the gravitational field."
Well, at least that's on page one.
Who next? How about Griffiths [4]? In the middle of page 50 we find:
"This is all adding up to an embarrassingly large number of supposedly 'elementary' particles: 12 leptons, 36 quarks, 12 mediators (I won't count the graviton, since gravity is not included in the Standard Model)."
Above are three standard textbooks introducing the Standard Model, and they all support my assertion and not yours.
"The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge"
I would be very keen on any evidence that supports your claim that the Standard Model is not mute on gravity.
I'd also be keen on what else you believe I was "hillariously wrong" about. I'd be happy to expand upon, back, or source most of the statements as I do here, if you particularize your complaints and are reasonable and polite about it.
And finally, what really are you trying to accomplish here?
[1] here's Cottingham & Greenwood's[3] write-down of the SM Lagrangian:
> Page one of any book of the Standard Model discusses the 4 fundamental forces. Guess what one of them is: GRAVITY.
Well, let's just test this assertion of yours.
Right at hand I have Halzen & Martin [2] and "gravity" appears in the index (on p. 389) pointing to pp 27 and 348. Section 1.8 (pp 27-28) explains why gravity is not addressed in the book, and at p. 348 there is a brief discussion following the Weinberg-Salam unification scale at eq 15.58 about whether, given it is large, the gravitational interaction can still be neglected. The treatment there is unsurprisingly fully classical.
Maybe you don't like this particular textbook.
How about Cottingham & Greenwood [3]? This is an excellent book aimed at grad students, and has the advantage of having its introductory chapter online:
Quoting:
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Cottingham/Cott1_1.html
"The Standard Model excludes from consideration the gravitational field."
Well, at least that's on page one.
Who next? How about Griffiths [4]? In the middle of page 50 we find:
"This is all adding up to an embarrassingly large number of supposedly 'elementary' particles: 12 leptons, 36 quarks, 12 mediators (I won't count the graviton, since gravity is not included in the Standard Model)."
Above are three standard textbooks introducing the Standard Model, and they all support my assertion and not yours.
Let's see, here's another item for your consideration: https://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model
"The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge"
I would be very keen on any evidence that supports your claim that the Standard Model is not mute on gravity.
I'd also be keen on what else you believe I was "hillariously wrong" about. I'd be happy to expand upon, back, or source most of the statements as I do here, if you particularize your complaints and are reasonable and polite about it.
And finally, what really are you trying to accomplish here?
[1] here's Cottingham & Greenwood's[3] write-down of the SM Lagrangian:
http://einstein-schrodinger.com/Standard_Model.pdf
which provides the straightforward answer that there is no gravity term.
[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quarks-Leptons-Introductory-Particl...
[3] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Standard-Model-Particle-...
[4] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-Dav...