What even is this?

    • don@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      assume spherical chickens in a vacuum

      lol that’s the next multiverse over, our solution works only with spherical cows in a vacuum.

    • FrenziedFelidFanatic@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 months ago

      The SM is half the puzzle. The other half being Einstein’s field equations (which, despite the beautiful notation, are just as complex). Also, I will note that there are some spherical chickens in this equation as well—like massless neutrinos.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well, it’s a weightless chicken at least, because this model’s got no gravity.

  • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 months ago

    Adding to the other answers… This is kind of just “for show” in that most of the time you only use the relevant terms, I can’t even imagine what type of problem you’d have to be solving to need to write all this out. Really it’s just “here are all of the interactions” and not “oh shit we have to do some particle physics stuff get out the monster equation.”

    They add … sometimes to signify that they’re just taking pieces.

    • Instigate@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      I assume one of the only scenarios in which you’d need to use this full Lagrangian is when developing a virtual universe whose laws mirror the Standard Model of Particle Physics. We’re nowhere near even close to being able to do that in any genuine capacity, at least not until our quantum computing gets up off the ground and properly developed.

  • brokenlcd@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s the exercise they put in the test after you spent 5 hours of your life trying to understand the dinky ones they put in the book.

  • Tyy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    this is the curse of ra

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is the best current demonstration of The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Describing Reality.

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    Did you mean Physics Rule?

    Anyway, yeah, if you fully expand the terms, you get something like that. Nobody ever accused modern physics of being simple.

    • Sasha
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I like to think of it as a big list of extremely complicated instructions that you can follow to see how different types of particles interact in the standard model.

      There’s a lot of different phenomena that you can derive from it, but my favourite is that if you know what you’re doing, you can just read possible interactions off of it.

      It’s also unnecessarily complicated, I’ve never seen someone have to use the full thing, you can get rid of a lot of it when you only care about specific particles. Part of the complication is that it’s some insanely dense notation, it’s actually far larger than it appears and contains lots of really complicated mathematical objects with some wild properties.

      (And to the pendants, yes this is an equation for quantum fields and not particles exactly, but that’s never easy to explain)

  • Windows_Error_Noises@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m always a little ashamed that my brain blorps internally black with anything higher than basic division, but it is visually quite pleasing!

    Though, when I look at it for more than a few seconds, am I supposed to see the 3D Klingon Bird of Prey?