Thank you heaps!
My response would include how the standard model was created in an attempt to explain the nature and composition of matter and it's interaction at it's most fundamental level. This included an explanation of the behaviour of the four fundamental forces which were: x,y,z,w and was explained through the exchange of bosons, a fundamental particle which was postulated to carry force between matter, for example strong nuclear was carried by gluons and gravitational attraction by gravitons. Standard model also deconstructed electrons, protons and neutrons into even smaller fundamental particles that were quarks and leptons. There were 6 types of each (list types) and protons comprised of up,up,down quarks and neutrons consisted of down,down,up quarks which explained their elementary charge. (Here, would also talk about the +2/3 and -1/3 charge of up/down quarks). Electrons were a special case of leptons, particles with negligible rest mass that interacted through weak nuclear and EM attraction.
I'd make a judgement about the impact of this on understanding, then say 'despite this there are flaws and questions that arise':
* Could not explain why there were 6 types of quarks and leptons, as well as their charge.
* Gravitons were only predicted, and not yet discovered. This was similar case with the Higgs Boson, which was only predicted by the standard model and found using extensive research and experimentation.
Please tell me what I am missing and how to improve this response. 
Also, I would appreciate a rundown on all the scientists which contributed to the Manhattan Project and their explicit contributions.
Thanks again!
Hey there!
Awesome stuff
There are just a few extra things that I would like to mention, hopefully they make sense!
First things first, we need to figure out what the question's asking: it's asking us to link theories (i.e. predictions) with experiments (i.e. results from particle accelerators) as they relate to the SM of M.
So you're right by starting with a definition of the standard model and you have all the right stuff for it:
a) Explained the composition of matter on a fundamental level
b) Accounted for the interactions between particles
Then I'd go into how it organised matter into (would help cut your response down a bit. After you quickly run past the structure of the SM of M, then we go into the next part of the question which wants us to talk about experiments)
1. Fermions
- Leptons: Don't experience strong nuclear force
(can list if you want: electron, muon, tau and their neutrino pair)
- Quarks: Experience all four fundamental forces (i.e. strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic and gravity)
(Hadrons --> Baryons and Mesons)
2. 'Force Carrier' Bosons (particles through which forces are mediated)
- Z
o, X
+, X
- (I personally haven't come across W or Y.. what are they?
)
3. And all their anti-particles
Some annotations on your response:This included an explanation of the behaviour of the four fundamental forces which were: x,y,z,w and was explained through the exchange of bosons, a fundamental particle which was postulated to carry force between matter, for example strong nuclear was carried by gluons and gravitational attraction by gravitons. Standard model also deconstructed electrons, protons and neutrons into even smaller fundamental particles that were quarks and leptons
Be careful here. Standard model didn't 'deconstruct' electrons, they're a fundamental particle. What the model did do, was classify the electron as leptons. Also, I would rephrase and say "nucleons were also predicted to be comprised of smaller fundamental particles called quarks". There were 6 types of each (list types) and protons comprised of up,up,down quarks and neutrons consisted of down,down,up quarks which explained their elementary charge. (Here, would also talk about the +2/3 and -1/3 charge of up/down quarks)
Although this detail really shows you know your stuff, you need to be including more of the experimental aspect of the question to really be addressing it. So we could do a bit more in terms of ensuring that all the info is relevant. Electrons were a special case of leptons, particles with negligible rest mass that interacted through weak nuclear and EM attraction
Good, but unfortunately irrelevant.
Here we need to mention the use of particle accelerators The standard model is the product of predictions and experimental results (i.e. research). Linear accelerators and cyclotrons were initially used to 'probe' the structure of matter as new particles were created from these high speed collisions. These technologies were very effective, but now we have even better synchrotrons and particle accelerators (LHC) which are used more widely.
I'd make a judgement about the impact of this on understanding, then say 'despite this there are flaws and questions that arise':
This is perfect! Super important to mention* Could not explain why there were 6 types of quarks and leptons, as well as their charge.
* Gravitons were only predicted, and not yet discovered. This was similar case with the Higgs Boson, which was only predicted by the standard model and found using extensive research and experimentation.
Important to also note that the SM of M is a quantum-mechanical model which makes it incompatible with Einstein's general theory relativity. This prevents gravity from unifying the forces
Home
Help
Search
Login
