hello this is a question of science. i am alexey semikhatov. fundamental knowledge about the world continues to show us what kind of paradox the standard model of particle physics achieves amazing, amazing most accurate agreement between theoretical prediction and experimental data, and at the same time we know for sure that it is the standard model is not complete,

not accurate and needs to be supplemented and improvements, but because of how well she works where she works is not very clear. which way it needs to be developed to improve it. whether we are on the verge of a new breakthrough in understanding the structure of the world, or our ability to obtain new data and therefore new knowledge is close to exhaustion, and we will remain with a slightly unfinished, well-functioning, but not completely accurate standard model. today my guest is doctor of physical and mathematical sciences chief researcher of the laboratory of heavy quarks or ptons of the physical institute named after lebedev of the russian academy of sciences professor of the higher school of economics member, correspondent of the russian academy of sciences pavel nikolaevich pavlov pavel nikolaevich hello thank you very much for taking the time to come to the studio. yes, i am very pleased to talk on the

topic that you asked. pavel nikolayevich and let me start with a personal question. if possible, let's you standard models generally satisfied. you even like her so much. no, she doesn't like it. she seems very curvy. today, she seems to be very clumsy and ugly and undoubtedly already outlived herself and she needs, of course, find some kind of change. here it is, clumsy clumsy. she is curvy. yes, the new one supports the idea that this is the theory that achieves unsurpassed absolutely all the agreement of the theory of experiment. that's what i will say, that attitudes towards her have changed. e for time. here she is already 50 years old. it was created in the sixty-seventh year. she is now over fifty years old. uh, when it was created, it seemed that this was probably the most perfect thing that mankind could ever produce, and over these 50 years, the attitude towards

it precisely, because it became clear that a lot. eh, from the fact that it is not mortgaged. uh, too artificial. here we specially customized to get a description of the experiment. we have achieved amazing things. well, i asked for it already forgotten. but the sloppiness remained. here i want to note that in order to create a standard model people. uh, they came up with some kind of uh, so they had to step over some fantastic high barriers. i had to think of raising the level of knowledge, uh, essential way and further they rested. it's still kind of a dead end. uh, further to some limit, uh, which could not be crossed, and so several several times there were several several such uh, there were attempts to reach the standard model from the fifties to the sixty-seventh year, when at the end it was created and in an amazing way , even resting some some kind of obstacle. i don't know how to pass it. eh, people not our scientists did not stop. well, just kept thinking, like one of them, like,

quite rightly, that and here is the idea of ​​spontaneous breaking. at which it began in the sixties it was invented, in particular by hicks, and about which it was actually borrowed from solid state physics, developed by gitzburg and landau. it was one of the centuries in the development of the standard model, only 3 years later it was already viberg solam, which completed the construction of the standard model e, showing that it is possible to combine the weak electromagnetic interaction in a single way. and we now have electro weak interaction we are happy. and you dissatisfied say that she is clumsy. here, let's do it one more time . let's rejoice at what we have created, and get upset a little later. yes, because here, what is remarkable about the standard model, and its dignity should be noted in an undoubted way. we must be fair to this wonderful theory, because it corresponds to a very large number, and the criteria by which we consider this theory to be a correct scientific one, yes. first of all, it is very

important that the standard model gives everything that we need. hey, here's the picture on the screen. e , such an analogue of the periodic table is all particles that participate in the elementary particle that participate in the construction of our world, they are much less than in the periodic table, the only difference with the periodic table is that they grouped here in the periodic table all the elements are more or less directed. yes, they just follow. here they are divided into three types. the first is particles of matter with a spin of 1/2 fermion particles behind spin one - these are, uh, particles carriers of interaction and, finally, a separate particle is the hicksian bason, which has a spinal zero of all three, of the type, and particles have different purposes in our world of matter. we build , uh, spins 1/2 ensure that particles don't disappear anymore

. it would be bad if the particles disappeared there, yes, we built something with you, but there is nothing, and then , to be honest, she was blown up once, well, she herself disappeared, it's terrible. and here the matter is responsible for stability. the structure we create. eh, you need to somehow glue these particles of matter for this, forces are used, and we have three interactions. it's the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic, and they're all needed. oddly enough, the strong and electromagnetic are needed to make atoms, and the weak is responsible for supplying us with energy, the sun shines thanks to the weak interaction. well, finally, actually. we need some more foundation for ours for our system - that's, uh, what provides us with the hicksian field. it fills itself space. it provides such ether. yes, you remember that the idea of ​​the ether arose quite a long time ago and the first ideas of the ether, which is responsible for the schedule of electromagnetic interaction, were rejected in the 19th century. mikkinson the sea showed

that there is no ether. no, it is not needed, the ether is needed in order for the light to run through it. yes, the light runs by itself. but in order for the rest of the particles to somehow tie up, yes, and stand still and not run like that without no reason, like light like light yes, we need this ether, which is provided hicksian shame hicksian field, uh, all particles, except for a photon, i notice get stuck in it and stay. this is such a foundation, with the help of which, uh, if we look at this picture that i drew, well, it is for students that all the particles of the model actually play an important role, and they are well here, they settled in this apparently cozy house, and they live well here. yes, with the help of the strong force and quarks. we created the electron nuclei, completed the construction. yes, atoms, all this is built on the foundation and from their nipple field and electric motor and the weak interaction does not supply energy. here , not three fly out of the pipe, which arise as

a result. e weak yes ah the only thing that was in your previous table, except for ukvorkov. d. quarkov, and uh, electrons were still particles and their copies, the so-called other generations. they are strangely present, in principle, but do not live. well, because they decay into other particles, how could you here you could somehow informally comment on them what for in this universe in an amazing way uh let me i'll move on to the next slide, because the next slide is just. eh why? again the standard model is a remarkably good theory because it satisfies a very important principle of aristotle who said that the theory is. well, rather, he spoke about a thing that in nature does not create anything in nature. just like that, if something is created, it is needed for something. and we really see with you what you noticed, that we have, uh, particles of matter duplicated and two other generations. seems to be absolutely unnecessary. generation, emphasize. this is a purely technical

name. and they said, yes, just, well, just duplicates of, uh, quarks that protons and electrons are made of. yeah, they exist and for a very long time people understood that they were not needed, they were not needed, because they do not affect our daily life in any way, yes, and sometimes mions come from space and fly through us why they are needed and it is not clear , and their older brothers, in general, in general, in the afternoon with fire, it’s not good to get together as a detective. we're afraid we've never seen flying from space. and exactly the same can be said about quarks and strange quarks, which sometimes really reach us from space, except for the zone. well, they did not have any influence on our life with you, and i want to quote here at the time, or by count. our wonderful theorist said that when people tried to explain why these extra generations of e particles were needed for tira, it seemed that nature

simply randomly created something unnecessary, testing its capabilities, then she realized that it's pointless created the following forgotten. she tried some options. yes, i trained on some, and then they remained like a wastebasket , as if god was there, uh, drawing a diagram of the world. well, now, we have extracted something, thanks to our wonderful devices, our accelerator. we took out some old ones from the wastebasket. eh, such sketches are universes. yes, and now we understand how, now we understand that they are needed, because it turned out that and these two extra generations are two extra takes. uh, particles of matter, turns out to be needed in order to provide e the difference between matter and antimatter, that is, in addition to, in fact, quarks and leptons. there are also antibody-lectual antiquarks, and they really exist. we discovered them quite a long time ago. we found out that there are some symmetries. between e, charging plus

charge minus, and then they found that everything themselves is there and consists only of quarks and only of rhytons and began to search. and where are these antiquark intimate plans and have not been found. well, as if my accelerators give birth to them, we give birth to them, that they exist, they can exist, but for some reason they are not around us. how to make it so that this anti-virus, which actually interferes with our stability of our world, because our comfort yes, because it can fly in, these are antiparticles and break our brick through which we built everything, yes, so it ’s good that they don’t exist nearby. and as it was actually provided by nature, it turns out that it took two generations of orcs to remove the unnecessary fatherland. just the very fact of their existence. they don't have any effect. just eat the fact that they exist and this provides a difference in the properties of matter and antimatter, which was used in order to throw the anti-virus somewhere far away earlier in the development of the universe , what is called mortal asymmetry, all this is a thing that is connected, maybe indirectly. with

the presence of two additional generations yes of elementary parts. well, uh, in order for our world to exist, we really need two important conditions that sugar formulated in the sixties, and this is a violation of the broth numbers, so that the log means the number could somehow be violated, the losses were more than the anti-bareons were removed, so that the burions remained and the second all the same. eh, the difference between our own and matter antimatter should be mandatory and then we can really remove this substance somewhere, just bury it , just destroy the topic, then the excess of matter will remain from it, we can build or good world. this seems very strange, because for some reason nature creates antimatter, and then it seemed to destroy it in a very complicated way, could not create, but it turns out, probably, could not, because this family of symmetry asymmetry is something that nature respects both your and incomplete satisfaction with the standard model, which seems to be cunningly working, as it were just

explained. your dissatisfaction, what is connected. but what i said, before that, everything is fine, it's fine, because she really did two fantastic things. she described the world. uh, with the help of some minimal set of particles, everything in she needs to eat. a e. that's what seems illegitimate, it's still that that's it these two, second and third generations. we have actually contributed by hand to this model. they are in nature. they are. yes, we can't explain why they arose in this one, as they are why exactly two extras. yes, we can not not very five, but five e we know that one is not enough. now, if there were one additional generation, we would not have enough to remove the anti-virus with two, we know how to do exactly the minimum and you want to achieve the principles that told you at all it is generated. why is it so because of some super reason , i will note the adult standard model, but built on principles, this is important. an important idea for

the construction of models was also said by mapper-tuy, who said, guys, you can’t build, e theory on formulas of equations and so on must be built on principles and the standard model is based on the set principle gauge symmetry, lorentzian, quantum mechanics symmetry spontaneous symmetry breaking is inherent in it many principles, but not enough. here we still cannot amount. e of what it is supposed to describe with the help of principles, in particular, we cannot explain why there are exactly two of these generations. why do they have just such a set of constants, and in the standard model there are a large number of free parameters in which we cannot explain, that is, it turns out that a rather large number, and the phenomena that are included in the standard model are not explained based on some higher principles. this is a big disadvantage. that is, we define free parameters and agree with experiment. then we explain a huge number of other experiments. we are not satisfied that we take them in any way. there

were no explanations from the point of view of their origin, that the theory is some kind of the most fanatical theory, the theory of everything, which is taken from higher principles. there can be no free parameters at all. maybe with the exception of one that sets the scale for us. here the scale must be taken from somewhere in the standard model. it is given by e, vacuum density, and other parameters. pointed would have to arise as geometric constants. well, there are pipam, there is a sine of something, uh, but no, we don’t know where they come from and we can’t explain. this obviously means that the model - it requires, well, some more understanding. i understand correctly that we are in bad shape. hmm because our accelerators are not able to give birth to something by looking at what we said. yeah, that's exactly the particles of the non-standard model. let's think about what it means, what symmetry principles it is subject to. where is it completely? and

programs are the last thing we should do in this stalemate for many, many years. we're trying to make accelerators more and more powerful, because we expect that someday, and we know more than that, that at some energies something new must appear, because the standard model has one more unpleasant thing. what we know is that if we try to count using the standard model, we simply mathematically count different processes, then starting with some energy. we're going to get in trouble there. and our calculations will become wrong theory. departure out of control. it begins to produce infinities of infinity, physics, all singularities. they need to be covered up somehow. and we must understand that somewhere something must arise that will shorten these infinities for us and in theory. this is already in this case, with very soon it would seem that the energies that have been achieved at the large cartridge collager. that's just, by the energy where something new should arise, we don't know why and it's really not visible. we already expected. here see something. well, who knows how it is here

is something new that we are destined to stay with. no, you see, we really cannot produce energy very much. we are already big huge. sorry 30 km 30 km, the circumference is much more it would seem worth it. it's already very expensive as well, but there's another approach that, by the way, has been much more fruitful throughout our history. this is not to increase energy, but the accuracy of measurements then. if we compare something to some very precise level, we sometimes see a discrepancy like this often happened. e that some small effect , a small discrepancy indicated where to move, that is, these are hints. when you know processes, we see thin traces of something in a short, relatively speaking, for a short time, something that has arisen. what we did not take into account before. so what are we getting here ? and we extract a hint that we see something new. uh, this is a hint, if we

see a new particle on the large hadron, we will immediately understand who we are here, it will just be a hint that something new is somewhere. there is such experiment. here. uh, it's probably pretty loud right now. uh, the story about the discrepancy between the standard model and the experiment - this is observed in the anomalous magnetic moment. he and i would like to illustrate it with our first picture about the fact that if we wanted to check with you in clitic geometry, otherwise we, probably, the simplest thing we could do is to measure the number pi , we can calculate, because we have a huge number of formulas in which the number pi is calculated as some kind of taylor series or something work. and we can measure if they match well, that is, well, the circles are very accurately measured and we divide by the diameter. we know this many times. what is the number of pi in nature, and then we actually checked with you that our space is pasted. yes, some flat spaces are the same, we can do it in the standard model exactly under the same approach , take it, eh? a particle called he e,

which is an analogue of electronic from the second generation, which is 200 times heavier, which is born cosmic rays. sometimes flies mine opened already thirties. we've known each other for a long time and know everything about physics. yes, we should just interrogate him. we should just ask him what he knows and one of the quantities that can tell what he knows. this is its magnetic moment. um, we can put in a magnetic field and see how it turns while sleeping. and if we measure it with tremendous accuracy, and on the one hand, and on the other hand, we calculate how much it should be equal to within the framework of the standard models. this is a colossal indirect method, because we do not see the causes, which are just some kind of indirect, mediated impact. we'll have to have this mediate impact. good, because after we open something new. and here we just found a discrepancy. we'll have to use our brains. it's fine. it seems to me that just what we will be forced to think, and not just what the

answer will be shown. this is great, because now is the time to think. and what is it, maybe be and how much now what are your feelings now about how the situation is developing right now, with the same minus two million here with this experiment a very accurate measurement. there are two points here. it must be able to calculate. and this is also far from a trivial thing, theorists have worked very hard to learn how to calculate this sentence. as for the number pi. there is simply a series, you can substitute it into the computer. he will calculate, probably, here, too, some part is calculated on the computer, some one has to figure out how extract it. there are corrections there due to the strong interaction, which are quite difficult to consider learned to learn pretty good accuracy uh, fantastic subtle experiment, because you want to measure this magnetic moment here. ermions with an accuracy of 10 - 11 with an accuracy here relative accuracy of 10 - 11 fantastic accuracy, we hardly come up with at least some other value that we know with such

accuracy. yes, that is, the standard model is true to itself, it continues to e give here colossally accurate predictions. and we, finally, hope that in the eleventh sign it will open up a little. yes, and so it happened, because an experiment. actually started quite a long time ago this is an american experiment that started. suddenly , the hevin laboratory at the end of the last century, a lasted 5 6 7 8 years and they saw a slight discrepancy. uh, three is a little more than 300 standard deviation, which indicated that something is wrong, whether he knows something, he wants to tell us something. e here in this eleventh sign after comma, we don’t know what, except that, apparently, there is something else in the standard model and it had to be finished, because, well, it was impossible to pull out farmelabia anything else. and what did the americans do? this is such a drive where they just dangle, spin in a circle with

very good accuracy. you have to trace it with the accuracy again of the same 10 - 11, and track its orbit and they took accelerating was transferred to another center, a scientific one from brookhevin. they transported a farmlab, here is a picture with a track, which is an adventure, yes. for this , some bridges were dismantled, because it was difficult to carry out a huge high structure. uh, several years of transportation was devoted to this, they reassembled it and it worked. yes collected earned. and here is the result that yes, i note that not many countries participate in this experiment in russia , moscow and novosibirsk are participating e. e. that's what the next slide shows what it really is actually feels the standard particle of the standard model. it is quite light itself, it is lighter than a proton. it is only 200 times heavier than an electron of one of the lightest particles. he feels part of the standard model. he even feels hicks. its

response to a magnetic field involves its interaction with other particles it has encountered and what do you think with those who are not included in the standard model, it is possible that those that are not included in such models are there, since many ideas have already been invented how to extend the standard model . for what add there? there are ideas, there is supersymmetry, for example, and he can feel supersymmetry, because it is exactly the same, uh, it adds to his magnetic moment a little bit what we see today. it is that the repeated fermebel experiment exactly the same indicates a discrepancy between the standard model and the experimentally measured magnet. this is agreement. how can it teach us about what is beyond the standard model and is it true, we are still forced to remain with half-finished incomplete not dose, finished just a little bit, clumsy or strong clumsy standard model for a very long time. i

think not, because this is not the only discrepancy. it is this it is quite bright and quite easily explained. yes, that's why it is so often put on the flag and they say that let's pay attention. here is a remarkable convergence, which is a little more than four standard deviations, but similar things are observed in the physics of heavy quarks. we see a rather strange phenomenon of non-preservation of electronic universality in layouts. e backquarks, and the study of backquarks is devoted to several experiments. one of them is just as thin at the big lawyer, let's say the other. this is a super factory. in japan where i work. wow, what a wonderful experiment. e, who is now successfully collecting data, and there is some kind of disagreement. that is, we must accumulate some kind of set. here are such disagreements, after which here are just a few of these dimensions, maybe we will find up where to move, maybe we will find one reason, yes, which can be one univer which is generated. the fact that we observe

some accuracy and your feelings that if this happens, then, of course, when physics lives on crises. eh, now we have a crisis of what such a deserted we are waiting for. we live in anticipation of some new discoveries. eh, they are guaranteed to be. well, it's just that our history shows this, and very briefly in conclusion. after a conditional 5 years, you expect that the view from the point of view of the new standard model to the old one will be how much more complete, more fundamental with more understanding of what principles manifest themselves in our world. or it will be a technical improvement, but the process of climbing up will be like this without stopping. i'm afraid that the process when the installation will just go to the next level of this game. e from the point of view of which the previous level will appear. that's just how we look now at the theory of strong interaction weakened

in the thirties. e, when we have already risen to the level of the standard model. we'll probably just go to the next level and this karabka won't, probably not infinitely, nevertheless, the next level awaits us. thank you very much, thank you and thank you for this interesting story all the best, goodbye, goodbye.

11 can, only he is brothers and sisters. i thought of everything reboot a few words start countdown three two, one naughty 2.

so that we go out more often. on the other hand we watch to explore the world of educational

programs and documentaries we watch for free without registration.

air raid alert again announced tonight in ukraine siren sounded in several regions of the country at once. well , besides, in the districts of the zaporozhye kherson region controlled by the kiev regime, the zaporozhye local publication reports on explosions, the first of them, according to residents, thundered around 23:00, the second wave occurred already closer to one in the morning, according to preliminary information, the targets were military equipment and ammunition depots as well explosions were heard in kherson