Hi all-
I've NOT read the NY Times article, but have read the postings.
It's my undestanding that the accepted, currently-used term is "model".
The take is, that it is too presumptuous to claim that we are seeking
truth, as physicists our job is to predict the results of experiments.
We do this by fromulating models which, if successful, become "standard
models." Thus one occasionally hears reviewers say "the standard model
appears to be working embarrassingly well" - meaning that we expect that
there is "physics beyond the standard model" that should reveal itself in
precision tests of the standard model.
We know, of course, that there are observations that don't seem to
fit within the framework of our standard models - we characterize these as
"unexplained".
Currently, where the support dollars are going, the following are
objects of attention:
Dark matter - what is it? Supersymmetry is a popular
guess.
Dark energy - is it just Einstein's constant?
Is there a Higgs that can be identified with a mechansim
for giving particles mass (I claim that a well-defined particle is not
needed for the Higgs mechanism)
What are the neutrino mixing parameters?
Does supersymmetry exist?
Do the weak interactions become strong at high energies?
Can accelerator designors find acceleration schemes that
will permit the construction of small high-energy colliders.
There are also some questions left over from the 'sixties, but
these are no longer popular.
Regards,
Jack
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley