The goal of this blog is to create a list of super facts. Important facts that are true with very high certainty and yet surprising, misunderstood, or disputed by many. This blog aims to be challenging, educational, and fun, without it being clickbait. I determine veracity using evidence, data from reputable sources and longstanding scientific consensus. Prepare to be challenged (I am). Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.
Super fact 69 : Polar nights happen in the regions north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic Circle. Together the two polar regions cover an area double as large as the United States, and it includes a population of millions of people. During a polar night the sun does not rise for days, or months, up to six months. The polar nights are special, not just for the daytime darkness, but for the spectacular aurora borealis, the starlit skies, the extremely clear air, and the fact that people often lose track of time during polar nights.
It should be noted that even though the sun never rises during the polar night it may not be totally dark during the entire polar night. Part of the time you may get some light in the middle of the day, what is called polar twilight (nautical twilight or astronomical twilight). Nautical twilight tends to be bluish as shown in the photo below.
When our kids were young, we visited the Ice Hotel in Jukkasjärvi in northern Sweden. We went in March, during the American spring break, which was not during the polar night, so we did not experience it then. The polar night in Jukkasjärvi will begin December 5, 2025, or December 10, 2025, depending on how you count, and end at the beginning of January. However, the Ice Hotel was a fun way to experience a polar region. When I did my Swedish army service I spent the winter in the forest around that area, and even further north, and I experienced the Polar Night firsthand,
The lobby of the ice hotel. Our kids are sitting around a table of ice. A chandelier of ice is hanging above the table. The light is from fiber optics, so the ice won’t melt.
During my army service we stayed in tents in the forest far away from villages and cities and we often did not use any lights. The result was that it was incredibly dark most of the time. It was so dark that I could not see my own hand if I held it right in front of my face. The upside was that the sky was filled with thousands of stars on a clear night. It is estimated that you can see between 2,500 to 5,000, even 10,000, stars in the sky with the naked eye if you have good vision and it is completely dark. You could also see the Milky Way Galaxy very clearly and easily, as well as the Andromeda Galaxy, meteors, comets, satellites, not to mention the most spectacular aurora borealis that you can see anywhere on earth. That certainly beats the 14 stars and 3 planets that you can see with the naked eye on a clear night here in Dallas, Texas, where I live now.
Milky way sky on dark background, and a lot of stars. Asset id: 2524020369 by MR.PRAWET THADTHIAM
On one occasion I was standing guard outside the camp. We were pretending that we were at war with the Soviet Union. It was minus 40 degrees, and they forgot about me. I stood there alone in the darkness and the extreme cold for more than three hours. This was considered dangerous. The rule was no more than one hour out in the cold at a time. Once they discovered that I had been there for more than three hours they came to get me, and they apologized profusely. They were happy that I was not hurt. However, I did not mind, because my night sky view was spectacular. The night sky was so spectacular, it was to die for.
If it is cloudy and you are far from any civilization it may be pitch black in the afternoon. Even if it is not cloudy but the moon is not out it will be pitch black later in the afternoon. In addition, the air is very clear during the polar night, because the cold sunless Arctic air often contains almost no moisture and the visibility stretches for 100 miles. If you want to remain unseen in this situation it is very important to understand that even the tiniest light will be very visible, far away. Our platoon did an experiment. Someone lit a cigarette about one mile away and we could very easily see the bright cigarette even through the forest. The lesson was, No Cigarettes, and No lights!
Aurora Borealis are often spectacular in the polar regions, especially during the polar night. Asset id: 2499746583 by HappyVibeArt
I consider this a super fact because the polar night is a surprising phenomenon to those who do not know much about the arctic and my claims above are true and important since the polar regions are large and under threat from climate change / global warming. The polar regions and thereby the polar night also cover an area that is not small, and four million people live there.
The Arctic Circle, at roughly 66.5° north, is a commonly-accepted boundary of the Arctic waters and lands. CIA World Fact Book, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
The Midnight Sun
I can add that in the summer (northern hemisphere) you have the opposite phenomenon with the midnight sun. Just like the polar night can cause people to lose track of time so can the midnight sun. When we visited northern Sweden with our niece Jessica for my brother’s wedding, we had what is called midnight sun. Jessica was nine years old at the time. A couple of hours after we had gone to sleep Jessica woke me up “wake up Thomas, it is time to go out and play”. I protested, no it is not, it is one a clock at night and we are going to sleep. Jessica protested, she said, “No the sun is up, it is morning it is time to play”.
So, I said “Jessica, let me explain something to you. This is northern Sweden in June and here the sun is up in the middle of the night, and we are not going outside to play in the middle of the night.” After that my wife went out to play with Jessica, but I refused to go out and play at one o clock at night.
Ice Hotel Photos
Finally, I just wanted to include a few of my photos from the Ice Hotel, just for fun.
Our son David with one of the kick sleds called “spark”.This is a photo of the ice instruments standing on the ice stage.We are going on a dogsled tour. The ice theater is in the background, and you can see part of the ice hotel on the right.You can see ten dogs and the sled with us on top of it. On the left is a kåta, a movable Sami structure (indigenous arctic Scandinavian people). It is like a Tipi.
The Greatest Intellectual Achievement of the human race is arguably the Standard Model of Elementary Particles. The Standard Model consists of Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, Noether’s theorem and gauge theories, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, and a framework for all elementary particles, and more. It is a towering achievement of physics that was created by thousands of geniuses over a period of several decades. It is the theory of almost everything.
Despite that fact it is not getting a lot of respect. Everyone is just trying to find something wrong with it. The reason is that as soon as it was created people realized that something was wrong with it. It could not be reconciled with General Relativity. Something was missing. So, finding out what is wrong with it or what is missing has been a top priority for physics for several decades. The book “The Theory of Almost Everything” by Robert Oerter is a very interesting book covering the standard model, its components, its history, and what could be missing. It contains a few formulas but other than that it is mostly readable to laymen.
Book Formats for The Theory of Almost Everything
The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics by Robert Oerter comes in three formats. I bought the hardback format.
Hardcover – Pi Press (July 22, 2005), ISBN-10 : 0132366789, ISBN-13 : 978-0132366786, 336 pages, item weight : 1.2 pounds, dimensions : 6.37 x 1.11 x 9.3 inches, it costs $35.08 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Paperback – Penguin Publishing Group (September 26, 2006), ISBN-10 : 0452287863, ISBN-13 : 978-0452287860, 336 pages, item weight : 10.8 ounces, dimensions : 5.51 x 0.81 x 8.34 inches, it costs $16.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher : Plume (September 26, 2006), ASIN : B002LLCHV6, ISBN-13 : 978-1101126745, 348 pages, it costs $6.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics by Robert Oerter. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.
Amazon’s Description of The Theory of Almost Everything
There are two scientific theories that, taken together, explain the entire universe. The first, which describes the force of gravity, is widely known: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. But the theory that explains everything else—the Standard Model of Elementary Particles—is virtually unknown among the general public.
In The Theory of Almost Everything, Robert Oerter shows how what were once thought to be separate forces of nature were combined into a single theory by some of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century. Rich with accessible analogies and lucid prose, The Theory of Almost Everything celebrates a heretofore unsung achievement in human knowledge—and reveals the sublime structure that underlies the world as we know it.
Below is my full length giant review of The Theory of Almost Everything. Unless you are really interested, I suggest you read the somewhat shorter Amazon version by clicking the link above.
An introduction to the greatest intellectual achievement of the Human Race
The public has to a large extent missed the greatest scientific revolution in the history of the human race because mainstream media has largely ignored this breakthrough, despite the fact that the Nobel Prize committee has been raining Nobel Prizes over it. In the 1970’s a theory that explained, at the deepest level, nearly all of the phenomena that rule our daily lives came into existence. The theory called “The Standard Model of Elementary Particles” is a set of “Relativistic Quantum Field Theories” that explains how elementary particles behave, which elementary particles there are, and why they have the properties they have, for example, isospin, spin, charge, color charge, flavor, even mass, or mass relations in many cases.
The theory explains how all of the fundamental forces in nature work except gravity. The theory describes how the elementary particles interact; decay, how long they are expected to exist, and how they combine into other subatomic particles. The theory uses only 18 adjustable parameters to accomplish all of this.
Close up illustration of atomic particle for nuclear energy imagery. From iStock photos.
In the extension the theory thus explains how nucleons and atoms are formed and what properties the atoms will have, and how molecules will form and what properties molecules will have, their chemical reactions, and what elasticity, electric conductivity, heat conductivity, color, hardness, texture, etc. any material will possess. In the extension it explains why mass and matter exist, how the sun and the stars work, and the theory is therefore the ultimate basis of all other science. It also provides a formula, or an equation of almost everything.
Best of all it has been thoroughly verified experimentally, in fact the predictions the theory has made have been confirmed with such stunning accuracy and precision that it could be considered the most successful scientific theory ever. A theory that successfully unites all physics and basically all of human knowledge of the Universe into one single theory has never before existed.
However, “The Standard Model” does not incorporate gravity and the general theory of relativity, and cannot explain dark energy, dark matter and why neutrinos have mass. Therefore, almost as soon as the theory came into existence physicists started looking for the next theory that would finish what the “The Standard Model” did not finish.
Example of such theories are GUT theories, SO(5), SO(10), string theories (abandoned), super string theories, and M-theories. Even though those new theories are extremely interesting they have not been verified or able to predict anything. In comparison with the “Standard Model”; super string theories, grand unified theories, chaos theories, you name it, are essentially nothing, but are still better known. Hopefully this will change in the future, either because the Standard Model gets the respect it deserves, or because a more complete theory can be verified.
About the book
This book explains to the layman what the “Standard Model” is and how it came into existence. The book is by no means a perfect book. I think there are several problems with the book. However, I decided not to take off any star because there are very few books written for science interested non-physicists that explain the “Standard Model of Elementary Particles”. Dr. Oerter deserves five stars just for his decent attempt at doing so. I find Dr. Oerter to be a good writer and popularizer. I don’t think he is as good as Isaac Asimov, or Carl Sagan, but close, and he is writing on a much more complex topic then, for example, Carl Sagan did.
I studied physics as an engineering student, and I could understand most of text (but not every detail regarding everything). However, I believe anyone who is somewhat familiar with science, especially physics and math, can understand most of this book. For me more diagrams and more equations would have helped. For readers without much background in physics more and better diagrams would definitely have helped. Dr. Oerter came close to writing a good book for the layman, but the book was still lacking in certain aspects. In the remainder of the review, I will give a brief synopsis for each chapter and present my opinions and reflections on each chapter. In a sense I have written a short review for every chapter. My intent is to both tell you what the book is about and give my opinions on the different sections of the book.
Chapter 1: The first unifications
In Chapter one Oerter gives an interesting overview of the history of physics. Physics has typically been divided up into many fields. New discoveries have led to either new sub disciplines or the merging of existing sub disciplines (unifications). Nineteenth century physics was divided into many sub disciplines.
Dynamics (the laws of motion)
Thermodynamics (the laws of temperature, heat and energy)
Waves (oscillations in water, air, and solids)
Optics
Electricity
Magnetism
However, because of the atomic hypothesis, thermodynamics and wave mechanics were swallowed up by dynamics. For example, temperature and heat were now explained in terms of atomic and molecular motion. The theory of electromagnetic fields subsumed optics, electricity, and magnetism (light is an electromagnetic wave). All of physics, it seemed, could be explained in terms of particles (atoms) and fields. New discoveries would alter the picture once again and the old field theories had to be abandoned, and the laws of classical mechanics (dynamics) had to be altered.
Finally, the physicists were able to come up with a unified theory that explained almost all of physics and in the extension all of science, the standard model of elementary particles. This chapter was very basic and not difficult to understand. I think his approach to give an overview of physics was both unique and enlightening. His description of how physics and our understanding of the Universe went through periods when our knowledge expanded and gave rise to new fields and due to new discoveries, that led to a deeper understanding resulted in the merging of these fields. So, in summary more knowledge lead to more fields, then deeper understanding united them. This went back and forth a few times. Finally, we have a unified theory of almost everything, the Standard Model (if we exclude the General theory of relativity).
Chapter 2: Einstein’s relativity and Noether’s theorem
Even though the book is a Physics book, I think it is also a book on Philosophy. The way I see it Physics is in a sense both Science and Philosophy, the kind of Philosophy that can be falsified, verified and proven wrong or correct. Let me explain what I mean by telling you about Noether’s theorem. Noether’s theorem states that whenever a theory is invariant under a continuous symmetry, there will be a conserved quantity. As an example of what a continuous symmetry is, is the following: any physical experiment that is performed at a certain time will have the same result if it is performed exactly the same way a certain time later. That seemingly self-evident observation means that Energy is conserved.
Another example is any physical experiment that is performed at a certain place will have the same result if it is performed exactly the same way somewhere else. That seemingly self-evident observation means that momentum is conserved. Let me add that “exactly the same way” really means that! Gravity, other forces, differences in light, or anything else cannot be different in the second experiment. The only thing allowed to be different is the position “x” (if that is our symmetry variable). That is what a continuous symmetry means, changing just one thing, and everything stays the same.
Noether’s theorem has been the guiding principle behind the standard model, and it is used to find conservation laws where symmetries are found, and it is used to find symmetries where conservation laws are found. It is a spontaneous symmetry brake that allows the Higgs Boson to give all other particles their mass (excepting mass less particles). This is the reason that matter and everything in our Universe exists. The Higgs Boson is also called the God particle. So, Noether’s theorem is both very useful in a practical sense and deeply philosophical at the same time. In addition to Noether’s theorem the standard model is built upon the special theory of relativity and a modern formulation of quantum mechanics (Quantum field theory), QED, QCD, as well as some discoveries regarding elementary particles. I can add that Noether’s theorem was formulated by a Jewish woman, Emmily Noether, who could not get a job in academia because she was a woman. This theorem is one of those very important but mostly unknown discoveries, like the invention of paper by the Chinese Tsai Lun.
Oerter does not attempt to explain the special theory of relativity; however, he tries to give the reader an idea of what it is. The problem with his approach is that he gives the reader just enough information to enable the observant reader to come up with the apparent paradoxes within the special theory of relativity, but not enough information to help the reader to easily resolve them. He also confuses the reader by not distinguishing between rest mass and relativistic mass. The observant reader will think that he is contradicting himself. The term relativistic mass is the total mass and the total quantity of energy in a body. The rest-mass is the mass of the body when it is not moving. The formula E = mc^2 is always true, when it refers to relativistic mass, which is why we talk about an energy/mass equivalence. The other more complex formula Oerter presents refers to rest mass. There is no such thing as an energy/rest mass equivalence (except at speed 0) but that is what the reader who is not already familiar with the subject will end up believing.
Another mistake Oerter does is in regard to the fact that the speed of clocks will be measured differently in different reference frames. On page 35 last paragraph Oerter writes “Here, we have an apparent paradox: If each reference frame sees the other as slowed down, whose clock will be ahead when the passengers leave the train?” Then he implies that the paradox has to be solved by incorporating the General theory of relativity. Even though that may be how it was first solved, you can solve this form of the so called “Twin Paradox” and other similar paradoxes from within the framework of the special theory of relativity itself. So even though I enjoyed reading about Nother’s theorem and still think this chapter could use some improvement.
Chapter 3: (The End of the World as we know it) + Chapter 4: (Improbabilities)
Oerter explains Quantum Physics in a very typical manner, and he mostly avoids making it look weirder than it actually is which he should be commended for (that is not true for every author). However, there is one thing that all Physicists seem to do when they explain Quantum Physics to the layman which annoys me greatly. The matter waves (or quantum fields) in Quantum Physics are quite strange entities. The reason they are so strange is because they do not exist in a real sense, they are more correctly stated mathematical abstractions. Oerter states this clearly, which is good.
However, he then goes on to mention De Witts’ idea about multiple Universes without acknowledging that these “bizarre solutions” to various Quantum Wave conundrums are completely unnecessary. So, to some extent he is still making Quantum Physics appear weirder then it is (but I have seen worse). Well, OK, Quantum Physics is weird, but we don’t need to make it seem even weirder.
After giving a background to the special theory of relativity and Quantum Physics, Oerter continues explaining relativistic Quantum Physics including the fantastic prediction you get when you combine the special theory of relativity with Quantum Physics; that for every particle there is a twin particle with exactly the same mass, and spin, but opposite charge and isospin. These particles were called anti-particles and until they were actually found physicists tried to get rid of them from the theory. However, the combination of the special theory of relativity and Quantum Physics would lead not only to much better explanation for such things as the radiation and light spectrum and the properties of atoms, it would also lead to new discoveries. This is what is referred to as Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.
Chapter 5: The Bizarre Reality of QED
Richard Feynman came up with a new representation of relativistic quantum physics for electrons that did not use waves, called Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). This was one of the first steps towards the standard model. Instead of viewing electrons as particles governed by waves, Feynman viewed electrons as particles guided by fields consisting of all possible paths and their probabilities. He used the two-slit experiment as a guide when formulating the equations for the probabilities of the paths for the electrons (and in the extension may other particles). When he summed up all the possible paths and compared with the old Quantum Mechanics (Wave Mechanics) he got the same answer as Quantum Mechanics in every case. In fact, his new approach was able to explain and calculate phenomena’s like the electrons spin and the fine structure constant that Quantum Mechanics (Wave Mechanics) could not explain properly, and his approach also would prove crucial for the development of Relativistic Quantum Field Theory.
So, in summary, first came Quantum Mechanics, then Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and then QED and Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. I can add that this chapter also explains Feynman diagrams and an infinity problem that cropped up. The three infinities that cropped up corresponded to the electron’s mass, the photon’s mass, and the electron’s charge. However, the problems with these infinitives were solved using a normalization process that is also explained in this chapter. I can add that I think QED probably seems less strange to laymen then Wave Mechanics because it is easier to visualize the probabilities of possible paths as compared to waves that do not even exist, even though their “amplitude squares” represents something real. This chapter was probably one of the harder chapters to understand (for those who know nothing about QED). This chapter could really have been made better by using many more diagrams and figures. Again, I am not going to knock a star for that because the book is overall so unique and important.
Chapter 6: Feynman Particles, Schwinger Fields
Chapter 6 was a short but interesting chapter. Julian Schwinger took a different approach to QED than Feynman; he sorts of invented a new wave mechanics, in which a quantum field can be pictured as a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point in space. Even though the two approaches used different models Freeman Dyson proved in 1949 that Schwinger’s field theory point of view and Feynman’s sum-over-all-paths approach were in practice identical. However, the two approaches are useful for different things and form the basis of Quantum Field Theory. QED and Quantum Field Theory eliminate the distinction of particle and field and in a sense removed the conundrum of the particle and wave duality. In the nineteenth century light was an electromagnetic wave (well it still is) and in the old Quantum Physics it was both a wave and a particle, however, in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory it is something completely new-a quantum field, neither a particle nor a wave, but an entity with the aspects of both.
Chapter 7: Welcome to the Subatomic Zoo
In this chapter Oerter describes the history of the “strong nuclear force” and the “weak nuclear force” and the subatomic zoo that later emerged. There are four fundamental forces of nature, electromagnetism, gravity, and the “strong nuclear force” and the “weak nuclear force”. The two latter fundamental forces were not known until the 1930’s. The studies of these two new forces led to the predictions and discoveries of new elementary particles. One of these was the pion, however, when the physicists looked for this particle in the cosmic background radiation, they found an elementary particle that was similar to the pion but had the wrong mass.
After some confusion it became clear that it was not a pion but a new never foreseen particle that was named the meson. This was a problem because it was a new entity which the existing physics theories could not explain. However, it got worse. More elementary particles were discovered in the 1940’s 1950’s and the 1960’s. Our Universe turned out to be a lot stranger than people thought, and people started talking about the subatomic zoo. These newly discovered elementary would remain big mysteries until the event of the Standard Model in 1974. This chapter was pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Oerter does an excellent job in making this history interesting and entertaining to the reader and the chapter also contains some humor.
Chapter 8: The Color of Quarks
In the 1960’s physics had become ugly because of the subatomic zoo. Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Neeman suggested a periodic table for elementary particles (like there is a periodic table for the elements). This periodic table was referred to the eightfold way. The eightfold way was also referred to as the SU(3) theory. It led to the discovery of an elementary particle that was even more fundamental than the known elementary particles, the Quark. It was soon established that there were two kinds of fundamental elementary particles: leptons and Quarks, in addition to the Bosons. Let me explain the details. There are elementary particles with whole number spin, and they are called Boson’s, and there are elementary particles with half number spin called Fermions.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle (that no two particles can occupy the same state) applies to Fermions but not to Bosons and therefore the two different types of particles behave very differently and follow different kinds of statistical rules (Bose-Einstein statistics versus Fermi-Dirac statistics). All force carriers are Boson’s while some Fermions are used to build “normal matter”. Examples of Bosons are the photon, gluons, W and Z Boson, mesons, the Higgs Boson (the God particle). The Fermions come in three families, each with four particles and their anti-particle.
The proton and neutron each consist of three quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons consist of two down quarks and one up quark. Both protons and neutrons have a net white charge. The yellow squiggly lines are gluons transporting color charge between the quarks. Asset id: 2333679305 by KRPD.
Electron / positron
Neutrino / anti-neutrino
Up quark / anti up quark
Down quark / anti down quark
muon / anti-muon
Mu Neutrino / anti-mu-neutrino
Charm quark / anti charm quark
Strange quark / anti strange quark
tau / anti-tau
Tau Neutrino / anti-tau-neutrino
Top quark / anti top quark
Bottom quark / anti bottom quark
The quarks can be used to build other particles, but leptons cannot. For example, a quark and an anti-quark pair form a particle called a meson (there are many kinds of mesons). A triplet of quarks is called a Baryon. An example of a baryon is the proton which consists of two up quarks and one down quark. Another example is the neutron which consists of one up quark and two down quarks. So just like electrons, protons and neutrons build atoms; the quarks build other elementary particles, for example, protons. As mentioned, the six flavors of Quarks are up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom.
However, the Quarks also have colors (well they are not real colors), red, blue and green which sort of correspond to the three kinds of charges for the strong nuclear force. Based on this new model a new Quantum Field Theory called Quantum-Chromodynamics (QCD) was created which together with QED would form the basis of “The Standard Model of Elementary Particles”. This was also a very straight forward chapter that was both interesting and not very difficult to understand. Again, Oerter makes the story interesting and captivating. This is perhaps the most interesting chapter in the book.
To learn more about Protons, Neutrons, Quarks, Gluons, Color Charges, and Quantum Chromodynamics you can watch this 10 minute video below.
Chapter 9: The Weakest Link
Despite the eightfold way, the Quarks, QED and QCD, all was still not well. The Weak Nuclear force was still not fully understood. Martinus Veltman, Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam, and Sheldon Glashow were the people chiefly responsible for developing a theory for the weak nuclear force. It involved W+, W- and Z0 Bosons and something called spontaneous symmetry breaking.
These theories in turn led to something called the Higgs field and the so called Higgs particle or Higgs Boson (named after Peter Higgs who first introduced the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking in elementary particle theory). The Higgs particle provided the physics community with a very nice surprise. The Higgs particle gives electrons (and other leptons) and the Quarks their mass. Unexpectedly we thus got an explanation as to why many elementary particles have mass and therefore why matter exists. This is why the Higgs Boson is often referred to as the God particle. It just showed up because of the theories explaining the weak force and turned out to be what created our Universe by giving the elementary particles their mass.
There was just one problem. The Higgs Boson had not yet been found when this book was written. Once the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) came online it became possible to find the Higgs Boson. This final touch to the Standard Model was the one that was the most difficult to grasp. I had a hard time understanding what spontaneous symmetry break really was, and the Mexican hat potential, etc. I think that Oerter needs to look over this chapter and find a different approach to explaining spontaneous symmetry break. I think that Oerter actually sorts of “gave up” at this point. This topic is too abstract for the layman so instead of making a good effort explaining spontaneous symmetry.
Collision of Particles in the Abstract Collider. From iStock photos.
Chapter 10: The Standard Model at Last
The standard model is built from relativistic quantum field theory, specifically QED and QCD. In chapter 9 QED was incorporated into electroweak theory which led to the Higgs Boson etc. QED is interwoven together with QCD to create a single theory whose essential elements can be written in a single equation.
Yes, that is right; an equation of everything, or almost everything. This equation is stated on 207 in this chapter. The equation over all equations that there ever was. You should buy this book just to look at it.
The Langrangian function that summarizes all of the propagators and interactions in the standard model.
The equation of everything is not as complicated as you may think. It is a Lagrangian function that summarizes all propagators and interactions, and it contains 18 adjustable numerical parameters. I admit that I don’t understand the equation fully, but Oerter explains the parameters and as mentioned it is just a big Lagrange function. As Oerter states “this equation is the simplicity at the bottom of it all, the ultimate source of all complex behavior that we see in the physical world; atoms, molecules, solids, liquids, gases, rocks, plants and animals”.
Oerter also discusses the birth of the Universe in the context of the Standard Model. In my opinion this was a very cool chapter, and Oerter does a good job at exciting the reader in this chapter. Naturally the equation of everything is a little bit difficult to understand and if you don’t know what a differential equation is you can forget about it. However, understanding the equation of everything is not important. The main point of this chapter is that there is such an equation.
Chapter 11: The Edge of Physics, Chapter 12: New Dimensions
As Oerter states in chapter 11 “The standard model is by far the most successful scientific theory ever. Not only have some of its predictions been confirmed to spectacular precision, one part in 10 billion for the electron magnetic moment, but the range of application of the theory is unparalleled. From the behavior of quarks inside the proton to the behavior of galactic magnetic fields, the Standard Model works across the entire range of human experience. Accomplishing this with merely 18 adjustable parameters is an unprecedented accomplishment, making the Standard Model truly a capstone of twentieth-century science.” However, this is not the end of physics. Gravity is explained by the General Theory of Relativity but is not incorporated into the Standard Model.
There is also dark matter and dark energy which is not part of the Standard Model. The neutrinos seem to have mass; however, they are predicted to have no mass in the Standard Model. In addition, it would be nicer to have fewer adjustable parameters than 18. Is there may be a better theory? In chapter 12 Oerter is discussing Grand Unified Theories (GUT), or SO(5) and SO(10) theories as well as super string theories, and M-theories. These are theories that might be able to do everything the Standard Model can do plus what it cannot do. However, none of these theories have ever predicted anything, so unlike the Standard Model they are speculation. There is some controversy regarding these issues, and I think Oerter might have been a tiny bit biased against super string theory here. However, he still explains what super string theory is about pretty well.
Final Conclusion and Recommendation
I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand something about our world and the Universe. However, don’t expect to understand everything, it is not written so that you can. I wish Physicists would become a little better at explaining these matters to the layman using nice descriptive pictures and a little bit of math too (don’t assume math is always bad). I once read a 30 page long Swedish book on the special theory of relativity that successfully explained the kinematics, dynamics, and magnetism in relativity to your average high school kid. The Lorenz transforms, formulas for acceleration, E = mc² and magnetism were derived using simple algebra and a tiny bit of calculus at one point. That is the way these kinds of books should be written, but I have seen this only once in my life. Excluding this single example (the Swedish book), Oerter’s book is one of the best books on Physics for the layman that I have ever read.
Back cover of The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics by Robert Oerter. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.
Here are some other posts that are related to the content of this book.
Super fact 68 : Infinities come in different sizes. Some infinities are larger than others. In fact, it is possible to create an infinite number of different-sized infinities. Some infinities are countable and others are uncountable.
How can infinity be of different sizes? Infinity is infinity after all. Infinity is an absolute, an absolute we cannot imagine. However, at the end of the 19th century a German mathematician by the name Georg Cantor demonstrated that there exists a variety of infinities, and some are larger than others. In fact, his theorem implies the existence of an infinity of infinities. For those who have not heard of this concept before it is surprising and yet it is true, and it is also kind of an important thing to know about mathematics. This is why I consider this a super fact.
Let me explain. Think about all natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …, a billion, a quintillion, … You can keep counting forever. There are infinitely many natural numbers. Now take two natural numbers, the numbers 3 and 4. How many numbers are in between 3 and 4? Well, you have 3.5, 3.55555, 3.016893, and you have the number pi, 3.14159265358979323846, and infinitely many other numbers with infinitely many decimals. 3 and 4 are only two numbers but you have infinitely many decimal numbers, or so called real numbers, between 3 and 4. That is true for the two numbers 4 and 5 as well, and 5 and 6, and all natural numbers. Even though there are infinitely many natural numbers there are infinitely many more real numbers.
I should say that today Saturday November 8, 2025, is National STEM Day, or STEAM Day. Stem stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The extra ‘A’ in STEAM stands for Art. Therefore, I thought that posting something related was appropriate for today, in this case it is Mathematics. I have to admit I am posting it a little bit late in the day though.
To infinity … and beyond!
Buzz Lightyear “To infinity … and beyond”. Shutterstock Asset id: 2464838811 by MSCT Pics
As mentioned, infinites can have different sizes. How about, for example, the set of all natural numbers and the set of even numbers. After all, it seems like the set of all even numbers should be half as big. As it turns out they are the same size. That’s because for all natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 you can always find a buddy, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 among the even numbers. This is called a bijection. However, you cannot do this with natural numbers versus real numbers. You cannot pair up a natural number with the real numbers because there are infinitely many for each single natural number.
The set of all real numbers is really a larger infinity than natural numbers, which by the way is the smallest infinity. The sets of natural numbers and, for example, even numbers are called countable infinities, and the set of real numbers are called uncountable infinities. In addition, there are infinitely many different sizes of infinities that are larger than both natural numbers and real numbers.
Another interesting, related issue is that Cantor tried to prove that there are no infinities with sizes that lie in between the natural numbers and the real numbers. This was called the continuum hypothesis. As it turned out this hypothesis is not possible to prove (you can prove that it cannot be proved) at the same time as it is not possible to disprove. It is related to Gödels incompleteness theorem but is not the same. However, it is another absolute limit to human knowledge, things we know that we can never know.
If you want to have your mind blown, watch this 8 minute YouTube video about infinities of different sizes and the continuum hypothesis.
Super fact 66 : Bots make up more than half of all internet traffic surpassing human activity for the first time in 2024. The 2025 Imperva Bad Bot Report found that bots accounted for 51% of all web traffic. Human activity accounted for 49% of all internet traffic, malicious “bad bots” accounted for 37%, and 14% of traffic comes from “good bots,” such as search engine crawlers.
What made me look up this information is that I’ve recently seen a lot of idiotic and inflammatory comments, as well as inappropriate laughing emojis on social media pages and posts. The pages that seem to be targeted the most by this abuse seems to be pages related to things like climate change, clean energy, EV cars, evolution, vaccines, modern medicine, modern physics, geopolitics, information on political issues, etc. However, those topics might reflect my interests. Perhaps all topics are targeted by this growing strange abuse.
It looks like those among us who slept through the science classes in high school now think they are the real experts and have declared war on all science nerds. The question that arose in my mind is, are these keyboard warriors humans or are they bots? It is true that Artificial Intelligence does not (yet) demonstrate true independent intelligence, but that is true for many people as well. So, how do you know the difference? Anyway, that is the background to why I investigated this issue.
Many people are also spreading false information and some of them are scammers, but the fact that machines do it as well add to the problem. It is also very common for bots and fake accounts to leave reactions on Facebook posts, which might be what I saw, but I am not sure. What is certain is that I have come across a lot of false information on Facebook, as well as scams and deep fakes, and Meta/Facebook is obviously not able to clean it out. There are also bots that are remotely controlled ransomware, computer viruses, spyware, and other malware.
Warning of a system hacked. Virus, cyber attack, malware concept. Asset id: 1916985977 by Sashkin
Why I consider this a super fact is because it appears to me that people underestimate the influence of malicious bots. If you had asked me before I looked this up how common bot traffic was, I might have said a few percent. After all streaming, youTube, gaming, etc., require a lot of bandwidth. Considering all the fake stuff and nonsense that is spreading partially with the help of bots, this is dangerous. We know the bots make up more than half of all internet traffic, and bot traffic is growing faster than human traffic, it is important information, and I think it is surprising information to a lot of people, thus making it a super fact.
Fake Nonsense on Facebook
This section is not directly tied to the super fact above, but it concerns a related topic and is based on my personal experience with the social media platform that I have used the most, Facebook. Instagram seems to be even worse, but I am not using it as much. Why I am bringing this up is because increased bot traffic and the increased presence of fake accounts and deep fakes on social media can make this a lot worse. Combined with our gullibility and lack of critical thinking as well as the failure of social media platforms to keep after this, we are facing a serious threat.
Gullible Planet
It is well known that there are a lot of nonsense posts on Facebook (and elsewhere). The fact that we so easily fall for it and don’t check with reliable sources is a big problem. When I see something fake, I often post corrections, for example, using sites like snopes. Sometimes people are grateful, sometimes they get angry, and I’ve even been blocked and lost friends just by posting a snopes link. A lot of the fake stuff is posted by people, but a lot of posts, comments and reactions are posted by bots, and this is becoming more common. With increased malicious bot traffic, AI and deep fakes, we must improve our critical thinking skills.
Below are some examples of fake stuff I’ve come across on Facebook
Did you read that viral article on Facebook claiming that they found 20 feet humanoid skeletons in Turkey? The article stated that archeologists think that they might be fossilized Nephilim, the giants mentioned in the Old Testament. If so, did you doubt the accuracy of the article? If you did, you did good. It was based on an article in a satirical website called World News Daily Report. However, judging from the comment section, including the comments of some of my friends, most people didn’t doubt the article’s accuracy.
How about the story from a purported science magazine that scientists had just discovered that the Easter Island statues/heads have bodies/torsos below the ground. The article stated that this was a revolution in archeology that forced a reevaluation of history. The commentors were amazed over this discovery and some pointed out that not realizing this sooner was a big failure on the part of archeologists and scientists. Well, that the Easter Island statues/heads have bodies/torsos below the ground has been known all along.
How about the story about the lunch lady named Aileen G. Ainuse who poisoned the water supply at Sunnydale High School in Goobersville, Indiana, killing over 300 students and staff. It was accompanied by a scary photo of a starving lady. The readers were shocked and appalled, but not many bothered to verify the story, for example, with the help of snopes. The story was false.
Another article stated that the fact that there were no stars in the black sky in a photo allegedly taken on the moon was proof that the photo was fake and that the astronauts were never on the moon. First of all, it was day, the sun was out. When the sun is out it is very difficult to see the stars because the sun’s light is a million times brighter than the light from the stars and in addition the bright sunlight reflected off the surface of the moon dims the stars. In addition, the cameras used had short shutter speeds for picking up the bright light, not faint stars. Seeing stars in a daytime photo taken on the moon is not something you should expect. Several commentors pointed this out but most other commentors didn’t pay attention and were fooled.
I’ve also seen the opposite, people refusing to believe a true story because they fundamentally misunderstand something. Below is a youTube video showing an animation composed of actual satellite photos by NASA. Many commentors seeing this video insisted that it was a hoax because the back side of the moon is dark. But it is not. When the side of the moon that is turned towards us (the near side) is dark (a new moon) the back side reflects the sun’s light (like a full moon). The backside (far side) of the moon also looks different from the side turned towards us. In the video below the sun is behind the camera and shines on earth as well as the backside of the moon.
A final example is a deep fake Ad featuring Meryl Streep and Dr. Sanjay Gupta promoting an Alzheimer’s cure. I saw it on Facebook several times over a period of several weeks. It looked very real to me, but something felt off, so I fact checked. It turned out that Meryl Streep and Sanjay Gupta had nothing to do with the video. They were AI generated likenesses promoting a scam product. The video used all the typical polemic tricks such as “a cure that the billion dollar companies don’t want you to know about”, “buy now before they take our website down”…. We need to get better at protecting ourselves and believing 20 feet skeletons on Facebook are real is not the way to do it.
Super fact 62 : Facts exist in science; a scientific “fact” is an observation of a natural phenomenon that has been repeatedly confirmed by independent observers and is accepted as true for all practical purposes.
Outside of mathematics and logic nothing is ever the final truth, not in science, and not anywhere else. However, there are facts that have been so well confirmed and are so basic that there is no reason to doubt them. Earth is not flat like a pancake, and the sun is a star, are two examples of astronomical facts. Most dogs have four legs is another fact. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers is a fact in physics that is surprising if you didn’t know it before. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. It is possible that we are all living in a virtual reality, like in the movie The Matrix, and that Earth is really flat like a pancake after all, because all of reality is a dream. However, for all practical purposes, it is not the case.
This blog, super facts, deal with facts that are surprising, strange, or disputed by non-experts, and yet true because they have been verified, for example, in the case of scientific facts, by repeatable careful observation. Anyone is free to object if you think I am wrong about a fact.
My next super fact is going to be “Evolution is a fact”. Evolution is also a scientific theory, but it means something different from when you say evolution is a fact. Moreover, a Scientific Theory is not a guess, as commonly but incorrectly assumed. I am bringing this up because many people who are typically unaware of the evidence behind a fact will use arguments such as “science does not know everything”, “it is just a theory”, etc., in efforts to dismiss a well-supported claim.
I should say that this post is inspired by a Facebook post by “The Credible Hulk”, a Facebook page managed by a group of anonymous scientists opposing misinformation around vaccines, global warming, evolution and GMOs. I did not save the post, but it went something like this:
One of the commentors said : “Calling evolution a “fact” defeats your argument. The Theory of Evolution is by definition a theory not a fact. It’s the currently agreed upon hypothesis but not a fact”
What the commentor did not realize is that “Theory” in the context of science does not mean what he thought it did. I am using past tense because he got “schooled”. To his credit he did not respond with insults and neither did the Credible Hulk, which does not seem to be standard on Facebook. However, his comment illustrates something that drives scientists like those who created “The Credible Hulk” nuts, and that is the widespread lack of understanding of the difference between a guess, a hypothesis, a scientific fact, theory as used in common language and used when talking about a scientific theory.
Rather than having this discussion over at my upcoming “Evolution is a fact” post, I am making a separate post about it. I consider “There are Scientific Facts” a super fact because it is true, and yet the confusion around it and what a Scientific Theory pertains is massive, and it is an important topic.
What is Science?
Science is the process of learning about the world through systematic observation and experimentation to gain knowledge about how things work. It involves observing phenomena, forming testable ideas (hypotheses), systematic studies, conducting experiments, and collecting evidence and facts that support or refute those ideas, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of general truths and natural laws. If an idea/hypothesis correctly predicts and explains facts, it becomes a theory, which is something that is very different from a guess.
The process of making observations, formulating testable hypotheses, conducting experiments, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions to understand phenomena and solve problems is referred to as the scientific method, and there are different types of scientific methods. Some involve experiments, other involve analysis historical artifacts or existing data. Objectivity, reproducibility, falsifiability, and predictive power or problem solving are essential.
Aspects of scientific research include analysis, data collection, sometimes surveys, development, establishing facts, creating knowledge, and data entry so that others can repeat it and verify results. Shutterstock Asset id: 1100776715 by Trueffelpix
What is a Scientific Theory?
When people hear the phrase “evolution is a theory,” many mistakenly assume it means evolution is just a guess or speculation. In science, however, a theory is far more than a guess. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. In other words, it is a well-tested, comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena, supported by an extensive body of evidence.
Conceptual Illustration of Scientific Method and Knowledge Acquiring. Notice, not all scientific methods necessarily include experiments. Some include surveys, or testing of ancient artifacts, etc. Shutterstock Asset id: 2139402875 by TarikVision
The evidence for evolution is both vast and compelling. It is not just the massive fossil record, it is in DNA, anatomy, there’s geographic evidence, and evidence from dozens of other scientific fields, not to mention that evolution is directly observable. There is a Theory of Evolution, that is the well supported explanation for evolution, or evolution by natural selection. There is also “Evolution is a fact” referring to, for example, the fact that we can directly observe it. It is true for all practical purposes, and that does not mean that evolution stops being a scientific theory as well as a fact.
Afterword
Even though science is constantly evolving and our knowledge is evolving and sometimes our understanding and scientific theories on a topic needs to be updated, scientific facts exist. Some scientific facts are extremely unlikely to change. For example, Jupiter has multiple moons, galaxies exist, global warming is real and is caused by us, and evolution is a fact. Before you decide to dismiss such a fact make sure you know what “theory” means in science, and most importantly educate yourself on the relevant evidence. There might be a whole lot more than you imagined, and you may discover that the evidence you thought was contrary is not evidence.
You often hear “science does not know everything”. That’s true. If science knew everything it would stop. However, the collective knowledge created by science is enormous and as individuals we know next to nothing. So be humble and learn from scientific evidence presented by reliable sources.
Super Facts 