You should not post here if you do not understand this equation.

>>16706815 (OP)
This Lagrangian represents a highly complete theory of particle physics that:
-Includes all known forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic).
-Describes how quarks and leptons gain mass.
-Adds new particles: right-handed neutrinos, exotic bosons (X, Y), and extra Higgs-like fields.
-Supports neutrino mass generation through the seesaw mechanism.
-May unify forces in a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or contain a dark matter sector.

[GA-doosh!]
https://youtu.be/rw1ewLJUgOg

Sean "Out-of-Control" Carrol and other charlatans slammed by top Physicists as rouge academics.

>>16706815 (OP)
>dude let's just write out the spontaneously broken Lagrangian for no reason
This is the real brainlet move.
1. This Lagrangian makes the choice of unitary gauge and so it's not even gauge-invariant.
2. Instead of writing out all this crap you can just
a) specify the gauge group
[eqn]\left(\mathbb{R}^4\rtimes \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})\right)\times \mathrm{SU}(3)\times \mathrm{SU}(2) \times \mathrm{U}(1)[/eqn]
b) specify the matter content representations
[eqn](1/2,0,3,2,1/3)\oplus(0,1/2,3,1,4/3)\oplus(0,1/2,3,1,-2/3)\oplus(1/2,0,1,2,-1)\oplus(0,1/2,1,1,-2)\oplus(0,0,1,2,3)[/eqn]
that the gauge group acts via the adjoint actions
c) declare that the couplings of the gauge fields to the matter fields are minimal
d) specify the form of the Higgs potential

That's it, this is all you need to unambiguously reconstruct the Lagrangian instead of writing it out like a fucking pseud.

>>16706942
>unambiguously

>>16706815 (OP)
What fucking moron designed this?

>>16706953
skill issue

>>16706969
why yes, that is a skill issue on your part.

>>16706987
No, my friend, it's a skill issue on your part. If you don't know how to construct invariant field actions, then you should pick up an introductory book on QFT.

>>16706821
>I put it in le LLM therefore I understand it :^)

>>16707000
>If I pretend that it's LLM then it is true

>>16706815 (OP)
This looks like hieroglyphics.

>>16706815 (OP)
how is this useful in our daily life?

>>16706815 (OP)
>not english
brown hands typed this post

and yet I still post here

>>16706942
This. OP needs to go back to R*ddit

>>16706942
What is the source of the matter content vectors? Do you know an introductory QFT textbook that discusses this?

>>16707177
Source? Source is a relative term. It’s the inhomogeneous bit in an equation of motion and the standard model lagrangian has a ton of various equations of motion.