Quote:

The SM originally included 17 particles but also a lot of parameters which must be set by experiment



18 parameters. Not 17 Particles. Some of the parameters talk of how one particle interacts with another (couplings).

Quote:

these parameters were and they are still considered the weak point of the theory



I don't see how you can say that. Are there unknowns in the theory? Yes. Like I've said, the mechanism by which the particles acquire mass, the Higgs Boson, is still suspect. Does that mean that SM is weak? Hardly. We know the mass of the electron, of the proton (and by inference of the quarks)... we know the interaction strength of particles, I mean we know so much from experiments that I would hardly call them the weak point of the theory.

It does have weak points, like renormalization, but it has nothing to do with the parameters which we have an experimental value for almost all of them.

Quote:

K can assume, 18 values given by the experience,see the attached table


Quote:

Ok mr Newton , your method is definitly a step forth vs the traditional astronomy but we feel that there is something wrong because you make use of too many parameters



First off, I know that this is an off-the-cuff example, but let's be clear that science has no room for "feelings" or "popular vote". If the 18 values correctly predict the behaiviour, then you must find another theory that does the same (and better or more) before it will be replaced.

Secondly, your example is poorly constructed. The SM is not a case of ONE PARAMETER taking on 18 VALUES but rather of 18 PARAMETERS each with ONE VALUE...

Quote:

Moreover what's is the physical meaning of these 18 parameters ?




...and 18 values that have clear physical meaning (as either a mass describing a particle or a coupling describing how the particles interact).

Quote:

To get rid of the 18 parametrs you must write the right equation ,than you would get one and one only value for K
However tha wrong equation is not completely wrong and , up to a certain extent, it might be of use.

This is the kind of arguments against Standard Model



I think I'm starting to understand your point a bit better. I "think" you are confusing the acceptance of string theory with the rejection of SM. That's not the case. String theory does aim to reduce the 25 current parameters of SM into, ideally, one parameter. This is why it's called Grand UNIFIED Theory... it aims to unify all the forces. But this is NOT an arguement against the SM, merely an arguement that the SM is incomplete and is not accurate at all energy ranges. It's like I said in my post above: Relativity does not invalidate the Kinematic Equations we learn in Physics 101... it expands on them, gives them more solid meaning, and allows us to apply rules to domains where before we could not.


Quote:

The theory of the string tries to get rid of the multitude of parameters , whose physical meaning is definitly not clear, of the SM



Again, I have to be very clear so that you walk away from this thread with at least this bit of corrected knowledge. The 25 parameters of the SM or NOT, I repeat, NOT physically unclear. We have a very good grasp on what their physical meaning is even if in some cases we don't know what the value is.


FUTUR-E-SCAPE: The Future Landscape of Education and Entertainment.