Discussion Title: Is the Standard Model an incomplete theory?

1. The Standard Model of particle physics is an [incomplete theory](https://particleadventure.org/standard_modeling.html).
1.1. Pro: Being from the 1970s, the Standard Model may be \(or become\) outdated, as it doesn't keep up with newer advancements that continue to appear.
1.1.1. Pro: The Standard Model does not encompass recent findings.
1.1.1.1. Con: The Standard Model did help lead humanity to the Higgs, so it did fill in evidence that was lacking in physics.
1.1.1.2. Pro: Antimatter \(i.e. made from right-handed antiparticles\) is [not visually represented](https://www.nikhef.nl/~t58/BSM.pdf) \(if it did, would look like [this](https://ds055uzetaobb.cloudfront.net/image_optimizer/fbe16a5b6e3492a5397656b484f6968302e48c0e.jpg)\) in the Model, but should to represent all particles that exist.
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: That would help people separate particles by other properties, like charge, chirality, etc.
1.1.1.3. Pro: Observations indicate that the standard model only explains current measurements in about [4%](https://home.cern/science/physics) of the known universe.
1.1.2. Pro: More progress will appear in the future, so the Standard Model should be made to be more flexible to adapt and handle this incoming progress.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Because the field of particle physics is ever-changing, it should get a name change to [Core Theory](http://frankwilczek.com/2014/coreTheory.pdf) to encompass new discoveries.
1.1.2.2. Pro: There are [more particle colliders being made](https://futurism.com/particle-accelerator-future-circular-collider) for even more discoveries.
1.1.2.2.1. Pro: CERN's Future Circular Collider \(FCC\) will carry out [investigations](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-16/cern-plans-new-particle-accelerator-four-times-bigger-than-lhc/10718874) into the Higgs boson and how it interacts with other Higgs bosons. This will help to clarify the remaining questions around the Higgs.
1.1.3. Con: The Standard Model is actually what's driving developments in physics right now to where the whole field is scrambling just to keep up with it.
1.2. Pro: Some concepts and [phenomena](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-07-15/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-explained/7670338) are missing from the Standard Model.
1.2.1. Pro: [String theory](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-string-theory-2699363) is not even included in the Standard Model.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Being able to experimentally confirm strings exist would open up a whole new realm of physics that the Standard Model doesn't cover, such as many [extra dimensions \(at least 6\)](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-string-theory-2699363).
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: These extra dimensions may in itself uncover particles and other physics concepts that would most certainly require the Standard Model to be rewritten.
1.2.1.2. Con: String Theory is itself a flawed theory, and so should not be included in the Standard Model.
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: String Theory may be [incompatible](https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-incompatible-with-string-theory-20180809/) with dark energy.
1.2.1.3. Pro: Some particles are small enough to be considered strings \(like [gravitons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)\), so if strings are included in the Standard Model, it may become complete.
1.2.2. Pro: For these phenomena to be explained, multiple new particles would have to be added in to completely change the Standard Model.
1.2.2.1. Pro: There are a number of problems with gravity in respect to the Standard Model, which simply adding a [graviton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton) could resolve.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of physics, yet it's [not represented](http://whystringtheory.com/motivation/quantum-field-theory/\).%22) in the [Standard Model](http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/docs/wilczek_quantum_field_theory.pdf) \(due to being [Quantum Field Theory \(QFT\)](https://youtu.be/FBeALt3rxEA?t=237)-based\). Adding a [graviton](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/what-are-gravitons/) will compensate for this lack of representation.
1.2.2.1.2. Pro: Scientists are looking for a [Grand Unified Theory](https://particleadventure.org/unified.html) to explain the universe, and the Standard Model may become that if it includes gravity.
1.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: A number of forces which scientists originally thought were different phenomena have been found to be the same fundamental force. This suggests that all forces may ultimately be [unified](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/june-2013/unification-of-forces) into one, all-encompassing force.
1.2.2.1.2.1.1. Pro: James Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism into the single, unified force of [electromagnetism](https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=2&secNum=4). If these forces were combined, then it's likely that there may be others that combine together too.
1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: Turns out, there are more forces that combine into the electromagnetism. The electromagnetic and weak forces have been unified into the [electroweak force](https://home.cern/science/physics/unified-forces).
1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: After the discovery of the W and Z bosons \(interaction mechanisms for the weak force\) and photons \(interaction mechanism for the electromagnetic force\), it was [found](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/unify.html) that these particles were essentially identical at very high temperatures, and that both phenomena emerged from a single electroweak force.
1.2.2.1.2.1.1.2. Pro: In the 1830s, Michael Faraday discovered that changing magnetic fields produce electric fields. Then, in 1861, James Clerk Maxwell hypothesised that the [opposite](https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=2&secNum=4) must be true too - that changing electric fields produce magnetic fields. This was then experimentally verified.
1.2.2.1.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: Maxwell went on to create his [famous equations](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html) of electrodynamics - an impressive and encompassing theory of electromagnetism which has proven itself even after repeated testing.
1.2.2.1.3. Pro: The Standard Model currently is not able to [compare](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/14/the-standard-model-a-beautiful-but-flawed-theory/) gravity with electromagnetic or nuclear forces, hence it does not explain why the former is weaker than the latter. If a graviton is added in, then these comparisons could be made possible.
1.2.2.1.4. Pro: Due to the lack of gravitons being in the Standard Model, measuring a particle's mass is difficult.
1.2.2.1.4.1. Pro: Having a graviton in the Standard Model would enable scientists to calculate the gravitational interaction between two particles. This force can then be combined with the traditional gravitational attraction [formula](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-20ab74888b69bc060ef158b5e993cd70-c) to calculate the particle's mass.
1.2.2.1.5. Con: While there has not yet been experimental proof that the Standard Model can account for these observed phenomena, [future experiments](https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2017/mar/12/is-the-standard-model-isolated) will give us new findings to allow us to change the Standard Model to accommodate them.
1.2.2.2. Pro: The Standard Model is unable to explain how [inflation](http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/inflation_three.php)'s mechanisms work, but the inflaton \(and its field\) could provide these answers if added to the table.
1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Since the Higgs boson's so recently discovered, yet not thoroughly looked into, little is known about inflation's mechanisms \(as they relate to it\). More research needs to be done, because we can't rely on the Standard Model for help here.
1.2.2.2.2. Pro: There might be an [inflaton with its own field that exists](https://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/26/cosmic-conflation-the-higgs-the-inflaton-and-spin/), which would require adding into the Standard Model.
1.2.2.2.2.1. Con: The inflaton and its field may just be [the Higgs field/mechanism/boson](https://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/26/cosmic-conflation-the-higgs-the-inflaton-and-spin/) instead, so no need to change the Standard Model after all.
1.2.2.3. Pro: It is crucial that any standard theory of the universe accounts for dark matter and energy sufficiently, as they make up [95%](https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy) of the universe.
1.2.2.4. Pro: Theory suggests that there should be [equal amounts](https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem) of matter and antimatter in the universe, however there is significantly more matter. The Standard Model is [unable](https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2017/mar/12/is-the-standard-model-isolated) to account for this discrepancy.
1.2.2.4.1. Con: The Standard Model allows for [CP symmetry breaking](https://www.britannica.com/science/CP-violation), which could help explain the dominance of matter over anti-matter.
1.2.2.4.1.1. Con: The amount of CP violation allowed by the Standard Model is [insufficient](https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/new-source-asymmetry-between-matter-and-antimatter) to explain the scale of the dominance of matter over antimatter in the observable universe.
1.2.2.4.2. Pro: Majorana neutrinos may solve the matter-antimatter discrepancy \(because we [don't need to differentiate between them](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino5.html) if they're the same particle\), as they show that they can [annihilate](https://www.quora.com/Do-neutrinos-annihilate-each-other) each other. Adding them into the Standard Model would help it explain the discrepancy.
1.2.2.5. Pro: [Exotic matter](https://youtu.be/9P6rdqiybaw?t=299) may exist in the universe, as it [doesn't violate](https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7) conservation laws and general relativity, so they should be added to the Standard Model's table as a hypothetical particle.
1.2.2.5.1. Con: The Standard Model is supposed to represent the basis upon which particle and other physics can be based. For such an important theory, it is important that all items within it are proven as true. Prematurely including particles which have not been proven to exist is wrong.
1.2.2.5.2. Pro: It also may be testable, as the Higgs boson [potentially decays into exotic particles](https://blog.higgshunters.org/2014/12/02/the-higgs-boson-part-3-exotic-higgs-decays/comment-page-1/), so the data may be inside the results from the LHC experiments to find the Higgs boson itself.
1.2.2.6. Pro: Since the Higgs particle was a hypothetical particle at one time in the Standard Model, it's possible to add more [hypothetical particles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles#Other) if needed to explain the unexplainable \(yet possible\).
1.2.3. Con: [Virtual particles](https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/) are [accounted for](http://factmyth.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-explained/) within the Standard Model, but are [not experimentally confirmed](http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-standard-model-shows-how-elementary-particles-interact/) yet.
1.2.4. Con: All [attempts](https://theconversation.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-the-absolutely-amazing-theory-of-almost-everything-94700) to actively disprove the Standard Model in the last 50 years have failed. This suggests that the Standard Model may be perfectly sufficient, we just haven't figured out how it applies to certain situations.
1.2.5. Pro: Some particle properties are not accounted for within the Standard Model.
1.2.5.1. Pro: The Standard Model cannot [precisely](http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/measuring-w-boson-mass) [predict a particle's mass](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino3.html) \(at a given moment\).
1.2.5.1.1. Pro: Since gravity's such a weak force \(and particles are so small\), other forces get in the way of using it to accurately measure a particle's mass.
1.2.5.1.2. Pro: There is a [hierarchy issue](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/14/the-standard-model-a-beautiful-but-flawed-theory/) related to the Higgs mechanism/boson in measuring particle mass, so more work needs to be done to find what does in order to make complete measurements.
1.2.5.1.2.1. Pro: It appears that neutrinos do not acquire their mass through interactions with the Higgs field, but instead through [another mechanism](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/where-does-mass-come-from) which is not accounted for in the Standard Model.
1.2.5.1.3. Con: The [Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/10/what-is-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle) places a fundamental limit on the precision with which can can determine certain features, such as position, momentum, and mass. This limitation will be a feature of any theory, and so is not a unique flaw in the Standard Model.
1.2.5.1.3.1. Pro: The [time-energy uncertainty](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/99/1/012002/pdf) relationship means that for particles which live for a very short amount of time \(have a small delta t\), there must be a corresponding increase in the uncertainty \(delta\) on E. This results in their measured mass forming a [distribution](https://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/top_quark_shortest_lived_matter_universe-118840), rather than a precise point value.
1.2.5.1.4. Con: The Standard Model has successfully predicted the mass of a number of fundamental particles.
1.2.5.1.4.1. Pro: The ATLAS experiment at CERN observed that the [mass of the W boson](http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/measuring-w-boson-mass) was 80370±19MeV, which was consistent with the value predicted by the Standard Model.
1.2.5.1.5. Pro: The reason is that the basis of the Standard Model is a [mathematical equation](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation) to describe it \(based on particle interactions\), rather than provide actual measurements from experiments \(like how the periodic table does\).
1.2.5.1.5.1. Pro: Because the Standard Model relies on assumptions, rather than facts, it got the mass of neutrinos wrong. So clearly it cannot precisely predict a particle masses.
1.2.5.1.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.2.1.
1.2.5.1.5.2. Pro: This is evidenced by most legitimate representations of the Standard Model \(like the one from [CERN](https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model)\) not showing the mass of particles, as they have not been measured with a sufficient degree of precision to be regarded as certain.
1.2.5.1.5.2.1. Con: Experiments at CERN and other particle colliders have been able to find the mass of many particles to a high degree of accuracy.
1.2.5.1.5.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.4.1.
1.2.5.1.5.2.2. Con: Errors and uncertainties on the experimentally obtained mass of particles are not caused by problems within the theory they come from, but from limitations in our ability to build precise measurement tools. As colliders get [better](https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-collider), our mass estimates will improve without having to alter the Standard Model.
1.2.5.1.5.2.3. Con: -> See 1.2.5.1.3.
1.2.5.1.5.3. Con: The Standard Model was [created](https://theconversation.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-the-absolutely-amazing-theory-of-almost-everything-94700) as a framework for describing numerous particles which had been observed experimentally \(the so-called 'particle zoo'\). The actual measurements and observations predate the mathematical theory which was used to explain them.
1.2.5.1.6. Pro: Missing components of the Standard Model has lead to the impossibility of it being able to predict particle masses accurately.
1.2.5.1.6.1. Pro: One of the reasons is due to the [lack of including dark matter](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/14/the-standard-model-a-beautiful-but-flawed-theory/) in the Standard Model, which may have an unaccounted for influence on particle mass.
1.2.5.1.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.4.
1.2.5.1.6.3. Pro: Because the Standard Model doesn't explain particle mass, scientists rely on [other measurements](http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/measuring-w-boson-mass) and mathematical equations to do so, which come with a level of [uncertainty](http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/measuring-w-boson-mass).
1.2.5.1.6.3.1. Pro: One reason is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty, so a mass could really just be inferred by momentum, rather than accurately measuring it.
1.2.5.1.6.3.2. Pro: Math gives a [theoretical](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/14/the-standard-model-a-beautiful-but-flawed-theory/), rather than actual weight.
1.2.5.1.6.3.3. Pro: The [lack of data samples](http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/measuring-w-boson-mass) \(since some may be just one, like the Higgs boson\) makes precision difficult to accomplish.
1.2.5.1.7. Pro: Traditional methods for measuring mass cannot be used for particles.
1.2.5.1.7.1. Pro: Unlike atoms, particles are so small that they can't be accurately weighed on a scale.
1.2.5.1.7.2. Pro: Since particles cannot be fully separated, they can't be individually measured.
1.2.5.1.7.2.1. Pro: It is not possible to observe an isolated quark, and so it is [impossible](http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html) to measure their masses directly.
1.2.5.1.7.2.1.1. Pro: The [colour force](http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html), which affects quarks, is theorised to increase with distance. At the point at which quarks could potentially be observable as independent particles, the energy between them is enough to produce a new quark-antiquark pair.
1.2.5.1.8. Pro: The Standard Model's based on mechanisms for particles to acquire mass that [aren't even observed yet](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino3.html).
1.2.5.1.8.1. Pro: Particles mass seem to have more mass than the lightweight Higgs boson could provide. Since supersymmetry \(and other ideas\) don't help explaining this, physicists thought of a [new theory](https://www.quantamagazine.org/higgs-boson-mass-explained-in-new-theory-20150527) involving axion fields, avions, and relaxions to explain the lightness of the Higgs' mass while accounting for super-heavy gravitational states and possibly even dark matter.
1.2.5.2. Pro: The reason is that particle properties may be hidden in other dimensions \(according to the [Calabi-Yau manifold](https://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/)\).
1.2.5.3. Pro: The Standard Model assumes there's no [flavor anomaly](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/flavour+anomaly) between leptons, and sometimes [ignores](https://books.google.com/books?id=FIPsCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=%22flavor+anomaly%22+standard+model&source=bl&ots=D2M4Xd2lNB&sig=ACfU3U3InxmKMrKZKUcPAxSnwOzawNaTFA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjao661uf7kAhV3FTQIHeCVCRAQ6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22flavor%20anomaly%22%20standard%20model&f=false) it to make calculations happen.
1.2.5.3.1. Pro: Recently, scientists looking at [lepton universality](https://home.cern/news/news/accelerators/how-universal-lepton-universality) \(which is the assumption the Standard Model uses to say there's no flavor anomalies\), get [experiments](https://youtu.be/edvdzh9Pggg?t=3131) showing that it may not be true. So the Standard Model may need to be reworked to include this if it does exist \(when more recent experiments appear to prove it\).
1.3. Con: The Standard Model's insights has lead to many successful experiments with findings that confirm it.
1.3.1. Pro: Since the [early 1970s](https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model), the Standard Model has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena.
1.3.1.1. Pro: The Standard Model uses [complex equations](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/14/the-standard-model-a-beautiful-but-flawed-theory/) expressing everything in a mathematical way. These equations allow theorists to make very precise predictions.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: [Nearly every quantity](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/14/the-standard-model-a-beautiful-but-flawed-theory/) that has been measured in particle physics laboratories over the past five decades falls right on the predicted value, within experimental error margins.
1.3.1.2. Pro: There have been experimental verifications of the [strong force](http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html), as predicted by the Standard Model.
1.3.1.2.1. Pro: [Gluons](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/expar.html) - the exchange particle for the strong force - were [observed](https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4232) experimentally in 1979.
1.3.1.2.2. Pro: The strong force interaction of [quarks](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/qevid.html)has been observed experimentally.
1.3.1.3. Pro: The [perfectly spherical](https://phys.org/news/2018-10-standard-particle-physics-excludes-alternative.html) nature of the electron gives support to the Standard Model, and excludes any other alternative models which predict undetected heavy particles.
1.3.1.4. Con: The Higgs boson detected by CERN was [significantly lighter](https://home.cern/news/news/physics/incredible-lightness-higgs) than the Higgs that was predicted by the Standard Model. So the Standard Model may still be missing the Higgs component, making it still possibly incomplete.
1.3.1.4.1. Pro: Theories beyond the Standard Model are needed in order to explain the existence of [heavy Higgs](https://www.livescience.com/65639-giant-higgs-fate-of-universe.html) bosons, whether it be additional Higgs fields or the ability of Higgs bosons to combine together.
1.3.2. Pro: Many new findings from CERN align with the Standard Model.
1.3.2.1. Pro: LHC confirmed the existence of Higgs bosons in [2012](https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson).
1.3.2.1.1. Con: There are some [issues](https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson) that makes the Higgs boson not quite fit the Standard Model yet.
1.3.2.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.4.
1.3.2.1.1.2. Pro: The LHC experiment is not confident whether or not it has [accounted](https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-physics-still-hiding-in-the-higgs-boson-20190304/) for all possible Higgs interactions. Without this knowledge, it is not possible to rule out other non-Standard Model explanations for the Higgs.
1.3.2.1.2. Pro: The Higgs boson detected by the LHC in 2012 was confirmed as exhibiting a number of properties [predicted](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184953-lhc-confirms-weve-definitely-discovered-the-higgs-boson-and-sadly-it-behaves-exactly-as-the-standard-model-predicts) by the Standard Model.
1.3.2.1.2.1. Pro: The [Higgs boson](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184953-lhc-confirms-weve-definitely-discovered-the-higgs-boson-and-sadly-it-behaves-exactly-as-the-standard-model-predicts) sits in the energy range of 125GeV, has no spin, and it can decay into a number of lighter particles. The Standard Model's predictions are consistent with such properties.
1.3.2.2. Con: The LHC has been modeling [antimatter](https://newatlas.com/cern-antimatter-spectrum-measured-first-time/47031/) recently, as it exists, yet it's not on the Standard Model.
1.3.2.3. Pro: The Super Proton Synchotron at CERN experimentally verified the existence of the [W and Z bosons](https://home.cern/science/physics/z-boson) - two particles predicted by the Standard Model.
1.3.3. Con: Neutrino mass is one area where the [assumptions](http://t2k-experiment.org/neutrinos/beyond-the-standard-model/) \(a.k.a. neutrinos have no mass\) of the Standard Model conflict with [recent findings](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino4.html) \(i.e. that neutrinos do have mass\).
1.3.3.1. Pro: Experiments have found that neutrinos travel [slower](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino4.html) than the speed of light, which implies that they must have mass.
1.3.3.2. Pro: Neutrinos having mass creates serious problems for the Standard Model, so it needs to be updated to account for this discovery.
1.3.3.2.1. Pro: If the neutrino were found to have a mass, this would mean many interactions described by the Standard Model would be violating [conservation](https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-law) of energy and momentum.
1.3.3.2.1.1. Pro: Conservation of energy and momentum are two of the most basic and [fundamental laws](https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/conservation-of-energy/) of physics. If the Standard Model - which was built on adherence to these laws - was found to be violating them, it would cast significant doubt on the validity of the model as a whole.
1.3.3.2.2. Pro: Particles with mass are able to change their ['handedness'](https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/06/19/helicity-chirality-mass-and-the-higgs/), however only left-handed neutrinos have ever been [detected](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-hidden-neutrino).
1.3.3.3. Pro: Attempts to incorporate a neutrino with mass into the Standard Model have, so far, been insufficient.
1.3.3.3.1. Pro: The Dirac neutrino hypothesis suggests that neutrinos have exceptionally tiny masses and interaction energies in comparison to other fundamental particles. Many physicists, however, are [hesitant](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino5.html) to believe that such a small number could be a fundamental constant of nature.
1.3.3.3.1.1. Pro: In order to explain experimental results, the interaction energy of the neutrino with the Higgs boson would have to be 12 orders of magnitude smaller than the [interaction](https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/higgs-boson-reveals-its-affinity-top-quark) of the top quark and the Higgs.
1.3.3.4. Pro: Due to [neutrinos having mass](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-a-neutrino/), right-handed neutrinos [must exist](https://t2k-experiment.org/neutrinos/in-the-standard-model/).
1.3.3.4.1. Pro: With the [Majorana neutrino](http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino5.html) idea, left- and right-handed particles are the same particle, but right-handed neutrinos do exist, because the left-handed neutrinos interact with the Higgs field and turn into right-handed ones.
1.3.3.4.1.1. Pro: With Majorana neutrinos, there may be other mechanisms that give particles weight outside of the Higgs one. The Standard Model does not account it.
1.3.3.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.5.1.
1.4. Con: The Standard Model accounts for other physics concepts without conflicting with them.
1.4.1. Pro: There are a number of [conservation laws](https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_\(OpenStax\)/Map%3A_University_Physics_III_-_Optics_and_Modern_Physics_\(OpenStax\)/11%3A_Particle_Physics_and_Cosmology/11.2%3A_Particle_Conservation_Laws) which are obeyed in all observed particle physics interactions. These conservation laws form part of the Standard Model.
1.4.1.1. Con: -> See 1.3.3.2.1.
1.4.2. Pro: The Standard Model doesn't contradict the [speed of light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) constant.
1.5. Con: It's complete, but should highlight its information more visually for people to realize it.
1.5.1. Pro: If the Standard Model place particle components \(i.e. those that are deemed intuitive\) out separately for people to see, it would lead to better understanding of what it entails.
1.5.1.1. Pro: Particles are part of fields, so showing which field each particle is a part of would help.
1.5.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.
1.5.1.3. Pro: There may be multiple types of the same particle \(like [multiple Higgs bosons](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.0559.pdf)\), so separating them out by this subcategory would reveal particles that seem to be missing.
1.5.1.4. Pro: Particle fields may have virtual particles \([1](https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/string-theory-virtual-particles/), [2](https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/unstable.html)\), so adding that in would help with conceptualizing the depths of a particle's components.
1.5.1.4.1. Pro: Virtual particles are [involved](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/) in numerous prominent decays. It is necessary, therefore, that such an important particle be represented in the Standard Model.
1.5.2. Pro: This will prevent people from assuming information's missing when it's really not.
1.5.3. Con: Physicists and those who study it understand the Standard Model in its entirety, it is only the general public and popular science versions which do not go into significant levels of depth for it to appear complete. Scientific theories should not change to pander to the general public.
1.5.4. Pro: The Standard Model does not effectively convey the [relationship](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2013/real-talk-everything-is-made-of-fields) between particles and fields.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and science communicator, [argues](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2013/real-talk-everything-is-made-of-fields) that the way in which physicists talk about particle physics distorts the public's understanding of the Standard Model, and can lead them to believe that particles and fields are different things.
1.5.4.2. Pro: Many physical concepts are more accurately explained using fields, however it is often the particle-like behaviour of interactions which is emphasised.
1.5.4.2.1. Pro: It is easier to understand the [Higgs boson](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2013/real-talk-everything-is-made-of-fields) through the concept of fields. Rather than the Higgs being a particle which 'sticks' to other particles in order to give them mass, it can be considered as a field which passes vibrational energy to other fields, which results in massive particles appearing there.
1.5.4.2.2. Pro: Rather than imagining the [decay](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/july-2013/real-talk-everything-is-made-of-fields) of, for example, neutrons into protons, electrons, and neutrinos as the neutron breaking up into its constituent pieces, it is more accurate to imagine the neutron field as vibrating and transferring some of this vibrational energy to other fields, which then appear as particles.
1.5.5. Pro: Many [composite particles](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/composite+particle) consist of particles themselves \(like [mesons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson)\). Adding these visuals into their own category would help out greatly.
1.5.5.1. Pro: Since particles [annihilate](https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem)/[combine](https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/string-theory-virtual-particles/) and [decay](https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/atlas-sees-higgs-boson-decay-fermions), components involved in the process \(particles, forces, rays, etc.\) would help in understanding particle properties better, or even lead to particles we don't know about yet.
1.5.5.1.1. Pro: There are different [categories](https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/unstable.html) of particles, so understanding particle combinations would visualize these categories better.
1.5.5.2. Con: Particles such as mesons can have a [large number](http://pdg.lbl.gov/2017/tables/rpp2017-sum-mesons.pdf) of possible decays, and so representing all their decay modes and products in the general Standard Model table is unfeasible.
1.5.6. Pro: Showing [quasiparticles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbsnY--LFh0) would help to discern them from actual particles, or even help us figure out new ones from them.
1.6. Pro: The Standard Model rests on many assumptions \(see [pg 10](http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2014_2015/mass_terms_and_the_standard_model.pdf)\) to make it work \(regardless of whether or not they actually do\), and some don't hold up.
1.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.
1.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.3.
1.6.3. Pro: In the end, it's a [theory](https://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200), not fact \(because [we don't know it's true with certainty](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory)\); so that makes it inherently insufficient for our understanding.
1.6.3.1. Con: By this logic, any theory which is created to replace the Standard Model will also be seen as incomplete, as it too will only be a theory.
1.6.3.1.1. Pro: No scientific theory can ever be proven with [100% accuracy](https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-we-will-never-know-everything-about-our-universe-c993da80ae4a), and scientists are constantly having to revise the way they think about the world as long-standing theories are disproven.
1.6.3.1.1.1. Pro: Even the most well-regarded physicists believed in Newton's description of gravity and motion for 200 years. This theory was disproved by [Einstein](https://theconversation.com/from-newton-to-einstein-the-origins-of-general-relativity-50013) in his theories of special and general relativity.
1.6.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: Despite extensive evidence in support Einstein's Theory of General Relativity - such as gravitational waves - scientists are unwilling to accept it as definitely true, and are constantly finding ways to [challenge it](https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/).
1.6.3.1.2. Con: Theories do get tested, so like the Higgs boson, when they're confirmed, they become fact.
1.6.3.2. Con: [Scientific theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) are as close to fact as we can get for explanations.
1.6.3.2.1. Pro: A theory has been tested and is accurate, otherwise it would be a [hypothesis](https://medium.com/byspells-of-worldken/when-do-scientific-theories-become-laws-d2195d25c58f). Since a theory is an explanation, they cannot become a scientific law, which are observations.
1.6.3.2.2. Pro: The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are proven facts.
1.6.4. Pro: The Standard Model's based on [fundamental](https://www.particleadventure.org/fundamental.html) particles. However, this doesn't work for the Higgs boson, as it [decays](https://www.particleadventure.org/the-higgs-boson-decays-into-other-particles.html) into smaller particles. It's likely not a fundamental particle, which the Standard Model says it is, but possibly an unstable composite particle instead.
1.6.4.1. Con: The only [truly stable](https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/why-do-particles-decay/most-particles-decay-yet-some-dont/) particles in the Standard Model which do not decay into any other particles are the electron, the electron neutrino, and the photon. All other particles on the Standard Model are able to decay, yet are still considered fundamental particles.
1.6.4.1.1. Pro: Both the muon and tau leptons are heavier than the electron, and so are able to [decay](http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html) into the electron without violating any mass conservation laws.
1.6.4.1.2. Pro: [Quarks](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/qrkdec.html), despite being fundamental particles, are capable of decaying to other quarks in numerous scenarios.
1.7. Pro: There are other models that are more encompassing.
1.7.1. Pro: If there's a model that could unify scales together \(like forces and fields to atoms to subatomic particles to strings and branes\), it would connect concepts together to make physics more understandable.
1.7.1.1. Pro: Many scientists - including Einstein and Hawking - attempted to find a [Theory of Everything](https://www.space.com/theory-of-everything-definition.html) - a framework for explaining all physical phenomena in the universe.
1.7.2. Con: [Supersymmetry failed](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/), so this lowers the need to rewrite the Standard Model.
1.7.2.1. Con: If [superstring theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory) is accepted, linked, or somehow added to the Standard Model, then supersymmetry may have a chance of being credible enough to rewrite the Standard Model.
1.7.2.2. Pro: Supersymmetry requires the existence of [partner particles](https://home.cern/science/physics/supersymmetry) for all the fundamental particles in order to explain why they have mass. Numerous experiments by CERN have shown that these particles [do not exist](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/).
1.7.2.2.1. Con: Partner particles could exist in other dimensions outside of our own, which is why we don't see them. Once we get to that level of experimentation, we may be able to find it there and then.
1.7.2.3. Con: We should still try to rewrite the Standard Model to resolve the [flaws](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/12/why-supersymmetry-may-be-the-greatest-failed-prediction) it has in it, even if supersymmetry could not do so.
1.7.2.4. Pro: In supersymmetry, the ['top squark'](http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/searching-signs-stop) particle is needed in order to explain the mass of the Higgs boson, however experiments at CERN's ATLAS facility have found no evidence of such a particle.
1.7.2.4.1. Con: Just because they haven't found it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We barely found the Higgs boson, so time's definitely needed to help find its counterpart.
1.7.2.5. Pro: [Attempts](https://phys.org/news/2017-04-supersymmetry-standard-results-atlas.html) to find dark matter particles, as predicted by supersymmetry, failed to find any evidence. This means that the supersymmetry explanation of dark matter is insufficient.
1.7.3. Pro: [Supersymmetry](https://home.cern/science/physics/supersymmetry) has [twice](https://imgur.com/jcv0GxK) the number of particles as the Standard Model.
1.7.3.1. Con: -> See 1.7.2.
1.7.3.2. Pro: Supersymmetry would provide a workable [link](https://home.cern/science/physics/supersymmetry) between the two classes of particles in physics - [bosons and fermions](https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2011/aug/13/1) - the relationship between which is left unexplained by the current Standard Model.
1.7.3.3. Pro: By finding the supersymmetric particle to the top quark, supersymmetry would be able to explain [dark matter](https://kaw.wallenberg.org/en/research/can-supersymmetry-explain-dark-matter). The Standard Model's inability to explain dark matter is one of its biggest flaws.
1.8. Con: The name stands out, which helps keep it alive and physics progressing, so it shouldn't change.
1.8.1. Pro: Because of the solidity of the word 'standard' in the name, people feel it's a foundation that they could rely on \(as a go-to reference/basis\) to work from.
1.8.2. Pro: It's simple, which makes it attractive to be teachable and widely accepted/known to explain and learn.
1.8.2.1. Pro: The word 'model' shows it's boiled down to the simplest form/representation to explain phenomena. So it's very workable in that we can easily compare it to/explain reality to understand it better.
1.8.3. Pro: The name adequately summarizes the solidity of what we know so far into something understandable.
1.8.4. Pro: The name has been around for a while. So since it kind of stuck \(even [revered](https://beyondstringtheory.wordpress.com/the-standard-model/)\), we should continue to work with a name that works.
1.8.5. Con: Many theories in physics have names which stand out, and it would be possible to have whichever theory replaces the Standard Model have an equally appealing name, such as [Core Theory](https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/nobel-laureate-foresees-mind-expanding-future-physics), for example.