The Standard Model as a theory
While the Standard Model
provides a very good description of
phenomena observed by experiments, it is still an incomplete theory.
The problem is that the Standard Model cannot explain
why some particles exist as they do. For example, even though
physicists knew the masses of all the quarks except for top quark for many
years, they were simply unable to accurately predict the top quark's mass without
experimental evidence because the Standard Model lacks any explanation
for a possible pattern for particle masses.
Does this mean that the Standard Model is wrong?
No -- but we need to go beyond the Standard Model in the same way that
Einstein's Theory of Relativity extended Newton's laws of mechanics.
Isaac Newton's laws of mechanics are not wrong,
per se, but his theory only works as long as velocity is much smaller than the speed of
light. Einstein expanded
Newtonian physics with his Theory of Relativity,
which allows for the possibility of very high
velocities. We will need to extend the Standard
Model with something totally new in order to thoroughly explain
mass, gravity and other phenomena.
I wonder what we'll decide to call the new theory that replaces
the Standard Model!
The Super-Standard Model?
The New Revised Standard Model?
The Very Standard Model?