Models and the limits of knowledge
The Standard Model Is Brilliant — and Incomplete
Our most precisely tested theory advertises its own unfinished edges.
Established ScienceWhat we actually know
The Standard Model predicts the behaviour of known particles to a staggering number of decimal places; the electron's magnetic moment agrees with experiment to better than one part in a trillion. It also does not include gravity, does not explain dark matter or dark energy, does not account for neutrino masses in its original form, and does not explain why the universe contains far more matter than antimatter. These are not fringe complaints. CERN lists them as the open problems.
Where the extrapolation begins
A theory that is both the most accurate thing humans have ever built and visibly missing most of the universe's mass-energy budget is a strong hint that we are in a Newtonian moment — right inside our borders, and about to discover the borders.
What the novel invents
By 2264 the borders have moved, but the pattern has not: every extension CROWN's physicists write down still fails to close.
Questions to think about
- — Is a theory more trustworthy when it can state clearly what it does not cover?
- — Which missing piece would you attack first: gravity, dark matter, or matter-antimatter asymmetry?
Where to read next
- — CERN — the Standard Model and what it does not explain
- — Particle Data Group reviews
Continue in the archive