• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,075 questions , 2,226 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,757 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Why is the standard model wrong?

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

It is a common lore that the standard model cannot be correct (even when neutrino masses are taken into account). The following arguments are given:

  1. The standard model predicts the wrong vacuum energy (much higher than the observed value, even including the cosmological constant)
  2. The standard model does not explain of dark matter
  3. The standard model contains Landau poles
  4. The standard model does not explain - maybe contradicts - the observed matter/antimatter asymmetry
  5. The standard model - QFT - has infinities
  6. The top mass and the Higgs mass could potentially make the standard model unstable / unrenormalizable / wrong

Which other arguments do exist? It would also be great to have a reference to one or several lists. I will add the answers to this question as they come up.

There are also various arguments that the standard model is not complete; this is obvious, as

7. The standard model does not explain its 25 or so fundamental parameters.
8. The standard model does not contain gravity.

These two points however, do not make the standard model wrong, as they do not contradict it; they just make it incomplete. Indeed, the question is: Why exactly can't the standard model be correct? And: Are the points 1 to 6 valid?

asked Mar 30, 2018 in Open problems by Pluto [ revision history ]
edited Apr 4, 2018

I am not a big fan of SM (mostly because it is overhyped), but your "contras" are not really relevant here.

1) Cosmological constant is not the QFT subject, although some dare think the opposite and apply QFT to the whole Universe.

2) Dark matter is just a vague hypothesis rather than something observable quantitatively in our labs. So QFT is not responsible for not describing our vague ideas.

3) Landau pole is a feature of renormalization procedure and may simply contain errors of calculations (summation of the most divergent terms instead of summation of all terms).

4) Matter/antimatter asymmetry, roughly speaking, is imposed with the "boundary conditions" (experiment) rather than with the differential equations. Thus, there is no contradiction with the experiment.

5) Neutrino masses were never measured directly, but figured out in the frame of some theoretical model. Thus this thing is a model-dependent feature.

6) Gravity is a very weak force acting between very macroscopic bodies. These bodies include already so many other quanta that gravity quanta, if any, cannot override them. Quantization of gravity is thus senseless; it is like quantization of planet orbits. Gravity is not a QFT, that is why its quantization fails miserably.

My personal blame of SM consists of presence of too many fitting parameters and absence of a finite theory. As I mentioned, renormalizations may lead to errors in the final finite results.

The only reason is that we know gravity exists, and it is not accounted for in the standard model.

all your points except for 8 are soft arguments without any strength.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights