[btilly]

Yes. The Standard Model has completely explained all experiments involving them for around 50 years now.

In fact the outstanding success of the Standard Model has posed its own problems - the lack of deviations from it makes it hard for experiments to point in a useful direction for better theories to be developed along.

[jcranmer]

That's not quite accurate. There are a few things that the Standard Model doesn't exactly account for--neutrino oscillation being the most famous. The trouble is that these issues aren't really big enough to suggest new physics, and the experiments aren't good enough to really suggest how much patching actually needs to be done.

[jraines]

Also the unexpectedly large mass of the Higgs, which suggested (to string theorists), super symmetry. Which unfortunately turned out to not exist unless it’s at some configuration that’s quite different from what was suggested

[pfdietz]

I thought the Higgs had an unexpectedly small mass.

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/incredible-lightness-hig...

[btilly]

Yes, there are some deviations. But minor adjustments to the Standard Model handles those. And don't really point in the direction of a better theory.

More relevantly to the previous question, I'm not aware of any of those which affect interactions with the strong or weak nuclear forces.

[jcranmer]

Neutrinos predominantly work via the weak interaction, don't they?

[elashri]

> the lack of deviations from it makes it hard for experiments to point in a useful direction for better theories to be developed along.

We have anomalies (deviations from standard model) in many measurements done by several experiments. This is a good summary [1] from them up until now (sorry for the pay-walled)

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-024-00703-6