Can the Standard Model be sustained?

Presently what is dubbed the 'Standard Model', SM, is considered by most to be the best possible explanation of what we can comprehend as the universe. It is to illustrate how the features operate. It has been referred to as a basis for decades.

Recent studies imply there may be modification due or a radical change. This in part is the result of improved sensitivity of instruments and measuring by which data is collected and evaluated. These have come up with anomalies that don't match well with the Standard Model.

One field of study honing in on the details of the SM is BAO, Baryon Acoustic Oscilliation. This study has been used for evaluating the conditions and developments of the early universe as well as the present course. This can even be referred and found in the White Paper, "Snowmass", arxiv.org: 2210.05057 [over 220 pages, 2300+ refs].

The BAO studies point to a possible, reading for an anomaly; via study of redshift drift

for source #1,  "The Alcock-Paczynski test based on these BAO measurements is particularly noteworthy because it does not depend on any possible source evolution, and is strictly based on the geometry of the Universe through the changing ratio of angular to spatial/redshift size of spherically symmetric  distributions with distance. With a ~4 per cent accuracy now available for the positioning of the BAO peak, the latest measurements appear to rule out the standard model at better than ~2.6 sigma. This itself is rather important," is evaluated in 2016.

"In this paper, we do not combine the AP data with the CMB or Supernova data, because this step would dilute the information concerning the anomaly reflected in our results."

For current details on BAO, consult arxiv. org: 1904.03400.

source#2. White Paper, "Snowmass", arxiv.org: 2210.05057 p. 114 and ref.

Reading:

#1. Melia, MNRAS 463, Aug. 3, 2016, & Melia & Lopez-Corredoria, 2018. arxiv.org: 1503.05052

#2. Aghanim, arxiv.org: 1807.06209