Claims

Search the graph by meaning. Each result carries its current verdict; open one to see its decomposition, provenance, and the reasoning behind the assessment.

5 results

The question of whether the Standard Model is extended by new particles, interactions, or modifications at any energy scale — including the 'desert' hypothesis that no new physics appears up to the Planck scale. Claims asserting, denying, or constraining new physics beyond the Standard Model belong here, regardless of stance.

No new physics modifies the Standard Model below the Higgs potential instability scale.

UnknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Particle physics Electroweak vacuum stabilityimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

Nonzero neutrino masses require physics beyond the Standard Model

UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Neutrino masses Particle physicsimportance · minorImportance 0.25, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

The Standard Model remains valid with no new physics up to the Planck scale

UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Planck scale Particle physicsimportance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

Torsion-balance experiments bound extra-dimensional corrections to Newton's law to sub-millimeter scales

UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Gravity crossover scale and inverse-square-law tests Brane-world modelsimportance · settledImportance 0.12, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

Collider experiments have found no confirmed particle physics beyond the Standard Model up to the TeV scale

UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Particle physicsimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

Contribute

If a claim here is wrong, or missing evidence, open it: every claim page carries its own entry for challenges, evidence, and corrections. If the graph is missing a claim or a question entirely, propose it below. A proposal is reviewed on its wording; accepted proposals are matched against the graph before they enter it.