No. There have to be better possible models.The Standard Model, developed on the basis of set theory in the 1970's is flawed. The premise is that the model correlates the known basic particles into sets and correlates "Three of the basic four forces of Nature." Since the additional "Force" is not considered, the Model admits a limitation from the start. Additionally, the term "Force" is used here to mean an observed phenomenon There is no evidence that the term, "Force" is used as in the "Law of Forces: 'Every force is opposed by an equal and opposite force.'"
The three phenomena of nature that are covered by the model, at least in the theory of the model, are Electrostatics, and "Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces." The latter two named interactions are necessitated by the assumption that atomic nuclei are composed of neutrons and protons held together by these postulated forces. This is most likely an unfounded assumption. Instead of insisting that neutrons exist as such in nuclei, we may take the alternative viewpoint that nuclei fall into a continuum of nature with molecules and assume that nuclei are held together by interaction of electrons with other particles as is thought to be the case for molecules. From this view, the neutron, per se, would exist only in a potential form in nuclei held together by electrons moving in "orbits" within the particular group of protons in question. In this view the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces become fictions. an unnecessary complication. As the Standard Model does not address gravitation, the idea that nuclei could .arise as result of a combination of Electrostatics and Gravitation is not considered.
Another basic premise of the Standard Model appears to be that any particle observed as the result of atom-smashing, high-energy techniques is a "basic Particle." Actually, any particle observed under high-energy conditions, is just that, "A particle observable as the result of high energy conditions." There is no reason to think they necessarily exist otherwise, They are probably best considered as short-lived (in our frame of reference) alternate states of matter.
In summary, it is this writer's opinion that the Standard Model is somewhat akin to a geocentric model of the cosmos. It is based on unnecessary assumptions that lead to an unnecessarily complicated set of concepts which lead to assumption of explanations having no relationship to objective fact.
Unfortunately, the writer is also skeptical of the 10-Dimension-Space-Time Theories which, to him, are based on the fact that, if one wishes to do so, one can say that reality is composed of Three Dimensions of Space and One of Time. One can then locate a point in this model from three other points, using 10 "descriptors," which we may call dimensions. By tracing the path of this point through "Space-time" one can see that the path will trace a tangled "Thread. " Taking the thread as having reality in "Space-time," one can consider that all of existence is made up of ten-dimensional threads. To this writer, this is as much nonsense as is much of the Standard Model. This writer considers time as a human construct referencing sequential motion to some repetitive observable motion. "Space time" may be a useful model, but it is not an explanation of reality, and a trace of the motion of a point in that model does not have a continuing existence of its own. To make things more complicated, "Space-time modelling is based on Einsteinian Relativity, more specifically, Einstein's General Relativity. which has pertinence, if, and only, if it's basis in "Special Relativity" applies. Special Relativity, however, when carefully analyzed applies only when communication is a necessary component of an interaction. Hence, for much of what General Relativity is supposed to apply to, it does not. *
There may be a usable model come out of considering that we exist in some sort of a dot matrix, possibly of neutrinos in a ground state, in which there is coordinated motion of particles. In this kind of model electrostatics would be due to interaction of vortex entities within this matrix and gravitation would be due to more generalized attempts of the matrix returning to a totally ordered state.
The Standard Model is not the best explanation for reality, as yet there seem to be no really good explanations that have been developed. Scientists should not be blinded to any possibilities be the supposed brilliance of their predecessors.
*Note: A web site, www,Einsteinhoax.com does a rather good job of noting problems in General Relativity, from a different view than that expressed above. They seem to accept "Special Relativity" but not the extension. This web site has no connection to the writer so it is not self-promotion to reference it here.