The magazine Scientific American seems to think this may be the case. You may also find my two blogs relating to this topic are interesting as well
These two blogs are entitled “The questionable nature of the Standard model of physics” and “Is the scientific method living up to it’s own expectations?“.
The problem for the standard model of physics is that although it correctly describes the attributes of sub-atomic particles, it does not show how these remarkable particles have such attributes. This is why the question of the existence of super-symmetry is so important to physicist allying themselves to the Standard model of physics, whereas the alternative models (such as those of Bohm and Cahill) do not. The same position applies to my Awareness model where I describe reality as being emergent of a continuum of blobs of information and knowledge that is never ending. Furthermore, these blobs are self generating without any external force (energy) needed for them to continue doing so. The Bohm Implicit order (holographic) model works along similar lines as does the Cahill Process Physics model which I feel can be seen to be all somewhat parallel to each other. I am particularly interested in seeing the Bohm/Cahill type models come forward as credible alternative models to the Standard model because it would tend to substantiate my own views regarding the existence of a common awareness to all phenomena (not consciousness). I mean by this it is likely to have some degree of validity. Because these alternative models seem to be reliant on some type of memory (albeit short lived) to explain the perpetual expansionary mature of their models I think this is where the Awareness model may have a helpful feature to contribute to the debate because it has inherent memory embodied within it at every stage.
I have extracted certain phrases from the Scientific American magazine dated May 2014 so that you may share why I feel some of my words will make better sense. The sections I have copied for this blog are directly related to many of the comments I have just made. They relate to the huge urgency for physicists to finally determine the phenomena of super-symmetry, and the subsequent need for some type of alternative model to show how it is that physics can be so weird at times. More importantly of all, entrepreneurial physicists are already “rethinking of basic phenomena that underlies the fabric of the universe”. It seems to me such physicist already feel they have been defending a lost cause. The front cover of the Scientific American magazine is attached as well.