We don't; we merely acknowledge the complication that the characters display to us.
That reminds me of a quote I rather like but can't place. :
"Okam's razor is a fine thing, but the universe is a Rube-Goldberg machine."
I may have mangled that slightly.
Here's an article by a NASA physicist complaining that the Standard Cosmological Model is starting to look more and more like a Rube Goldberg machine.
...
The author has M.Sc. in plasma physics (not particle physics) and has been working as a software engineer and analyst for NASA for the past 24 years. Means no research in any of the fields he's pontificating about. And that's the way the article reads:
So the "Standard! Model! of! Cosmology!" and the Standard model of particle physics don't go well together. Wellwellwell - what on Earth are we going to do now? Probably time to go look for another job, now the sham has been exposed ...
... NOT.
The author fails to point out the difference between the
Lambda-CDM model, one specific parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model that is sometimes called "The Standard Model of Cosmology" on the one hand, and the Standard Model of Particle Physics on the other.
The
Standard Model of Particle Physics deals
with three of the four fundamental interactions - Electromagnetic and weak nuclear interaction (unified into "electroweak" interaction) and strong nuclear interaction. Those are Quantum Field theories - and the SM is a huge synthesis of the better part of theoretical physics work of the 20th Century. Einsteins' General Theory of Relativity describes the remaining interaction - gravitation. It is a classical (i.e. non-quantized) field theory. Attempts at unifying the four include the various string theories, and quantum loop gravitation - just mentioning those so you don't confuse the cutting-edge "Last Mysteries of Physics"-stuff with:
The "Standard Model of Cosmology" is a name for a specific parametrization for a specific approximation derived from Einstein's Field equations that roughly does for Cosmology what the SM of particle physics does for ... pretty much all the rest of physics. AFAIK, it doesn't describe 'much' except for the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, the expansion of the Universe, large-scale distribution of Galaxies and the abundance of Hydrogen.
(When I say 'not much', I mean 'by comparison to the reach of the standard model of particle physics. The Lambda-CDM is certainly a huge achievement - in one subfield of physics called Cosmology)The two have nothing to do with each other at all - they describe completely different phenomena in largely unrelated subfields of physics. Furthermore, the one is for quantum field theories, the other for a classical one; we've know since the early 20th century that the twain don't go well together - hence the Brouhaha about a Theory of Everything. The SM of Cosmology is not that TOE, and doesn't aim to be.
Even if the SM of Cosmology were to be in trouble - the effect on the rest of physics would be ... zero. Nil. zip. Nada.
Nix kaput.
Not pointing out the difference between the two to a lay-audience while happily jumping between them from one sentence to the next is tantamount to deliberate misdirection.
Not cool. at. all.
While adherence to the "Universal code of ethics for scientists" is entirely voluntary, there is a reason why the code was proposed. One of them is the 7th tenet:
"Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately."I recommend not trusting this guy to give you the correct time of the day.

EDIT: Cynicism & snark. Bad form pissing on the colleagues in an entire branch of physics while aiming at a NASA blogger. Jeeze ... when did I become so cranky?