Edit: apparently an older term for "superconductors"
For antigravity just look up M.Taijmar's work on the Thirring-Lense effect: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2007082324A1/en?inventor...
To understand gravity you don't need to build super-expensive devices to find the particle-interpretation of this wave force. The Higgs makes no sense outside the standard model. Studying the wave-interpretation as attracting force is easier and also alignable with general relativity. Explaining an wide-reaching attractive force as particle really makes no sense at all (outside QM), as Heisenberg also complained.
Not as originally formulated (because back then neutrinos were thought to be massless) but it's straightforward to extend that original version to include neutrino masses, by giving leptons their own equivalent to the quark sector's CKM matrix [1], the PMNS matrix [2]. In modern parlance, "Standard Model" means this updated version.
Granted, if you do just that, you make neutrinos Dirac spinors (just like the quarks) and there is no obvious reason for why they should be so much lighter than the other fermions. Giving them a Majorana mass induced by a much heavier (GUT-scale) equivalent to the Standard Model Higgs would provide a natural explanation for that mass hierarchy through the seesaw mechanism [3], and that would be true Beyond the Standard Model physics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakat...
> All the data. The standard model is the best model we've found to explain all experiments observed in the history of physics.
This isn't the full story. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino mass (which we know exists from neutrino oscillations) or dark matter & dark energy. These are very big open questions!