Well, you're probably right in not caring ..
What has been done, is that the standard model being used, explains the functions of the known sub atomic elements. Each function being put up, is
much like a puzzle where you already know the working macro figure, as well as the macro mass, and charge. Now, it's not a biggie that someone
looking at the picture of a puzzle and says there is a piece missing. And it is very understandable, that they'll find that piece ... it's like
taking an apple and smashing it against the wall, and guessing that there is a piece X there. It's a controversial method, and although workable ...
unlikely to be accurate. And even if a "piece" has been found, it does not guarantee it to be a particle, only that it is some sort of a clumb, with
an electromagnetic charge of some number.
And that the higgs explains "mass" is really just nonsense. Mass has no meaning without gravity, it's an accumulative force ... that some want to
call a graviton.
Since theory of relativity more or less states, that mass is an energetic state ... sometimes called "potential energy". That it's a particle that
pops in and out of existance, is pretty hard to believe ...
I think we can pretty much ignore it, and wait for the next "wave" of genius minds to come up with a more usable theory. Things are supposed to get
"simpler", not more "complex" on lower levels.
And that is where it all ends, I guess ... many are looking for the "graviton". The "on" that complements the "electron", to make up the known forces
of the universe. However, and this may be the surprise, both the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force ... may be different states of the
And since we are talking subatomic levels ... it's pretty obvious that our measurment tools, are pretty stretched to measure these things. Probably
beyond their functional capability.
edit on 18/7/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)