Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Tha Duckman
The point is, to discover the Higgs Boson would pretty much throw science into one shit ball of a tailspin. I remember reading a book years and years ago which was essentially a guy making simple math difficult, like actually proving that 1+1=2, that sort of thing. Imagine if he DISproved it, what that would do. Or if God actually showed up, these things would change just about everything.
Yeah, particle collisions happen (We think), but no one's around to witness it. It's like that movie, Flatliners. We're in uncharted territory, so who knows what'll happen? Science is rewritten every day.
|
I thought it might be suggesting that observing the Higgs Bosons was the problem, but the paper looks like it's talking about the creating causing the change in the past. The products of atmospheric particle collisions are detected, just not Higgs Bosons if they exsist. That's why it makes more sense to me if it means observe rather than create, but like I said, I don't understand the paper properly.