Higgs particle is the greatest and meanest fraud in the history of science

The so-called "Higgs particle" is nothing but a conceptual confusion of "object" and process. This kind of particle is actually falsified by the fact that time is relative (with speed in space). The asserted empirical confirmation of this particle (which just was awarded the Nobel Prize) is thus totally impossible. I can thus safely assure you that particle physicists will either withdraw or simply forget this discovery asap.

No, this "discovery" is actually the greatest and meanest fraud in the history of science. It is simply cheating. The cheat is also actually fairly easy to understand. You just have to be a little bit skeptical about the discovery and ask particle physicists the question: is Higgs particle a particle or a process? (It can't be both at the same time, since particles are the constituents of process, not the process itself). Particle physicists will answer that it is both at the same time (which it thus can't be).

This is, as far as I know, the first time that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to an orthogonal confusion, traditionally called a paranoia. It is very similar to the rise of Nazism in Germany. Hail Higgs particle! (independently of whether it is a particle or a process).

On clades and (the) Higgs boson - chasing paradoxes

The two facts that (1) logic is rational and has two entrances: the two axioms that objects respectively classes are real, and (2) that reality is irrational means that rationality meets reality as an orthogonality. Such meeting point means that reality is a passage (i.e., a process) in a rational sense - the passage between the two entrances to rationality. Reality thus can't be caught by rationality, because it actually IS the passage between the two entrances to rationality. This fact is expressed by Russell's paradox - neither of the two entrances to rationality can reach reality. This fact is more simply illustrated by Magritte's pipe - an illustration of a pipe is not, of course, a real pipe (can't be smoked).

The reasoning above explains and illustrates how we can get lost among words, but, more importantly, points at the illusion that resides within words called Russell's paradox. This paradox is actually the orthogonal opposite to object, and is thus just as real as objects are in a rational sense (i.e. not distinguishing the two entrances to rationality: objectivity and subjectivity). It is thus both a paradox and a reality at the same time (although paradoxes are not real per definition) in a generic sense in both of the  rational approaches. It means that rational reasoning may acknowledge this kind of phenomenon independently of which entrance one takes into rationality, although it can't be real (i.e., can't exist). This kind of phenomenon is thus a lure for rationality. It displays all necessary properties of being real in a rational sense, although it isn't real per definition. Its existential problems is further emphasized by that it denies the existence of objects, which it rests on.

Two examples of this kind of phenomenon is the class clade and (the) Higgs boson. Much can thus be said about this kind of phenomenon, but most important is that it is contradictory (i.e., paradoxes). Although it thus is real in a rational sense, it can't be found in reality. If this fact means that paradoxes are real and empirical realities (like objects) are not real, or not, is a matter of words, but the fact that paradoxes are contradictory is a fact. It means that acknowledging such paradoxes leads into contradiction, independently of whether they are considered real. Contradiction comes with the acknowledgement. Ironically, the "acknowledgement" is actually a confession to (rational) belief instead of rationality. Generic agreement between the two entrances to rationality - subjectivity and objectivity - is thus actually an entrance to their contradiction, that is, belief. The passage that rationality tries to catch does in practice lead to belief.

A much simpler explanation of the problem complex described above is that conceptual contradiction, what we normally call contradiction, is contradictory. It may be comprehended as The Truth by some rationalists, but it is actually an elevator to belief. It ought to be a no-no for all rationalists, but in the battle of the formulation privilege, some of them (us) just can't resist the temptation of diving into it, although it is their own end. Fact is that neither clades nor (the) Higgs boson can be found in reality. Both of them are just varieties of Russell's paradox.

 

  

Why (the) Higgs boson will never be found

(The) Higgs boson will, of course, never be found, for the simple reason that kinds do not exist (i.e., are not real), as theoretically shown by Russell's paradox and empirically evidenced by the fact that time is relative to space. This fact (i.e., that kinds do not exist) does, of course, also apply on the class "Higgs boson" (given that it does not consist of a single object - "The True Higgs boson". Physicists' attempt to "prove the existence" of this class (or of any class) is nothing but ridiculous. even if performed in the high-tech context at Cern. It is, none-the-less, nothing but a case of what I would like to call "blinding by belief" - a turning of deduction into induction under influence of a subjective belief that reality must be rational, although both theory and facts contradict this belief. Reality is, on the contrary, obviously, irrational, although following some basic principles that allows us to discuss it rationally. Reality isn't rational, only we are (at least some of us). (The) Higgs boson is thus, of course, just a tool that we (objectivists) use to be able to talk about reality both consistently and rationally. Without it, not only we (objectivists), but all of us are totally lost. The only alternative is the subjective (i.e., believing) contradiction (see Cladistics) that presently lead some physicists into a vain chase for (the) Higgs boson.

When will subjectivists stop chasing their own classification (i.e., "what really is")? I can give them the answer: reality is, and it is irrational. That's why it can't stop. We can only discuss it, not find out what it "really is". (If we could prove it to be something else than what it is, then we could also prove this something to be something else, and so on in an endless transformation between representations of representations.)

These physicists are like donkeys chasing the carrot in front of their eyes (just like cladists). The subject for their chase is their own assumption, and their own assumption is contradictory as a conclusion. They are simply contradictory from the beginning to the end.