If Higg’s particle is real, then what’s the difference between science and belief?

So, today the “fathers of Higg’s particle-ism” unfortunately got the Nobel Price.

It gives rise to the reflexion that if this -ism (ie, sect) is correct, which the Nobel Price appears to legitimate, then there isn’t any difference between continuity and discreteness at all, which, in turn, contradicts the fact that time is relative, as well as quantum mechanics. There thus must be at least one thing that is wrong here, and it is clearly not the fact that time is relative nor quantum mechanics.

One can also conclude that the Nobel Committee thus has awarded two fundamentally contradictory theories: Einstein’s theory that time is relative and Higg’s theory of a kind of particle that is both continuous and discrete at the same time (in difference from the photon which is neither continuous nor discrete), both of which also claim to be empirically proven. If this is true, ie, that both of them actually are empirically proven, then the empirical proof of Higg’s particle does not complete the standard model in physics, as Higg’s-particle-ists claim (assert), but rather falsifies it by providing empirical evidence that reality actually is fundamentally contradictory.

A simpler solution of this apparent empirical contradiction (which according to Higg’s particle-ists may even have the drastic consequence of making reality non-existent) is, however, that Higg’s particle-ism is wrong (ie, that probability can’t equal existence). It means that reality isn’t contradictory, but merely ambiguous (ie, between different subjective approaches), a well-known fact to all of us (except maybe Higg’s particle-ists).

No, Higg’s particle-ism is nothing but an emergency solution to save the appearance for realism (ie, the approach resting on the axiom that classes are real) in trying to escape the fact that it ultimately lands in Russell’s paradox. Unfortunately, this emergency solution has now been awarded the Nobel Price by Higg’s particle-ists. Higg’s particle-ists have set up the scene, searched for Higg’s particle until they finally had to conclude that they have found it, and now reward themselves with the Nobel Price to nail their emergency solution. This does not complete the standard model, as they claim, but rather  attacks empirical science itself. If empirical science is contradictory, as Higg’s particle-ism claims (asserts), then it does actually falsify empirical science itself.

The logical continuation of Higg’s particle-ism is that it splits into two varieties: particle and field Higg’s particle-ism, whereof both claim to be more “true” than the other, and then field Higg’s particle-ism splits into two varieties, field and particle field Higg’s particle-ism, and particle Higg’s particle-ism splits into two varieties: field and particle particle Higg’s particle-ism, and so on…  This is the logical continuation within Russell’s paradox, which the emergency solution “Higg’s particle-ism” actually leads into.

I can understand the need of a Higg’s particle, but I can’t understand how such a need of an impossibility can make any scientist acknowledge existence of an impossibility. If we can’t distinguish reality from dream, then what’s the difference between science and belief?

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/