Does the Higgs-boson exist?

What do scientists mean when they say that something exists? Every time I
give a public lecture, someone will come and inform me that black holes
don’t exist, or quarks don’t exist, or time doesn’t exist. Last time
someone asked me “Do you really believe that gravitational waves exist?”

So, do I believe that gravitational waves exist? Let me ask you in

return: Why do you care what I believe? What does it matter for anything?

Look, I am a scientist. Scientists don’t deal with beliefs. They deal

with data and hypotheses. Science is about knowledge and facts, not about
beliefs.

And what I know is that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is a

mathematical framework from which we can derive predictions that are in
excellent agreement with observation. We have given names to the
mathematical structures in this theory. One of them is called
gravitational waves, another one is called black holes. These are the
mathematical structures from which we can calculate the observational
consequences that have now been measured by the LIGO and VIRGO
gravitational wave interferometers.

When we say that these experiments measured “gravitational waves emitted

in a black hole merger”, we really mean that specific equations led to
correct predictions.

It is a similar story for the Higgs-boson and for quarks. The Higgs-boson
and quarks are names that we have given to mathematical structures. In
this case the structures are part of what is called the standard model of
particle physics. We use this mathematics to make predictions. The
predictions agree with measurements. That is what we mean when we say
“quarks exist”: We mean that the predictions obtained with the hypothesis
agrees with observations. So when physicists say that space-time is real
or the Higgs-boson is real, they mean that a certain mathematical
structure correctly describes observations.

Same story for time. In General Relativity, time is a coordinate, much

like space. It is part of the mathematical framework. We use it to make
predictions. The predictions agree with observations. And that’s that.

Now, you may complain that this is not what you mean by “existence”. You
may insist that you want to know whether it is “real” or “true”. I do not
know what it means for something to be “real” or “true.” You will have to
consult a philosopher on that. They will offer you a variety of options,
that you may or may not find plausible.

A lot of scientists, for example, subscribe knowingly or unknowingly to a

philosophy called “realism” which means that they believe a successful
theory is not merely a tool to obtain predictions, but that its elements
have an additional property that you can call “true” or “real”. I am
loosely speaking here, because there several variants of realism. But
they have in common that the elements of the theory are more than just
tools.

And this is all well and fine, but realism is a philosophy. It’s a belief
system, and science does not tell you whether it is correct.

So here is the thing. If you want to claim that the Higgs-boson does not
exist, you have to demonstrate that the theory which contains the
mathematical structure called “Higgs-boson” does not fit the data.
Whether or not Higgs-bosons ever arrive in a detector is totally
irrelevant.