Race for the Nobel Prize for the God Particle?

Theoretical Footnote: I forgot to make clear in this new understanding of the power of rest motions with respect to some (quasic) dimensions that in a sense, even with the current ideas of supersymmetry's existence a fact or at least a very high standard for a physical model, that we may dispute the idea of two substances in balance- namely the electromagnetic like forces that operate dialectically with the gravity as in the pressures leading to the explosion of stars.

From one view the power of gravity as at least an inertial force, one that can be seen as part of one substance (mass and gravity) as if we are to unify these forces is ubiquitous on all dimensional levels even beyond the string like theories. Certainly the suggested anomaly of the ideas of dark matter and energy show possibilities beyond this equisitely intricate dialectical model of unification.

So, given the wider compass and context of the quasic understanding of dimensionality which here I have presented as creative philosophy, on what grounding do we stand, not simply some massive planet or particle earthbound but all around in many directions. One might even suggest there is but one force, gravity and its varieties, to which something like the materialization of the Higgs mechanism or even the observation of the graviton like particles are merely an artifact of approximations at the bottom of measures- a sort of quantum or Higgs field flux indeed. These ideas like the idea of the infinite improbability of finding a rational point over a length considering the vaster infinity of transcendental numbers, that such particles postulated are merely artifacts of our having an intelligible but incomplete theory in a universe where it endures as if some theories at least as they evolve are complete. This includes the mechanism of imparting this mysteriously defined mass as an artifact.

The idea that on the global scale the handedness or chirality of some virtual particles as a difference in matter and antimater that rarer forms of handedness is the origin of mass, seems to me much like life stuggling to rise from the ashes of spent life as if ultimately and miraculously violate the idea of an energy source (not to imply the reverse of this may be an ultimate source of energy say beyond zero point ideas) even as a principle that suggests the balance is made up between multiverses in the exchanges. In the organic example concerning DNA as the model heart of it all, the molds have a mixed handedness over the plant and animal kingdoms. In the metaphor we may say that the universe we observe moves with expanding space like a fairy ring of mushrooms eating what was the decay of things in entropy until the resources are exhausted or are reached in a dead end of possibilities even without some concept of the second law of thermodynamics. Life of all things seems a new level that is a force that seems to arise despite hardships and apparently even in artificial life taking the newscientist article today for implications that intelligience may have the drive and potential to so evolve. But this idea too can be a vague principle that is an artifact and is much the heart of many a philosophy.

I somewhat agree that, in view of the history and spirit of research and how these undergo revisions much like the meaning of philosophic words do, that it makes little sense to give Nobel prizes for some minor artifact of experimental evidence of a minor particle. This is the same issue in our time, a political one as Lubos of the reference frame blog points out in his analysis of the Higgs and the anticipated awarding of the prize, that the idea much like the invention of the television is not the brain child of just one person but a collective with disciplined history and a little luck. On the other hand there are many breakthroughs that suggest science is made not only by the masses but from the brain of a single person, even those in a specialized priesthood and their declared saints. Some of the saints go unnoticed for years or even forever. Since when has it been the prize is an award for theory and not some experimental fact? I remind those enamored of the string theory and standard theory that Einstein did not get his prize for general relativity rather for his quantum insights- and the mass popularity of Einstein actually gave prestige to the prize in the giving it to him.