&gt; I think the answer we want now is a non-mathematical one.<p>I&#x27;m just an interested lay person, but my understanding is the past century of physics is a giant argument for trusting the math, and accepting it as explanation.<p>If someone asks &quot;Why does xyz act this way?&quot; then the best answer for it, once you get to non-intuitive quantum scales is: &quot;because the math says so.&quot; Dirac&#x27;s prediction of the existence of antimatter, the Higgs, and pretty much all quantum mechanical behavior are great examples of this.<p>Nima Arkani-Hamed, a kickass theoretical physicist, has a great lecture series on the philosophy of physics:<p>• <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cornell.edu&#x2F;video&#x2F;nima-arkani-hamed-philosophy-of-fundamental-physics-1" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cornell.edu&#x2F;video&#x2F;nima-arkani-hamed-philosophy-of...</a><p>• <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cornell.edu&#x2F;video&#x2F;nima-arkani-hamed-philosophy-of-fundamental-physics-2" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cornell.edu&#x2F;video&#x2F;nima-arkani-hamed-philosophy-of...</a><p>In an aside, he mentions that he used to explain the Higgs field with analogies such like calling it a kind of &quot;molasses&quot; slowing down particles and giving them mass. He&#x27;s stopped doing that, because the physical analogy is really misleading. The true reason the Higgs as we conceive of it exists is that it addresses mathematical issues in our treatment of bosons that have mass.<p>The math said there was an issue. 50 years ago the math said the Higgs fixed it. It took 50 years and construction of the LHC, but now we&#x27;ve verified the existence of the Higgs.