In December 2015, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) thought they may have seen a hint of a brand-new particle. This appeared by way of a couple of 'bumps' in the data, which triggered such an avalanche of interest that 500 papers followed. But, alas, subsequent research has shown that there really was no such particle: '"The bad news is [the measurements] don't show anything," said theoretical physicist Matt Strassler. "The good news is that it did a really good job of not showing anything." From here. There's a good analysis on The Atlantic Monthly called Back to the Drawing Board which goes into some of the philosophical implications of this non-discovery. In brief, the story is as follows: whilst the discovery of the God Particle, er, Higgs Boson, was a triumph, it might also signal, according to some, the 'end of the road' for particle physics (I think this is the 'nightmare scenario'). It confirms many major aspects of the 'standard model', but the problem with that model is its 'unnaturalness'. There are many things about it which are 'just so', but for which there doesn't appear to be any explanation: Harry Cliff from here. It was hoped that 'supersymmetry' might provide a deeper level of explanation, a 'why is it so', that would account for the spooky just-so-ness of the Higgs, among other things - but nothing has turned up; the excitement about the bump-that-dissappeared was that this might have been one such discovery. But no - and many are saying that it might be over for supersymmetry (hence the title of the Atlantic article). The Atlantic likewise comments: I am curious as to why, 'in this scenario, there are many universes'. What is it about this theory that necessitates that? And what would we be forced to conclude if there were not 'many universes'?