The supposed discovery of the Higgs three years ago was widely celebrated. Nobel prizes were handed out and the mystery of the origin of mass is now explained. But does the Higgs actually explain mass at all? When thinking about the Higgs, I think it's best to ask these questions first: 1. Discovering a particle at around 125 GeV doesn't mean it's the Higgs. For it to be properly called the Higgs boson, it would need to show evidence that it can bestow mass to a particle. Is this the case? 2. The Higgs is theorized to be an omnipresent particle. For such a particle, it's been very difficult to find, hasn't it? Why? Isn't it supposed to be common? 3. Since it's supposedly omnipresent, shouldn't it account for the majority of mass in the universe? Also, shouldn't a Higgs particle be coupled to every fundamental particle around since it's everywhere? For every electron, there's a Higgs boson. For every quark, a Higgs, and so on. Saying it interacts very weakly doesn't explain anything. It only explains the problem away. 4. What gives the Higgs its mass? After discovering its "existence" that only lasted a fraction of a second, it disintegrated into various known particles, while leaving a trace. So if the Higgs is made up of standard particles, what made them and further, what made the Higgs? Another Higgs? These inconsistencies, among others, made me question physics entirely. These should've been asked after its proposal and further scrutiny should've been placed on the Higgs after it was supposedly discovered. When scientists accept a theory, without making sense of it adequately by asking the simplest of questions, they fail at being scientists. Thoughts?