A recent article on NYTimes.com boasts of “A New Clue to Explain Existence” found in experiments on particles called muons and neutral B-mesons. Apparently it’s a problem, mathematically speaking, why there is more matter than anti-matter in our universe, and scientists want to know why we exist (who doesn’t?), so they’re poking at particles in a collider for an answer. (Their words, not mine.)

I’m not going to pretend that I understand quantum mechanics and particle physics. I got a C in high school chemistry. But I can tell when scientists are errantly expecting the “why” when they’re actually looking into the “how,” even if I don’t fully grasp the science behind the experiment.

The article claims that these muons and neutral B-mesons may have clues in their behavior as to how there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe, and they may certainly discover this. But just because there is more matter than anti-matter doesn’t solve the problem of why matter is hanging around in the first place.

Regardless of how complicated the experiment or how weird the particle, looking inside this universe for an answer to existence will only elicit more questions and no answers. It’s the equivalent of expecting a house to explain itself by studying only a mote of dust in the crack of a couch in the living room. You may get a lot of information about the house itself but no answers will come from a mote as to why the house was built.

Science can only explain “what” and “how” but never “why.” Expecting  a “why” to come from scientific discovery will only lead to disappointment, speculation, or unfulfilling conclusions. I’ll venture to guess that even if the scientists find a revolutionary explanation to the behavior of a neutral B-meson, their answer will not provide any comfort to the deep pain of the soul, mind, and body that is the human experience.

Why? Why do particles exist to begin with? That is not a question that even the most advanced scientific team can answer with an experiment.