Thanks, Flea Bag.
I keep waiting for someone to ask the obvious question in regards to what I posted earlier when someone asked me if the scientists at my lab discuss this far-out stuff a lot or not. I replied that, no, strangely, it's usually "lay people" or scientists who know the mathematics behind the far-out theory and/or are directly involved. I myself, for example, never talk about string theory, as I don't feel any more competent to do so than any one else.
So, you might conclude from this that the results of the experimental work at LHC would only be of interest to a handful of scientists who could actually understand the math behind it.
And while this is a reasonable way to put my statements together and draw an inference, it isn't what I would say (or mean).
The thing is that when something is highly speculative and theoretical and "out-there" and totally untested and unverified, the only way to really approach it and speak intelligently (i.e. "critically") about it is through the math. It's fun to get in conversations about what it might mean or how it might be interpreted and to go on far flung philosophical and science-fiction type journeys. I get that. I do it myself. But this isn't the same as what the scientists do when they talk and think about it.
So, a hypothesis in this state can be really only approached in two ways: via wild metaphor, or via the mathematics. Most scientists don't go in too much for wild metaphor when it comes to nascent and inchoate theory, and at the same time, most scientists don't know the mathematics behind a hypothesis / theory in this state. So they don't talk about it much, if at all.
BUT, once experiments start being performed and data starts rolling in and some conclusions can be made and things start to fall into (or out of) place, and the hypothesis moves from one stage to another, and finally into the state of being a fully fledged THEORY, . . .
. . . well, THEN metaphor and prose can be employed to convey the essence of the theory to EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not they know the math. And that is the cultural contribution I was talking about. So for example, I can talk to anyone about special and general relativity and quantum mechanics and entropy and so on.
But, you won't get me to talk about string theory by any means. I am simply not in any kind of a position of understanding to be able to talk about it with any kind of competence. And there are already plenty of people just spinning off speculations about it, so I don't need to spin off any of my own!
So, no, right now the work at LHC isn't a cultural contribution that can be appreciated by the vast majority of us (me included, really). But it is the ground work for a cultural contribution which will be able to be appreciated by anyone with an active, interested, and curious mind.
feels like it exercises really wierd parts of the brain, 
but in the end, I must remind myself that even if the writer of the article understood the concept spot on, me as the reader probably understood it about as well as a newborn baby understands C++. 
I failed java twice by the way. 
