This is exactly what drives real science. First we gather data and make sure that data is valid, then we compare it to our predictions (model), and if not all things are explained by the model, we start refining the model. In the process, our understanding of the world becomes ever more comprehensive. So in short, data not agreeing with the model is the best possible scenario.
Yup. This is awesome. It's been a while and an awful lot of work since somebody found evidence of some new physics. The LHC has been a bit of a disappointment so far - it has yet to surprise us.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/why-th... - and while that probably isn't the best link it links to several other useful things as well. Unfortunately, we pretty much found the Higgs in the general range we expected it to be, which was in some ways the worst possible outcome, and certainly the least surprising.
