"Settled Science" is an Oxymoron

Absolutely correct. I especially enjoy it when an amateur, that hasn't been subjected to the dogma of what is, and isn't possible, comes up with something radically different.................that works.

Here's one I think savvy will like.

What other great things have been invented or discovered by unknown people with no formal training, that flies in the face of conventional wisdom?

Was this neutrino traveling east or west?

I find myself saying that just can't be! Nothing goes faster than light.

Then I find myself saying, why not? For which I can find no answer.

That's just as well, I was getting tired of talking to myself anyway.

Cheers.

I agree with you generically but I have to add important stipulations that I think you'll agree with. While any scientific "doctrine" can be changed with sufficient proof, there can only be a change with observed, validated and repeated proof. Single events with unexpected results will directly lead to explorations of those results, but single events themselves will not change "Settled Science". Once sufficient results and theory gets assembled, a codified explanation of the new perspective of our universe gets formed slowly and painfully by the peers studying this field. This new perspective virtually never contradicts previous understandings that worked. More often than not the new perspective adds a nuance to our understandings, not a revocation.

In the case of the now repeated neutrino velocity measurement being faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, this is still early in the process. Possibly this is a misapplication of Newtonian perspectives onto a quantum mechanic phenomena. Then again, maybe this is tied to the neutrino transmutation proposal to explain why our sun appears to produce an insufficient number of neutrinos.

This certainly makes for some interesting science though.

We concur Redfred.

Typically the settled science consensus business is used to bully folks in the Climate Change debate. One is either a true believer or not.

But this Neutrino data is certainly interesting.

And the statistical treatments were a class in themselves...

Milo

Allow me point out an added twist that happens so often with climate change, evolution, quantum mechanics, cosmology and other scientific views that others dispute. So very often the ones rebelling against the scientific perspective don't really understand what they are rebelling against. So instead of adding real value to the discussion, the ones rebelling end up just revealing their ignorance on the topic.

Again we agree for the most part. Arguing against the scientific perspective (scientific ways of knowing) is being a Luddite. However, when people state that something is "Settled Science" and no longer worthy of debate, challenge, or thoughtful consideration, it is they that are taking leave of the scientific method.

As my Goethe tagline reiterates, it is in the gaps where we find the opportunities for discovering the problem. It is in the challenging of "settled nostrums" that progress is to be made.

No progress is made by the lemming chorus Answering "Yes Dear" without a single critical thought.

Milo

No, we agree completely. I suspect that I was not clear in my point. I applaud the testing of any and all "Settled Science" by those who know what they are testing. When the loudest chorus objecting against a scientific perspective don't understand the perspective they do their objections and all of us a great disservice. For then the objectors who do have a valid point end up being drowned out by the ones who just don't understand.

To apply my point to your Goethe paraphrase, you can only look for things in the gap if you know the boundary of the gap.

Yep!

Milo

I agree.

I never did like the term consensus, unless your driving with the family discussing where to stop for lunch.

I'm not sure what prompted your post. Care to elaborate?

Of course I agree that nothing is 'settled' as that presumes perfect observation and interpretation.

But, much like measurement, how perfect do you need to be, depends on the circumstances. I.e so long as the framework of the system is not suffering total breakdown, it can be regarded as 'settled science'.

Logically, things faster than light exist - just like things faster than the sound barrier - the difficulty is observing/measuring those things with light speed based system.

Einstein postulated that the speed of light is an absolute limit.

This has been widely held and is presumed as settled.

Until the September data and this new analysis came out.

Your "logically things faster than light exist" goes against the framework that Einstein has given us where light speed is a limit.

Thanks for your thoughtful voice.

Milo

Well He didn't actually.

If Einstein had an "absolute limit" it was C²

Ok, a lot of folk decided that meant C

Largely because they think it's an equation - not a relationship/relativity

The same people are confused by Pi not existing as a finite number.

And this go's back to Red's comment on who understands 'climate change' and who runs the 'white noise'.

No, Einstein's spatial distortion of relativity is the basis that nothing can move at a faster velocity than the speed of light. Maybe this repeated experiment has proven that neutrinos really are nothing moving like hell. (I wish I could remember where I heard that phrase.)

So that's "settled" - suit yourself

GA nothing is 'fully settled' except some men's intransigence when it comes to 'intellectual comfort zone'.

So what would give these neutrinos the ability to travel so fast, if that is, the case...Less mass than light, the charge, the spin, what ?

THAT is the 64millon$ question, if it falls out that way. (cont. from #18)

Borrowing from another message of mine explains the situation a bit better. Let me explain a bit I know, and what I think about it beyond that. That, I hope will considerably constrain the open questions. Remember, well over a hundred collaborators and experts spent 6 months(?!?) digging for errors already.

Very high precision atomic clocks are in use in over 30 years. Those are master clocks at such facilities. They are many magnitudes more exact, than the first possible error source: that one or the other did slip. 60nanosec error can be detected with GPS in a short order (corresponds to 18meters, or 54feet error). More precise calibration can be performed with a small, portable, slightly less accurate atomic clock flown to the other lab (the receiving one). With certification, etc. it takes a couple of days. I safely assume, that such a basic error was not discovered. Compared to such clocks, 60nsec is simply huge.

The participating physicists did not dare to speak sacrilege, so I do it here. If the 60 nsec too fast flight time of the neutrinos (spooky characters in their own rights) proves to be right, Einstein IS NOT OVERTURNED. Rather, the low speed part remains as is. The high speed part opens up, with much modified exciting new physics underlaying it. I consulted my crystal ball, and that is my best guesstimate. Nonetheless, I can sympathise with the physicists involved. It is stupendously monumental, similar to madame Curie, Max Planck, Otto Hahn and Einstein's work in splitting the atom, introducing the quanta, allowing particle physics and relativity, and leaving classical physics firmly behind. No wonder, they tremble, I would, too.!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Faster, than light neutrinos in normal Einsteinian universe? Now, that is obscene!

" More precise calibration can be performed with a small, portable, slightly less accurate atomic clock flown to the other lab (the receiving one)"

It's my understanding that the higher the elevation the faster the clock ticks, so they would have to correct for that, and here we go with another point to contend with...The clocks would have to be at the same latitude I believe, or corrected for distance from the center of the Earth...It really is deliciously complex...

"Of course I agree that nothing is 'settled' as that presumes perfect observation and interpretation."

GA. I fully agree with your above statement. In fact all we observe on Earth is relative values at the condition we are surrounded with like

- Presence of atmosphere at 1.013 bar pressure and its different layers

- Air with approximately 78% N2, 21% O2, 0.93% Ar, CO2 and other rare gases

- Different temperature

- Spinning of Earth at at around 3.636x10^-5 Radians/s

- Orbiting velocity of about 30 km/s

- A tilt of about 23.5 deg.

- Magnetic Field of Earth

And so on......

So, data observed may be different if above conditions changes.

Good grok !