Boffins quietly cheering the possible discovery of sterile neutrinos

I did some research on sterile neutrinos and it seems that this IS the first time they have been detected. Active neutrinos are charged with the "weak force" but sterile neutrinos have no charge at all, so their chance of interacting with matter is much, much lower (I don't know what the actual odds are). There very well be smaller, undetectable particles, but particle physicists are a bright bunch and usually figure out a way, even if it requires thinking out of the proverbial box.

 

We're never going to live on Mount Everest, or at the South Pole, but that has never stopped those whose curiosity is greater than their apathy.

 

This happens all the time in science, but fear not, science is designed for just this kind of thing. It's kind of the whole point, to reduce human bias.

 

And I tend to think of charlatan scientists as shamelessly self-seeking and self-serving, and who never miss an opportunity to prove it by pretending to know stuff, most of it pointless. Conversely, real scientists are not self-obsessed, nor are they eager to raise their public profiles at every given opportunity; they're quietly dedicated to the tangible (as opposed to speculative?) disciplines which will add to the sum of happiness and well-being of humankind.

 

I've seen a few non sequiturs in my time on discussion forums but that one takes the proverbial biscuit.

 

I prefer the ones with humility and some are just too arrogant and you have to pin them down to get them to admit of the assumptions involved and the lack of actual certainty on some issues. But this is just human nature evidencing itself in scientists and it does not upset me as it seem to do you?

I guess it is gratifying to be a high priest in this way of understanding the universe? Man loves to be an authority, whether in religion or science? At least the authorities in science are so much more credible...and logical. And operate from evidence.

 

I am left to wonder how many of these shamelessly self promoting scientists you folks even know the name of. Obviously if you don't they are not doing this self promotion very well. Tyson, Nye and such are TV personalities first and scientists second so they really don't count. Usually the folks publishing papers are never even known unless you read to the end which it seems clear you do not.

 

And that's it in a nutshell. It used to 'upset' me, but only because I hate being fooled and can always tell when I am being. I don't care if others are being fooled, but I can't help regarding it as a personal affront. I've learnt to shrug it off now by my sardonic observations - just to let 'them' know there's someone out here who's onto them. Notice how, if an interviewer asks an awkward question, they'll always deploy humour to squirm out of it, viz. turn it into a joke then the awkward question is instantly forgotten.

Edited to remove one of three 'but's. That's just me being a grammatical anorak!

 

I'm sorry about that. When I saw your quote, 'Why Mars, when we will never be able to live there?', it made me think of the old adage, "Why climb a mountain? Because it is there." The point I was trying to make was that humans have a tendency to explore, not just to find new lands to colonize or financial gain, but to say that they were the first. Why else would you risk you life to climb Mt. Everest or go to the South Pole? The same is true of the Moon or Mars.

 

Yes, and I agree with you - nobody is more pro-science than I am; but why this obsession with a planet on which we'll never be able to survive because of its hostile atmosphere, and there's no wodda there either? It makes no logical sense.

 

Discovery....plain and simple. Just as stated in the post you replied to, Humans have an innate desire to seek the new and unknown. This tendency has led to wonderful things (The wheel, New world, computers...etc...) so we keep doing it. No one can know what benefits exploration of Mars will lead to but whatever it is will be interesting. Curiosity is one of humankinds most profound and beneficial qualities and has led us to where we are today.

 

You kind of remind me of Trump there with the whole "nobody is more..." statement, but back to the topic at hand. The obsession with Mars is:

1. It is the closest planet.*
2. It is the most Earthlike of all the planets.*
3. It is the planet most likely to have life or have had life.*

*Besides Earth

 

And?

What, spherical do you mean? So?

Meaning what, that we could live there too, when it has been proven by NASA itself that it would be impossible for human life to survive there because of its hostile atmosphere and environmental difficulties? To be honest, I don't really know why you posted that.

 

And? And that's why we are interested in Mars, it's within our reach. We have very little interest in sending a human to say, the Andromeda Galaxy because it is too far away.

Not sure what you mean by "spherical"? So, Mars, being Earthlike, is a great way for scientists to learn more about the formation of the Earth by comparing and contrasting the two planets.

What is your obsession with living there? The reason why scientists are interested if life has lived, or is living now, on Mars is that... THEY WANT TO FIND EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE! Showing that life developed on another world, would be a huge boon to biologists.

 

Well when they do it will of course be newsworthy. Until then it's er, not! Also . . .

spherical
ˈsfɛrɪk(ə)l/
adjective

shaped like a sphere.

synonyms: round, globular, ball-shaped, globe-shaped, orb-shaped.

 

I respect that as a general skepticism that is important to include.

However, there have been many physical entities that have been predicted and then subsequently detected. And, dark matter can be detected by gravity, so some other explanation would certainly seem at least equally fabulous if not more so.

 

The mistake here is that latching onto single experiments and claiming that is what "science" now believes is just NOT how science works. Science doesn't EVER accept one such experiment as some sort of final answer.

Science will do serious review, will look for repetitions, and will require confirmations from others, especially those using other methodologies.


I listen to a physicist who happens to study neutrinos and knows about this case.

His view is that it's more likely that this one experiment did not actually detect what was at least initially claimed. That is, there are already physicists who are poking holes in this particular study. So, they will certainly continue to work on this, but accepting this exciting initial result as some sort of truth of physics is a big mistake.

Basically, do not take the exciting headlines from reporters as if they were written by a scientist.

 

The fact of the matter is this - they know they can say anything they like no matter how barmy, and nobody can possibly dispute it? It's only a question of whether they believe it or not.

 

No it can't be detected by gravity. It can't be detected at all. It is deduced from mathematics. The law of gravity may well need some adjustment. Or the math could be wrong for some other reason.

 

No, you have it totally backwards.

This case demonstrates that scientists can NOT say anything they like.

They reported their conclusion.

Nobody in physics accepted that result.

In fact, physicists didn't just hold off for confirmation and review (as would be the standard approach to any novel conclusion). They assume the conclusion is wrong.

 

So far as space 'scientists' are concerned I don't GAF what they say, it's the condescending way they say it that bugs me - like they're talking down to children. For example, during last night I heard a reporter on the BBC World News say 'Dust storms on Mars last for hours.' I mean, not that it matters a jot or tittle, but how the hell would anyone know that unless they'd been there?

 

We have a rover on Mars that reports local weather - just like we have weather stations all over the place on earth. It's kind of a deal right now, because it looked like a storm system there would be significant enough to threaten our rover.

As for "talking down", you referred to a news reporter, not a scientist. And, it didn't sound condescending to me.

 

If it didn't sound condescending to you then that's obviously why you so readily believe it, and that's fine by me. But about my query 'How would anyone know that dust storms are raging on Mars at any given time, and that they last for hours, if they've never been there?'? What do you think?

 

Why would I worry about condescension? Isn't that about the most stupid reason possible for an idea to be rejected?

Again, we have a rover on mars at it reports local weather, among other things.

 

And? Why would anyone care about the weather conditions on some planet at the edge of the universe - or multiverse as we have to say these days? It's inconsequential non-news? As to 'condescension', - you might not mind being talked down to as if you're a 7-year old child, but I do.