I’m aware it’s not an issue of detection. I was more speaking to the ancillary issues surrounding the result. The last thing we need is to wait 15 more years wh

I’m aware it’s not an issue of detection. I was more speaking to the ancillary issues surrounding the result. The last thing we need is to wait 15 more years while people argue over experiment design validity before anything gets done to even begin investigation into the new physics that may be hidden here. Any new higher flux neutrino (or anti neutrino) source will be just as useful for subsequent studies into this phenomena. The nice thing about neutrinos in this case is they go through basically everything. So nothing stops a new particle source being constructed specifically for multiple such experiments. Unless for some reason distances from source to detector are such a sensitive value in the potential experiment setups that every subsequent experiment needs to be exactly 20 or 30 meters from the particle source, barring that we could easily setup a line of different experiments a hundred meters long or more! If subsequent experiments hope to produce results with sufficient statistical detail to elucidate the new physics this points towards they are likely to be significantly aided by a higher flux source. Science is a team sport and the sport of neutrino flux anomaly research currently has measures its innings/quarters/sets in decades. It may take two or even more rounds of subsequent experiments to fully uncover what’s going on here… not because we’re waiting for the next great mind… but because our puny particle accelerators aren’t making enough neutrinos for us to study this phenomenon faster than the pitch drop experiment!