3 ms·
Well, that's a funny question, right? On the one hand, they really were careful in their announcement to indicate "we're not sure about this". They were clearly
by Steuard 11y ago
Well, that's a funny question, right? On the one hand, they really were careful in their announcement to indicate "we're not sure about this". They were clearly making a real attempt to exercise proper scientific skepticism of such a remarkable result.
But on the other hand, they were willing to make that public announcement in the first place. If they'd really felt the same level of skepticism that most of the rest of the community did, they might have done the tests that eventually found that loose cable before they stuck their necks out. (But then, part of their intent was clearly to get help and suggestions in figuring out what the lingering errors might be, and to get broader input on how feasible superluminal neutrinos might be theoretically. I can't judge them too harshly, even if they did wind up looking a step or two more willing to believe than they should have been.)
- Dylan16807 11y agoAt the time I saw it as a big request for help in finding the experimental oversight. They had tried pretty hard to rule everything out, and they wanted fresh eyes.