From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 08:30:55 EDT
I am not certain what I said to imply this. If one
predicts a certain result and the experimental
results are negative, then that is a falsification
of the theory. If there is no definite prediction
in the first place then that is not even
potentially falsifiable.
Sorry if I implied anything to the contrary.
Actually, I remember the times before the neutrino
was actually detected. It was predicted to have a
low interaction with matter so the difficulty in
detecting it was always expected (if it existed as
predicted by Pauli).
Walt
Jim Armstrong wrote:
>
>
> Walter Hicks wrote:
>
>> Hi Burgy,
>> [snip]
>
>> I have a very firm foundation (and
>> credentials) in fundamental Physics and I
>> question ...
>
>
> [snip]
>
> In light of that, I'm surprised that you appear
> to equate "so far it has not been confirmed"
> with "So far it has been falsified! "
> Did the inability (for some time) to confirm the
> existence of the neutrino falsify its existence
> in the interim between the finding of the
> momentum discrepancy and the direct verification
> of the reality of the neutrino?
> JimA
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 08:30:12 EDT