are the supposed superluminal neutrinos at gran sasso now considered 'pseudoscience'?
The OPERA physicists were certainly doing science with high standards for the scientific method and error analysis. Unfortunately a bad connection in a circuit existed and it took a long time for this problem to be identified. So the result and subsequent correction were not pseudoscience, but were a ordinary example of science and the way that errors are evaluated and corrected.
If you were to find someone still pointing to the incorrect initial OPERA results as evidence of superluminal propagation, then that would be an example of pseudoscience.
thank you because my friend still uses that as an example of superluminality. Could you please provide a link to the bad circuit article fzero?
The wiki has an extensive discussion and references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly. The connection error was announced at Neutrino 2012 in Kyoto by Bertolucci, according to the CERN press office: http://press.web.cern.ch/press-rele...anomaly-flight-time-neutrinos-cern-gran-sasso
Separate names with a comma.