
Now this is the sort of conclusion (and subsequently the sort of article) that bugs the crap out of me:
https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/nasa-find ... rd-report/
What they actually detected, but didn't expect to detect, was evidence (just what evidence I don't know--it would have to be some sort of computer readout) of tau neutrinos. And that's it.
There was a conclusion that the tau neutrinos would have had to be coming "up" from the Earth rather than "down from space," which is well enough, although I'd like to know how we supposedly know this (how we supposedly know the directionality). But okay, we'd know that the Earth can produce or it can at least pass tau neutrinos.
And then there was a conclusion that the tau neutrinos, on the assumption that they're passing through the Earth rather than assuming that the Earth produced them, would have had to "change into some other type of particle before changing back again." Why? I have no idea. How would we know this?
And then there's the incoherent nonsense that somehow this implies "time running backwards" and implies a "parallel universe."
Sigh.
How about simply explaining that we detected data that we're interpreting as tau neutrinos when we didn't expect to find such data, and then explaining why we wouldn't expect to find evidence of tau neutrinos?