[T-A]

> It's trivial to add a matrix to account for neutrino masses

The matrix you are thinking of is presumably the PMNS matrix [1]. It's equivalent to the CKM matrix for quarks [2]. The purpose of both is to parametrize the mismatch between flavor [3] and mass eigenstates, not "to account for neutrino masses" or "explain their origin".

As far as the standard model is concerned, neutrino masses and quark masses all originate from Yukawa couplings [4] with the Higgs field. Adding such terms to Weinberg's original model of leptons is very much a trivial exercise, and was done already well before there was solid evidence for non-zero neutrino masses.

> it's possible experiments will say "Both the current ideas are wrong."

Assuming that by "Both current ideas" you mean Dirac vs Majorana mass, those are the only available relativistic invariants. For both to be wrong, special relativity would have to be wrong. Hopefully I don't need to explain how extraordinarily unlikely that is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontecorvo%E2%80%93Maki%E2%80%...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo%E2%80%93Kobayashi%E2%8...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_(particle_physics)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukawa_coupling

[Yossarrian22]

Thanks Lord Kelvin

[T-A]

Poor Lord Kelvin gets maligned a lot:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.16033

That aside, a distinction should be made between

1) claiming that physics is pretty much done (what he's often accused of) and

2) pointing out factual errors in claims about the current state of knowledge (what I am doing).

If you absolutely must make flattering comparisons, may I suggest Feynman instead, especially on lying to laymen?

https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

I should add that I am not in complete agreement with what he said in that speech: calling it "not essential to the science" strikes me as naive. Once you start juggling two standards of communication, you are on a slippery slope. If it's OK to lie to the funding public at large, what about politicians, funding bodies, colleagues in other disciplines competing for the same funding, journal editors asking you to review a rival's work in your own field? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw a line, or do you descend into a state of generalized charlatanry?