Problematic physics experiments:
Experimental science demands repeatability of results, in part because there are so many ways that experiments can go wrong. There are several famous experiments whose results were later retracted or discredited. The most common problem is simply overlooking an important source of noise or bias; such sources sometimes become apparent only with extensive experience with complex equipment or theories. Some errors are introduced when the experimenter's desire for a certain result unconsciously influences selection of data (a problem which today is avoided by double blind protocols). There have also been cases of deliberate scientific misconduct.
[edit] Famous experimental errors
- A reported effect that experimenters could still "see" even when the apparatus had been quietly sabotaged.
- Kaufmann (1906) - claimed experimental disproof of special relativity
- Published in Annalen der Physik and said to be the first journal paper to cite Einstein's 1905 electrodynamics paper. Kaufman's paper stated that his results were not compatible with special relativity. According to Gerald Holton, it took a decade for the shortcomings of Kaufmann's test to be realised: during this time, critics of special relativity were able to claim that the theory was invalidated by the available experimental evidence.
- A number of earlier experimenters claimed to have found the presence or lack of gravitational redshift, but Adams' result was supposed to have settled the issue ("definitively established", RWL "Relativity", Einstein 1954). It is no longer considered credible, one of the more charitable interpretations being that his data may have been contaminated by stray light from Sirius A [1]. The first "reliable" confirmations of the effect appeared in the 1960s.
- Rupp (1926) - dubious canal-ray experiments.
- Rupp had been considered one of the best experimenters of his time, until he was forced to admit that his notable track record was at least partly due to the fabrication of results.
- First reproducible artificial diamond (1955)
- Originally reported in Nature in 1955[1] and later. It later transpired that diamond synthesis should not have been possible with the apparatus. Subsequent analysis indicated that the first gemstone, which secured further funding, was natural rather than synthetic. Subsequent artificial diamonds are assumed to be genuine.
[edit] Alleged scientific misconduct cases
- Materials physics (~1999)
-
- A succession of high-profile peer-reviewed papers previously published by Hendrik Schön subsequently found to be using obviously fabricated data.
- Production of Element 118 (1999)
- Element 118 was announced, then the announcement withdrawn by Berkeley after claims of irreproducibility. The researcher involved, Victor Ninov, denies doing anything wrong.[2]
[edit] References
- Albert Einstein, "Relativity" (15th ed., 1954) -- Appendix 3 has a note from the translator mentioning Adams' "definitive" result.
- Jeremy Bernstein, "Einstein" (1973) pp.81-85 -- Kaufmann experiment
- Bovenkerk et.al., "Errors in diamond synthesis", Nature 365 19 (1993) "Scientific Correspondence"
- F. Wesemael, "A comment on Adams' measurement of the gravitational redshift of Sirius B", Royal Astronomical Society, Quarterly Journal (ISSN 0035-8738), 26, Sept. 1985, 273-278 [2]
- A.G. Kelly, "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks", Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9 -- Hafele-Keating
- John Waller, "Fabulous Science" (OUP 2002) -- one of the less charitable analyses of Eddington's experiment
- Simon Schaffer, "Glass Works", published in "Newton" (Norton Critical Editions, 2004)
- ^ F. P. Bundy, H. T. Hall, H. M. Strong and R. H. Wentorf (1955). "Man-Made Diamonds". Nature 176 (4471): 51–55. doi:10.1038/176051a0.
- ^ George Johnson (October 15, 2002, Tuesday). "At Lawrence Berkeley, Physicists Say a Colleague Took Them for a Ride" (reprint), The New York Times.
- Michael Brooks, on Emil Rupp, "Convenient untruths", New Scientist, No2630 (17 Nov 2007) pp.58-59
- See also Jeroen van Dongen, "Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the Canal Ray Experiments on Wave-Particle Duality: Scientific Fraud and Theoretical Bias" http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3099
[edit] See also
|
