Question

For experimental evidence, particularly of previously unobserved phenomena, to be taken seriously, it must be reproducible or of sufficiently high quality that a single observation is meaningful. Supernova 1987A is not reproducible. How do we know observations of it were valid? The fifth force is not broadly accepted. Is this due to a lack of reproducibility or poor-quality experiments (or both)? Discuss why forefront experiments are more subject to observational problems than those involving established phenomena.

a) Observations of Supernova 1987A confirmed by multiple telescopes; lack of reproducibility is inherent in unique events
b) Supernova 1987A observed only once, raising doubts; lack of reproducibility challenges fifth force experiments
c) Multiple observations of Supernova 1987A with consistent data; lack of reproducibility hinders fifth force acceptance
d) Supernova 1987A is reproducible in theory; lack of reproducibility in fifth force experiments results from poor-quality experiments

Answer 1

Observations of Supernova 1987A were validated by multiple telescopes, while lack of reproducibility hinders acceptance of the fifth force experiments. Forefront experiments are more susceptible to observational problems compared to those involving established phenomena.

Step-by-step explanation:

Observations of Supernova 1987A were valid because they were confirmed by multiple telescopes, providing consistent data. Although the event itself is not reproducible, the observations made during the event were reliable and meaningful.

The lack of reproducibility for the fifth force experiments is due to the nature of the phenomenon and not necessarily poor-quality experiments. Forefront experiments are more subject to observational problems compared to those involving established phenomena because they often deal with complex and unpredictable events that are harder to control and reproduce.