List of experimental errors and frauds in physics (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "List of experimental errors and frauds in physics" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
2nd place
2nd place
18th place
17th place
11th place
8th place
1st place
1st place
234th place
397th place
5th place
5th place
4th place
4th place
69th place
59th place
1,476th place
1,056th place
254th place
236th place
7th place
7th place
low place
9,688th place
621st place
380th place
1,503rd place
1,378th place
3rd place
3rd place
5,101st place
5,955th place
2,463rd place
2,220th place
2,020th place
1,872nd place
low place
low place
774th place
716th place
low place
low place
22nd place
19th place

aps.org

physics.aps.org

arxiv.org

  • Adam, T. (2011). "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam". arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex].
  • 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" https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3099

books.google.com

chemistryworld.com

doe.gov

science.doe.gov

doi.org

  • Norton, John D. (20 June 2015). "Replicability of Experiment" (PDF). Theoria. 30 (2): 229. doi:10.1387/theoria.12691. ISSN 2171-679X.
  • Sarachik, Miriam (2009). "Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World". Physics Today. 62 (10): 57. Bibcode:2009PhT....62j..57R. doi:10.1063/1.3248480.
  • Wood, R.W. (29 September 1904). "The N-Rays". Nature. 70 (1822): 530–531. Bibcode:1904Natur..70..530W. doi:10.1038/070530a0. S2CID 4063030. After spending three hours or more in witnessing various experiments, I am not only unable to report a single observation which appeared to indicate the existence of the rays, but left with a very firm conviction that the few experimenters who have obtained positive results, have been in some way deluded. A somewhat detailed report of the experiments which were shown to me, together with my own observations, may be of interest to the many physicists who have spent days and weeks in fruitless efforts to repeat the remarkable experiments which have been described in the scientific journals of the past year.
  • Holberg, J. B. (2010). "Sirius B and the Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift". Journal for the History of Astronomy. 41 (1): 41–64. Bibcode:2010JHA....41...41H. doi:10.1177/002182861004100102. ISSN 0021-8286. S2CID 117998999.
  • F. P. Bundy; H. T. Hall; H. M. Strong; R. H. Wentorf (1955). "Man-Made Diamonds". Nature. 176 (4471): 51–55. Bibcode:1955Natur.176...51B. doi:10.1038/176051a0. S2CID 4266566.
  • Labinger JA, Weininger SJ (2005). "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion". Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 44 (13): 1916–22. doi:10.1002/anie.200462084. PMID 15770617. So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of "pathological science" by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error.
  • "Cold fusion is back at the American Chemical Society" Nature News, 29 March 2007, doi:10.1038/news070326-12
  • Garisto, Dan (16 August 2023). "LK-99 isn't a superconductor — how science sleuths solved the mystery: Replications pieced together the puzzle of why the material displayed superconducting-like behaviours". Nature. 620 (7975): 705–706. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-02585-7. PMID 37587284. S2CID 260955242. Archived from the original on 17 August 2023. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
  • Garisto, Dan (2024-04-06). "Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results". Nature. 628 (8008): 481–483. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00976-y.

economist.com

fnal.gov

history.fnal.gov

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

adsabs.harvard.edu

  • 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 [1]

latimes.com

nature.com

newscientist.com

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

nytimes.com

pitt.edu

philsci-archive.pitt.edu

  • Norton, John D. (20 June 2015). "Replicability of Experiment" (PDF). Theoria. 30 (2): 229. doi:10.1387/theoria.12691. ISSN 2171-679X.

profmattstrassler.com

rsc.org

sanacacio.net

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

web.archive.org

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

  • Norton, John D. (20 June 2015). "Replicability of Experiment" (PDF). Theoria. 30 (2): 229. doi:10.1387/theoria.12691. ISSN 2171-679X.
  • Holberg, J. B. (2010). "Sirius B and the Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift". Journal for the History of Astronomy. 41 (1): 41–64. Bibcode:2010JHA....41...41H. doi:10.1177/002182861004100102. ISSN 0021-8286. S2CID 117998999.

zenodo.org

  • Wood, R.W. (29 September 1904). "The N-Rays". Nature. 70 (1822): 530–531. Bibcode:1904Natur..70..530W. doi:10.1038/070530a0. S2CID 4063030. After spending three hours or more in witnessing various experiments, I am not only unable to report a single observation which appeared to indicate the existence of the rays, but left with a very firm conviction that the few experimenters who have obtained positive results, have been in some way deluded. A somewhat detailed report of the experiments which were shown to me, together with my own observations, may be of interest to the many physicists who have spent days and weeks in fruitless efforts to repeat the remarkable experiments which have been described in the scientific journals of the past year.