3 ms·
No. A project lead doesn't (usually) do all of something personally, so outside of large personal favors you'd be asking someone to have people under them do a
by hwillis 10y ago
No. A project lead doesn't (usually) do all of something personally, so outside of large personal favors you'd be asking someone to have people under them do a ton of work to replicate something for no tangible benefit. At most you get a special mention, or very rarely are added to the author list.
Replicating experiments requires extremely expensive equipment, materials, expertise and time. You can't bang out most experiments in a few afternoons. If you want to have your results replicated you do them again, because you're gonna be fastest and you're the only person you know 100% will follow the same steps.
- logicallee 10y agoThanks. This makes sense. Now that it had been published, are teams going to try to replicate and understand it? Or are some seeming breakthrough papers ignored because they "must" be wrong?
- hwillis 10y agoGiven the publicity someone is probably already planning on looking into it. Publicity is one of the major differences between crank science that is ignored and other things like the reactionless drive at NASA. I wouldn't say that papers are ignored because they must be wrong. It's hard to make a definitive statement either way, but "revolutionary" experiments very rarely come with good rigor and examination (the neutrino experiment is one of the few counterexamples, it was excellent). Crappy papers get ignored, revolutionary or not. It's very rare that a paper is well-done, upsets normal beliefs, and isn't immediately seized on by the media and community.