In many cases, the experimental work was compared with the simulation or else similar experimental results from literature based on percentage increment or decrement. In most of the cases, we compare similar results as one had obtained.
Why don't they compare with results which differ from his/her results?
All the time results may not agree with the literature.
Is it good to defer the results in the publication?
What should do when you haven't gotten results which don't agree with existing?
As student doing the Frank-Hurtz experiment I did not see the droplets fall. But my lab partner on the same time and setup did. The rest of class said they did on near identical equipment. Proof they felt was pressure to say yes; at lest other ones that saw what I did.
When a expensive experiment is done, one one wants to appear they made a error in it. In other cases it paid for to get certain results for lets say a sales pitch.
A hundred year omission from the yes men in physics:
Since by definition frequency=1/(time period) and all Doppler shifts (axial, transverse and gravitational) change all observed frequencies on an object by same factor K. They should all change all observed time periods by 1/K on that body. NOT JUST the transverse Doppler shift of relativity. Because the above has not been obvious for some time. The attached PDF file has in it a proof of the same by comparing the Fourier series of a time function with series of the Doppler shifted function. It also gives some impacts of that. Most impacts are in high energy physics. Also note factors in observing the above: Accelerators generate noise many ways (like fast moving particles transfer energy to standing waves etc.) . The axial shift has an average over all angles of zero but for most angles it is lager than the transverse. But the variance of axial shift does have a mean over all angles above zero.
in our engineering work, allways compared the results with standered one. wether if it theoretically or experimentally have optained.
the diferences come up of deviasions of some parametes values in our work. so that, some differnt percentage values appers. so, rechack once more.
There could be multiple reasons, and I have listed a few of them.
1. Error in the input of some parameters.
2. Error in data extraction from paper.
3. some fundamental issues in equations.
When your results agree with experimental results, you have formulated them correctly. After this step, you can go for further analysis of the problem you are working on.
when your results are matching with the experimental one that implies that you are going on the correct path.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Histology
- Sectioning