Chapter 34, Problem 27CQ

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 lack of reproducibility or poor−quality experiments (or both)? Discuss why forefront experiments are more subject to observational problems than those involving established phenomena.