Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 362 posts

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#291

Post by mustacheemperor »

dang wrote: post #141
carabiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a week there will be a lot of thinkpieces on how the internet got this so wrong. A lot of people just want to believe, full of hope, because their life situations (poverty, housing crisis, hot weather) are so dire.

As far as HN's discussion goes, I'd say the community has been getting it right. The conversation has been curious and substantive, everyone knows it's probably not true, but most are not making shallow dismissals. There's a shared sense of waiting for the replications to succeed or fail, and in the meantime, discussion of the details as well as what the impact would be if it does turn out. Also driving interest is t…

I thought wow, what a substantive, insightful comment on HN, I need to save this one. And then I saw you wrote it! Glad you're the one running our madhouse, thank you.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#292

Post by rat9988 »

Firmwarrior wrote: post #276
HDThoreaun wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just speculation because the third author on the first paper isn't an author on the second, better paper, and he's the one who published it.

Man, fucking scientists dude, they need to get their heads on straight If you're one of the 7 people who invented room temperature superconductivity, it's not going to matter who has the Nobel Prize. You can take a part time 7 figure consulting gig and be as famous as you want to boot

He probably won't even get 6 figure consulting gig.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#293

Post by sweezyjeezy »

fleischhauf wrote: post #273
tersh wrote: post #216

The median prediction for whether this gets independently confirmed is sitting at 25%: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18090/room-temp-supercon...

I'm also highly scheptical but if you'd asked a bunch of random people wether or not the relativity theory is true or nuclear weapons when they were first demonstrated they probably would have been equally sceptical

What does that prove though? It's not wrong to doubt extraordinary hypotheses just because they are sometimes correct. Consider all the times those kinds of hypotheses are confirmed to be wrong.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#294

Post by willis936 »

airgapstopgap wrote: post #283
giarc wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Glad to see a realistic take on HN. From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.

It is entirely believable that a person with substantial trace on HN and ties in the field would rather create a throwaway than post such remark under his main account.

Then they would not out their identity by claiming to have worked with the author. That piece of information alone whittles their identity down to maybe 100 people. Out of 100 adjacent academics how many post on HN, with this style, and this specific level of knowledge in that specific subfield? They may as well have just made the account their irl name. Anonymity is not a realistic goal. Assuming a realistic poster means it's reasonable to suspect their earnestness.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#295

Post by willis936 »

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #293
fleischhauf wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also highly scheptical but if you'd asked a bunch of random people wether or not the relativity theory is true or nuclear weapons when they were first demonstrated they probably would have been equally sceptical

What does that prove though? It's not wrong to doubt extraordinary hypotheses just because they are sometimes correct. Consider all the times those kinds of hypotheses are confirmed to be wrong.

Right, in which case asking a broad audience will be, at best, noise.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#297

Post by raziel2701 »

lamontcg wrote: post #194
phoenixstrike wrote: post #26

I am going to attempt to address the common nitpicks in one fell swoop: 1. Rushed publication, plot quality, grammar, etc. Get over yourselves. This is a pre-print for an instant-Nobel, next-tier-of-civilization level discovery. The proper publication will come in due time. Waiting for a more complete verification is a sheltered view. Being first matters. Things changed after the J/Psi discovery in 1974. For those th…

> 2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd…

Their PPMS is limited to 400K. There's nothing they can do about that. So yes, it is a nitpicking. I've used the same instrument, that's the max temperature quantum design allows without forking over more money. It matters to get the results out there and be first.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#298

Post by xwdv »

giarc wrote: post #242
foven wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop what they're doing, order all the reagents on express, do a thorough characterization making sure they understand the impurities and crystal phase, then perform good airtight measurements in a couple days. Crystal growth always has complications many times outsid…

>Glad to see a realistic take on HN. From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.

I would only expect these kinds of posts from a throwaway account created very recently with a single post.

Anyone with a long HN history is more likely trying to karma farm and chase clout by spinning up some bullshit. Trying to establish themselves as an authority on a trending topic.

But because a throwaway account has no past or future, it is the purest form of communication.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#299

Post by paulddraper »

smallnamespace wrote: post #265
jncfhnb wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like you’re strawmanning the idea here. It’s not “every lab” it’s “at least one lab”. Jeez I sure hope at least one lab can spare the time to bother reproducing a room temperature semiconductor claim.

One lab is definitely not adequate. Replication attempts don't give you an unambiguous signal, many things can go wrong. If one lab hasn't succeeded in replicating the paper, does that mean the paper is wrong, or just that a necessary step wasn't documented clearly or followed correctly? More labs trying to replicate give you more independent signals.

Depends on the finding.

Getting a false negative from a lab is plausible.

Getting a false positive seems very unlikely.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#300

Post by airgapstopgap »

willis936 wrote: post #294
airgapstopgap wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is entirely believable that a person with substantial trace on HN and ties in the field would rather create a throwaway than post such remark under his main account.

Then they would not out their identity by claiming to have worked with the author. That piece of information alone whittles their identity down to maybe 100 people. Out of 100 adjacent academics how many post on HN, with this style, and this specific level of knowledge in that specific subfield? They may as well have just made the account their irl name. Anonymity is not a realistic goal. Assuming a realistic poster…

You are frustrated and this makes you act in a deliberately obtuse manner.

There is a world of difference between "anyone who has worked with the guy" and "has worked with the guy + has hundreds of comments on HN identifying career track over the last few years". The former grants each suspect plausible deniability, while the latter pinpoints the true author.

> Anonymity is not a realistic goal.

It obviously is for a throwaway account. Time to reread the classic

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/about/anonymity-and-the-inter...

Post reply on HN