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

Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 501 posts

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#491

Post by XorNot »

yreg wrote: post #190
XorNot wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scope of the claim. This is world changing. Shoot the first video, then get the dremel/pliers and cut that large bit off. It would be worth it, because if this works at all, then it's vital to prove it. We'd be having a very different discussion if that small piece was umabiguously floating and remaining locked in place.

> it's vital to prove it [asap] Is it? What do they care if it takes other labs a week to reproduce?

For one thing, because if you're throwing out a world-changing claim, you yourself would like to be sure it is what you think it is.

It's an obvious test to do, so it's quite surprising they didn't do it. Maybe they did and didn't film it, I don't know - but for the trouble of a couple of minutes of time, it's weird not to have it - especially if your method is reproducible.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#492

Post by iancmceachern »

rob74 wrote: post #399
stu255 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

75% of aluminium supply is from recycling aluminium products. The economy sort of has a "working capital" quantum of aluminium which also grows steadily from aluminium mining. Lots of metals have very different and complex supply structures and thus completely different $$$ / volume curves for their supply. Understanding the $$$ / volume curve of commodities is not something that is commonly considered when people tr…

Now I'm curious where that recycled aluminium is coming from? My guess would be mostly from airplanes and beverage cans...

Cars too

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#495

Post by dotnet00 »

intrasight wrote: post #489
dotnet00 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How photosynthesis works at a cell machinery level is high school level biology.

That's not an understanding of how it works

I disagree. It very much is an understanding of how photosynthesis works, it isn't a complete understanding sure, but an understanding nonetheless.

Unless you're going to argue that we don't know how an MRI works because we don't fully understand the physics behind superconductivity.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#496

Post by marcusverus »

The_Double wrote: post #392

The strangest thing to me is that apparently this material has been developed years ago, the video of a piece floating was uploaded 3 months ago, and apparently it's easy to produce more samples, but the papers still reads like they have been thrown together in less than a week. (English might not be their first language, but the presentation of the figures is also poor) And it also seems like they haven't spent that…

> Surely if you have found a magic material that can change the world you would spend more effort than this on doing experiments and publishing a good paper as soon as possible.

Meh, it's just as easy to assume the opposite. Who has a stronger incentive to present themselves in the best possible light, a con artist, or a future noble prize winner with a patent on an earth-shattering technology? For the former, the credulity of the reader is necessary for the success of the con! For the latter, not so much, as the truth will be self evident in short order.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#498

Post by lucubratory »

Koiwai wrote: post #461
elfbargpt wrote: post #288

One interesting thing I saw pointed out on twitter: both of the published papers have "Lee" and "JH Kim" as the first two authors (LK-99 material namesake). The first paper was published by YW Kwon with himself as the third author. The second paper was published a few hours later by Hyun-Tak Kim with himself as the third author. As others have pointed out there can only be 3 names on the ticket for a nobel prize. To…

If this is true, I think the nobel prize committee would happily make an exception for them.

They will not. They never have.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#499

Post by ricardobeat »

dinvlad wrote: post #213
dougmwne wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s nothing unless it turns out to be something. I’ll draw an analogy to the LLMs and diffusion models that have lately rocked the computer world. These things are straight up science fiction. I would have said computers would have never been capable of art and poetry. It was all fantasy until it was suddenly reality. We’ll probably know if this can be replicated relatively soon. And if it can it will kick off a who…

LLMs were/are massively overhyped though. Like it’s not even close to the sort of transformation they promised. Neat tech yes, world-changing solution to all of our problems? Very hardly, unless a very significant effort is spent (and yet undiscovered tech invented) to eliminate all of its significant practical problems. Academics (and similarly venture startup founders) like to sort of jump to conclusions along the…

I don’t think you realize what’s happening. In it’s 1+ year existence, it has already seeped into media production, art, design, architecture, engineering, pharma, agriculture, education and basically every field dealing with digital information. We don’t hear it but there is massive change happening underneath our feet.
Post reply on HN