Live data from Hacker News

LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

forums.spacebattles.com

281–290 of 659 posts

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#281
post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

Sure but if you had in your hands a superconductive material at room temperature and ambient pressure you’d be pretty amazed. That’s a lot of credibility right there.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#282
post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#283
post #54

Saw some people hyping up markets where people are betting on prediction markets whether or not LK-99 will replicate. Can't help but feel like that money would be better spent just paying off some labs to actually try to replicate the process. The response I got from a predictions market enthusiast was that having a sufficiently large market would motivate people to attempt to have the process replicated and buy opti…

This type of instictive negative reaction to prediction markets is, unfortunately, common, but, I think, misguided. Prediction markets are one of the (or just, the?) best ways of aggregating knowledge from multiple sources and producing the best predictions. Having good legible predictions of impactful events such as LK-99 replication is extremely useful for society - it would be an invaluable input for a savvy polic…

> If you are participating in a prediction market, either you have some reason you believe you know something the market does not or you should expect you are simply subsidizing those with better information.

Sometimes people just vote for "their team", similar to a sportsball fan placing a large bet on their favorite team winning, without any insider knowledge. I've seen it a couple of times on PredictIt for the more contentious predictions (presidential election being one, control of the house / senate, etc). While in the end those with better information will usually come out on top, in those kinds of markets the favored prediction doesn't align well with the data.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#284

Whether or not this turns out to be real the whole incident has been extremely entertaining, way more than I would have expected. Replication attempts being documented in real time on Twitter and livestreamed on Twitch, news about infighting and drama among the researchers who published the paper, constant fluxations in the betting markets as new news comes out. It's been a wild ride.

welcome to the new world...It is fast, efficient and very interesting...

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

Grifting doesn't always make sense to those not in on the grift.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#286

I'm resigned to disappointment for this. It's the modern days Pons and Fleischmann. Hopefully the lack of confirmation so far is due to people checking, double checking and triple checking, along with a healthy dose of "we don't want to be tarred with the same brush".

Reminds me of EmDrive. That was such a tease and then utter disappointment.

Hope LK-99 doesn't go the same way.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#288
post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

At the end of the day, materials science is still science. The institutional framework is optimized for a very specific process, so it's generally faster to let the process play out as usual rather than go and cut corners. Rest assured; there are a lot of scientists out there! We can afford to let a few of them chase clouds once in a while.

In any case... the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

Desperation? Momentary fame? To get funding to continue research? Any number of reasons humans do silly half-honest things…

There are some plausible allegations that the authors were a struggling pair of researchers and essentially stole this research and published a sloppy half baked paper they knew would make waves.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#290
post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs...

People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path.

It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.

I have made a play money market asking the same thing: "A physics lab will have received a package of the LK-99 material sent from the researchers by the end of August" [ https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-... ]

Not many traders yet, 57% yes, too optimistic in my view.

Post reply on HN