A room-temperature superconductor? New developments • Hacker News Board

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#401

Post by nomel » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 7:59 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #239

deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

I am also completely baffled by this! So many stupid mouse-model medical discovery stories over the years and actually zero LK-99 coverage. It doesn't even matter if it works or not as for whether it's newsworthy; the mystery, human backstory, and Argonne/China/independent scientists jumping to replicate alone is a whole swathe of viable and fascinating topics ready to be published. The crazy thing is NYT just bother…

> What are they doing?!

Trying to make ad money with views, which is their profit incentive.

Mouse models are nearly always spun as applicable to humans, which an average, aging, viewer would be interested, usually relating to "Cure ", "regrow limbs", "stop aging", etc.

The average viewer isn't interested in superconductors, and the 10 seconds the news orgs have for each bit of news isn't enough to explain them.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#402

Post by lolinder » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:00 PM UTC

throwaway23354 wrote: post #303

AlanSE wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still not believed. It's just Twitter that I've seen the juicy stuff, like a (very sketchy) claimed replication from a Russian, and now another claim from a Chinese group. I could still see this being something "new" but not a true superconductor. If you read the link, there seems to be some kind of discovery brewing, but the original discovers may not have understood what they found.

While you're correct about the scarce and sketchy evidence currently it is in the process of narrowing down. Or to put it better the evidence is mounting that it might be a breakthrough. It likely hard to manufacture correctly, but simulations done at Berkeley Labs seem to support the claims of the original paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892 And aside from that to be honest I hope that we have time to prove or di…

Why a throwaway account for this? It honestly makes me immediately question your take.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#403

Post by phoenixstrike » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:00 PM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #239

deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

I am also completely baffled by this! So many stupid mouse-model medical discovery stories over the years and actually zero LK-99 coverage. It doesn't even matter if it works or not as for whether it's newsworthy; the mystery, human backstory, and Argonne/China/independent scientists jumping to replicate alone is a whole swathe of viable and fascinating topics ready to be published. The crazy thing is NYT just bother…

Almost all of the stories in major newspapers are commissioned ("pitched") by interest groups that want to see that article published. It's why a lot of articles contain quotes from weirdly specific people with middle-office titles in specific organizations. Journalists aren't cold calling random office workers to get these quotes. An outline of an article is provided, journalists do some minimal fact-checking and write it out into a proper article. Beat writers that cover a specific topic regularly and have made their own contacts in that field are an exception.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#404

Post by ska » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:01 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #333

ska wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes everyone's primary motivation is $, which just isn't true. I've known super bright and talented people who gone off to wall street or FAANG for big $, but I've also known equally strong people who turned it down for low 6 figures doing the research they wanted to. In both cases some are very happy with their choice, others not so much.

I know a super smart PhD who is now a SWE and he would have been ok with the pay, but not the general BS of academia. So even if money isn't the primary motivator, it's still an issue.

Isn't that sort of what I said? For some people the trade off is worth it, some it isn't. Academia BS vs corporate BS is just one of the aspects.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#405

Post by Veserv » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:01 PM UTC

ASalazarMX wrote: post #305

javajosh wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea! They wouldn't have been able to do any applications without a voltaic cell, and it would have been a novelty. Like gunpowder in ancient China.

The force of tradition is amazing. Imagine centuries knowing how to make something that explodes violently, and using it for entertainment instead of weapons. Just like how Mesoamerican civilizations invented the wheel, but only used it on children toys and not for transportation. There were no draft animals in the region, but they didn't even make wheelbarrows. https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/the-concept-of…

The Mesoamerican civilizations did not have copper, bronze, or iron metallurgy which is a prerequisite for making the metal rims needed for transportation wheels. A wooden wheel without a metal rim is too fragile for transportation.

Without the wheel, humans are actually relatively comparable to other pack animals in carrying efficiency. It is the wheel that makes moving larger loads more efficient which makes it advantageous to domesticate pack animals that can exert greater force.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#406

Post by greggsy » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:03 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #363

gtsnexp wrote: post #338

Failed attempt to replicate: Semiconducting transport in Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O sintered from Pb2SO5 and Cu3P https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.16802.pdf

I would expect to see such failed replications even if LK99 is the real deal. Getting the exact conditions correct for any sort of novel lab science is non-trivial, and often times the crucial variables might not even be measured in initial publications. People use this fact to try to bash things like cancer research, but it is unfortunately just a fundamental problem of science. Scientific publications are not kerne…

These are just as important as successes, as they build knowledge about what is not possible.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#407

Post by wallaBBB » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:03 PM UTC

stusmall wrote: post #284

deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

I actually appreciate that caution. Things have been extremely up in the air and it would be very hard to properly explain what is happening, how it matters and if it matters. The last part I think is why it's a good thing that they held back. There was enough unknown that it wasn't clear if this would ever amount to anymore than "some scientists may or may not have made a big mistake." I think we are hitting the poi…

After racing with each other to fuel political extremism or push the corporate narratives like how working from home is terrible for the worker or how good it is for us that the rich don’t pay the taxes, how unaffordable housing is good for the economy… this is what they choose to be careful about?

Nah, this just doesn’t sell or is not a paid article.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#408

Post by Prickle » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:04 PM UTC

mvalente_ wrote: post #364

ASalazarMX wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The force of tradition is amazing. Imagine centuries knowing how to make something that explodes violently, and using it for entertainment instead of weapons. Just like how Mesoamerican civilizations invented the wheel, but only used it on children toys and not for transportation. There were no draft animals in the region, but they didn't even make wheelbarrows. https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/the-concept-of…

Is there a name for this kind of effect?

"The road not taken" is a Science Fiction trope that generally explores that idea.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#409

Post by moooo99 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

0xDEF wrote: post #263

deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

Danish and German media has covered it by interviewing local scientists who are all calling it bullshit.

that does indeed sound like a very German reaction

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#410

Post by bluGill » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

dralley wrote: post #352

Eumenes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a good likelihood on strong return on those type of investments. You need real engineering talent and leaders. You can glue together a delivery or dating app with a bunch of 25 year olds who just got out of a ruby on rails bootcamp, raise a few million with charismatic/well connected leaders/founders, and maybe gain enough users to be acquired or something. Anything in materials science is going to requir…

It's not at all obvious to me that it's more risky than some of the BS that gets hundreds of millions of dollars in VC funding.

Timelines matter. The BS will either return the millions in a couple years or it won't. Basic research may return much more, but your best case is still many years before you gets results. The risk is actually higher with basic research than for BS as well - the pet rock earned money and there are plenty of other examples of stupid things working well quickly. Basic research in fusion hasn't returned anything yet even though the physics has said it works (though with recent reports maybe fusion is just around thee corner - or maybe it is still 50 years out)