111–120 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lab has a patent though which a lows for disclosure while also profiting from it. Thus I am not totally convinced of your claims.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lab has a patent though which a lows for disclosure while also profiting from it. Thus I am not totally convinced of your claims.
[flagged]
Which would create future incentives for a lot of people to invest their money into a lot of high risk, high reward science that takes years to do?
Really hard to see that as something negative.
this video sent by one of the original authors to the NY Times is the most significant peace of evidence to me: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconducto...
Couldn't this be explained by magnetism alone? How does it show superconductivity?
Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?
I highlighted "necessary" and "verify" because your wording of your question somewhat hides the motivations of the labs.
Multiple labs around the world are not just doing a "homework assignment" to academically verify someone else's work. Instead, the tantalizing idea of a "room-temperature superconductor" would be a miracle material and That Scientific Leap In Progress is why independent labs are racing to reproduce it.
Same excitement of so-called "replication" would happen if somebody put out a plausible "cold fusion" paper or a workable synthesis of a new "drug molecule" to cure cancer. Multiple labs around the world would be motivated to implement their own cold fusion machine and cancer drug. It isn't "necessary" that they replicate it. Instead, they're genuinely excited about making their own miracle devices/drugs and possibly extending the scientific discoveries beyond the original authors' findings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lab has a patent though which a lows for disclosure while also profiting from it. Thus I am not totally convinced of your claims.
[flagged]
Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?
Reproducibly is kinda a cornerstone of academia. This isn’t a product sneak peak.
The existence and effect of it should suffice.
How it is produced is a later step.
Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?
That would prove that they'd done it, but not that anyone knew how (including the original authors). If this is going to be useful, we need to know how to make it.
In other words, if I put a lump of random stuff without any real interesting properties and a very motivated and sleep deprived scientist in a lab with all possible test equipment, what would be a probability of getting some kind of test result that would look yellow or green in that table?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lab has a patent though which a lows for disclosure while also profiting from it. Thus I am not totally convinced of your claims.
[flagged]