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

Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 331 posts

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#211

Post by hliyan »

moonchrome wrote: post #204
ThePhysicist wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a cautionary reminder to not listen to random influencers on Twitter. The expert community was really silent and reserved from the beginning as they've seen such wonder materials many times. Having worked in that field for many years I'm personally skeptical that there ever will be an ambient-pressure, room-temperature superconductor. The band structure and interactions that need to be present in the material a…

I don't see anything bad with this hype cycle : - these guys thought they found something - turns out it probably wasn't superconductors but it's an still interesting finding - there was no fraud and something new was discovered - material science got a bit more mainstream exposure I'd rather see that than another crypto or AI hype cycle

Since this was an exceedingly short cycle, we were spared one of the negatives. Well, mostly:

  - some folks massively hype this as the "next big thing", extract money from investors and take mindshare away from more promising, but less exciting work

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#212

Post by jacquesm »

hliyan wrote: post #211
moonchrome wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything bad with this hype cycle : - these guys thought they found something - turns out it probably wasn't superconductors but it's an still interesting finding - there was no fraud and something new was discovered - material science got a bit more mainstream exposure I'd rather see that than another crypto or AI hype cycle

Since this was an exceedingly short cycle, we were spared one of the negatives. Well, mostly: - some folks massively hype this as the "next big thing", extract money from investors and take mindshare away from more promising, but less exciting work

There is no shortage of subjects where exactly that is being tried.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#213

Post by jacquesm »

ElFitz wrote: post #177
jldugger wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is you can probably ignore everyone who isn't giving a Nobel acceptance speech.

That’s why I personally only listen to the opinions of people with handles like "Planck54", "The1965PhysicsNobel" or "EconNobel94" on hackernews. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. N.B. I also tried to find some noteworthy Fields medal winner, but refrained since it appears I don’t know any of them, and that the committee’s choices and motivations have been subject to controversy [0]. [0]: https://www.science.org/content/arti…

Sure, but every now and then people get into an argument with a Putnam prize winner or the inventor of some Internet Protocol details and find themselves caught out...

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#214

Post by killerstorm »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #142
hliyan wrote: post #80

According to this: https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1688598313497694208 "...there is a less well-known exception to this rule called Brauenbecker extension which provides a mathematical proof that levitation is possible with a simple diamagnetic in a dipole field so long as the diamagnetic material mass is very small relative to the strength of the magnetic field." I was very hopeful in the early days and was foll…

Maybe a cautionary reminder to not listen to random influencers on Twitter. The expert community was really silent and reserved from the beginning as they've seen such wonder materials many times. Having worked in that field for many years I'm personally skeptical that there ever will be an ambient-pressure, room-temperature superconductor. The band structure and interactions that need to be present in the material a…

Can you explain how 300K is fundamentally different from 90K?

90K is 20 times above temperature of liquid helium. Is there some law of physics which says that you can go 20x the temperature of liquid helium but not 60x?

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#215

Post by ben_w »

smcl wrote: post #162
tw1984 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hyun-Tak Kim is unlikely to ruin his career and legacy for something careless and frivolous. you came with presumption that this man knows & understands the subject matter. that is a very bold assumption given the mounting evidence against such brief. > so lets assign a 10% probability why 10%? not 0.01%? because of his "prof." title or previous publications? Surely that won't change the course of nature I thought?…

I've seen this on here before. Guys convincing themselves that they're being rational and you're being emotional - because they put little numbers besides their feelings and perform some calculations to produce a percentage that "proves" their theory about Antivax stuff, Putin/Ukraine or whatever is credible.

Anyone who thinks rationality and emotion are mutually exclusive, hasn't understood half of what any of the big names in that area wrote.

Which isn't to say you or the other replies next to mine are wrong — any memes that get shared also get misunderstood, including attempts to be… less wrong.

(Putting numbers on my uncertainty has mainly made me aware that I'm bad at it, which is useful to be aware of even if it doesn't make me better at it).

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#216

Post by jacquesm »

colordrops wrote: post #76
worrycue wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you deny the SC status? Maybe we should adopt the stance that it’s not a SC by default and have the people asserting that it is prove that it’s a SC.

Or even better adopt no stance on truth value and rather adopt a stance on whether there is sufficient evidence to expend further effort. No need to guess at the truth. Just remain agnostic until you know the truth.

Exactly. That's the only reasonable stance. Everything else is just jumping to conclusions, positive or negative.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#217

Post by jacquesm »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #135
versteegen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wrote that other tweet before that paper was put up on arXiv. How does the fact that the one I linked to is a reply to the one you quoted change the plain meaning of his words? I'm trying to understand how I've misinterpreted his tweet but I've got to interpret "Sounds like it explains everything we're seeing" as referring to his own observations too, not (just) other people's. He's been looking for an explanation…

My bad, my reader view cut the tweet off and just showed the original. Still, his phrasing doesn’t indicate it’s over for him, just bordering - perhaps explains everything they’re seeing, but it’s : * not LK99 * a conjecture * isolated to magnetic properties that are acknowledged to be novel and don’t rule out messier effect * ignore other claimed properties like resistivity Also, something explaining everything you…

> I think it’s time for science to take the helm and hottakes to take a back seat for a while.

It has been time for that from day #1. It either exists or it doesn't. Whatever people think won't make a shred of a difference and until there is replication if you want to look smart without doing any work you can pick 'it isn't real' (but boy will you look stupid if it eventually is) or 'it is real' (but boy will you look stupid if it eventually isn't).

I think all this whole saga has done for me is to show how little patience people have and how even findings of fact can lead to polarization if there is an element of uncertainty thrown into the mix.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#218

Post by worrycue »

jacquesm wrote: post #216
colordrops wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even better adopt no stance on truth value and rather adopt a stance on whether there is sufficient evidence to expend further effort. No need to guess at the truth. Just remain agnostic until you know the truth.

Exactly. That's the only reasonable stance. Everything else is just jumping to conclusions, positive or negative.

Sometimes a decision has to be made though - e.g. is a particular person a murderer.

In most countries, the burden of proof is on the accuser and the accused doesn’t need to proven his or her innocence and is treated as innocent until proven otherwise.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#219

Post by killerstorm »

whimsicalism wrote: post #202
kzrdude wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I don't have this guys credentials, but it sounds very close to "This is not a superconductor as we know them to be". Which almost goes without saying, because if this is a room temperature superconductor in some sense, maybe something quite different is needed to explain it. I think we should be excited for new physics.

No, not at all. Meissner effect is constitutive of SC

> Type-II superconductors do not exhibit a complete Meissner effect.

Are type II superconductors not superconductors to you?

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#220

Post by Lockal »

moonchrome wrote: post #204
ThePhysicist wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a cautionary reminder to not listen to random influencers on Twitter. The expert community was really silent and reserved from the beginning as they've seen such wonder materials many times. Having worked in that field for many years I'm personally skeptical that there ever will be an ambient-pressure, room-temperature superconductor. The band structure and interactions that need to be present in the material a…

I don't see anything bad with this hype cycle : - these guys thought they found something - turns out it probably wasn't superconductors but it's an still interesting finding - there was no fraud and something new was discovered - material science got a bit more mainstream exposure I'd rather see that than another crypto or AI hype cycle

Last time I saw this cycle with EmDrive

  - some guy created EmDrive (2001)
  - author argued for decades that EmDrive violates Newton’s Laws
  - author filled a group of patents, launched a new company "Universal Propulsion Ltd." (2016). But by this point, DOZENS of independent researchers had already proven that EmDrive doesn't create thrust.
  - NASA and DoD and a lot of smaller companies just threw money away testing something that can't even work in theory
  - "there was no fraud" (allegedly), all blamed on measurement errors
  - mainstream exposure was pure hype, it was just electromagnetic/thermal effect, the research has yielded ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new.
Post reply on HN