221–230 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Checking the original samples, for one.
I hope that ultimately it will come to that because I don't think anything else will put this to rest one way or the other (unless it is 100% confirmed/reproduced by another lab). It also seems to be the shortest path to a resolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this culturally comes from lesswrong and it really makes me laugh every time I see it
Yeah, Scott Alexander wrote a whole article about how people should use made up fake statistics instead of simply saying "I don't know"[1]. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/02/if-its-worth-doing-its...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These sort of answers do not inspire confidence. I'm not anything close to a Materials Engineer, but at least in the (very different) fields in which I've published, it's very standard to not share material (e.g.: plasmids, bacteria, code, or datasets) until you've published. Pre-prints rarely have code or data available if the authors intend to publish elsewhere (again, in my field).
Ok, that may well be the explanation then. As long as those samples don't go missing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It comes from lesswrong/rationalist circles. Best to ignore people once you have identified that they are on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger curve
After reading the r/physics thread on LK-99 [1] I've cooled significantly on the matter. Basically: people who work in SC think the initial science seems very sloppy and the replication attempts don't come close to what you need to demonstrate a RT SC [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/15i3h9d/lk99_megat...
The SNR of this saga is very low. A speck of something floating under a magnetic field on a blurry video is not proof of room temperature superconductivity. We've seen memes, jokes, shitposting, bravado, Soviet fan fiction, play-by-play updates from non-SMEs cooking stuff under improvised conditions. No actual resistance measurement of LK-99 with a 4 point probe. If this is real, then discoverers found this in 1999,…
You are misinformed. It's in the original Korean paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it really wasn't that bad. The annoying part, at least for me as someone who, uh, I guess used to go to a lot of colloquia on this stuff?, is the part you left out: people pre-judged the outcome (of all three phenomena you mention!) and then got really, really cranky with anyone who dared challenge their position. If you (generic rhetorical you) want to believe that LK99 is going to superconduct, or that Bitcoin…
> really cranky with anyone who dared challenge their position. You could profit from those people, if you are confident in your position, by shorting some of the stocks that shoot up from people's pre-judgments on this matter.
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…
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?
Very interesting comments on the paper by Prof. Michael S. Fuhrer https://nitter.net/i/status/1688755932275384320 > But I think they buried the lede a little. Ferromagnetism is novel and unexpected in this material system, and might be interesting. But strong diamagnetism even more so > Even if the diamagnetic fraction is the entire sample (appears less) then it would be the second-strongest diamagnet known (and pyro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I would bet picodollars that rarely happens here…
I know most of their usernames so it is always a great laugh for me.