291–300 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 And this new paper finally rigorously explains away all the half-levitation videos. They can no longer be considered any evidence of SC at all.
In the original video he flipped it 360 degrees off the center of the magnet yet it kept the angle it was pointed at. Wouldn't a ferromagnet want to stay orientated with the field of the magnet and flip the other direction when rotated?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 And this new paper finally rigorously explains away all the half-levitation videos. They can no longer be considered any evidence of SC at all.
In the original video he flipped it 360 degrees off the center of the magnet yet it kept the angle it was pointed at. Wouldn't a ferromagnet want to stay orientated with the field of the magnet and flip the other direction when rotated?
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.
I think this is functionally equivalent to the status quo?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too like to assign probabilities to my vibes. Much more legitimate.
Reminds me of how Data in Star Trek would say things like "There is a 79.85 probability of success". I mean, maybe it is possible to assign probabilities to future events that you have never seen before, but somehow I doubt it (with 12.88% likelihood).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 2 things in favor of the Korean team - Hyun-Tak Kim is unlikely to ruin his career and legacy for something careless and frivolous. But stranger things have happened, so lets assign a 10% probability to give some benefit of doubt to the team. - The various DFT papers show interesting flat band structures. But DFT is an approximation and also they do not take into account electron electron correlations. So l…
That's not how probabilities combine.
You can’t add them, but you can multiply 90% by 90% and get an 81% chance of not RTSC, or a 19% chance of RTSC according to this model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the original video he flipped it 360 degrees off the center of the magnet yet it kept the angle it was pointed at. Wouldn't a ferromagnet want to stay orientated with the field of the magnet and flip the other direction when rotated?
That thread above has him flip the magnet and the same thing happens. Note the sample isn't magnetized itself, it's just ferromagnetic so conducts the field so the tip of the sample is the same and the top of the magnet (and this repels). That happens regardless of flipping the magnet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say it’s a short cycle now. But I bet a non-trivial number of people are still talking about this and trying to get results long after the initial cycle. It took years for cold fusion research to go away.
So what? We can still have labels for fuzzy concepts like “took the world by storm, for 2 weeks”, even if a couple thousand people are still excited about it 2 years later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This question has been asked with near identical or very similar wording in almost every LK-99 submission I've seen over the last week or so... Is there something botnet-y happening? I find it hard to believe anyone reading similar threads could have missed the numerous answers to this and similarly-formed questions that have been offered lately.
Maybe it is the most natural question which comes to a lay person like me when it comes to superconducting. Not everyone can be as knowledgeable, or in the loop as you are. And I assure you that I am no bot. I acquire sustenance, go into low energy states and have a lifetime warranty like all fellow meatbags.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That thread above has him flip the magnet and the same thing happens. Note the sample isn't magnetized itself, it's just ferromagnetic so conducts the field so the tip of the sample is the same and the top of the magnet (and this repels). That happens regardless of flipping the magnet.
Not flipping the magnet, rotating the sample. In https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 (the video with the rubiks cube) at around 20 seconds they rotate the sample around 360 degrees and it stays at the same angle. Normally I'd expect it would stay at the same angle of the magnetic field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about this? I keep a running probability (e.g. a 32bit float) for the successful outcome of each future event I have absolutely no idea about. At first I make it 50%, but I gradually adjust with each result, such that I aim to minimize my bias. It might sound silly, but at the minimum it would encode some information about the kind of events I'm typically asked to predict. And I do expect it could end up somethin…
"Not even wrong." An event about whose outcome you by definition have no information ("I have absolutely no idea") is an event to which you cannot assign any probability, including by assuming it's a coin flip and then treating the assumption as axiomatic. It encodes no information whatsoever because there is none to encode, and it biases all future results because you're averaging over a range that includes "data" y…
In any case, it is precisely my argument (and Scott Alexander's) that there are no events to which it is axiomatically impossible to assign probabilities.