311–320 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that it's strange, it's that it is transparently silly to claim to precisely quantify in the absence of anything resembling sufficient information for the problem to be treated probabilistically.
Ya what if you just don’t know
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you'd have to do is 1) create bulk LK-99, 2) prove that that's what you'd created, 3) possibly also show that it's monocrystalline or something, and then 4) show that there's electrical resistance. The problem is that the stuff is really quite difficult to synthesize reliably. Until that can happen, good luck finding out in either direction!
It's definitely difficult to synthesize reliably when people dismiss any replication attempt that doesn't show superconductivity as a priori not being the right compound.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're saying that, if this had been real, the stock market would have known about it before the scientific community? How exactly? The markets do predict things but they can't synthesise correct information out of nowhere. Wall Street stock brokers weren't exactly going to sit down and start trying to replicate these results to see if they could cash in on it
Contrary to bored laymen on the internet willing to believe anything for escapism, the stock market usually reflect the outside view base probabilities (~0% in the case of LK-99 being real)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? I think he's saying OR not AND. Why would two separate pieces of evidence make the whole less probable, that makes no sense, whether you spell out the whole thing more formally or not.
So if I find 10 people that claim, each with a 10% likelihood of being true, that the dark side of the moon has a scar that looks like Pikachu, then it’s 100% true? That doesn’t make sense either. Seems like someone is falling prey to an intuitive fallacy of probability. The weird model is just wrong in the first place. The commenter we’re discussing conflates the probability of two people saying something with the p…
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…
Repeat after me: Flat bands do not imply superconductivity. DFT calculations cannot be used to predict superconductivity. DFT is a single-particle calculation. Superconductivity is a multi-particle phenomenon. At most, the preprint(s) you're referring to suggest that maybe (under their unverified assumptions) electron-electron interactions could lead to interesting physics in that material. It provides no evidence fo…
Since someone blamed "Soviet fan fiction" in which I did take a part (oops) [1], let's make my opinions explicit. I'm very sure at the moment: - That the publish of two arXiv papers was accidental and the second paper was only published to claim the proper authorship, thus the exact publish date was never controllable. - That top-tier Chinese universities do use Bilibili to post early results. This makes very hard to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wait, you got a lifetime warranty? xD
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?…
> 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. Not OP but "this man" has published enough papers on superconductors[0] that yes, he absolutely deserves the benefit of the doubt. [0]: See e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=hyun... or https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_P8mu…
given such facts, it is totally reasonable to question his expertise on the concern subject. you are free to judge people purely based on how much they publish, I totally respect that.