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

LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#291

Post by 93po »

jschveibinz wrote: post #266
thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

On the bright side: when people say “believe in the science,” this is exactly what they should be thinking: challenge. This whole process has been super healthy and similar challenges are important and needed for everything published, not just this particular research area. I might be out in left field, but I read so often that researchers are running out of ideas. What’s wrong with getting a PhD for challenging some…

Does this extend to climate change science too?

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#292

Post by ignite »

mgfist wrote: post #139
dralley wrote: post #41

Honestly, I feel bad for the original authors, who were correctly holding out for stronger evidence but were forced into publishing early by the actions of a third party going behind their backs. I hope they don't experience undue blowback because of this.

Yet we're all the better for it happening. Even for the original researchers - maybe it would've taken them another 10 years to get to a similar conclusion. Now, they can take the next step and not waste more time.

This was great science. Hypothesis, test, and attempted confirmation. Too bad it's not superconducting, but the process worked the way it is supposed to.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#293

Post by taylodl »

ShamelessC wrote: post #241
jklinger410 wrote: post #218

This was absolutely a fun and worthwhile experience for everyone involved. A lot of people got more interested in current materials science because of this. We watched a large community spring up out of nowhere to investigate a new discovery. It was really an incredible thing to witness, and I see only good things came of it. I can't really understand the sour grapes commenters in this thread. Not sure if they just w…

For me personally it is just general (mild) annoyance with a community that somewhat consistently likes to think it is smarter and better than others and which is then only ever willing to admit they were wrong in roundabout ways like "well this was all fun, anyone who thinks it was a waste of resources or what-have-you doesn't see how much impact it had". You can see this wild speculation play out _commonly_ for lot…

Exactly, and when you tell people not to get ahead too far ahead of themselves and wait for secondary confirmation before we get all excited, you get downvoted.

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen this show before.

Now, one of these times, we're going to get a secondary confirmation and then things will get really exciting! Until there's such a secondary confirmation, I'm going to remain a curious sceptic.

Jade is the color of experience and age.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#294

Post by nbgoodall »

nannal wrote: post #275
polishdude20 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like this followed the same rule of internet answers: Ask a question and you'll get crickets. Answer a question wrong and you'll get tonnes of people telling you the right answer.

Yeah, the power of Randlow's law cannot be understated.

Eurgh I actually Googled that, well played.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#295

Post by fasterik »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

Agreed! There's this bizarre reaction I see from many where they see the excitement and curiosity and hopefulness as a form of error and source of embarrassment. When mixed with an open mind and reasonable skepticism, it's a powerful opportunity to get people engaged in imagining a different world. I had all kinds of exciting conversations about what a validated, commercially viable LK-99 could produce. Why would I e…

Excitement and curiosity about science is a good thing, but hyping up dubious claims and low quality research is not. I don't know who to blame in this case; I'm not sure whether it's the researchers, science journalism, social media dynamics, or a combination of all those things. But it doesn't seem healthy to have the general public incentivizing scientists to rush out early results with sensationalist claims. Real science takes years to validate results and a lot of that happens behind closed doors, as it should.

I think the public reaction in this case is a symptom of a problem with our information ecosystem that extends beyond science. Just because something is fun to participate in in the moment doesn't mean it's not harmful to the underlying scientific/political/social process.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#296

Post by acqq »

JeremyNT wrote: post #211
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! There's this bizarre reaction I see from many where they see the excitement and curiosity and hopefulness as a form of error and source of embarrassment. When mixed with an open mind and reasonable skepticism, it's a powerful opportunity to get people engaged in imagining a different world. I had all kinds of exciting conversations about what a validated, commercially viable LK-99 could produce. Why would I e…

> When mixed with an open mind and reasonable skepticism, it's a powerful opportunity to get people engaged in imagining a different world. I feel like this line is doing a lot of lifting in your comment. The problem is that as lay people we are completely unequipped to gauge a claim like this. I followed along on HN and there were plenty of posts by people who were giving LK-99 crazy odds of success, fueled in no sm…

> Sadly this event showed there's a market for hyping up weak claims that people will be poor at evaluating

I don't see it as in any way an unique event, and also not unique for the enthusiasm seen on this site. The "believers" in most of the hypes typically aren't cured fast, as the article notes:

"While some commentators have pointed to the LK-99 saga as a model for reproducibility in science, others say that it’s an unusually swift resolution of a high-profile puzzle. "Often these things die this very slow death...""

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#297

Post by gfodor »

The substance produced from the paper isn't a superconductor. While extremely unlikely, there is still a chance that LK-99 is a superconductor, but the paper itself did not sufficiently describe the method needed to make it so as to replicate it properly. We will know the resolution to this once the sample from the original researchers is assessed by a third party, of which there are presently at least two to my understanding doing this right now.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#298

Post by SebJansen »

nannal wrote: post #275
polishdude20 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like this followed the same rule of internet answers: Ask a question and you'll get crickets. Answer a question wrong and you'll get tonnes of people telling you the right answer.

Yeah, the power of Randlow's law cannot be understated.

yes, Steven's law has such utility

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#299

Post by arcticfox »

themagician wrote: post #192
usrbinbash wrote: post #39

One of the good things that came out of this whole story: A very public demonstration, transported through mass and even social media channels, how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge.

The people who made millions off this saw something positive from it.

who made millions off of this?

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#300

Post by consilient »

penjelly wrote: post #194
thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

disagree, the excitement led nowhere. We already have high temp superconductors so even if it was real these applications can/are already handled. Its not harmless either, people invested time, money, and effort. its great to be excited for real science discoveries but hoaxes are not good, and can potentially cripple, crush the industry thats actually developing these things.

> its great to be excited for real science discoveries but hoaxes are not good,

There's absolutely no evidence of a hoax. The original authors were sloppy and overeager, not malicious.

Post reply on HN