LK-99 isn’t a superconductor • Hacker News Board

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#601

Post by sweezyjeezy » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 6:41 AM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #297

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 unde…

"So you're saying there's a chance?"... What you say is not incorrect, proving a negative here beyond all other possibility is hard. But I feel like for the lay person like me (us?), this matter should be considered resolved now. There's no point stretching hope and spending energy to follow it further.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#602

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 6:42 AM UTC

svara wrote: post #600

All those "peer review must die and be replaced by a Twitter mob" comments sound even more stupid now, and yet it will be the same thing next round. This is leaving a really unpleasant aftertaste for me, seeing how dismissive this community got about the opinion and work of people with actual expertise, based mostly on repeating memes picked up from social media.

[deleted]

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#603

Post by tsimionescu » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #458

tsimionescu wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, which I believe contradicts yours, is that it's perfectly plausible that 1000 years from now humanity knows about plenty of RTSCs and still chooses copper and aluminum for power transmission and sillicon for transistors etc, because none of the RTSCs are actually useful on an industrial scale - so RTSCs would not have any significant effect on the economy. Of course, the opposite is also perfectly plausible…

I fully agree that finding an existence proof of RTSC could also fail to achieve anything, and even not affect rent at all- absolutely zero change in the two world lines. Let me rewrite my original sentence that bothered people, so it's a bit clearer. Here's the original: """Room temp Superconductors, along with fusion, would affect the economy profoundly. What the exact effect on rent would be is hard to predict but…

Sure, if you change " RTSCs would change economy forever" to "RTSCs could change economy forever", we are entirely in agreement.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#604

Post by sweezyjeezy » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 6:48 AM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #583

seewhydee wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that there are now multiple independent lines of investigation pointing to LK-99 not being a superconductor, and explaining away the original "smoking guns" offered by the authors. It's like we have a murder suspect, the murder weapon, and fingerprints lifted from the scene. At this point it could still be space aliens, but nobody in their right mind would treat that possibility seriously.

These analogies aren't useful. Much of this process so far has relied upon a single point of failure not failing: that the paper contains the necessary information to replicate and describe the material. If that assumption is wrong, while some science will still remain valid, much of it would turn out to have been unindicative of the actual state of reality.

But what about the alternative explanation for what the Korean team saw? Occam's razor is coming firmly down on one side here.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#605

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 6:58 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#606

Post by rewgs » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 6:58 AM UTC

93po wrote: post #389

hackerlight wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not too long ago, a creationist would have sarcastically asked "Does this extend to biology too?", and gone away thinking they had made an actual argument.

Try challenging climate science, even in a valid way, and see how popular it is on reddit or HN or twitter. Even my above comment now has a negative score which sort of proves my point. note: i don't deny climate science but like any science there are ways to challenge it

People are "against" challenging climate science because a) it is extremely mature and the broad strokes as well as most of the fine strokes are overwhelmingly settled and have been for decades, and b) challenge implies a delay, which is not something we can afford; this tactic is often used by people engaging in bad faith, using the guise of "challenge" to discredit the science.

People are probably downvoting you because you're coming across as either contrarian at best or bad-faith at worst. Surely you realize this.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#607

Post by onion2k » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 7:00 AM UTC

vietvu wrote: post #542

agrippanux wrote: post #156

My wife will be very happy. When I explained to her the potential if it truly was the breakthrough being reported, her first reaction was: "I hope we establish a government agency to regulate everything floating around because I don't want to get bumped into by random stuff".

When I told my wife about this, all she replied was how it's gonna be monopolized by big countries/big tech and our third world country like ours will never use it. It's a point, but well human need to push the limit, no matter what.

When I told my wife about this, all she replied was how it's gonna be monopolized by big countries/big tech and our third world country like ours will never use it.

The materials and hardware required to make LK-99 are within the reach of a high school. It's really simple and doesn't require anything more than a very hot oven (hotter than a domestic one, but still very common). If it'd turned out to be a real superconductor anyone who wanted to make it could have done.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#608

Post by ThePhysicist » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 7:03 AM UTC

fnordpiglet wrote: post #546

I think it’s a fairly interesting story over all, and it feels like exactly how science should happen. We are humans and easily deluded. We fall easily for things we wish to be true. The fascinating story behind LK99 is incredibly human - including the rushing a preprint out to secure a noble prize by one of the researchers who was being excluded. The fascinating part to me was the fact engineers and scientists could…

No, this was just bad science from the beginning. I've done experimental physics research and the way this team published their results and how sloppy everything looked is definitely not how science should happen, it's just a great way to ruin your reputation as a scientist (which the original authors thoroughly did). Every PhD student learns to e.g. include proof that an observed effect is not caused by a different mechanism than the one claimed (i.e. ferromagnetism instead of superconductivity), this is sorely lacking from the original publication. That paper would never have made it through peer review. The paper producing single crystal LK-99 and refuting the claims [1] is good science, read it and you'll immediately notice the differences in the quality of the text, the diagrams, presentation of methods, overall structure and conclusions.

1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#609

Post by pbmonster » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 7:04 AM UTC

Forgotthepass8 wrote: post #536

hunson_abadeer wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely what put me off in these discussions. Not the idea that we might have found a room-temperature superconductor - that part was exciting. It's the part where people confidently talked about its applications without realizing that they probably wouldn't revolutionize CPU performance (Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity), p…

It also wouldn't change much in MRI (formally NMR) -- it's also very limited on other factors

I mean, both NMR spectrometers and medical MRI machines would be a hell of a lot less complex without the cryostat.

If you remove that, those things become... really, just tubes wrapped in various coils connected to a software defined radio of average quality.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#610

Post by KSteffensen » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 7:14 AM UTC

hunson_abadeer wrote: post #378

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.

This is precisely what put me off in these discussions. Not the idea that we might have found a room-temperature superconductor - that part was exciting. It's the part where people confidently talked about its applications without realizing that they probably wouldn't revolutionize CPU performance (Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity), p…

A large part of the energy loss in electronics happens in switch-mode Buck-Boost DC-DC converters, as I understand it mainly due to internal resistance in the components used and due to the magnetic field not being directed enough to transfer 100% power between two inductors.

Would a cheap room temperature superconductor bring any benefits here?