671–680 of 754 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there's some sour grapes in Nature's article, as arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls, etc. For starters, Nature's reprints are hellishly expensive.
And Nature is still trying to whitewash its own reputation for publishing a very high visibility paper on superconduction that they had to retract.
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.
no need for a science paper for that, they should've written science fiction or created an educational documentary.
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…
In this case, I think the excitement and hopefulness was not dangerous or wrong, but I do see a risk to this kind of preprint hype in other contexts. During COVID there were multiple cases like this where a study got a lot of hype and discussion from non-experts and turned into "the science says X", when in fact the science was as of yet extremely unsettled. Sure enough, as the experts came to a consensus it rarely m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there's some sour grapes in Nature's article, as arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls, etc. For starters, Nature's reprints are hellishly expensive.
> arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls We're talking about condensed matter physics here, arxiv needs zero exposure in this field. It is extremely common to publish on arxiv first and only then begin the process of submitting the same manuscript to be published (and peer reviewed) in a journal. And while there are still so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there's some sour grapes in Nature's article, as arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls, etc. For starters, Nature's reprints are hellishly expensive.
And Nature is still trying to whitewash its own reputation for publishing a very high visibility paper on superconduction that they had to retract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge. Only? Math, logic, arts, etc aren't knowledge? What this episode has shown is that people don't know what they are talking about. Especially the ones cheerleading on the science's side.
> Only? Math, logic Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology. Mathematicians write proofs, and their peers try to find flaws in them. > arts, etc aren't knowledge? I am obviously talking about scientific knowledge, and in that regard: No, they aren't. The study of art can be scientific, and is as subjected to empiricism and falsification as everything else. Art in itself however isn…
No they are not.
> Mathematicians write proofs, and their peers try to find flaws in them.
There is a difference between checking whether a proof has flaws and running experiment to falsify a theory. In other words, when a proof has no flaws ( aka has been proven ), it's proven forever. Once euclid proved that there are an infinite amount of prime numbers, that's it. Nobody tries to falsify his claim because it's already been proven. Also, mathematicians checking for flaws in proofs is not empiricism. Go learn what empiricism means first before making absurd assertions.
Not only do you not know what science is, you don't even know what math is, you don't know what empiricism is.
> I am obviously talking about scientific knowledge
Then what's your nonsense about 'Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology.' Do you know what a syllogism is? How about modus ponens? Implication?
> If humanity forgot all the works of Mozart and Schubert, it would be a very sad day, but society would still function. If humanity forgot how to make steel, or had to rediscover the fourier transformation, we would have a problem.
If humanity forgot language, laws, government, etc, society would crumble as well.
Or are you going to pretend that language, laws, government, history, etc are now part of science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We frequently use aluminum wires with a higher thickness to make up for the lower conductivity as compared to copper. It’s not as simple as cost vs performance though, as aluminum is substantially less dense than copper. Gold and silver are also better conductors than copper, but of course are very expensive, and still have resistance. Zero resistance may be with it on some cases. For instance in projects that curren…
>We frequently use aluminum wires with a higher thickness to make up for the lower conductivity as compared to copper. Aluminum wires even made it into residential housing when copper was expensive/rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_building_wiring
I think the big takeaway if something like this happens in the future is half float ain't a miesner effect. Makes me increasing skeptical of Taj Quantums claim to a super conductor. https://tajquantum.com/art-t2sc/