Live data from Hacker News

LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

nature.com

111–120 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#111
post #22

I don't understand how did LK-99 create such wuss in the first place.

Because a room-temp, amb-press superconductor, that can be made from readly available cheap materials, would be almost on par with the discovery of fire in terms of importance for our species technological capabilities. Even the simplest example of what that would mean is already amazing to our society: Imagine a power-grid that no longer loses power to electrical resistence in the wires.

Cheap doesn't mean free. We can already reduce resistance by piling in more cheap metal, but it becomes more effort than it's worth.

And superconductors have limits on how much power they can carry.

But most importantly, the power grid doesn't lose all that much to resistance. And you'd still lose power to transmission line capacitance against the ground.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#112
post #55
post #5

Well I'm kinda glad I missed this whole news cycle IMO this phenomenon seems to be kind of an artifact of modern media -- I feel like in the old days, peers would have settled it among themselves, and we would have never heard about it The same thing happens in tech -- there is a lot of stuff that people talk about, that ends up being worth ignoring ... I always bring up that whole news cycle in 2017 about a potentia…

When are these old days? I remember cold fusion from the late 1980s. There's polywater from the 1960s. N-rays in the 1900s (the first decade) made it to "spiritualists" and "crackpots and extremists" outside of academia, https://archive.org/details/flashofcathodera0000dahl/page/24... . Giovanni Schiaparelli 1877 observation of "canali" on Mars captivated the public.

The Martian canals are interesting misinformation phenomena. A phenomenon that we’ve seen repeated among the woo crowd.

Schiaprelli points his telescope at Mars, and sees some faint squiggles. He suspects they’re something dried river beds, and calls them “channels”, like a river channel. Being Italian, he uses the Italian word, “canali”.

This word, being the same word used for “canal” in English, gets translated as “canal”. However in English, “canal” refers exclusively to an artificial construction, where as “channel” doesn’t have that distinction.

This framing now primes, people when looking at blurry faint marks on Mars. Someone tries to map the “canals” and either through an act of simplification/illustration, or psychological priming, connects dark regions (river deltas?) to each other via straight lines — perhaps the shape most evocative of artificiality.

And so it snowballs.

I don’t think the canal theory ever gained much traction. (It’s a wild idea!) Telescopes just weren’t good enough to consistently observe the channels, let alone see them well enough for a definitive answer. We had to wait for Mariner 4 for that.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Not surprising. My Master’s supervisor did, though he branched out after a while. I know people who’ve spent almost their entire career on iron.

Being that this is HN, I initially parsed ‘iron’ as ‘hardware’…

Well, there is some of it in most hardware :D

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN discussion did not particlarly have "reasonable skepticism". This is probably because people (i) were not aware that there had been many other hypes about RTSC before but less publicly visible all proved to be false, (ii) not being able to accurately judge the technical quality of the initial evidence, (iii) uncritically believing that the data in the initial preprints was proof for superconductivity because their…

Jeez— it's almost like few people around here are physicists, consider physicists credible on their specialty, saw physicists excited by the potential, and get excited by exciting things. What a shamefully foolish intellectual failure!

> saw physicists excited by the potential,

Mostly I saw actual physicists who had experience in the field being very skeptical, throwing a lot of cold water on the fire, and pointing out that the original authors looked like amateurs.

And then I saw a lot of people with zero experience in the field running around yelling about how they were out of touch, how this was a revolutionary new way that science would progress on twitter, out in the open, etc. People who were skeptical got called all kinds of names.

It didn't help that a lot of people on twitter pivoted from crypto-hype to AI-hype to LK99-hype pretty much on a dime.

There was also a lot of highly upvoted comments with the usual thoughtleadering style of "let me beak it down for your, here's the ELI5 of what is going on an what the implications will be..." followed by whatever they learned in the past 48 hours from plowing through wikipedia articles.

There could be a lesson here about listening very carefully to experts in the field when they give you their opinions. They often sound very highly biased, but there's usually very good reason for that. Once in a lifetime there's the event where some paradigm is overthrown and all the old scientists look a bit foolish because their instincts were to be skeptical -- but those instincts came through a lifetime of correctly being skeptical 999 times out of 1000 about wild claims in their field.

This could be a teachable moment that could inform people about climate change, coronavirus and other scientific claims. If you want to disagree with experts in the field you really need to get off your ass, get off twitter and the blogs, and go do the hard work of understanding what the scientists actually know by reading the articles that they publish. They're very often correct and their opinions hold more weight because they've literally spent their lifetime learning and thinking about this one thing. They didn't start learning about superconductivity / viruses / climate last week and you need to do better than some showerthought or wishful thinking that you think proves your viewpoint.

But we're not going to do that because its only been a few days and we've literally forgotten about how much flak scientists were getting on here over skepticism towards the initial claims.

And I had some of the most positively stupid arguments on here where people were trying to assert that scientific experts needed to express exactly zero bias because they were experts and held to a higher standard than the average moron with no experience who could argue whatever they liked. Engineering a rationale to be able to reject anyone with a strong opinion based on expertise in favor of strong opinions from randos on twitter.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#116

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.

The real superconductors were the friends we made along the way.

"Don't you guys get it? We did find a room-temperature superconductor! It was us -- conducting teamwork, with no resistance."

Sitcom's live studio audience: "Awwwwwww!"

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#117

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…

> 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.

This should be taken in the context of room temperature superconductors being notorious physics vaporware along with practically useful advances in quantum computers and useful fusion. What these have in common is a sort of holy grail status, where it's obvious they'd be a revolutionary complete game changer. Not that any of these things are obviously impossible, there's just been so many instances of discoveries in these areas that have failed to replicate that there's inevitably a lot of eye rolling in physics when these types of findings are announced.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#118

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.

I enjoy the optimistic takes as well. I think it's really fun to imagine incredible new materials that change our baseline capabilities in design and manufacturing.

All that said, there's also a case for saving all that energy by seeking out skeptical points of view. See thunderf00t's video from 5 days ago: https://youtu.be/p3hubvTsf3Y

All in all, I appreciate that so many people are enthusiastic about one thing in particular: replicating results. So many people will take a press release or an academic paper at face value. But the real value is in replicating the results.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN discussion did not particlarly have "reasonable skepticism". This is probably because people (i) were not aware that there had been many other hypes about RTSC before but less publicly visible all proved to be false, (ii) not being able to accurately judge the technical quality of the initial evidence, (iii) uncritically believing that the data in the initial preprints was proof for superconductivity because their…

I find it perilous to treat an entire community as it if has one voice. Ie. "the HN discussion" as a singular entity with a singular binary state on its skepticism. Someone else could equally claim that the HN community was super pessimistic and skeptical about it, because I certainly saw a lot of that too! While a convenient abstraction, it plays into our biases to notice and remember only some of the discourse. Plu…

The excitable people are certainly “loud” though.

The last few weeks with the LK-99 hype combined with the usual ChatGPT stories, I actually started feeling that maybe the site should be renamed Hype News.

> but that it's odd when there's people who treat an optimistic outlook as an error.

IMHO it’s best to treat any extraordinary claim as BS until proven otherwise as it’s very easy to concoct BS claims. If we take every one of them seriously, it will consume all of our attention and destroy the signal (actual facts) to noise (unproven claims) ratio on this site.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#120
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jain, a copper-sulfide expert I would have never known that people are actual experts in one material. This is impressive.

Well it doesn't preclude him being expert (or just doing work) in anything else? e.g. you might be a C++ expert, but also proficient in Python, and currently working professionally in Rust?

Right but it’s more like someone is an expert in the “async” method. You’d expect them to be expert in whatever language they’re using, so the framing threw me off.
Post reply on HN