141–150 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Of course, they did give Donna Strickland a prize for the first paper she published as a grad student.
What are the implications in general of room temperature superconductors? I just know that they needed typically ultra low temperatures right? But what would be the practical implications?
It's important to remember that scientists are people too and they'll bandwagon trending claims to get their name out there.
I'm no expert but the videos here are far from convincing and the other paper about simulating LK-99 is just that a simulation and parameters can be manipulated to induce almost any outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cooler chips. Chips heat due to resistance, and superconductors have zero resistance (by definition). I suspect this is the company's intended application. The following quote from their patent is very suggestive if you know about semiconductor manufacturing. > In addition, various energy sources used for deposition are not limited to chemical vapor deposition (CVD) using heat, but atomic layer deposition (ALD), sput…
Note that the resistance of superconductors is 0 only for DC currents. The AC resistance is not 0 and typically gets larger for higher frequencies!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It looks like the first superconductor paper was released by a rouge researcher, without the agreement of the other two authors or the rest of the LK-99 group Please do cite any evidence, beyond a mere accusation.
The evidence is all the weird bits about how the paper was published, and other internet comments about the third author's relationship to the group. The authorship of the papers is relevant to the science here, since both papers have quality issues, so I wrote out the accusation as best I understood it. The evidence is nowhere near enough to prove anything and largely rumor right now, but I do think it's suggestive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) it takes a undergrad to make and measure a superconductor by a Nobel laureate to explain it. Another example of Taleb’s idea that experimentation comes first and theories second. Universities pretend that it’s the other way around but apart from an Einstein it’s usually not.
Not possible. Theory comes first. Scientists need a theory first to know which experiments to do. Any interesting experimental results are interesting precisely because they do not conform to the existing theories. Edit: here's a decent writeup to show what I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or buy car batteries while they're still affordable. Lead is less abundant in the Earth's crust than cobalt or neodymium, or even lanthanum.
I might have to go collect all the ones I've thrown in the ocean over the years
'Toxic effects of lead exposure on bioaccumulation, oxidative stress, neurotoxicity, and immune responses in fish: a review' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30884452/ and numerous other studies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming that we have thought of all theories that an experiment can confirm, before conducting the experiment. Considering the large search space, that would be quite surprising.
Can you tell me why a scientist would decide to do a certain experiment without a theory about what to test and why? Why that experiment and not any of infinite others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if true it will be the most important discovery of this century?
[flagged]