161–170 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Is the likelihood of risk taking behaviour identically equal between men/women? Why would we even expect it to be?
Is the likelihood that a man/women will be identically equally interested in a career in the hard sciences? Why would we even expect it to be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but computer chips are powered by DC.
Power dissipation in chips isn't an issue with the DC power supply but switching the current billions of times a second.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS/ Latest update: the diamagnetism has been confirmed from a tiny LK-99 replica sample. The Author posted: > Under the guidance of Professor Haixin Chang, postdoctor Hao Wu and PhD student Li Yang from the School of Materials Science and Technology of Huazhong University of Science and Technology successfully for the first time verified the LK-99 crystal that can be magnetica…
Doesn't anyone working in the physical sciences know how to record a decent video that isn't shaky, blurry, out-of-focus, or a handheld mobile phone recording of a computer screen? He's using a digital microsocope! Just press the "record" button and upload that! I can't wait for someone to successfully reproduce it, use a polaroid camera to take the photo, print it out, fax it, and have someone scan in the photocopy,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel it's pretty clear he's aiming for the Nobel if it's true. It can only be split three ways, after all.
Yeah, but that is quite amateurish. Just having the paper out first does not establish priority for the Nobel. What you need is the first paper with solid proof . It has happened more than once before that the guys with the second or third paper won the Nobel because the earlier paper was too weak.
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.
It's a feedback loop. Experimental results suggest new theories, which suggest new experiments to test those theories.
But on the other hand are the commenters who think AGI to ASI is going to take hours. When is there time to experiment anything? Even ASI needs real world confirmation to do research.
First question: what kind of weapons will people build using this ?
This is why space exploration is important. If we could find some astroid having superconductor materials at room temperature, everything will be revolutioned here.
I strongly disagree with this view. We don’t even know if such material can exist, and the intersected odds of it 1) existing 2) naturally and 3) us stumbling into it in the short term are astronomically low. Not saying space exploration is not important, but the reason you cite for it is about at the bottom of the list.
> Astronomically low
Why, yes, my dear fellow. That’s the name of the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Yes, but computer chips are powered by DC.
You see the same thing with external signals, like a connection between CPU and memory. Operate the bus at 1MHz and it is effectively DC. The signal has a wavelength of 300 meters, so when the signal travels a distance literally two orders of magnitude smaller across your motherboard the AC behavior is negligible. Operate that same bus at 1GHz and your wavelength is down to 30cm. Got a 40cm-wide motherboard? Better treat it like a transmission line or it isn't going to work!