171–180 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm perfectly willing to forgive some hubris if their claims turn out to be accurate. Watson and Crick are not a great choice of role model for good character.
I read The Double Helix, Watson's autobiography (which I enjoyed), what are you referring to that he failed to mention?
Weird
I get a strong feeling that this guy is like the lab that said they found life that didn’t use phosphorous for dna a few years back. I think it just turned out to be shoddy lab work and not accounting for contaminants in their lab chemicals. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.9861 If you find something extremely rare that rewrites what we know you need to be damn sure that what you are saying is true. But so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Combined with the slipshod methodology, doesn't this make you feel like it was silly to release the arXiv paper when they did? Well, the LK-99 team agree As I understand it, the 99 in the name is because they first discovered it in 1999. Seems to me that if you didn't manage to nail down the process in 24 years, it's probably time to publish and let someone else have a go.
It sounds like you don't know the history. They were doing other unrelated things in the meantime, not working in this.
But if I was an early-career researcher looking to establish myself, secure funding and maybe a tenure-track position, and I had a nobel-prize-winning discovery up my sleeve, I can't imagine many things that would take precedence.
I mean, obviously whatever happened happened. It just seems strange to simultaneously claim to have discovered something 24 years ago, and to have been rushed into publishing prematurely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm perfectly willing to forgive some hubris if their claims turn out to be accurate. Watson and Crick are not a great choice of role model for good character.
I read The Double Helix, Watson's autobiography (which I enjoyed), what are you referring to that he failed to mention?
This photo was the missing piece for them to understand the structure of DNA and Franklin was not credited for it at the time. Wilkins, meanwhile, received the Nobel prize with Watson and Crick despite the single biggest contribution that came from the lab being Franklin's photograph.
It's nearly impossible to overstate just how pivotal and important this photograph was. There was no theory or model at the time that would have gotten them to understanding DNA. This x-ray crystallography photograph was THE missing piece.
Watson, Crick, and Wilkins could have properly credited her at any time. They included her photograph in the paper, explained how important it was. She wasn't even mentioned. They effectively plagiarized her work and took the credit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this in-fighting thing has been proposed before as credibility-supporting. Here's an earlier tweet with some background on the palaver, account worth following on it all: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248
This is going to make such a great movie
Doesn't it seem like there should be some sort of annealing process required? this material being essentially a powder smashed into a tablet form seems like it would likely be a very poor conductor unless the superconducting properties not only existed in each of the granules of the powder, but also can easily transition between each of the boundaries. So wouldn't you want the final thing to be closer to like a ceram…
I'm completely out of my league here. I was looking at the floating sample picture and it struck me as odd how the material levitates at an angle. [0] The broken part floating and the "pressed" part resting on the plate. To me, this suggests that a significant amount of the material is not the target material. Further, if the target material was evenly distributed, I'd expect that levitation properties would correlat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do that every now and then. Peer review rarely, if ever, involves any sort of replication.
I’m asking on a legitimate basis. I am not involved in the science world and only know about Nature as a publication from high school and college. The way Nature was described to gave me the sense that you weren’t going to have a paper published unless you had some surprising results, and that didn’t include the null hypothesis. If that’s not the case for this publication then I would appreciate if someone showed me…
However, there's also an informal crazy claims filter. If your paper is so surprising they think it might be made up or wrong, they might ask for extensive revisions prior to publication.
So they won't publish my paper saying the moon is made of cheese no matter how surprising such a finding might be.
There are basically two repeating crystal cells. Her theoretical calculation shows superconducting properties when you substitute one cell for copper, but not the other. The "bad" substitution is a lower energy substitution that occurs more easily.
"Finally, the calculations presented here suggest that Cu substitution on the appropriate (Pb(1)) site displays many key characteristics for high-TC superconductivity, namely a particularly flat isolated d-manifold, and the potential presence of fluctuating magnetism, charge and phonons. However, substitution on the other Pb(2) does not appear to have such sought-after properties, despite being the lower-energy substitution site. This result hints to the synthesis challenge in obtaining Cu substituted on the appropriate site for obtaining a bulk superconducting sample."
I think this theoretical result by Griffin at the Livermore Lab explains why labs are having difficulty replicating the LK-99 sample: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf There are basically two repeating crystal cells. Her theoretical calculation shows superconducting properties when you substitute one cell for copper, but not the other. The "bad" substitution is a lower energy substitution that occurs more easily.…
But the paper is exciting, particularly with people now independently recreating the diamagnetic effect.