Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 331 posts

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#261

Post by throwanem »

itsoktocry wrote: post #249
smcl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this on here before. Guys convincing themselves that they're being rational and you're being emotional - because they put little numbers besides their feelings and perform some calculations to produce a percentage that "proves" their theory about Antivax stuff, Putin/Ukraine or whatever is credible.

> their theory about Antivax stuff, Putin/Ukraine or whatever is credible. Your politics are revealed with your choice of examples here. Who needs a decision-making mental model when we can just trust what the experts tell us about these things, or maybe "trust your gut"? That's never failed.

That's a false binary. "I don't have enough information to form an opinion here" and "I feel like that guy's probably full of shit, though" are in no way mutually exclusive.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#262

Post by hliyan »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #178
hliyan wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

FWIW I prefer to not use my real name in discussion threads here, although it is linked in my bio. So if you don't mind please remove it, thanks :)

Apologies, by the time I saw this, the edit button had been disabled. Please feel free to flag the message so that dang can remove it.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#263

Post by ldjkfkdsjnv »

lessaligned wrote: post #257
ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impossible, wall street has some of the smartest scientists on the planet. They absolutely went through the research and determined it was a fake. Look at the AI boom, nasdaq rallied 40%. Superconductor would have had the same effect

...nothing happened to the markets ~2017 when the transformer architecture (behind the current AI boom) happened. Nor in 2020 when it was pretty obvious shit scales and generalizes well. ONLY when it got built into an actual product (ChatGPT) did the needle start to move. Same with this, until someone figures out how to make WIRES from LK-99-like-stuff that can be made into useful MAGNETS, it will stay flat. Markets…

Transformers in 2017 basically were just better at computing similarities between blocks of text. OpenAI really did take them and turn them into something new.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#264

Post by andrewflnr »

throw-7462637 wrote: post #123
rurban wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you cite Korean (or Chinese or Japanese) names, please write them correct. There is no Hyun-Tak Kim, he is called Kim Hyun-Tak. Likewise Kwon Young-Wan. In Korean it's trivial to detect, in Chinese not so, in Japanese very hard.

Ouch. This comment backfired quite badly. Turns out the person being replied to is Korean, the commenter is likely not, and in addition this is how the authors wrote their names themselves. Yet I do not wish this comment to be snarky. I’m interested in the broader perspective (and I apologize in advance to the parent for using this as an hook). The comment seems common of the present era in which polarization (leadin…

I think we're sort of climbing out of a local maximum of entropy. It's gotten better in some ways and worse at others. It'll take some time for everything to settle out.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#265

Post by woeirua »

willis936 wrote: post #253
fastball wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appropriate allocation of resources is intrinsically beneficial.

Exactly right. If we concede that our present level of societal R&D is appropriate then it's easy to argue that resources are presently wasted pursuing less promising leads.

Until we have definitive evidence that LK99 is a SC, there's no reason to believe that it is a promising lead.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#266

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #236
willis936 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also adds little value. It would add no information on whether or not the sample is a fluke. We need to understand the material properties and its composition.

If it is a fluke or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not it is real, not how it was made. If it is real then we can expend a fortune on the 'how it was made' question, if it isn't real we can all descend from this holding pattern.

[deleted]

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#267

Post by gus_massa »

willis936 wrote: post #238
jacquesm wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is a fluke or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not it is real, not how it was made. If it is real then we can expend a fortune on the 'how it was made' question, if it isn't real we can all descend from this holding pattern.

What benefit does that bring?

If it's real, "we" can brute force a reproduction. Just make each graduate student that works in a superconductivity lab spend two random months trying variants of LK99.

The attempts will fail. The idea is that the rest of the time the graduate student will be making standard superconductor to collect enough boring papers to escape the rat lab. But if the LK99 clone is a lucky one, everyone in the lab gets a groundbreaking paper.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#268

Post by meroes »

throwanem wrote: post #260
itsoktocry wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but somehow I doubt it You doubt it? That means you're assigning some underlying probability to the event (not) occurring. Why does it seem strange to you if people are explicit about their priors?

It's not that it's strange, it's that it is transparently silly to claim to precisely quantify in the absence of anything resembling sufficient information for the problem to be treated probabilistically.

Ya what if you just don’t know

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#269

Post by [deleted] »

suslik wrote: post #222
bnralt wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Scott Alexander wrote a whole article about how people should use made up fake statistics instead of simply saying "I don't know"[1]. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/02/if-its-worth-doing-its...

Not always. "I don't know" is identical to saying "I have a uniform prior". In the particular case of LK-99, my prior is perfectly uniform - I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter and almost everything I read on the topic feels way above my head. As I refuse to be influenced by experts (or "experts") until there is some sort of consensus, I have absolutely no good reason to say anything but "I don't know"…

[deleted]

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#270

Post by dcow »

ironborn123 wrote: post #259
layer8 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact numbers don’t matter, but your post indicates that you seem to have the wrong mental model of how to adjust your credences. The probability of each factor decreases the overall probability, not increases.

Alright lets do some calculations. Feel free to dissect the assumptions. K event = Kim says Material L is RTSC D event = DFT says L is RTSC S event = L is actually RTSC we have assumed P(S/K) and P(S/D) are each 0.1, though we could have chosen other numbers for them as well. We want to estimate P = P(S/(K and D)) P = P((K and D)/S) P(S)/P(K and D) Assuming Kim and DFT are in the business of making positive predictio…

What? Your model doesn't make any sense if you don’t know how to combine probabilities.

Furthermore, you can’t just say “I understand things semantically different than everyone else talking about probabilities so when I say the probability of two events happening is 20% I actually mean something completely different and my math works this way I invented to describe why my messy naive intuitions about probability don’t match the reality of how probability works”.

Post reply on HN