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

Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 389 posts

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#291

Post by bluGill »

stephencanon wrote: post #280
jcranmer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case scenario, we got another class of high temp (warmer than liquid nitrogen but cold enough that applications are limited) superconductor but nothing revolutionary since at this point, it is pretty conclusive that there is something interesting with LK-99. I don't think that's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen…

Why would skeptics waste their time commenting on LK-99 threads? There are much better things to do.

Because this is potentially a big deal. Skeptics who understand they can be wrong will want to follow this, but they don't want to get their hopes up.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#292

Post by bluGill »

blueprint wrote: post #128
jcranmer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case scenario, we got another class of high temp (warmer than liquid nitrogen but cold enough that applications are limited) superconductor but nothing revolutionary since at this point, it is pretty conclusive that there is something interesting with LK-99. I don't think that's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen…

> The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen that suggests otherwise is experimenter bias heaped on top of experimental error. well while we're one-upping each other I'm pretty sure the worst case scenario is some lk99 synthesizer actually creates a black hole which gobbles up the planet.

sure, but that is unlikely. If massive black holes opened up in labs then it would have already done so. Probably by chance in the dinosaur age.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#293

Post by eric_cc »

atoav wrote: post #187
throwawaymaths wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at that. Being perma-skeptic is as bad as being a perma-fanboy Anyways your memory is really short. Don't you remember how when it first came out (not even a week ago) everyone was hollering that it was fake? Inb4 "extraordinary claims...": there is no fundament…

I read through this thread and I can't help to feel reminded of the discussion about cryptocurrencies. So many people that want to believe , rational people that try to explain why it has to work when there is just not enough information right now. As if we believing it will change the outcome of the replication everybody that doesn't believe is shunned and called a heretic. Suddenly people that studied social scienc…

> I read through this thread and I can't help to feel reminded of the discussion about cryptocurrencies.

Same. Some people are simply wired to be perma-skeptics / perma-bears / perma-negative. This community is still full of people who truly don’t grasp how world changing bitcoin is. They are in complete denial, most often parroting unoriginal talking points that they’ve been handed from others.

It’s easier to bypass deep thinking and deep learning and just imitate being an expert. It takes courage to admit being ignorant.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not an expert in superconductors. I doubt most people in this thread are. But they are parroting and making ignorant predictions - just like crypto.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#294

Post by SanderNL »

matkoniecz wrote: post #269
SanderNL wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to keep an open mind both ways, but "skepticism" without either interesting or convincing arguments is IMO just as useless. We all know there is a good chance it turns out to be a dud. We all know cold fusion/emdrive/superluminal experiments turned out to be duds. We all know this. I wonder what news do "skeptics" have to bring to the table. Nothing a skeptic has to say changes anything. We are all - except…

> It's good to keep an open mind both ways, but "skepticism" without either interesting or convincing arguments is IMO just as useless. skepticism is an useful filter > I wonder what news do "skeptics" have to bring to the table. reminder of "We all know there is a good chance it turns out to be a dud. We all know cold fusion/emdrive/superluminal experiments turned out to be duds. We all know this." not everyone know…

Thank god for the skeptics. I might have gotten enthused about something. Can you imagine the implications of that? My god, please tell me someone is going to stop me from being mildly entertained before it gets out of hand.

Agents of reason, please enlighten us with your eternal negativity so that we may perceive clearly the folly of our excited ways.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#296

Post by junon »

cthalupa wrote: post #146
jcranmer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case scenario, we got another class of high temp (warmer than liquid nitrogen but cold enough that applications are limited) superconductor but nothing revolutionary since at this point, it is pretty conclusive that there is something interesting with LK-99. I don't think that's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen…

> I'm actually surprised by the sheer lack of people commenting in the more-or-less-perma-LK-99 threads who show skepticism of the results. There's plenty of people that are skeptical and making it a point to tell everyone they are skeptical. There's plenty of people that are skeptical that are still engaging on the possibility of it being real because it is interesting to do so. There are plenty of people discussing…

This. The idea that science can't also be fun seems to be the mindset of a lot of people criticizing others for participating more as eager spectators. Nothing wrong with that. Let people enjoy things. If LK-99 turns out to be nothing then we got some entertainment out of it and a lot of people learned about superconductors (and science in general) in the process. How's that not a win in and of itself?

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#297

Post by vinnyvichy »

_0ffh wrote: post #256
vinnyvichy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as an academic, I really hope they don't ever publish in a serious journal even if it turns out to replicate. Did your friend take Ranga Dias seriously because that was published in Nature? I understand there's a lot of noise, but one of the things one learns is to cut out noise without having to rely on journal brand

Nope, he didn't. You're getting the wrong message here. That publication is necessary to arouse his interest doesn't mean it's sufficient to make him believe anything. Those are different things. Peer review for publication is just meant to cut out the obvious crap. It's not a guaranty, and nobody who knows this stuff thinks it is.

Do you even do proofs in your line of work? I'm saying making publication necessary for arousal is a foolproof way to miss out on the beginnings of most of the really interesting stuff. Yeah he can read the ivy-approved materials in nature, but that would be stale. Okay, I can understand that his own line of work is much more interesting to him, that he would ignore the latest glimmerings from adjacent fields. That makes more sense than just taking peer review at face value.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#298

Post by blueprint »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #162
blueprint wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen that suggests otherwise is experimenter bias heaped on top of experimental error. well while we're one-upping each other I'm pretty sure the worst case scenario is some lk99 synthesizer actually creates a black hole which gobbles up the planet.

An lk99 synthesizer creating a false vacuum decay would be worse.

true! or an lk99 synthesizer accidentally generating the waveform of Never Gonna Give You Up

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#299

Post by ajnin »

I'm puzzled by this, looking at the resistance versus temperature graph they're not demonstrating zero resistance at 110K, they're demonstrating that at 110K the resistance becomes so low that it reaches the noise floor of their instrument. It's a stretch to call that superconductivity because when it come to that it needs to be actually zero, as in "I can put a current in a loop made of the material and come back one year later and it will still be there". Exponential decay will quickly catch up with a non-zero value, even very very small. Still this exponentially decreasing resistivity looks interesting, I have no idea if that's unusual or if that means anything. The weird dip at around 230K will need to be explained as well. I'm just an interested bystander, that goes without saying.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#300

Post by Jyaif »

_ph_ wrote: post #212
Waterluvian wrote: post #45

I don’t understand the physics, but it feels like a truly zero resistance conductor would violate some law of thermodynamics or something. Is a superconductor truly zero impedence or just very very very low? Because I’m seeing a lot of these graphs with something like: “0.00001ohm” as the y-axis floor.

Yes, as others already said, superconductors are zero resistance. Which is easy to check if you have enough of the substance to run meaninful currents through it. There might be miniscule amounts of resistance for contacting and impurities, but the resistance doesn't grow e.g. with wire length. So how is this possible? The explanation is acutally reasonably easy, but requires the strangeness of quantum dynamics. One…

Fascinating.

Let me get this straight: If you have a piece of phosphor, you can't heat it up with red light, regardless of the amount of red light you shine at it? If so, does the red light bounce off? Go straight through?

Post reply on HN