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

Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#61

Post by db48x »

loveparade wrote: post #58
sMarsIntruder wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till tomorrow when there will be a new not peer reviewed paper stating the contrary. [edit:grammar]

Sure, but you really think peer review would solve any of that? It would only make things move 1000x slower and be worse. The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could. Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.

Peer review _is_ a free market solution to the problem of incorrect research.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#62

Post by lolinder »

loveparade wrote: post #58
sMarsIntruder wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till tomorrow when there will be a new not peer reviewed paper stating the contrary. [edit:grammar]

Sure, but you really think peer review would solve any of that? It would only make things move 1000x slower and be worse. The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could. Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.

> with more statistical significance

You can't take a dozen lousy studies and put them together to get better statistical significance than a single well-designed study. If the methodology of a study is bad, the results have to be scrapped entirely, and peer review is supposed to be the process through which we filter out bad methodology.

Without peer review we don't know which studies to eliminate from our informal meta-analysis, which means we can't come to any conclusions about the data.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#63

Post by icapybara »

phyzome wrote: post #50
icapybara wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit harsh don’t you think? LK-99 was plausibly a high T superconductor candidate, and high T superconductors are a real thing that exist. It is worth attempting to replicate. Cold fusion says “all of thermodynamics is wrong”. A much bigger claim…

This is the first time I've heard someone claim that cold fusion is flat-out impossible by the laws of thermodynamics, as opposed to just "very unlikely".

I’m not a cold fusion expert but my understanding of it is that it quite grossly violates the first law at least. If the first law is out, thermodynamics as we know it is wrong.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#64

Post by function_seven »

Nition wrote: post #56
function_seven wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man, “fabrication” isn’t a word I’d use :) I had to reread that a couple times before I realized you meant “make” and not “fake” (…right?)

"Fabricate" is a bit of a contronym really. Like oversight or sanction. Two meanings that are almost the opposite of each other.

One that got me recently was “resign”. I don’t know if it’s an American/UK thing or what, but I read a headline that said “Footballer Resigns” and it was about the player extending his contract, not quitting his job.

I would personally hyphenate that as “re-sign” if I were talking about signatures on contracts.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#65

Post by inimino »

Nition wrote: post #56
function_seven wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man, “fabrication” isn’t a word I’d use :) I had to reread that a couple times before I realized you meant “make” and not “fake” (…right?)

"Fabricate" is a bit of a contronym really. Like oversight or sanction. Two meanings that are almost the opposite of each other.

I would say the meaning is always the same, the difference is what was being fabricated. Fabricated material good, fabricated evidence bad.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#66

Post by function_seven »

inimino wrote: post #65
Nition wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fabricate" is a bit of a contronym really. Like oversight or sanction. Two meanings that are almost the opposite of each other.

I would say the meaning is always the same, the difference is what was being fabricated. Fabricated material good, fabricated evidence bad.

It’s like halfway between a true contranym and just a change of the verb’s object.

Like, you could say that Victor Ninov fabricated Element 118 in 1999, and also say that Element 118 was fabricated by scientists in 2002.

Both true statements! But of course I made sure to word them that way. You’re much clearer by inserting “evidence” in your sentence, thus saying that it was the data that was created, not the thing.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#67

Post by computerdork »

function_seven wrote: post #43
computerdork wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems super interesting, waiting to see if this sparks another round of fabrication attempts!

Oh man, “fabrication” isn’t a word I’d use :) I had to reread that a couple times before I realized you meant “make” and not “fake” (…right?)

yes poor choice of words - I am one of those who wants to believe! - definitely meant "make" :)

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#68

Post by jacquesm »

colordrops wrote: post #60
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of physics is it that states this and how do you explain that 'room temperature' just happens to be the range that is related to us and our environment and not to anything particular in physics? Or is it that you suspect that there is an exclusive or relationship between the conditions that allow complex biological life to never have overlap with those that allow superconductivity?

I don't think they are talking about physics, but rather the law of "nothing ever happens".

There are a lot of existence proofs that something invariably does happen, just not always the thing that you were hoping for. And even those tend to work out in the long run. Remember the quest for the Laser.

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#69

Post by miga »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #38
fnord77 wrote: post #5

I think we'll eventually discover superconductivity isn't possible at STP

Well, except for the whole "research over the last decade or two has born superconductors that work at warmer and warmer temperatures" thing. Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatur…

Look for Yttrium-Barium-Copper oxide that superconducts when cooled with liquid nitrogen. This is "cheap" cooling that will never run out.

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=superconductors#:~:te....

Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions

#70

Post by Zetice »

qup wrote: post #47
Zetice wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, why wouldn't someone believe something if there are no consequences to being wrong? As you say, unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, nothing you believe really matters, so why not jump in with both feet?

For some of us, being wrong is its own consequence.

Seems like a great way to paralyze oneself.
Post reply on HN