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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by Zetice »

beaned wrote: post #53
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?

Eventually such a practice will bite you in the ass when you form an opinion on something you think doesn't matter, but actually turns out to matter.

This presumes all of your opinions are wrong, and further presumes you'd hold these beliefs strongly when information changes, which is the very definition of irrational.

So yeah, if you act irrationally, you will make bad decisions. But it's not irrational to believe something loosely based on a very limited set of facts.

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

#72

Post by Zetice »

jprete wrote: post #31
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?

Because it leads to a habit of getting overly excited about every press release.

This begs the question; why "overly", why not just "excited"?

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

#73

Post by Zetice »

gloryjulio wrote: post #48
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?

Because the act of the believe doesn't affect reality. Either u have a robust way to make the right judgement of the progress (in the case u r at the forefront of the research and knows what they r talking about), or u r just a bystander. In the later case, the is no point in overthinking

Or you take what information you have at the time and you evaluate a situation based on just that, which is exactly how real life decisions work.

Rarely, exceedingly rarely even, do you have the luxury of waiting for all of the facts before deciding something.

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

#74

Post by Zetice »

Zetice wrote: post #30
gizmo686 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.

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?

You're all forgetting that you can change your mind when new information becomes available, and you can express your belief in terms of certainty.

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

#75

Post by lamontcg »

icapybara wrote: post #63
phyzome wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Muon catalyzed cold nuclear fusion is a thing. You're going to pour more energy into creating the muons than you get out though. It doesn't violate thermodynamics, you're just using some kind of catalytic process to get past the fairly massive energy barrier between getting those nuclei close together. You're still gaining net energy from the overall reaction itself. Catalytic reactions don't violate thermodynamics (unless that's really why there's so much catalytic converter theft because you can build perpetual motion machines out of them).

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

#76

Post by qup »

Zetice wrote: post #70
qup wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Seems like a great way to paralyze oneself.

It can manifest like that, sure. It's not up to me, though. "Great ways" to do things are usually optional.

I mostly can work with it. It helps make me very good at certain tasks.

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

#77

Post by Zetice »

qup wrote: post #76
Zetice wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a great way to paralyze oneself.

It can manifest like that, sure. It's not up to me, though. "Great ways" to do things are usually optional. I mostly can work with it. It helps make me very good at certain tasks.

What’s funny is that you’re not actually executing as you describe, just that you think you are.

If you indeed waited for all relevant information, you’d never be able to make a choice. You, like every single other healthy human (some humans can’t do this) use emotion to decide when you’ve gathered enough information.

The only difference here is some are aware of this process and some aren’t.

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

#78

Post by gloryjulio »

Zetice wrote: post #73
gloryjulio wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the act of the believe doesn't affect reality. Either u have a robust way to make the right judgement of the progress (in the case u r at the forefront of the research and knows what they r talking about), or u r just a bystander. In the later case, the is no point in overthinking

Or you take what information you have at the time and you evaluate a situation based on just that, which is exactly how real life decisions work. Rarely, exceedingly rarely even, do you have the luxury of waiting for all of the facts before deciding something.

In this case that means you have the physics expertise to actually understand what's going on, which I already mentioned in the previous post. Not everything is accessible to layman, in this particular case the bar is very high.

My best answer is I don't know. If you are knowledge enough, go ahead

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

#79

Post by Zetice »

gloryjulio wrote: post #78
Zetice wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you take what information you have at the time and you evaluate a situation based on just that, which is exactly how real life decisions work. Rarely, exceedingly rarely even, do you have the luxury of waiting for all of the facts before deciding something.

In this case that means you have the physics expertise to actually understand what's going on, which I already mentioned in the previous post. Not everything is accessible to layman, in this particular case the bar is very high. My best answer is I don't know. If you are knowledge enough, go ahead

Nope, no expertise necessary. What I do have an expertise in is risk management however, and the cost of being wrong here is effectively zero, so in cases like that there is no reason to act so cautiously, and in fact it's costly to have such a low tolerance for risk in a situation like this.

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

#80

Post by gloryjulio »

Zetice wrote: post #79
gloryjulio wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case that means you have the physics expertise to actually understand what's going on, which I already mentioned in the previous post. Not everything is accessible to layman, in this particular case the bar is very high. My best answer is I don't know. If you are knowledge enough, go ahead

Nope, no expertise necessary. What I do have an expertise in is risk management however, and the cost of being wrong here is effectively zero, so in cases like that there is no reason to act so cautiously, and in fact it's costly to have such a low tolerance for risk in a situation like this.

I'd say the cost being wrong depends on the people. For a lot of people being in the state of unknown is better than random guesses with 0 expertise. Not everyone like to flaunt their ignorance

Not sure why r u so insist that only your way is right. That's ur choice of course

Post reply on HN