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

LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#711

Post by dalmo3 »

wesleywt wrote: post #630
sorenjan wrote: post #237

Sixty Symbols released a video about this yesterday, and in it professor Philip Moriarty is less than impressed with the whole ordeal. I haven't been paying attention, I'm too jaded and skeptical and assumed from the start that there was something wrong and much hype about nothing. Bad Science and Room Temperature Superconductors - Sixty Symbols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-AgmoZ5mo

This is not bad science. This is science working as intended. Claim followed by verification. I only wish other fields was this good.

Yes, it's a victory for science (lowercase s, not The Science™).

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#712

Post by hackerlight »

generic92034 wrote: post #621
hackerlight wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And labeling groups who disagree with them as “heretics”, “crazies”, “cranks”, etc is how the orthodoxy censors It's also how you accurately describe people who actually are cranks, such as creationists, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, and so on. That these labels can sometimes be wrongly weaponized doesn't mean that such descriptions aren't also sometimes accurate and helpful. It's useful to have a unifying descripti…

I mostly agree with your take. But I think considering that 99.999...% of the population are not climate scientists, it is still a valid question based on what they are declaring differing opinions as invalid and theirs as correct. Is that not based mostly on faith, next to some superficial indicators like "majority of scientists", etc.? For the record - I personally agree with the findings of bodies like the IPCC. B…

> Is that not based mostly on faith, next to some superficial indicators like "majority of scientists", etc.?

I believe it should be the same rule of thumb we are accustomed to using elsewhere.

If we have a computer security question, we will defer to the people who have dedicated 30 years of their life to mastering computer security. Whatever their opinion is, it's statistically more likely to be correct than whatever opinion I have after 2 weeks of "research". Likewise for astronomy, neurosurgery, being a pilot, and any other complicated area of study. I can't fly a plane, I can't operate the LHC, and I don't know anything about vaccines, so in all of these areas I need to outsource my opinions, to an extent, to the people that know these things better than everyone else. It's not perfect, and we can call that imperfection faith, but I can't think of a better approach.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#713

Post by GuB-42 »

penjelly wrote: post #263
sorenjan wrote: post #237

Sixty Symbols released a video about this yesterday, and in it professor Philip Moriarty is less than impressed with the whole ordeal. I haven't been paying attention, I'm too jaded and skeptical and assumed from the start that there was something wrong and much hype about nothing. Bad Science and Room Temperature Superconductors - Sixty Symbols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-AgmoZ5mo

everyone in this thread should watch this, instead of "the excitement was good for everyone" they might realize these hoaxes harm scientific integrity. The audacity of HN to state something is good, without listening to scientists give their take on it.

How is it a hoax? I haven't seen a serious article or video calling LK-99 a hoax, including this one. There were some faked reproductions from independent "researchers", but these weren't very trustworthy to begin with.

There was some drama between the authors, the science was sloppy and the writing inappropriate, but AFAIK, no faked data, no secrecy, they gave away their recipe in a way that allowed for reproduction attempts, and a few weeks later, we have a convincing explanation. Stupidity, not malice.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#714

Post by Eji1700 »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #623
Eji1700 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amusing how many people like you didn't notice the large amount of people bringing up all the points that this video made on the first day, as justification for why they doubted the hell out of this claim.

I think he meant this particular video, which was only published one day ago.

I'm well aware, and it's purposefully ignoring that the video is not bringing up anything new, nor were the authors beliefs new. It's implying that they would not have come to the same conclusions when it's just not true.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#715

Post by leesec »

Not sure why this is presented as so conclusive, the sample they have exhibits none of the floating properties and the recipe is different. Of course testing whatever this is isn't a superconductor.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#716

Post by brutusborn »

tuatoru wrote: post #588
brutusborn wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the media caused the psychology replication crisis. The media plays a part in all this, but the scientific institutions shouldn’t crumble to media or political pressure. See the FDA’s advice on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” but fail to mention that there is no evidence that it is…

Ivermectin is known to be an anthelminthic: it kills worms. That's what it's approved for. It is not known to have antiviral activity, so it's not approved for that use. It is acknowledged to be an official medicine for humans, not just an animal remedy as you claimed. Please keep to the point.

Oh I’m well aware of that, I think you may have missed my point: ivermectin was banned in many countries due to political reasons. Many doctors reported good outcomes when using it for Covid. We now know that the places that Ivermectin worked best for Covid were places where parasitic infections are more common.

So although it wasn’t approved for Covid, it helped reduce harm because it allowed people to fight Covid without fighting a parasite simultaneously. But since it was ‘not known to have antiviral activity’ and trump said it worked well, it was banned.

It’s a disgrace that authorities have punished doctors who did the right thing and have now been vindicated. It is absurd to have to wait for an authority to approve something you have good evidence will help your patients.

This is why people have lost faith in health institutions. They make terrible decisions like this and then have the audacity to pontificate to the population.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#717

Post by elihu »

SamBam wrote: post #506
elihu wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aluminum vs copper is a good example. Another is that we already do use superconducting transmission lines in a few places. We could do more of that, but presumably it's expensive to install and/or maintain otherwise we'd be using it everywhere. I'm not sure what the longest or highest capacity superconducting links currently in existence are.

That have to be kept cool with liquid nitrogen, so it would have to be pretty darn short.

Well, I think it comes down to whether the energy cost of active cooling is better or worse than resistive losses. Which one is better doesn't depend on cable length.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#718

Post by namuol »

raynr wrote: post #540
namuol wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amusing how so many so-called skeptics seem to be unaware of the phenomenon of hindsight bias.

I was deeply sceptical of LK-99 and simply chose not to comment on it in public on the internet because: (1) confirmation or contradiction will come soon enough, and (2) being sceptical, however measured, usually attracts accusations of being a negative, cynical naysayer, and I don't need that in my life.

There’s a way to be skeptical without being “negative” but I definitely get it. People will sometimes latch on to things to the point that their identity is threatened by the possibility that they are wrong. I try to ignore this and just have fun speculating. Science as a spectator sport is a fun idea if we can avoid the drunken hooliganism.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#719

Post by gfodor »

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #604
gfodor wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These analogies aren't useful. Much of this process so far has relied upon a single point of failure not failing: that the paper contains the necessary information to replicate and describe the material. If that assumption is wrong, while some science will still remain valid, much of it would turn out to have been unindicative of the actual state of reality.

But what about the alternative explanation for what the Korean team saw? Occam's razor is coming firmly down on one side here.

Yeah the odds are extremely low but the case isn’t closed yet. There is ongoing analysis of the actual samples.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#720

Post by gfodor »

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #601
gfodor wrote: post #297

The substance produced from the paper isn't a superconductor. While extremely unlikely, there is still a chance that LK-99 is a superconductor, but the paper itself did not sufficiently describe the method needed to make it so as to replicate it properly. We will know the resolution to this once the sample from the original researchers is assessed by a third party, of which there are presently at least two to my unde…

"So you're saying there's a chance?"... What you say is not incorrect, proving a negative here beyond all other possibility is hard. But I feel like for the lay person like me (us?), this matter should be considered resolved now. There's no point stretching hope and spending energy to follow it further.

It’s resolved once William and Mary are done.
Post reply on HN