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

721–730 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#721

Post by namuol »

Eji1700 wrote: post #714
thrdbndndn wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m implying that the off-handed prejudicial confidence from certain so-called skeptics is also “bad science” if we’re also willing to lambast the public for engaging with science without the requisite rigor.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#722

Post by fwipsy »

pininja wrote: post #694
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

As Philip points out, Sabine Hossenfelder’s quick summary on LK-99 2 weeks ago punched large holes into this whole thing in less than 5 minutes. I wish media outlets presented skeptic viewpoints instead of just hype.. but that doesn’t sell. LK99 - A new room temperature superconductor? https://youtu.be/RjzL9cS3VW8

There were lots of skeptical viewpoints in mainstream news, even early on:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lk-99&sca_esv=557962971&biw=...

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#723

Post by fwipsy »

penjelly wrote: post #392
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead of "the excitement was good for everyone" they might realize these hoaxes harm scientific integrity. Totally disagree. If anything, this whole episode (debacle?) reinforced the fact that science works and the process played out exactly how the scientific process should work: 1. First, the paper was originally posted on arxiv, meaning it was a pre-print and didn't go through any peer review. So the vast majo…

good points. I can agree to that. However, I do think something did break down and I think your assessment below is more accurate than my initial take. > One may argue that this was really a failure in media communication vs. the actual underlying science the scientific process and scientists here are innocent, media not so much in my eyes.

The news articles I saw about lk-99 were all fairly skeptical.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lk-99&sca_esv=557962971&biw=...

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#724

Post by totallywrong »

seewhydee wrote: post #505
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

The video really rubbed me the wrong way. I guess it's a persona he's putting on for the YouTube channel, but that "tough minded skeptic" bit is way over the top. He spent all his time criticizing various problems with the LK-99 paper that were indeed problematic (and widely commented on elsewhere), but didn't necessarily falsify the claim (e.g. they might have come from having mixed phase samples). And he did not ta…

Yeah I couldn't watch long, what an off-putting vibe.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#726

Post by lazide »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #626
Joker_vD wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some desperate places, people would cut down aluminum power lines and sell them to scrapyards for some quick buck. But copper power lines? Those would be in a similar danger in many more places.

They steal buried copper cables in rural locations (UK) by attaching one end to a truck and driving off. Mostly seems to be communication lines.

Tying a high voltage power line to a truck is a recipe for an exploding/melting truck, long before someone could pull it down.

Communication/low voltage is a different matter of course.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#727

Post by hcks »

usrbinbash wrote: post #39

One of the good things that came out of this whole story: A very public demonstration, transported through mass and even social media channels, how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge.

> It’s a “Science enthusiast” only knows about Popper episode

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#728

Post by stoobs »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #698
stoobs wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm, my parents had an aluminium telephone line in the UK until it failed and had to be replaced. Moot point as it's replaced with a fibre optic cable now though.

The problem is with their usage as mains power. I think they are considered a fire hazard in older German homes.

Not surprising, any degradation in the connection leads to intermittent connection/high resistance fault = heat and poof, there it goes.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#729

Post by negative_zero »

Bit late to the thread, but for those interested I found this interview with two scientists trying to reproduce LK99 insightful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnA8gwnLms

Lots of interesting nitty gritty details. Also raises an interesting point about how lot of labs trying to reproduce LK99 are probably not doing it correctly.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#730

Post by imiric »

mike_d wrote: post #701
imiric wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This whole process has been super healthy Has it, though? The South Korean paper claimed to have found "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor". It took a month for researchers around the world to essentially debunk this. Science works by peer review, yes, but that should have never been a claim to begin with. They were blinded by excitement of the results and eager to publish the paper, instead…

> The South Korean paper claimed As I understand it the paper was a leaked preprint. Which means they didn't "claim" anything, but were distributing it to get peer review and feedback before publishing.

Whether it was a leaked preprint or not, they clearly claimed to have synthesized a SC[1].

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Post reply on HN