5 ms·
Apparently, this was pre-published in October. Previous discussion here[0], ArXiv link here[1]. The news today is the peer-reviewed version in Science of the sa
by NoGravitas 10y ago
Apparently, this was pre-published in October. Previous discussion here[0], ArXiv link here[1]. The news today is the peer-reviewed version in Science of the same paper, as I understand it.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12875868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12875868
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01634 https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01634
- ataur 10y agoActually, this is new! This particular breakthrough has a different molecular structure than what was found back in October, and the way it's been configured is different.
- NoGravitas 10y agoThanks. Some of the critiques I've been reading about in other news articles are saying that this is just the polished version of the same results. Interesting to hear that either the competing researchers or the news outlets reporting this are wrong.
- ataur 10y agothat's interesting! can you share any of those links? curious.
- NoGravitas 10y agohttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/doubts-cloud-claims-of-metallic-hydrogen/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/doubts-cloud-clai...
- GregBuchholz 10y agohttp://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379 http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-m...
- GregBuchholz 10y agoDoes anyone know of other groups that are trying to replicate the results? For something as seemingly exciting as this, I would hope it would attract a lot of attention. How much specialized equipment does it take to achieve these pressures and temperatures? $1 million? $10 million?