7 ms·

Wow. Can't believe the cynicism expressed in the comments here. The big results do not come right away. But they tend to follow an unexpected result, especia

Wow. Can't believe the cynicism expressed in the comments here. The big results do not come right away. But they tend to follow an unexpected result, especially one that involves new or state of the art methods. Bohr's atom was wrong in every conceivable way and yet it is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all tine. In mathematics, even the slightest advance can be monumental if it involves progress in an area using new techniques. Optimization is a separate problem which depends on a small improvement to unleash the flood gates of research, investment, and let's face it: greed and ambition. This may turn out to be no improvement at all: just an indication that with enough power and energy, we get a slight energy payback. Or, this may be a method that can be greatly improved. We'll see. For me, this is why science, math, and engineering are so exciting!

oldgradstudent 4y ago
People distrust science by press conference. If they have a good result, they should publish it in a peer reviewed journal with all the details. There were quite a few results in the last two decades that were announced by a press conference and turned out to be completely false. And I'm not even taking about the details of this specific result. Press conferences are not
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I think I agree and I share the skepticism for several reasons. Especially lately, we face really high levels of distrusts in most institutions. I can maybe see a reason for this approach in the form of "we don't want to just hand over details of this tech to everyone in the world" ( not that is a very good position, but I can at least understand the rationale ), but that is about it. You can mess with stats and so on ( especially in social fields ), but it may be nigh impossible to present results in energy field that are not replicable and still claim a win. Are we being distracted from something?
- donquixote25 4y ago
  If you were familiar with NIF, you would know that they absolutely will publish the details of the experiment just as they published the details of the experiment that achieved ignition in August 2021: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.075001 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12...
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    NASA also publishes. Yet we still got this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSJLUIQrA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSJLUIQrA0 BICEP2 was a respected scientific collaboration, and it ended up like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iasqtm1prlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iasqtm1prlI The even took a touching video of one of the participants notifying the theorist that predicted the result about their achievement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA Just a two off the top of my mind.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - swyx 4y ago
      can you elaborate on what was wrong with the NASA thing?
      - oldgradstudent 4y ago
        Other than not being true? https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-untrue.html https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-u... https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/21/why-one-biologist-says-its-not-too-late-to-retract-the-arsenic-life-paper/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/21/why-one-biologist-say...
    - donquixote25 4y ago
      What is your point? That we should distrust everything in a scientific journal? You are shifting the goal post. First, you wanted a publication. Now, you say that would not be enough? I am inclined to believe a publication unless other plasma physicist come out with a contradictory information. It's easy to be cynic...
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  This is my pet peeve with the current way of popularizing science, it's just a step apart from "what these scientists found will shock you! News at eleven!". Seems aimed more towards attracting funding than showing a technological breakthrough.
zinekeller 4y ago
> This may turn out to be no improvement at all: just an indication that with enough power and energy, we get a slight energy payback. Or, this may be a method that can be greatly improved. We'll see. Also two observations to be optimistic: it seems that the sensors were damaged because it exceeded its specifications (so we only know the lower bound of the produced power), and the NIF laser is old (which means it's inefficient). The only (skeptical) worry is that this announcement might lead to another fraud positive investigation event a la Ninov or Schön. I honestly hope not.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  They announced more funding so I hope it's enough for them to seriously upgrade the experiment or to build an entirely new one with much improved gear.
phtrivier 4y ago
Well, if the last few years have taught us anything, it is that cynicism is always warranted. Basically, the very big and undeniable shit hits you, immediately, right now, with regularity, while the hypothetical bits of maybe good news always are touted as breakthrough even though they will just be "for some times later". Also, if I read the few cheerful comments correctly, this type of fusion basically means that ITER is a waste of time (so the lesson is, even in science, "internationnal cooperation ? shmooperation".) Also, it's depressing to know that I'm too dumb to really help in any of the good fights, but that I'm constantly contributing to the shit. So, yeah, kudos to the researchers, let them keep up the good work, but, maybe, only call it a "breakthrough" and have the press conference when it lights a bulb somewhere ?)
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  What? Why have the past few years taught you that at all?
  - phtrivier 4y ago
    I don't know. Maybe the pandemic that we completely failed to handle ? The "breakthrough" vaccines / meds that kinda help but don't solve the issues as much as "we got lucky at the mutation lottery this time, but wait until millions of Chinese breed the next variant" ? The war in Europe that was "never supposed to happen anymore because it would be insane because trade etc..." and yet... just does ? The energy crisis that will be "solved" by piling coal on top of not reducing emissions ? The fires and floods that can't be dealt with because it would be "catering to liberal propaganda ?" Social media burning the minds of a generation, including the mind of the one guy that was kinda inspirational once in a while, but is now going the full "James bond vilain" road ? Now, don't get me wrong, none of this is "new", "unprecedented", "the end of the world", etc... All of this shall pass, and in the long run, somewhere in the distant future, the small steps will accumulate to create a vague form of "good news". Someday, an actual fusion reactor will be ready to light a bulb. And then... ...then, you'll get protests and FUDs and corruption and NIMBYism to make sure the plant opens somewhere else.
rsj_hn 4y ago
Political appointees aren't the ones who announce technical "breakthroughs", those are announced first in technical journals. Now if it was a diplomatic breakthrough, sure, have the state department announce it. But this isn't how it works for science.

oldgradstudent 4y ago

People distrust science by press conference. If they have a good result, they should publish it in a peer reviewed journal with all the details. There were quite a few results in the last two decades that were announced by a press conference and turned out to be completely false. And I'm not even taking about the details of this specific result. Press conferences are not

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I think I agree and I share the skepticism for several reasons. Especially lately, we face really high levels of distrusts in most institutions. I can maybe see a reason for this approach in the form of "we don't want to just hand over details of this tech to everyone in the world" ( not that is a very good position, but I can at least understand the rationale ), but that is about it. You can mess with stats and so on ( especially in social fields ), but it may be nigh impossible to present results in energy field that are not replicable and still claim a win. Are we being distracted from something?
donquixote25 4y ago
If you were familiar with NIF, you would know that they absolutely will publish the details of the experiment just as they published the details of the experiment that achieved ignition in August 2021: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.075001 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12...
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  NASA also publishes. Yet we still got this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSJLUIQrA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSJLUIQrA0 BICEP2 was a respected scientific collaboration, and it ended up like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iasqtm1prlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iasqtm1prlI The even took a touching video of one of the participants notifying the theorist that predicted the result about their achievement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA Just a two off the top of my mind.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - swyx 4y ago
    can you elaborate on what was wrong with the NASA thing?
    - oldgradstudent 4y ago
      Other than not being true? https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-untrue.html https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-u... https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/21/why-one-biologist-says-its-not-too-late-to-retract-the-arsenic-life-paper/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/21/why-one-biologist-say...
  - donquixote25 4y ago
    What is your point? That we should distrust everything in a scientific journal? You are shifting the goal post. First, you wanted a publication. Now, you say that would not be enough? I am inclined to believe a publication unless other plasma physicist come out with a contradictory information. It's easy to be cynic...
ASalazarMX 4y ago
This is my pet peeve with the current way of popularizing science, it's just a step apart from "what these scientists found will shock you! News at eleven!". Seems aimed more towards attracting funding than showing a technological breakthrough.

zinekeller 4y ago

> This may turn out to be no improvement at all: just an indication that with enough power and energy, we get a slight energy payback. Or, this may be a method that can be greatly improved. We'll see. Also two observations to be optimistic: it seems that the sensors were damaged because it exceeded its specifications (so we only know the lower bound of the produced power), and the NIF laser is old (which means it's inefficient). The only (skeptical) worry is that this announcement might lead to another fraud positive investigation event a la Ninov or Schön. I honestly hope not.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
They announced more funding so I hope it's enough for them to seriously upgrade the experiment or to build an entirely new one with much improved gear.

phtrivier 4y ago

Well, if the last few years have taught us anything, it is that cynicism is always warranted. Basically, the very big and undeniable shit hits you, immediately, right now, with regularity, while the hypothetical bits of maybe good news always are touted as breakthrough even though they will just be "for some times later". Also, if I read the few cheerful comments correctly, this type of fusion basically means that ITER is a waste of time (so the lesson is, even in science, "internationnal cooperation ? shmooperation".) Also, it's depressing to know that I'm too dumb to really help in any of the good fights, but that I'm constantly contributing to the shit. So, yeah, kudos to the researchers, let them keep up the good work, but, maybe, only call it a "breakthrough" and have the press conference when it lights a bulb somewhere ?)

whimsicalism 4y ago
What? Why have the past few years taught you that at all?
- phtrivier 4y ago
  I don't know. Maybe the pandemic that we completely failed to handle ? The "breakthrough" vaccines / meds that kinda help but don't solve the issues as much as "we got lucky at the mutation lottery this time, but wait until millions of Chinese breed the next variant" ? The war in Europe that was "never supposed to happen anymore because it would be insane because trade etc..." and yet... just does ? The energy crisis that will be "solved" by piling coal on top of not reducing emissions ? The fires and floods that can't be dealt with because it would be "catering to liberal propaganda ?" Social media burning the minds of a generation, including the mind of the one guy that was kinda inspirational once in a while, but is now going the full "James bond vilain" road ? Now, don't get me wrong, none of this is "new", "unprecedented", "the end of the world", etc... All of this shall pass, and in the long run, somewhere in the distant future, the small steps will accumulate to create a vague form of "good news". Someday, an actual fusion reactor will be ready to light a bulb. And then... ...then, you'll get protests and FUDs and corruption and NIMBYism to make sure the plant opens somewhere else.

rsj_hn 4y ago

Political appointees aren't the ones who announce technical "breakthroughs", those are announced first in technical journals. Now if it was a diplomatic breakthrough, sure, have the state department announce it. But this isn't how it works for science.