3 ms·
No, I agree with you that a quiet “this is what we've found, this is what we think it means, please reproduce or tell us if you find something we've misinterpre
by dspillett 3y ago
No, I agree with you that a quiet “this is what we've found, this is what we think it means, please reproduce or tell us if you find something we've misinterpreted”, rather than a public fanfare, is how a potential scientific breakthrough should be done IMO.
I think I cross-pollinated this thread with another where someone was asking “if this is true why isn't it on the front pages”. The extraordinary evidence I'd want before it hits the front pages and TV talk shows is other scientific/engineering groups managing to reproduce the findings, or at least showing a significant improvement over previous discoveries (there could be a mistake that means the result isn't that big a thing while still leaving room for it to be a significant finding).
- Maxion 3y agoBut this is exactly the quiet please reproduce? It's a preprint posted to arxiv, with a very easy to follow material synthesis process in the supplemental materials section?
- scarmig 3y agoIn fairness, the paper isn't exactly humble about its claims. But I appreciate their candor, and if they believe they've found a RTP superconductor and sufficiently verified it is a RTP superconductor, a bit of arrogance isn't unwarranted.
- dspillett 3y ago> But this is exactly Yep. But that doesn't stop me being sceptical of such a jump in success (from tens of K below room to tens+ above at ambient pressure) which is where this sub-that started. As already stated ("I think I cross-pollinated this thread with..." in the post you replied to) I confused things by mixing replies to different posts in the same place.
- hatsunearu 3y agoI'm sure they believe their own results, but if they made a mistake, parading on TV would be a horrible mistake and a horrible embarrassment. Also this is a preprint so clearly it's not vetted by others yet.