6 ms·

I am going to attempt to address the common nitpicks in one fell swoop: 1. Rushed publication, plot quality, grammar, etc. Get over yourselves. This is a pre-p

I am going to attempt to address the common nitpicks in one fell swoop: 1. Rushed publication, plot quality, grammar, etc. Get over yourselves. This is a pre-print for an instant-Nobel, next-tier-of-civilization level discovery. The proper publication will come in due time. Waiting for a more complete verification is a sheltered view. Being first matters. Things changed after the J/Psi discovery in 1974. For those that don't know, Sam Ting discovered it first, yet sat on it for months waiting for a complete verification. Then Richter's group also discovered it months later and Ting was forced to publish at the same time and share the Nobel. This changed the publication attitude in the field significantly. Being first matters. 2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking. The most realistic timeline is 2-3 months for a positive verification. 6 months for a negative verification. If it works, it will be quicker because a positive reproduction needs less work. A negative verification needs to be more thorough and will take more time.

bloopernova 3y ago
What do you think the chances are of it being a measurement/instruments error? Edited to add: I am not a physicist. I don't know the subtleties of measuring experiments, and it was not my intention to state that there was a measurement error. I just wanted to ask someone for their assessment of the chances it was an error. It's a little depressing that people are so quick to assume the worst of others, but I get why. The online flamewars fought over every announcement of this type would definitely put people on guard. Heck, on the UAP thread yesterday I immediately leapt to snarking about extraordinary announcements being bogus and I feel bad that I probably attacked it for no reason other than to feel cool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36886221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36886221
- phoenixstrike 3y ago
  Small. Imperfect contact, unplugged terminals, etc. These are not 1st year grad students who don't know what they are doing. The authors have decades of research and fabrication experience, and publications to back it up. Comments that insinuate it could be those kind of novice mistakes (other comments on HN/reddit, not yours) are frankly insulting and speaks to a profound arrogance in being unable to accept a new discovery.
  - saberdancer 3y ago
    Plus apparently they worked on it for several years, you don't have a terminal unplugged for a year.
  - bloopernova 3y ago
    I apologize if I came across as insinuating it was an error, I was just asking you for your assessment of the chances it could be an error. I'm not well versed in the subtleties of physics experiment measurement, so I figured I'd ask. It's difficult for a layperson to determine which "side" is right when battle lines are drawn after these types of announcements.
    - phoenixstrike 3y ago
      I know, I did not think for a moment that you were making such an accusation. I was referring to the other comments on HN/reddit over the past week making those accusations. Sorry if my comment came off that way.
      - bloopernova 3y ago
        Oh! Sorry again for my overreaction :D Absolutely no problem, I'm glad it was cleared up. Ah well, at least we weren't attacking each other. Thank you for the original comment that was informative, I learned something from reading it.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Agreed. Skepticism is not only necessary but welcomed. But some of the comments are painting these guys like they are clowns. A bit of digging shows they've been working on this in some part since 1999 and that they were able to secure funding a few years back. And since then they've brought on other highly credible people and have in fact have been able to build this material awhile now. This isn't some grad students that just stumbled upon something they mistook for something else. There's a really good chance this is legit and that lots of physics will need to be looked at.
saberdancer 3y ago
I completely agree. I see many people commenting that the document has bad grammar or charts, completely ignoring that they probably authored it in Korean. Also looks like Kwan and HT Kim are fighting who gets to be 3rd Nobel winner so any problems with quality of the layout are easily explained by this. One thing that is a green flag in my opinion is that apparently they had a sample for a long time (year+) so I find it unlikely they made an obvious measuring mistake. But as always, most would love to have this be true and sometimes this gets better of us.
alangibson 3y ago
Pretty much agree on criticisms of sloppiness. First off this is a preprint. More importantly, rushing to put a stake in the ground is reasonable in this case. if they are right 'instant Nobel' is just the half of it. The authors are guaranteed a place in the scientific pantheon.
lamontcg 3y ago
> 2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking. Not knowing the precise Tc for the material isn't nitpicking that is pretty basic ("above 400C" isn't a very precise measurement). Questioning if their graph showing the Meissner effect isn't really showing the Meissner effect isn't really some obscure criteria. Bet we get results a whole lot quicker than that as well.
- raziel2701 3y ago
  Their PPMS is limited to 400K. There's nothing they can do about that. So yes, it is a nitpicking. I've used the same instrument, that's the max temperature quantum design allows without forking over more money. It matters to get the results out there and be first.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If it's real, the paper could be written in crayon on a strip club napkin. Hoping it's real... but it doesn't seem like the substance is anything nearly exotic enough. Isn't this somehow supposed to be unobtanium?

bloopernova 3y ago

What do you think the chances are of it being a measurement/instruments error? Edited to add: I am not a physicist. I don't know the subtleties of measuring experiments, and it was not my intention to state that there was a measurement error. I just wanted to ask someone for their assessment of the chances it was an error. It's a little depressing that people are so quick to assume the worst of others, but I get why. The online flamewars fought over every announcement of this type would definitely put people on guard. Heck, on the UAP thread yesterday I immediately leapt to snarking about extraordinary announcements being bogus and I feel bad that I probably attacked it for no reason other than to feel cool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36886221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36886221

phoenixstrike 3y ago
Small. Imperfect contact, unplugged terminals, etc. These are not 1st year grad students who don't know what they are doing. The authors have decades of research and fabrication experience, and publications to back it up. Comments that insinuate it could be those kind of novice mistakes (other comments on HN/reddit, not yours) are frankly insulting and speaks to a profound arrogance in being unable to accept a new discovery.
- saberdancer 3y ago
  Plus apparently they worked on it for several years, you don't have a terminal unplugged for a year.
- bloopernova 3y ago
  I apologize if I came across as insinuating it was an error, I was just asking you for your assessment of the chances it could be an error. I'm not well versed in the subtleties of physics experiment measurement, so I figured I'd ask. It's difficult for a layperson to determine which "side" is right when battle lines are drawn after these types of announcements.
  - phoenixstrike 3y ago
    I know, I did not think for a moment that you were making such an accusation. I was referring to the other comments on HN/reddit over the past week making those accusations. Sorry if my comment came off that way.
    - bloopernova 3y ago
      Oh! Sorry again for my overreaction :D Absolutely no problem, I'm glad it was cleared up. Ah well, at least we weren't attacking each other. Thank you for the original comment that was informative, I learned something from reading it.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Agreed. Skepticism is not only necessary but welcomed. But some of the comments are painting these guys like they are clowns. A bit of digging shows they've been working on this in some part since 1999 and that they were able to secure funding a few years back. And since then they've brought on other highly credible people and have in fact have been able to build this material awhile now. This isn't some grad students that just stumbled upon something they mistook for something else. There's a really good chance this is legit and that lots of physics will need to be looked at.

saberdancer 3y ago

I completely agree. I see many people commenting that the document has bad grammar or charts, completely ignoring that they probably authored it in Korean. Also looks like Kwan and HT Kim are fighting who gets to be 3rd Nobel winner so any problems with quality of the layout are easily explained by this. One thing that is a green flag in my opinion is that apparently they had a sample for a long time (year+) so I find it unlikely they made an obvious measuring mistake. But as always, most would love to have this be true and sometimes this gets better of us.

alangibson 3y ago

Pretty much agree on criticisms of sloppiness. First off this is a preprint. More importantly, rushing to put a stake in the ground is reasonable in this case. if they are right 'instant Nobel' is just the half of it. The authors are guaranteed a place in the scientific pantheon.

lamontcg 3y ago

> 2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking. Not knowing the precise Tc for the material isn't nitpicking that is pretty basic ("above 400C" isn't a very precise measurement). Questioning if their graph showing the Meissner effect isn't really showing the Meissner effect isn't really some obscure criteria. Bet we get results a whole lot quicker than that as well.

raziel2701 3y ago
Their PPMS is limited to 400K. There's nothing they can do about that. So yes, it is a nitpicking. I've used the same instrument, that's the max temperature quantum design allows without forking over more money. It matters to get the results out there and be first.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

If it's real, the paper could be written in crayon on a strip club napkin. Hoping it's real... but it doesn't seem like the substance is anything nearly exotic enough. Isn't this somehow supposed to be unobtanium?