7 ms·

Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop wha

by foven 3y ago

Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop what they're doing, order all the reagents on express, do a thorough characterization making sure they understand the impurities and crystal phase, then perform good airtight measurements in a couple days. Crystal growth always has complications many times outside of your control - the most minor of things can cause ridiculous problems. Especially when they admit to having phase impurities, and it's not really clear how they've gone from bulk sample to measurement sample (are they really measuring just the superconductor or the impurity phase?). Needs addressing, especially when the Cu2S phase impurity seems to have a phase transition of it's own at or around 370K (suspiciously close to where some of their Tc measurements are).

HDThoreaun 3y ago
I mean being thorough will obviously take a long time, but if a decent number of research groups decide to drop what they're doing and attempt a replication I don't think it would take that long for one of them to at least partially succeed if the claim is true. That doesn't mean they're publishing a sister paper, but it might mean we see some tweets saying "my group synthesized LK-99 and we have reason to believe it may be a rtp superconductor"
nemo44x 3y ago
To me the biggest mystery is why they didn't make multiple samples and send them to a few places that could verify their claims immediately. I understand that the papers were published before they really wanted to but they've also apparently have had samples for awhile it sounds like? So assuming it's not BS (and I doubt that it is) it would lead me to believe that making the material is difficult to get right? The video they've produced uses a sample that isn't particularly elegant, to be sure. I guess it's all conjecture at this point and healthy skepticism is warranted. A press conference would be nice.
- distortionfield 3y ago
  That could very well have been their plan, they just got beat to the punch by the paper leak. Shrug. Probably won’t get the full story til next summer when Netflix inevitably does a C tier docu-drama series about it.
- scarmig 3y ago
  Skepticism is warranted, but apparently there's infighting in the group (only 3 people can be recipients of a Nobel Prize) and one jumped the gun to get his name out there. And also apparently fear of research espionage from the PRC (not as far-fetched as it sounds).
  - geertj 3y ago
    Interesting.. would you have a source for those rumors?
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      It's just speculation because the third author on the first paper isn't an author on the second, better paper, and he's the one who published it.
      - Firmwarrior 3y ago
        Man, fucking scientists dude, they need to get their heads on straight If you're one of the 7 people who invented room temperature superconductivity, it's not going to matter who has the Nobel Prize. You can take a part time 7 figure consulting gig and be as famous as you want to boot
        tedsanders 3y ago
        Most famous discovers of famous phenomena do not get 7 figure consulting gigs. Did any discoverers of high Tc superconductors, quantum hall, topological insulators, blue LEDs, graphene get rich? Not as far as I know.
        rat9988 3y ago
        He probably won't even get 6 figure consulting gig.
    - nomel 3y ago
      Comment below the image: https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633 https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633
- badman2001 3y ago
  i do not understand this either regarding the samples, usually(in my limited experience) synthesis groups have collaborators that specialize in transport or other types of measurements which I think would have added a bit of credibility, probably could have gotten a measurement of Tc, and just generally added a lot to the paper
jncfhnb 3y ago
Feels like you’re strawmanning the idea here. It’s not “every lab” it’s “at least one lab”. Jeez I sure hope at least one lab can spare the time to bother reproducing a room temperature semiconductor claim.
- smallnamespace 3y ago
  One lab is definitely not adequate. Replication attempts don't give you an unambiguous signal, many things can go wrong. If one lab hasn't succeeded in replicating the paper, does that mean the paper is wrong, or just that a necessary step wasn't documented clearly or followed correctly? More labs trying to replicate give you more independent signals.
  - faraggi 3y ago
    But if one lab *does* succeed, it means there probably is something of substance.
    - scarmig 3y ago
      Cold fusion also replicated across multiple labs, before they all retracted shortly after.
      - GolfPopper 3y ago
        My memory is fuzzy, but my recollection is that Pons & Fleischmann's non-discovery involved unclear "waste heat" measurements, and a setup that wasn't well described, making it difficult for other researchers to duplicate. That would seem to contrast with Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Young-Wan Kwon's work, where everything suggests they've provided a readily replicable description of the material and process, and the evidence (magnetic levitation) is going to be pretty obvious.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Depends on the finding. Getting a false negative from a lab is plausible. Getting a false positive seems very unlikely.
giarc 3y ago
>Glad to see a realistic take on HN. From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.
- badman2001 3y ago
  i agree re. skepticism but all I'm saying about HT Kim is that he's a real scientist with real bona fides, which I think you could find by asking anyone in my specific subfield of condensed matter physics
  - badman2001 3y ago
    i should also have mentioned that I do not personally know the extent of his knowledge about superconductivity, to my understanding he was an expert on the synthesis of phase change materials, particularly the metal insulator transition. in the 2nd paper he is cited for proposing the superconductivity mechanism based on mechanisms seen in the metal-insulator-transition, which I have not seen before as an SC mechanism
- airgapstopgap 3y ago
  It is entirely believable that a person with substantial trace on HN and ties in the field would rather create a throwaway than post such remark under his main account.
  - willis936 3y ago
    Then they would not out their identity by claiming to have worked with the author. That piece of information alone whittles their identity down to maybe 100 people. Out of 100 adjacent academics how many post on HN, with this style, and this specific level of knowledge in that specific subfield? They may as well have just made the account their irl name. Anonymity is not a realistic goal. Assuming a realistic poster means it's reasonable to suspect their earnestness.
    - airgapstopgap 3y ago
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
In the New Scientist interview HT Kim seemed to imply that he wouldn't help other researchers until his paper gets published. If the synthesis ends up being tricky this could take a while.
- adrian_mrd 3y ago
  Link to the New Scientist article is: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-met-with-scepticism/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperatur...

by foven 3y ago

HDThoreaun 3y ago

I mean being thorough will obviously take a long time, but if a decent number of research groups decide to drop what they're doing and attempt a replication I don't think it would take that long for one of them to at least partially succeed if the claim is true. That doesn't mean they're publishing a sister paper, but it might mean we see some tweets saying "my group synthesized LK-99 and we have reason to believe it may be a rtp superconductor"

nemo44x 3y ago

To me the biggest mystery is why they didn't make multiple samples and send them to a few places that could verify their claims immediately. I understand that the papers were published before they really wanted to but they've also apparently have had samples for awhile it sounds like? So assuming it's not BS (and I doubt that it is) it would lead me to believe that making the material is difficult to get right? The video they've produced uses a sample that isn't particularly elegant, to be sure. I guess it's all conjecture at this point and healthy skepticism is warranted. A press conference would be nice.

distortionfield 3y ago
That could very well have been their plan, they just got beat to the punch by the paper leak. Shrug. Probably won’t get the full story til next summer when Netflix inevitably does a C tier docu-drama series about it.
scarmig 3y ago
Skepticism is warranted, but apparently there's infighting in the group (only 3 people can be recipients of a Nobel Prize) and one jumped the gun to get his name out there. And also apparently fear of research espionage from the PRC (not as far-fetched as it sounds).
- geertj 3y ago
  Interesting.. would you have a source for those rumors?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    It's just speculation because the third author on the first paper isn't an author on the second, better paper, and he's the one who published it.
    - Firmwarrior 3y ago
      Man, fucking scientists dude, they need to get their heads on straight If you're one of the 7 people who invented room temperature superconductivity, it's not going to matter who has the Nobel Prize. You can take a part time 7 figure consulting gig and be as famous as you want to boot
      - tedsanders 3y ago
        Most famous discovers of famous phenomena do not get 7 figure consulting gigs. Did any discoverers of high Tc superconductors, quantum hall, topological insulators, blue LEDs, graphene get rich? Not as far as I know.
      - rat9988 3y ago
        He probably won't even get 6 figure consulting gig.
  - nomel 3y ago
    Comment below the image: https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633 https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633
badman2001 3y ago
i do not understand this either regarding the samples, usually(in my limited experience) synthesis groups have collaborators that specialize in transport or other types of measurements which I think would have added a bit of credibility, probably could have gotten a measurement of Tc, and just generally added a lot to the paper

jncfhnb 3y ago

Feels like you’re strawmanning the idea here. It’s not “every lab” it’s “at least one lab”. Jeez I sure hope at least one lab can spare the time to bother reproducing a room temperature semiconductor claim.

smallnamespace 3y ago
One lab is definitely not adequate. Replication attempts don't give you an unambiguous signal, many things can go wrong. If one lab hasn't succeeded in replicating the paper, does that mean the paper is wrong, or just that a necessary step wasn't documented clearly or followed correctly? More labs trying to replicate give you more independent signals.
- faraggi 3y ago
  But if one lab *does* succeed, it means there probably is something of substance.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    Cold fusion also replicated across multiple labs, before they all retracted shortly after.
    - GolfPopper 3y ago
      My memory is fuzzy, but my recollection is that Pons & Fleischmann's non-discovery involved unclear "waste heat" measurements, and a setup that wasn't well described, making it difficult for other researchers to duplicate. That would seem to contrast with Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Young-Wan Kwon's work, where everything suggests they've provided a readily replicable description of the material and process, and the evidence (magnetic levitation) is going to be pretty obvious.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Depends on the finding. Getting a false negative from a lab is plausible. Getting a false positive seems very unlikely.

giarc 3y ago

>Glad to see a realistic take on HN. From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.

badman2001 3y ago
i agree re. skepticism but all I'm saying about HT Kim is that he's a real scientist with real bona fides, which I think you could find by asking anyone in my specific subfield of condensed matter physics
- badman2001 3y ago
  i should also have mentioned that I do not personally know the extent of his knowledge about superconductivity, to my understanding he was an expert on the synthesis of phase change materials, particularly the metal insulator transition. in the 2nd paper he is cited for proposing the superconductivity mechanism based on mechanisms seen in the metal-insulator-transition, which I have not seen before as an SC mechanism
airgapstopgap 3y ago
It is entirely believable that a person with substantial trace on HN and ties in the field would rather create a throwaway than post such remark under his main account.
- willis936 3y ago
  Then they would not out their identity by claiming to have worked with the author. That piece of information alone whittles their identity down to maybe 100 people. Out of 100 adjacent academics how many post on HN, with this style, and this specific level of knowledge in that specific subfield? They may as well have just made the account their irl name. Anonymity is not a realistic goal. Assuming a realistic poster means it's reasonable to suspect their earnestness.
  - airgapstopgap 3y ago

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

In the New Scientist interview HT Kim seemed to imply that he wouldn't help other researchers until his paper gets published. If the synthesis ends up being tricky this could take a while.

adrian_mrd 3y ago
Link to the New Scientist article is: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-met-with-scepticism/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperatur...