5 ms·
It’s not over until multiple labs fail to reproduce it. A definitive no will take months.
by valine 3y ago
It’s not over until multiple labs fail to reproduce it. A definitive no will take months.
- carabiner 3y agohttps://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/555/116/b2e.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/555/116/b2e...
- rendang 3y agoUnless in the meantime the authors realize they made some mistake in their analysis & retract their claims.
- zarzavat 3y agoEven if it doesn’t turn out to be a superconductor, it is at least strongly diamagnetic, so it opens avenues for future research either way. There’s a potential scenario here where this doesn’t turn out to be a superconductor, but it nonetheless leads to a superconductor further down the line.
- XorNot 3y agoThe one wrinkle here is if the sample we saw actually was pyrolytic carbon and someone simply mislabeled a vial when looking for something to shoot the video with. At the extreme end of big news, stupid things can happen (I've worked in a lab: people suck at labelling things they make).
- jtriangle 3y agoIf it is pyrolytic carbon, they've somehow significantly enhanced the dimagnetism of it, which is remarkable. Usually that stuff only barely floats, and only when it is very thin.
- willis936 3y agoWhere would this carbon come from? I think being able to produce an element out of thin air is more impressive than STP superconductors.
- Animats 3y ago> It’s not over until multiple labs fail to reproduce it. A definitive no will take months. Yes. Some may remember the problems with cold fusion. I once went to a packed talk at Stanford where some physicists and chemists were trying to reproduce the effect. They mentioned that in the first attempts, they had radiation alarms set up in case the thing suddenly started emitting substantial amounts of radiation. After a while, it became clear that the effect, if it existed at all, was small, somewhere below twice background radiation, so it wasn't high risk. They discovered that people moving around the apparatus affected the results; humans have a lot of water and are neutron reflectors. Finally they did the experiment inside a "neutron cube", a box made of lead bricks, to eliminate stray neutrons. No neutron generation measured inside the cube. They worked hard for months getting to a definitive "no".
- xorbax 3y agoRight. But this is social-media science, so there needs to be an answer by Saturday or - at worst - Sunday. Entertain our sudden fickle intellect! We're paying attention now, so you should all hop to, regardless of theory or evidence!
- lordnacho 3y agoBut would a yes be immediately obvious? Is there a test for superconductivity that doesn't easily show false positives?
- konschubert 3y agoThis feels wrong. The burden of proof should be on the one making the extraordinary claims.
- krashnburn200 3y agoThey are literally willing to mail out samples of their claimed superconducting material to labs for independent testing and verification. Exactly how much more proof than "Here, have a super conductor we made" do you want exactly? The only thing required is a little patience.
- anabab 3y ago[dead]