5 ms·
More people saying it sounds feasibly like it could be a superconductor is great, but agreed - https://nitter.net/MichaelSFuhrer/status/1686267690770739200 http
by chc4 3y ago
More people saying it sounds feasibly like it could be a superconductor is great, but agreed - https://nitter.net/MichaelSFuhrer/status/1686267690770739200 https://nitter.net/MichaelSFuhrer/status/1686267690770739200 and similar threads by actual experts in the field have outlined that DFT studies ignore a lot of variables that need to line up for superconductivity, in harsh contrast to techbros on Twitter claiming they're proof of the next thousand year golden era.
- carabiner 3y agoYeah the techbros have been the worst. Coffee guy went from saying the first DFT paper should deserve a Nobel to, "it's not a strong signal of anything" in 12 hours. WTF. All the actual scientists have been rock steady at, "it is probably not going to replicate," especially CMTC. Techbro speculation on physics should be considered harmful.
- objektif 3y agoCMTC comes of as a whiny little POS tbh. They have the exact opposite of the attitude I would have expected from a scientist. In their first thread regarding this topic they were almost flat out belittling the og authors. WTF.
- selimthegrim 3y agoBecause CMTC has high theory standards and the authors, to put it charitably, didn’t
- objektif 3y agoThis is the one from the all infamous University of Maryland correct? lol.
- selimthegrim 3y agoThey may have been throwing a bit of shade around lately but they are by and large reputable scientists barring whatever SDS’s past MA announcement involvement was. It’s more than just him there.
- objektif 3y agoI do not (almost everyone else too) associate "reputable scientist" with University of Maryland. So they should show a bit of humility.
- selimthegrim 3y agoShow me where on the doll they touched you.
- objektif 3y agoHey no need to get sensitive about it. I am seriously saying University of Maryland (chuckle) is just not enough for bragging rights. Do not worry may he when you grow up you will end up in an ivy.
- selimthegrim 3y agoI don’t have anything to do with them and I went to Caltech.
- selimthegrim 3y ago*MS not MA
- cthalupa 3y ago>All the actual scientists have been rock steady at, "it is probably not going to replicate," especially CMTC. Sinéad Griffin isn't an actual scientist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_Griffin Plenty of real scientists are excited by the DFT results while cautioning they are merely supporting evidence and not conclusive evidence.
- xorbax 3y agoIf DFT agrees with reality, it's fine If it produces unphysical nonsense, you can always say "You should have considered xyz!" Computational chemistry inherently cannot consider everything we understand about chemistry or physics or consider beyond certain scales, so its accuracy and precision are limited. You have to constrain the space properly, which makes people a little dismissive.
- Zpalmtree 3y ago> tech bro speculation on physics should be considered harmful why?
- semajian 3y agoThanks for linking someone who knows what he's talking about, very painful to see these DFT papers overhyped as some kind of proof... It proves almost nothing
- rtpg 3y agoWhat does DFT prove beyond the pedantic "it proves what it proves"? Or rather, does it not heavily lean towards some reality?