5 ms·

One of the authors commented in their previous video pre-announcement that they suspect it was a probe cleanliness problem, which they would investigate later.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
Is this kind of thing typical for experiments working to confirm such significant results, or is there a mad rush to publish? Do you really get a lot of prestige from confirming somebody else's result? I would have thought the risk to reputation from sloppy work would far outweigh it (see: the cold fusion shenanigans).
- ianai 3y ago
  Probably a lab that confirms any piece of it will get a significant share of attention and acclaim. I heard the research group got scooped by a former researcher. Former researcher outed them before they were ready for all the relevant questions. Not a particularly good thing to do for a career to out colleagues like that.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > Probably a lab that confirms any piece of it will get a significant share of attention and acclaim. Why is that though? They're taking a discovery that somebody else came up with, and (mostly) follow a recipe they're given. I mean if they were synthesizing a theorized substance or significantly improving its production, or measuring an effect that was previously undetectable by known instruments and experiments then those things would deserve acclaim on their own. Not saying they aren't good scientists and labs working on this or reproducing is worthless, the reward just doesn't seem big enough not to be meticulous about it. If you're right then you'll be one of the dozens of labs that reproduced it and all credit goes to original discoverers. If you're wrong you'll be the ones who bungled the experiment and share just about equal blame.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      In science the fights are so fierce because the stakes are so small...
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Typically a valid comment in academia at large, but not when high-temperature superconductors are the subject of the fight. If these claims pan out, these guys may be the next Andy Viterbi or Ray Stata.
    - soerxpso 3y ago
      It demonstrates efficiency and ability to do something complicated and challenging under time pressure. Maybe it shouldn't be considered a big academic achievement, but it's definitely an impressive practical achievement. I don't think that being wrong looks bad. There are a lot of understandable ways to be wrong, and it's not like any of these labs are being dishonest about their level of confidence (you can't really be "wrong" if you're not overcommitted to a stance).
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        It's having these suspected dirty probes that they haven't investigated yet which is in particular what I'm talking about though. Since they made no particular experimental or theoretical breakthrough here, I just would have thought they would want to be meticulous about confirming an unexpected result. As you say, the point is to show their experimental capabilities. > I don't think that being wrong looks bad. There are a lot of understandable ways to be wrong, and it's not like any of these labs are being dishonest about their level of confidence (you can't really be "wrong" if you're not overcommitted to a stance). I'm not in the field, but I would have thought it would look pretty bad if they were wrong and their experiment had obvious sloppy practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion apparently that sunk a few reputations. I completely understand a private rush to replicate for the purpose of building on it and making new discoveries, but just to put rush out a confirm paper? I suspect it's less about demonstrating actual efficiency and ability and more about the paper mill.
  - Qem 3y ago
    > I heard the research group got scooped by a former researcher. Former researcher outed them before they were ready for all the relevant questions. Not a particularly good thing to do for a career to out colleagues like that. Either this or they tried to deny proper authorship to the guy, that antecipated the publishing in self-defense. It's early to point who was the party at fault, without proper investigation.
  - agnosticmantis 3y ago
    In this particular case I’d be less cynical as even laypersons are anxious to know what’s the result. So it’s natural that scientists that have the lab equipment are rushing to replicate or falsify the results.

throwawaylinux 3y ago

Is this kind of thing typical for experiments working to confirm such significant results, or is there a mad rush to publish? Do you really get a lot of prestige from confirming somebody else's result? I would have thought the risk to reputation from sloppy work would far outweigh it (see: the cold fusion shenanigans).

ianai 3y ago
Probably a lab that confirms any piece of it will get a significant share of attention and acclaim. I heard the research group got scooped by a former researcher. Former researcher outed them before they were ready for all the relevant questions. Not a particularly good thing to do for a career to out colleagues like that.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > Probably a lab that confirms any piece of it will get a significant share of attention and acclaim. Why is that though? They're taking a discovery that somebody else came up with, and (mostly) follow a recipe they're given. I mean if they were synthesizing a theorized substance or significantly improving its production, or measuring an effect that was previously undetectable by known instruments and experiments then those things would deserve acclaim on their own. Not saying they aren't good scientists and labs working on this or reproducing is worthless, the reward just doesn't seem big enough not to be meticulous about it. If you're right then you'll be one of the dozens of labs that reproduced it and all credit goes to original discoverers. If you're wrong you'll be the ones who bungled the experiment and share just about equal blame.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    In science the fights are so fierce because the stakes are so small...
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Typically a valid comment in academia at large, but not when high-temperature superconductors are the subject of the fight. If these claims pan out, these guys may be the next Andy Viterbi or Ray Stata.
  - soerxpso 3y ago
    It demonstrates efficiency and ability to do something complicated and challenging under time pressure. Maybe it shouldn't be considered a big academic achievement, but it's definitely an impressive practical achievement. I don't think that being wrong looks bad. There are a lot of understandable ways to be wrong, and it's not like any of these labs are being dishonest about their level of confidence (you can't really be "wrong" if you're not overcommitted to a stance).
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      It's having these suspected dirty probes that they haven't investigated yet which is in particular what I'm talking about though. Since they made no particular experimental or theoretical breakthrough here, I just would have thought they would want to be meticulous about confirming an unexpected result. As you say, the point is to show their experimental capabilities. > I don't think that being wrong looks bad. There are a lot of understandable ways to be wrong, and it's not like any of these labs are being dishonest about their level of confidence (you can't really be "wrong" if you're not overcommitted to a stance). I'm not in the field, but I would have thought it would look pretty bad if they were wrong and their experiment had obvious sloppy practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion apparently that sunk a few reputations. I completely understand a private rush to replicate for the purpose of building on it and making new discoveries, but just to put rush out a confirm paper? I suspect it's less about demonstrating actual efficiency and ability and more about the paper mill.
- Qem 3y ago
  > I heard the research group got scooped by a former researcher. Former researcher outed them before they were ready for all the relevant questions. Not a particularly good thing to do for a career to out colleagues like that. Either this or they tried to deny proper authorship to the guy, that antecipated the publishing in self-defense. It's early to point who was the party at fault, without proper investigation.
- agnosticmantis 3y ago
  In this particular case I’d be less cynical as even laypersons are anxious to know what’s the result. So it’s natural that scientists that have the lab equipment are rushing to replicate or falsify the results.