3 ms·

I'm curious why every tracker lists Argonne, though no status or progress listed. I'm sure there are a hundred other labs who've either done nothing, or are do

I'm curious why every tracker lists Argonne, though no status or progress listed. I'm sure there are a hundred other labs who've either done nothing, or are doing something without fanfare, so why Argonne?

psychphysic 3y ago
Anyone can edit Wikipedia.
- mycologos 3y ago
  Yes, in particular, anyone can add citations that you can check if you're skeptical. In this case, the citation is an article from science.org [1], which includes the following quote: > “They come off as real amateurs,” says Michael Norman, a theorist at Argonne National Laboratory. “They don't know much about superconductivity and the way they’ve presented some of the data is fishy.” On the other hand, he says, researchers at Argonne and elsewhere are already trying to replicate the experiment. “People here are taking it seriously and trying to grow this stuff.” [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...
  - dmarchand90 3y ago
    What makes me excited is there is very good theoretical work, using 'standard techniques ' that shows it either is a superconductor or will have very good properties in designing one. Cold fusion, the EM drive, time traveling neutrinos, and all the other false excitement never had a theoretical backing. So 'guarded optimism' seems warranted
JustARandomGuy 3y ago
Argonne is a highly regarded national lab; results from there would be highly credible. Also an Argonne staffer has gone on record[0] saying that they're attempting to replicate, while other labs have not said whether they're trying or not. Personally I'm waiting for the Argonne results which should be done by the end of the week. [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...
- adamsmith143 3y ago
  With you there. A lot of Chinese labs are listed e.g. but my own experience trying to replicate materials science results from "credible" Chinese labs has led to a lot of disappointment.
Levitating 3y ago
All the labs on that list have stated that they are working on replicating the experiment. That's also what is referenced.

psychphysic 3y ago

Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

mycologos 3y ago
Yes, in particular, anyone can add citations that you can check if you're skeptical. In this case, the citation is an article from science.org [1], which includes the following quote: > “They come off as real amateurs,” says Michael Norman, a theorist at Argonne National Laboratory. “They don't know much about superconductivity and the way they’ve presented some of the data is fishy.” On the other hand, he says, researchers at Argonne and elsewhere are already trying to replicate the experiment. “People here are taking it seriously and trying to grow this stuff.” [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...
- dmarchand90 3y ago
  What makes me excited is there is very good theoretical work, using 'standard techniques ' that shows it either is a superconductor or will have very good properties in designing one. Cold fusion, the EM drive, time traveling neutrinos, and all the other false excitement never had a theoretical backing. So 'guarded optimism' seems warranted

JustARandomGuy 3y ago

Argonne is a highly regarded national lab; results from there would be highly credible. Also an Argonne staffer has gone on record[0] saying that they're attempting to replicate, while other labs have not said whether they're trying or not. Personally I'm waiting for the Argonne results which should be done by the end of the week. [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...

adamsmith143 3y ago
With you there. A lot of Chinese labs are listed e.g. but my own experience trying to replicate materials science results from "credible" Chinese labs has led to a lot of disappointment.

Levitating 3y ago

All the labs on that list have stated that they are working on replicating the experiment. That's also what is referenced.