6 ms·

Yes. https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 And this new paper finally rigorously ex

Yes. https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 And this new paper finally rigorously explains away all the half-levitation videos. They can no longer be considered any evidence of SC at all.

tamimio 3y ago
Lol, so it was all super glue and iron!?
throwawaymaths 3y ago
For the half levitated ferromagnetic sample: isn't there torsional force where that disc touches the magnet? At this point we have many examples where it's fully levitated.
- delabay 3y ago
  all the full levitation videos are questionable in origin. I'd even go so far as to call every single one of them fake. No credible reproduction has featured a levitating sample.
  - srslack 3y ago
    https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01516 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01516 https://nitter.net/altryne/status/1686279028523847680 https://nitter.net/altryne/status/1686279028523847680
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Not all the replication videos show the sample in the middle, see the Varda sample videos. Constructing something that simulates something else is proof of very little, other than there are other possible explanations. The existence of alternative explanations isn’t a proof the proposed explanation isn’t true. This paper doesn’t explain away anything yet - they’re conjecturing based on their experience with their sample. Their conjectures are no more credible than the opposing supporting conjectures. IANAP and I don’t have a horse in the race, and while I’m excited to see if this is true, I don’t believe anything other than there’s a long road of research ahead and nothing will be proven with hottake nitter videos or hottake preprints.
- versteegen 3y ago
  > Not all the replication videos show the sample in the middle, see the Varda sample videos Andrew McCalip himself says this explains everything he's seen. https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1688741684316975104#m https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1688741684316975104#...
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    You’re reading something entirely different - at the end of a long discussion of sending the samples off for more testing, holding hope it’s a SC but admitting it’s always been a long shot, he notes at the end: > That said, I think we're getting to the point where magnetic observations may be adding more noise than signal. Yesterday, I did perform the pole flip that was discussed in the last video. Very important to note, however, that ferromagnetism can exhibit pole agnostic behavior too. Check out the excellent video by @vangennepS. nitter.net/vangennepd/statu…. While the amateur magnetics method was fun to try for a screening method, it seems to have too many false positives to be entirely trustworthy. That’s not at all supportive of “explains everything I’ve seen”
    - versteegen 3y ago
      He wrote that other tweet before that paper was put up on arXiv. How does the fact that the one I linked to is a reply to the one you quoted change the plain meaning of his words? I'm trying to understand how I've misinterpreted his tweet but I've got to interpret "Sounds like it explains everything we're seeing" as referring to his own observations too, not (just) other people's. He's been looking for an explanation of this sort for a while: "I'm still suspecting it's a magnetic phenomena that's not SC" https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687887799872294912 https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687887799872294912 "I don't want to succumb to the echo chamber just yet, it seems weird, but could we explain this another way? Is there a lead compound that exhibits ferromagnetic behavior?" https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687497082322788352 https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687497082322788352
      - 3y ago
vbezhenar 3y ago
The only evidence of superconductivity is zero resistance. When you have a coil, pump it with current and let it rest for few years. If the current is still the same, it's superconductor. Rest are just hints.
- briansm 3y ago
  not that simple, need to compensate for all external magnetic flux, crystal compression and so on.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Oh look, I just found your superconductor! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWpnsMdTrXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWpnsMdTrXg 5 years and still has current
ilitirit 3y ago
Out of interest - has this new paper been peer reviewed already?
m3kw9 3y ago
Just remember, it’s their sample that they theorize it is. A theory/guess does not rule out superconductivity. Their sample if slightly different could also cause these effects. We need more than one and especially a concrete way to make this before testing. The formula isn’t shown in details from the original paper
m3kw9 3y ago
This is suspect because to balance a magnet like that you’d need to make it very very specifically to make it balance like that. Which means as soon as you flip it, it would not float. In the lk99 samples both sides can float
postalrat 3y ago
In the original video he flipped it 360 degrees off the center of the magnet yet it kept the angle it was pointed at. Wouldn't a ferromagnet want to stay orientated with the field of the magnet and flip the other direction when rotated?
- AnotherGoodName 3y ago
  That thread above has him flip the magnet and the same thing happens. Note the sample isn't magnetized itself, it's just ferromagnetic so conducts the field so the tip of the sample is the same and the top of the magnet (and this repels). That happens regardless of flipping the magnet.
  - postalrat 3y ago
    Not flipping the magnet, rotating the sample. In https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 (the video with the rubiks cube) at around 20 seconds they rotate the sample around 360 degrees and it stays at the same angle. Normally I'd expect it would stay at the same angle of the magnetic field.
    - AnotherGoodName 3y ago
      The above twitter thread it looks like he does that too with the ferromagnetic material. He has a long chain of posts although the first post after the original video has him rotate the sample 180 degrees on top of the magnet (still points up) and then again back to the original position. He does have it flop on top of the magnet at some point and has to poke it back upwards but that happens in the original video too so meh. The way the object moves is just too similar imho. It looks like plain old ferromagnetic material of that shape does this.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

tamimio 3y ago

Lol, so it was all super glue and iron!?

throwawaymaths 3y ago

For the half levitated ferromagnetic sample: isn't there torsional force where that disc touches the magnet? At this point we have many examples where it's fully levitated.

delabay 3y ago
all the full levitation videos are questionable in origin. I'd even go so far as to call every single one of them fake. No credible reproduction has featured a levitating sample.
- srslack 3y ago
  https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01516 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01516 https://nitter.net/altryne/status/1686279028523847680 https://nitter.net/altryne/status/1686279028523847680

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Not all the replication videos show the sample in the middle, see the Varda sample videos. Constructing something that simulates something else is proof of very little, other than there are other possible explanations. The existence of alternative explanations isn’t a proof the proposed explanation isn’t true. This paper doesn’t explain away anything yet - they’re conjecturing based on their experience with their sample. Their conjectures are no more credible than the opposing supporting conjectures. IANAP and I don’t have a horse in the race, and while I’m excited to see if this is true, I don’t believe anything other than there’s a long road of research ahead and nothing will be proven with hottake nitter videos or hottake preprints.

versteegen 3y ago
> Not all the replication videos show the sample in the middle, see the Varda sample videos Andrew McCalip himself says this explains everything he's seen. https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1688741684316975104#m https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1688741684316975104#...
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  You’re reading something entirely different - at the end of a long discussion of sending the samples off for more testing, holding hope it’s a SC but admitting it’s always been a long shot, he notes at the end: > That said, I think we're getting to the point where magnetic observations may be adding more noise than signal. Yesterday, I did perform the pole flip that was discussed in the last video. Very important to note, however, that ferromagnetism can exhibit pole agnostic behavior too. Check out the excellent video by @vangennepS. nitter.net/vangennepd/statu…. While the amateur magnetics method was fun to try for a screening method, it seems to have too many false positives to be entirely trustworthy. That’s not at all supportive of “explains everything I’ve seen”
  - versteegen 3y ago
    He wrote that other tweet before that paper was put up on arXiv. How does the fact that the one I linked to is a reply to the one you quoted change the plain meaning of his words? I'm trying to understand how I've misinterpreted his tweet but I've got to interpret "Sounds like it explains everything we're seeing" as referring to his own observations too, not (just) other people's. He's been looking for an explanation of this sort for a while: "I'm still suspecting it's a magnetic phenomena that's not SC" https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687887799872294912 https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687887799872294912 "I don't want to succumb to the echo chamber just yet, it seems weird, but could we explain this another way? Is there a lead compound that exhibits ferromagnetic behavior?" https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687497082322788352 https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1687497082322788352
    - 3y ago

vbezhenar 3y ago

The only evidence of superconductivity is zero resistance. When you have a coil, pump it with current and let it rest for few years. If the current is still the same, it's superconductor. Rest are just hints.

briansm 3y ago
not that simple, need to compensate for all external magnetic flux, crystal compression and so on.
postalrat 3y ago
Oh look, I just found your superconductor! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWpnsMdTrXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWpnsMdTrXg 5 years and still has current

ilitirit 3y ago

Out of interest - has this new paper been peer reviewed already?

m3kw9 3y ago

Just remember, it’s their sample that they theorize it is. A theory/guess does not rule out superconductivity. Their sample if slightly different could also cause these effects. We need more than one and especially a concrete way to make this before testing. The formula isn’t shown in details from the original paper

m3kw9 3y ago

This is suspect because to balance a magnet like that you’d need to make it very very specifically to make it balance like that. Which means as soon as you flip it, it would not float. In the lk99 samples both sides can float

postalrat 3y ago

In the original video he flipped it 360 degrees off the center of the magnet yet it kept the angle it was pointed at. Wouldn't a ferromagnet want to stay orientated with the field of the magnet and flip the other direction when rotated?

AnotherGoodName 3y ago
That thread above has him flip the magnet and the same thing happens. Note the sample isn't magnetized itself, it's just ferromagnetic so conducts the field so the tip of the sample is the same and the top of the magnet (and this repels). That happens regardless of flipping the magnet.
- postalrat 3y ago
  Not flipping the magnet, rotating the sample. In https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120 (the video with the rubiks cube) at around 20 seconds they rotate the sample around 360 degrees and it stays at the same angle. Normally I'd expect it would stay at the same angle of the magnetic field.
  - AnotherGoodName 3y ago
    The above twitter thread it looks like he does that too with the ferromagnetic material. He has a long chain of posts although the first post after the original video has him rotate the sample 180 degrees on top of the magnet (still points up) and then again back to the original position. He does have it flop on top of the magnet at some point and has to poke it back upwards but that happens in the original video too so meh. The way the object moves is just too similar imho. It looks like plain old ferromagnetic material of that shape does this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]