3 ms·

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

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
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      My bad, my reader view cut the tweet off and just showed the original. Still, his phrasing doesn’t indicate it’s over for him, just bordering - perhaps explains everything they’re seeing, but it’s : * not LK99 * a conjecture * isolated to magnetic properties that are acknowledged to be novel and don’t rule out messier effect * ignore other claimed properties like resistivity Also, something explaining everything you are seeing is again a demonstration of an alternative, as is evinced by the material not being LK99, that claimed LK99 as a ceramic without a reliable method of production with a claimed low production rate (less than 10% of runs claimed by the original authors, with them claiming to have done over 1000 runs to produce their sample). Again: I think it’s time for science to take the helm and hottakes to take a back seat for a while. I expect we will have something noteworthy either way by the end of the year. By the end of the month conclusions are fun gimmicks. I’m down with fun and love a good gimmick, but I’ll withhold belief in either direction until the original teams paper is released, their claimed sample is analyzed independently, more details of the claimed process are released to allow replication, and any novel properties have a stronger theoretical explanation. It’s extraordinarily unlikely they have found a room temperature super conductors, but not impossible. Regardless, they’ve discovered something novel and that, by definition to any scientist, is interesting.
      - 3y ago
Double_a_92 3y ago
> The existence of alternative explanations isn’t a proof the proposed explanation isn’t true. But it's proof that the proposed explanation is not a bulletproof proof... Because it could also be any other alternative effect. That's literally the whole point of it...

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
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    My bad, my reader view cut the tweet off and just showed the original. Still, his phrasing doesn’t indicate it’s over for him, just bordering - perhaps explains everything they’re seeing, but it’s : * not LK99 * a conjecture * isolated to magnetic properties that are acknowledged to be novel and don’t rule out messier effect * ignore other claimed properties like resistivity Also, something explaining everything you are seeing is again a demonstration of an alternative, as is evinced by the material not being LK99, that claimed LK99 as a ceramic without a reliable method of production with a claimed low production rate (less than 10% of runs claimed by the original authors, with them claiming to have done over 1000 runs to produce their sample). Again: I think it’s time for science to take the helm and hottakes to take a back seat for a while. I expect we will have something noteworthy either way by the end of the year. By the end of the month conclusions are fun gimmicks. I’m down with fun and love a good gimmick, but I’ll withhold belief in either direction until the original teams paper is released, their claimed sample is analyzed independently, more details of the claimed process are released to allow replication, and any novel properties have a stronger theoretical explanation. It’s extraordinarily unlikely they have found a room temperature super conductors, but not impossible. Regardless, they’ve discovered something novel and that, by definition to any scientist, is interesting.
    - 3y ago

Double_a_92 3y ago

> The existence of alternative explanations isn’t a proof the proposed explanation isn’t true. But it's proof that the proposed explanation is not a bulletproof proof... Because it could also be any other alternative effect. That's literally the whole point of it...