3 ms·
That also adds little value. It would add no information on whether or not the sample is a fluke. We need to understand the material properties and its compos
by willis936 3y ago
That also adds little value. It would add no information on whether or not the sample is a fluke. We need to understand the material properties and its composition.
- jacquesm 3y agoIf it is a fluke or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not it is real, not how it was made. If it is real then we can expend a fortune on the 'how it was made' question, if it isn't real we can all descend from this holding pattern.
- willis936 3y agoWhat benefit does that bring?
- fastball 3y agoAppropriate allocation of resources is intrinsically beneficial.
- willis936 3y agoExactly right. If we concede that our present level of societal R&D is appropriate then it's easy to argue that resources are presently wasted pursuing less promising leads.
- woeirua 3y agoUntil we have definitive evidence that LK99 is a SC, there's no reason to believe that it is a promising lead.
- gus_massa 3y agoIf it's real, "we" can brute force a reproduction. Just make each graduate student that works in a superconductivity lab spend two random months trying variants of LK99. The attempts will fail. The idea is that the rest of the time the graduate student will be making standard superconductor to collect enough boring papers to escape the rat lab. But if the LK99 clone is a lucky one, everyone in the lab gets a groundbreaking paper.
- jacquesm 3y agoTo stop the waste of resources in case the whole thing turns out to be a dud. By providing proof that it is not many more resources would become unlocked.
- willis936 3y agoGrinding against worse leads is not a better use of resources.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fastball 3y agoIf the original sample is superconducting, you can perform XRD / other analysis on it to establish a proximate structure and then simulate things / find better methods for synthesis.