4 ms·

Uhhhhh, as trustworthy as the source may or may not be (I have no idea who controls that account), I feel like such strong statements should directly reference

by tetrep 3y ago

Uhhhhh, as trustworthy as the source may or may not be (I have no idea who controls that account), I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence. I don't see any evidence supplied, only a very strong statement: With a great deal of sadness, we now believe that the game is over. LK99 is NOT a superconductor, not even at room temperatures (or at very low temperatures). It is a very highly resistive poor quality material. Period. No point in fighting with the truth. Data have spoken. What data?????

thumbuddy 3y ago
Probably not accounts trying to tip the market. Pay no attention to social media these days. Pay only slight attention to scientific articles. Pay more attention to preprints knowing they are preprints.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Scroll up a little; it's the last ~tweet~ X in a thread of more scienticious ~tweets~ exes.
- sshine 3y ago
  Now that twitter became X, if you're lacking a better verb instead of tweet: excrete
- twtxthrow 3y ago
  Twitter no longer provides context unless you're logged in. You can currently view a single tweet if directly linked, but not the surrounding thread or replies.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > You can currently view a single tweet if directly linked If you are lucky.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  There's nothing to scroll to. Nothing above, nothing below. Probably because I don't have an account.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Time to stop posting news on X then I guess. The majority of people don't have accounts.
nisegami 3y ago
This study https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110
bena 3y ago
What data is there that it is? Why is not the initial claim a strong statement? And if the strong evidence supplied is the method to reproduce and no one can reproduce, then that should be evidence that their evidence is lacking and therefore their original claim is suspect. Until someone can reliably reproduce the claims of LK99, it remains speculation.
- carbotaniuman 3y ago
  There's a study by the authors? I mean if they just said that I was a hoax by the authors that'd be one thing, but they did specifically mention the data has spoken so...
ajross 3y ago
> I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence That's not the way the burden of proof goes! Consider "Fluoride Toothpaste is not a Superconductor". What you want is conspiracy logic: assume something interesting is probably true based on weak evidence (a handful of videos on twitter seems like table stakes in this particular controversy), and then when people deny it you demand that it "should directly reference strong evidence".
- peterdsharpe 3y ago
  There is a difference between saying "We believe LK-99 is NOT a superconductor" and "We do not believe LK-99 is a superconductor". The former is a hypothesis, the latter is a rejection of a hypothesis. The latter is really just expressing a return to an agnostic base state. Hence, the former requires evidence, and the latter is the null hypothesis.
  - ajross 3y ago
    The grandparent was demanding data and evidence to argue about the status of superconduction in a real material. What you wrote is just a semantic argument.[1] And you're right. But you're not telling us anything about LK-99. If you want to tell me that the linked tweet is a little hyperbolic and could be stated more rigorously, I'd agree! But we both know that's not the frame of the comment I was responding to. The upthread posters "wants to believe", and is looking for reasons to reject the tweet's opinion, not its language. [1] Which, notably, ignored my toothpaste analogy.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  This is a naive view of the burden of proof. The reality is that anyone that actually cares already knows the situation: we are waiting on reproductions. This Tweet pretty clearly implies that there’s been some sort of new insight. That’s the obvious and intended plain language effect it’s having. Ham-fistedly applying “burden of proof!” Is just being tone deaf.
  - ajross 3y ago
bowsamic 3y ago
This Twitter account has been raging about “normies speculating on science” since the beginning
hunta2097 3y ago
This is a better link (I hate linking to twitter these days): https://uk.unofficialbird.com/condensed_the/status/1688747919866814464#m https://uk.unofficialbird.com/condensed_the/status/168874791...
prof-dr-ir 3y ago
You may not have seen it but the tweet is part of a thread. The thread mentions exactly the data you ask for. And, you may not have seen it but the account is that of the condensed matter theory center at the university of Maryland. The people working there are at https://www.physics.umd.edu/cmtc/people.html https://www.physics.umd.edu/cmtc/people.html .
- stathibus 3y ago
  The UMD folks are some of the best in the business.
- politelemon 3y ago
  I can't see anything on Twitter these days except for the single comment itself. The thread and replies have disappeared.
  - pabs3 3y ago
    Use one of the Nitter instances, they show everything: https://nitter.net/condensed_the/status/1688747919866814464 https://nitter.net/condensed_the/status/1688747919866814464
    - politelemon 3y ago
      I appreciate you.
- brmgb 3y ago
  Anyone has a link to some communication from the university of Maryland which is not written by a teenager? They must be one if they spent time trying to reproduce the material.
lamontcg 3y ago
> I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence. They did link the strong evidence upthread: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 > To conclude, we have observed a semiconductor-like, non-superconducting electric property in our LK-99-like synthetic samples, along with diamagnetic and soft-ferromagnetic properties arising from supposedly different phases of the mixed product. Our results suggest that one needs to be cautious when interpreting half-levitation observations as evidence for net levitating forces (and, further, as evidence for the Meissner effect). The presence of ferromagnetism in a Pb-Cu-P-O system is somewhat unexpected, as we are not aware of previous reports of materials with related properties. The presence of a flat-bandlike electronic structure in Pb10−xCux(PO4)6O, as revealed in a recent calculation [14, 18], might be able to give rise to such spontaneous ferromagnetism, which warrants further investigation. So, they replicated the "half levitation" effect and found it had nothing to do with superconductivity. Little chunks of it have ferromagnetic and diamagnetic properties along with it being a semiconductor. Weird, but no evidence at all of superconductivity. Doesn't explain the videos of fully levitating samples, but those are easily faked and none of them have been very plausible and could just be attention seeking or attempts to manipulate stock markets. Still should get replicated and those questions that the arxiv preprint raise should really get investigated and answered, but it pretty strongly looks like we're investigating a novel semiconductor now, not a superconductor.

by tetrep 3y ago

thumbuddy 3y ago

Probably not accounts trying to tip the market. Pay no attention to social media these days. Pay only slight attention to scientific articles. Pay more attention to preprints knowing they are preprints.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Scroll up a little; it's the last ~tweet~ X in a thread of more scienticious ~tweets~ exes.

sshine 3y ago
Now that twitter became X, if you're lacking a better verb instead of tweet: excrete
twtxthrow 3y ago
Twitter no longer provides context unless you're logged in. You can currently view a single tweet if directly linked, but not the surrounding thread or replies.
- timeon 3y ago
  > You can currently view a single tweet if directly linked If you are lucky.
cassianoleal 3y ago
There's nothing to scroll to. Nothing above, nothing below. Probably because I don't have an account.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Time to stop posting news on X then I guess. The majority of people don't have accounts.

nisegami 3y ago

This study https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110

bena 3y ago

What data is there that it is? Why is not the initial claim a strong statement? And if the strong evidence supplied is the method to reproduce and no one can reproduce, then that should be evidence that their evidence is lacking and therefore their original claim is suspect. Until someone can reliably reproduce the claims of LK99, it remains speculation.

carbotaniuman 3y ago
There's a study by the authors? I mean if they just said that I was a hoax by the authors that'd be one thing, but they did specifically mention the data has spoken so...

ajross 3y ago

> I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence That's not the way the burden of proof goes! Consider "Fluoride Toothpaste is not a Superconductor". What you want is conspiracy logic: assume something interesting is probably true based on weak evidence (a handful of videos on twitter seems like table stakes in this particular controversy), and then when people deny it you demand that it "should directly reference strong evidence".

peterdsharpe 3y ago
There is a difference between saying "We believe LK-99 is NOT a superconductor" and "We do not believe LK-99 is a superconductor". The former is a hypothesis, the latter is a rejection of a hypothesis. The latter is really just expressing a return to an agnostic base state. Hence, the former requires evidence, and the latter is the null hypothesis.
- ajross 3y ago
  The grandparent was demanding data and evidence to argue about the status of superconduction in a real material. What you wrote is just a semantic argument.[1] And you're right. But you're not telling us anything about LK-99. If you want to tell me that the linked tweet is a little hyperbolic and could be stated more rigorously, I'd agree! But we both know that's not the frame of the comment I was responding to. The upthread posters "wants to believe", and is looking for reasons to reject the tweet's opinion, not its language. [1] Which, notably, ignored my toothpaste analogy.
tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
This is a naive view of the burden of proof. The reality is that anyone that actually cares already knows the situation: we are waiting on reproductions. This Tweet pretty clearly implies that there’s been some sort of new insight. That’s the obvious and intended plain language effect it’s having. Ham-fistedly applying “burden of proof!” Is just being tone deaf.
- ajross 3y ago

bowsamic 3y ago

This Twitter account has been raging about “normies speculating on science” since the beginning

hunta2097 3y ago

This is a better link (I hate linking to twitter these days): https://uk.unofficialbird.com/condensed_the/status/1688747919866814464#m https://uk.unofficialbird.com/condensed_the/status/168874791...

prof-dr-ir 3y ago

You may not have seen it but the tweet is part of a thread. The thread mentions exactly the data you ask for. And, you may not have seen it but the account is that of the condensed matter theory center at the university of Maryland. The people working there are at https://www.physics.umd.edu/cmtc/people.html https://www.physics.umd.edu/cmtc/people.html .

stathibus 3y ago
The UMD folks are some of the best in the business.
politelemon 3y ago
I can't see anything on Twitter these days except for the single comment itself. The thread and replies have disappeared.
- pabs3 3y ago
  Use one of the Nitter instances, they show everything: https://nitter.net/condensed_the/status/1688747919866814464 https://nitter.net/condensed_the/status/1688747919866814464
  - politelemon 3y ago
    I appreciate you.
brmgb 3y ago
Anyone has a link to some communication from the university of Maryland which is not written by a teenager? They must be one if they spent time trying to reproduce the material.

lamontcg 3y ago

> I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence. They did link the strong evidence upthread: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 > To conclude, we have observed a semiconductor-like, non-superconducting electric property in our LK-99-like synthetic samples, along with diamagnetic and soft-ferromagnetic properties arising from supposedly different phases of the mixed product. Our results suggest that one needs to be cautious when interpreting half-levitation observations as evidence for net levitating forces (and, further, as evidence for the Meissner effect). The presence of ferromagnetism in a Pb-Cu-P-O system is somewhat unexpected, as we are not aware of previous reports of materials with related properties. The presence of a flat-bandlike electronic structure in Pb10−xCux(PO4)6O, as revealed in a recent calculation [14, 18], might be able to give rise to such spontaneous ferromagnetism, which warrants further investigation. So, they replicated the "half levitation" effect and found it had nothing to do with superconductivity. Little chunks of it have ferromagnetic and diamagnetic properties along with it being a semiconductor. Weird, but no evidence at all of superconductivity. Doesn't explain the videos of fully levitating samples, but those are easily faked and none of them have been very plausible and could just be attention seeking or attempts to manipulate stock markets. Still should get replicated and those questions that the arxiv preprint raise should really get investigated and answered, but it pretty strongly looks like we're investigating a novel semiconductor now, not a superconductor.