5 ms·

A superconductor claim blew up online. Science has punctured it

29 points by agonz253 3y ago

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I think the ... hoo-ha ... online is going to have at least one positive effect - a greater interest in and funding of basic research. The Western world could double its science budget tomorrow and not notice the line item cost, and should probably double it's education budget while we are there (which we would notice but that's kind of the point). We don't know where the next break through will come from, but well educated well funded researchers is the one thing we do know we need.
- ununoctium87 3y ago
  The `votes per dollar` return on science spending is too low, unfortunately :(
the_optimist 3y ago
Headlines are bad for your well-being and development, and reporters are meatheads of communication. Are you open-minded and comfortable living close to the edge of the unknown? That’s science! Science good!
rq1 3y ago
Who is Science?
- agonz253 3y ago
  This is Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts
- RGamma 3y ago
  They
- bettercallsalad 3y ago
  Whoever the “mainstream” headline columnists approve as the voice allowed in a given day. It changes everyday.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  The new religion. You are not allowed to question the wisdom handed down from on high by Science.
- LordShredda 3y ago
  Me
- h2odragon 3y ago
  Anthony Fauci: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/anthony-fauci-i-am-the-science/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/anthony-fauci-i-am-th... He's prolly got Electrolytes, too.
  - eyegor 3y ago
    I mean he is in the top ~100 most cited researchers of all time, across all fields, and he's still alive. Guy isn't a great public speaker but his name is on quite a few foundational papers in his field. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0dDO3SAAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0dDO3SAAAAAJ
rsfern 3y ago
I think it’s unfortunate how the headline frames it like the original claim is somehow separate from the observe-hypothesize-experiment-explain loop of science. It’s also bit overconfident IMO - we totally still don’t have a handle on what’s actually going on, even if the evidence for room temperature superconductivity isn’t looking great. There’s still new preprints coming out every day
- BearOso 3y ago
  It's the layman's definition of science. As of [current date] humans know everything, and anything not fitting the current world view is wrong. Often perpetuated by people who are not scientists.
tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
Always fun to see how sone entirely apolitical scientific ‘event’ gets processed by the mainstream news publication machine into some inaccurate sensationalist BS.
TheRealPomax 3y ago
How on earth did this make it to the front page given everything else that's happened related to this on the front page every. damn. day?
progrus 3y ago
No, “science” has done no such thing. A bunch of theoretical-science types have been putting out PR as fast as possible, and trying to claim that it’s over. The whole thing looks very corrupt.
- ajross 3y ago
  I'm amazed how invested some people are in this. I'm sorry, but skepticism isn't "corrupt". 99 times out of 100, it's right. No one is being suppressed here. Anyone with even a hint of a positive result goes viral on twitter instantly. But the results just aren't there. And yeah, the crufty theoreticians are haw-haw-hawing a little (cold fusion -style, I guess) at the people who jumped on the possibility without really thinking through the implications. But the theoreticians were right about cold fusion too. Look, if LK-99 is real then you don't need a theoreticians blessing. The problem is that *it's not real*, at least not yet, and you're demanding the theoreticians hold their opinions because it upsets you that they think you're wrong.
  - progrus 3y ago
    I’ve seen enough blatant gaslighting about this on Twitter (and here) to just ignore you.
    - ajross 3y ago
      Disagreement is not "blatant gaslighting", and ignoring people who disagree with you only harms your understanding of the world. It's just so upsetting to me the extent to which the HN community has charged down this meme-driven, anti-rationalist path. Everything that doesn't feel right is suddenly the word of an enemy to commenters here. And we used to be so sure of our fact-based world views!
infogulch 3y ago
Proof that science works Just Fine using simple tools like arxiv and social media. Journals are dead. Their invention was scientifically bankrupt, their existence has bred the very human biases and social conflicts that science was supposed to eliminate, and their raison d'être is rendered moot by technology. Good riddance. Long live the scientific method.
- Turskarama 3y ago
  Hardly, it only worked in this case because of how high profile it was. You cannot use the "submit to arxiv, wait for 100 labs to verify" model for anything less exciting than room temperature superconductors.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    And honestly, if they’d waited until their work was up to the quality bar for a journal submission, a lot of resources would not have been wasted attempting to replicate it.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      And people absolutely proved that their ability to read scientific claims in isolation and make an educated guess how much weight to give them is really bad.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  Would this paper be published in a reputable journal? I think they would ask for better graphs at the very least, maybe more detail of the process of creating the material. It doesn't seem like the arxiv prerint did any good here. I don't think science = being in a journal but this event doesn't show evidence for the death of journals. >Their invention was scientifically bankrupt Did you just replace "morals" with "science" here? What do you mean by this? Or do you mean that their "invention" was without reason? Even if journals are not needed today, "arxiv and social media" did not yet exist.
amelius 3y ago
I see a parallel with the faster than light neutrino anomaly in Italy from some years ago.
ayakang31415 3y ago
Very poorly presented piece of journalism. No one should and could expect a rigorous scientific examination on a poorly written paper that unfortunately had to be rushed out onto arxiv because Kwon who got fired from the research center leaked their findings prematurely without any consent from the contributors (I heard that he will be facing disciplinary action from Korea university). I still feel like we need to wait for a peer-reviewed paper that they are working on to get published at APL material.
cheese_van 3y ago
I'm not sure the headline understands that scientists can be wrong their entire careers but still be excellent scientists, doing excellent and even influential science. "A black body claim for short wavelengths blew up academia. Science punctured it so resolutely that the claim is now called an ultraviolet catastrophe!".
0xbadc0de5 3y ago
Science is adhering to skepticism until the evidence is undeniable. Science is reproducible. Science is thorough and deliberate and falsifiable. Everything else is alchemy and superstition and most definitely NOT science.

29 points by agonz253 3y ago

I think the ... hoo-ha ... online is going to have at least one positive effect - a greater interest in and funding of basic research. The Western world could double its science budget tomorrow and not notice the line item cost, and should probably double it's education budget while we are there (which we would notice but that's kind of the point). We don't know where the next break through will come from, but well educated well funded researchers is the one thing we do know we need.

ununoctium87 3y ago
The `votes per dollar` return on science spending is too low, unfortunately :(

the_optimist 3y ago

Headlines are bad for your well-being and development, and reporters are meatheads of communication. Are you open-minded and comfortable living close to the edge of the unknown? That’s science! Science good!

rq1 3y ago

Who is Science?

agonz253 3y ago
This is Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts
RGamma 3y ago
They
bettercallsalad 3y ago
Whoever the “mainstream” headline columnists approve as the voice allowed in a given day. It changes everyday.
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
The new religion. You are not allowed to question the wisdom handed down from on high by Science.
LordShredda 3y ago
Me
h2odragon 3y ago
Anthony Fauci: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/anthony-fauci-i-am-the-science/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/anthony-fauci-i-am-th... He's prolly got Electrolytes, too.
- eyegor 3y ago
  I mean he is in the top ~100 most cited researchers of all time, across all fields, and he's still alive. Guy isn't a great public speaker but his name is on quite a few foundational papers in his field. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0dDO3SAAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0dDO3SAAAAAJ

rsfern 3y ago

I think it’s unfortunate how the headline frames it like the original claim is somehow separate from the observe-hypothesize-experiment-explain loop of science. It’s also bit overconfident IMO - we totally still don’t have a handle on what’s actually going on, even if the evidence for room temperature superconductivity isn’t looking great. There’s still new preprints coming out every day

BearOso 3y ago
It's the layman's definition of science. As of [current date] humans know everything, and anything not fitting the current world view is wrong. Often perpetuated by people who are not scientists.

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago

Always fun to see how sone entirely apolitical scientific ‘event’ gets processed by the mainstream news publication machine into some inaccurate sensationalist BS.

TheRealPomax 3y ago

How on earth did this make it to the front page given everything else that's happened related to this on the front page every. damn. day?

progrus 3y ago

No, “science” has done no such thing. A bunch of theoretical-science types have been putting out PR as fast as possible, and trying to claim that it’s over. The whole thing looks very corrupt.

ajross 3y ago
I'm amazed how invested some people are in this. I'm sorry, but skepticism isn't "corrupt". 99 times out of 100, it's right. No one is being suppressed here. Anyone with even a hint of a positive result goes viral on twitter instantly. But the results just aren't there. And yeah, the crufty theoreticians are haw-haw-hawing a little (cold fusion -style, I guess) at the people who jumped on the possibility without really thinking through the implications. But the theoreticians were right about cold fusion too. Look, if LK-99 is real then you don't need a theoreticians blessing. The problem is that *it's not real*, at least not yet, and you're demanding the theoreticians hold their opinions because it upsets you that they think you're wrong.
- progrus 3y ago
  I’ve seen enough blatant gaslighting about this on Twitter (and here) to just ignore you.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Disagreement is not "blatant gaslighting", and ignoring people who disagree with you only harms your understanding of the world. It's just so upsetting to me the extent to which the HN community has charged down this meme-driven, anti-rationalist path. Everything that doesn't feel right is suddenly the word of an enemy to commenters here. And we used to be so sure of our fact-based world views!

infogulch 3y ago

Proof that science works Just Fine using simple tools like arxiv and social media. Journals are dead. Their invention was scientifically bankrupt, their existence has bred the very human biases and social conflicts that science was supposed to eliminate, and their raison d'être is rendered moot by technology. Good riddance. Long live the scientific method.

Turskarama 3y ago
Hardly, it only worked in this case because of how high profile it was. You cannot use the "submit to arxiv, wait for 100 labs to verify" model for anything less exciting than room temperature superconductors.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  And honestly, if they’d waited until their work was up to the quality bar for a journal submission, a lot of resources would not have been wasted attempting to replicate it.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    And people absolutely proved that their ability to read scientific claims in isolation and make an educated guess how much weight to give them is really bad.
Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
Would this paper be published in a reputable journal? I think they would ask for better graphs at the very least, maybe more detail of the process of creating the material. It doesn't seem like the arxiv prerint did any good here. I don't think science = being in a journal but this event doesn't show evidence for the death of journals. >Their invention was scientifically bankrupt Did you just replace "morals" with "science" here? What do you mean by this? Or do you mean that their "invention" was without reason? Even if journals are not needed today, "arxiv and social media" did not yet exist.

amelius 3y ago

I see a parallel with the faster than light neutrino anomaly in Italy from some years ago.

ayakang31415 3y ago

Very poorly presented piece of journalism. No one should and could expect a rigorous scientific examination on a poorly written paper that unfortunately had to be rushed out onto arxiv because Kwon who got fired from the research center leaked their findings prematurely without any consent from the contributors (I heard that he will be facing disciplinary action from Korea university). I still feel like we need to wait for a peer-reviewed paper that they are working on to get published at APL material.

cheese_van 3y ago

I'm not sure the headline understands that scientists can be wrong their entire careers but still be excellent scientists, doing excellent and even influential science. "A black body claim for short wavelengths blew up academia. Science punctured it so resolutely that the claim is now called an ultraviolet catastrophe!".

0xbadc0de5 3y ago

Science is adhering to skepticism until the evidence is undeniable. Science is reproducible. Science is thorough and deliberate and falsifiable. Everything else is alchemy and superstition and most definitely NOT science.