3 ms·

Good to know. It's still a bit suspicious that there's no proof of their claims yet though. Hopefully there will actually be a delivery this time.

by _i4if 3y ago

starkrights 3y ago
Why do you keep saying this? At the bottom of the article there’s a clear link to a peer reviewed paper in the journal Nature. Heck there’s a link in the first paragraph too. What is so suspicious here, like what’s the potential malintent being observed here? You seem to misunderstand what’s being presented here in its entirety, and are making a misguided point as a result. Granted, I’m no physicist, but it seems obvious to me that the rando group that reported lk-99 was making insane revolutionary claims regarding a supposed room-temperature superconductor, in a non peer reviewed paper. This is A) MIT. (Ie, extremely relevant in the name of physics) B) Only claiming the super conductivity of a previously unknown-to-be-superconductive material (or more aptly, a previously unknown process which makes a material superconductive), which is not anywhere even remotely close to being as potentially earth-shattering as the lk-99 claims. Plenty of things are superconductive- this one is just interesting because it’s new / novel (+ a couple of other important points I don’t particularly understand as I’m not a physicist. Go figure) C) Peer reviewed in a major journal Why do you keep pressing this angle as if the “claims” are so murky and unfounded and malevolent? There’s nothing about this paper to support that ideal that I can discern. What does “deliver” even mean in this context? They already have, in their peer reviewed paper. Arguably the Korea University students “delivered” with their paper on lk-99, it’s just that everyone checked after because of how crazy their claims being true would be, and found that they just fucked up. The two things you’re conflating here have no reason to be- they’re not remotely the same situation.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
Jesus Christ you're impatient. Normally science doesn't move this fast.
- _i4if 3y ago
  > Jesus Christ you're impatient The claim was allegedly made without evidence. I personally would have collected said evidence before making claims, so sorry if I say "citation needed". Remember to stay civil on HN.
  - starkrights 3y ago
    What do you mean by this, genuinely? They describe in their paper- the literal citation that is given at the bottom of the article, exactly what they did to observe superconductivity in this material. No one alleged anything of the sorts that the claim has no evidence- not in the comments, nor in the article. I think you misunderstood the original reply to your comment. When you said “… another completely unfounded claim of superconductivity,” you were way off base. Lk-99 was not a completely unfounded claim of superconductivity. It was a misguided (or malintented- who knows), non peer reviewed claim of *room temperature* superconductivity. We know of plenty superconductive materials- finding and claiming one is not super crazy or subject to any undue scrutiny for the most part. Finding materials that are superconductive at room temperature however, absolutely is subject to extreme scrutiny, because it has literally never been observed before, we’re not sure if it’s possible, and we it would literally change the world as we know it if it were to be discovered. The commenter was signaling you that comparing lk-99 to this is completely unfounded due to this, because discovering a superconductive property of a new material doesn’t even remotely have the same ramifications as the discovery of a room temperature superconductor.

Good to know. It's still a bit suspicious that there's no proof of their claims yet though. Hopefully there will actually be a delivery this time.

by _i4if 3y ago

Good to know. It's still a bit suspicious that there's no proof of their claims yet though. Hopefully there will actually be a delivery this time.

starkrights 3y ago

Why do you keep saying this? At the bottom of the article there’s a clear link to a peer reviewed paper in the journal Nature. Heck there’s a link in the first paragraph too. What is so suspicious here, like what’s the potential malintent being observed here? You seem to misunderstand what’s being presented here in its entirety, and are making a misguided point as a result. Granted, I’m no physicist, but it seems obvious to me that the rando group that reported lk-99 was making insane revolutionary claims regarding a supposed room-temperature superconductor, in a non peer reviewed paper. This is A) MIT. (Ie, extremely relevant in the name of physics) B) Only claiming the super conductivity of a previously unknown-to-be-superconductive material (or more aptly, a previously unknown process which makes a material superconductive), which is not anywhere even remotely close to being as potentially earth-shattering as the lk-99 claims. Plenty of things are superconductive- this one is just interesting because it’s new / novel (+ a couple of other important points I don’t particularly understand as I’m not a physicist. Go figure) C) Peer reviewed in a major journal Why do you keep pressing this angle as if the “claims” are so murky and unfounded and malevolent? There’s nothing about this paper to support that ideal that I can discern. What does “deliver” even mean in this context? They already have, in their peer reviewed paper. Arguably the Korea University students “delivered” with their paper on lk-99, it’s just that everyone checked after because of how crazy their claims being true would be, and found that they just fucked up. The two things you’re conflating here have no reason to be- they’re not remotely the same situation.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

Jesus Christ you're impatient. Normally science doesn't move this fast.

_i4if 3y ago
> Jesus Christ you're impatient The claim was allegedly made without evidence. I personally would have collected said evidence before making claims, so sorry if I say "citation needed". Remember to stay civil on HN.
- starkrights 3y ago
  What do you mean by this, genuinely? They describe in their paper- the literal citation that is given at the bottom of the article, exactly what they did to observe superconductivity in this material. No one alleged anything of the sorts that the claim has no evidence- not in the comments, nor in the article. I think you misunderstood the original reply to your comment. When you said “… another completely unfounded claim of superconductivity,” you were way off base. Lk-99 was not a completely unfounded claim of superconductivity. It was a misguided (or malintented- who knows), non peer reviewed claim of *room temperature* superconductivity. We know of plenty superconductive materials- finding and claiming one is not super crazy or subject to any undue scrutiny for the most part. Finding materials that are superconductive at room temperature however, absolutely is subject to extreme scrutiny, because it has literally never been observed before, we’re not sure if it’s possible, and we it would literally change the world as we know it if it were to be discovered. The commenter was signaling you that comparing lk-99 to this is completely unfounded due to this, because discovering a superconductive property of a new material doesn’t even remotely have the same ramifications as the discovery of a room temperature superconductor.