> For it to be wrong to say "there is no reason to think it will be impossible" you would have to have some theory that suggests it will end up being impossible

> For it to be wrong to say "there is no reason to think it will be impossible" you would have to have some theory that suggests it will end up being impossible. We don't have a theory suggesting it is possible either. We don't even have a theory explaining how superconductors actually work upon which we could ground claims like, "absent very surprising unknown physics, current physics suggests this is possible". And the evidence hinting at the contrary is not easily dismissed: we've known about superconductors for over a century and we still don't have a complete theory for how and why they work, and all previous discoveries have barely moved the needle on temperature. LK-99 was the first hint of possibly even approaching room temperature and pressure, and it was clearly wrong. This most recent round is almost certainly also wrong. This situation is simple: we have yet to see a room temperature, ambient pressure superconductor. There are two possible explanations for this observation: either such superconductors are possible and we have not yet discovered how to make them, or they are not possible and we have not yet discovered why. How do you take this and then infer that "there is no reason to think they are impossible"? That simply does not follow, for there is a reason to think they are impossible per the above two possibilities: we have seen no evidence that they are possible and since we don't understand how superconductors work, room temp superconductors might actually be impossible to construct. Edit: let's just cut to the heart of the matter, "there is no reason room temp superconductors are impossible" is a proposition about reality, that, among all possible knowns and unknowns, there exist no reasons entailing their impossibility. This far exceeds our knowledge of reality and superconductors specifically. It is simply incorrect to make this claim at this time, at least until such a thing has been created. My correction was that they should say, "there is no known reason ...", which is instead a proposition about our state of knowledge, and is the correct description of the state of things.