cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2999441
I’m not plugged into all the hype around lk99, but this person seems to be a nice balance of hype, technical background and eagerness to not be wrong about things.
They seem to make a good and simple case for why the superconductor possibility is slipping away (as far as mostly internet hype based replication attempts go)
You must log in or register to comment.
The case for skepticism is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And so far, there’s none. What we do see is evidence for perhaps a semiconductor rather than a superconductor. All the “verification” has been in simulations and models, not actual real world replication or production of a meaningful amount of superconductive material.
Oh sure. But for lay people it seemed that some of the magnetic behaviours were suggestive. That they can all be explained by something much more mundane means that all we have is simulations that didn’t even rule out it being a mundane material.
I’m a lay person, and I’ve been beating the skepticism drum on this since day 1. If someone had actually discovered a room temperature, ambient pressure superconductor, their notes would be meticulous and precise, they would have replicated their results multiple times before publishing anything at all, and they’d already be lining up untold scores of investors. In other words, anybody that discovers how to do this is going to be debilitatingly rich forever. And they’re going to treat it as such.
Instead, what we got was much more akin to the press coverage of this year’s latest perpetual motion machine. What I don’t know is whether the people that originally announced LK-99 knew it wasn’t what they claimed, or they were confused but hopeful. In other words, were they hucksters looking for attention, or innocently ignorant and hoping someone could clarify.
anybody that discovers how to do this is going to be debilitatingly rich forever. And they’re going to treat it as such.
But that exact same argument can explain why the discoverers of a room-temperature superconductor would rush to get their results out.
See for example the Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell telephone controversy. There was a race to the patent office, Bell won the battle, and Gray vanished into obscurity.
That would only be true if there’s a race to report the discovery, and there isn’t. Which is another red flag.
There were duelling papers released within hours of each other. One of the researchers involved says that they had to release before they were ready due to an “incident.” There certainly seems to be something going on behind the scenes that could be described as a race to report the discovery, if only within the one group of discoverers.
if someone had actually discovered a room temperature, ambient pressure superconductor, their notes would be meticulous and precise, they would have replicated their results multiple times before publishing anything at all, and they’d already be lining up untold scores of investors.
I’m a materials science layperson but not a science layperson … I’ve got some experience in scientific research.
And, IMO, you’re overestimating scientists here or casting a pretty idealised picture of how research and breakthroughs happen. Which, I think, was precisely part of the appeal of this story, the messiness of it and the possibility that, however foggy the truth was and all the hype aside, there was something interesting going on.
For example, for me, and I hope the general public, I think there’ll be an interesting story in how this whole thing happened. The public image of science is way too idealised and consumeristic (where people want to consume “finalised results” and hype rather than scientific process and curiosity) … instead it’d be nice to hear about how a group of researchers got too excited, or why they made fundamental errors … and why did certain people around the world get excited and try to replicate it? What’s the story behind the material itself? Why did the researchers pursue it and what did they see in the material (on which there does seem to be an interesting story about theories from soviet scientists that the west ignore)? Beyond all of that, given the simulation results … is there anything to be taken from the material for future research?
I think there’ll be an interesting story in how this whole thing happened.
There likely won’t be, just like there’s never any follow-up on the solar roadways people getting millions in government funding (so it must be real), or the perpetual motion generator being outright fraud, or the firehose of utter BS battery “breakthrough” stories. Sensationalism gets headlines, boring retractions don’t.
And just to be very clear about my position and why I’m not overestimating anyone, breakthroughs like what was claimed with LK-99 rarely happen at all. Research is slow, arduous, filled with dead ends and side quests. Real development in the real world happens with incremental improvement almost all of the time rather than some “eureka!” moment. What I would expect from a group that has discovered a method to turn lead into gold is a pile of gold before they ever mention it. Similarly, if someone claims to have a room temperature, atmospheric pressure superconductor, they’ll have followed their own process more than once and taken more precise notes the second time around.
There’s skepticism, and then there’s the knee-jerk “it’s a fraud! It’s impossible! Nothing ever happens!” reaction. I’m all for skepticism, and as we found out today there’s even some actual fraud going on (one of the “levitating speck” videos turned out to be a deliberate fake by an attention-seeker). But it becomes really wearying dealing with people who have already made up their minds and seem downright angry about the possibility that there’s something to be found here.
It sort of spoils your point when you have to accept that the very thing you’re saying you got upset about people predicting actually happened. These kinds of situations are ripe for fraudsters coming along and tacking on for attention, money, or both.
One of the videos turned out to be a fraud. That does not invalidate any of the others. It’s like how lots of people immediately assumed LK-99 was a fraud because Ranga Dias’ high-pressure room-temperature superconductor was in the process of being retracted due to apparent data manipulation - they’re completely unconnected things.
If 99 labs fail to reproduce LK-99’s superconductivity, release fraudulent videos and data, and so forth, but one lab is able to perfectly reproduce it and show that it works, that lab wins and LK-99 really is a superconductor. Scientific reality is not subject to democracy.
Sadly, it seems to be victim of perpetual hype by people that think if 99 labs fail to reproduce a result, 1 lab faking a reproduction means a “win”.
That’s not what’s happened. There have been some other promising results, and some ambiguous results, alongside that one fake.
If LK-99 really is a superconductor then there’s nothing that the negative-nellies are ultimately going to be able to do about that. When trains are levitating around on superconductive support, when every corner clinic has an MRI machine stashed away in a back room, are they going to just continue confidently declaring it’s all fake? Sounds like a fun way to live. That’s not skepticism, that’s insanity.
Preemptively declaring LK-99’s superconductivity to be impossible before it’s been thoroughly vetted is just getting a head start on that.
So now that it’s officially debunked, can we all admit that the hype videos from the usual youtube suspects were just utter nonsense by people collecting ad revenue instead of informed parties sharing worthwhile information?
Your very framing of your response shows your implicit bias and why it’s pointless to continue a conversation. Branding realists as “negative nellies” is childish and ignorant of history at best. Your speculation of the utility of such a breakthrough is narrow minded and alarmingly simplistic. You wouldn’t know what to do with an MRI in the first place.
So if this is real it’s huge.
But it got me thinking. Putting aside this specific invention. When was the last holy shit this has come from nowhere it’s going to change the world?
You can start your case for skepticism from a simple examination of the synthesis process.
I think Newton had a more credible one for aurum.
Just stfu and let them examine, if this is bullshit then they will figure it out, and with extreme prejudice. In that case I wouldn’t want to be a North Korean physical chemist.
In the unlikely event that we’ve somehow witnessed a genuine divine miracle beyond the ken of Gabriel, we can deal with that later.
So if the skeptics and realists are supposed to “stfu” while others attempt to validate the findings, what should the bloggers, tweeters, skeeters, Lemmy users, and weird uncles on facebook do?
Wildly speculate whilst foaming at the mouth?
That checks out. Ok boys, pack it up. We’re done here.
Where did you get that?
Everybody is supposed to stfu.
If you have empirical data or substsntive theoretical points, feel free to speak up.
What we have now is massive armies of “skeptics” and “dreamers” screaming and drowning out actual science, welcome to being the problem.
The synthesis is stupid, but this is almost trivial to prove/disprove, they’ll be conclusive in less than a month, science can rarely be that definitive that quickly, but that’s also science working exactly how it should be.
You sitting here screaming “SKEPTICISM!!!” is moronic unless you’re waving a crucible with experimental intent.
If there is 1 massive, epic and fundamental failure with the world today it’s that people who have nothing meaningful to contribute don’t sit down and stfu while useful people do real work.
Where I got it from is your post I commented on.
That was your comment then, or you misread mine, I am constant that we need everybody to squelch their noise holes if they don’t have anything to contribute.
Leave the scientists to figure everything out, we don’t need housewives and marketing execs giving their opinions on charge carrier migration and field effects in strained lattices.
