Last week, two papers by South Korean scientists made an extraordinary claim that sparked a social media frenzy and pushed up prices of some stocks in China and South Korea: the discovery of a practical superconductor.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/kXv5i
“Scientists are skeptical”
As it should be.
We need scientists to be skeptical of all things. That’s how it works.
Nice to see some tempered analysis in response to the hype the other week from the initial papers.
My only concern is that many labs attempting to verify the claims may fail at the specific manufacturing of the material, as it sounds like it isn’t easy to make.
Isn’t easy is still possible, which is a huge improvement. Typically, developing more efficient manufacturing processes is the next step.
I’m not sure there is much more they can do to make it more efficient, it’s just an inherently tricky thing. They have to put the copper ions somewhere they really don’t want to go. It’s like trying to flick a marble up a slope to a flat spot at the top - you have to give it just the right amount of energy or it will fall back down either before or after the flat spot you want it at.
After looking into this a bit last night, it seems that all of the preliminary results are showing that it does not have super conducting properties. Of course, I’ll wait and see, but even universities in SK are doubtful.
It’s credibly a strong diamagnet with a phase transition. Either it’s a completely new thing with no theoretical basis, or it’s the first reproducable example of a 1d superconductor. Either is a huge breakthrough.
Is there any peer-reviewed evidence of either of those things yet?
Of course not. There’s only been days since the research was pre-emptively published. People around the world saying “yeah, I see strong diamagnetism in a minority of samples” is the peer review. You’re goal post shifting.
Do you have peer reviewed research stating that multuple verifiable videod observations of a novel diamagnetic material are whatever alternative explanation you’re vaguely gesturing at without defining?
A neat thing happened and it’s probably the simplest explanation that fits the data (but it might not be and that’s really significant too). This extreme scepticism and semantic game-playing over whether it’s true superconductivity just sparkling bosons if it doesn’t come from the cooper-pair region of france is stupid and pedantic.
So, there’s not evidence then I see. How is asking for conclusive scientifc evidence before extraordinary claims “moving the goal posts”? Do you think I have personal skin in this game or something? It seems that you are being blinded by the possibilities, but that’s not how science works.
Extraordinary consequences are not extraordinary claims. It’s probably a perfectly boring and normal advancement of physics that will take a long time to bear fruit if it is even possible to use it, or possibly an interesting anomaly with little application.
The only one making unsubstantiated absolute positive claims here is you.
Huh? What consequences? Nothing has been proven yet.
You seem to be confusing faith with science. That’s not how science works.
There is no extraordinary claim. The claim follows the exact pattern of the discovery of type ii superconductors (right down to BCS failing to predict it and gatekeepers swarming to shout about how it is an "extraordinary claim). Multiple independent simulations predict the material will be interesting, and the 40 year old theory that did predict type ii superconductors was used to find it. I’m asserting nothing other than that the most likely explanation for the five independent reproductions is the simplest.
The potential impact on society if it is a superconductor and not a novel diamagnet, and if a process can be found to make pure bulk material is large. You’re trying to conflate this with an extraordinary claim.
The potential impact if it is a novel diamagnet on theoretical physics is large. This would be the more extraordinary claim, and insofar as you have said anything at all, you are actively making this claim (or you are claiming that three universities are conspiring to fake videos).
You seem to be confusing faith with science. That’s not how science works
Et tu. Brutus. Additionally science does not work by gatekeeping and invoking magic words like “peer review” without actually paying attention to the meaning of those words. It’s just a short hand for “get someonenelse who knows what they are doing to try and falsify your work”. The LK-99 paper has already had much, much more scrutiny than the average publication.
