As much as I sincerely hope this pans out, these aren't new tests if you've been keeping up on this topic and they aren't exactly definitive. One of the cited tests is actually a simulation....
As much as I sincerely hope this pans out, these aren't new tests if you've been keeping up on this topic and they aren't exactly definitive.
One of the cited tests is actually a simulation. Great, but not anything near definitive, real-world evidence.
The other is from HUST in China - it's a social media video and an unverified claim by someone whose credentials aren't clear. A lot of people are criticizing that video and while I've seen it, I don't know enough to join the debate at that level. My point is that both of these are from yesterday and neither is a verified, real-world replication...at least not for sure yet.
I agree. And I would be be particularly concerned about the simulation results. Why? Because it's likely that the authors of the original paper already did such a simulation. It's not like the...
I agree. And I would be be particularly concerned about the simulation results. Why? Because it's likely that the authors of the original paper already did such a simulation.
It's not like the researchers are just throwing random compounds into a beaker and cooking them for random times and methods, hoping that a room-temperature superconductor will pop out. Their entire search for a RTSC is based on computer modeling, and often the computer models are built on certain assumptions and models common in a field. It's highly likely that the authors of the original paper used just such a computer model before they even tried synthesizing it.
It's possible that the second simulation will just repeat the original simulation used to select this material in the first place. If they're both based on the same discipline-standard assumptions and models, then a false prediction of a superconductor in one model could result in the same false prediction as the original. Ultimately, every computer model is based on certain assumptions; it's not like they're running simulations of individual quarks and trying to model a superconductor that way; that kind of computing power simply doesn't exist. So you have to make some simplifying assumptions, and those assumptions are often common in a given discipline.
The only thing that will ever really be conclusive is testing. And thankfully it seems the synthesis method for this is simple enough that we won't have to wait long for those results.
I'm not so sure about that. Density functional theory (DFT) is its own area of research; I'm honestly not sure how much experience the authors would have with performing such a calculation, and...
It's highly likely that the authors of the original paper used just such a computer model before they even tried synthesizing it.
I'm not so sure about that. Density functional theory (DFT) is its own area of research; I'm honestly not sure how much experience the authors would have with performing such a calculation, and since the authors don't mention DFT in their paper anyway, I'm rather skeptical they used it to whittle down the search space. In fact, their mathematical modeling doesn't seem particularly sophisticated at all. I get the impression that they're better experimentalists than theorists, and as another theorist more bluntly put it:
“They come off as real amateurs,” says Michael Norman, a theorist at Argonne National Laboratory. “They don't know much about superconductivity and the way they’ve presented some of the data is fishy.”
Reminds me of that xkcd comic: always bet $100 against new physics. If it doesn't pan out, + $100 dollars. If it does, you'll be too excited over new physics to care about the loss.
Reminds me of that xkcd comic: always bet $100 against new physics. If it doesn't pan out, + $100 dollars. If it does, you'll be too excited over new physics to care about the loss.
Take this with a huge grain of salt still. The two instances mentioned in the article are not bona fide replications of the original result. One is a suite of simulations which lends some support...
Take this with a huge grain of salt still. The two instances mentioned in the article are not bona fide replications of the original result. One is a suite of simulations which lends some support to the idea that this material could possibly be manipulated to give high temperature superconductivty. The supposed replication in China would be great, but there is zero proof that it actually happened at this stage. No data or actual findings have been published other than a video purporting to show a piece of the sample exhibiting superconductive phenomena, but which could really be anything at this stage.
As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And this is an extraordinary claim coming from a group with no background in this area. Room temperature superconductivity would be the holy grail of condensed matter physics, and any claims to that extent should be well documented and explained, and other researchers should be given access to the data from those tests. There are already questions being raised about the original paper (which doesn't imply it is wrong, just that the authors were not as thorough as you'd think they be in what could possible be the paper of their careers). It is important to wait for unambiguous replication with published data and experimental technique before getting any hopes up. The two examples listed in the linked article are far from what I would call even preliminary replication.
Definitely a reason to be skeptical of these claims. But it is fun to imagine. Like, imagine it. Scientists are working for decades to find a room temperature superconductor, all to no avail. Then...
And this is an extraordinary claim coming from a group with no background in this area.
Definitely a reason to be skeptical of these claims. But it is fun to imagine. Like, imagine it. Scientists are working for decades to find a room temperature superconductor, all to no avail. Then some random Korean chemist who's never worked a day in superconductor research just has an idea, and somehow, the damn thing works. The only way this could be more whimsical is if when asked how they came up with it, they report, completely seriously, that it came to them in a dream.
Scientists have been working for a century to get room temperature superconductors, dedicating entire careers to it. Multiple Nobel prizes already granted for breakthroughs are just waypoints on the journey to this final goal. Countless, endless models and failed attempts, again and again, countless scientists working like Sisyphus, rolling their boulder up the hill for decades on end.
Then one day some random Korean guy just has a dream, and somehow, against all logic, it just somehow works. And it not only works, but it's easy to synthesize out of commonly available materials.
I'm sure this isn't how it happened, but I love to imagine some Korean chemist just got the idea from a dream. Not so much regular iterative science, more "Prometheus stealing fire from the gods" or "artist is inspired by the Muses."
If this ended up happening, it'd be somewhat reminiscent of George Dantzig solving some 'unsolvable' problems that he mistakenly thought were homework assignments....
Definitely a reason to be skeptical of these claims. But it is fun to imagine.
If this ended up happening, it'd be somewhat reminiscent of George Dantzig solving some 'unsolvable' problems that he mistakenly thought were homework assignments.
When it comes to material discovery, historically dumb luck has happened before. Everyone though fission wasn't controllable until someone lucked into a working solution. It's not like the people...
When it comes to material discovery, historically dumb luck has happened before. Everyone though fission wasn't controllable until someone lucked into a working solution. It's not like the people involved weren't smart and trying, they just hadn't considered this novel approach.
I gotta say, I really like the article as it doesn't overhype the researchers' findings. It also relativizes the impact the findings have (small quanitities, very small yields) while highlighting...
I gotta say, I really like the article as it doesn't overhype the researchers' findings. It also relativizes the impact the findings have (small quanitities, very small yields) while highlighting the importance of further research (superconductor solving a bunch of efficiency problems). This is the kind of scientific journalism I'd like to see more often.
I mean the title is literally a lie. A computer simulation doesn't count as a replication, and while the video is interesting it has the same problem as the original since it doesn't fully levitate.
I mean the title is literally a lie. A computer simulation doesn't count as a replication, and while the video is interesting it has the same problem as the original since it doesn't fully levitate.
As much as I sincerely hope this pans out, these aren't new tests if you've been keeping up on this topic and they aren't exactly definitive.
One of the cited tests is actually a simulation. Great, but not anything near definitive, real-world evidence.
The other is from HUST in China - it's a social media video and an unverified claim by someone whose credentials aren't clear. A lot of people are criticizing that video and while I've seen it, I don't know enough to join the debate at that level. My point is that both of these are from yesterday and neither is a verified, real-world replication...at least not for sure yet.
I agree. And I would be be particularly concerned about the simulation results. Why? Because it's likely that the authors of the original paper already did such a simulation.
It's not like the researchers are just throwing random compounds into a beaker and cooking them for random times and methods, hoping that a room-temperature superconductor will pop out. Their entire search for a RTSC is based on computer modeling, and often the computer models are built on certain assumptions and models common in a field. It's highly likely that the authors of the original paper used just such a computer model before they even tried synthesizing it.
It's possible that the second simulation will just repeat the original simulation used to select this material in the first place. If they're both based on the same discipline-standard assumptions and models, then a false prediction of a superconductor in one model could result in the same false prediction as the original. Ultimately, every computer model is based on certain assumptions; it's not like they're running simulations of individual quarks and trying to model a superconductor that way; that kind of computing power simply doesn't exist. So you have to make some simplifying assumptions, and those assumptions are often common in a given discipline.
The only thing that will ever really be conclusive is testing. And thankfully it seems the synthesis method for this is simple enough that we won't have to wait long for those results.
I'm not so sure about that. Density functional theory (DFT) is its own area of research; I'm honestly not sure how much experience the authors would have with performing such a calculation, and since the authors don't mention DFT in their paper anyway, I'm rather skeptical they used it to whittle down the search space. In fact, their mathematical modeling doesn't seem particularly sophisticated at all. I get the impression that they're better experimentalists than theorists, and as another theorist more bluntly put it:
Oof, that's a damning quote if I ever saw one.
Edit: That article was a good read and a lot more even keeled than other articles I've seen.
Well, at least that's something positive to look forward to.
Great article btw. Thanks for the link. :)
Someone is maintaining a list of teams that are attempting to replicate these results. Latest update was today. https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/
Reminds me of that xkcd comic: always bet $100 against new physics. If it doesn't pan out, + $100 dollars. If it does, you'll be too excited over new physics to care about the loss.
Take this with a huge grain of salt still. The two instances mentioned in the article are not bona fide replications of the original result. One is a suite of simulations which lends some support to the idea that this material could possibly be manipulated to give high temperature superconductivty. The supposed replication in China would be great, but there is zero proof that it actually happened at this stage. No data or actual findings have been published other than a video purporting to show a piece of the sample exhibiting superconductive phenomena, but which could really be anything at this stage.
As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And this is an extraordinary claim coming from a group with no background in this area. Room temperature superconductivity would be the holy grail of condensed matter physics, and any claims to that extent should be well documented and explained, and other researchers should be given access to the data from those tests. There are already questions being raised about the original paper (which doesn't imply it is wrong, just that the authors were not as thorough as you'd think they be in what could possible be the paper of their careers). It is important to wait for unambiguous replication with published data and experimental technique before getting any hopes up. The two examples listed in the linked article are far from what I would call even preliminary replication.
Definitely a reason to be skeptical of these claims. But it is fun to imagine. Like, imagine it. Scientists are working for decades to find a room temperature superconductor, all to no avail. Then some random Korean chemist who's never worked a day in superconductor research just has an idea, and somehow, the damn thing works. The only way this could be more whimsical is if when asked how they came up with it, they report, completely seriously, that it came to them in a dream.
Scientists have been working for a century to get room temperature superconductors, dedicating entire careers to it. Multiple Nobel prizes already granted for breakthroughs are just waypoints on the journey to this final goal. Countless, endless models and failed attempts, again and again, countless scientists working like Sisyphus, rolling their boulder up the hill for decades on end.
Then one day some random Korean guy just has a dream, and somehow, against all logic, it just somehow works. And it not only works, but it's easy to synthesize out of commonly available materials.
I'm sure this isn't how it happened, but I love to imagine some Korean chemist just got the idea from a dream. Not so much regular iterative science, more "Prometheus stealing fire from the gods" or "artist is inspired by the Muses."
If this ended up happening, it'd be somewhat reminiscent of George Dantzig solving some 'unsolvable' problems that he mistakenly thought were homework assignments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig#Education
When it comes to material discovery, historically dumb luck has happened before. Everyone though fission wasn't controllable until someone lucked into a working solution. It's not like the people involved weren't smart and trying, they just hadn't considered this novel approach.
Certainly would be great if true.
I gotta say, I really like the article as it doesn't overhype the researchers' findings. It also relativizes the impact the findings have (small quanitities, very small yields) while highlighting the importance of further research (superconductor solving a bunch of efficiency problems). This is the kind of scientific journalism I'd like to see more often.
I mean the title is literally a lie. A computer simulation doesn't count as a replication, and while the video is interesting it has the same problem as the original since it doesn't fully levitate.