Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Watching the process happen in real time is fun and exciting.

YOU ARE NOT WATCHING THE PROCESS.

The people who have spent their lives on superconductors and who have the expertise to replicate and conclusively evaluate these claims so far haven't said anything publicly. They are presumably busy doing the actual hard work.

What you're doing is watching is a side show full of influencers on social media.

I can open my rss feed for hep-ex today and read something like this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.01468.pdf

Which is due ultimately to the work of over 1,000 people on the LHCb collaboration (two of them now deceased), but the conclusions are just "agrees with the standard model" so the result of the very good work done grinding away at the problem has no headline generating potential. Most of the people here fawning over the excitement of science done in the open wouldn't ever bother trying to read that kind of paper, and probably don't know that sharing physics preprints over the internet dates back to before the Web existed (and to before most of them existed).




This kind of hysterical reaction to people having fun is why I want LK99 to be true.


Well it looks like I'm right and LK99 is ferromagnetic and not superconductive.

And the paper that shows it looks a lot more like I'd expect good science to look:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110

Difference between science and spectacle.


This is a demonstration that hard work isn't useful work, since the LHC is just spending infinite money on finding things we already knew.


> finding things we already knew.

we didn't know that before it was published.

we could have been sitting around now talking about breaking new experimental results from LHCb that call into question the standard model, you have to actually do the work to check. and you have to check a lot of unexciting results in order to find one which is groundbreaking (which is actually what the authors of the LK-99 paper claim to have done over decades before finding this one material).


> you have to actually do the work to check

How many billions of dollars do you spend on colliders that don't disprove the Standard Model before stopping?


And apparently I'm the one that hates science here because I think the side-show around LK-99 is ridiculous.


I think there's a lot of other science people could be doing, maybe even in physics, but not in giant particle colliders or string theory.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: