this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
106 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
326 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de 106 points 1 year ago (2 children)

JUST HAPPENED!!1!11

I’ll believe it when its not just youtube clickbait.

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, publishing on youtube gets more viewers than publishing in a scientific paper

[–] kjack@lemmy.ca 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not sure that "number of eyeballs" is the metric by which a successful scientific discovery should be judged...

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Nonsense; this is the future.

Everything is shit in the future!

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

You're right, of course, but more eyeballs can lead to more sponsorship and more money, which leads to a greater chance of succes. Downside is that you've picked the commercial road and you'll probably end up in the pocket of some Nestle or Shell.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not just youtube clickbait, were you not aware of this news before this video?

[–] collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you do a Google search for LK-99 you'll see a whole pile of news articles from the past two days. A preprint was posted on arXiv and everything exploded. There are labs all over the world working on reproducing the material and testing it right now, and it's a pretty simple thing to make so we'll have a solid answer likely within a week.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looking at it, this paper was falsified in 2020, then they pulled it down, then another author was added to it and leaked to a publication and now the leaking party is claiming the paper is incomplete so you can't actually reproduce the results. Frankly, it sounds like someone ran out of grant money.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Everything I've seen says that the 2020 paper was rejected, not falsified. It had been submitted to Nature shortly after Diaz's now-likely-fraudulent superconductor research had been accepted and turned out to be controversial, so it's understandable that Nature was gun-shy of superconductor papers. Do you have any references to its falsification? A paper can be rejected for many reasons other than falsification, indeed I would think most rejections are not for that since peer review doesn't include independently replicating the results.

What it feels like to me is that the authors were panicking over the possibility of getting "scooped." They've been working on this stuff for decades and had often gone without funding so that seems like less of an urgent concern to me.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wikipedia said data was falsified https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 so that's where I took that information from.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An initial paper was submitted to Nature in 2020, but rejected.[10] Similarly-presented research on room-temperature superconductors by Ranga P. Dias had been published in Nature earlier that year, and received with skepticism—Dias's paper would subsequently be retracted in 2022 after its data was found to have been falsified.

Emphasis added. The paper that had falsified paper was by a different researcher and was about a completely different putative superconductor. Only Dias' paper appears to be based on falsified data. There's no indication that the LK-99 paper is based on falsified data. Unfortunately LK-99 is suffering guilt by association simply because both of these things are about room-temperature superconductors, but they share nothing in common with each other beyond that broad topic.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I skim, read it, and missed that they were talking about a completely different material and paper. Honestly, fairly silly of Wikipedia and rare to bring up something that isn't really related to that specific topic.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It explains why Nature might have been quicker to reject another paper about room temperature superconductivity than they otherwise would have been. But yeah, it's a little misleading stuck in there like that.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

The confusing part specifically is "Similarly-presented research" which doesn't say why it's similarly-presented. It sounds like looking into it that it's just "both were room temperature superconductors" but it could have also meant that "both are about LK-99", "both are from the same university" or something like that. It's ambiguous.