|
You're not bursting any bubble, you're just parading your cynicism and knowledge of a specialized field before a technical audience. In this case, I'd have to say that it's probably well deserved cynicism, though. An extremely effective first filter when any scientific or mathematical discovery is announced is to ask, "Does it look like science?", where "it" refers to whatever materials have been released. In this case, the announcement does not look much like most science, and in fact the design reminds me more of all of those "Einstein was wrong, here's the real special theory of relativity!" sites than anything else. This might not be a 100% correct filter, but I can't think of the last scientific breakthrough where the author didn't bother to at least set the paper in LaTeX and throw up a preprint somewhere. These days, even most incorrect proofs and discoveries look more like science than this does. That said, as I know nothing about this field, I'd definitely be curious to hear what an expert had to say in about the specifics of these claims, as well as the other stuff at http://www.superconductors.org - it looks very crank-y to me, but then again I have known legit scientists that suck quite badly at web design, so who knows... |