Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by epivosism 1055 days ago
Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs...

People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path.

It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.

I have made a play money market asking the same thing: "A physics lab will have received a package of the LK-99 material sent from the researchers by the end of August" [ https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-... ]

Not many traders yet, 57% yes, too optimistic in my view.

6 comments

Why do you silently assume that samples aren't being shared around as we speak? CMTC of the University of Maryland stated that the authors are cooperating in regards to this https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684960318718406656

There's value in both validating existing samples and producing new ones.

I would find it very easy to believe that they produced something that is superconducting but following their directions didn't work. An unknown factor could very easily be involved. But proof that their sample is even "interesting" (it doesn't need to be "superconducting" in the strictest sense of the term to still be "interesting") would be enough to say "Hey, let's keep looking over here, we know there's something to find!"

Sometimes just knowing there's something to find at all is 90% of the battle. Many historical examples, in both science and non-science fields.

Oh that would be great! Sorry if my assumption is mistaken. I'd love this to be real! I'm not just thinking about this last week, though - if the LK group had these samples for multiple years, it seems like they would have been able to share & convince at least one PhD to support them publicly. The fact that they haven't just seems weird! Sure, they were preparing the papers, etc. etc but you do have to balance that against the life they would have if they just published asap - wealthy, famous, respected, free, as well as the benefits to the entire world of letting this be known.

Talk about a confusingly written tweet, though!

>it seems like they would have been able to share & convince at least one PhD to support them publicly. The fact that they haven't just seems weird!

Isn't that Hyun-Tak Kim of William & Mary?

https://www.wm.edu/as/physics/people/researchfaculty/kim_h.p...

Agreed, why haven't hundreds of journalists with cameras lined up on the lab yet? Document everything, film and publicize the floating sample, film the entire production process, have a press conference etc.
Validation is good for the original team, replication is good for the new team.
Interesting point, yes. Also, if LK-99 is real, there are may be some close or easy adjustments or improvements to it to produce other, new interesting materials, which a replicating lab would be set up to start exploring ASAP. So I can see their preference for that path.
Allegedly, samples have already been sent out
>little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.

I don't believe in the current alien thing, but how exactly would it be easier for a whistleblower to steal the actual wreckage out of some secret lab? Compared to giving a testimony?

How hard would it be to smuggle a cell phone to snap a picture? Don't build a false dichotomy.
Into and out of a facility for what are undoubtedly TS/SAP materials??? Would you like to go first?
The witness says that he has never seen the alien material himself. What was he supposed to take a picture of?

There is no false dichotomy. We are comparing difficulty of doing X and Y. I have not said that X makes Y impossible or the other way around.

Validation proves that the material exists, it doesn't prove that the specified process creates the material. A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.
> A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.

If the samples are actual RTSC, knowing that such a thing can actually exist is pretty far from worthless

Researchers were already working under the assumption such a thing can actually exist.
What if I told you stimulating a universe like ours is also possible.
I would ask what that means.