[lolinder]

I think you're missing the point: there is no such thing yet as a room temperature superconductor. If they have such a thing, they made it. If they failed to document the process well, that's a separate issue from whether the sample they have actually is a superconductor at the temperatures described.

[dcow]

The data isn't good. They don’t have such a thing. They think they have such a thing. What they think they have is certainly interesting and potentially world changing, but if this (or some other reason like infighting over credit) lead them to rush publication, you have to be ready for the conclusion that whatever they have isn’t a superconductor as we know it.

[lolinder]

This subthread is discussing whether it makes sense to have another lab validate the existing sample before we even try to follow their steps. Neither I nor the person you're responding to are assuming that the sample is what they claim it is, we're simply arguing that it doesn't matter how it was obtained—it's either a room temperature superconductor or it isn't, and if the researchers failed to document the process well but still have a room temperature superconductor then we can move on from there. If it turns out that it isn't, then we saved ourselves a bunch of time trying to follow their instructions.

[dcow]

> but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?

This, from this subthread and directly from the comment I replied to, is what I was responding to. I don’t think I’ve missed some obvious point. I think you just misunderstood which topic I was responding to.

[lolinder]

> > How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?

> If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

You took one sentence out of context, reinterpreted it, then replied to your own reinterpretation. In the context of the full "if" sentence, it's pretty clear that OP was asking: "in the hypothetical situation where they did successfully create a superconductor, why publish an invalid process?"

There are lots of possible answers to this question, but your answer was not addressing that question, it was answering the question "why would they lie about having created it?"

Context matters, otherwise we'd all end up talking past each other all the time.

[dcow]

I didn't reinterpret anything and I don't think what you state as pretty clear is entirely clear to me (or I just didn't read into it as deeply). Anyway I simply responded with some reasons why one might publish a fake process and go through all the rigamarole. I probably should have quoted the sentence in my reply to avoid confusion.

[idopmstuff]

I'm the one who posted the comment you're referring to, and the poster you're responding to has it correct.

> but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?

That was what I said, and here you're saying "Anyway I simply responded with some reasons why one might publish a fake process and go through all the rigamarole." You ignored the first part of the sentence - I didn't ask why they'd publish a fake process, I asked why they would make it (it being a room temp superconductor) and then publish a fake process.