this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)
Science
2 readers
6 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This will probably be the outcome but it’s way too early to be making this claim as fact. The article references one lab in China that found no SC. Meanwhile there’s a different lab in China claiming that there is SC.
The material is non-uniform and different crystal structures within the material are expected to have vastly different properties. The original paper was (suspiciously) vague about exactly how to create the material and different labs are following different steps to synthesize it. So it’s expected that they may get different results.
The original samples that inspired the paper have been sent to other labs for testing, those results should give us the final answer.
Yeah this all smacks hard of a con then. You don't publish except to get replication. That's the entire point.
Publishing while being intentionally vague about replication is a huge red flag.
That sounds like there's maybe variables not taken into consideration.
Tbh that's the hopium speaking but I've taken a big dose of it.