You’re reading something entirely different - at the end of a long discussion of sending the samples off for more testing, holding hope it’s a SC but admitting it’s always been a long shot, he notes at the end:
> That said, I think we're getting to the point where magnetic observations may be adding more noise than signal. Yesterday, I did perform the pole flip that was discussed in the last video. Very important to note, however, that ferromagnetism can exhibit pole agnostic behavior too. Check out the excellent video by @vangennepS. nitter.net/vangennepd/statu…. While the amateur magnetics method was fun to try for a screening method, it seems to have too many false positives to be entirely trustworthy.
That’s not at all supportive of “explains everything I’ve seen”
He wrote that other tweet before that paper was put up on arXiv. How does the fact that the one I linked to is a reply to the one you quoted change the plain meaning of his words?
I'm trying to understand how I've misinterpreted his tweet but I've got to interpret "Sounds like it explains everything we're seeing" as referring to his own observations too, not (just) other people's.
He's been looking for an explanation of this sort for a while:
My bad, my reader view cut the tweet off and just showed the original.
Still, his phrasing doesn’t indicate it’s over for him, just bordering - perhaps explains everything they’re seeing, but it’s :
* not LK99
* a conjecture
* isolated to magnetic properties that are acknowledged to be novel and don’t rule out messier effect
* ignore other claimed properties like resistivity
Also, something explaining everything you are seeing is again a demonstration of an alternative, as is evinced by the material not being LK99, that claimed LK99 as a ceramic without a reliable method of production with a claimed low production rate (less than 10% of runs claimed by the original authors, with them claiming to have done over 1000 runs to produce their sample).
Again: I think it’s time for science to take the helm and hottakes to take a back seat for a while. I expect we will have something noteworthy either way by the end of the year. By the end of the month conclusions are fun gimmicks. I’m down with fun and love a good gimmick, but I’ll withhold belief in either direction until the original teams paper is released, their claimed sample is analyzed independently, more details of the claimed process are released to allow replication, and any novel properties have a stronger theoretical explanation. It’s extraordinarily unlikely they have found a room temperature super conductors, but not impossible. Regardless, they’ve discovered something novel and that, by definition to any scientist, is interesting.
> I think it’s time for science to take the helm and hottakes to take a back seat for a while.
It has been time for that from day #1. It either exists or it doesn't. Whatever people think won't make a shred of a difference and until there is replication if you want to look smart without doing any work you can pick 'it isn't real' (but boy will you look stupid if it eventually is) or 'it is real' (but boy will you look stupid if it eventually isn't).
I think all this whole saga has done for me is to show how little patience people have and how even findings of fact can lead to polarization if there is an element of uncertainty thrown into the mix.
Yeah I agree. I think it’s certainly entertaining, but my faith in the standard practice of science isn’t threatened by the social media / rapid experimentation. I’ve seen a lot of hyperbole about how this will replace methodical science and other malarkey and if it had been a slam dunk simple thing they would be crowing incessantly. But as these things are, it isn’t simple or obvious, and it require a meticulous process that can’t be easily supplanted by nitter feeds.
Andrew McCalip himself says this explains everything he's seen.
https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/1688741684316975104#...