Theory is shit (betraying my bias here). If someone released a paper that theoretically proved a material was a superconductor from first principles, I would ignore it, every bit as much as I would if it had the opposite results. In materials, experiment has always led theory. Theory has use in suggesting new angles to explore with experiment, but theory is fundamentally reactive: get new data, try to fit that data using known principles and math. It's simply not equipped to say whether reality is real or not.
Honestly, I think anyone who thought the DFT-based papers mattered at all doesn't really get how science works. The politics here is also worthy of keeping in mind: if a theorist comes out and says something is flat out impossible, he/she gets egg on their face if it turns out to be possible. If someone says it's possible, there's plenty of wiggle room to justify yourself if the material doesn't pan out (plus, if it does, you get lots of credit for offering the first theoretical explanation).
>Honestly, I think anyone who thought the DFT-based papers mattered at all doesn't really get how science works.
It's a very spicy take to say DFT-based papers don't matter at all. Anyone who thinks they conclusively prove or even provide particularly strong evidence that LK99 IS a RTAPS or a superconductor at all is misunderstanding, of course, but there's a lot of room between "doesn't matter at all" and "doesn't provide strong or conclusive evidence"
They propose some theoretical ways in which LK99 COULD be an RTAPS. If we couldn't even come up with theoretical ways it could do so, then that is obviously a bad thing for the idea that LK99 could be a superconductor.
I agree with your general sentiment, just not the level of it.
I have little to add other than I f---ing love your spicy take :D
...and agree with most of it. Yeah ofc I know results lead theory in all physics esp materials... :)
Disagree re: the not getting how science works, though you might be facetious?... the fact that it just so happens that if you plug the numbers obtained by experimentation into a current reasonable model, HUH, SOMETHING INTERESTING! That's huge. No, I don't think that's a non-result, and (intentionally using the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy in place of a real argument) Dr. Derek Lowe agrees, so we know how science works. ;-)
Can you expand more about what you mean by "the politics here"? (your sentence 1-5 I couldn't agree more with)
> Disagree re: the not getting how science works, though you might be facetious?
Mostly tipsy facetiousness. I mostly wanted to mock the people who thought the DFT analysis was strong evidence that LK-99 is actually a superconductor. Of course, real-life theorists (and experimentalists) know that the advance of science is a progressive dialog between the two groups.
> Can you expand more about what you mean by "the politics here"?
Politics in the sense of getting (positive) recognition. It's absolutely possible for someone to use theory to hypothesize whether LK-99 is a superconductor (RTP or otherwise), and that attempt provides useful predictive value. But someone posting a negative result from that faces more risks than a positive result: the positive case always has an escape hatch (e.g. other factor wasn't accounted for). Experimentalists are lucky, in that escape hatches--e.g. the exact method to reproduce wasn't known to us--are always available to the negative case, because experiments are so messy.
Theory is shit (betraying my bias here). If someone released a paper that theoretically proved a material was a superconductor from first principles, I would ignore it, every bit as much as I would if it had the opposite results. In materials, experiment has always led theory. Theory has use in suggesting new angles to explore with experiment, but theory is fundamentally reactive: get new data, try to fit that data using known principles and math. It's simply not equipped to say whether reality is real or not.
Honestly, I think anyone who thought the DFT-based papers mattered at all doesn't really get how science works. The politics here is also worthy of keeping in mind: if a theorist comes out and says something is flat out impossible, he/she gets egg on their face if it turns out to be possible. If someone says it's possible, there's plenty of wiggle room to justify yourself if the material doesn't pan out (plus, if it does, you get lots of credit for offering the first theoretical explanation).