OK, but where are they when the LK99 first came onto scene?
galilette
joined 1 year ago
Documentation is different from demonstration. Text (with graph or animation interspersed to unpack unintuitive terms) wins for documentation. Video could be good for demo if presented in a no-nonsense manner.
Scale of velocity as well so we have a more complete picture in phase space
The referees who let this slip are either brilliant or lazy (or both, I guess)
Hiw stable is this kind of density? Is it going to shrink over time?
Well, even the picture is in the picture..
Now let's see which youtube "science channels" do a debunk on their own content pushed out a mere month ago.
You guys do know the affordability of the chips you're using to comment on this is a direct consequence of TSMC "efficiency", right?
Copy text doesn't cut it because sometimes I just need to select a sentence or a link, not the full text.
This is also a problem for the post itself, not just comments.
On android, long press for text selection is standard operation.
Mind you, the DFT calculation from the Griffin paper is not a proof of LK 99 being a superconductor in any way. What it showed is the (potential) formation of flat bands near the Fermi surface. Band dispersion is associated with the kinetic energy of the electrons, so materials with flat band (and therefore electrons with suppressed kinetic energy) at the Fermi surface are more susceptible to interaction effect (and strong interaction causes all sorts of nonintuitive quantum effects). I'm not a DFT expert in any sense, but from what I've heard, it is quite easy to "tune" your model to produce narrow (the limit of which being flat) bands from substitutions (e.g. the Cu substitution in this case) and such, which don't necessarily lead to superconductivity.
So I'll take the DFT papers (there are quite a few now) as saying, "hey you want some flat band? Here's some. We've done our part. Now some other theorist, do your magic and conjure up some superconductivity". It's a cog in the full picture, if there is a full picture
Step 1: "Explains" relativity with Doppler effect
Step 2: proceeds to complain others confusing relativity with Doppler effect
Resubmitting to multiple journals is not a typical (nor the "right" one however it is interpreted) strategy though (at least not in physical sciences). You'll usually ping the handling editor, who will then contact the referee on your behalf. The referee will then either "promise a report soon", or, in the event they didn't reply, the editor will find another referee. Nowadays with arxiv and such, there is usually no rush to actual publication as far as priority is concerned.
I'd also say, don't take the combative mindset as suggested in the comic. Think of it more as having some fresh pairs of eyes to check your work as well as communication (if a referee misunderstood something in your paper, chances are many readers will as well).
Most early career people will not be willing to have their names publicized alongside their referee reports, because that will be too much risk for their career advancement. And let's face it, most referees are early career just by the sheer amount of papers out there to review.