The key thing to notice in this video is that the spec is levitating above a single monolithic magnet.
The levitation with ordinary diamagnets such as pyrolytic carbon requires an array of magnets to create a concave pocket in the field, otherwise the floating sample will "slide off" and fall. Monolithic magnets produce convex fields.
Some people elsewhere also commented that this could be a video of an ordinary high-temperature superconductor, but I doubt it. Such a tiny spec would warm up to room temperature very quickly. I've experimented with broken and shattered fragments of YBCO and it wasn't possible to make small pieces hover like this, they'd warm up too quickly. Also, they were always frosty looking. To make them look black you'd have to do it in a perfectly dry atmosphere, which is a non-trivial setup.
I had to look up "high-temperature superconductor" since it read like a typo:
> High-temperature superconductors (abbreviated high-Tc or HTS) are defined as materials that behave as superconductors at temperatures above 77 K (−196.2 °C; −321.1 °F), the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. They are only "high-temperature" relative to previously known superconductors, which function at even colder temperatures, close to absolute zero.
Despite their names suggesting otherwise, high-temperature superconductors actually require a colder environment than their room-temperature counterparts. This may seem counterintuitive, yet it's a perfect illustration of the idiosyncrasies that arise within complex systems that evolve over time. These naming conventions, like the codebases in large corporations, are the outcome of continual modifications that are so deeply ingrained, a complete overhaul would be prohibitively costly. When examining such codebases, inconsistencies and discrepancies are common, and they can appear almost ludicrous when compared side by side. However, it's crucial to understand that they are not mistakes, but rather footprints in the path of progression, mapping out the convoluted journey of technological evolution.
It's all relative: the "high temperature" is high compared to absolute zero (~77 K higher), but much lower than "room temperature" (which is defined as around 20° C). And of course these are separate categories, because room temperature is another ~220 K higher than "high temperature" (and also because "high temperature semiconductors" are common by now, whereas "room temperature semiconductors" remain the holy grail).
The comment made very good points. It explained how counter intuitive these particular technical terms are, explained the history behind this, and generalised this phenomenon to things some us might have more experience with.
I want to read more of that kind of comment not less.
I agree it doesn't sound like ChatGPT and the little codebase reference ChatGPT would not normally include.
The "However, ..." section at the end is a very common trope for ChatGTP to put some qualifications on what it just said and backpedal a bit. That is the only part that I feel might be confused for ChatGPT.
The content and the structure of the comment are both "high-quality" and useful, but at the same time they are of a very specific type of "quality" (the school essay format) that clearly rings ChatGPT-like.
Does HN have an official stance on AI-written comments?
How can you tell though? There are magnets which look like a single thing, but the polarity switches on the same side multiple times (sorry, I don't know what they're actually called).
This is very well done if faked (dated up the top left), so it would be another first if it was a real fake. That would also be exciting.
The strange things are...
No one else can find it yet.
It's not a phone video off a monitor, it's an actual video, time stamped and watermarked. Poster says Twitter is lowing the quality. It's also a strange aspect ratio and position for lab video (that watermarks a date).
The "LTC" watermark in blue might refer to "linear timecode" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_timecode and I guess it's possible whatever equipment they used to embed the timestamp in the video also adds this watermark.
There is not enough liquidity. The max profit you can take from that market by betting on yes at this point is around $17,000. It probably costs something like that or more to do a convincing fake at this point.
The levitation with ordinary diamagnets such as pyrolytic carbon requires an array of magnets to create a concave pocket in the field, otherwise the floating sample will "slide off" and fall. Monolithic magnets produce convex fields.
Some people elsewhere also commented that this could be a video of an ordinary high-temperature superconductor, but I doubt it. Such a tiny spec would warm up to room temperature very quickly. I've experimented with broken and shattered fragments of YBCO and it wasn't possible to make small pieces hover like this, they'd warm up too quickly. Also, they were always frosty looking. To make them look black you'd have to do it in a perfectly dry atmosphere, which is a non-trivial setup.