delivering intelligent contingencies delivering accurate estimations modeling accurate understanding calculating probable insights modeling critical estimations mapping the future generating accurate contingencies predicting critical forecasts forecasting critical estimations mapping contingent understanding crowdsourcing probable predictions delivering accurate understanding crowdsourcing probable insights modeling quantitative predictions


Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will a recent paper claiming a breakthrough in high-T superconductivity be published in Nature?

Extraordinary claims, vestiges of a scandal, fake emails… is this a US election? Nope, it’s contemporary science. I confess that I only have a dubious conception of superconductors. Despite my sophomoric understanding, even I can see the monumental implications of such a technology.
In “Evidence for Superconductivity at Ambient Temperature and Pressure in Nanostructures” authors Dev Kumar Thapa and Anshu Pandey from the Solid State and Structural Chemistry Unit at the Indian Institute of Science make a stunning claim.

Despite being a low temperature phenomenon till date, superconductivity has found numerous applications in diverse fields of medicine, science and engineering. The great scientific interest in the phenomenon as well as its practical utility has motivated extensive efforts to discover and understand new superconductors. We report the observation of superconductivity at ambient temperature and pressure conditions in films and pellets of a nanostructured material that is composed of silver particles embedded into a gold matrix. Specifically, we observe that upon cooling below 236K at ambient pressures, the resistance of sample films drops below 0-4 Ohm, being limited by instrument sensitivity. Further, below the transition temperature, samples become strongly diamagnetic, with volume susceptibilities as low as -0.056. We further describe methods to tune the transition to temperatures higher than room temperature. (…)

This article evoked caution and incredulity from the scientific community. The plot thickens. Brian Skinner, an MIT researcher, ran a analysis of the data in Thapa’s and Pandey’s article.

The graph plots a material’s magnetic susceptibility - the degree at which the material becomes magnetized after a magnetic field is applied - at a given temperature. The jump up in magnetic susceptibility is when the material is approaching its critical temperature to become superconductive. Skinner noticed that the pattern of green and blue data plots are pretty much exact copies of each other only shifted down by a constant amount. He consulted other physicists at MIT and elsewhere to see if they had encountered anything like it in their experiments. But all of them were very baffled by it and could think of no obvious explanation for it.

This reminded many scientists of the Schon scandal, including Pratap Raychaudhuri, a professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in India . So he takes to Facebook to say as much, and then things get downright scandalous. Raychaudhuri gets an email from T. V. Ramakrishnan, a well known theoretical condensed matter physicist, telling him not to publicly rebuke Thapa and Pandley. Raychaudhuri fires off a response to Ramakrishnan, and then he gets a phone call from Ramakrishnan saying that he never sent that email. It was a fake email sent from an account originating in Switzerland. Oh my beloved science, who says you cannot be just as exciting as a typical tabloid magazine?

Back to the question. As of Sept 5, 2018 the article had been submitted to Nature for review. Question resolves as affirmative if the article gets published in Nature by April 1, 2019. Resolves negatively if it is published in another Journal prior to that date, or unpublished as of that date.

Closes retroactively if it the resolution condition is definitively satisfied at on a date earlier than 4/1/19, two days prior to that satisfaction date.


Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.