I'm also highly scheptical but if you'd asked a bunch of random people wether or not the relativity theory is true or nuclear weapons when they were first demonstrated they probably would have been equally sceptical
What does that prove though? It's not wrong to doubt extraordinary hypotheses just because they are sometimes correct. Consider all the times those kinds of hypotheses are confirmed to be wrong.
Right, in which case asking a broad audience will be, at best, noise.
... whether it gets confirmed by _the first_ independent attempt.
Predicted by random people on the internet as well.
So technically the question asked is only if "the first independent replication attempt" will confirm (current guess 10%) and I think thats about right I can imagine there is a lot of 'build Twitter in a weekend' going on and it will take a while before the dust settles and there is a solid replication to base a solid conclusion.
Now down to 19%. Starting to stabilize, at 143 forecasters.
The 'nays' getting lots of traction on twitter right now
Some schmo with an instant coffee company. There's no need to surface random people's opinions.
Einstein was some schmo working at a patent office...
But it's tech instant coffee
1000 to 1?
Dollars to bitcoins?
Shares in their room temperature superconductor monopoly?
I mean, he has a PhD in physics, at least. He's not just some rando off the street.
I was a high energy theorist and I even went to the same school as this guy (Princeton). I’ll admit I’m a complete rando when it comes to superconducting materials. PhD in an unrelated subfield means very little. I guess it helps with grokking academic drama.
For context, he is the same guy that went viral yesterday[0] excited with optimism, now saying there are other more possible explanations for the results besides superconductivity