I'm reminded of the story of two economists walking down the street. One of them says there's a $20 bill on the ground. The other dismisses the observation, asserting that if there was a $20 bill on the ground, someone would've picked it up already.

Think by analogy with NP. Finding the solution (the right configuration of matter) is quite difficult compared to analyzing one that's been put in front of you.

Yes, that is fair. However, I was proposing that it followed we would have found one if we could predict it based on the theory, in effect deriving the matter architecture necessary.

> I’m saying that if their models worked in a predictive way, since they have been established for so long and the value of confirming them is so high, they would have been confirmed by now.

So, just run all possible materials through this hypothetical superconductor predictor model, and any that do exist would be found?

Oh, I see the disconnect. In my imaginary high temperature superconductor predictor, it tells you the confluence of factors required to produce zero resistance, and based on that sketch you go find the combinations of atoms that will stay in roughly that configuration and test them.

I understand that we are not there yet and these models only currently exist in piecemeal/can be used in the negative.

My higher-level intended meaning is that since we have so far been fairly unable to theoretically “find” a room temperature superconductor, if one exists it may rely on an effect for which we don’t have a theoretical model, which means that ruling it out based on existing theoretical models sort of just confirms that we don’t understand how it works, if it works.

Is it that easy? There would be some tractable number of arrangements this would spit out, and from there you can work backwards and find all materials that could form these arrangements, and try to synthesize them and see what works? Might be easier said than done.