I find it really cool that this whole process didn't involve scientific publishers at all. Paper was submitted to Arxiv, there was Turmoil. Now a national lab is reviewing it, all without a Journal submission.
As an academic, I have not so secretly been enjoying the shit storm of revelations lately. Science got along fine for thousands of years without Journals and Conferences deciding what's "correct" and not. It's been a failed experiment. Journals started as a way to help distribute works to other researchers to improve upon the old method of just mailing it to one another. Arxiv is great for peer review. Your work is actually fucking available and not behind some pay wall, where your peers can... review it. Only thing would be better is if we were using OpenReview so we could track discussions, but I'll admit that could get messy real quick as anyone that's open sourced their research work will tell you (lots of questions like "I trained my model, how do I test it?" and "I'm getting a cuda out of memory error, how do I fix this?").
But as an experimental chemist who got a PhD and works at a national lab, if the twitch/Twitter streamers don't produce a semiconductor, it says nothing
Experiments and processes are hard and particular. You're expecting to produce a nanoscale material through macroacale processes. Chemistry can be like producing a microchip with a ballpeen hammer. "I hit it seventy times in thirty seconds in 3.8mL acetone and it just forms a single crystal structure. Do not hit it seventy-one or sixty-nine times."
Chemists are experts at clearly explaining their procedure while leaving out the meaningless keystone detail that will only take a year or two to suss out if you're a clever experimentalist.
And this isn't a clearly outlined procedure.
But, again, I think the best case scenario is to watch an ambitious amateur do materials synthesis and see it work less perfectly than he intended. Maybe he and they stick around for the other 5 or 10 or 150 weeks as he does the same thing again to make sure the problem is nature rather than technique.
If bet-placing is the fashion, shall we place bets about tenacity and thoroughness?
Why should experiments wait to be submitted to some arbitrary academic body before trying to to reproduce them? This is what’s wrong with modern science, everything is academic.
Somewhere I read that this is how things used to be in Einstein era (or maybe earlier than that). There was little bureaucracy in getting the idea out.
While I am very skeptical, when working with what seems to be a fluke, it is more important to test the claim then to test a reproduction.
Figure out how to send an independent lab's equipment and personal there or a sample of the substance to an independent lab that verify and if true. Also ensure that they can also do material analysis such as X-Ray spectroscopy & diffraction , and a battery of other stuff if a miracle did occur.
For all we know, this could be one of those accidents of sloppiness that introduces a particular containment that makes everything line up as a super conductor that nobody else will easily reproduce.
> For all we know, this could be one of those accidents of sloppiness that introduces a particular containment that makes everything line up as a super conductor that nobody else will easily reproduce.
Maybe we should call this the Hyde Phenomenon.
> Jekyll's involuntary transformations increased in frequency and required ever larger doses of the serum to reverse....Eventually, the supply of salt used in the serum ran low, and subsequent batches prepared from new stocks failed to work. Jekyll speculated that the original ingredient had some impurity that made it work.
I think all they have to do is send a sample to another lab to analyze.
Apparently, people feel it's pretty easy to make, but in any case, if they have a sample they can see if it has the claimed properties and analyze what it's made of.
> For all we know, this could be one of those accidents of sloppiness that introduces a particular containment that makes everything line up as a super conductor that nobody else will easily reproduce.
I get that terrible sense too - either the original studies were in error, or some one-off fluke makes it difficult to reproduce.
On the upside however, and I'd caveat this as not being fully in the know about the art of the possible in solid state labs, it seems that the material isn't that awfully difficult to produce given an appropriate lab and equipment. Hopefully we'll know one way or the other shortly.
why don't they just repro their own experiment? If they can do it twice, then it isn't a fluke. at worst it's something specific to their lab. if they can't do it a second time, then the issue is settled.
I'm sure it will take a lot of time and money to run everything again. but all of earth seems willing to give them whatever resources they need.
> On the other hand, he says, researchers at Argonne and elsewhere are already trying to replicate the experiment. “People here are taking it seriously and trying to grow this stuff.”
The submitted title has been heavily editorialized. That’s the only relevant part of the article, and that’s far from implying that there’s a concerted effort at Argonne.
> The submitted title has been heavily editorialized. That’s the only relevant part of the article, and that’s far from implying that there’s a concerted effort at Argonne.
What's wrong with the submitted title (other than being very narrow)? It just says they're attempting to replicate, which they are.
If anything I'd say that "taking it seriously" is stronger language, and the submitted title is slightly underselling it.
Is the original title better? "A spectacular superconductor claim is making news. Here’s why experts are doubtful." Standard nothing title, "a thing happened." I zeroed in on the pithy part of the article, which is SOP on HN. The subtitle is just "skepticism abounds" which we already know. What some, including me, didn't know is that legit USG labs are studying it, and that's what makes it news.
Norman's complaints that lead atoms are too heavy do not seem consistent with the composition of other known superconductors. As far as I know, the most widely used cuprate superconductor is bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide (BSCCO), which was used for the world's first superconducting power line:
>What’s more, lead and copper atoms have similar electronic structures, so substituting copper atoms for some of the lead atoms shouldn’t greatly affect the electrical properties of the material
The lead (II) ions claimed have an even number of electrons. Copper (II) has an odd number. Or if copper (I) is present, then the charge itself is different. Again, this is just a very confusing argument to hear from a physicist.
>First, the undoped material, lead apatite, isn’t a metal but rather a nonconducting mineral.
The cuprate and iron superconductors are not metals either. In fact some are Mott insulators (materials with unexpectedly high resistance) under normal conditions.
There is a case for skepticism about LK-99, but it isn't this one.
One of the common threads seems to be that other scientists think that lk-99 is not a super conductor but just strongly diamagnetic.
As a non physicist i wonder if that is useful in and of itself? Skimming wikipedia it doesn't seem like there are that many strongly diamagnetic materials. Would discovering a new one still be a big discovery (just not earth shattering)
Despite some criticism of the original work, they seem to have been very conscientious about making replication easy.
===========
Nadya Mason, a condensed matter physicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign says, “I appreciate that the authors took appropriate data and were clear about their fabrication techniques.” Still, she cautions, “The data seems a bit sloppy.”
Yes this is an excellent thread. You have done some of the only on the ground reporting from Seoul. The takedowns you linked of the paper, CMTC giving it an F, are damning. There's one legit professor Kim from William & Mary who had a tiny part of this, but more and more, it looks like it's the output of a few cranks out of a "Q-Centre." The bulk of the work took place before Kim's involvement and he's listed on 1 of 3 papers so far. He's the only thread of legitimacy in this whole thing, and it's a thin one. The 5 other guys are just loony.
The reason the papers look like junk is that they were leaked by a rogue former team member who wants credit. The papers weren't supposed to have been published yet, peer review is still ongoing.
I've been wondering what the "hanging copper plate" demonstration would look like if you were just seeing eddy currents. I kind of assumed you wouldn't see much movement because otherwise that makes the whole demonstration seem dumb.
...and based on that demo, it really does seem like a dumb way to demonstrate your miracle material. Really doesn't inspire confidence.
Why is no one asking to analyze the superconductors they claimed to make? Everyone's talking about replicating it by following their recipe, but isn't the proof in the pudding?
To me the main takeaway is that there has had to be some advancement in this field over the past two decades if claims of sufficiently-close-to-ambient superconductivity are currently not dismissed outright.
Maybe we'll have maglev everything by the time I'm old and gray.
It's over for this compound I'm pretty sure, but it is cool to see the range of responses from professionals in this field. Some like Jorge Hirsch (superconductivity researcher and came up with the h-index) think it's a joke (and his work is cited by the Korean scientists), and then some guys at a national lab are trying to synthesize it.
Hirsch is also apparently a bit of a shitposter at age 70 and was banned for flaming people on arxiv last year.
I forget the actual quote, but there is a saying that if an old esteemed scientist says something is possible, they are almost certainly right. If they say something is impossible, they may be wrong.
There’s some consensus that the results can be questioned based on:
- Lenz’s law applying to copper (Lenz's law - Wikipedia 7)
- Copper phosphide (“Lanarkite and Cu3P were uniformly mixed in a molar ratio of 1:1 in an agate mortar with a pestle”). Pretty high copper content.
-No Meissner effect just standard copper-related phenomena based on Lenz’s law.
[+] [-] awesomeMilou|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godelski|2 years ago|reply
Arxiv/preprints are peer review
[+] [-] xorbax|2 years ago|reply
But as an experimental chemist who got a PhD and works at a national lab, if the twitch/Twitter streamers don't produce a semiconductor, it says nothing
Experiments and processes are hard and particular. You're expecting to produce a nanoscale material through macroacale processes. Chemistry can be like producing a microchip with a ballpeen hammer. "I hit it seventy times in thirty seconds in 3.8mL acetone and it just forms a single crystal structure. Do not hit it seventy-one or sixty-nine times."
Chemists are experts at clearly explaining their procedure while leaving out the meaningless keystone detail that will only take a year or two to suss out if you're a clever experimentalist.
And this isn't a clearly outlined procedure.
But, again, I think the best case scenario is to watch an ambitious amateur do materials synthesis and see it work less perfectly than he intended. Maybe he and they stick around for the other 5 or 10 or 150 weeks as he does the same thing again to make sure the problem is nature rather than technique.
If bet-placing is the fashion, shall we place bets about tenacity and thoroughness?
[+] [-] oldgradstudent|2 years ago|reply
IIRC, the 1989 cold fusion fiasco did not involve scientific publishers as well.
Not saying this is a similar fiasco, just that 34 years ago it was done via a press conference and circulating drafts rather than arXiv.
[+] [-] lloydatkinson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] systemvoltage|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daniel-cussen|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] molticrystal|2 years ago|reply
Figure out how to send an independent lab's equipment and personal there or a sample of the substance to an independent lab that verify and if true. Also ensure that they can also do material analysis such as X-Ray spectroscopy & diffraction , and a battery of other stuff if a miracle did occur.
For all we know, this could be one of those accidents of sloppiness that introduces a particular containment that makes everything line up as a super conductor that nobody else will easily reproduce.
[+] [-] generalizations|2 years ago|reply
Maybe we should call this the Hyde Phenomenon.
> Jekyll's involuntary transformations increased in frequency and required ever larger doses of the serum to reverse....Eventually, the supply of salt used in the serum ran low, and subsequent batches prepared from new stocks failed to work. Jekyll speculated that the original ingredient had some impurity that made it work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyl_and_Hyde#Plot
[+] [-] kurthr|2 years ago|reply
Apparently, people feel it's pretty easy to make, but in any case, if they have a sample they can see if it has the claimed properties and analyze what it's made of.
[+] [-] Simon_O_Rourke|2 years ago|reply
I get that terrible sense too - either the original studies were in error, or some one-off fluke makes it difficult to reproduce.
On the upside however, and I'd caveat this as not being fully in the know about the art of the possible in solid state labs, it seems that the material isn't that awfully difficult to produce given an appropriate lab and equipment. Hopefully we'll know one way or the other shortly.
[+] [-] cryptonector|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hooande|2 years ago|reply
I'm sure it will take a lot of time and money to run everything again. but all of earth seems willing to give them whatever resources they need.
[+] [-] hannasm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shusaku|2 years ago|reply
The submitted title has been heavily editorialized. That’s the only relevant part of the article, and that’s far from implying that there’s a concerted effort at Argonne.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|2 years ago|reply
What's wrong with the submitted title (other than being very narrow)? It just says they're attempting to replicate, which they are.
If anything I'd say that "taking it seriously" is stronger language, and the submitted title is slightly underselling it.
[+] [-] tigershark|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carabiner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhb|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scythe|2 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holbrook_Superconductor_Projec...
>What’s more, lead and copper atoms have similar electronic structures, so substituting copper atoms for some of the lead atoms shouldn’t greatly affect the electrical properties of the material
The lead (II) ions claimed have an even number of electrons. Copper (II) has an odd number. Or if copper (I) is present, then the charge itself is different. Again, this is just a very confusing argument to hear from a physicist.
>First, the undoped material, lead apatite, isn’t a metal but rather a nonconducting mineral.
The cuprate and iron superconductors are not metals either. In fact some are Mott insulators (materials with unexpectedly high resistance) under normal conditions.
There is a case for skepticism about LK-99, but it isn't this one.
[+] [-] bawolff|2 years ago|reply
As a non physicist i wonder if that is useful in and of itself? Skimming wikipedia it doesn't seem like there are that many strongly diamagnetic materials. Would discovering a new one still be a big discovery (just not earth shattering)
[+] [-] azernik|2 years ago|reply
===========
Nadya Mason, a condensed matter physicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign says, “I appreciate that the authors took appropriate data and were clear about their fabrication techniques.” Still, she cautions, “The data seems a bit sloppy.”
[+] [-] sanxiyn|2 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/sanxiyn/status/1685094029116297216
[+] [-] carabiner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doctoboggan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Accujack|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gausswho|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callalex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hmaxwell|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harrid|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikenew|2 years ago|reply
...and based on that demo, it really does seem like a dumb way to demonstrate your miracle material. Really doesn't inspire confidence.
[+] [-] guerrilla|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] climech|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesfisher|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tade0|2 years ago|reply
Maybe we'll have maglev everything by the time I'm old and gray.
[+] [-] ehnto|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carabiner|2 years ago|reply
Hirsch is also apparently a bit of a shitposter at age 70 and was banned for flaming people on arxiv last year.
[+] [-] valine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doctoboggan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethanbond|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brucethemoose2|2 years ago|reply
Is it unstable?
[+] [-] sanxiyn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xbox99|2 years ago|reply
- Lenz’s law applying to copper (Lenz's law - Wikipedia 7) - Copper phosphide (“Lanarkite and Cu3P were uniformly mixed in a molar ratio of 1:1 in an agate mortar with a pestle”). Pretty high copper content. -No Meissner effect just standard copper-related phenomena based on Lenz’s law.
[+] [-] djsedaw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kimorpark|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kimorpark|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Khaine|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] carabiner|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nemo44x|2 years ago|reply
I replied, “It might be or it might not be…” and I looked at him and grinned and said “but you still have to clean your bedroom!”
“Oh dad!” He said as he scampered off.