Damn, why is nobody talking more about the theory of it?
What I see to ponder:
- (1970, brinkman, rice) "application of gutzwiller's variational method to the metal-insulator transition"
- (2001, hyun-tak kim) "extension of the brinkman-rice picture and the mott transition"
- (2002, hyun-tak kim) "extended brinkman-rice picture and its application to high-Tc superconductors"
- (2021, hyun-tak kim) "Room-temperature-superconducting Tc driven by electron correlation"
even briefly reading relevant research (other than these papers) says even if a group could not replicate lk99 at first try, there's more to it. cooking the right way should be insanely difficult because this is a probabilistic event after all. should not be happening homogenously and should not be happening in a wide-band of parameters. I think the groups will eventually reach a narrow range of parameters to replicate but will take a lot of effort.
Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim hit the first sample (the prototype of LK-99) in 1999 trying to prove the theory of their professor Choi Dong-Shik. Around 2017 YoungWan Kwon joined to the team and they got investment enough for to buy an SQUID and a EPR. In 2020, L and K hit with LK99. They tried to submit a paper to Nature, but was rejected. They contacted with HyunTak Kim after read his 2021 paper (the one you point), and HyunTak Kim joined to the team.
The above are rumors. I'm not sure if such 2021 paper may give tips in the theory or synthesization behind LK99.
By the looks of it, to me this is just the once in 5 years rumor cycle. The authors have been working on it for a long time and have been rejected by Nature. Other co-authors have said they weren't consulted before uploading the paper. The author who uploaded had to give a talk, and for whatever reason uploaded it on Arxiv before uploading, and didn't expect it would blow up like it has.
For official confirmation of room temp superconductor, I would rather go with a big publishing journal group organising a press conference before paying any attention.
Been following this very closely. Seems like the one takeaway is that whatever material this is, it's interesting. It's also difficult to synthesize in bulk, which is a shame because superconductivity is not easy to observe in non-bulk materials (think: powder).
Note: I have a physics degree and a little bit of condensed matter experience, but nothing like anyone actually working in the field. Just some graduate courses and a bit of lab work experience.
Assuming LK99 is legitimate, my hope is that the principles that make it work are more broadly applicable - and with that, refined production processes or newer alloys can be found. Simply knowing that it's possible would lead to a huge amount of research immediately focusing on this kind of thing.
There's nothing more revolutionary than a discovery of a new class of materials. After all, we often name eras throughout our history after them :) (Stone age, etc)
Yup, and the "preprint" (which doesn't have a number of controls in the process) leaves a lot to be desired, so the "real" paper will presumably have some of this worked out.
I expect things like the cooling rate (which affects crystal growth) and oxidation will both have variability in them.
Is there any hard limitation that prevents synthesizing in bulk? If not, I would not worry about this at the moment and if it proves to be a material with desirable properties just leave it up to the engineers who will hopefully find a suitable production process.
I’m not an expert, but I’ve used superconductors (I believe YBCO) when I taught physics lab. We cooled samples down with liquid nitrogen and put them over a magnet. They levitate, but not like in the video that the Korean team released. True superconductors enjoy “flux pinning”, meaning wherever you put them on a magnet, they’ll freeze in that position (or move around an axis of constant flux.) In the LK-99 video that they released, they show that the sample is repelled by a magnet. This seems to contradict the HTS claim and wondered if I’m missing something because surely so many experts can’t be this wrong.
My background is in physics, but not superconductors.
Regardless if LK-99 is truly a Room-Temperature Superconductor or not, only 112 years passed since Heike Kamerlingh Onnes discovered superconductivity on April 8, 1911, 4 PM [1] [2]: resistance not futile, but "practically zero". The first loaf of sliced bread was sold commercially on July 7, 1928 [3]. The rate of progress is astonishing.
As I learned from the Dave's EEVBlog video [1], their demonstration video [2] says in the description that the material was deposited onto a copper plate which could probably explain the interaction with the magnet. And as I just noticed, the description has since been changed and now says »The sample was thermally deposited on a enriched uranium 235 plate.«
EDIT: Correction, I got the link to the video saying deposited onto uranium [2] from [1] but that is not the actual link from their web page which is [3] and still says deposited onto copper. So someone on eevblog.com was having some fun.
From what I've gathered, the ingredients of LK99 are common but cooking the right way is difficult. Supposedly the team itself only gets it right 1 time in 10.
There have also been a lot of complaints that the patents and papers are missing info you'd want to have when reproducing. So that's making it even harder to reproduce. The upshot tho is that the discoverers seem to be available for tips by email.
All in all were going to have to wait more than a few days for reproduction it seems.
We thought Oppenheimer was the way to instill a love of physics to young people but turns out LK-99 was the way to winning people's hearts and minds to delve more into physics.
For such an important discovery (if it is real), that seems it could be replicated in a few days, if I were the team that did the discovery, I would create a video recording of the whole process and all the measurements and share it with the textual article. It sounds like that would provide for an easier way to replicate plus more proofs of the discovery.
The team that did the discovery seems disorganized and amateurish though, and with the multiple papers all submitted at the same time by competing factions, riff with infighting - but they stuck with a hunch for longer than anyone else and followed it doggedly. If it turns out to be true, it will be a great movie with an underdog making one of the biggest discoveries of the century.
Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs...
People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path.
It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.
At the end of the day, materials science is still science. The institutional framework is optimized for a very specific process, so it's generally faster to let the process play out as usual rather than go and cut corners. Rest assured; there are a lot of scientists out there! We can afford to let a few of them chase clouds once in a while.
In any case... the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.
I'm really confused why everyone is claiming the replication would be easy. The paper specifies very large ranges for both times and temperatures that would take years to try all combinations, and ignores basically all of the details.
The effect could be caused by some incredibly lucky contamination/impurities and then nobody would ever be able to reproduce it at all. Why not reverse engineer this one apparently working sample instead?
How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?
Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.
There’s some emerging evidence that it may be a new class of “1-d” superconducting material that only superconducts in certain places/directions. Will turn into big academic fight to redefine superconductivity if so, I think.
That would support the existence of a material with the stated properties, which would be important on its own, but not that we can manufacture one. Why not prove both at once? Depending on the size of the sample produced, distributing it around several labs for independent testing may be impractical so you would still get this race as the sample was sent to one lab and the rest rush to try be first to reproduce the processes and test the result. Also transporting what could be a very valuable substance (maybe a fragile one, I've not looked into it) as far as another lab with the relevant equipment, may be difficult/costly to arrange.
Given the finding seems to have been rushed out, perhaps they did plan to send a sample (perhaps producing another themselves) to another lab for confirmation, but those plans have been overtaken by the interest as details slipped out earlier than they intended.
Whether or not this turns out to be real the whole incident has been extremely entertaining, way more than I would have expected. Replication attempts being documented in real time on Twitter and livestreamed on Twitch, news about infighting and drama among the researchers who published the paper, constant fluxations in the betting markets as new news comes out. It's been a wild ride.
So, Russian anime cat girl seems to have cooked a sample and demonstrated some of the claimed properties, although she's explicit that it shouldn't be considered a "replication".
Everybody's talking about reproducing the material which is great, but will take time. Why don't the authors supply their existing material to an independent lab for earlier confirmation?
Devil's advocate: If the existing material and the process to make it can't be replicated, who really cares? Well, aside from the people who might deserve a Nobel. The rest of the world doesn't because we can't all share it like some kind of magical medallion.
So much speculation but I don’t see anyone asking this: Who has access to samples from the original lab? If synthesis hasn’t been cracked yet, wouldn’t the next-best thing be independent validation of the original samples?
Iris Alexandra's twitter is especially enthralling. Seems like so much discoveries and innovation happens from computer science to physics, chemistry and biology all from people with anime profile pictures.
> Here's a chunk of pyrolytic graphite on the same magnet with the same stick. Even with less density and more surface normal to field.... It doesn't lift off. If it's diamagnetism it's a fucking absurdly strong one
I'm watching all of this unfold as an unknowledgeable bystander. I'm at a loss for half of the technical terms and have no clue how many of those people are just LARPing.
But the positive energy of this all is very refreshing. This is what the internet was made for and I'm glad I can take part of it even if only by contributing moral support.
It is interesting to see how much of the replication is done by the Chinese and how little is done by the Western countries. Is this the difference between the making-stuff-happen attitude and the sclerotic attitude?
This is a race that I earnestly hope either someone wins quickly, or everyone loses... again rather quickly. For incredible claims you typically require incredible evidence, at the moment we're slightly better than hearsay but we've a long way to go get conclusive proof.
It's only been a week! I'm a materials scientist and the recipes for material growth are true for their systems. I have to find the truth on my system, so if a recipe calls for a deposition temperature of 100 C and anneal at 600 C I may find I need to anneal at 675 C to get similar results to that in the paper.
I'd be surprised if someone had already reproduced it so soon. These things take a few months to get right.
Only as long as the experiments are reasonably simple. There are probably still some things requiring only simple experiments to be discovered, but most of the low hanging fruit has probably already been consumed by a couple of centuries of experimentation and scientific progress.
During the 1989 cold fusion fiasco, the findings were announced in a press conference, pre-prints were circulated in the community, and many groups attempted to reproduce the results.
[+] [-] code51|2 years ago|reply
What I see to ponder:
- (1970, brinkman, rice) "application of gutzwiller's variational method to the metal-insulator transition"
- (2001, hyun-tak kim) "extension of the brinkman-rice picture and the mott transition"
- (2002, hyun-tak kim) "extended brinkman-rice picture and its application to high-Tc superconductors"
- (2021, hyun-tak kim) "Room-temperature-superconducting Tc driven by electron correlation"
even briefly reading relevant research (other than these papers) says even if a group could not replicate lk99 at first try, there's more to it. cooking the right way should be insanely difficult because this is a probabilistic event after all. should not be happening homogenously and should not be happening in a wide-band of parameters. I think the groups will eventually reach a narrow range of parameters to replicate but will take a lot of effort.
[+] [-] drtgh|2 years ago|reply
Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim hit the first sample (the prototype of LK-99) in 1999 trying to prove the theory of their professor Choi Dong-Shik. Around 2017 YoungWan Kwon joined to the team and they got investment enough for to buy an SQUID and a EPR. In 2020, L and K hit with LK99. They tried to submit a paper to Nature, but was rejected. They contacted with HyunTak Kim after read his 2021 paper (the one you point), and HyunTak Kim joined to the team.
The above are rumors. I'm not sure if such 2021 paper may give tips in the theory or synthesization behind LK99.
[+] [-] dkqmduems|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] harhargange|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aqme28|2 years ago|reply
Note: I have a physics degree and a little bit of condensed matter experience, but nothing like anyone actually working in the field. Just some graduate courses and a bit of lab work experience.
[+] [-] Panzer04|2 years ago|reply
There's nothing more revolutionary than a discovery of a new class of materials. After all, we often name eras throughout our history after them :) (Stone age, etc)
[+] [-] VierScar|2 years ago|reply
What makes it difficult?
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|2 years ago|reply
I expect things like the cooling rate (which affects crystal growth) and oxidation will both have variability in them.
[+] [-] justinclift|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jansan|2 years ago|reply
Is there any hard limitation that prevents synthesizing in bulk? If not, I would not worry about this at the moment and if it proves to be a material with desirable properties just leave it up to the engineers who will hopefully find a suitable production process.
[+] [-] alecst|2 years ago|reply
My background is in physics, but not superconductors.
[+] [-] ly3xqhl8g9|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heike_Kamerlingh_Onnes#Superco...
[2] 2010, "The discovery of superconductivity", https://www.ilorentz.org/history/cold/DelftKes_HKO_PT.pdf
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Frederick_Rohwedder
[+] [-] danbruc|2 years ago|reply
EDIT: Correction, I got the link to the video saying deposited onto uranium [2] from [1] but that is not the actual link from their web page which is [3] and still says deposited onto copper. So someone on eevblog.com was having some fun.
[1] https://www.eevblog.com/2023/07/31/eevblog-1555-korean-lk-99...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2qc_BoEiU
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k
[+] [-] alangibson|2 years ago|reply
There have also been a lot of complaints that the patents and papers are missing info you'd want to have when reproducing. So that's making it even harder to reproduce. The upshot tho is that the discoverers seem to be available for tips by email.
All in all were going to have to wait more than a few days for reproduction it seems.
[+] [-] yreg|2 years ago|reply
Source?
[+] [-] code51|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ssijak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhouston|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youknowone|2 years ago|reply
https://hackmd.io/DMjYGOJFRheZw5XZU8kqKg
[+] [-] nmwnmw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epivosism|2 years ago|reply
People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path.
It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.
I have made a play money market asking the same thing: "A physics lab will have received a package of the LK-99 material sent from the researchers by the end of August" [ https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-... ]
Not many traders yet, 57% yes, too optimistic in my view.
[+] [-] chaorace|2 years ago|reply
In any case... the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.
[+] [-] andersa|2 years ago|reply
The effect could be caused by some incredibly lucky contamination/impurities and then nobody would ever be able to reproduce it at all. Why not reverse engineer this one apparently working sample instead?
[+] [-] buildsjets|2 years ago|reply
Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.
[+] [-] nemo44x|2 years ago|reply
I’ve heard a rumor a team from MIT has travelled to Korea.
Who knows right now.
[+] [-] bhouston|2 years ago|reply
Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?
[+] [-] progrus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dspillett|2 years ago|reply
Given the finding seems to have been rushed out, perhaps they did plan to send a sample (perhaps producing another themselves) to another lab for confirmation, but those plans have been overtaken by the interest as details slipped out earlier than they intended.
[+] [-] Ajedi32|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asimpletune|2 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685731177523449856
[+] [-] FriedPickles|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychphysic|2 years ago|reply
It'll be superconducting tomorrow if it's really superconducting today.
[+] [-] Vicinity9635|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namuol|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n2d4|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] addisonl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccity88|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WaffleIronMaker|2 years ago|reply
> Here's a chunk of pyrolytic graphite on the same magnet with the same stick. Even with less density and more surface normal to field.... It doesn't lift off. If it's diamagnetism it's a fucking absurdly strong one
https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685804254718459904
Her findings, and suggestions of manufacturing process improvements, are very interesting.
[+] [-] bhaak|2 years ago|reply
I'm watching all of this unfold as an unknowledgeable bystander. I'm at a loss for half of the technical terms and have no clue how many of those people are just LARPing.
But the positive energy of this all is very refreshing. This is what the internet was made for and I'm glad I can take part of it even if only by contributing moral support.
[+] [-] matusp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Simon_O_Rourke|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|2 years ago|reply
that's the thing - if it is hard to manufacture and works maybe 1:10 tries, how can it lose quickly experimentally?
In other words, what is a satisfactory proof that it doesn't work, apart from analyzing the original apparatus?
[+] [-] jiggawatts|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raziel2701|2 years ago|reply
I'd be surprised if someone had already reproduced it so soon. These things take a few months to get right.
[+] [-] asynchronous|2 years ago|reply
These are the kinds of things I truly enjoy seeing in HN.
[+] [-] jboggan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danbruc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldgradstudent|2 years ago|reply
During the 1989 cold fusion fiasco, the findings were announced in a press conference, pre-prints were circulated in the community, and many groups attempted to reproduce the results.
The first publication came weeks later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
[+] [-] mjfl|2 years ago|reply