Still very inconclusive because the synthesis is difficult and messy and nobody knows precisely what materials they're analyzing, but I've adjusted from cautious optimism to mostly resigned pessimism.
https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/1688727233521979392
NEW and IMPORTANT : Study performed at Lanzhou University heavily indicate that successful synthesis of the LK-99 superconductor requires annealing in an oxygen atmosphere. They are suggesting that the final synthesis occurs in an oxygen atmosphere rather than in vacuum.
The original three author LK99 paper and nearly every subsequent attempt at replication involved annealing in the suggested vacuum of 10^-3 torr.
This paper indicates that the superconductivity aspects of the material are greatly enhanced if heated in normal atmosphere.
Authors are Kun Tao, Rongrong Chen, Lei Yang, Jin Gao, Desheng Xue and Chenglong Jia, all from aforementioned Lanzhou University
Why do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.
Patience. Just that. It will come out, either positive, or negative, but as long as it is inconclusive there is only patience. No need to get jubilant, no need to be jaded or 'cool'. Just wait.
What part of physics is it that states this and how do you explain that 'room temperature' just happens to be the range that is related to us and our environment and not to anything particular in physics? Or is it that you suspect that there is an exclusive or relationship between the conditions that allow complex biological life to never have overlap with those that allow superconductivity?
Well, except for the whole "research over the last decade or two has born superconductors that work at warmer and warmer temperatures" thing.
Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatures for things like medical imaging, because we're going to run out of helium completely in 100-200 years (and it will become wildly uneconomical well before then.)
There's no such thing as bad publicity; how about in science? If the original paper is proved wrong, how on earth could the original authors get any job and respect from their academic colleagues?
Anyone who is afraid to be wrong shouldn’t entertain the notion of becoming a scientist.
If it turns out they’re wrong, then they will likely do a follow up paper that explains what their mistakes were. No biggy. It’s just a couple of preprints, after all, and it’s widely believed that it was pushed out without all of the authors’ consent in the first place. It won’t leave them with lasting reputational damage from their peers, though it may place slightly more scrutiny on their outputs at a later point.
They may get ridicule from the people who took their paper at face value without noting the informality of the format, the incomplete studies performed on the sample, the almost-clear methodology etc. But those people aren’t scientists - all of the scientists who have discussed this have assumed from day one that it is likely an error, and perhaps toyed around in case their assumption is wrong.
To have reputational damage, they’d need to refuse to retract their work, refuse to elaborate further, claim they invented room temperature superconductors without sufficient proof, then attack anyone who questions them.
This is how science works. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes your 'wrongs' lead to the most amazing 'rights' (and not always by the same people) and sometimes they stay wrong. For example, Geoffrey Hinton was 'wrong' for years (though he didn't publish anything claiming he was right and had cracked something, but different field, but lots of people had already given up and he persisted) and look at him now.
Reputation matters, so don't commit fraud and don't try to trick others. That is the sort of thing you won't be recovering from. But being wrong is fine, even if you truly believe(d) that you are right. Note that this whole saga was not started on the timetable of the people that have the most at stake. I'm hoping they are right, I'm fearing they are wrong and if it turns out that they were wrong then I hope that they will not be dissuaded by that and that they and many others will continue the search. There are a lot of things that came out of materials science in the last two decades that we'd have never had if not for people searching for them. Not all of those searches will pan out, that's pretty much a given. Think of it as sifting for gold in a mountain of junk. For every piece of gold there are piles and piles of junk. And sometimes stuff that looks very much like gold, but ultimately isn't. That should not affect the reputation of the seekers. They are either going to try again, or maybe they'll give up. But what others think of them doesn't matter all that much.
I'm suspecting it's fraud. In a few months they'll come out and admit they fudged the numbers. I honestly hope not, room temperature superconductors solve a lot of problems, but we've been down this road before.
At this point, profit off the morons still clinging to the hype in the betting markets and move on.
I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
TillE|2 years ago
This one which finds substantial ferromagnetism and minimal diamagnetism is a far better reason to doubt that LK-99 is a superconductor:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110
Still very inconclusive because the synthesis is difficult and messy and nobody knows precisely what materials they're analyzing, but I've adjusted from cautious optimism to mostly resigned pessimism.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
kappi|2 years ago
The original three author LK99 paper and nearly every subsequent attempt at replication involved annealing in the suggested vacuum of 10^-3 torr.
This paper indicates that the superconductivity aspects of the material are greatly enhanced if heated in normal atmosphere.
Authors are Kun Tao, Rongrong Chen, Lei Yang, Jin Gao, Desheng Xue and Chenglong Jia, all from aforementioned Lanzhou University
Paper is available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03218
computerdork|2 years ago
lumost|2 years ago
nntwozz|2 years ago
https://youtu.be/wUczYHyOhLM
The research field is apparently fraught with failures.
The video is a great primer on the subject and tones down all the hype when looking back at previous breakthroughs.
kappi|2 years ago
8organicbits|2 years ago
barbazoo|2 years ago
soligern|2 years ago
gizmo686|2 years ago
threeseed|2 years ago
So at this point no one should be believing anything until we have a lot more evidence.
sMarsIntruder|2 years ago
carabiner|2 years ago
jacquesm|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
m3kw9|2 years ago
vbezhenar|2 years ago
puffyengineer|2 years ago
[deleted]
1234554321a|2 years ago
[deleted]
fnord77|2 years ago
jacquesm|2 years ago
KennyBlanken|2 years ago
Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatures for things like medical imaging, because we're going to run out of helium completely in 100-200 years (and it will become wildly uneconomical well before then.)
postalrat|2 years ago
behnamoh|2 years ago
i-use-nixos-btw|2 years ago
If it turns out they’re wrong, then they will likely do a follow up paper that explains what their mistakes were. No biggy. It’s just a couple of preprints, after all, and it’s widely believed that it was pushed out without all of the authors’ consent in the first place. It won’t leave them with lasting reputational damage from their peers, though it may place slightly more scrutiny on their outputs at a later point.
They may get ridicule from the people who took their paper at face value without noting the informality of the format, the incomplete studies performed on the sample, the almost-clear methodology etc. But those people aren’t scientists - all of the scientists who have discussed this have assumed from day one that it is likely an error, and perhaps toyed around in case their assumption is wrong.
To have reputational damage, they’d need to refuse to retract their work, refuse to elaborate further, claim they invented room temperature superconductors without sufficient proof, then attack anyone who questions them.
jacquesm|2 years ago
Reputation matters, so don't commit fraud and don't try to trick others. That is the sort of thing you won't be recovering from. But being wrong is fine, even if you truly believe(d) that you are right. Note that this whole saga was not started on the timetable of the people that have the most at stake. I'm hoping they are right, I'm fearing they are wrong and if it turns out that they were wrong then I hope that they will not be dissuaded by that and that they and many others will continue the search. There are a lot of things that came out of materials science in the last two decades that we'd have never had if not for people searching for them. Not all of those searches will pan out, that's pretty much a given. Think of it as sifting for gold in a mountain of junk. For every piece of gold there are piles and piles of junk. And sometimes stuff that looks very much like gold, but ultimately isn't. That should not affect the reputation of the seekers. They are either going to try again, or maybe they'll give up. But what others think of them doesn't matter all that much.
threeseed|2 years ago
And even if the research is incorrect LK99 is still going to be a useful addition to science.
Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and put down the pitchforks.
hackerlight|2 years ago
taylodl|2 years ago
xqcgrek2|2 years ago
I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
icapybara|2 years ago
LK-99 was plausibly a high T superconductor candidate, and high T superconductors are a real thing that exist. It is worth attempting to replicate.
Cold fusion says “all of thermodynamics is wrong”. A much bigger claim…
postalrat|2 years ago