Recent W&M Condensed Matter Physics Grad. Worked closely with HT Kim, not on this project. He is a trustworthy guy, knows his stuff. I think he is right when he calls the paper very sloppy, I am confused why there is no phase diagram and the sample purity seems suspect. These are things I think would have been addressed in peer review and would give me more confidence overall. Probably not fraud, but doesn't mean it's superconductivity.<p>Not optimistic about replication in the next week too, Solid State Synthesis seems "easy" but in my experience can be problematic. Not an expert in that part though
The major threads so far:<p><i>Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881808">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881808</a> - July 2023 (434 comments)<p><i>The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624</a> - July 2023 (858 comments)
The lead author says (translated):<p>“In 2020, I submitted my research results to Nature for the first time, but Nature felt burdened about publishing the paper because of Professor Dias’ case, and asked for it to be published in other professional journals first.”<p><a href="https://n.news.naver.com/article/366/0000920152" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://n.news.naver.com/article/366/0000920152</a>
LinkedIn post from one the authors:
<a href="https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633</a>
I am going to attempt to address the common nitpicks in one fell swoop:<p>1. Rushed publication, plot quality, grammar, etc. Get over yourselves. This is a pre-print for an instant-Nobel, next-tier-of-civilization level discovery. The proper publication will come in due time. Waiting for a more complete verification is a sheltered view. Being first matters. Things changed after the J/Psi discovery in 1974. For those that don't know, Sam Ting discovered it first, yet sat on it for months waiting for a complete verification. Then Richter's group also discovered it months later and Ting was forced to publish at the same time and share the Nobel. This changed the publication attitude in the field significantly. Being first matters.<p>2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking.<p>The most realistic timeline is 2-3 months for a positive verification. 6 months for a negative verification. If it works, it will be quicker because a positive reproduction needs less work. A negative verification needs to be more thorough and will take more time.
So, has anyone seen any of the replication studies start coming in yet? From what I've read we seem to be waiting on those. (and I think they're likely coming today or tomorrow?)
The median prediction for whether this gets independently confirmed is sitting at 25%: <a href="https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18090/room-temp-superconductor-pre-print-replicated/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18090/room-temp-supercon...</a>
It seems a third paper was just found an hour ago.<p>Original paper: <a href="http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=ART002955269" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...</a><p>Translation: <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/UiUrs8c/kci-fi002955269-1-pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.docdroid.net/UiUrs8c/kci-fi002955269-1-pdf</a><p>Translation source: <a href="https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684700783852556288" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684700783852556288</a><p><insert "I want to believe" picture>
If this confirms, I <i>really</i> hope that the current limitation can be overcome. That would be brutal to actually find a ambient temperature and pressure SC only to have its usefulness for big real world applications be nerfed.
History always repeats itself. Anytime a potential groundbreaking result is announced with one or some of the following characteristics, more likely than not something fishy or problematic ensues.<p>1. Paper submitted hastily without all authors in agreement or even knowing.
(Check, two separate papers were submitted with collaborators in the US missing in one paper)<p>2. Not all due diligence and checks were done, e.g. missing tests or providing half-assed "proofs".
(Check, missing phase transition results, provided video proof for superconductivity shows imperfect samples and diamagnetism, no full levitation, no pinning effect in superconductivity. You would imagine they could have made good samples instead of broken ones and completed all necessary tests since the material was obtained at least 3 years ago)<p>So in all, they seem to be rushing to conclusions and public fame than being cautious and scientific.
Interesting thread, looks like a lot of labs are on the charge to replicate this <a href="https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684554551481835520?s=46&t=KAw8VCFAbjndf2K7KD3AtQ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684554551481835520?s...</a>
This really reminds me of "cold fusion"<p>We all really wanted that to be true, too.<p>Patience, is all that is available to us that do not have a lab able to replicate
Can someone help me understand what it means for a superconductor (which should have zero resistance) to have such a low current capacity? Does this mean it's possible to have a voltage drop across the superconductor? Does that voltage drop somehow not result in power dissipation? Is it something like capacitive or inductive reactance?
+1 for use of the term “Diamond Anvil Cell”<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell</a>
Can someone ELI5 if the video with the magnet levitating is supposed prove something? Is this visual result only possible with superconductors? If so, why?
I’m a noob when it comes to SC. Sorry to ask this question here and hope someone could explain. I can’t get any answer from Google.
What is the excitement around seeing floating magnets? My understanding is that we can have 2 regular magnets float if position them in opposite polarity, right?
What if the team itself did create LK-99 that is a superconductor, but they aren't able to reproduce it and only have the sample left that works. Hence, they aren't able to make more of it to prove their success, but rather decided to release the paper and method so that others can try to reproduce it. Given the amount of interest, they could put hundreds of labs to work trying to recreate what they themselves can't, hoping someone will find what they found and have an actual process for doing so?<p>Is that even possible?
MIT alum claims that one of his MIT profs is in Korea now working with the original researchers to test the material: <a href="https://twitter.com/jesuslares_me/status/1684542737142657024" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/jesuslares_me/status/1684542737142657024</a>
I'm leaning towards this being mostly legit. It may not be a perfect solution to the problem, but it may put us on a path to a solution.<p>If this wasn't real, I would have expected someone who works in the area to have data about something similar and why it isn't real.
A source (German) attributed to the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research thinks the paper is bogus [0]<p>[0] <a href="https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=9a3f8740" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=9a3f8740</a>
You can tell when someone shouldn't be listened to online if they feel a need to give a "take" to this piece of news. Just wait until we get actual results if you don't have a physics phd at minimum no need for any rushed take otherwise.
Just for fun: Am I the only one who thinks there's connection between this and the UAP news that's coming out? RTSC would probably enable a lot of incredible energy & maneuverability capabilities...<p>Sorry, indulging in a little off-topic conspiracy theorizing.
"this may spark a revolution in electronics as significant as the invention of the transistor, vacuum tube, and induction motor."<p>How, exactly?
My issue here is: This new material is essentially standard "high temperature" YBCO superconductor material just <i>slightly</i> modified, or? The authors are not doing anything dramatically new, like a new chemistry.<p>How likely is it that all the other 1000s of labs doing research on this topic just missed this lucky combination of baking, cooling and whatnot?
People are quick to dismiss astrology, but the last time Pluto entered Aquarius (which will happen for the next 20 years starting in Dec) we had the Industrial Revolution. The time before that we had the Scientific Revolution. Things are right on track with this discovery.