LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/page-11?post=94266395#post-94266395

by fofoz • 3 years ago

565 627 3 years ago

forums.spacebattles.com

ccity88• 3 years ago

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.

guywhocodes• 3 years ago

I hope we get a video from Iris proving it's not glued to the support, if they were able to produce a levitating grain that's amazing. Regardless if superconducting or not.

jiggawatts4• 3 years ago

That's a small enough sample that static electricity alone could explain the "levitation".

bhaak3• 3 years ago

https://twitter.com/iris_IGB for those looking for the account.

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.

justinjlynn• 3 years ago

anime profile pictures

Either that or furry ones. Amusing apparent correlation.

WaffleIronMaker3• 3 years ago

Highlighting this tweet in particular:

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.

psychphysic7• 3 years ago

Seems silly to compare to that absolute chunk of pyrplytic graphite. Shouldn't it be a similar size spec?

herculity275• 3 years ago

There's a certain subset of people on the intersection of high IQ, high-functioning ASD and LGBT that produces a lot of high impact activity in STEM fields.

XorNot2• 3 years ago

Well I mean at this point, if I think I'm sitting on a big discovery the first thing I'm doing is changing my avatar to an anime one.

nonethewiser5• 3 years ago

High-functioning LGBT for sure

twic2• 3 years ago

I think there's also an aspect of doing it and presenting it in an unusually attention-grabbing way.

slily• 3 years ago

I heard from a psychologist that homosexuality is associated with higher creativity (possibly explaining why it wasn't eliminated through evolution/natural selection). That seems true in art anyway, but I am not sure if in science the flamboyant online profiles simply make them more memorable characters or if the association holds.

Accujack7• 3 years ago

She's acknowledged her results were a hoax at this point.

generalizations2• 3 years ago

I haven't seen any such acknowledgement in her twitter feed?

jabedude• 3 years ago

Where? Saying something like this should be accompanied with proof

pipo234• 3 years ago

tldr; no successful experiment outside original labs reproduces the results.

Fingers crossed...

yreg9• 3 years ago

OTOH only one lab announced a failure and they say they haven't followed the recipe.

Fingers crossed...

jboggan• 3 years ago

This live crowdsourced approach is a far better way to test and refine hypotheses than peer review and the current state of science journals.

oldgradstudent• 3 years ago

That's how it has always been done.

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

oneshtein18• 3 years ago

My reply to you was cut off by dang.

danbruc5• 3 years ago

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.

constantcrying• 3 years ago

The single most famous mathematical result this century (solution ofthe Poincaré conjecture) was verified by consensus after the claimed proof was published to arxiv.

mjfl• 3 years ago

requires a really significant result in order to demand widespread effort in to replicate.

aqme288• 3 years ago

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.

Panzer04• 3 years ago

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)

ant6n• 3 years ago

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)

I wonder what was involved in the discovery of stone.

VierScar• 3 years ago

Why is it hard to make in bulk? I thought the chemicals were easy and cheap to obtain, and then you bake it at a high temp?

What makes it difficult?

aqme288• 3 years ago

I don’t have really any expertise here but it looks like it bakes into a powder pretty much every time. Sure you get LK-99, but you can’t measure superconductivity in a powder since it’s a bulk property.

beowulfey2• 3 years ago

The variables that lead to its formation are not all accounted for yet. The process is understood, but it doesn’t always work. So there must be something missing every now and then.

maxerickson• 3 years ago

If it was well understood what made it difficult, odds are it would be improving fast.

drbaba• 3 years ago

Note that “bulk” in this context means a single large chunk, not a large quanitity.

weard_beard4• 3 years ago

The first time it demonstrated superconductivity they dropped the quartz tube it was in, cracking and accidentally oxidizing it at a specific point in the heating process and providing vibration that caused the formation of a crystal structure in the material.

That's... not easily replicable.

carabiner2• 3 years ago

There's a chemist who gave a breakdown with what's known so far: https://twitter.com/Robert_Palgrave/status/16846158677267988...

It's not clear exactly what compound constitutes "LK-99" because the equations in the papers are unbalanced and the synthesis is ill defined. What they say they got doesn't make sense for how they say they got it. Most likely it's a mixture of compounds, any of which could be producing the alleged superconducting phenomena.

jansan• 3 years ago

It's also difficult to synthesize in bulk

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.

aqme288• 3 years ago

There’s not really such a thing as superconductivity for a fine powder, so people are having trouble determining if this material even superconducts.

edit to clarify: Bulk here refers to having a single chunk of the material, and does not refer to the total quantity. Some physical properties only exist or only surface in chunks of material, not in the powder form.

justinclift3• 3 years ago

Is there's no sintering or other process that could fuse the power together into a solid? (obviously without destroying its useful properties)

bradfox2• 3 years ago

Paper mentions amorphous state plus an annealing step. Should be glass like at the end. If so, heat rates (up and down) of the last step are important and hardly mentioned.

ChuckMcM• 3 years ago

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.

WaffleIronMaker3• 3 years ago

Note that the original table has been more recently updated: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-tempe...

7moritz7• 3 years ago

So what is the wordpress post for?

rcme3• 3 years ago

Basically theft.

This is (initially) a copy of Guderian2nd’s table on the discussion thread on Spacebattles with a bit of cleanup. I’ve rewritten most of the notes to be more concise as I track the updates myself, where I can.

WaffleIronMaker3• 3 years ago

The author apparently did not intend widespread readership:

Whoever is out there, please stop clicking my link. I used to get 10 views a day from Vtuber wannabes and it's now a weekday. I don't even consider it a good enough summary! I thought the 60 views yesterday on the post was good, and now it's a hundred times that! What. Is. Happening.
Seriously, this is weird. I already got two pingbacks from suspicious sites stealing my post. Joke's on them though, I'm constantly editing it when I have time.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-tempe...

dang4• 3 years ago

Ok, I guess we'd better switch to that from https://eirifu.wordpress.com/2023/07/30/lk-99-superconductor... (the submitted URL). Thanks!

PartiallyTyped2• 3 years ago

Could this be the new 4 minute mile? Will [humanity] evacuate on ourselves?

Whatever this may be, it’s exciting.

aqme288• 3 years ago

I don’t know what you’re trying to say, but to “evacuate on ourselves” means to shit ourselves.

PartiallyTyped2• 3 years ago

That is exactly what I intended to say.

Everyone thought the 4 minute mile was impossible, until it was done, and then everyone started doing it. Had Roger Bannister had a cardiac arrest and evacuated on himself, people would have stopped trying for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFH0qcmw36Q

zelos• 3 years ago

I've seen the 4 minute mile myth posted a lot around LK-99 stories:

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2017/05/the-roger-bannister...

dang4• 3 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36940487.

youknowone• 3 years ago

I translated a survey about LK-99 papers to English

https://hackmd.io/DMjYGOJFRheZw5XZU8kqKg

ggdG• 3 years ago

Thank you so much for this!

Havoc• 3 years ago

This is great. Much easier to tell what’s going on than going by the chatter. Thanks

TheAceOfHearts• 3 years ago

Saw some people hyping up markets where people are betting on prediction markets whether or not LK-99 will replicate. Can't help but feel like that money would be better spent just paying off some labs to actually try to replicate the process.

The response I got from a predictions market enthusiast was that having a sufficiently large market would motivate people to attempt to have the process replicated and buy options on the outcome once they confirm their findings in order to cash out. Which gives me strong feelings of scamming the uninformed and gullible.

As for comments on LK-99 itself, I don't understand why nobody has gotten their hands on an existing sample to verify that it's legitimate. Shouldn't the minimum requirements be a magnet and the material sample, to demonstrate it floating through the meissner effect?

incrudible• 3 years ago

Just making a bet does not really spend the money, it will just change hands, presumably from the less informed to the more informed, who should be able to eventually spend it more wisely. As far as forcing the outcome, if it turns out to be possible, but the market got it all wrong, there is your incentive to give it a shot regardless.

justinclift3• 3 years ago

making a bet does not really spend the money, it will just change hands

Pretty sure most people would call the money changing hands "spending" that money.

amelius4• 3 years ago

Shouldn't the minimum requirements be a magnet and the material sample, to demonstrate it floating through the meissner effect?

The minimum requirements should be that it doesn't heat up when you send a large current through it.

yreg9• 3 years ago

Are there any prediction markets where you can bet money on this?

I thought people talked only about Moneyfold, which is just a game. (You cannot take money out of it, although you can use it to make a charity donation.)

I suspect that people on actual real money market would make different predictions to Manifold.

yorwba• 3 years ago

Polymarket uses real money, I think https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor...

eurleif• 3 years ago

https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor...

toth• 3 years ago

This type of instictive negative reaction to prediction markets is, unfortunately, common, but, I think, misguided.

Prediction markets are one of the (or just, the?) best ways of aggregating knowledge from multiple sources and producing the best predictions. Having good legible predictions of impactful events such as LK-99 replication is extremely useful for society - it would be an invaluable input for a savvy policy maker for instance.

What I think is silly is that vastly bigger amounts of money are put in betting markets for any mildly important sportsball game. Meanwhile, markets on LK99 replication, one of the most potentially important possibilities in the world right now have only on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars in them.

And there is no scamming involved. If you are participating in a prediction market, either you have some reason you believe you know something the market does not or you should expect you are simply subsidizing those with better information. The latter is a perfectly reasonable thing to do - it's not easy for an average person to "pay off some lab", but if they provide liquidity to the prediction market they are giving an explicit subsidy for anyone that can answer the question.

social_quotient• 3 years ago

I agree with you and think it parallels the equity market a bit.

Stock prices embody the market's collective knowledge, expectations, and emotions about a company's current and future value.

And to your point if you are blindly investing or blindly buying via instruments like ETFs you can end up subsidizing those with more/better information.

throw0101a• 3 years ago

What do these prediction markets produce? Some people are saying "yes" and others are saying "no", and the answer is either "yes" or "no", but why bother spending money on predicting when society can spend money on replicating it? Wouldn't an actual replication attempt be more useful?

The latter is a perfectly reasonable thing to do - it's not easy for an average person to "pay off some lab", but if they provide liquidity to the prediction market they are giving an explicit subsidy for anyone that can answer the question.

Is any of this liquidity going to actual (replication) research, because if it is not, again: what are these markets tangibly producing? Moving a bunch of numbers around a ledger does not seem very useful.

Retric2• 3 years ago

The issue is there’s zero utility in aggregating knowledge on LK-99 as apposed to simply running these experiments. It’s going to take weeks not decades for someone to replicate it.

Markets are useful when people act more efficiently based on the information, but there’s no efficiency to be gained here.

tinco5• 3 years ago

Not to take away from your point, but there is a better way than prediction markets, and that's careful objective research by non-experts (https://goodjudgment.com/).

It's been shown that teams of such researchers consistently beat prediction markets on these sorts of topics. Anecdotal evidence suggests it might be that the presence of experts and cultural preconceptions corrupt prediction markets enough to diverge the result from the "wisdom of the crowd" effect.

Turskarama2• 3 years ago

LK-99 is a brand new material that almost nobody knows anything about. The market is not a knowledge aggregate, it is vibes based.

dist-epoch4• 3 years ago

How about this scenario:

I am the PI of a laboratory. I buy up the market and (falsely) announce that I succeeded in replication. Sell and make profit. Then a couple of days later I announce that I made a terrible mistake.

How do you prevent this scenario? I did nothing illegal, I just "not noticed the mistake I made".

alchemist1e925• 3 years ago

Absolutely and people might be interested that in this case the prediction market for LK-99 is reacting in real time to new tweets from people trying to replicate. The “yes” spike to 32c yesterday was in response to a twitter account posting an image of a levitating grain in a tube. The credibility of that replication attempt was then evaluated by many and the market backed off afterwards.

There is always a subtle anti-markets theme on many HN debates, likely from highly educated ans literate posters. I believe we still in this age simply don’t provide proper education on the massive benefits that markets bring to so mang problems. They are literally the nervous system of our incredible global organic economy.

In this case, why in world would you have something against prediction markets?

Is it fascinating the risk of a nuclear weapon detonation by December 31st of 2023 is accessed to be around 9%?

If anything we need to liberalize laws around prediction markets. Currently they are relagated to off shore and various backwaters. The CME should be listing tbese types of markets ideally and institutional money hiring top analytical talent would then participate.

scotty79• 3 years ago

Prediction markets are one of the (or just, the?) best ways of aggregating knowledge from multiple sources and producing the best predictions.

They would be true if people with most money and appetite for risk were also the most knowledgeable and smart.

They are not. As you can easily tell from recent coverage of idiocy of even the richest people who have propensity for big bets.

It has been researched and discovered that people with more money do not make smarter bets than those with far less. So at best, looking at prediction markets, gives you exactly as much knowledge as polling random people on the streets and asking them what would they bet on.

amelius4• 3 years ago

Counterargument. Prediction markets could also be used to hedge.

E.g. if you invest in technology around LK-99, and then use prediction market to prevent going bankrupt in case you were wrong.

THUS: it doesn't mean that prediction markets give good predictions.

By the way. Do you have some data on that? I.e., statistics of prediction markets being right vs wrong?

renlo• 3 years ago

If you are participating in a prediction market, either you have some reason you believe you know something the market does not or you should expect you are simply subsidizing those with better information.

Sometimes people just vote for "their team", similar to a sportsball fan placing a large bet on their favorite team winning, without any insider knowledge. I've seen it a couple of times on PredictIt for the more contentious predictions (presidential election being one, control of the house / senate, etc). While in the end those with better information will usually come out on top, in those kinds of markets the favored prediction doesn't align well with the data.

crispyambulance2• 3 years ago

Having good legible predictions of impactful events such as LK-99 replication is extremely useful for society - it would be an invaluable input for a savvy policy maker for instance.

How?

Would it not be better for the "savvy" policy maker to JUST WAIT until this discovery is confirmed, definitively, by multiple legit research institutions? And even better, wait until it shows some promise of practical application? Policy, as we know it, almost never reacts within hours to anything, let alone a scientific discovery. What exactly can a policy maker even do with faster than hot-off-the-press knowledge about this stuff?

Prediction markets are really just for people that hustle in markets or who are looking for a news scoop. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, though some might argue it contributes to needless volatility.

andrepd8• 3 years ago

Prediction markets are one of the (or just, the?) best ways of aggregating knowledge from multiple sources and producing the best predictions.

That's an extraordinary claim with zero evidence behind it. Do you have any evidence that "prediction markets" provide more accurate predictions than e.g. specialist surveys or other mechanisms? I don't see any empirical evidence nor any logical reason for that to be the case.

jacquesm20• 3 years ago

That's not all that different from how the financial crisis came to be: derivatives on top of bad loans. Here it is bad bets on top of a possible phenomenon that probably none of the participants in the bets have any insight in.

fallingknife3• 3 years ago

The bets were never the issue. The leverage in the banking system was. The bad bets were just the spark that lit it. The prediction markets are not leveraged

beowulfey2• 3 years ago

A few things:

* the paper wasn’t ready, and internal drama is what led to it being released

* I’ve read that the process of making it is quite difficult. There probably are not many samples out there in the world

Basically, it wasn’t ready for primetime, but I believe it’s close

TrailMixRaisin• 3 years ago

The topic on how hard or easy it is to replicate seems to be as fast changing as other information. The first time I read about it, it was deemed to be super easy as all you needed are the two base materials and a vacuum furnace. But with all the drama involved I would not be surprised if the process is actually very complicated.

c7DJTLrn• 3 years ago

The stock market is no different, there's inequality in access to information there too.

ummonk2• 3 years ago

It's worse than that. If you've confirmed results, you now have an incentive not to publish your results, instead building up a market position on prediction markets for as long as possible.

killerstorm2• 3 years ago

No. You're incentivized to build a market prosition on prediction markets, or sell your information to somebody who can. (E.g. if a lab has a replication proof it might partner with a trading firm to maximize their profit.)

But there's definitely no incentive to do it "for as long as possible". E.g. once the trader gets into a favorable position, they are incentivized to reveal their information ASAP to be able to take profit.

andrepd8• 3 years ago

It's like they say, when all you have is a hammer...

cptaj• 3 years ago

The worst part is that those market people are delusional enough to believe what they say.

JonChesterfield• 3 years ago

buy options on the outcome once they confirm their findings in order to cash out

What stops that being textbook insider trading?

cubefox3• 3 years ago

Note that real prediction markets with money are currently illegal in the US because of some legacy law. So Polymarket (currently the major prediction market I believe) is only usable outside the US anyway.

Currently the only US alternative is play money. Manifold and Metaculus use this system. Metaculus doesn't really use play "money", but a non-zero-sum system to award points for more accurate predictions. It's in both cases a game and an exercise in checking how well-calibrated your beliefs about the future are.

And here is the canonical FAQ on prediction markets, and the social/policy benefits they could have:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prediction-market-faq

jamilton3• 3 years ago

Kalshi is a real money prediction market that's (only) legal in the US. No market on LK-99 though.

kulahan2• 3 years ago

I was absolutely certain I saw a photo of LK-99 floating over (partially, part of it was still touching) a magnet. Of course, this proves nothing as it's a photo, but I have this memory of seeing it, so maybe someone else saw it in some official capacity.

r2_pilot• 3 years ago

This is purported to be a video of what you saw a photo of: https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n

throwaway849755• 3 years ago

Is there any HN effect by which enough contrary early opinion here could increase the odds of eventual triumph?

On the chance that there is, I will do my part:

In mice.

ggm3• 3 years ago

Morphic Resonance theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

twic2• 3 years ago

No synthesis. Less critical current than YBCO. Lame.

stevehawk• 3 years ago

oh god i understood this reference. we love you cmdrtaco

moffkalast• 3 years ago

The naysayers say nay.

oneshtein18• 3 years ago

Currently, Cold Fusion used in small scale isotope breeders for medical purposes. One 2kWt breeder with CF can replace 100kWt traditional breeding plant.

ggm3• 3 years ago

Cite please. I think you've mistaken neutron feed sourced medical imaging radionuclide from low energy research reactions for cold fusion e.g. https://www.itnonline.com/content/fda-approves-additional-mo...

NorthStar produces non-uranium based Mo-99 in collaboration with its manufacturing partner, the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR), in Columbia, Mo., using neutron capture technology.

oneshtein18• 3 years ago

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtfUeip4vyA&t=335s

dang4• 3 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36940489.

oneshtein18• 3 years ago

Why not to just shadow ban me again, but leave thread intact? Or cut it at one level up???

optimalsolver• 3 years ago

Stone Age

Bronze Age

Iron Age

LK-99 Age

(source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36869209)

antupis2• 3 years ago

Stone Age

Bronze Age

Iron Age

I would add Steel Age here

LK-99 Age

askvictor• 3 years ago

Given that human flight and putting things in space rely on Aluminium, I think that's worth a mention too.

acjacobson• 3 years ago

And Silicon after Steel

Maken• 3 years ago

Do not forget the Carbon Fiber age.

jacquesm20• 3 years ago

Silicon?

Phelinofist• 3 years ago

Don't forget the plastics age...

A_D_E_P_T• 3 years ago

Okay, I think I've got it.

Stone Age

Bronze Age

Iron Age

Steel Age (1800 - 1940. The development of mass-produced steel of high quality, and its widespread adoption and use in construction and by industry.)

Aluminum Age (1940 - 1965. Tremendous growth in the aeronautical and space industries, enabled by the futuristic light alloy.)

Plastics Age (1965 - 1985. Ubiquitization of lightweight, durable plastics in all forms of consumer goods and media. The M-16 "plastic rifle" and the polycarbonate compact disc are symbolic of this era.)

Silicon Age (1985 - 2023. The age of computers in everything, the internet, "smart" devices, gig economy, etc.)

LK-99 Age (2023 - ??. Could end next week, could last a while. Nobody knows.)

bhaak3• 3 years ago

No silicon age and plastics age?

empiko3• 3 years ago

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?

hobofan2• 3 years ago

I doubt the table is representative of actual replication efforts going on, as according to some tweets, suppliers everywhere are out of precursors due to a large amount of orders. I would guess that there are many labs that started trying to replicate as a side-project with an attitude of "if it replicates we'll go public, if not, we don't, as we don't want to spend a lot of efforts on retries".

Based on that trying to connect that to wider cultural innovation trends seems quite far-fetched.

aqme288• 3 years ago

Someone on Twitter spoke on this, so I cant' confirm its accuracy. They said that the reagents for this are usually made in China. As soon as this paper was published, labs in China bought out the reserves and they became hard to source in the West.

perlgeek• 3 years ago

Weren't the raw materials lead, copper, sulfur and phosphorous or something like that? Seems hard to to buy out elements that are so common in industrial and chemical processes.

nonethewiser5• 3 years ago

In one of the notes it says

Red phosphorus cannot be obtained on short notice from a new customer in the USA due to DEA restrictions

staticautomatic• 3 years ago

So we just need some fireworks companies to get after reproducing it, then?

empiko3• 3 years ago

Isn't that also a part of the same sclerosis?

TillE2• 3 years ago

"From a new customer" is the key phrase. This is only a serious issue for amateurs, not for real established labs.

dekhn• 3 years ago

The US was a hotbed of scientific quackery at the same time it was developing its leading position in the physical sciences (~hundred plus years ago). So, let's just wait 100 years and see how many of these "replications" are really just fooling themselves (and others).

wg02• 3 years ago

I'm pretty sure that by the end of this month we'll know that the discovery was either instrument, method, process or humam error.

WizardClickBoy• 3 years ago

This month ends in about 10 hours depending on timezone, so they'd better get their skates on.

alangibson• 3 years ago

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.

yreg9• 3 years ago

Supposedly the team itself only gets it right 1 time in 10.

Source?

est• 3 years ago

Why does China alone have so many reproduction attemps? I assumed it would be tried everywhere.

orangepurple• 3 years ago

China has more people, more money to spend on research, more equipment, more manufacturing base, more STEM graduates, more everything, and all of that by huge margins.

senttoschool2• 3 years ago

I'm not sure about the other claims but the most logical reasoning is that China has better supply chains and way more STEM graduates.

Accujack7• 3 years ago

China wants to gain a technological edge on all other countries. If they happen to be the first to turn a room temperature superconductor into usable commercial or military materials, then they'll have a huge military or economic advantage for some period of time.

senttoschool2• 3 years ago

God, this kind of thinking is so brainwashed. The relentless China demonization propaganda has made it so that people in the West don't actually believe that Chinese people have normal human behaviors. In a way, the western media has succeeded in portraying all of China as evil and themselves as good.

ssijak3• 3 years ago

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.

bhouston5• 3 years ago

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.

shepardrtc• 3 years ago

but they stuck with a hunch for longer than anyone else and followed it doggedly

That's an understatement.

local_issues2• 3 years ago

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.

Pretty good description of all of human history so far, to be fair

m3kw94• 3 years ago

Did you read some that said they were amturish or did you actually think that

spaceman_20202• 3 years ago

Their amateurishness and the infighting somehow makes me think this is legitimate.

alecst2• 3 years ago

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.

dawnofdusk• 3 years ago

Type-II super conductors may exhibit "flux pinning". Type-I super conductors do not.

alecst2• 3 years ago

Cool thanks. Gonna read up a little on that.

Edit: yea it's interesting. Believe it or not, I studied L-G theory in grad school, taught a lab about (type-II) superconductors, but had no idea that type-I superconductors didn't flux pin.

Just leaving this here from Wikipedia:

The superconductor must be a type-II superconductor because type-I superconductors cannot be penetrated by magnetic fields. Some type-I superconductors can experience the effects of flux pinning if they are thin enough. If the material's thickness is comparable to the London penetration depth, the magnetic field can pass through the material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pinning

zarzavat2• 3 years ago

As far as I understand it (not an expert on these things), flux pinning is caused by microscopic defects that allow the magnetic field to penetrate at certain points. An idealized superconductor that is perfectly uniform expels the magnetic field at all points and so would not display the effect, it would simply be diamagnetic. So it’s mistaken and somewhat perverse to view the absence of flux pinning as proof that something is not a superconductor.

In the case of LK99, the claim is that it does not show flux pinning because the sample is impure and not uniformly superconductive, i.e. it is not expelling the magnetic field enough.

asdfman123• 3 years ago

Type-II super conductors may exhibit "flux pinning"

Type-II diamagnetism?

radioactivist• 3 years ago

Even for type-II superconductors one may need single crystals if the material is anisotropic enough (e.g. if the flux pinning is confined mostly to 2D layers then randomly oriented grains in a powder aren't going to trap flux well)

cnhajzwgz• 3 years ago

Many experts are indeed questioning the apparent lack of flux pinning and wonder if it's just strong diamagnetism.

m3kw94• 3 years ago

I think it would be easy to recognize diamagnetism vs Superconducting and thus these superconducter experts wouldn’t embarrass themselves outing such papers

lucubratory6• 3 years ago

I've already seen some videos/images from the lesbian Soviet hedge chemist and some other amateur/non-lab repro attempts showing that if it's diamagnetism, it's much, much stronger than pyrolitic graphite. At least 15x stronger. Diamagnetism also wouldn't explain the resistivity, critical temp, critical current, and critical field graphs.

I think the realistic options at this point are:

1. Complete fraud, including opportunistic fraud by some online accounts who are faking partial replications. 2. Real superconductor of some kind, the papers are all fucked up because of the early leak by Kwon and internal Nobel jostling drama, and the production process is difficult, but fundamentally this is the real deal, RTAPS, but with a critical current and critical field that's lower than we would like, possibly (it's unclear what the measurements for these actually are). 3. They discovered a new type of material which is a very strong diamagnet, and then decided to fake the rest of a superconductor's properties because superconductivity is much more prestigious than a new powerful diamagnet. Replication efforts are having limited success with diamagnetism because it is actually diamagnetic.

aqme288• 3 years ago

They claim that only a small part of that sample is superconducting, and that's why it shows that unusual behavior.

ssijak3• 3 years ago

This twitter handle contains some interesting back story investigation https://twitter.com/8teAPi

junon2• 3 years ago

Where? I just see bandwagoning from a shitpost account.

ssijak3• 3 years ago

start here then go to comments for branching out https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1685960703658860544

hobofan2• 3 years ago

interesting back story investigation

No! As stated in their reply to this, you should assume that everything that account writes is fiction.

They said that they were essentially trying to write a The Big Short-style screenplay in real time as the story unfolds. To do that, they link to actual newsworthy tweets and "fill it in with realistic stereotypes".

It's a shame that this account is one of the most responsive aggregators of new developments, as I find their real-time fictionalization incredibly irresponsible.

ly3xqhl8g9• 3 years ago

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.

[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

DrBazza• 3 years ago

I'm resigned to disappointment for this. It's the modern days Pons and Fleischmann.

Hopefully the lack of confirmation so far is due to people checking, double checking and triple checking, along with a healthy dose of "we don't want to be tarred with the same brush".

echelon2• 3 years ago

Reminds me of EmDrive. That was such a tease and then utter disappointment.

Hope LK-99 doesn't go the same way.

zarzavat2• 3 years ago

The similarities are only superficial. A reactionless drive would violate the most fundamental physical laws.

Whereas room temperature/pressure superconductors are not believed to violate any physical law. If you asked “Will we find such a material this century?”, the answer would be a solid maybe. Which end of the century, who knows.

It’s more like proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis. Most mathematicians believe that RH is probably true, or at least hope so, but any claimed proof is viewed with extreme suspicion merely because of the sheer number of false ones.

pushkine• 3 years ago

I've only seen one picture of an alleged successful replication yet: https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685731177523449856

Corrado• 3 years ago

Since Twitter is no longer allowing public access to posts, it would be better to not link to it. Or better yet, re-post the tweet somewhere else and link to that.

bhaak3• 3 years ago

They backpedaled on that and restricted it to single tweets.

So if not logged in you can see a single tweet now but no longer threads.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m• 3 years ago

This is a very different experiment.

Accujack7• 3 years ago

The author has acknowledged that one as a fake.

generalizations2• 3 years ago

Where? I haven't seen that in her twitter feed.

heliophobicdude• 3 years ago

I've been live following this thread:

https://twitter.com/iris_igb/status/1685731177523449856

andersa4• 3 years ago

This thread is super frustrating. The person posting it does not at all seem interested in actually demonstrating the effect works... how can you have such a sample and only post this one image which could easily be created by gluing a pebble to the glass? Where's the video of it in action!

I want this material to be real so badly.

Rzor• 3 years ago

We all do, andersa. We all do. I can feel the disappointment brewing. Deep down, I'm almost ready for the archetypal "measurement error".

asimpletune2• 3 years ago

To be fair a video could also be faked and they explain why they're not doing videos and that if you want a replication just wait for the big labs.

73737373733• 3 years ago

Agreed, if they are unwilling or unable to demonstrate it well, why even bother, why waste viewer's time and attention?

A bad/unconvincing/incomplete demonstration is indistinguishable from a scam

If they want to show and distribute the capital-T Truth, they need to take their ego out of the equation

yreg9• 3 years ago

I think it's an obvious fake, the account is trolling on multiple fronts.

asimpletune2• 3 years ago

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".

https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685731177523449856

fanick• 3 years ago

nitter link https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1685268812663271424#m

stainablesteel• 3 years ago

its always the people with an anime pfp that do the most godly shit

cubefox3• 3 years ago

Probably often people with autism.

drexlspivey• 3 years ago

there are some weapons grade anons with 30 followers

Workaccount22• 3 years ago

I think it's what happens when you just stack all of your character points in intelligence.

Smartest person I ever met is now some kind of non-binary fox person. An ivy league masters in math, does risk modeling for some mega insurance company, and lives in a kawaii fever dream while doing it.

spaceman_20202• 3 years ago

If you could magically erase all anime from the world, the global tech industry would come to a grinding halt :)

distortionfield4• 3 years ago

It’s a meme in cryptography too. Cutting edge cryptanalysis and furry profile pics go together like steak and red wine.

zamalek2• 3 years ago

If it's a diamagnetism it's a fucking strong one

That's a pretty good point.

supriyo-biswas• 3 years ago

Is there any reason to believe their results? While their reproduction could definitely be legitimate, there are no credentials or affiliations mentioned on their bio, except for “molecular biologist” which typically means a skill set more oriented towards organic chemistry (as opposed to inorganic chemistry, which this is about), and neither have they posted any hints as to what their methods are.

dmitrybrant5• 3 years ago

The "demonstration" is a photo of a single crumb of material inside a transparent pipette. It's claimed that the crumb is "levitating" inside the pipette, but what's stopping a random internet anon from gluing a crumb onto a pipette and taking a picture of it?

I don't know about you, but if I had just succeeded in replicating a literally history-making experiment, I would perhaps take a video of it, and demonstrate how the crumb actually behaves without the support of the pipette.

n2d44• 3 years ago

but what's stopping a random internet anon from gluing a crumb onto a pipette and taking a picture of it?

Nothing, just like nothing would stop a random internet anon from faking a video of the same thing. Even if that existed, it still wouldn't be sufficient evidence (especially given this is a different synthesis than the one in the paper), it would just be much more overblown.

Wait for lab reconstructions, or at the very least, this anon's writeup, instead of following a live twitter blog and then complaining that it's not conclusive.

I don't do videos of things I intend to be writing a text from. Ever. It's bad tone. I hate when it happens to me, and I don't want anyone to share this fate. I will put a GdPO4 bead and one of the good samples onto paper ships and film But it will be only After I will be sure I Got It, okay?

https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685930149739409408

floxy2• 3 years ago

People getting excited over an oreo cookie crumb in a pipette? Wait till someone puts the oreo cookie wafer on an air hockey table for a fun levitation video.

ThisIsMyAltFace2• 3 years ago

By their own admission, they've messed with the prep and synthesis stages mentioned in the paper:

https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1685774956330635264#m

Also, forgive me for taking this person's word with a massive grain of salt when they post stuff like this:

https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1686017042665582593#m

mempko• 3 years ago

Sure, but what is this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047663

WinstonSmith84• 3 years ago

huh lol ... Well she obviously has the time to tweet a lot of sh*t while being much faster than any other team on earth. She alone from the USSR must still be the primary (progressive) power worldwide ... who knows ...

ChemSpider2• 3 years ago

I am surprised that anyone still thinks this thing is legit. I mean, I wish it was true, but the publication, the approach and the infights in the team do not instill confidence.

To me, it seems they can not recreate the "effect" themselves. Otherwise they would be shipping their samples around the world by now.

wg02• 3 years ago

Don't really get this extreme sensitivity to downvote. I mean - it seems what it seems. May be it seems really promising and trustworthy to some, good for them.

That apart - it seems low hanging fruits in the nature are almost over. Scientific progress might not be as rapid and consistent as in past in coming decades especially when world seems to be heading towards multiple (avoidable) conflicts.

Hakkin• 3 years ago

I'm not necessarily saying I believe it's real, I'm still on the fence, but if anything, the in-fighting for credit from the researchers almost makes it more credible for me. Why would they be so desperate for credit if they knew their findings would be disproven in a week or two? It seems obvious they're vying for a Nobel Prize. So at the very least, I believe the researchers believe what they published is true.

Workaccount22• 3 years ago

Could well be experimental error, and they are fighting over a false positive result.

Eduard3• 3 years ago

then reading about the many failed attempts of creating the first transistor will give you hope.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor

Simon_O_Rourke2• 3 years ago

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.

m4632• 3 years ago

everyone loses... again rather quickly

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?

Simon_O_Rourke2• 3 years ago

that's the thing - if it is hard to manufacture and works maybe 1:10 tries, how can it lose quickly experimentally?

Simple, given enough (say > 3) fully accredited labs trying and failing to get a result with the published process, it's a fair conclusion to say that the results cannot be replicated.

asynchronous• 3 years ago

I love being excited about science and research again.

These are the kinds of things I truly enjoy seeing in HN.

nmwnmw• 3 years ago

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

bhouston5• 3 years ago

Yeah, having another lab confirm the behavior and makeup of that sample would go a long way. I wonder why that isn’t happening?

Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?

peyton2• 3 years ago

I mean they already characterized it six ways to Sunday and posted a video of it levitating.

bananapub3• 3 years ago

what are you talking about?

the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect, so every other solid state physics lab in the world is instead trying to follow the notional recipe and test their own sample.

moralestapia• 3 years ago

I wonder why that isn’t happening?

Because it's been ~10 days since it was announced in a preprint article.

The complexity and resources involved are much higher than "building websites with React", so, things happen on a different timescale.

buildsjets• 3 years ago

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.

Larrikin• 3 years ago

What does it matter if the sample is a room temperature super conductor?

nemo44x2• 3 years ago

Sure but if you had in your hands a superconductive material at room temperature and ambient pressure you’d be pretty amazed. That’s a lot of credibility right there.

idopmstuff2• 3 years ago

Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

caturopath• 3 years ago

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?

If you hand me a room temperature superconductor but your published recipe doesn't work for me, I'm about 95% as excited as I'd be if I had the right recipe.

bananapub3• 3 years ago

no one gives a shit at all about any of that if anyone shows up this week with a room temperature/pressure superconductor.

whoever eventually does it gets a nobel prize and the front cover of whatever journal they pick, and then a chapter in the history of the 21st century.

nemo44x2• 3 years ago

Do we know they haven’t? The published papers were rushed (due to rogue ex-team member publishing one unauthorized) and they maybe weren’t ready.

I’ve heard a rumor a team from MIT has travelled to Korea.

Who knows right now.

once_inc• 3 years ago

I've heard those rumours as well, and also heard rumours that a sample was sent to a Chinese group.

chaorace2• 3 years ago

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.

brucethemoose2• 3 years ago

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.

But what if the probability of synthesis failure is very high? This seems to be the case given then "1000 experiments" history of the original scientists. If they have a golden sample that is at least extremely paramagnetic, that would be huge.

And again... This is no ordinary claim. Everything in the procurement chain would be expedited. No sane lab would turn it down.

epivosism5• 3 years ago

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.

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.

bitcurious• 3 years ago

Validation is good for the original team, replication is good for the new team.

73737373733• 3 years ago

Agreed, why haven't hundreds of journalists with cameras lined up on the lab yet? Document everything, film and publicize the floating sample, film the entire production process, have a press conference etc.

Lewton2• 3 years ago

Allegedly, samples have already been sent out

jjk1667• 3 years ago

Validation proves that the material exists, it doesn't prove that the specified process creates the material. A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.

n2d44• 3 years ago

Why do you silently assume that samples aren't being shared around as we speak? CMTC of the University of Maryland stated that the authors are cooperating in regards to this https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684960318718406656

There's value in both validating existing samples and producing new ones.

yreg9• 3 years ago

little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.

I don't believe in the current alien thing, but how exactly would it be easier for a whistleblower to steal the actual wreckage out of some secret lab? Compared to giving a testimony?

progrus2• 3 years ago

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.

progrus2• 3 years ago

Importantly though, 1-d is all it needs to sound incredibly useful.

dspillett• 3 years ago

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.

andersa4• 3 years ago

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?

IX-1034• 3 years ago

Because knowing what something is tells you less about how to get there than the paper does?

You can see the exact chemical structure of the material and still have no idea how to create it. Especially for composite materials like these where the junction of dissimilar materials gives rise to the desired behavior.

Ajedi32• 3 years ago

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.

m00dy• 3 years ago

welcome to the new world...It is fast, efficient and very interesting...

bananapub3• 3 years ago

it's not fast or efficient - the authors appear to think they invented a very easy to make room temperature/pressure superconductor far over a year ago, and then announced it in a truly silly way with no clear data and no samples.

echelon2• 3 years ago

It's a lot like the EmDrive incident, except replication attempts are easier.

Both are strange discoveries that are poised to change the world as we know it.

Hopefully this one turns out, unlike the EmDrive.

BryanLegend• 3 years ago

EmDrive was supposed to work better with Superconductors!

throwawaymaths• 3 years ago

You might be excited about ivo quantum drive that is going to be tested in space, NET October

marcosdumay4• 3 years ago

The social event is similar. But the experiment is nothing alike.

The EmDrive was hard to replicate because it was a tiny reported signal in an ocean of noise.

adad95• 3 years ago

I already completed forgotten about EMDrive.

jimmySixDOF• 3 years ago

This is the best state of affairs sum up at the moment and my favorite plot line is the soil scientist.

https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1685960703658860544?s=19

m4632• 3 years ago

or the e-cat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

foobarian• 3 years ago

It may be unfair to compare to EmDrive; that was not possible under current physics frameworks, while there is no such obvious restriction for superconductors.

chaorace2• 3 years ago

The neat thing is that -- whether or not LK-99 is a hoax -- the public will have engaged with real scientists doing real science in a rather personal capacity. It's novel and interesting to be able to tune into the materials science equivalent of live-coding.

robterrell• 3 years ago

I was in college (and a physics major!) when cold fusion hit. Really similar vibe -- competing press conferences and publications, huge public excitement tempered by frowning disbelief from experts, a rush to replicate from many labs, with only occasional claims of success, all of which turned out to be errors. Still, I'm rooting for you, LK-99.

fernly• 3 years ago

Oh man yeah, so many dedicated amateurs building calorimeters and learning that calorimetry is hard as hell to do right... all talking over UseNet. Fun days.

m3kw94• 3 years ago

This some big leap type world changing stuff if it’s true. I wonder how gas prices would fall if this is true

syndicatedjelly• 3 years ago

I hope people work on something more interesting than making gas prices go down slightly

andersa4• 3 years ago

Gas powered vehicles would be obsolete.

chunkyslink• 3 years ago

Please can someone explain this to me ?

jerojero• 3 years ago

There is a lab in South Korea that claims to have discovered/developed superconductor that works at room (and higher) temperatures.

This kind of discovery would be worth a Nobel prize and would probably give us access to a whole range of new/improved technologies in the future.

All of this happened maybe 10 or so days ago, so other labs are trying to replicate the procedure to verify that the claims are legit, as I said, this would be a huge discovery so it has generated a lot of excitement everywhere in the world.

danbruc5• 3 years ago

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.

[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

andersa4• 3 years ago

That's highly suspicious. I guess they're banking on nobody having an enriched uranium 235 plate at hand to verify what happens if you do this without any LK99...

73737373733• 3 years ago

For me, this, and the combination with the name ("Quantum Energy Research Center") is another push in the direction of ignoring everything named "quantum"

too often quacksalver territory

Is this really their channel? Why do they only have 1 video, 8 subscribers, and why is the video unlisted?

bawolff2• 3 years ago

Its not like nobody has ever investigated the magnetic properties of uranium. You could just look it up.

godelski2• 3 years ago

Can someone explain why you'd use the 235 isotope? I know there are different magnetic properties but it still seems an odd choice to use something that is highly controlled, difficult to produce, and rather dangerous. It seems like there would be far better choices unless you absolutely need that mass or they very weak valance electrons.

And those videos being identical is also suspicious. [2] Uploaded 2 days ago, claims 235U substrate, is from @q-center, and created their youtube account in 2012. [3] is from @qcentre, uploaded 5 months ago, claims Cu substrate, and created their account in February. If it was the newer account posting the new video it would be easy to believe lost password or something but this reversing feels weird. It makes it feel like they changed the video description (but didn't edit the original to prevent history checking? But could have just uploaded a different video?) to combat the induced magnetic field as claim?

But it feels like it gets even worse. [3] (older) is a 4k video while [2] is 720p. Just hiding detail? The material looks neither like copper nor uranium ceramic (very distinctive orange color), but that can just be the material which is claimed to be thin film deposited and that's believable. Maybe they're hiding the sample identification etching on the front? I'm not sure what those mean and it's very possibly arbitrary. But adds a level of suspicion.

danbruc5• 3 years ago

I just assumed the uranium one is a joke created after this story started by some third party and made to look like the original one, so I also did not look any deeper. But the channel being created in 2012 then makes no sense. Someone just sitting on that channel name? Or can you rename a YouTube channel?

willis936• 3 years ago

"Their demonstration video" makes it sound like there is only one.

No smug takedowns of the video that made the rounds first:

https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n

The most people have been able to say is "it might be the most diamagnetic material anyone has ever seen by a remarkable amount".

KolenCh• 3 years ago

Off topic: any tool to have a quick summarization like this?

---

The blog post is about the discovery of a purported room-temperature-and-pressure (RTP) superconductor, labeled "LK-99". The discovery was announced in two papers published on arxiv.org on July 22, 2023. The first paper, which was short and seemed hastily written, had three authors: Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Young-Wan Kwon. The second paper was more detailed and had six authors, with Young-Wan Kwon being removed from the author list.

The LK-99 superconductor, originally synthesized in 1999, is claimed to have a critical temperature of 127°C, above the boiling point of water. The synthesis method is simple: finely grind and mix Lanarkite (Pb2(SO4)O) and Copper Phosphide (Cu3P) and bake it at 925°C in a vacuum chamber for a day.

The discovery has sparked a mix of skepticism and curiosity online. Young-Wan Kwon, the removed author from the first paper, crashed a science conference to talk about the discovery, adding to the intrigue.

The blog post also discusses the implications of a room-temperature superconductor, which could allow for things like an infinitely long power cable without loss, or a portable MRI scanner. It also provides a timeline of events and a list of ongoing replication efforts by various academic and private groups. The author emphasizes that scientific research is a gradual process, and the validity of the LK-99 superconductor is still being investigated.

babelfish• 3 years ago

ChatGPT

nicopappl• 3 years ago

The kagi universal summarizer has been pretty descent on my end. But I've only lightly tested it on two pages.

babypuncher• 3 years ago

So how long before NileRed takes a crack at it?

dsign• 3 years ago

My two-cents from my armchair spaceship: I thought we had solved quantum mechanics! If this material is real, why can't somebody run a computer code and calculate its theoretical conductivity/resistance? Did I suffer all that childhood trauma with wave functions to now, in my forties, have to learn it was all smoke and mirrors?

marcosdumay4• 3 years ago

Oh, Quantum mechanics is completely characterized. We have complete theoretical modeling of chemistry and most electric phenomenon.

But you just try solving the equations our models create.

A computer can certainly simulate this material, on the CS theoretical sense, where all computers are the same and time and memory are both infinite.

r0m4n0• 3 years ago

I’m just curious as a layman, why aren’t the paper authors helping in this race whatsoever? It seems a lot of folks are guessing on the recipe. I haven’t seen any communication from the LK from LK99. Seems like radio silence

Eduard3• 3 years ago

maybe NDA, maybe trade secret. commercialization is a valid reason not to be all too chatty

ncann• 3 years ago

They are, if you follow the threads they are apparently quite available through email and has responded to quite a number of people. Though probably not everyone, given the amount of email that they must be receiving right now.

psychphysic7• 3 years ago

If they have this unicorn superconducter. Then they have it next week, and next year.

And it's patented. There's no rush for them.

If they are faking, then there's still no rush.

code512• 3 years ago

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.

dkqmduems• 3 years ago

The brinkman paper is interesting, but the others are a bit too hand wavy.

drtgh2• 3 years ago

By the rumors that I read in forums,

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.

LargeTomato2• 3 years ago

They tried to submit a paper to Nature, but was rejected

This should be "were rejected" because "were" refers to "they". It cannot refer to the paper even though that would make sense. You could say "but it was rejected" to force the sentence to refer to the singular paper.

lucubratory6• 3 years ago

Important additional rumours I heard from a little birdie:

The Nature rejection was because of the Ranga Dias affair, and it wasn't an outright rejection but a requirement that the paper be submitted to a local journal and peer reviewed by local scientists before it would be considered.

Before Kwon joined the team at LG's alleged insistence, the reason that Lee and Kim had restarted research at all was because Choi Dong-Shik had summoned them to his deathbed, and his dying wish was that they prove his theory right; Lee and Kim judged that LK-99 was the best candidate for doing so. If true, that is objectively insane. Imagine if we actually get RTAPS because of an old professor's dying wish, like something out of a fairytale.

harhargange• 3 years ago

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.

code512• 3 years ago

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.

legi0nary• 3 years ago

Don't understand how a movie largely about the psychological horrors of developing and using a nuclear weapons is being construed to be "pro physics" lol. If anything it's the opposite

Freedom2• 3 years ago

Yeah, it sounds like GP hasn't even seen the movie, the themes conveyed are quite clear.

yreg9• 3 years ago

It's a movie about changing the world by calculating equations and understanding how they describe reality.

Of course it is empowering for STEM people.

stathibus• 3 years ago

One of the themes of the movie that gets repeated over and over is "these boneheads who draw equations on whiteboards but can't follow security rules are literally the most important people in the world."

oceanplexian• 3 years ago

I was massively let down by Oppenheimer.

It’s 90% interpersonal/political drama (Including a bunch of unnecessary nudity thrown in for dramatic effect), a few token scenes with Albert Einstein, a 10 minute detonation with decent SFX, and a small fraction of real physics and engineering. If you’re actually interested in the Manhattan Project you’ll be way more inspired by a history channel documentary than anything in that movie.

baby• 3 years ago

We thought Oppenheimer was the way to instill a love of physics to young people

The only person so far that I've seen publicly saying that is Sam Altman. Never crossed my mind that this could inspire people (albeit I haven't seen the movie). Same for the Turing movie, or the Hawking movie, none of them really made the work look that cool IMO.

Nevermark• 3 years ago

I don't know about cool.

But the movie demonstrated how science, and even individual scientists, can have enormous practical impact, shed light on reality, and raise moral questions of the highest order.

That level of impact inspired me to aim at a science career when I was a student, before I found other pursuits more inspiring to me personally.

dom96• 3 years ago

I feel like I am out of the loop on this one. But everything I am seeing makes me skeptical, can anyone explain why I should be excited about this being anything more than just a fake paper?

jiggawatts4• 3 years ago

Multiple authors instead of a single quack. Former leader (now sadly deceased) was a respected superconducting material researcher. They ran the essential tests, albeit not very well. They were at it for years in silence, and it was only after this current material's synthesis that they were tripping over each other to publish, with the apparent firm belief that they were onto a Nobel Prize level discovery. The theory they proposed -- while perhaps wrong -- also makes intuitive sense.

Cold fusion had many of those elements also, but the difference is that superconductivity is easier to verify.

Many people like the overall concept of using doped crystals to produce compressed or stretched lattices, which seem to be one of the enablers for superconductivity.

Compare with cold fusion, where there was no reasonable theory to explain how the palladium lattice would bring hydrogen nuclei close together.

FriedPickles• 3 years ago

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?

psychphysic7• 3 years ago

If they really believe they have the only sample they won't let it out of their sight most likely.

It'll be superconducting tomorrow if it's really superconducting today.

CoastalCoder• 3 years ago

Is that necessarily true?

I'm 200% not a physicist, but it is possible that during transit, minor bumps / temperature changes / ionizing radiation / oscillating E-M fields could screw up the material in a way that matters?

foven2• 3 years ago

Not necessarily true. Complex compounds can be susceptible to oxidisation and generally decay and degrade over time.

kurthr• 3 years ago

Apparently, they've offered samples to "serious experimental groups".

"Condensed Matter Theory Center (a Twitter account affiliated with University of Maryland) says they will send samples." - sanxiyn 2 days ago https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684960318718406656

yreg9• 3 years ago

That would mean it's insanely difficult to reproduce.

Vicinity9635• 3 years ago

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.

cthalupa2• 3 years ago

I'm on the "Probably a nothingburger" side of things but just getting confirmation that it is possible and some understanding of what the process involved is is a massive jump for science.

If it's actually superconducting we've got a wide variety of ways to inspect what LK99 actually is that will shed a whole lot of light on how to create more of it, or more of a similar superconductor. It'll be one of the most important scientific achievements in our lifetimes regardless of whether or not it can be replicated with the process in the paper.

jiggawatts4• 3 years ago

It's not looking good so far. This team reproduced several variants of the formula, and none of them behaved in an interesting way: https://nitter.sneed.network/altryne/status/1686029047053090...

raziel2701• 3 years ago

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.

fullstackchris• 3 years ago

gotta say, this is slowly looking like a giant nothing burger

namuol• 3 years ago

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?

addisonl• 3 years ago

This has been asked over and over again in this thread.

n2d44• 3 years ago

Apparently that's what they're doing: https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684960318718406656

Rebelgecko• 3 years ago

Odds for 2 (1) below have increased (decreased) exponentially

Can someone help me parse this? Is it referring to #2 or #1 in the quoted tweet? Have the odds increased or decreased?

carabiner2• 3 years ago

Argonne National Lab has synthesized LK-99 and is beginning analysis: https://twitter.com/BenShindel/status/1686115699779878912

Jorg Maser (PhD, Gottingen) at Argonne is working on it: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1686000150777614336

xvector• 3 years ago

Which companies are yall investing in?

overnight5349• 3 years ago

I love that this is happening realtime in the open. I can just about follow the science, and it's so incredibly exciting to watch this unfold live

LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

Related Stories