"Accomplished by a team at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology and posted 30 minutes ago.
Why this is evidence: The LK-99 flake slightly levitates for both orientations of the magnetic field, meaning it is not simply a magnetized piece of iron or similar ‘magnetic material’. A simple magnetic flake would be attracted to one polarity of the strong magnet, and repelled by the other. A diamagnet would be repelled under either orientation, since it resists and expels all fields regardless of the polarity.
Caveats There is no way to verify the orientation of the strong magnet in this video, also, there are yet to be published experimental measured values of this sample. Diamagnetism is a property of superconductors but without measured and verified data, this is just suggestive of a result.
Take-away If this synthesis was indeed successful, then this material is easy enough to be made by labs other than the original research team. I would watch carefully for results out of Argonne National Lab, who are reported to be working on their own synthesis of a sample.
This overall corroborates two independent simulation studies that investigated the original Korean authors claim about material and crystal structure, and both studies supported the claims.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf Shenyang National Lab: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16040.pdf "
Considering the two studies which claim that no effect was observed, I believe the original authors observed the effect but they don’t fully understand the origin.
The original paper is so naively unprofessional in some places that it is really hard for me to think it is not genuine.
My first reaction to this comment was “yeah, but the quality of the paper has nothing to do with whether or not it is true”.
On second thought, I’m not sure about that. I mean, a low quality paper isn’t a good signal, but on the other hand, the presentation of an argument doesn’t change whether or not it’s true.
At least we know there are other labs trying to replicate, we already have rumors of some replications.
My point was that if they would be trying to forge the results, they would likely write a better paper. Like, I have never seen nor would I use a phrase like:
Humankind has long learned that the properties of matter stem from its structure.
or
It is the superconductor with the same color as typical superconductors.
in the results section. It just reads like a student report.
So while it does not prove whether it is correct or not, it, at least in my understanding, indicates that it is genuine. The explanation might be off, the important step of the synthesis might include adding a teaspoon of luck, but the observations/measurements part I believe. Which is what I meant by the comment.
You’re kind of discounting the concept of credibility. People make all sorts of wild claims—far too many to actually test them—so it’s necessary to weed out claims that aren’t credible by looking at things like how well the claims are presented. A new theory in physics will be ignored if it’s written in crayon in scraps of trash, as it should be.
Obviously the recent claims about superconductivity are a lot more credible than that, and a bunch of researchers around the world have decided their claims are worth testing, but there’s nothing wrong with tempering your optimism in response to a paper that seems a bit dodgy. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that researchers who can’t get their shit together enough to release a paper without drama might also have trouble getting their shit together enough to conduct research without making critical mistakes.
Why can’t an independent researcher just go over to the lab of the original authors with a magnet and some equipment, to verify the measurements on their sample? Why are we forced to squint at blurry Bilibili videos?
They could…but they’d still have to verify the entire process was independently reproducible anyway.
“There exists one sample of a material that is a room temperature superconductor” would be a statement worthverifying, regardless of any details about how the fabrication was done or even what the material is made of. The replication would be the experiments. The cageiness about showing off samples, when they already put the preprints out there, is baffling.
Sure, but that isn’t the scientific process. Typically a first team publishes what they did and the result they obtained, then others will try to replicate and improve on those results.
What you describe is interesting, but more of a closed/proprietary approach. A team says they have something and invite others to take a look, and then the second team will need to make sure they aren’t being bamboozled somehow. But until the second team can actually recreate the entire situation, it isn’t very useful to them. They just get to be onlookers, and will remain sceptical that there is some bamboozling being done.
Why should they? If they can reproduce LK-99, this is no longer necessary. If the case was that no-one could replicate it, but the original lab still insists, then such an investigation might make sense, either to verify them, or to find further information.
Replicating an experiment is not always easy, because it can always be that the original publisher did not provide all information. That could be on purpose, or just by accident, because there is e.g. something they don’t know. Like in one case where a lab had some interesting results, and in the end it turned out that one of the ingredients were of insufficient purity.
Well, what if they’ve painted up some other room temperature superconductor to look like LK-99? Recreating it from scratch avoids that.
some other room temperature superconductor
A what, now? I hope you’re being sarcastic.
You know, just an off the shelf room temperature superconductor that they’ve claimed to synthesize themselves
This is quite a counterclaim over that group who published that they could not replicate the effect. Lets see what happens next.
Still don’t know what a LK-99 is.
It’s an alleged superconducting material that will work at room temperature.
