The papers were not ready for publication(twitter.com)
twitter.com
The papers were not ready for publication
https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248
149 comments
If it turned out to be that easy, it should already have been replicated.
Somebody claims to have done it. Complains the instructions from the paper suck. https://twitter.com/iris_igb/status/1685341730902577153
Here we are, two weeks later, and the bloom is off the rose. It's turned out as one should have expected, the product of sloppiness and gun jumping.
Seems reasonable that such a pressing tech gets a high reward. Say, $200M for each inventor, then humanity is set?
> then humanity is set
No. Whatever problems LK-99 might solve will be rapidly replaced by new, even more pressing, "problems."
No. Whatever problems LK-99 might solve will be rapidly replaced by new, even more pressing, "problems."
I think they meant: "then humanity is set... to benefit from the discovery." Just a guess.
That is exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.
EDIT: to the dead sibling comment: nope, not denying climate change. Was speaking in reference to giving the inventors enough incentive to give up the patent while the technology still being wildly beneficial to humanity, should it be proven useful.
EDIT: to the dead sibling comment: nope, not denying climate change. Was speaking in reference to giving the inventors enough incentive to give up the patent while the technology still being wildly beneficial to humanity, should it be proven useful.
10 million gives a person a nice home or two in most places people want to live, plus a six figure income for the rest of their life.
200 million is private jet money.
200 million is private jet money.
I’d very much prefer that approach the the current one.
I’d like to see important discoveries free from “IP” and patent encumbrances and instead of inventors (hopefully) getting paid based on market viability, getting paid based on the positive different it makes to the health of the world.
Just imagine the renaissance on fresh food, for example.
I’d like to see important discoveries free from “IP” and patent encumbrances and instead of inventors (hopefully) getting paid based on market viability, getting paid based on the positive different it makes to the health of the world.
Just imagine the renaissance on fresh food, for example.
What's the rush? If it's real we'll figure it out soon enough. If it takes days or weeks or even months, that will make little difference in the long run.
Whose $200M?
That’s the rub. I agree with you morally, and I think most people would agree that inventors of fundamental tech should be as well-compensated as founders who “merely” bring it to market. But were Einstein or Feynman wealthy, or Newton before them? Perhaps it’s the scientific fate to be at odds with capitalism.
On the other hand, no amount of money can immortalize you the way this type of discovery would.
That’s the rub. I agree with you morally, and I think most people would agree that inventors of fundamental tech should be as well-compensated as founders who “merely” bring it to market. But were Einstein or Feynman wealthy, or Newton before them? Perhaps it’s the scientific fate to be at odds with capitalism.
On the other hand, no amount of money can immortalize you the way this type of discovery would.
The inventors will absolutely be well compensated (assuming their work pans out). They will get a patent and either sell or license that patent. That patented will probably end up being held by a rent seaker, who will extract money from the entire globe for the next 20 years until the patent expires.
Given that, why not have a government spend a bunch of money to buy the rights, then release it to the public domain.
If I had to guess, the scientists would be willing to sell it into the public domain for less money then they would to a private company; however they probably would not be willing to donate it to the public domain when there is massive private money on the table.
Given all if this, the fact that there will likely not even be an offer for this by the government is a policy choice that we will be paying for for the next 20 years.
Given that, why not have a government spend a bunch of money to buy the rights, then release it to the public domain.
If I had to guess, the scientists would be willing to sell it into the public domain for less money then they would to a private company; however they probably would not be willing to donate it to the public domain when there is massive private money on the table.
Given all if this, the fact that there will likely not even be an offer for this by the government is a policy choice that we will be paying for for the next 20 years.
>The inventors will absolutely be well compensated
Who owns the patent? It wouldn't be out of the ordinary to assume the company they are working for owns it. Maybe they'll do OK, but I don't think it is a forgone conclusion that the discoverers/inventors will be suddenly wealthy.
Who owns the patent? It wouldn't be out of the ordinary to assume the company they are working for owns it. Maybe they'll do OK, but I don't think it is a forgone conclusion that the discoverers/inventors will be suddenly wealthy.
They have been granted the patent they requested in 2021 just recently in the US, FYI.
> Given that, why not have a government spend a bunch of money to buy the rights, then release it to the public domain.
I find your faith in governments, or naivete, quite disturbing. There is no such government that would do that. They'd be stupid doing it, too.
They'd just keep it and profit from it themselves.
I find your faith in governments, or naivete, quite disturbing. There is no such government that would do that. They'd be stupid doing it, too.
They'd just keep it and profit from it themselves.
Just spread some China fear mongering and the US Government will make that patent disappear.
I mean we crowdfunded a space sim to the tune of $550M. I’m sure we can find a way to crowdfund a few dozen million for these folks.
Newton at least became quite wealthy. Dunno about the others
Not having children helps a lot with that
Interesting! Do you know how?
Newton was a member of the British elite, he had income from Cambridge University, and he was first the Warden and later the Master of the Royal Mint. He was also experienced in investments.
Nevertheless, he also got sucked into the infamous South Sea mania of 1720, which was basically the monkey JPG of its day, and consequently he lost a great deal of his wealth.
“Newton's financial misadventures in the South Sea Bubble”: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.001...
Nevertheless, he also got sucked into the infamous South Sea mania of 1720, which was basically the monkey JPG of its day, and consequently he lost a great deal of his wealth.
“Newton's financial misadventures in the South Sea Bubble”: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.001...
Alfred Nobel's? :)
I really don't understand why this tweet implied that Lee and Kim are autistic, or that they needed to be "babysit" by a different professor. Seems weirdly hostile for no discernable reason.
Regardless, I don't think I'm going to be super hyped about the LK-99 story until we see some replication, which should hopefully happen within a couple days.
Regardless, I don't think I'm going to be super hyped about the LK-99 story until we see some replication, which should hopefully happen within a couple days.
“Autist” is a slang term of endearment for people who are weirdly obsessed about various things. It’s similar to “based”. It doesn’t mean anything other than they were not worldly businessmen and investors felt they needed an adult to watch them.
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard it used as a term of endearment so much as a way of describing someone as strange or atypical while purposefully distancing yourself from them. It’s not flattering, and it’s overtly marginalizing. I don’t take much offence from it, and I don’t find it remotely endearing either. I can’t speak for all people on the spectrum, but I doubt many actually like it.
In the "terminally online" communities I hang out in, it's a term of endearment since there's a pattern of obsessive people (like terminally online people) also being on the spectrum.
They aren't othering someone by calling them autists, they're calling them one of themselves by highlighting that they're behaving in a similar way.
They aren't othering someone by calling them autists, they're calling them one of themselves by highlighting that they're behaving in a similar way.
It's really just an english version of the word "otaku". In the past the word would be "nerd" but for whatever reason the word doesn't capture the same vibe anymore. I personally think its a praise in some circles.
“Otaku” in the literal Japanese definition, yes. However in terms of “Otaku subcultures” it doesn’t quite fit.
Powerleveling for a moment, but in my circles an “autist” is used positively, neutrally, and negatively. It can play a synonym to “obsessive”, or be used to criticize behavior. It naturally is also used for it’s actual definition. On the contrary “otaku” refers exclusively to those who are into Japanese media but who do not worship Japan, as those are always weeaboo.
Powerleveling for a moment, but in my circles an “autist” is used positively, neutrally, and negatively. It can play a synonym to “obsessive”, or be used to criticize behavior. It naturally is also used for it’s actual definition. On the contrary “otaku” refers exclusively to those who are into Japanese media but who do not worship Japan, as those are always weeaboo.
> On the contrary “otaku” refers exclusively to those who are into Japanese media but who do not worship Japan, as those are always weeaboo.
Huh? I thought people that are obsessed with trains can also be referred to as otakus so it is not exclusive to Japanese media.
Huh? I thought people that are obsessed with trains can also be referred to as otakus so it is not exclusive to Japanese media.
In Japan, by definition, an “otaku” is essentially someone who is obsessed with a specific subject and dedicates an overwhelming amount of time to it. For instance, a “train otaku” is someone who spends all their free time working on model trains, to the detriment of their responsibilities.
However, on the Japanese-speaking Internet (mainly 2ch), and to a lesser extent in English-speaking circles (4chan’s /a/), “Otaku” was co-opted from an insult to the tongue-in-cheek name of the subcultures surrounding anime, manga, video games, idols, and nowadays Vtubers. The dedicated “Otaku subculture” is essentially all forms Japanese media, but especially manga.
It’s best to think of it like the real world definition of autism compared to 4chan’s definition of autism.
However, on the Japanese-speaking Internet (mainly 2ch), and to a lesser extent in English-speaking circles (4chan’s /a/), “Otaku” was co-opted from an insult to the tongue-in-cheek name of the subcultures surrounding anime, manga, video games, idols, and nowadays Vtubers. The dedicated “Otaku subculture” is essentially all forms Japanese media, but especially manga.
It’s best to think of it like the real world definition of autism compared to 4chan’s definition of autism.
In Japan, sure. Outside of Japan an Otaku is someone who likes anime.
In financial / crypto trading subcultures it’s quite popular. I don’t control what becomes slang.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting slang based on a desire to think more positively? The whole tweet, er, x had a condescending tone to me.
As an active participant in the subculture from which the author is from, I assure you it was not remotely condescending.
Which subculture?
4chan
For the record, that's not it.
People calling each other "autists" is a WallStreetBets practice, from Reddit. It's not a thing on 4chan, not even on the interesting place that is /biz/.
4channers would use the "friend"-word as a neutral term (oldfriends, newfriends, etc), or less often "schizo" as an insult, but not autist.
Don't ask me why I'm taking the time to type all of this out, or who cares. Slow news day.
People calling each other "autists" is a WallStreetBets practice, from Reddit. It's not a thing on 4chan, not even on the interesting place that is /biz/.
4channers would use the "friend"-word as a neutral term (oldfriends, newfriends, etc), or less often "schizo" as an insult, but not autist.
Don't ask me why I'm taking the time to type all of this out, or who cares. Slow news day.
Aaaaaaactually lol
The first time I came across the use of “autist” as a semipejorative term of endearment was on IRC in the late 1990s warez scene, around the same time as the concept of neurodivergence was gaining traction.
I suspect the term has deeper roots than most people realize.
The first time I came across the use of “autist” as a semipejorative term of endearment was on IRC in the late 1990s warez scene, around the same time as the concept of neurodivergence was gaining traction.
I suspect the term has deeper roots than most people realize.
Ah, fair enough! I'm only trying to describe the state of things today, but certainly those uses of the word are not new
I remember it being used as a synonym for “obsessed perhaps a bit too much” even in the 90s, probably from the idea that if you had autism you would be amazingly brilliant in some tiny subsection of knowledge, like LEGO manufacturing differences.
I suppose that's how it is right now but memories run deeper and "friend" used to be a different word.
Here's a simple example from r/wallstreetbets: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/ihu7rh/auti...
I think any from these communities (4chan, crypto, etc.) already feel marginalized. So they probably don't care what people outside of their community think about their word usage.
I think any from these communities (4chan, crypto, etc.) already feel marginalized. So they probably don't care what people outside of their community think about their word usage.
If I can speak for the word "retard" - in reality it means "delayed" (i.e. fire/flame retardants) which I know comes from the French language verb "Retarder" (delay)(I never dug further to see if it has a latin origin when I was learning French).
On the example it's the typical - the "the early bird catches the worm".. meaning the first to get in the trade, makes the buck, the last one in is stuck with an overpriced stock/instrument which is about to deflate. So.. they got in too late.
The "retard" that (unwise & unkind) people use comes from "developmental retardation" (https://healthquery.net/developmental-retardation.html). And the rest is history...
On the example it's the typical - the "the early bird catches the worm".. meaning the first to get in the trade, makes the buck, the last one in is stuck with an overpriced stock/instrument which is about to deflate. So.. they got in too late.
The "retard" that (unwise & unkind) people use comes from "developmental retardation" (https://healthquery.net/developmental-retardation.html). And the rest is history...
This results in the apparent plane insulting the pilots: https://youtu.be/vmbzKsqKQoI
But it’s just telling them they can flare.
But it’s just telling them they can flare.
It gets used that way in the tech-adjacent community of twitter. It's a very particular culture. I think it's a way of sort of re-claiming the autism label from being atypical to being a 'superpower'ish thing.
It's really funny to see people attributing it to Twitter when it's 4 Chan slang from forever ago.
You attribute it to twitter so you don’t have to admit you know anything about the notorious hacker 4chins.
'Autism' when applied as a slur to everything and everyone has grown to mean 'talent.' It is very rare to see it referred to the actual medical condition these days.
Accurate on the behavioural description but pretty much an alternative to "nerd" and whether it's endearing or not depends on context. Agree it's not remotely hostile here.
Yeah, I think some people might find it offensive when it's actually used as an insult.
It's not really saying that they're actually autistic, it's saying that the a corporation was able to basically buy its researcher into their research & credit because they didn't navigate the academic system sufficiently to get tenure or respected positions a la a k-drama, possibly because they were more into their own work than networking and status. In a sarcastic/bitter/eye-rolly way.
Very well said
Autist =/= autistic. The latter is used to formally refer to anyone on the spectrum. The former is often used as a friendly or self-deprecating title.
It's sarcasm.
A few hours ago people found a Facebook post dated June, by some professor in Korea, where he posted a photo of a cold-call mass mail by the Quantum Energy Lab (the lab in question), claiming that they had discovered room-temperature superconductor and asking for a private meeting for demonstration. His verdict was that it was a total scam, because why would anyone with room-temperature superconductor be shopping for private meetings instead of submitting a paper to Nature and getting instant fame.
It doesn't prove that it's a scam, but it's not looking good, either.
Link (in Korean): https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=superconductor&no=6...
It doesn't prove that it's a scam, but it's not looking good, either.
Link (in Korean): https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=superconductor&no=6...
Here's a translation of the posts for those who don't speak Korean, apologies for any inaccuracies a native speaker could do a better job:
Question:
Do you have any thoughts on this video?
Nature, which I heard was reluctant to publish a paper about it, asked for the results to be published in another academic journal first.
Response:
I've never seen anything like this video. This is what happens when you put a copper-neodymium magnet next to it. Superconductors do not show this characteristic.
Copper does not stick to magnets. However, copper reacts when a magnet moves. This is because when the magnetic field applied to copper changes, eddy currents flow in copper to prevent the magnetic field from changing. This image shows a typical example of copper and a rapidly moving neodymium magnet.
As the representative of the academic community, I try not to express my opinion on room-temperature superconductivity until the verification by a professional institution is completed. But I was convinced after seeing this. If it is a superconductor with the Meissner effect, even if the neodymium magnet is pushed very slowly, the superconductor should be pushed out. If a permanent magnet is moved quickly in this way, a phenomenon occurs in which the copper disk is pushed or pulled by the eddy currents induced in the copper disk.
If there is a superconductor of this size, it can be verified by sending it to a professional institution and just measuring the electrical resistance.
How could these kids grown it to be so big? This is not something that can be picked up. There was also a century-old lie of this level in the last century. Room-temperature nuclear fusion.
There is a 0.0001% chance that I will be embarrassed, but if that is the case, I will apologize with a happy heart. What's going on?
---
Then there's some discussion about who the people who created the video are and the letters DOD appear but I have no idea if that means "Department of Defense" or some other acronym.
---
Someone posts sarcastically:
Hahaha, The era of room-temperature superconductivity has finally arrived! And it's not even in a high-pressure environment! Maybe my luck will change now?
But why at 127°C? Everyone else expresses critical temperature in absolute temperature, right? Why 127? Oh, I see, that's 400 K. It's not common for a material to have a critical temperature that's so precise and at a nice round number.
I received a document in the mail that was meant to be sent to a professor at Seoul National University. I guess they made a bunch of copies and mixed up the envelopes and documents.
I wonder if this professor, who is an honorary professor at Hanyang University, has ever even attended an international conference. If he presented these results at an international conference, it would be a huge success.
Superconductivity and energy...they use all the buzzwords.
---
They post a picture of the letter which says:
Dear Professor,
I am writing to inform you that the research you have been conducting has been successful. We have achieved room-temperature superconductivity, which is a major breakthrough in the field of energy.
I would like to thank you for your hard work and dedication to this project. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we could not have achieved this success without you.
I am confident that this breakthrough will have a significant impact on the world. It has the potential to revolutionize the way we generate and use energy, and it could lead to new applications in many other fields.
I would like to invite you to present your findings at an upcoming international conference. This would be an excellent opportunity to share your work with the world and to discuss the potential applications of room-temperature superconductivity.
Thank you again for your contributions to this project. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Kim Hyuntak
CEO, Energy Research Institute
Question:
Do you have any thoughts on this video?
Nature, which I heard was reluctant to publish a paper about it, asked for the results to be published in another academic journal first.
Response:
I've never seen anything like this video. This is what happens when you put a copper-neodymium magnet next to it. Superconductors do not show this characteristic.
Copper does not stick to magnets. However, copper reacts when a magnet moves. This is because when the magnetic field applied to copper changes, eddy currents flow in copper to prevent the magnetic field from changing. This image shows a typical example of copper and a rapidly moving neodymium magnet.
As the representative of the academic community, I try not to express my opinion on room-temperature superconductivity until the verification by a professional institution is completed. But I was convinced after seeing this. If it is a superconductor with the Meissner effect, even if the neodymium magnet is pushed very slowly, the superconductor should be pushed out. If a permanent magnet is moved quickly in this way, a phenomenon occurs in which the copper disk is pushed or pulled by the eddy currents induced in the copper disk.
If there is a superconductor of this size, it can be verified by sending it to a professional institution and just measuring the electrical resistance.
How could these kids grown it to be so big? This is not something that can be picked up. There was also a century-old lie of this level in the last century. Room-temperature nuclear fusion.
There is a 0.0001% chance that I will be embarrassed, but if that is the case, I will apologize with a happy heart. What's going on?
---
Then there's some discussion about who the people who created the video are and the letters DOD appear but I have no idea if that means "Department of Defense" or some other acronym.
---
Someone posts sarcastically:
Hahaha, The era of room-temperature superconductivity has finally arrived! And it's not even in a high-pressure environment! Maybe my luck will change now?
But why at 127°C? Everyone else expresses critical temperature in absolute temperature, right? Why 127? Oh, I see, that's 400 K. It's not common for a material to have a critical temperature that's so precise and at a nice round number.
I received a document in the mail that was meant to be sent to a professor at Seoul National University. I guess they made a bunch of copies and mixed up the envelopes and documents.
I wonder if this professor, who is an honorary professor at Hanyang University, has ever even attended an international conference. If he presented these results at an international conference, it would be a huge success.
Superconductivity and energy...they use all the buzzwords.
---
They post a picture of the letter which says:
Dear Professor,
I am writing to inform you that the research you have been conducting has been successful. We have achieved room-temperature superconductivity, which is a major breakthrough in the field of energy.
I would like to thank you for your hard work and dedication to this project. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we could not have achieved this success without you.
I am confident that this breakthrough will have a significant impact on the world. It has the potential to revolutionize the way we generate and use energy, and it could lead to new applications in many other fields.
I would like to invite you to present your findings at an upcoming international conference. This would be an excellent opportunity to share your work with the world and to discuss the potential applications of room-temperature superconductivity.
Thank you again for your contributions to this project. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Kim Hyuntak
CEO, Energy Research Institute
> Then there's some discussion about who the people who created the video are and the letters DOD appear but I have no idea if that means "Department of Defense" or some other acronym.
I don't think there's any mention of "DOD", it's just a screenshot of a low-quality discussion in yet another discussion board where people were asking "So who the fuck is this guy?" (i.e., the guy who's saying it's probably a scam).
* I probably should have mentioned that this site is roughly a Korean equivalent of 4chan and the discussions are generally low quality and filled with swears. But the screenshot of the Facebook post seems genuine.
I don't think there's any mention of "DOD", it's just a screenshot of a low-quality discussion in yet another discussion board where people were asking "So who the fuck is this guy?" (i.e., the guy who's saying it's probably a scam).
* I probably should have mentioned that this site is roughly a Korean equivalent of 4chan and the discussions are generally low quality and filled with swears. But the screenshot of the Facebook post seems genuine.
Probably because they tried submitting a paper to Nature and were rebuffed, but they’re still fully convinced they have something that works.
They may have been wanting to find someone to collaborate on the validation so they could get that Nature paper out.
They may have been wanting to find someone to collaborate on the validation so they could get that Nature paper out.
We got K-pop, K-drama, and now K-sci--with K-drama pan-chan. It's a little sad that people act this way, but hey, the public has made it VERY clear that they do NOT value dignity, they only value winning.
I think this kind of back-biting and drama is precisely why cultural norms around virtue, dignity, and respect are valuable. I suppose the alternative view is that this is all small beans, and the important thing is that a major discovery was made no matter how messily.
I think this kind of back-biting and drama is precisely why cultural norms around virtue, dignity, and respect are valuable. I suppose the alternative view is that this is all small beans, and the important thing is that a major discovery was made no matter how messily.
Your rando korea bashing reveals the nature of your neighboorhood upbringing and manners. Please stick to science facts re lk99 on this post.
Oh shit, you got me. Yeah, Korea sucks - it's basically just a peninsula with a nasty DMZ running through the middle, temperate rain-forests and mountains that are so 90's and lame. Did I mention the geology? Jesus, don't get me started. Not a subduction zone for a thousand miles in any direction! It's embarrassing. I'm not sure how you picked that up from my comment, but damn you're good.
Wondering what's happening with the room temperature/ambient pressure superconductor that's had 3x posts here on HN?
It's turning out to be a wild story regardless of the science... which still seems to be valid, although not publicly replicated yet.
I'll see if I can summarize the present situation: A couple of days ago, two papers were posted to arXiv (science publishing repository) describing a room temperature and ambient pressure superconductor created by a Korean team working at an institute in Korea. It looked promising (still does) and many people work on duplicating the results. Such a discovery would be the most important one in physics this century/Nobel prize material.
The papers had some oddities - a cut and paste error, different authors listed between the two, missing some data and neither one was peer reviewed. Nonetheless, the author scientists (some who are well known) stand by their discovery.
Today, how the papers were published with the above issues was discovered. One of the "authors" listed on one of the papers (YH Kwon) is the one who uploaded both papers (apparently without permission from the other authors, and maybe without being an author) to arXiv.
This person apparently is affiliated with one of the corporate sponsors (LG) of the work in Korea, and he came to the team as a condition of funding for the work. When the team decided to start to publish according to the process (they'd been working on this material for a couple of years, doing their scientific due diligence) about four weeks ago, they apparently decided not to give any credit to the industry person because he was just "there" because of funding. The industry person quit the team then, and left the organization.
The remaining team submitted their paper for peer review in a well known journal, where it's working through the process now.
The industry person went on to upload the two papers (one with edited author list) to arXiv, and apparently today gave a speech at an industry conference in Korea taking credit for the work. So, he's not happy with the team and he's apparently trying to take credit.
The rest of the team working on this material stands by their work and is waiting for the proper peer review process to complete on the paper they submitted to the scientific journal to be done, at which point they would (quite properly following the process) publish it.
So here we are, with one rogue scientist doing his best to claim credit for this discovery and bypassing all standard scientific publishing practices, with the non peer reviewed version of the team's paper and an edited/incorrect version of another paper sent out to the world before the original team could publish theirs.
The good news from all this is that all these people (including well known/respected scientists and professors) are behaving not like frauds but as if they've actually discovered what they say they have. This lends credence to the idea that this major discovery in physics and materials science is real and may change the world.
Attempts to replicate the material (called LK-99) are proceeding based on the "unready/leaked" papers and may or may not succeed. If they do not, it's likely when the peer reviewed version comes out that replication by at least one "real" scientific lab will already have been done prior to publication, and the peer reviewed version of the article will have more/more correct information to aid in duplicating the LK-99 material.
Regardless of what happens, this is an amazing story. The link I CCed above is to a Twitter post giving details on the above. There's now a Twitter list being compiled of all the people working on replication and reporting on the drama, see here: https://twitter.com/altryne/status/1685148163223719936
*Edit: Here's the actual list of LK-99 related Twitterers: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1684446795731206144
It's turning out to be a wild story regardless of the science... which still seems to be valid, although not publicly replicated yet.
I'll see if I can summarize the present situation: A couple of days ago, two papers were posted to arXiv (science publishing repository) describing a room temperature and ambient pressure superconductor created by a Korean team working at an institute in Korea. It looked promising (still does) and many people work on duplicating the results. Such a discovery would be the most important one in physics this century/Nobel prize material.
The papers had some oddities - a cut and paste error, different authors listed between the two, missing some data and neither one was peer reviewed. Nonetheless, the author scientists (some who are well known) stand by their discovery.
Today, how the papers were published with the above issues was discovered. One of the "authors" listed on one of the papers (YH Kwon) is the one who uploaded both papers (apparently without permission from the other authors, and maybe without being an author) to arXiv.
This person apparently is affiliated with one of the corporate sponsors (LG) of the work in Korea, and he came to the team as a condition of funding for the work. When the team decided to start to publish according to the process (they'd been working on this material for a couple of years, doing their scientific due diligence) about four weeks ago, they apparently decided not to give any credit to the industry person because he was just "there" because of funding. The industry person quit the team then, and left the organization.
The remaining team submitted their paper for peer review in a well known journal, where it's working through the process now.
The industry person went on to upload the two papers (one with edited author list) to arXiv, and apparently today gave a speech at an industry conference in Korea taking credit for the work. So, he's not happy with the team and he's apparently trying to take credit.
The rest of the team working on this material stands by their work and is waiting for the proper peer review process to complete on the paper they submitted to the scientific journal to be done, at which point they would (quite properly following the process) publish it.
So here we are, with one rogue scientist doing his best to claim credit for this discovery and bypassing all standard scientific publishing practices, with the non peer reviewed version of the team's paper and an edited/incorrect version of another paper sent out to the world before the original team could publish theirs.
The good news from all this is that all these people (including well known/respected scientists and professors) are behaving not like frauds but as if they've actually discovered what they say they have. This lends credence to the idea that this major discovery in physics and materials science is real and may change the world.
Attempts to replicate the material (called LK-99) are proceeding based on the "unready/leaked" papers and may or may not succeed. If they do not, it's likely when the peer reviewed version comes out that replication by at least one "real" scientific lab will already have been done prior to publication, and the peer reviewed version of the article will have more/more correct information to aid in duplicating the LK-99 material.
Regardless of what happens, this is an amazing story. The link I CCed above is to a Twitter post giving details on the above. There's now a Twitter list being compiled of all the people working on replication and reporting on the drama, see here: https://twitter.com/altryne/status/1685148163223719936
*Edit: Here's the actual list of LK-99 related Twitterers: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1684446795731206144
“Most important one in physics this century”: I’m hoping the room-temperature superconductor pans out, but even if it does, the century is young!
This time in the 20th century, relativity was “obviously” the most important discovery of the century, with the new theory of quantum mechanics right around the corner.
This time in the 20th century, relativity was “obviously” the most important discovery of the century, with the new theory of quantum mechanics right around the corner.
Just to clarify: ArXiv is a pre-print server. By definition anything uploaded there has not (yet) undergone peer review. Posting papers there before they're published in a journal (which can take many months) is standard practice, not "bypassing publishing practices" or a "leak" per se. In this case there seems to be something fishy going on, but the fact that the papers were made public in this way is not strange in itself.
I also hear that it's not uncommon for superconductivity groups to intentionally include "errors" in their early drafts to avoid competitors copying their work before they're ready to publish.
I also hear that it's not uncommon for superconductivity groups to intentionally include "errors" in their early drafts to avoid competitors copying their work before they're ready to publish.
I am following this story closely as well. I'd love for some technological breakthrough to leap us into the future. Unfortunately with this one it seems to be mixed. Someone here on HN posted this thread yesterday by a guy who's actually in Seoul: https://nitter.net/sanxiyn/status/1685094029116297216 And from this account it doesn't exactly look like a professional outfit that made this. But I'm still holding my breath until other labs attempt to replicate.
Yeah, that guy was linked in the Twitter list above.
The papers on arXiv are "crap" because they weren't ready for publication... the actual team's paper has been submitted for peer review to a respected journal and is being looked at/corrected/tested.
What got published was leaked, hence the poor quality work.
Check the twitter list for more info.
The papers on arXiv are "crap" because they weren't ready for publication... the actual team's paper has been submitted for peer review to a respected journal and is being looked at/corrected/tested.
What got published was leaked, hence the poor quality work.
Check the twitter list for more info.
Not sure how to take that "weren't ready for publication" thing. That kind of wording is not rare in fabrication cases.
Ah, I see, sorry for not checking ahead. Unfortunately it seems the link is blocked behind the auth wall and I would rather not make a new social media account, but that's good to hear that it's more legitimate than that thread would suggest, thanks for the info.
Change URL to use Nitter to view without logging in: https://nitter.net/i/lists/1684446795731206144
Which "respected journal" is it?
There is definitely a mix of evidence from the people side of the equation. Rank amateurism mixed with well credentialed researchers. Check out this vid from EEVBlog highlighting one of the worst “amateur hour” parts: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QHPFphlzwdQ (tldr is that the main website shows a vid waving a magnet in front of a copper disk coated in their new material. The copper plate moves around because of Lenz’s law! Nothing to do with superconducting)
Meanwhile, the very well credentialed HyunTak clearly believes it’s real, but he was parachuted in late in the development.
Personally, I think we will just have to wait the week to see if this is real.
Meanwhile, the very well credentialed HyunTak clearly believes it’s real, but he was parachuted in late in the development.
Personally, I think we will just have to wait the week to see if this is real.
I kinda wonder if that particular vid was posted by YH Kwon... it would have been posted while he was still involved in the group.
It's very obviously not a U-235 disc by the color, unless the LK-99 film changes that somehow? Plus, if it's supposed to be pure U-235, why use that? Weapons grade enriched fissile uranium used in demonstration of properties of a thermally deposited film?
That video makes no sense at all.
It's very obviously not a U-235 disc by the color, unless the LK-99 film changes that somehow? Plus, if it's supposed to be pure U-235, why use that? Weapons grade enriched fissile uranium used in demonstration of properties of a thermally deposited film?
That video makes no sense at all.
I've been waiting for someone to put together a summary of the authorship issue, this is great. Thank you!
All this drama greatly reduces the likelihood this will turn out well.
I was thinking the opposite — all the posturing, fighting for credit, all seem like they truly believe they have something.
Still believe the safe bet is this is spurious.
But it’s some drama that feels a lot more enjoyable and less consequential than most things in the news recently.
Still believe the safe bet is this is spurious.
But it’s some drama that feels a lot more enjoyable and less consequential than most things in the news recently.
I don't care about any of this drama.
I could be wrong but as I understand it the claim is that lanarkite and copper phosphide, when ground together at a 1:1 ratio, sealed under vacuum in a quartz tube, and heated to 925C, become a *room temperature superconductor*.
This claim is incredible and verifiable, so much so that it annoys me to hear any side chatter.
We should know "soon" (c.f. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/breaking-supercond...)
I could be wrong but as I understand it the claim is that lanarkite and copper phosphide, when ground together at a 1:1 ratio, sealed under vacuum in a quartz tube, and heated to 925C, become a *room temperature superconductor*.
This claim is incredible and verifiable, so much so that it annoys me to hear any side chatter.
We should know "soon" (c.f. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/breaking-supercond...)
I don't know anything about science but it sounds like from your comment that the best thing about this claim is that it's not smoke and mirrors. It either works or it doesn't and there are a set of instructions that shows how to do it.
Yup.
It either works or it doesn't. Unlike many other claims, this one doesn't require anything rare or super hard to do. The furnace, tubes, materials, could be bought for around $10k.
I'm only a hobbyist scientist. When I saw the pre-print my first thought was "if this works, why the f- haven't we noticed before!? Someone should have done this accidentally freshman year!"
The good news is we shouldn't have to wait long.
The bad news is that we have to wait at all.
It either works or it doesn't. Unlike many other claims, this one doesn't require anything rare or super hard to do. The furnace, tubes, materials, could be bought for around $10k.
I'm only a hobbyist scientist. When I saw the pre-print my first thought was "if this works, why the f- haven't we noticed before!? Someone should have done this accidentally freshman year!"
The good news is we shouldn't have to wait long.
The bad news is that we have to wait at all.
Very different than the six years it took before the mathematics community found a flaw in Mochizuki‘a abc conjecture proof.
Why? It has no impact on the validity of the results, and as others have mentioned, the fact scientists are engaging in drama arguably makes it more likely they believe in the results. The drama is about receiving credit for the work, not rushing fraudulent results.
It makes it less likely this was the result of careful scientific work. It increases the likelihood there was a screwup somewhere. The more outrageous a result, the more likely that was anyway.
The drama does give it kind of a cold fusion vibe. But the motivation of the "industry guy" is pretty text book. If you wanted to scam your way into a Nobel Prize this might be a way to do it right? Still I don't think the Nobel committee would buy it but who knows right?
Going to be really an interesting August and even if it doesn't pan out to be "superconducting" the theory is one that leads to more structural investigations into crystal structures that "might".
Going to be really an interesting August and even if it doesn't pan out to be "superconducting" the theory is one that leads to more structural investigations into crystal structures that "might".
The Nobel Prize committee would do nothing unless this was well confirmed. There is no "scamming them".
They're not talking about scamming them based on false research; we're talking about making a play to be recognized as an author/inventor when you didn't deserve it.
It's not going to work here, but similar efforts have confused attribution in the past.
It's not going to work here, but similar efforts have confused attribution in the past.
This reminds me an amazing piece of documentary[1] I've watched a couple months prior about a man who tried to "scam his way onto a Nobel prize". It really goes into showing how the majority of the system is based on trust and reputation and without well skepticism fraudsters can thrive.
[1]: "The man who almost faked his way to a Nobel Prize" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64&list=PLAB-wWbHL7...
[1]: "The man who almost faked his way to a Nobel Prize" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64&list=PLAB-wWbHL7...
I don't know, it has been happening for years in economics.
Some prize categories are more readily scammed than others.
(Though I'm not aware of any poorly-supported hard-science Nobels to date.)
(Though I'm not aware of any poorly-supported hard-science Nobels to date.)
Might want to ask Rosalind Franklin about that (you’ll need a ouija board).
There are countless examples of people who clearly deserved to win or share a Nobel but were overlooked by the committee. But can anyone think of a hard-science laureate who arguably should not have won?
Note the "hard science" qualification -- obviously the Peace and Literature prizes have a controversial history, but disregard those for the moment.
Note the "hard science" qualification -- obviously the Peace and Literature prizes have a controversial history, but disregard those for the moment.
I mean, the most obvious would be António Egas Moniz. His discovery that got him the Nobel for Medicine both didn't work and caused so much preventable illness, injury, and death that it is actually banned in many countries.
For those who don't know: lobotomy
I can think of a few in the Sveriges Riksbank Prize category.
Most recently, Nordhaus, whose work on which the award was based is an absolute travesty.
As with the Peace Prize, the nominations and selection are strongly political.
Most recently, Nordhaus, whose work on which the award was based is an absolute travesty.
As with the Peace Prize, the nominations and selection are strongly political.
What pray tell are your objections to the economic theory behind the DICE models?
See Steve Keen, e.g.: <https://evonomics.com/steve-keen-nordhaus-climate-change-eco...>
Bad maths modeling, insipid correlative relation, ignoring of tipping points, etc., etc.
Bad maths modeling, insipid correlative relation, ignoring of tipping points, etc., etc.
So a 4-degree temperature rise will wipe out 100% of world GDP, using Keen's math? It's hard to see how his modeling is any better than the work he's criticizing.
The question was "pray tell are your objections to the economic theory behind the DICE models?" Which Keen's essay addresses.
Addressing the shifted goalposts in your "by Keen's math" follow-up: if you're referring to the "rational function" introduced before the fourth-to-last paragraph, note what the context is:
A model that only applies in conditions where it is not needed, when you don’t have an alternative when it is needed, is worse than useless. ... This can easily be illustrated by replacing Nordhaus’s quadratic with a very similar one that does have tipping points.
And Keen specifically chooses a tipping point of +4°C, based on the paper Nordhaus himself cites and Nordhaus's admission that business as usual (BAU) would lead to a +4°C temperature rise by 2100.
The equation also fits observed data.
The point isn't to demonstrate that this is the correct equation, but to show that on the same basis as Nordhaus used to choose his own modeling function, very different results can be demonstrated.
Which Keen makes more than abundantly clear:
Contrary to Nordhaus’s assertion that caution is needed “when using [his model] for large temperature increases”, his model is unreliable for temperatures that are well within the levels on which he has made pronouncements about what global warming will do to GDP.
Addressing the shifted goalposts in your "by Keen's math" follow-up: if you're referring to the "rational function" introduced before the fourth-to-last paragraph, note what the context is:
A model that only applies in conditions where it is not needed, when you don’t have an alternative when it is needed, is worse than useless. ... This can easily be illustrated by replacing Nordhaus’s quadratic with a very similar one that does have tipping points.
And Keen specifically chooses a tipping point of +4°C, based on the paper Nordhaus himself cites and Nordhaus's admission that business as usual (BAU) would lead to a +4°C temperature rise by 2100.
The equation also fits observed data.
The point isn't to demonstrate that this is the correct equation, but to show that on the same basis as Nordhaus used to choose his own modeling function, very different results can be demonstrated.
Which Keen makes more than abundantly clear:
Contrary to Nordhaus’s assertion that caution is needed “when using [his model] for large temperature increases”, his model is unreliable for temperatures that are well within the levels on which he has made pronouncements about what global warming will do to GDP.
No further response?
Honestly, I'm not all that interested in it, and am certainly unqualified to suggest improvements to the model. I'd have to go back and read the article more carefully, along with probably a bunch of other material as well, to evaluate it properly. Seems like one of those scenarios where if you torture the data enough it will tell you whatever you want to hear.
It just struck me that both the red and blue traces in the last graph he presents, where he arbitrarily(?) adds another term to the math, are so ridiculous as to not be worth further consideration. If there's a more subtle point, like I said, I'd need to re-read to find it. Either that, or the author needs to bring his lede up front and center. Demonstrating that one bit of math is bad by making up another equally bad one doesn't carry the point as effectively as he was probably hoping it would.
It just struck me that both the red and blue traces in the last graph he presents, where he arbitrarily(?) adds another term to the math, are so ridiculous as to not be worth further consideration. If there's a more subtle point, like I said, I'd need to re-read to find it. Either that, or the author needs to bring his lede up front and center. Demonstrating that one bit of math is bad by making up another equally bad one doesn't carry the point as effectively as he was probably hoping it would.
Nobels are not awarded posthumously.
I'm sure that's the only reason.
I have a friend that worked for years at CSH.
Watson is an ... interesting ... chap.
Good at bringing in the money, though.
It's amazing how we can be quite forgiving of people that make money. Maybe there's an [ig] Nobel prize for me, if I can figure out why.
I have a friend that worked for years at CSH.
Watson is an ... interesting ... chap.
Good at bringing in the money, though.
It's amazing how we can be quite forgiving of people that make money. Maybe there's an [ig] Nobel prize for me, if I can figure out why.
Rather than skirting around the issue with vague insinuations, how about if you commit to a specific reason why the Nobel Committee would violate its proscription on posthumous awards, in this specific case?
Nah, I'm fine with the vague insinuations.
Have a great day!
Have a great day!
Obviously the drama isn’t great. One thing that piqued by interest from this story though is that after the initial paper was shoved out the door to arxiv, you had this other guy HyunTak who didn’t think the paper was ready and who is apparently well known. He apparently then thinks it’s worth it to push his own version out presumably so his name is attached to the work. Perhaps it’s good sign that he appears to be that motivated to have is name tied to this? I may be grasping at straws because I want this to be the real deal…
Haha I have that bias too but CRISPR had insane drama.
Super interested in what's going to happen with this but I had to mute that account. Feels like they're just engagement farming and making wild guesses from outside.
Came to the exact same conclusion. Who is this person and where are their sources?
If they had a working(-ish) room temperature and pressure superconductor in 1999 and, for 20 fricken years, were unable to get it out the door due to how the scientific community and publications work… the scientific community needs an overhaul.
(To be fair, this feels like a problem specific to the scientific community in Korea.)
(To be fair, this feels like a problem specific to the scientific community in Korea.)
If they had a RTAP superconductor in 1999. Industry would have bypassed the scientific community by now
In all seriousness and not sarcasm, using any kind of link to twitter seems like a really bad idea for persistence.
Based on the tweet it sounds like the problem stems from Nobel Prize only allowing a maximum of 3 names on a paper.
Here's the issue with copper and the Meissner effect and claims in this paper:
- 50% copper phosphide in the material. - Lenz's law effect on copper content (e.g. trojan horse situation.."lets use copper because this will make the demos easy"). - No clear demonstration of the Meissner effect.
Link to eevblog and replicating the v silly video on the landing page of the institute (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHPFphlzwdQ). There are other problems but this screams of professional fakery but fakery indeed.
- 50% copper phosphide in the material. - Lenz's law effect on copper content (e.g. trojan horse situation.."lets use copper because this will make the demos easy"). - No clear demonstration of the Meissner effect.
Link to eevblog and replicating the v silly video on the landing page of the institute (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHPFphlzwdQ). There are other problems but this screams of professional fakery but fakery indeed.
Reminds me of the CRISPR "war" between groups of scientists who tried to patent is llt as their own.
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-battle-lines-ove...
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-battle-lines-ove...
Here is a more detailed link about the replication claim.
https://nitter.net/iris_igb/status/1685341730902577153#m
https://nitter.net/iris_igb/status/1685341730902577153#m
I think everyone should just stfu and do experiments. Let the law of physics to decide who is the winner. All these side stories are irrelevant nonsense trash.
What exactly are the interesting use cases & practical applications of room temperature superconductors?
just from the top of my head:
- transport electricity from anywhere without losses - handheld tomography devices - super powerful small/light electric motors - light electric motors means: electric planes - cheap maglev trains - rail guns - possibly faster computer chips using josephson junctions
- transport electricity from anywhere without losses - handheld tomography devices - super powerful small/light electric motors - light electric motors means: electric planes - cheap maglev trains - rail guns - possibly faster computer chips using josephson junctions
> super powerful small/light electric motors - light electric motors means: electric planes
I would be extremely sceptical that this would help electric planes all that much. Current brushless motors aren't really all that heavy for their kW output and already boast 90% efficiency at optimal load and RPM, which on a plane will be for the majority of the cruise.
So maybe you can reduce the plane mass by a few percent, give it a bit more efficiency, but it doesn't change the fact that kerosene has 100x more energy density per kg than lithium ion. Electric drivetrains are already god tier in terms of power and efficiency, they just need an energy source that doesn't completely suck.
Every doctor's office having an MRI and terahertz processors that use next to no power will be very cool though, if this all pans out.
I would be extremely sceptical that this would help electric planes all that much. Current brushless motors aren't really all that heavy for their kW output and already boast 90% efficiency at optimal load and RPM, which on a plane will be for the majority of the cruise.
So maybe you can reduce the plane mass by a few percent, give it a bit more efficiency, but it doesn't change the fact that kerosene has 100x more energy density per kg than lithium ion. Electric drivetrains are already god tier in terms of power and efficiency, they just need an energy source that doesn't completely suck.
Every doctor's office having an MRI and terahertz processors that use next to no power will be very cool though, if this all pans out.
>I would be extremely sceptical that this would help electric planes all that much. Current brushless motors aren't really all that heavy for their kW output and already boast 90% efficiency at optimal load and RPM, which on a plane will be for the majority of the cruise.
The highest power brushless motors listed on Amazon are about 8kW (motorcycle hub motors). Superconductors could make possible a motor of the same size with approximately a 50kW output. The weight savings would be considerable.
Read this paper for more info - the paper also has a picture of a 5 MW high temperature (liquid nitrogen) superconducting motor, which is about the size of a car, and being tested for potential use in propelling large ships.
https://utw10356.utweb.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/Superc...
The highest power brushless motors listed on Amazon are about 8kW (motorcycle hub motors). Superconductors could make possible a motor of the same size with approximately a 50kW output. The weight savings would be considerable.
Read this paper for more info - the paper also has a picture of a 5 MW high temperature (liquid nitrogen) superconducting motor, which is about the size of a car, and being tested for potential use in propelling large ships.
https://utw10356.utweb.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/Superc...
Lol, listed on Amazon. Look up some proper electric airplanes, e.g. https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/products/velis-electro
A 60kW motor in a tiny package. A single Tesla plaid motor can do a third of a megawatt. It's very doable without superconductors.
A 60kW motor in a tiny package. A single Tesla plaid motor can do a third of a megawatt. It's very doable without superconductors.
Another one: Lossless storage of energy.
How does this impact storage? Conduction (as in the superconducting) is charge flow, storage is generally static charge. Is this some sort of new storage system which somehow has a benefit by constantly moving charge? But wouldn't this generate losses due to the magnetic field interactions?
The fields do not interact in that way. When you move a normal electromagnet through a magnetic field, the electromagnet's field is affected because the the other magnet induces a current in the conductor. Possibly a counter-current, lessening the total magnetic field of the electromagnet.
That kind of induction doesn't happen in a superconductor. That's the Meissner effect - a superconductor rejects the induction of currents by exterior magnetic fields. I don't really understand the physics but, I think, the zero resistance is a property of a state of matter able to transfer electrons without electrons actually being involved. It's immune to normal electromagnetic effects.
Practically speaking, when you charge up an inductor made out of a superconductor, and then connect the two ends together -- the current cycles endlessly and the coil holds the magnetic field. It behaves like a permanent magnet you can turn on and off.
If you were to then apply a load to the terminals and break the loop, the energy held in the magnetic field will flow back out of the inductor as electricity.
It's already a thing, practically. Such systems have been built to load balance spiky transmission lines, etc. They fit into a unique niche somewhere between capacitors and batteries in trade-offs.
That kind of induction doesn't happen in a superconductor. That's the Meissner effect - a superconductor rejects the induction of currents by exterior magnetic fields. I don't really understand the physics but, I think, the zero resistance is a property of a state of matter able to transfer electrons without electrons actually being involved. It's immune to normal electromagnetic effects.
Practically speaking, when you charge up an inductor made out of a superconductor, and then connect the two ends together -- the current cycles endlessly and the coil holds the magnetic field. It behaves like a permanent magnet you can turn on and off.
If you were to then apply a load to the terminals and break the loop, the energy held in the magnetic field will flow back out of the inductor as electricity.
It's already a thing, practically. Such systems have been built to load balance spiky transmission lines, etc. They fit into a unique niche somewhere between capacitors and batteries in trade-offs.
So you've not explained how this can be used as storage. Just because the conduction is free does not mean that the field interactions don't induce a load...
There is no induction, so there is no load.
Consider: why does a permanent magnet stay magnetized even in a changing magnetic field? Why do two permanent magnets stay magnetized when you bring them together and apart again?
When you move through the magnetic field of a permanent magnet, no energy is drawn out from the permanent magnet. All of the work occurred externally. It's the same with an energized superconducting electromagnet. Its field will not be "stripped away" by interacting with magnetic objects. The flux might be reduced if you brought an opposing magnetic flux near it -- but it would be increased again when you moved it back away. Net zero work.
Consider: why does a permanent magnet stay magnetized even in a changing magnetic field? Why do two permanent magnets stay magnetized when you bring them together and apart again?
When you move through the magnetic field of a permanent magnet, no energy is drawn out from the permanent magnet. All of the work occurred externally. It's the same with an energized superconducting electromagnet. Its field will not be "stripped away" by interacting with magnetic objects. The flux might be reduced if you brought an opposing magnetic flux near it -- but it would be increased again when you moved it back away. Net zero work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energ...
..but SMES has low energy density (but high power density).
..but SMES has low energy density (but high power density).
This was great. Thanks.
I was excited initially, but now I would place the probability that this is true at under 1%. If you build a working room temperature superconductor in 2021 and have a patent ready in March 2023, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would not have dozens of samples to share by now. Everyone is focusing on replication but we haven't even independently validated their claim yet.
Paywalled.
Korean LK-99 Ambient Temperature Superconductor BUSTED! by EEvBlog - https://youtu.be/QHPFphlzwdQ
I love EEVBlog but I wish he'd stop making videos on topics outside his area of expertise for views
He's excellent at electronic engineering but he's not a physicist
He's excellent at electronic engineering but he's not a physicist
He just pointed out that their demonstration video can be easily explained without any superconduction. I don't see why you need to be a professional physicist for that.
Do you also need to be a physicist to point out that their "levitating" sample is in fact still touching the magnet?
Or that the "0 resistance" is actually 1000x more resistive than copper.
Do you also need to be a physicist to point out that their "levitating" sample is in fact still touching the magnet?
Or that the "0 resistance" is actually 1000x more resistive than copper.
It's pretty great for humanity if it turns out to be real and relatively simple to produce.