Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03544
80 comments
[deleted]
https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/1688727233521979392
NEW and IMPORTANT : Study performed at Lanzhou University heavily indicate that successful synthesis of the LK-99 superconductor requires annealing in an oxygen atmosphere. They are suggesting that the final synthesis occurs in an oxygen atmosphere rather than in vacuum.
The original three author LK99 paper and nearly every subsequent attempt at replication involved annealing in the suggested vacuum of 10^-3 torr.
This paper indicates that the superconductivity aspects of the material are greatly enhanced if heated in normal atmosphere.
Authors are Kun Tao, Rongrong Chen, Lei Yang, Jin Gao, Desheng Xue and Chenglong Jia, all from aforementioned Lanzhou University
Paper is available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03218
The original three author LK99 paper and nearly every subsequent attempt at replication involved annealing in the suggested vacuum of 10^-3 torr.
This paper indicates that the superconductivity aspects of the material are greatly enhanced if heated in normal atmosphere.
Authors are Kun Tao, Rongrong Chen, Lei Yang, Jin Gao, Desheng Xue and Chenglong Jia, all from aforementioned Lanzhou University
Paper is available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03218
This seems super interesting, waiting to see if this sparks another round of fabrication attempts!
Oh man, “fabrication” isn’t a word I’d use :)
I had to reread that a couple times before I realized you meant “make” and not “fake” (…right?)
I had to reread that a couple times before I realized you meant “make” and not “fake” (…right?)
"Fabricate" is a bit of a contronym really. Like oversight or sanction. Two meanings that are almost the opposite of each other.
One that got me recently was “resign”. I don’t know if it’s an American/UK thing or what, but I read a headline that said “Footballer Resigns” and it was about the player extending his contract, not quitting his job.
I would personally hyphenate that as “re-sign” if I were talking about signatures on contracts.
I would personally hyphenate that as “re-sign” if I were talking about signatures on contracts.
I would say the meaning is always the same, the difference is what was being fabricated. Fabricated material good, fabricated evidence bad.
It’s like halfway between a true contranym and just a change of the verb’s object.
Like, you could say that Victor Ninov fabricated Element 118 in 1999, and also say that Element 118 was fabricated by scientists in 2002.
Both true statements! But of course I made sure to word them that way. You’re much clearer by inserting “evidence” in your sentence, thus saying that it was the data that was created, not the thing.
Like, you could say that Victor Ninov fabricated Element 118 in 1999, and also say that Element 118 was fabricated by scientists in 2002.
Both true statements! But of course I made sure to word them that way. You’re much clearer by inserting “evidence” in your sentence, thus saying that it was the data that was created, not the thing.
yes poor choice of words - I am one of those who wants to believe! - definitely meant "make" :)
why would this be the case? (not a chemist, but was trained in physics)
According to the screenshot attached to the tweet, it seems that the material needs to have oxygen atoms in exactly the right locations, too, not just copper. Annealing in an oxygen-deprived environment might not be conducive to that.
The original two papers were inconsistent with respect to the vacuum required in the process. Perhaps they were working with crappy equipment that can't maintain a vacuum and accidentally annealed their sample in normal atmosphere, giving rise to unusual properties. Kinda explains why even the original authors don't have enough good samples.
The original two papers were inconsistent with respect to the vacuum required in the process. Perhaps they were working with crappy equipment that can't maintain a vacuum and accidentally annealed their sample in normal atmosphere, giving rise to unusual properties. Kinda explains why even the original authors don't have enough good samples.
Wasn't the original paper's sample a result from a broken vacuum tube? Correct me if I'm misremembering.
Asianometry recently released a video on the history of superconductors:
https://youtu.be/wUczYHyOhLM
The research field is apparently fraught with failures.
The video is a great primer on the subject and tones down all the hype when looking back at previous breakthroughs.
https://youtu.be/wUczYHyOhLM
The research field is apparently fraught with failures.
The video is a great primer on the subject and tones down all the hype when looking back at previous breakthroughs.
very detailed analysis of LK-99 https://twitter.com/TDebant/status/1688675638146727936
Thread for anyone not logged in:
https://nitter.net/TDebant/status/1688675638146727936
Saved you a click https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.02469.pdf
The linked formerly-known-as-Twitter thread is a survey and summary of DFT papers including that one.
Gotcha. Not clear these days that it's a thread.
Now I don’t know what to believe.
Why do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.
Conversely, why wouldn't someone believe something if there are no consequences to being wrong?
As you say, unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, nothing you believe really matters, so why not jump in with both feet?
As you say, unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, nothing you believe really matters, so why not jump in with both feet?
Because it leads to a habit of getting overly excited about every press release.
This begs the question; why "overly", why not just "excited"?
And then burning out when too many of them turn out to be nothing and deciding no progress ever gets made.
For some of us, being wrong is its own consequence.
Seems like a great way to paralyze oneself.
It can manifest like that, sure. It's not up to me, though. "Great ways" to do things are usually optional.
I mostly can work with it. It helps make me very good at certain tasks.
I mostly can work with it. It helps make me very good at certain tasks.
What’s funny is that you’re not actually executing as you describe, just that you think you are.
If you indeed waited for all relevant information, you’d never be able to make a choice. You, like every single other healthy human (some humans can’t do this) use emotion to decide when you’ve gathered enough information.
The only difference here is some are aware of this process and some aren’t.
If you indeed waited for all relevant information, you’d never be able to make a choice. You, like every single other healthy human (some humans can’t do this) use emotion to decide when you’ve gathered enough information.
The only difference here is some are aware of this process and some aren’t.
Eventually such a practice will bite you in the ass when you form an opinion on something you think doesn't matter, but actually turns out to matter.
This presumes all of your opinions are wrong, and further presumes you'd hold these beliefs strongly when information changes, which is the very definition of irrational.
So yeah, if you act irrationally, you will make bad decisions. But it's not irrational to believe something loosely based on a very limited set of facts.
So yeah, if you act irrationally, you will make bad decisions. But it's not irrational to believe something loosely based on a very limited set of facts.
Because the act of the believe doesn't affect reality. Either u have a robust way to make the right judgement of the progress (in the case u r at the forefront of the research and knows what they r talking about), or u r just a bystander.
In the later case, the is no point in overthinking
In the later case, the is no point in overthinking
Or you take what information you have at the time and you evaluate a situation based on just that, which is exactly how real life decisions work.
Rarely, exceedingly rarely even, do you have the luxury of waiting for all of the facts before deciding something.
Rarely, exceedingly rarely even, do you have the luxury of waiting for all of the facts before deciding something.
In this case that means you have the physics expertise to actually understand what's going on, which I already mentioned in the previous post. Not everything is accessible to layman, in this particular case the bar is very high.
My best answer is I don't know. If you are knowledge enough, go ahead
My best answer is I don't know. If you are knowledge enough, go ahead
Nope, no expertise necessary. What I do have an expertise in is risk management however, and the cost of being wrong here is effectively zero, so in cases like that there is no reason to act so cautiously, and in fact it's costly to have such a low tolerance for risk in a situation like this.
I'd say the cost being wrong depends on the people. For a lot of people being in the state of unknown is better than random guesses with 0 expertise. Not everyone like to flaunt their ignorance
Not sure why r u so insist that only your way is right. That's ur choice of course
Not sure why r u so insist that only your way is right. That's ur choice of course
The fear of being wrong is a crippling one that haunts ineffective people. Effective people don’t care, because they know they can update their beliefs when new information is introduced.
You’re talking about pride. Prideful people are not effective.
You’re talking about pride. Prideful people are not effective.
You're all forgetting that you can change your mind when new information becomes available, and you can express your belief in terms of certainty.
Yeah, with things like these, I prefer the watch something else option. It doesn't matter how many of these arxiv papers and dubious twitter videos I look at, I still won't know the answer until there's a scientific consensus. Until then, I see no point in investing any effort. I'm not a physicist. There's no way this information will materially affect my life in the next several years. And there's a pretty huge chance it will never affect my life at all(if it disappears).
It is fun to watch the absolute torrent of confirmation bias and people changing their minds all the time in the comments though. Must be exhausting to constantly wax and wane like that.
It is fun to watch the absolute torrent of confirmation bias and people changing their minds all the time in the comments though. Must be exhausting to constantly wax and wane like that.
Wait till tomorrow when there will be a new not peer reviewed paper stating the contrary.
[edit:grammar]
Sure, but you really think peer review would solve any of that? It would only make things move 1000x slower and be worse.
The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could.
Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.
The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could.
Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.
> with more statistical significance
You can't take a dozen lousy studies and put them together to get better statistical significance than a single well-designed study. If the methodology of a study is bad, the results have to be scrapped entirely, and peer review is supposed to be the process through which we filter out bad methodology.
Without peer review we don't know which studies to eliminate from our informal meta-analysis, which means we can't come to any conclusions about the data.
You can't take a dozen lousy studies and put them together to get better statistical significance than a single well-designed study. If the methodology of a study is bad, the results have to be scrapped entirely, and peer review is supposed to be the process through which we filter out bad methodology.
Without peer review we don't know which studies to eliminate from our informal meta-analysis, which means we can't come to any conclusions about the data.
Peer review _is_ a free market solution to the problem of incorrect research.
lol, and now it's not tomorrow, it's today
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37043447
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37043447
The original scientists said that only 10% of their synthesis attempts were successful.
So at this point no one should be believing anything until we have a lot more evidence.
So at this point no one should be believing anything until we have a lot more evidence.
Superposition of it's over / we are so back.
[deleted]
Patience. Just that. It will come out, either positive, or negative, but as long as it is inconclusive there is only patience. No need to get jubilant, no need to be jaded or 'cool'. Just wait.
You are believing and disbelieving something based on a title.
I think we'll eventually discover superconductivity isn't possible at STP
Well, except for the whole "research over the last decade or two has born superconductors that work at warmer and warmer temperatures" thing.
Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatures for things like medical imaging, because we're going to run out of helium completely in 100-200 years (and it will become wildly uneconomical well before then.)
Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatures for things like medical imaging, because we're going to run out of helium completely in 100-200 years (and it will become wildly uneconomical well before then.)
Look for Yttrium-Barium-Copper oxide that superconducts when cooled with liquid nitrogen. This is "cheap" cooling that will never run out.
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=superconductors#:~:te....
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=superconductors#:~:te....
It's half-truth, higher temperatures usually require high non-ambient pressure to achieve superconductivity.
[deleted]
tbf there are nitrogen-temperature superconductors already, they just aren't easy to produce or work with.
What part of physics is it that states this and how do you explain that 'room temperature' just happens to be the range that is related to us and our environment and not to anything particular in physics? Or is it that you suspect that there is an exclusive or relationship between the conditions that allow complex biological life to never have overlap with those that allow superconductivity?
I don't think they are talking about physics, but rather the law of "nothing ever happens".
There are a lot of existence proofs that something invariably does happen, just not always the thing that you were hoping for. And even those tend to work out in the long run. Remember the quest for the Laser.
I think you will be proven wrong.
There's no such thing as bad publicity; how about in science? If the original paper is proved wrong, how on earth could the original authors get any job and respect from their academic colleagues?
Anyone who is afraid to be wrong shouldn’t entertain the notion of becoming a scientist.
If it turns out they’re wrong, then they will likely do a follow up paper that explains what their mistakes were. No biggy. It’s just a couple of preprints, after all, and it’s widely believed that it was pushed out without all of the authors’ consent in the first place. It won’t leave them with lasting reputational damage from their peers, though it may place slightly more scrutiny on their outputs at a later point.
They may get ridicule from the people who took their paper at face value without noting the informality of the format, the incomplete studies performed on the sample, the almost-clear methodology etc. But those people aren’t scientists - all of the scientists who have discussed this have assumed from day one that it is likely an error, and perhaps toyed around in case their assumption is wrong.
To have reputational damage, they’d need to refuse to retract their work, refuse to elaborate further, claim they invented room temperature superconductors without sufficient proof, then attack anyone who questions them.
If it turns out they’re wrong, then they will likely do a follow up paper that explains what their mistakes were. No biggy. It’s just a couple of preprints, after all, and it’s widely believed that it was pushed out without all of the authors’ consent in the first place. It won’t leave them with lasting reputational damage from their peers, though it may place slightly more scrutiny on their outputs at a later point.
They may get ridicule from the people who took their paper at face value without noting the informality of the format, the incomplete studies performed on the sample, the almost-clear methodology etc. But those people aren’t scientists - all of the scientists who have discussed this have assumed from day one that it is likely an error, and perhaps toyed around in case their assumption is wrong.
To have reputational damage, they’d need to refuse to retract their work, refuse to elaborate further, claim they invented room temperature superconductors without sufficient proof, then attack anyone who questions them.
(To the other comment - yes, this being fraud would be an exception to the above. I am assuming it was done in good faith. If it turns out that it was intentionally designed to be misleading, then that changes things - and would be monumentally stupid of them, because publishing a method to a groundbreaking result on a preprint server is a sure-fire way of getting caught out)
If you click on the time stamp of your comment there is an 'edit' link there. (It should also be there in the thread.) It stays available for an hour or so and then it will disappear.
This is how science works. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes your 'wrongs' lead to the most amazing 'rights' (and not always by the same people) and sometimes they stay wrong. For example, Geoffrey Hinton was 'wrong' for years (though he didn't publish anything claiming he was right and had cracked something, but different field, but lots of people had already given up and he persisted) and look at him now.
Reputation matters, so don't commit fraud and don't try to trick others. That is the sort of thing you won't be recovering from. But being wrong is fine, even if you truly believe(d) that you are right. Note that this whole saga was not started on the timetable of the people that have the most at stake. I'm hoping they are right, I'm fearing they are wrong and if it turns out that they were wrong then I hope that they will not be dissuaded by that and that they and many others will continue the search. There are a lot of things that came out of materials science in the last two decades that we'd have never had if not for people searching for them. Not all of those searches will pan out, that's pretty much a given. Think of it as sifting for gold in a mountain of junk. For every piece of gold there are piles and piles of junk. And sometimes stuff that looks very much like gold, but ultimately isn't. That should not affect the reputation of the seekers. They are either going to try again, or maybe they'll give up. But what others think of them doesn't matter all that much.
Reputation matters, so don't commit fraud and don't try to trick others. That is the sort of thing you won't be recovering from. But being wrong is fine, even if you truly believe(d) that you are right. Note that this whole saga was not started on the timetable of the people that have the most at stake. I'm hoping they are right, I'm fearing they are wrong and if it turns out that they were wrong then I hope that they will not be dissuaded by that and that they and many others will continue the search. There are a lot of things that came out of materials science in the last two decades that we'd have never had if not for people searching for them. Not all of those searches will pan out, that's pretty much a given. Think of it as sifting for gold in a mountain of junk. For every piece of gold there are piles and piles of junk. And sometimes stuff that looks very much like gold, but ultimately isn't. That should not affect the reputation of the seekers. They are either going to try again, or maybe they'll give up. But what others think of them doesn't matter all that much.
There is no evidence that there has been a conspiracy to commit fraud.
And even if the research is incorrect LK99 is still going to be a useful addition to science.
Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and put down the pitchforks.
And even if the research is incorrect LK99 is still going to be a useful addition to science.
Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and put down the pitchforks.
Because "wrong" isn't binary. "Wrong" covers a whole host of things from fraud all the way up to "not a superconductor but really interesting".
I'm suspecting it's fraud. In a few months they'll come out and admit they fudged the numbers. I honestly hope not, room temperature superconductors solve a lot of problems, but we've been down this road before.
More likely, if it doesn’t pan out, they’ll come out and say “this is why we didn’t originally publish, because we weren’t confident in our work, but _somebody_ just had to go and disclose our (suspect) preliminary results. This behavior is also why we were happy that person had left the lab. Our work continues…”
still, one paper said it had near-zero resistance at 110K. Above the temperature of liquid nitrogen. so, uh... big if true
At this point, profit off the morons still clinging to the hype in the betting markets and move on.
I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
A bit harsh don’t you think?
LK-99 was plausibly a high T superconductor candidate, and high T superconductors are a real thing that exist. It is worth attempting to replicate.
Cold fusion says “all of thermodynamics is wrong”. A much bigger claim…
LK-99 was plausibly a high T superconductor candidate, and high T superconductors are a real thing that exist. It is worth attempting to replicate.
Cold fusion says “all of thermodynamics is wrong”. A much bigger claim…
This is the first time I've heard someone claim that cold fusion is flat-out impossible by the laws of thermodynamics, as opposed to just "very unlikely".
I’m not a cold fusion expert but my understanding of it is that it quite grossly violates the first law at least. If the first law is out, thermodynamics as we know it is wrong.
Muon catalyzed cold nuclear fusion is a thing. You're going to pour more energy into creating the muons than you get out though. It doesn't violate thermodynamics, you're just using some kind of catalytic process to get past the fairly massive energy barrier between getting those nuclei close together. You're still gaining net energy from the overall reaction itself. Catalytic reactions don't violate thermodynamics (unless that's really why there's so much catalytic converter theft because you can build perpetual motion machines out of them).
This one which finds substantial ferromagnetism and minimal diamagnetism is a far better reason to doubt that LK-99 is a superconductor:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110
Still very inconclusive because the synthesis is difficult and messy and nobody knows precisely what materials they're analyzing, but I've adjusted from cautious optimism to mostly resigned pessimism.