Recent W&M Condensed Matter Physics Grad. Worked closely with HT Kim, not on this project. He is a trustworthy guy, knows his stuff. I think he is right when he calls the paper very sloppy, I am confused why there is no phase diagram and the sample purity seems suspect. These are things I think would have been addressed in peer review and would give me more confidence overall. Probably not fraud, but doesn't mean it's superconductivity.
Not optimistic about replication in the next week too, Solid State Synthesis seems "easy" but in my experience can be problematic. Not an expert in that part though
Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop what they're doing, order all the reagents on express, do a thorough characterization making sure they understand the impurities and crystal phase, then perform good airtight measurements in a couple days. Crystal growth always has complications many times outside of your control - the most minor of things can cause ridiculous problems.
Especially when they admit to having phase impurities, and it's not really clear how they've gone from bulk sample to measurement sample (are they really measuring just the superconductor or the impurity phase?). Needs addressing, especially when the Cu2S phase impurity seems to have a phase transition of it's own at or around 370K (suspiciously close to where some of their Tc measurements are).
I mean being thorough will obviously take a long time, but if a decent number of research groups decide to drop what they're doing and attempt a replication I don't think it would take that long for one of them to at least partially succeed if the claim is true. That doesn't mean they're publishing a sister paper, but it might mean we see some tweets saying "my group synthesized LK-99 and we have reason to believe it may be a rtp superconductor"
To me the biggest mystery is why they didn't make multiple samples and send them to a few places that could verify their claims immediately. I understand that the papers were published before they really wanted to but they've also apparently have had samples for awhile it sounds like?
So assuming it's not BS (and I doubt that it is) it would lead me to believe that making the material is difficult to get right? The video they've produced uses a sample that isn't particularly elegant, to be sure.
I guess it's all conjecture at this point and healthy skepticism is warranted. A press conference would be nice.
In the New Scientist interview HT Kim seemed to imply that he wouldn't help other researchers until his paper gets published. If the synthesis ends up being tricky this could take a while.
“In 2020, I submitted my research results to Nature for the first time, but Nature felt burdened about publishing the paper because of Professor Dias’ case, and asked for it to be published in other professional journals first.”
That's extremely hilarious if real. He basically just told the guys at the Max Plank institute they're lazy theoreticians that don't understand chemistry and can't be bothered to put in the work like he has. (over 100 attempts at making this!)
This is a great kind of rivalry between theory folks and applied folks. When good natured it can be a lot of fun. It’s also important to have these two kinds of groups annoyed with each other poking holes in each others methods.
It's learning a craft, constant refinement, iteration, failure, and eventual success. And then luck, that which is out of your control, gets you over the line.
I am more likely to believe that the group to get room temperature superconductivity first (if anyone ever does) will have been learning the hard way about how to maximise that within their control so all that is left to succeed is that outside their control.
I am not saying that I am 100% sold on this being it. It's not 20 years of failure. It's 20 years of refinement.
I am going to attempt to address the common nitpicks in one fell swoop:
1. Rushed publication, plot quality, grammar, etc. Get over yourselves. This is a pre-print for an instant-Nobel, next-tier-of-civilization level discovery. The proper publication will come in due time. Waiting for a more complete verification is a sheltered view. Being first matters. Things changed after the J/Psi discovery in 1974. For those that don't know, Sam Ting discovered it first, yet sat on it for months waiting for a complete verification. Then Richter's group also discovered it months later and Ting was forced to publish at the same time and share the Nobel. This changed the publication attitude in the field significantly. Being first matters.
2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking.
The most realistic timeline is 2-3 months for a positive verification. 6 months for a negative verification. If it works, it will be quicker because a positive reproduction needs less work. A negative verification needs to be more thorough and will take more time.
> 2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking.
Not knowing the precise Tc for the material isn't nitpicking that is pretty basic ("above 400C" isn't a very precise measurement). Questioning if their graph showing the Meissner effect isn't really showing the Meissner effect isn't really some obscure criteria.
Bet we get results a whole lot quicker than that as well.
Their PPMS is limited to 400K. There's nothing they can do about that. So yes, it is a nitpicking. I've used the same instrument, that's the max temperature quantum design allows without forking over more money. It matters to get the results out there and be first.
I completely agree. I see many people commenting that the document has bad grammar or charts, completely ignoring that they probably authored it in Korean. Also looks like Kwan and HT Kim are fighting who gets to be 3rd Nobel winner so any problems with quality of the layout are easily explained by this.
One thing that is a green flag in my opinion is that apparently they had a sample for a long time (year+) so I find it unlikely they made an obvious measuring mistake.
But as always, most would love to have this be true and sometimes this gets better of us.
What do you think the chances are of it being a measurement/instruments error?
Edited to add: I am not a physicist. I don't know the subtleties of measuring experiments, and it was not my intention to state that there was a measurement error. I just wanted to ask someone for their assessment of the chances it was an error.
It's a little depressing that people are so quick to assume the worst of others, but I get why. The online flamewars fought over every announcement of this type would definitely put people on guard. Heck, on the UAP thread yesterday I immediately leapt to snarking about extraordinary announcements being bogus and I feel bad that I probably attacked it for no reason other than to feel cool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36886221
IANAS, but science Twitter seems to think 1) authors aren't clowns but 2) there's a non-zero chance they've misinterpreted non-SC effects because 3) there's missing or inconsistent data that would conclusively prove SC
Small. Imperfect contact, unplugged terminals, etc. These are not 1st year grad students who don't know what they are doing. The authors have decades of research and fabrication experience, and publications to back it up. Comments that insinuate it could be those kind of novice mistakes (other comments on HN/reddit, not yours) are frankly insulting and speaks to a profound arrogance in being unable to accept a new discovery.
Pretty much agree on criticisms of sloppiness. First off this is a preprint. More importantly, rushing to put a stake in the ground is reasonable in this case. if they are right 'instant Nobel' is just the half of it. The authors are guaranteed a place in the scientific pantheon.
So, has anyone seen any of the replication studies start coming in yet? From what I've read we seem to be waiting on those. (and I think they're likely coming today or tomorrow?)
There are several rumors from zhihu.com posts that various Chinese labs are racing to replicate it (which is not unexpected). Some claims that "The Institute of Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has successfully synthesized the sample".
Many labs around the world are capable of synthesizing the material (which is not that hard, relative to the baseline for superconductor candidates). We should expect to see early chatter and observation from replication attempts within double digit number of hours.
So the authors are disciples of a professor specialized in superconductor, their own Master and PhD were about superconductor, then they created a lab/company specifically for researching superconductor. This is contrary to my earlier belief that they were just normal chemists/physicists that happened to stumble upon an interesting material.
Unless they're lying through their teeth, it's hard to believe they would not recognize an actual SC when they see one.
I love the colorful play-by-play. It could almost be a kdrama.
It's also kind of crazy that one of the authors did over 1000 experiments until he found LK-99, regardless of whether it checks out. Talk about a grind mindset.
Today might be a bit soon. We only caught wind of this Tuesday and there's about two days of cooking to be done in the process. Friday if someone is basically livestreaming and literally had everything on hand. My guess is more likely Monday for the aggressive builders that get it right the first time (if it's able to be got right). Then Wednesday/next Thursday for attempt number 2 to complete out for some people.
I'm also highly scheptical but if you'd asked a bunch of random people wether or not the relativity theory is true or nuclear weapons when they were first demonstrated they probably would have been equally sceptical
What does that prove though? It's not wrong to doubt extraordinary hypotheses just because they are sometimes correct. Consider all the times those kinds of hypotheses are confirmed to be wrong.
So technically the question asked is only if "the first independent replication attempt" will confirm (current guess 10%) and I think thats about right I can imagine there is a lot of 'build Twitter in a weekend' going on and it will take a while before the dust settles and there is a solid replication to base a solid conclusion.
The first sentence already raises a big red flag. "This paper examines the way of thinking and limitations of physicists regarding the phenomenon of superconductivity". Stop these ridiculous presumptuous claims about "limitations of physicists" before the work is actually verified and proven.
Koreans have a mean and antagonistic streak, that's why they're so good at making dramas, but still outrageous opener lol. I wonder if Korean academic culture is different from ours.
Readit News
Not optimistic about replication in the next week too, Solid State Synthesis seems "easy" but in my experience can be problematic. Not an expert in that part though
Especially when they admit to having phase impurities, and it's not really clear how they've gone from bulk sample to measurement sample (are they really measuring just the superconductor or the impurity phase?). Needs addressing, especially when the Cu2S phase impurity seems to have a phase transition of it's own at or around 370K (suspiciously close to where some of their Tc measurements are).
Jeez I sure hope at least one lab can spare the time to bother reproducing a room temperature semiconductor claim.
From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.
So assuming it's not BS (and I doubt that it is) it would lead me to believe that making the material is difficult to get right? The video they've produced uses a sample that isn't particularly elegant, to be sure.
I guess it's all conjecture at this point and healthy skepticism is warranted. A press conference would be nice.
Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881808 - July 2023 (434 comments)
The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624 - July 2023 (858 comments)
“In 2020, I submitted my research results to Nature for the first time, but Nature felt burdened about publishing the paper because of Professor Dias’ case, and asked for it to be published in other professional journals first.”
https://n.news.naver.com/article/366/0000920152
That doesn't inspire confidence.
It's learning a craft, constant refinement, iteration, failure, and eventual success. And then luck, that which is out of your control, gets you over the line.
I am more likely to believe that the group to get room temperature superconductivity first (if anyone ever does) will have been learning the hard way about how to maximise that within their control so all that is left to succeed is that outside their control.
I am not saying that I am 100% sold on this being it. It's not 20 years of failure. It's 20 years of refinement.
1. Rushed publication, plot quality, grammar, etc. Get over yourselves. This is a pre-print for an instant-Nobel, next-tier-of-civilization level discovery. The proper publication will come in due time. Waiting for a more complete verification is a sheltered view. Being first matters. Things changed after the J/Psi discovery in 1974. For those that don't know, Sam Ting discovered it first, yet sat on it for months waiting for a complete verification. Then Richter's group also discovered it months later and Ting was forced to publish at the same time and share the Nobel. This changed the publication attitude in the field significantly. Being first matters.
2. "Terrible science." Again, get over yourselves. Just because the preprint doesn't match your taste specifically doesn't mean it's bad science. You can't satisfy everyone- there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about some missing measurement or plot they view as essential. Most of the time, the 'missing' component is directly related to their own work. In other words, people want to see what they understandd as being important to them, also reflected in other publications. That does not mean it's a valid criticism. It's nitpicking.
The most realistic timeline is 2-3 months for a positive verification. 6 months for a negative verification. If it works, it will be quicker because a positive reproduction needs less work. A negative verification needs to be more thorough and will take more time.
Not knowing the precise Tc for the material isn't nitpicking that is pretty basic ("above 400C" isn't a very precise measurement). Questioning if their graph showing the Meissner effect isn't really showing the Meissner effect isn't really some obscure criteria.
Bet we get results a whole lot quicker than that as well.
One thing that is a green flag in my opinion is that apparently they had a sample for a long time (year+) so I find it unlikely they made an obvious measuring mistake.
But as always, most would love to have this be true and sometimes this gets better of us.
Edited to add: I am not a physicist. I don't know the subtleties of measuring experiments, and it was not my intention to state that there was a measurement error. I just wanted to ask someone for their assessment of the chances it was an error.
It's a little depressing that people are so quick to assume the worst of others, but I get why. The online flamewars fought over every announcement of this type would definitely put people on guard. Heck, on the UAP thread yesterday I immediately leapt to snarking about extraordinary announcements being bogus and I feel bad that I probably attacked it for no reason other than to feel cool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36886221
Hoping it's real... but it doesn't seem like the substance is anything nearly exotic enough. Isn't this somehow supposed to be unobtanium?
Many labs around the world are capable of synthesizing the material (which is not that hard, relative to the baseline for superconductor candidates). We should expect to see early chatter and observation from replication attempts within double digit number of hours.
Seems to have the right energy
[edit thanks folks] https://nitter.net/i/status/1684433849781202944
Here’s a more colorful play by play as well:
https://nitter.net/8teapi/status/1684586672917565443
Unless they're lying through their teeth, it's hard to believe they would not recognize an actual SC when they see one.
It's also kind of crazy that one of the authors did over 1000 experiments until he found LK-99, regardless of whether it checks out. Talk about a grind mindset.
I look forward to this historical footnote leading to many clickbait articles in the future.
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684642852616192000
Original paper: http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...
Translation: https://www.docdroid.net/UiUrs8c/kci-fi002955269-1-pdf
Translation source: https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684700783852556288
<insert "I want to believe" picture>
Deleted Comment