561–570 of 659 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By their own admission, they've messed with the prep and synthesis stages mentioned in the paper: https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1685774956330635264#m Also, forgive me for taking this person's word with a massive grain of salt when they post stuff like this: https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1686017042665582593#m
Sure, but what is this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047663
Everybody's talking about reproducing the material which is great, but will take time. Why don't the authors supply their existing material to an independent lab for earlier confirmation?
If they really believe they have the only sample they won't let it out of their sight most likely. It'll be superconducting tomorrow if it's really superconducting today.
"Condensed Matter Theory Center (a Twitter account affiliated with University of Maryland) says they will send samples." - sanxiyn 2 days ago https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684960318718406656
It's not looking good so far. This team reproduced several variants of the formula, and none of them behaved in an interesting way: https://nitter.sneed.network/altryne/status/1686029047053090...
I'd be surprised if someone had already reproduced it so soon. These things take a few months to get right.
We thought Oppenheimer was the way to instill a love of physics to young people but turns out LK-99 was the way to winning people's hearts and minds to delve more into physics.
Don't understand how a movie largely about the psychological horrors of developing and using a nuclear weapons is being construed to be "pro physics" lol. If anything it's the opposite
Of course it is empowering for STEM people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really like this discussion because it's a rare example of things being discussed in real terms, where the financial considerations are secondary; actual power over real resources being wielded by the wealthy.
If you think about it in terms of resource consumption per capita over a lifetime then it gets a lot more difficult because now you have to divide all those resources across all of the humans that have lived and that will every live taking into account any kind of improvement on recycling. This is a really hard problem, the estimate is that right now about 7% of all that people that have every lived are alive, and th…
When you say that at some point in time there will be a shortage, what do you mean, exactly? A shortage of what?
The way I understand capitalism is that shortages, in a sense, don't actually exist in free markets (except temporarily if there are unexpected disruptions), because capitalism is mostly a system of allocating the resources that are available, in the most efficient way that we know of.
Or another way of thinking about it, is that there is always a shortage of almost everything, because we could always take advantage of more resources if they were available.
So what do you mean exactly?
So much speculation but I don’t see anyone asking this: Who has access to samples from the original lab? If synthesis hasn’t been cracked yet, wouldn’t the next-best thing be independent validation of the original samples?
Everybody's talking about reproducing the material which is great, but will take time. Why don't the authors supply their existing material to an independent lab for earlier confirmation?
If they really believe they have the only sample they won't let it out of their sight most likely. It'll be superconducting tomorrow if it's really superconducting today.
We thought Oppenheimer was the way to instill a love of physics to young people but turns out LK-99 was the way to winning people's hearts and minds to delve more into physics.
The only person so far that I've seen publicly saying that is Sam Altman. Never crossed my mind that this could inspire people (albeit I haven't seen the movie). Same for the Turing movie, or the Hawking movie, none of them really made the work look that cool IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just assumed the uranium one is a joke created after this story started by some third party and made to look like the original one, so I also did not look any deeper. But the channel being created in 2012 then makes no sense. Someone just sitting on that channel name? Or can you rename a YouTube channel?
Yes you can rename, probably just trolling.
[1] https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1555-lk99-ambient...
Damn, why is nobody talking more about the theory of it? What I see to ponder: - (1970, brinkman, rice) "application of gutzwiller's variational method to the metal-insulator transition" - (2001, hyun-tak kim) "extension of the brinkman-rice picture and the mott transition" - (2002, hyun-tak kim) "extended brinkman-rice picture and its application to high-Tc superconductors" - (2021, hyun-tak kim) "Room-temperature-s…
Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim hit the first sample (the prototype of LK-99) in 1999 trying to prove the theory of their professor Choi Dong-Shik. Around 2017 YoungWan Kwon joined to the team and they got investment enough for to buy an SQUID and a EPR. In 2020, L and K hit with LK99. They tried to submit a paper to Nature, but was rejected. They contacted with HyunTak Kim after read his 2021 paper (the one you point), and HyunTak Kim joined to the team.
The above are rumors. I'm not sure if such 2021 paper may give tips in the theory or synthesization behind LK99.