The optimistic aspects are:
1. The diamagnetism of LK-99 is very strong;
2. In almost all experiments, LK-99 has only exhibited one-dimensional diamagnetism, which is hard to consider as fraudulent coincidence;
3. One-dimensional diamagnetism is very mysterious, and there is currently no suitable theoretical explanation.
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
41–50 of 303 posts
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#42I keep expecting to see coverage of this in what some would term the "mainstream" press but it's crickets. I refuse to believe that they're waiting for more results either, even the more reputable publications will carry junk science. At the very least there's an interesting story to tell in the publishing of the paper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc... (gifted link, sorry for the mess)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/03/ro...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/02/lk...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/04/lk...
Plenty more from less "historic MSM outlets". Looks like the MSM has been writing more than a few LK99 articles in the past 5 days!
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, but diamagnetism in itself doesn't mean that it's a superconductor, no? There are a few diamagnetic materials that aren't superconductors, AFAIK.
However, we have never seen a material with such strong diamagnetism that is not a superconductor
Really? That's encouraging, thanks.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, but diamagnetism in itself doesn't mean that it's a superconductor, no? There are a few diamagnetic materials that aren't superconductors, AFAIK.
True, but what I meant was that the labs that couldn't replicate even diamagnetism clearly haven't created the same material, as the original LK-99 was shown to be diamagnetic. If someone can show that it is diamagnetic and not superconducting then that could be evidence that they recreated the same material, but that it doesn't show superconductivity.
That makes sense, thanks. So if the replication is not diamagnetic, it means that it's not LK-99, rather than that LK-99 is not diamagnetic itself, thanks.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they've done their "exciting breakthrough" piece and now it's not very news worthy.
I didn't even see that. Am I living under a rock?
Yes, it's been everywhere. But -- rightly -- not as hyped as on the overexcitable corners of the internet who want to follow every little bit of news on the subject (because, I guess, they don't care about the quality of the information? Personally I would rather wait and see what happens when experts have time to apply expertise and rigor to the topic.)
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#46LK-99 is a quasi two-dimensional material, and one which seems particularly challenging to synthesize in a bulk polycrystalline three-dimensional mass. Even the original researchers stated that they'd "get it right" only a fraction of the time, and that their famous floating cracked-disc is still impure. I think that there's no reason to assume that negative results right now are conclusive, whereas positive results…
It's a hexagonal lead-apatite crystal, how is that "quasi two-dimensional"?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#47this video sent by one of the original authors to the NY Times is the most significant peace of evidence to me: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconducto...
That is a MASSIVE piece of LK99 if it is true. Any information on source? Any details?
Source is HT Kim shared on NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc...
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#48this video sent by one of the original authors to the NY Times is the most significant peace of evidence to me: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconducto...
Couldn't this be explained by magnetism alone? How does it show superconductivity?
It’s not proof of anything, but it’s suggestive. The only other known materials that show that degree of diamagnetism are superconductors. That magnet is tiny!
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#49So basically is looking like mostly a no? The replications haven't been encouraging so far.
My takeaway is that nobody, not even the original authors, knows a good, easily replicable way to make LK-99. A clear no would be multiple sources synthesizing a material that is clearly the same as LK-99 (e.g. by showing most or all of the behavior shown in the videos or described in one of the papers), and then showing experimentally that it isn't actually a superconductor but that some other effect is at play.
Which is why one simple way to clear up a lot of the ambiguity would be to make the "working" sample available for a few other trusted 3rd parties to run some quick tests on.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#50I see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process.
The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab.
They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it.
Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying to make an open source alternative so they have a risk of not profiting from their extraordinary invention.