Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

forums.spacebattles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 303 posts

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#231

Post by dotnet00 »

shmatt wrote: post #226
misja111 wrote: post #86

Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?

Rarely do researchers get an opportunity to get 15 minutes of fame like right now. Anyone successfully recreating LK99 can * Potentially do it better/purer * Get a few news articles, and a mention in a very high traffic Wikipedia page * Again if they do it well, get 8 figures in funding pretty easily. While during any other day they might be fighting for $50,000 here and $100,000 there

Hell, even if they can't do it better, they might simply be able to document their process better.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#232

Post by jacquesm »

mort96 wrote: post #195
jacquesm wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much how all privately funded novel drug research works.

Yeah, which is also a monumental problem.

Indeed, but I don't see how you're going to special case this if you aren't willing/able to at the same time get a frontal assault from the pharmaceutic giants.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#233

Post by jona-f »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #31

LK-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…

Doesnt LK-99 crystallize in the perovskite structure? That's very 3D. I think cuprate superconductors do too, but I'm guessing, cause it's a long time I was into that sort of thing. What do you mean by "quasi two-dimensional". Every crystal has 2d planes (apart from rare penrose-style quasicrystals) and many crystals are anisotropic. People don't call these "quasi two-dimensional" afaik.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#234

Post by mensetmanusman »

KineticLensman wrote: post #110
misja111 wrote: post #86

Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?

Partly to ensure that the whole process is well understood, and that there aren't some (unstated) aspects specific to the original lab. By way of example, when multiple labs conduct genetics experiments on mice, even the food that the mice were fed has to be standardised to ensure that it isn't driving variation between the results.

And now even the sex of the researcher because mice were reacting differently surprisingly.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#235

Post by mensetmanusman »

psychlops wrote: post #158
misja111 wrote: post #86

Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?

Perhaps I have a cynical take, but I would guess that the labs are primarily verifying the claims to themselves to identify ways to make profitable research or production lines. They want to fund their own labs. Publishing verified claims to help others would be secondary.

That’s a cynical tale, but once you realize that profit is a useful way to signal to technologists what the world finds useful in aggregate, it means there is more likelihood that the science gets out of the lab to the real world.

tldr; for good or bad, humanity hasn’t found an incentive mechanism better than capitalism for deploying tech at scale.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#236

Post by justrealist »

hcks wrote: post #221
toshk wrote: post #141

Breakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true! But I understand nothing of this field What's the general consensus here, real or not?

The consensus on HN is that it’s le epic exciting discovery. The consensus among physicist is that’s it’s likely to be a dud

> The consensus among physicist is that’s it’s likely to be a dud

That's really not true. It's unclear whether it's a superconductor, but the consensus worst-case outcome is that something very unexpected is happening, which is in itself worth learning more about.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#237

Post by bjornsing »

kzrdude wrote: post #217
shrx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it one-dimensional (linear) or two-dimensional (planar)?

Hyun-Tak Kim, one of the Korean authors, says it's a one dimensional superconductor.

How can there be eddy currents in a 1D superconductor? And if there are no eddy currents, wouldn’t that prevent diamagnetism?

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#238

Post by [deleted] »

duchenne wrote: post #50

I 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…

[deleted]

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#239

Post by BasedAnon »

titzer wrote: post #220
mergejoin wrote: post #10

this 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...

I get that the manufacturing process doesn't produce pure samples, and that it's highly likely that the sample has many "islands" of the right lattice structure within it, of various sizes and shapes. What I don't get is why they don't just pulverize the sample, put it in a magnetic field, and then sift out the floaty particles. Things floating at an angle and halfway make me very suspicious. Also, why are all these…

it's possible pulverizing it would destroy the structure that allows this to happen in the first place

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#240

Post by vel0city »

samwillis wrote: post #183
n2d4 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Q Centre was founded in 2008. LK-99 is called LK-99 because it was discovered in 1999, but they stopped working on it for the bigger chunk of the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Compound_name

Ah, my mistake. A 1999 discovery while plausible seems like a long time ago. I wander if it really is exactly the compound as they found back then.

Even then, them synthesizing some of it in '99 and then again in '22 or whenever doesn't really mean they've been making it for 23 years.

If I baked a cake once 23 years ago and once yesterday, I can't really say I've been baking for 23 years.

Post reply on HN