21–30 of 906 posts
However, the most likely thing is they made a mistake and the paper will be withdrawn.
But imagine if it’s true.
If this were true, I would’ve expected to see it on the front page of the New York Times, not hiding in a scientific journal. Color me skeptical, with a hint of optimism.
Second, you're literally saying you expect to read important things on mainstream press instead of scientific journals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding it is superconductive up to that temp. So, superconductive at room temp and even further.
That makes me even more sceptical. In recent years confirmed discovery of superconducting materials have gone from working at best up to ~100K below room temperature to at best a few 10s of K below. To jump to a material that claims to exhibit superconductivity as far as >100K above room temperature, at ambient pressure too, is an extraordinary claim and so needs to be presented with extraordinary evidence.
If a material with the properties described actually exists, this paper is exactly the kind of announcement and evidence we'd want for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
127°C, so it is room temperature if you first set your room alight.
From my understanding it is superconductive up to that temp. So, superconductive at room temp and even further.
This is unusual, superconductivity is a low temperature phenomenon. Recently though, other researches have claimed room temperature superconductivity at high pressures, but low temperatures.
I severly doubt that it is an actual room temperature superconductor, but would love to hear the opinions of more well informed people on that topic.
I share your doubt, but on the other hand I wonder why? Could you tell how a breaking message of this magnitude should be decorated to make all doubts go away?
You'll never make all doubt go away on a new extraordinary discovery, mainly because most claims of an extraordinary discovery turn out to be mistakes (like the FTL neutrino thing a while ago that turned out to be a wiring fault that caused a minute timing error) or occasionally fabrications.
A quiet publication of “this is what we've found, this is what we think it means, please try reproduce or tell us what you think we've misinterpreted” is the way it should go. Unfortunately too subtle a release would be at risk of being ignored, and on the other side you get the mad public press and massive recriminations when it turns out a mistake was made and the finding is not reproducible (like the cold fusion thing I remember from the late 80s).
Superconducting quantum computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_quantum_comput...
big if true. far from a chemistry expert here, but synthesis looks basically trivial (if you consider 10e-5 torr vacuum to be trivial), and the materials are readily available. hell, from the instructions alone i could probably make it at home. i mean the search space is unfathomably large, so i suppose it’s possible that something like this exists, but the paper quality itself doesn’t.. spark joy? :) i’ll maintain a…
I guess this will be replicated/not pretty soon then.
There was another in the same day [0], funny. Maybe it really did happen. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037