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

A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 821 posts

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#301

Post by jcranmer »

deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

To be frank, the available evidence at the moment is pretty shaky. Derek Lowe here is pretty optimistic, but most of the comments I've seen from the superconductor folks are pretty pessimistic [1]--and given that Derek Lowe isn't in the field, I'm inclined to favor their views over his at this point.

The original articles are a pair of papers posted to arxiv in a field which I believe isn't well-known for arxiv publications, and most science journalism tends to wait for a peer-reviewed paper to come out in a notable journal before reporting on it. Although it has been reported by some specialized outlets already (a category which I'd include Derek Lowe's In The Pipeline).

[1] See, e.g., https://nitter.net/i/status/1686373516286005248, which goes into why even the recent theoretical-confirmation papers are unpersuasive to them.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#302

Post by dralley »

allenrb wrote: post #291
orangepurple wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has more people, more money to spend on research, more equipment, more access to raw materials and chemicals, more manufacturing base, more STEM graduates, more everything, and all of that by huge margins. USA scientists will eventually put something out, but 10x more slowly than China.

> more money to spend on research Would you accept “chooses to spend more on research”? The US certainly could spend more but, imho sadly, we do not.

Maybe Venture Capital should spend less money on Juciero, automated pizza ovens, and gig-economy bs and more money on materials science and fusion research.

Even if you end up lighting the money on fire, at least it's a more societally productive fire than, say, SoftBank's portfolio.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#303

Post by throwaway23354 »

AlanSE wrote: post #233
deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

It's still not believed. It's just Twitter that I've seen the juicy stuff, like a (very sketchy) claimed replication from a Russian, and now another claim from a Chinese group. I could still see this being something "new" but not a true superconductor. If you read the link, there seems to be some kind of discovery brewing, but the original discovers may not have understood what they found.

While you're correct about the scarce and sketchy evidence currently it is in the process of narrowing down. Or to put it better the evidence is mounting that it might be a breakthrough. It likely hard to manufacture correctly, but simulations done at Berkeley Labs seem to support the claims of the original paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892 And aside from that to be honest I hope that we have time to prove or disprove those claims, before any major news outlet jumps onto the hype train and ruins it.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#304

Post by Workaccount2 »

orangepurple wrote: post #249
_yb2s wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the "disappointment" with USA scientists in this thread not having yet published a replication. There has only been one weekday since the LK-99 revelation came to light. Have some patience. The analysis from this article is a publication from Berkeley National Lab that has already come out, and Argonne National Lab has announced they have synthesized the material as of yesterday and will release results f…

China has more people, more money to spend on research, more equipment, more access to raw materials and chemicals, more manufacturing base, more STEM graduates, more everything, and all of that by huge margins. USA scientists will eventually put something out, but 10x more slowly than China.

All the smart people in the US work in tech and finance.

If you have a big ole' brain, why would you take $80k to work in some crumby lab when you can get paid $350k to maintain a login screen from the comfort of your mountain side home.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#305

Post by ASalazarMX »

javajosh wrote: post #198
itsarnavb wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I'm imagining what history would have looked like if the alchemists had indeed stumbled upon a floating lead apatite sample a few centuries ago...

Good idea! They wouldn't have been able to do any applications without a voltaic cell, and it would have been a novelty. Like gunpowder in ancient China.

The force of tradition is amazing. Imagine centuries knowing how to make something that explodes violently, and using it for entertainment instead of weapons.

Just like how Mesoamerican civilizations invented the wheel, but only used it on children toys and not for transportation. There were no draft animals in the region, but they didn't even make wheelbarrows.

https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/the-concept-of-the-...

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#306

Post by dragonwriter »

dralley wrote: post #302
allenrb wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more money to spend on research Would you accept “chooses to spend more on research”? The US certainly could spend more but, imho sadly, we do not.

Maybe Venture Capital should spend less money on Juciero, automated pizza ovens, and gig-economy bs and more money on materials science and fusion research. Even if you end up lighting the money on fire, at least it's a more societally productive fire than, say, SoftBank's portfolio.

VC doesn’t put money into research, VC puts money to productization once someone else (ideally for the VCs, government) has paid for research.

(Edited to clarify “ideally” parenthetical, in response to a reply that really didn’t deserve to be dead.)

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#307

Post by dragonwriter »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #304
orangepurple wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has more people, more money to spend on research, more equipment, more access to raw materials and chemicals, more manufacturing base, more STEM graduates, more everything, and all of that by huge margins. USA scientists will eventually put something out, but 10x more slowly than China.

All the smart people in the US work in tech and finance. If you have a big ole' brain, why would you take $80k to work in some crumby lab when you can get paid $350k to maintain a login screen from the comfort of your mountain side home.

Because “smart” and “monomaniacally focused on financial gain” are two separate things?

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#308

Post by rvnx »

marshray wrote: post #288
dclowd9901 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Levitates? Against, what, the earth's inherent magnetic field? Sorry, I haven't seen any visuals that show this behavior.

Over a handheld neodymium magnet. None of the videos have yet shown complete 'levitation', they all have a corner on the surface. But still, not behavior that anyone has ever seen from lead before.

But couldn't it just be a magnet ? I don't understand how it's a proof. You can already do what is in the video (and even better), with for example, pyrolitic carbon ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolytic_carbon

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#309

Post by dang »

The major threads so far, in reverse order—have I missed any?

Huazhong University demonstrates LK-99 diamagnetism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36953819 - Aug 1, 2023 (265 comments)

LK-99 crystal verified to be magnetically levitated (with video) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36953396 - Aug 1, 2023 (10 comments)

Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor LK-99 preprint revision 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36952894 - Aug 1, 2023 (272 comments)

Origin of correlated isolated flat bands in LK99 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36951815 - Aug 1, 2023 (196 comments)

Semiconducting Transport in LK99 reproduction attempt - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36951140 - Aug 1, 2023 (245 comments)

LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36940323 - July 31, 2023 (619 comments)

Ask HN: Room temperature superconductor: what to expect? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36930707 - July 30, 2023 (61 comments)

“We are not cheating” (YH Kwon superconductor comments) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36929386 - July 30, 2023 (61 comments)

Korea Superconductor Papers Published ‘Without Consent’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927216 - July 30, 2023 (47 comments)

Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36916254 - July 29, 2023 (201 comments)

LK-99 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36897300 - July 27, 2023 (58 comments)

Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881808 - July 26, 2023 (471 comments)

The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624 - July 25, 2023 (875 comments)

Edit: thanks to mystery user for emailing hn@ycombinator.com to suggest we include the days, not just month/year, for fast-moving stories like this.

Re: A room-temperature superconductor? New developments

#310

Post by failuser »

deeg wrote: post #165

I'm astounded that the MSM seems to be ignoring this ATM. I did a Google news search on LK-99 and saw nothing from major publications. A search on the NYTimes returned an article from 1974.

There have been several false reports of high-temperature superconductors during previous months. There seems to be backlash to the high-temperature superconductors claims now.
Post reply on HN