16 ms·

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

by nmwnmw 3y ago

bhouston 3y ago
Yeah, having another lab confirm the behavior and makeup of that sample would go a long way. I wonder why that isn’t happening? Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?
- junofan 3y ago
  I mean they already characterized it six ways to Sunday and posted a video of it levitating.
  - bhouston 3y ago
    Independent validation. Physical peer review. That basically helps rule out scammers or gross incompetence and ensures that even if initial attempts to replicate fail because of the complexity or lack of clarity, people keep trying.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Any physicist can make up something that sounds reasonable to other physicists. With a little trick photography (or CGI!) you can make a video something levitating that looks like room temperature super conductors. Don't read the above as an accusation. Only a justification to wait until it is replicated.
- bananapub 3y ago
  what are you talking about? the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect, so every other solid state physics lab in the world is instead trying to follow the notional recipe and test their own sample.
  - bhouston 3y ago
    > the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect Why not? It would help their case immensely, especially if replication is tricky.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      There are claims that they are going to share, but since it is fragile and they only have a few samples the logistics are tricky. They might not be telling the truth about sharing samples, but I'd wait a couple months before accusing them of lies. In fact if they share too quick I'd suspect it is so they can ship a box of dust and claim shipping damaged the only sample!
- moralestapia 3y ago
  >I wonder why that isn’t happening? Because it's been ~10 days since it was announced in a preprint article. The complexity and resources involved are much higher than "building websites with React", so, things happen on a different timescale.
buildsjets 3y ago
How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  What does it matter if the sample is a room temperature super conductor?
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Sure but if you had in your hands a superconductive material at room temperature and ambient pressure you’d be pretty amazed. That’s a lot of credibility right there.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).
  - gorlilla 3y ago
    Grifting doesn't always make sense to those not in on the grift.
    - adastra22 3y ago
      Huh?
  - dcow 3y ago
    Desperation? Momentary fame? To get funding to continue research? Any number of reasons humans do silly half-honest things… There are some plausible allegations that the authors were a struggling pair of researchers and essentially stole this research and published a sloppy half baked paper they knew would make waves.
nemo44x 3y ago
Do we know they haven’t? The published papers were rushed (due to rogue ex-team member publishing one unauthorized) and they maybe weren’t ready. I’ve heard a rumor a team from MIT has travelled to Korea. Who knows right now.
- once_inc 3y ago
  I've heard those rumours as well, and also heard rumours that a sample was sent to a Chinese group.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    CAS supposedly has a sample according to rumours amongst Chinese academics. They would certainly be logical to include in any sample dispersion, they're the closest very high quality/very high prestige institute.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
chaorace 3y ago
At the end of the day, materials science is still science. The institutional framework is optimized for a very specific process, so it's generally faster to let the process play out as usual rather than go and cut corners. Rest assured; there are a lot of scientists out there! We can afford to let a few of them chase clouds once in a while. In any case... the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  > the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take. But what if the probability of synthesis failure is very high? This seems to be the case given then "1000 experiments" history of the original scientists. If they have a golden sample that is at least extremely paramagnetic, that would be huge. And again... This is no ordinary claim. Everything in the procurement chain would be expedited. No sane lab would turn it down.
epivosism 3y ago
Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs... People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path. It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true. I have made a play money market asking the same thing: "A physics lab will have received a package of the LK-99 material sent from the researchers by the end of August" [ https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-received-a-6d1116c04e96?r=U3RyYXlDbGltYg https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-... ] Not many traders yet, 57% yes, too optimistic in my view.
- bitcurious 3y ago
  Validation is good for the original team, replication is good for the new team.
  - epivosism 3y ago
    Interesting point, yes. Also, if LK-99 is real, there are may be some close or easy adjustments or improvements to it to produce other, new interesting materials, which a replicating lab would be set up to start exploring ASAP. So I can see their preference for that path.
- 7373737373 3y ago
  Agreed, why haven't hundreds of journalists with cameras lined up on the lab yet? Document everything, film and publicize the floating sample, film the entire production process, have a press conference etc.
progrus 3y ago
There’s some emerging evidence that it may be a new class of “1-d” superconducting material that only superconducts in certain places/directions. Will turn into big academic fight to redefine superconductivity if so, I think.
- progrus 3y ago
  Importantly though, 1-d is all it needs to sound incredibly useful.
dspillett 3y ago
That would support the existence of a material with the stated properties, which would be important on its own, but not that we can manufacture one. Why not prove both at once? Depending on the size of the sample produced, distributing it around several labs for independent testing may be impractical so you would still get this race as the sample was sent to one lab and the rest rush to try be first to reproduce the processes and test the result. Also transporting what could be a very valuable substance (maybe a fragile one, I've not looked into it) as far as another lab with the relevant equipment, may be difficult/costly to arrange. Given the finding seems to have been rushed out, perhaps they did plan to send a sample (perhaps producing another themselves) to another lab for confirmation, but those plans have been overtaken by the interest as details slipped out earlier than they intended.
andersa 3y ago
I'm really confused why everyone is claiming the replication would be easy. The paper specifies very large ranges for both times and temperatures that would take years to try all combinations, and ignores basically all of the details. The effect could be caused by some incredibly lucky contamination/impurities and then nobody would ever be able to reproduce it at all. Why not reverse engineer this one apparently working sample instead?
- IX-103 3y ago
  Because knowing what something is tells you less about how to get there than the paper does? You can see the exact chemical structure of the material and still have no idea how to create it. Especially for composite materials like these where the junction of dissimilar materials gives rise to the desired behavior.

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

by nmwnmw 3y ago

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

bhouston 3y ago

Yeah, having another lab confirm the behavior and makeup of that sample would go a long way. I wonder why that isn’t happening? Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?

junofan 3y ago
I mean they already characterized it six ways to Sunday and posted a video of it levitating.
- bhouston 3y ago
  Independent validation. Physical peer review. That basically helps rule out scammers or gross incompetence and ensures that even if initial attempts to replicate fail because of the complexity or lack of clarity, people keep trying.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Any physicist can make up something that sounds reasonable to other physicists. With a little trick photography (or CGI!) you can make a video something levitating that looks like room temperature super conductors. Don't read the above as an accusation. Only a justification to wait until it is replicated.
bananapub 3y ago
what are you talking about? the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect, so every other solid state physics lab in the world is instead trying to follow the notional recipe and test their own sample.
- bhouston 3y ago
  > the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect Why not? It would help their case immensely, especially if replication is tricky.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There are claims that they are going to share, but since it is fragile and they only have a few samples the logistics are tricky. They might not be telling the truth about sharing samples, but I'd wait a couple months before accusing them of lies. In fact if they share too quick I'd suspect it is so they can ship a box of dust and claim shipping damaged the only sample!
moralestapia 3y ago
>I wonder why that isn’t happening? Because it's been ~10 days since it was announced in a preprint article. The complexity and resources involved are much higher than "building websites with React", so, things happen on a different timescale.

buildsjets 3y ago

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

Larrikin 3y ago
What does it matter if the sample is a room temperature super conductor?
nemo44x 3y ago
Sure but if you had in your hands a superconductive material at room temperature and ambient pressure you’d be pretty amazed. That’s a lot of credibility right there.
idopmstuff 3y ago
Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).
- gorlilla 3y ago
  Grifting doesn't always make sense to those not in on the grift.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Huh?
- dcow 3y ago
  Desperation? Momentary fame? To get funding to continue research? Any number of reasons humans do silly half-honest things… There are some plausible allegations that the authors were a struggling pair of researchers and essentially stole this research and published a sloppy half baked paper they knew would make waves.

nemo44x 3y ago

Do we know they haven’t? The published papers were rushed (due to rogue ex-team member publishing one unauthorized) and they maybe weren’t ready. I’ve heard a rumor a team from MIT has travelled to Korea. Who knows right now.

once_inc 3y ago
I've heard those rumours as well, and also heard rumours that a sample was sent to a Chinese group.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  CAS supposedly has a sample according to rumours amongst Chinese academics. They would certainly be logical to include in any sample dispersion, they're the closest very high quality/very high prestige institute.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

chaorace 3y ago

At the end of the day, materials science is still science. The institutional framework is optimized for a very specific process, so it's generally faster to let the process play out as usual rather than go and cut corners. Rest assured; there are a lot of scientists out there! We can afford to let a few of them chase clouds once in a while. In any case... the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
> the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take. But what if the probability of synthesis failure is very high? This seems to be the case given then "1000 experiments" history of the original scientists. If they have a golden sample that is at least extremely paramagnetic, that would be huge. And again... This is no ordinary claim. Everything in the procurement chain would be expedited. No sane lab would turn it down.

epivosism 3y ago

Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs... People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path. It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true. I have made a play money market asking the same thing: "A physics lab will have received a package of the LK-99 material sent from the researchers by the end of August" [ https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-received-a-6d1116c04e96?r=U3RyYXlDbGltYg https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-... ] Not many traders yet, 57% yes, too optimistic in my view.

bitcurious 3y ago
Validation is good for the original team, replication is good for the new team.
- epivosism 3y ago
  Interesting point, yes. Also, if LK-99 is real, there are may be some close or easy adjustments or improvements to it to produce other, new interesting materials, which a replicating lab would be set up to start exploring ASAP. So I can see their preference for that path.
7373737373 3y ago
Agreed, why haven't hundreds of journalists with cameras lined up on the lab yet? Document everything, film and publicize the floating sample, film the entire production process, have a press conference etc.

progrus 3y ago

There’s some emerging evidence that it may be a new class of “1-d” superconducting material that only superconducts in certain places/directions. Will turn into big academic fight to redefine superconductivity if so, I think.

progrus 3y ago
Importantly though, 1-d is all it needs to sound incredibly useful.

dspillett 3y ago

That would support the existence of a material with the stated properties, which would be important on its own, but not that we can manufacture one. Why not prove both at once? Depending on the size of the sample produced, distributing it around several labs for independent testing may be impractical so you would still get this race as the sample was sent to one lab and the rest rush to try be first to reproduce the processes and test the result. Also transporting what could be a very valuable substance (maybe a fragile one, I've not looked into it) as far as another lab with the relevant equipment, may be difficult/costly to arrange. Given the finding seems to have been rushed out, perhaps they did plan to send a sample (perhaps producing another themselves) to another lab for confirmation, but those plans have been overtaken by the interest as details slipped out earlier than they intended.

andersa 3y ago

I'm really confused why everyone is claiming the replication would be easy. The paper specifies very large ranges for both times and temperatures that would take years to try all combinations, and ignores basically all of the details. The effect could be caused by some incredibly lucky contamination/impurities and then nobody would ever be able to reproduce it at all. Why not reverse engineer this one apparently working sample instead?

IX-103 3y ago
Because knowing what something is tells you less about how to get there than the paper does? You can see the exact chemical structure of the material and still have no idea how to create it. Especially for composite materials like these where the junction of dissimilar materials gives rise to the desired behavior.