Of course under the assumption that LK-99 is indeed not what has been claimed, I am not completely ruling out that they just failed to reproduce the material. A

Of course under the assumption that LK-99 is indeed not what has been claimed, I am not completely ruling out that they just failed to reproduce the material. And while I initially said that the LK-99 paper does at least not look like a crackpot paper [1][2] and still think that was not an unreasonable judgment given my complete lack of expertise in the field, just comparing the presentation in this paper and the original LK-99 paper makes me judge the replicators as more competent. But sure, looks can be deceptive. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36865636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36865636 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36871103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36871103