4 ms·
It doesn't reproduce: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16802 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16802. That doesn't mean there's not something to further investigate, but LK-
by dcow 3y ago
It doesn't reproduce: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16802 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16802. That doesn't mean there's not something to further investigate, but LK-99, at least as described in the paper, is not it.
- pengaru 3y agoWhat the simulation is saying though is that it requires some luck, not all the arrangements result in the band structure.
- dcow 3y agoI understand. I'm saying that it's not LK-99 as described, then. Rather, it's something else that needs a more precise specification.
- pengaru 3y agoOr it's lk-99 as described, 5% of the time... basically they need to tune the process to improve yields. I'm not sure if that means it wouldn't be LK-99 if that's all that's going on here. /me skeptical either way
- xbmcuser 3y agoAh no they called the working prototype LK-99 so if it works it is if it does not then it is not. Instead of what you are saying that it works so is not LK-99.
- jacquesm 3y agoIt doesn't reproduce in that case, which is a useful data point but may not be the final word. The article linked in this thread suggests why making it may not be all that easy.
- dcow 3y agoI'm just saying that it's not really LK-99, then. It's something else that needs to be specified more precisely.
- notfish 3y agoDefining LK-99 as “the thing you get from following the steps in this paper” and not “the allegedly superconducting material these guys have a sample of” is silly.
- dcow 3y agoWhy? I've always understood it to be the thing the paper describes.
- carabiner 3y agoYou say potato... The paper is fucking vague on all counts, from synthesis to result. "LK-99" at this point is understood to be most likely a mixture of compounds. It is not fully defined, it is not one "thing," it's broad proposal that encompasses a family of materials.
- jacquesm 3y agoI'm not following you. The compound is specified, the process is what is poorly specified and the researchers more or less admit that they do not exactly know what the right method is. This makes it a lot harder to replicate and may well cause a lot of attempts to misfire before someone finds something that works or we give up on the search. What TFA here suggests is that there are some potential complications in manufacturing this that would explain why the original researchers had problems trying to make the compound, the number that I recall is that '1 in 10' tries resulted in a working sample. That would also be a fantastic way to pull a hoax, because it will result in 10x more effort spent on your hoax. If it turns out that it was a hoax I think the original researchers will find immense gratitude from Pons and Fleischmann for taking over the top spot for the textbook example of bad science. But for now, as far as I can see the jury is still out, and if anything the paper linked here actually improves the chances of it being real a bit more than it is offset in the other direction by a failed replication attempt.