15 ms·
Huazhong University demonstrates LK-99 diamagnetism
- techdragon 3y agoThis further confirms the existing discourse around sample makeup and quality, the video, to me at least, looks like a large flake of inert material attached to a smaller whiteish looking bit of reactive material at one end of the flake, each time it’s demonstrated that end of the sample is the end that moves and the rest of it looks like it’s hanging down… the same sort of thing we saw with the original demonstration with the larger lopsided sample in the very first publication on by the QCenter original Korean researchers… As I said in an earlier post on another article, smash the samples… let’s see some clear unambiguous levitation of small grains with little dead weight, this process is clearly not yet refined enough to give large samples of high enough quality to visibly demonstrate levitation… several of the existing failures to replicate could actually just be failures to have a high enough ratio of superconducting to normal mass and thus no levitation… these powered based bulk material processes are tricky as hell, even when you aren’t trying to modify the chemical properties and do reactions it can be hard to get structural cohesion of samples and a lot of dry powder based ceramic products have had notoriously bad quality control issues… we “mastered” wet clay ceramics thousands of years ago, yet depending on what your trying to do, something as “simple” as dry ceramic sintering can be challenging! I don’t think a lot of the researchers rushing to perform replication are being sufficiently thoughtful about the nature of the samples they are producing. They are smart capable people who potentially have very little powder process knowledge or may have it from a background where this sort of thing isn’t as important… heck I only have my knowledge of this stuff from research into ultra high temperature ceramics for use in rocket engines, where poor powder process control can affect the structural and thermal properties and lead to all sorts of erosions cracks and other kinds of material degradation and sample destruction… so yeah I don’t expect all these teams to fully understand the challenges of powder based solid chemistry and I think we are seeing it brought out in the visible evidence we’ve seen posted online. Also… It’s interesting how often people are using the same new AI powered video translation service … which I’d literally never heard of before the initial release and some of the interested parties using it to translate the original Korean information. Everyone following along has heard of this service now and it seems to be a happy accident that they are getting publicity and interest from being associated with the community gathering around the internet to follow LK-99 related work!
- kleene_op 3y agoConsidering the trouble everyone seem to have making the material and considering how few of the stuff they managed to produce, it's understandable that they're hesitant about breaking their sample into smaller bits. If I were them, I would keep producing more samples before deciding to break some of them to get full levitation confirmation.
- throw310822 3y agoCould you, ehm, just make it a into a fine powder, then use a magnet to separate the powder that levitates from the powder which doesn't, then collect the levitating powder and stick it back together... with glue?
- amluto 3y agoI would expect that, in the best case, this would give a gluey clump of stuff that can be levitated. I think it would be more interesting to separate out the magnetically interesting material like this and attempt to analyze it to find out what it is.
- techdragon 3y agoEffectively you could take a watch glass or a petri dish, either not compress to a pellet in the first place, or just break up your sample gently between your fingers into the onto the watch glass or into the Petri dish, then just place that on top of the biggest magnet you can find and pluck away any floating fragments with plastic tweezers… seems simple… assuming you appreciate the sorts of thing’s about solid powder chemistry (which can seem a lot more like applied geology than the kind of chemistry most people are used to)… if you want to see some interesting things and like a good chemistry video I thoroughly recommend searching for dry powder on powder chemical reactions… most of them are fire related demonstrations but it can be interesting to see them gently spoon a powder on top on another powder and nothing happens, until they poke it with a stirring rod hard enough to press the powder firmly against the other powder and get the reaction surface area to increase and then it’s off to the races… physical contacts between materials can sometimes not be in as much contact as you think… even when it’s literally pilled on top of the other stuff.
- anonylizard 3y agoAt the very minimum, this reduces the chance of fraud to 0%. Clearly it is possible to replicate something similar to the levitation shown in the original video.
- SunghoYahng 3y agoWhat if the claim of replication is a fraud?
- b800h 3y agoCurrently the replications look less professional than the (one) failure to reproduce. The next couple of days will be a rollercoaster.
- unsupp0rted 3y agoThen it increases the chance of fraud to 0% ~ 100%
- deyiao 3y agoThe probability is quite low, because that guy conducted the experiment through live streaming, and failed once. Then, he conducted the second experiment after adopting some suggestions from netizens.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jrflowers 3y agoI like the confidence here. At the minimum the chance of fraud has gone to zero. At the maximum the chance of fraud has gone to negative infinity.
- yreg 3y agoAt the maximum it is a superconductor obviously
- nubela 3y agoI have been thinking what the incentive is for universities to defraud people with fake LK99 results?
- b800h 3y agoIt's difficult to understand the full context. For all we know this is some sort of maverick with a Weibo channel (or whatever) to promote. But I think we'd know that by now? No idea.
- anonylizard 3y agoThe author posted this statement under the video: "Under the guidance of Professor Haixin Chang, postdoctor Hao Wu and PhD student Li Yang from the School of Materials Science and Technology of Huazhong University of Science and Technology successfully for the first time verified the LK-99 crystal that can be magnetically levitated with larger levitated angle than Sukbae Lee‘s sample at room temperature. It is expected to realize the true potential of room temperature, non-contact superconducting magnetic levitation." He is putting his name out there, including his professor's, and his schools (A decently reputable uni in China). I utterly fail to see the incentives for being fraudulent here.
- b800h 3y agoYes, agree. Reaching for possibles, though. This is such a world-changing discovery that I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm, which is lifting off.
- blitzar 3y agoI have been thinking what the incentive is for the west to suggest that their people should ask why universities might be motivated to defraud people with fake LK99 results?
- eganist 3y agoI think OP's point is that they're trying to think adversarially about whether such incentives exist, not implying that they actually do. It's a good thought experiment with a claim this large - to see how the claimant would benefit if they're fibbing, I mean.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- m00dy 3y agoI want to believe.
- ackbar03 3y ago[flagged]
- zevv 3y agohttps://nitter.net/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712 https://nitter.net/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712
- pier25 3y agoThanks
- vbezhenar 3y agoWhy don’t they break this sample to pieces to hopefully demonstrate real levitation?
- MrPatan 3y agoBecause all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put the sample back together again
- saberdancer 3y agoThey are making more samples (bigger ones to test resistance). My guess is that they already broke it to pieces and this one levitates slightly. Until they get more samples they will keep this one intact.
- odyssey7 3y agoAlready met the replication requirements.
- thomasmg 3y agoI think they didn't show that yet because for scientists, what they did already proves diamagnetism: they show that both sides of the magnet lift the sample. They could more or less easily demonstrate levitation even with the current sample, by using four (maybe slightly stronger) magnets. Four magnets are needed so that the sample doesn't float to the side. Typically four magnets are used to demonstrate diamagnetism of e.g. pyrolytic carbon, see the picture in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism So in summary, they don't show levitation because that's scientifically not needed. It would be much more impressive for the non-scientist however, so I guess eventually they will show this. I assume another reason they didn't do that so far is that they are afraid to lose the tiny sample :-)
- computerfriend 3y agoIf you have four magnets all stuck together, the magnetic field is the same as if you have one large magnet.
- epups 3y agoFor those wondering, the Huazhong University of Science and Technology where this replication was produced is a large and credible university, top 100 in the world according to some rankings [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huazhong_University_of_Science_and_Technology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huazhong_University_of_Scien...
- baal80spam 3y ago> if successful LK-99 would be a watershed moment for humanity easily on-par with invention of the transistor Is this really true? I've seen comments that "it would make a lot of things quite a bit more efficient, but it's not a revolution". edit: Reading through the linked material now: https://nitter.moomoo.me/Andercot/status/1685088625187495936?s=20 https://nitter.moomoo.me/Andercot/status/1685088625187495936...
- curiousgal 3y agoIt just grinds my gears when the response to a simple question, that is meant to be addressed to a layman, is peppered with acronyms and complicated diagrams/graphs.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoSuperconductors allow creation of non-chemical energy storage whose capacity is only limited by storage's mechanical resistance from being crushed by its own magnetic field and which has nothing like "finite charge-discharge cycle life limit" Additionally it has no internal resistance, so you can charge such battery virtually immediately, but you can also discharge it immediately. This will be important for energy based weapons.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- junon 3y agoReally, really crazy to think we might actually be on the brink of something so incredibly life altering. I want to believe so much.
- m3kw9 3y agoWhat would be a life altering application for you?
- 55555 3y agoLess lossy energy transmission, storage, use, etc.
- mytailorisrich 3y agoA lot of these applications depend on properties beyond superconductivity. For instance, if the substance is rigid and brittle it cannot be used for cables, etc. My hope is that, if LK-99 is proven to be superconducting, once the mechanism is understood it will spur the discovery of a whole bunch of new superconductors at room temperature and pressue.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoIndeed it sounds like LK-99 specifically is not something we'd want used for power transmission lines. From a difficulty of manufacturing POV (aka cost), and from the nature of the material (more of a ceramic from what I hear?) but also because it's composed with lead. At this point in civilization, we know better than to string lead stuff all over the place in unconstrained scenarios. Anything built with lead should not be ending up in areas where it will not be contained and maintained professionally,, and surely should not be going into the general consumer waste stream at all. Seems like the most compelling applications will be in MRI machines, and then within power generation, specialized super computing, etc.
- i_cannot_hack 3y ago
- jwmoz 3y agoWhen flying cars
- adrian_b 3y agoFor now, it has become very likely that it is possible to make in this way a material that is strongly diamagnetic, unlike the usual diamagnetic materials, whose magnetism is very feeble. It remains to be seen whether the diamagnetism is associated with superconductivity, because the diamagnetism could also be caused by paired electrons whose movements are restricted to small regions of the crystal, around the lattice nodes where atoms are substituted, and which are not free to move through all the material, to be able to carry an electric current through it. Magnetic levitation can also be done with a few other relatively strong diamagnets, like elemental bismuth or graphite.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y ago[flagged]
- adrian_b 3y agoIt is pretty obvious that most people who comment here are not aware that while superconductivity implies diamagnetism, diamagnetism does not imply superconductivity. This is not mentioned at the linked tweet, so I believe that it was necessary to remind everybody of this, to avoid misunderstandings about the meaning of the "successful replication", which for now only proves strong diamagnetism, supposing that no errors have been made. Even if LK-99 were only a strongly diamagnetic material, without being a superconductor, that would still be a very interesting and useful discovery.
- jacquesm 3y ago> It is pretty obvious that most people who comment here are not aware that while superconductivity implies diamagnetism, diamagnetism does not imply superconductivity. I would expect the opposite. Because there are plenty of known substances that are diamagnetic but not superconductors. And this has been covered in other threads about this subject. How interesting it would be if it was 'just' diamagnetic depends strongly on how that diamagnetism then comes about. There are ways in which it would be a 'meh' and there are ways in which it might still be a pathway to a room temperature superconductor.
- Thoeu388 3y agoIf this is true, I wonder what it does with western corporate green agenda. There are huge money invested in it. Cheap superconductor would change a lot. Similar situation was when EU banned incandescent light bulbs. Many manufactures (mainly western based) lobbied to have them banned, in favor of fluorescent light bulbs. However cheap LEDs were developed and eat their lunch. If this superconductor is true, it means major power shift from central government, to local community! Distributed smart electric grids. Electric cars manufactured in a garage...
- Conasg 3y agoDon't understimate the ability of the big energy corporations to find a way to profit from this. Greed always finds a way.
- reacharavindh 3y ago> it means major power shift from central government, to local community! Distributed smart electric grids. It doesnt even go that far. If it leads to cheaper, safer and denser battery tech, so many people will chose to invest in their own homes and not pay the huge fees for electricity and gas. Electric cars only sweeten the deal even further.
- devit 3y agoWouldn't it have the opposite effect, of massive centralization? If you can make a perfectly superconducting electric grid, then it's better to build power plants in a single optimal location (e.g. nuclear power plants in an isolated area with no environmental risks) and deliver to the whole world via superconducting wires.
- Thoeu388 3y agoEnergy loses on wires are like 10% per 1000 miles. But energy bill from central government is bundled with many taxes (like 50%). For example: - CO2 emission tax - BBC license (or local equivalent), like paying CNN every year... - subsidy tax for oil energy complex - loyalty tax for pensioners - subsidy tax for current war policy....
- asimpletune 3y agoIs there such a thing as a material that behaves oppositely of a superconductor in the presence of a magnetic field? I mean a material that always attracts regardless of polarity?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- littlestymaar 3y agoHow do you think iron behaves?
- dghughes 3y agoThere are proposed superinsulators. "superinsulators are the mirror-twins of superconductors with reversed electric and magnetic field effects" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24460-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24460-7
- blueprint 3y agocasimir plates no magnetic field even required
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoCan we have a link to the original video? The twitter thread links to a video of a screencap.
- yorwba 3y agohttps://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS if you're on mobile and it tries to force you to download the app after tapping the video thumbnail, choose 继续在网页观看 instead. EDIT: there's also a follow-up where he tries to attract it with the magnet to show that it's not ferromagnetic: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13k4y1G7i1 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13k4y1G7i1
- mazzystar 3y agohttps://targum.video/v/2023/8/1/e2ad3b8e86961ccfdcf411d2d4d18d3f/ https://targum.video/v/2023/8/1/e2ad3b8e86961ccfdcf411d2d4d1...
- prakhar897 3y agoI have absolutely zero clue on materials science, chemistry or physics of this experiment. Can anyone explain to me why some teams are able to replicate it while others can't?
- 7moritz7 3y agoThe Indian team didn't follow the actual instructions, they altered them thinking it yields the same substance but it appears the change in process did have an effect on it otherwise
- akhilkg 3y agoI think the Indian team's 2nd attempt (after also talking with one of the authors) followed the recipe as-is but was still unable to replicate it
- danielheath 3y agoNobody is certain _why_ it works yet, and even the original team are only able to occasionally get it to work. The exact composition & impurities of the inputs are likely very significant.
- euroderf 3y ago> I have absolutely zero clue on materials science, chemistry or physics of this experiment. Same here. So I wonder, is a superconducting material actually useful "in production" if it is a material that (say) crumbles easily / is not at all flexible ? If we want superconducting wires, does the material have to be ductile ?
- ChrisRR 3y agoThere's trade offs to everything. Just because it can't be extruded into wire doesn't mean it can't be cast for example. If it's not ductile it can maybe be supported by a more rigid structure. It totally depends on the application and how you work around the trade offs. Considering the alternative is supercooling helium and the dealing with the issues of containing such a small atom, managing the fragility of a room temperature superconductor may have huge beneficial trade offs
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- oppyheim 3y ago[flagged]
- mysecretaccount 3y agoIs this "replication" using a sample of LK-99 from the original researchers or did they successfully create a new sample?
- klysm 3y agoI think replication is reserved for redoing all the things and getting the same result.
- drexlspivey 3y agoCan someone explain why something being moved by a magnet is cause for celebration? Many metals do that, how does it prove superconductivity?
- klysm 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
- fnordpiglet 3y agoIt’s not simply moving it’s levitating due to repulsion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
- hovering_nox 3y agoWhen the magnet is moved below the flake, the flake stands up, meaning it is being repelled. This is the case for every magnetic material, but what they do in the video is flipping the magnet around so that poles are reversed, a normal magnet would be attracted = flake flat on the surface but instead it is also standing up. This shows that the material is a diamagnet at least = it always creates an inverted magnetic field to the magnet. So here's why this could be big: Not all diamagnets are SC but all SC materials are diamagnets.
- drexlspivey 3y agoThank you!
- SkyPuncher 3y agoIn "normal" magnetism, opposites attract and similars repel. To get a metal to repel a magnetic field it needs to have a magnetic charge induced on it. That charge will repel only one of the magnetic poles. In this situation, this flake repels all magnetism - regardless of pole.
- lossolo 3y agoIs it practical? Or it's the next graphene ?
- nemo44x 3y agoIt will be amazing to see the iterations on the theory and on the physical production of these materials over the next 20 years. LK99 is the gate that opens the understanding of ambient room temp superconductivity. It’s not so much about this particular material but that the theory behind it is objectively true. The force of many thousands of people will combine to improve this in the coming years.
- bonnow 3y agoHere is another video link that successfully replicates the anti-magnetic properties of the LK-99 material: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ex4y1X7ix https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ex4y1X7ix.
- MayeulC 3y agoAs much as I've been following LK-99 news, this evidence is pretty meh... The video quality is poor, and they do not really demonstrate levitation. If some of the sample was ferromagnetic, it would always be attracted to the magnet. If that's a small grain in the bottom side, this would explain the sample "standing up", while that side tries to become flush with the surface. I second the "break the sample up" sentiment on this one.
- est 3y agoThere are three videos, 2 by HUST, one by USTC. The USTC sample could stand up on its pointy side, and wobble a bit. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ex4y1X7ix/ https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ex4y1X7ix/ From my limited understanding this excludes ferromagnetism. Update: a fouth video just got uploaded. https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1669820225079070720 https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1669820225079070720 . A relatively big sample showing diamagnetism, but author says resistance is few kilo ohms
- MayeulC 3y agoThat second (fourth) video has the same issue as the one I pointed out (possible to have this with a ferromagnetic material), but it's also possible we're seeing different things at once, or even novel *magnetic behavior. I don't have an alternative explication for the pointy side video though, so it could be Meissner effect or diamagnetism. In general it seems like diamagnetism could be consistent with all these videos? So thanks for pointing this video out :) My knowledge of these behaviors comes from what I know of ferroelectrics, which are different, and playing around with magnets like everybody (and then some), so my observations are in no way authoritative. I remain cautiously optimistic though :)
- pera 3y agoIn the fourth video the sample appears to be levitating at 00:19 if you see the space between the shadow and the object itself, hard to tell for sure though (the surface of the table is quite porous).
- david-gpu 3y agoYes, the flake stands up when they approach a neodymium magnet to it -- but the corner that stands up is different! Isn't that consistent with a regular magnetic object, rather than a superconductor? Look carefully at this video [0]. Which corner stands up around 2:05 ~ 2:10? The levitating corner falls towards the left side of the screen. Notice the color pattern. Then the researcher flips the Neodymium magnet underneath. The idea being that if the flake was superconducting, the same corner of the flake would levitate. Tell me, which corner stands up at 2:26 ~ 2:30, after the magnet was flipped? Is it the leftmost corner as before? No. It's the one at the bottom of the screen now. You can look at the color pattern and notice that it's truly a different corner, not caused by a spurious rotation of the flake while we were not looking. In conclusion, in this experiment the flake behaves like every other regular magnet I've ever seen. Disclaimer: not a physicist of any sort, but I have a pair of eyeballs. [0] https://targum.video/v/2023/8/1/2534a4408ccce9c13a811e94f16d1543/ https://targum.video/v/2023/8/1/2534a4408ccce9c13a811e94f16d...
- m3kw9 3y agoThat’s not how magnets behave because you missed the part where he switches polarity and it still stands up
- david-gpu 3y ago> That’s not how magnets behave because you missed the part where he switches polarity and it still stands up But a different corner stands up. How do you explain that? The way it looks to me, the leftmost corner of the flake has one pole of the magnet, and the bottom-most corner has a different pole. That's why different corners float when the magnet is reversed. Like I said, I'm no physicist, but this looks like every other magnet I played with as a child. Please help me understand how this is any different.
- m3kw9 3y agoA normal wouldn’t stand up like that with both polarity exposed to it. Try it with your toy set.
- jacquesm 3y agoNote that in a strong enough magnetic field almost can be made to levitate: https://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation-explained/diamagnetic-levitation/ https://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation-explained/diamagn... That little neo cube is pretty powerful, I can get a fairly large steel needle to stand up on one end with a magnet about 1/4 of that volume if placed carefully. So if it wasn't diamagnetism that caused the sample to stand up (which side stands up isn't all that important and may be a reflection of the distribution of the superconducting material in the sample, which need not be uniform at all) the sample may have been partially magnetic and partially diamagnetic, and too heavy to be levitated by that particular magnet due to the limited field strength. I would have liked to see an attempt to pick up the sample with the magnet to rule out any contamination.
- horsawlarway 3y agoNo idea of the veracity of the video, but this was linked below: https://targum.video/v/2023/8/1/41a0e9f410fbb85bb8f66d6d953b25c1/ https://targum.video/v/2023/8/1/41a0e9f410fbb85bb8f66d6d953b...
- xdennis 3y agoRelevant Veritasum video about levitating things like strawberries or frogs: https://youtu.be/g0amdIcZt5I?t=1017 https://youtu.be/g0amdIcZt5I?t=1017
- Ajedi32 3y agoFor what it's worth, the prediction markets are going wild right now: https://manifold.markets/QuantumObserver/will-the-lk99-room-temp-ambient-pre?r=amFjaw https://manifold.markets/QuantumObserver/will-the-lk99-room-... https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor-real https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor... https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18177/room-temp-superconductor-replicated-by-2025/ https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18177/room-temp-supercon... Nothing is certain yet, but that's a pretty big surge of optimism given that prior to now estimates were hovering around 10%-20%.
- bhaak 3y agoI don't think that prediction markets are useful in situations like this. As it's not about a situation where a large enough group of people can influence the outcome, there's nothing that the pools can make to deduce a more accurate prediction. Instead you have basically gambling with large volatility every time somebody post a positive or negative news item.
- cubefox 3y agoThe markets still favor people who read and understand the papers. Admittedly, that will be a few solid-state physicists only.
- bhaak 3y agoYes, people with knowledge of the topic can make money from that if the prediction market trends towards the wrong answer. But that is not how those prediction markets are used. You see arguments like "the prediction markets give only 20% for this to be true" and people take that as "it is untrue". Without any qualifier (it also doesn't help that most people don't understand statistics).
- merman 3y agoYour statement that placing bets does not affect the outcome is true but I don't think you draw the right conclusion. If markets don't capture current sentiment accurately then bet against every news item. Let's say there's a market for a coin flip, and periodically, news comes out that makes the market lopsided (one way or the other). You should trade against it. Every time. If you are correct, this strategy will win on average, until the true breakthrough news item, which you'll be on the wrong side of. Just don't keep doubling down, because the final trade will be the one you lose. This will demonstrate who has "deduced a more accurate prediction". Everyone else put together, as events unfold, or the opposite of that. *changed to will win on average.
- lamontcg 3y agoThis whole thing reminds me of reddit finding the boston bomber, I guess at least this should be less harmful.
- jiggawatts 3y agoIt reminds me of the excitement caused by Pons and Fleischmann before the cold fusion reproductions failed. At the time I felt excitement, wonder, and hope for future. That it didn’t work out doesn’t matter — the feeling was real and was in part the reason I studied Physics. Discovery is not an endless series of perfect successes. Sometimes we can enjoy the process even if it doesn’t work out. Like Elon said before the first starship launch: “Excitement guaranteed!”
- RandomWorker 3y agoThere are two bits to this, all superconducting materials are diamagnetic it’s simply the property that a material creates a magnetic field that is opposed to the applied magnetic field. All materials exhibit this property but it’s not strong enough to levitate. One thing that strongly diamagnetic materials tend to have is very I high resistance, and this material has both low resistance and this diamagnetic property. Something very interesting.
- an1sotropy 3y agoSeeing that crummy video of a mystery speck maybe floating reminded me of the floating frog video (thanks, diamagnetism) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJsVqc0ywM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJsVqc0ywM
- MasterYoda 3y agoOut of curiosity, does anyone know what it is that change on an physical level for electrons to move without resistance in an superconductivity material? What is it that change when it happens and the material become superconductive and why?
- cyberax 3y agoIn low-temperature (liquid helium) superconductors electrons start slightly sticking to each other. This makes their energy spectrum quantized (I mean, even more than usual), so to transfer any energy to electrons it has to be in a large enough chunk to kick them apart. And cold atoms don't have enough thermal energy to do that, so there's no energy transfer between atoms and electron pairs. In high-temperature superconductors (liquid nitrogen) something similar happens, but the exact mechanism is still unknown.
- Octokiddie 3y agoThe tweet does not link to a paper reporting a "replication," but rather two theoretical papers. The title is therefore misleading.
- COMUNISM 3y ago[flagged]
- zarkmuckerburg 3y ago[flagged]
- WiSaGaN 3y agoUniversity name in the (current) title should be changed to Huazhong University of Science and Technology or HUST. [1] Calling it Huazhong University is like calling Georgia Institute of Technology (GT) as Georgia Institute. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huazhong_University_of_Science_and_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huazhong_University_of_Science...