14 ms·
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
- deadlike 3y agoAlthough I was really excited at first as I kept diving deeper in the topic I grew a healthy dose of skepticism for the LK-99 superconductivity claim. The below article[1] has an interesting take on the matter. * [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-023-06593-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-023-06593-6
- mvkel 3y agoWhy is there so little information coming from the LK-99 guys? Everyone talks about them as if they're dead. Like, why aren't they consulting with the best lab to make some rocks that are great and prove their theory? I haven't seen any interviews, or much of anything, from the original authors. Everyone is just trying to reverse engineer from scratch
- fnordpiglet 3y agoNote the change log hasn’t moved since 7/30
- 000ooo000 3y agoSeems to be in chronological order. Bottom entry is: 2023-08-07T0608Z
- fnordpiglet 3y agoMy bad!
- ant6n 3y agolast entry: "- 2023-08-07T0608Z : Updated results for 胡豆 at Zhihu"
- tupac_speedrap 3y agoBut can they replicate the experiment on a cold rainy night in Stoke?
- felixmeziere 3y agoHahaha best comment so far <3
- lordnacho 3y agoFor non football fans: https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-does-can-they-do-it-on-a-cold-rainy-night-in-stoke-mean-messi-phrase-explained/1f7alegnrwfr01i5vj34vak59k https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-does-can-they-do-it-on-a-c...
- gpderetta 3y agoTIL, thanks. But warnings about extremely obnoxious and only temporarily stoppable video ads (no ad-blocker at work unfortunately).
- runiq 3y agoWell thank you for making me bust out laughing at work.
- RetroTechie 3y agoRoy "Jaws" Scheider stumbling into the cabin: "You're gonna need a bigger bowl of popcorn!"
- noitpmeder 3y agoSee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts
- stavros 3y agoSo basically is looking like mostly a no? The replications haven't been encouraging so far.
- fnands 3y agoHard to say. The samples that didn't achieve diamagnetism don't tell us much except that creating LK-99 is tricky, which is not a big deal. If someone can show both diamagnetism and prove that it is not a superconductor then that would be pretty discouraging.
- stavros 3y agoHm, but diamagnetism in itself doesn't mean that it's a superconductor, no? There are a few diamagnetic materials that aren't superconductors, AFAIK.
- fnands 3y agoTrue, but what I meant was that the labs that couldn't replicate even diamagnetism clearly haven't created the same material, as the original LK-99 was shown to be diamagnetic. If someone can show that it is diamagnetic and not superconducting then that could be evidence that they recreated the same material, but that it doesn't show superconductivity.
- stavros 3y agoThat makes sense, thanks. So if the replication is not diamagnetic, it means that it's not LK-99, rather than that LK-99 is not diamagnetic itself, thanks.
- deyiao 3y agoHowever, we have never seen a material with such strong diamagnetism that is not a superconductor
- stavros 3y ago
- mergejoin 3y agothis video sent by one of the original authors to the NY Times is the most significant peace of evidence to me: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconductor-vid_wg_1080p.mp4 https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconducto...
- memen 3y agoCouldn't this be explained by magnetism alone? How does it show superconductivity?
- danielbln 3y agoAbsolute layman here, but from what I've read it's supposed to show diamagnetism and the Meissner effect and flux pinning. Assuming no new weird physics, the only materials that exhibit those behaviours are superconductors.
- WJW 3y agoMagnetic levitation can't be done with normal magnets alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem TL;DR: Normal magnets have two poles, and will try to flip themselves around to achieve a lower energy state. You cannot levitate a normal magnet on another magnet without mechanical stabilization. Superconducting materials actively repel all magnetic field lines and can achieve levitation without external stabilization.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago> Magnetic levitation can't be done with normal magnets alone Technically it can be done with an array of magnets with opposing polarities. Without more details from on this video's source and legitimacy, one could argue that an array of magnets is hiding under the 'single magnet' cover plate. I am not saying this is a hoax, but as exciting as this seems we just have to wait it out for more replication publications to make that call.
- 3y ago
- tw1984 3y ago[flagged]
- Traubenfuchs 3y agoSuch a weird take. It's impressive how much money China invests in research. Coming up with new stuff is only half of the way.
- Glawen 3y agoI understand that denigrating a competitor is a defense mechanism to remove your unease, but really I would not bet against the Chinese. They improved so much in the last three decades, taking advantage of western smugness, that the only question remaining is whether they will overtake USA or not.
- tw1984 3y agoChinese engineer working in China here. You totally missed the point. > bet against the Chinese criticize the lack of innovation is not betting against anyone. it is obvious that China is not leading in anything that can potentially lead to the next industrial revolution. as explained, no one is betting against China, but would you bet on China to be the next No.1 tech superpower? personally, I won't, my day to day life here tells me that it lacks literally all key ingredients required for such success. not saying it is not doing okish, but doing ok including becoming the world's largest economy and tech investor is not that fancy when it is purely backed by a huge population size. On a per capita basis, R&D spending is extremely low, I couldn't name any single high tech company here that has a deep & healthy engineering culture. > taking advantage of western smugness the west has all the reasons to be "smugness", just look at the recent developments, reusable rockets, private trips to the space, the satellite internet constellation, ChatGPT, mRNA vaccine, the 100% remission rate for a certain type of colon cancer...the list goes really really long and I am just talking about progresses made in the last 3 years. tell me what Chinese counterparts are? some cheap EV cars made with highly toxic materials? or maybe some mobile apps that popup ten ads for making each online order? or maybe you are talking about the so called online payment system that literally locked an entire generation of senior citizens out of real social life? > They improved so much in the last three decades I live & work in Shanghai, a typical match box sized apartment inside the outer ring road now costs 1 million USD when the average wage is $10k USD per annual. Simple maths tells me that one need to be keep working since the end of WWI non stop to buy such an apartment - assuming you don't need to pay tax and you don't eat, drink, buy cloth. If you work harder to get yourself a fancy Chinese EV there, you can drive your "symbol of personal success" to a countryside, in just 2 hours, you can get to a fancy province called Anhui where you will be welcomed by millions of locals making $1k USD per annual. Don't get too shocked when you realize that those on $1k USD per annual is actually the lucky one, the pension rate is about $25 USD per month. You need to be totally blind to call all these "improved so much".
- vhiremath4 3y agoIt’s interesting to notice all unofficial institutions (bottom table) have a higher outcome of partial success. Unless the more legitimate labs are less capable, you have to wonder whether anything outside of an accredited institution can be trusted at all at this point. My guess is the allure of hype (more followers / engagement) is too strong for personal gain.
- sgt101 3y agoIt may be the opposite. If you are at a national lab and replicate this you would have to do so with a very high level of detail and diligence before disclosing to the press. I am pretty sure that every PI of every lab will be demanding that all process and material is submitted to them and then going over it with a fine tooth comb before putting their name to it. The private folks have much less to lose, as well as (possibly) more to gain.
- inglor_cz 3y agoUnofficial institutions may have a lower institutional barrier for just dumping an "It works!" message on social networks. Big institutions have a reputation to protect, which in this case means being extra careful before making any revolutionary claims. I don't really think that either is bad, but I would expect confirmations from the stratosphere to come in quite a bit later. Also, it is vacation time in the Northern Hemisphere, so many bigger institutions will be staffed by minimal crews only - mostly by younger people, who don't have kids yet, but don't have much decision authority either. In the Dept. of Algebra where I studied, it was uncommon to meet a professor in summer, much less several of them at the same time. The postdocs were present, but not the big wigs.
- victorantos 3y agoIndeed, it's quite intriguing to observe the apparent trend of unofficial institutions showing a higher rate of partial success. It raises questions about the factors influencing these outcomes. While it's important not to jump to conclusions about the legitimacy or capability of accredited labs versus unofficial ones, your skepticism is understandable. Accredited institutions often have established protocols, rigorous peer review processes, and accountability mechanisms that contribute to their credibility. However, it's worth considering that unofficial institutions might have some advantages too, such as more freedom to explore unconventional approaches and potentially quicker adaptation to emerging trends.
- tjpnz 3y agoI keep expecting to see coverage of this in what some would term the "mainstream" press but it's crickets. I refuse to believe that they're waiting for more results either, even the more reputable publications will carry junk science. At the very least there's an interesting story to tell in the publishing of the paper.
- iamflimflam1 3y agoI think they've done their "exciting breakthrough" piece and now it's not very news worthy.
- tjpnz 3y agoI didn't even see that. Am I living under a rock?
- ajkjk 3y agoYes, it's been everywhere. But -- rightly -- not as hyped as on the overexcitable corners of the internet who want to follow every little bit of news on the subject (because, I guess, they don't care about the quality of the information? Personally I would rather wait and see what happens when experts have time to apply expertise and rigor to the topic.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SSLy 3y agohttps://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/whats-going-on-with-the-reports-of-a-room-temperature-superconductor/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/whats-going-on-with-...
- criley2 3y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconductor-ambient.html?unlocked_article_code=1RFsvH3_3gc3a53X5ODw9MQ0dPhZKWCfS6XONy_SDVqOSwhBxDO65hnRVRgkhB7qaufwmIO9jZR8WjB5ZulcNiZ9H1hpyaDKJE25iHNWUFVokh208asy0oT-5OQ-asT1sKXAGcKdEtIscaox7nlHFnnPO467Sfr6KQZywb35LcOCobs1R651b9ei_PaUO414mkedhIQZPRPg72gHpRfttUaQjnOZcIa9etr0Cpib9ZbVSQmLA78ZXqVpL6hyESeEH-FzXCVzIoxzjroKtxxdbnBYVkpSlgrL7HUXkLFIZkPbjBddXuX72jeQm8-RXUdChVmGjKTgpZ3f5I0X_4-8GyGS25Nxbg&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc... (gifted link, sorry for the mess) https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/03/room-temperature-superconductor-and-lk-99-what-to-know/ec47ab44-31ce-11ee-85dd-5c3c97d6acda_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/03/ro... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/02/lk-99-and-the-desperation-for-scientific-discovery/74c4f774-317a-11ee-85dd-5c3c97d6acda_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/02/lk... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/04/lk-99-superconductor-wins-social-media-but-the-frenzy-must-cool-down-lkwl1mjm/883b3252-32cc-11ee-85dd-5c3c97d6acda_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/04/lk... Plenty more from less "historic MSM outlets". Looks like the MSM has been writing more than a few LK99 articles in the past 5 days!
- A_D_E_P_T 3y agoLK-99 is a quasi two-dimensional material, and one which seems particularly challenging to synthesize in a bulk polycrystalline three-dimensional mass. Even the original researchers stated that they'd "get it right" only a fraction of the time, and that their famous floating cracked-disc is still impure. I think that there's no reason to assume that negative results right now are conclusive, whereas positive results are strongly indicative.
- ThePhysicist 3y agoIt's a hexagonal lead-apatite crystal, how is that "quasi two-dimensional"?
- jstanley 3y agoI don't know anything about lead-apatite crystals, but I know that hexagons are 2-dimensional.
- kergonath 3y agoHexagonal refers to the type of crystal lattice. Most hexagonal crystals, including apatites, have a 3-dimensional structure.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y agoEven lead apatite is anisotropic. It conducts electrons along a plane from lead atom to lead atom --- where the phosporous atoms are insulators. Superconductivity in LK-99 moves along a similarly anisotropic two-dimensional plane.
- ThePhysicist 3y agoDo you have a reference for that claim?
- kergonath 3y ago> LK-99 is a quasi two-dimensional material There is nothing 2-dimensional about the Apatite structure, and the preprints I have seen do not show any kind of “quasi two-dimensional” structure. If anything, it’s more like an array of tubes and chains, more 1D than 2D. Do you have a source making this claim?
- deyiao 3y agoThe optimistic aspects are: 1. The diamagnetism of LK-99 is very strong; 2. In almost all experiments, LK-99 has only exhibited one-dimensional diamagnetism, which is hard to consider as fraudulent coincidence; 3. One-dimensional diamagnetism is very mysterious, and there is currently no suitable theoretical explanation.
- shrx 3y agoIs it one-dimensional (linear) or two-dimensional (planar)?
- bjornsing 3y agoWouldn’t two-dimensional (planar) superconductivity lead to one-dimensional (linear) diamagnetism? If the eddy currents are stuck in a plane then the induced magnetic field should be perpendicular to that plane, no?
- kzrdude 3y agoHyun-Tak Kim, one of the Korean authors, says it's a one dimensional superconductor.
- bjornsing 3y agoHow can there be eddy currents in a 1D superconductor? And if there are no eddy currents, wouldn’t that prevent diamagnetism?
- EvgeniyZh 3y agoI don't think there is any experimental evidence for that, and the original 1996 theory paper looks sketchy from what I managed to understand (it talkes about van der Waals transition and it is unclear for me where zero resistance would come from in that case)
- Jweb_Guru 3y agoIt has been noted that graphite also exhibits "one-dimensional diamagnetism" (in the sense that it has much stronger diamagnetism in one plane than the other two) and it levitates fine and isn't very mysterious. There also haven't been any reliable measurements of strong diamagnetism in LK-99. We have the video from the team, which is not evidence of diamagnetism let alone strong diamagnetism, and we have a handful of magnetic susceptibility tests from labs on tiny, tiny samples (much smaller than the one in the video) that found weak diamagnetism. I don't really think anything about LK-99 is optimistic at this point, honestly.
- duchenne 3y agoI see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process. The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab. They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it. Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying to make an open source alternative so they have a risk of not profiting from their extraordinary invention.
- sgt101 3y agoI understood that they have disclosed the process, and are actively advising some of the groups to support replication. However, they acknowledge that the process is difficult to get right and claim that they have had to run it many times to get the results that they are claiming. I don't have any clue about materials science, but I can imagine why this would be the case.
- bhouston 3y agoThe lab has a patent though which a lows for disclosure while also profiting from it. Thus I am not totally convinced of your claims.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago[flagged]
- Filligree 3y ago[flagged]
- bhouston 3y agoThis is likely just one member of a family of related compounds that exhibit the similar properties. I am unsure how broad the patent is, but I suspect there will be a race to find other members of this family of related compounds. Some may be easier/cheaper to synthesize or have more stability/longevity. Some members of the family may even have larger rangers where they exhibit SC.
- nntwozz 3y agoAsianometry just released a video on the history of superconductors: https://youtu.be/wUczYHyOhLM https://youtu.be/wUczYHyOhLM It's a nice primer on the topic as he touches on LK-99.
- cmsonger 3y agoThanks for posting this. This was really interesting and I learned a lot.
- hungryforcodes 3y agoThis was super informative. Thanks :)
- misja111 3y agoWhy is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y agoReproducibly is kinda a cornerstone of academia. This isn’t a product sneak peak.
- ergocoder 3y agoThis is about material that didn't exist before. The existence and effect of it should suffice. How it is produced is a later step.
- kijin 3y agoWell, in the case of LK-99 the production method itself seems to be part of the puzzle, and the original authors aren't noticeably better at it than anyone else. Even their best sample doesn't fully levitate. We need higher quality samples in order to determine whether the thing actually superconducts, because it's really hard to measure the resistance of small grains of material buried inside a mostly useless rock.
- ergocoder 3y agoBased on your statement, the original author would have claimed something untrue since they also cannot really produce LK-99 that fully levitates. It is certainly not a part of the puzzle here. The puzzle is to reproduce the experiment, but you claim the original experiment itself is bogus...
- kijin 3y agoWhat do you think is easier, making a possible superconductor, or popping it on top of a magnet and seeing if it floats? The latter is an "experiment" only in the sense of an elementary school science class. Why are we so obsessed with finding out whether the original authors did their homework? Science is not about crediting or discrediting people, it's about collaborating and standing on one another's shoulders to find out truths about the world. If LK-99 turns out to be a superconductor, it doesn't matter if the original paper was glaringly incomplete. If LK-99 doesn't pan out, it matters even less.
- foderking 3y agolmaoooo. hackernews is the last place I expected to see a spacebattles link
- kzrdude 3y agoSabine Hossenfelder linked to this table. Not sure if that's more or less likely than HN.
- golergka 3y agoHow hard would it be to get false positive results here? In other words, if I put a lump of random stuff without any real interesting properties and a very motivated and sleep deprived scientist in a lab with all possible test equipment, what would be a probability of getting some kind of test result that would look yellow or green in that table?
- petesergeant 3y agoIn the morning I just check the odds on various betting markets now rather than going to look for actual replication news. If they haven't moved, there's no new news, I reckon, and it saves me having to look in any more detail
- inetknght 3y agoBetting on an unproven science about whether the science will be proven is arguably the pinnacle of "I have too much money" Instead of putting your money there, why not invest in some of the labs that are trying to reproduce the science?
- phyrex 3y agoThat’s not what he said at all. He says he uses it as an indicator whether there are news or not
- toshk 3y agoBreakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true! But I understand nothing of this field What's the general consensus here, real or not?
- chpatrick 3y agoBurma-Shave
- sebastianconcpt 3y agoI had to Google what Burma-Shave is :)
- oxfordmale 3y agoIt is a discovery of an interesting semi conductor with strong diamagnetism. It will likely spur a lot of new solid state physics research.
- beanjuice 3y agoSources for this as the consensus take? Or is this your personal take? As far as I have heard, it is still well under discussion, especially with more recently (per this weekend) levitating flakes, and the fact that noone has successfully replicated a certain-failure of actual conducting properties.
- singularity2001 3y agoThe consensus 'here' unfortunately does not seem to reflect the very critical consensus amongst r/Physics : https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/15i3h9d/lk99_megathread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/15i3h9d/lk99_megat...
- Freedom2 3y agoThe comments here are of a higher quality (due to top tier moderation) and generally the community is smarter and more in tune. I'd go with the HN consensus any day, over some random subreddit.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoHN is such a weird place. Every so often it adopts these communities of people obsessed with something, and lately it's whatever LK-99 is. I wish they'd just go make a subreddit.
- dimillian 3y agoWhatever it is? I mean it could change our relationship to energy in the next 10 to 20 years. If you don't get excited by this then I don't know.
- local_issues 3y agoBut this is so much fun! Reddit isn’t fun, and the energy here is just lovely
- hcks 3y agoYou might want to checkout the many subreddit dedicated to crypto. Same energy
- local_issues 3y agoHuh? Those are people trying to pump garbage. This is people excited for a huge breakthrough. Life is so much more beautiful and wondrous if you're willing to be vulnerable. Let people be excited.
- stormfather 3y ago
- aantix 3y agoWasn't USC going to validate the resistance on one of the publicly demo'ed samples?
- Kiro 3y agoOT but I'm always fascinated by forums like this with seemingly a lot of activity but zero information anywhere what it's about. It's like a private club. I often need to resort to the meta tags in order to get an idea: <meta name="description" content="A popular forum celebrating geek culture and creativity. Home to all genres of original and fan fiction, plus lively discussions about everything nerdy." />
- xqcgrek2 3y agoAt this point it's better to flag LK-99 posts like this on HN and move on. To much noise and no signal. There's no point going down a rabbit hole on unconfirmed and low quality replication attempts. You'll hear about it elsewhere if it's actually replicated.
- alecst 3y agoA few comments on diamagnetism: The most strongly diamagnetic materials that aren't a superconductor are bismuth and pyrolytic carbon, a graphite-like material. Bismuth has a density of about 10g/cm^3, and a diamagnetic strength (X) of -16.6 x 10^-5. It won't levitate above a magnet because it's just too heavy. Pyrolytic carbon has a density of 2g/cm^3, and a diamagnetic strength of -40 x 10^-5. Thin sheets of this lightweight material will levitate over strong magnets, provided the magnetic field alternates in a chessboard pattern. LK-99 must be similar in density to bismuth, and the videos (like below) show large chunks of it levitating. If it's not a superconductor, it's the most diamagnetic room temperature material ever seen, by orders of magnitude. And on top of that, if pure diamagnetism were at work, the samples would have to slide off the magnet. They wouldn't stay there and float. It's similarly unclear why the material seems to always float at an angle. It seems to track the field lines in some way. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconductor-ambient.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism#Materials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism#Materials Diamagnetic strength = susceptibility My background: physics, but not superconductors.
- bschne 3y ago> It's similarly unclear why the material seems to always float at an angle. It seems to track the field lines in some way. I've seen some people talking about the LK-99 samples only having these properties locally due to internal structure or something like that, could that not explain the angle if one part of the sample had more "pockets" of material with these properties than another part?
- Plankaluel 3y agoYeah, I think unless the authors are deliberatly misleading the public (which is of course a possibility, though not very likely I think) it is hard to imagine a scenario where all of this won't turn out to be highly interesting in one way or another (even if it might turn out to not be a superconductor)
- harles 3y agoI really doubt there’s intentional fraud here, but they were forced to publish (or pre-print to be pedantic) early. [0] This certainly led to less rigor. [0]: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248 https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248 apologies for the Twitter link, I didn’t have time to find a better source.