3 ms·
Hard 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
by fnands 3y ago
Hard 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 agoReally? That's encouraging, thanks.
- famouswaffles 3y agoYes LK-99 if not a superconductor would be the strongest diamagnetic material by orders of magnitude.
- vintermann 3y agoAnd even if it turns out it isn't a superconductor, that's pretty cool in its own right, no? At least this layman would think so. And it would go a way in explaining why so many take the claims seriously and try to replicate it, if we know there's something exciting going on either way.