3 ms·
Calling it "LK-99" seems to have been a mistake. It gives the impression that the term refers to a well-defined material, perhaps even a mass-produced product l
by kijin 3y ago
Calling it "LK-99" seems to have been a mistake. It gives the impression that the term refers to a well-defined material, perhaps even a mass-produced product like "iPhone 14" or "RTX 4080". This explains all the calls for the original authors to send samples, as if you were ordering from AliExpress.
In reality, what we have is a family of lead-copper-phosphorus-oxygen compounds, each with a different crystal structure, some of which might or might not exhibit interesting properties.
If this hype doesn't fizzle out soon, scientists will probably converge on more neutral, precise terminology to refer to the various configurations in order to avoid talking past one another. Something like β-LK99-Cu-5-7.
- Osmium 3y agoScientists already have well-defined terminology for many of the crystal structures described, the LK-99 is just a shorthand for this synthesis product (and a convenient one at that, for anyone trying to keep up with the latest). I wouldn’t be too concerned! Part of the reason we’re not using a full formula yet is that we don’t precisely know what it is (or, indeed, if it’s just one thing at all; the linked paper makes a good argument that this will necessarily be a mix of multiple phases if synthesized as-described). Once we know what it is, we can use one of several existing names.
- kijin 3y agoThere should be a middle ground somewhere between an unwieldy chemical formula and a catchy product-like name. For example 3,4-MDMA is a useful shorthand for people who want to be precise as to which isomer they're talking about, but don't want to spell out 3,4-methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine every time.