4 ms·
Yes, that was my first thought. There are absolutely instruments which can directly measure resistance down to 10E-8 ohms/m or lower, and I would expect any la
by deepspace 3y ago
Yes, that was my first thought. There are absolutely instruments which can directly measure resistance down to 10E-8 ohms/m or lower, and I would expect any lab doing research into superconductivity to at least have one of those.
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoAlso, "not a superconductor" means that it can't superconduct at any temperature. Where is the evidence of that? Or it's just clickbait?
- shawabawa3 3y agoBy that logic we might as well say that wood is a superconductor Nobody has tested it at 0.0000000000000K after all
- floxy 3y agoOne group claimed that their sample of LK-99 went superconducting at ~110K: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01192 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01192
- zamadatix 3y agoThe conclusion is a bit clearer: they think they observed what seemed like zero resistance at the temperature but they are unsure it was actually superconducting, hence the title being the measured resistivity instead of superconductivity directly. It's also possible (and far more likely IMO) them reaching the noise floor of the instrument was not the same as the sample actually having 0 resistance. Superconductors have a sharp dropoff at the critical temperature whereas their sample seemed to just continually have less resistance until the noise floor of the tool. It'd be cool to find it was superconducting at a temperature near that high though. That'd still be one of the best high temperature superconductors we've found.
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoTesting at 5 Kelvin is not hard. You don't have to take everything ultraliterally. And science isn't about saying wood isn't a superconductor because it's impractical to test. That's not a result. You may be getting science confused with engineering.