4 ms·
The takeaway is: LK-99 is definitely not a superconductor. The apparent observation of zero resistance can be explained due to a well-known phase transition of
by bradrn 3y ago
The takeaway is: LK-99 is definitely not a superconductor. The apparent observation of zero resistance can be explained due to a well-known phase transition of copper sulfide, combined with sloppy data analysis. The half-levitation seen in images and videos can also be observed in perfectly normal non-superconducting materials.
- chihuahua 3y agoI think the "99" in LK-99 refers to the year it was first created by the authors of the paper. Were they under the impression that it was a superconductor for the past 24 years, and only found it it was bogus because it attracted worldwide attention this year? If so, that seems strange. I can see how one might make this compound, do some tests on it, and think "oh it's a superconductor" for a few months, but then surely they would do more tests to explore its properties and discover it's not a superconductor. Did they remain deliberately ignorant for 24 years?
- teraflop 3y agoI don't think the inventors actually thought they had samples of a superconductor for 24 years. My understanding is that they thought they'd detected signs that LK-99 would be superconducting, if they were able to come up with a process to synthesize it with sufficient purity. They spent 24 years (slowly, and without a lot of funding) trying to do that. And over the last couple of years, they started to convince themselves that they had succeeded.