57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
57 points (85.2% liked)
science
14594 readers
94 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Im so ready for this. Going to change the world. Who is smart enough to tell me why this isn't really a room temperature super conductor?
This is published an ArXiv. That means it's a manuscript that hasn't passed peer review yet. There is a very real chance that the reviewers will find errors in the manuscript that change the interpretation of the data. In other words, I would take anything on ArXiv with a huge grain of salt
The authors say they have a video of it levitating. This is way beyond error territory. This is either a deliberate hoax or a real discovery. The authors realize the significance of what they have. When you commit academic fraud, you go for something boring, or at least something difficult verify, like Hwang Woo-suk or Elizabeth Holmes, not simple and easily reproducible and altering the course of history.
Being published in a journal isn't what makes something true. That's just the scientific concensus process, but true facts have been true for all time. I can totally imagine someone who has made a discovery of this magnitude simply dumping it on arxiv for everyone to see. If it's true, we'll see levitation videos all over the world tomorrow. Even if you try to keep it secret or patent it, it's impossible for something this simple yet important. More noble to release it for the benefit of mankind. If it's a hoax, we'll know - not next year but next week - and their careers will be ruined.
It's been hoaxed by like 4 different groups or more at this point
There was a recent 'discovery' that seems to have gone very quiet already this year, iirc the results couldn't be reproduced. So I guess we have to wait and see if another team can reproduce these results. A line I found interesting was:
"The superconductivity of LK-99 originates from minute structural distortion by a slight volume shrinkage (0.48 %), not by external factors such as temperature and pressure"
'A slight volume shrinkage' kinda sounds like the results of pressure to me? I'm not equipped to fully understand all the terms they use, but it sounds like they've found a way to apply pressure internally in the material, without using pressure in the environment.
They replaced some of the lead(II) ions with copper(II), which has a smaller ionic radius. That's why the structure would be smaller. Then they meander around other superconductor discoveries to make the argument that this volume change is the cause of the superconducting property here.
As a chemist I can't say much about the physics aspects of this paper, but the chemistry and crystallography seem reasonable. It would only take a few days to replicate the synthesis and run some of these tests on it, assuming this is real. If I ran a lab doing these things I would be doing that right now.
Something I'd like to point out is that this material is inherently hard to bring to high purity. It relies on a copper atom jumping into a higher energy configuration by chance which is not going to happen often since everything always tends towards the lowest energy configuration possible. Even if you wanted to make a low purity sample and refine it, the supposed material properties depend on the crystal structure, so you can't melt it down, you can't crush it and bring the powder back to a solid, it eludes most conventional ways of purifying a material.
If it's real, we're not going to see any mass production for a long time. It'll be harder to mass produce than graphene by quite a bit, and we see how long that's taking.