this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
72 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37719 readers
111 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
72
The LK-99 “superconductor” went viral — here’s what the experts think (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

LK-99 has been touted as a potential room-temperature superconductor that could revolutionize fields like energy and transportation. However, many experts are skeptical as the initial research papers have not been peer-reviewed and contain inconsistencies and imprecisions. Early attempts to replicate LK-99 have had mixed results, with some samples showing signs of diamagnetism but not conclusively proving superconductivity. Even if LK-99 does turn out to be a room-temperature superconductor, significant challenges around manufacturing and engineering would remain before it could be utilized in real-world applications. Many experts believe that more incremental improvements to existing superconductors may be a more practical path forward for now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Here’s what the experts think:

  • Condensed Matter Theory Center of the University of Maryland about the original paper:

    "Physics" being presented in these unrefereed preprints is a travesty. The original paper has no obvious SC transition and the T< T_c resistivity is 100 times that of Cu. Southeast also has no transition, just instrumental artifacts. What is the goal here? No one can fool nature

  • Condensed Matter Theory Center of the University of Maryland about a claimed replication:

    Very helpful @QM_phys_kyoto (thans) points out that Southeast may have drawn their figure misleadingly. On a linear scale, there seems to be no transition, very disappointing and not a good sign since the artifact also looms large

    CMTC has high standards and we are exhausted

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Can confirm. Just finished up at the UMD physics grad program. CMTC is headed by Sankar Das Sarma, and he knows his shit.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wtf for some reason, my comment does not appear as it supposed to and my edits do not seem to work properly. I'm referencing two tweets: https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1686901855358427136 and https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1686895266329174016

Edit: For some reason, the "<" character kills the comment