The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor has been found

[Uttamattamakin]

16 minutes ago, StDragon said:

So far it's bullshit.

While there's some interesting phenomenon regarding simulation and testing for certain magnetic properties, nothing so far shows signs of RT superconductivity.

 

I suppose in the end, that's the real interesting thing about all this; that simulations are being tested in the real world.

If I had started this thread I would mark this as the solution.   They are down to claiming it is a "1 dimensional" superconductor".  In physics dimensions can mean a lot of things.  For example the three translational degress of freedom in space.  3+1 degrees of freedom that make space time, or the rotational degress of freedom around each axis of an object.    

They mean it superconducts in only one direction? 

That the cooper pairs of electrons are only in a composite Bosonic state in one direction but not the other? 

I may just be a Black transwoman from Il who's just a bit too out of shape to make it as a stripper .... but when I think 1 dimension I think of a line. 
-------------------------

That's one dimensional. 

 

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The position Uttamattamakin holds is that a "skeptic" should say something along the lines of: "No, you are wrong. Your findings are false. If you find evidence then I will call that evidence false as well. I will only bring up evidence that supports the predefined conclusion I have reached".

No.  They have to present evidence of superconductivity. 

 

So far they have not.  That's not just the opinion of an anime figurine that I would love to be as curvy as (but then even she has to wear a corset to attain that).  I have cited many many papers, videos, Tweets by people who we can easily verify are experts, and who do work with superconductors.  Even they aren't totally convinced.  

 

Because

3 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

@LAwLz extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The sheer history  of non-existence and fraudlent claim rates of HT superconductors definitely should make the prior of any well-attuned baysean rationalist default to 'this is almost certainly not true' and require strong evidence to sway.

We have seen SOOOOOOO many false claims of superconductivity at room temp.    

All I have to say is we need to see a real report, from a real lab  showing Meissner, maybe flux pinning, (Where they can even suspend the LK99 under the magnet and it will stay there, move it around flip it over, AND a graph with Conductivity on the Y axis and Temp on the X axis to show the drop to 0 resistance.

 

Or at least real good video showing all of this. 

Speaking of which that might be a good video idea for LTT to finally take good 4k multi angle video of WTH is going on with LK99.
The most susy thing about this to me is that an advanced research lab in Korea, home of Samsung.... and others in China home of so many electronics ... can't get a good camera and can't get a good 4k or HD video out?   I can manage that.  Cam girls can manage that.   Can't they enlist the help of a local cam girl to tell them how to stream effectively? I'm half joking ... but a lot of these labs are at universities.  Don't they have one student who streams themself gaming who can tell their faculty how to stream right? 

[Uttamattamakin]

CAUTION IN BIG RED LETTERS. 

 

This video shows something that I'd like to see in part from a supposed flux pinning.  However I'd want to see the magnet and supposed superconductor being moved around, reorientated in ways that known superconductors do.  This is 1 second of video with a flake of something jiggling in a way that can be explained away by more mundane things.   Just like the Copper plate supposedly covered with a Thin film of LK99  posted by the original team.  EEEVblog posted a video calling bollocks on that being proof of superconductivity. 

 

 

As it sits this 1 second of video could be done with a string.  
I'd want to see it placed over the magnet to pin it.  Picking it up the magnet, and the sample by way of the flux pinning.  Holding it upside down.  Moving the SC around in the magnetic field. 

IF the Meissner effect and pinning (all superconductors have the Meissner effect, not all do flux pinning) are as strong as they would have to be for this video to be legit all of the above should be possible. 

As for the earlier Doyin video that got people excited the one who posted it has since changed their emoji to be a poop emoji. 

 

Make of that what you will. 

 

Video posted of poop emoji....

I am also going to be a little skeptical of this.  Either it is a total fake of a video or showing how to fake this. 

 

 This thread has a lot of good info on how this "partial levitation" could be faked using ordinary materials. 

[Uttamattamakin]

Here is another good one.    (Rather than keep making the same post SUPER long) 

 

Admittedly faked in a computer. 

I also found a reddit post on r physics which states all the things to look for in a paper that would test this. 

 A robust high resolution video showing flux pinning would be all we can see remotely.  Any confirmation would demonstrate at least that and the SC transition with resistivity.  Those would be filmable. 

[Quackers101]

there is some good posts on twitter but yeah, its a mess. do like the spinning one

[StDragon]

I'm just going to leave it here, but it's a good historical overview of superconductivity. As always, another superb release from the Asianometry YT channel.
 

 

[CarlBar]

On 8/6/2023 at 6:00 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

I never claimed to be neutral.  I claimed to be skeptical.  Being skeptical, especially in the case of an extraordinary scientific claim is not being neutral.

 

Every 6-9 months the Large Hadron Collider will observe some excess signal of new physics 3-sigma.  A flurry of excitement happens, papers on this "new physics" are posted to the arXiv... then a week latter crickets as more data is collected and that 3sigma bump in the data disappears into background noise.    

 
It is not incumbent on the scientific community to prove the claim of any one scientist is not true.  It is on the one making the claim to present strong evidence, for that to be replicated, and verified.  So far no one but the original team has concluded that this is what they said it was.    

What you are asking for just isn't how it works.  (For example, if I post a paper to the arXiv proposing a solution a set of never before solved field equations, is it up to me to demonstrate their correctness, and provide an experiment that will test the theory ... or is it up to others to do my work for me?) 

Furthermore.  I have given you links to a collection of papers, and analyses both written and videoed by others of those same papers that agree with my assessment.  If strong proof comes what I think will change.  
 

Yes the Meissner effect unlike the other effects that can, for the sake of a video mimic it, does not care about the orientation of the superconductor or the magnet. 

A good way for a video to demonstrate that it is the Meisener effect would be to flux pin the supposed superconductor,  then pick up the magnet and turn it over. 
IF a tiny flake is flux pinned as these vidoes claim then it would still be suspended under the magnet.  IT could be moved around every which way. 

 

Explain this to me.  Why do people seem to get really heated about skepticism on this? I fully understand wanting some good news in this crappy world ... especially with the last 4-5 years of bad news, pandemic, war, famine,  etc ...  l get the emotion.  As one who pays very close attention to pure fundamental research we see exciting possibilities like this come and go all the time.  99% of the time they are just mundane.   That's life.  

 

Science isn't about being sceptical or hopeful though. It's about figuring out the truth, the application of scepticism in a specific way is a commonly applicable means to do that. Scepticism is not the end goal itself.

 

In normal circumstances the easiest way to confirm or deny somthing is to replicate. Remaining sceptical that any given experiment you run, including the replication your attempting, is the best way to avoid false positives.

 

If however it throws up weirdness your going to have to break out the detective method of running down every possibble explanation and eliminating them until your left with only those that check out, then from there try to use available evidence to figure out which applies.

 

 

All of that only applies if your running your own experiments. If your relying on analysing other peoples info to determine true or false however arbitrary scepticism is inherently harmful to figuring out the truth because it biases your analysis towards a particular conclusion, (Usually "Status Quo"). In that scenario you have to posit every possibble explanation and then look for patterns of data in the evidence that point in any given direction to conclusively eliminate possibilities until only one remains, (the classic Sherlock Method).

 

 

What myself, @LAwLz and many other are doing is sitting on the sidelines analyzing data to try to determine the truth from the available evidence and in that scenario arbitrary scepticism does not help with determining the truth. You have to start from a "i don;t know anything for sure" and work out from there. It makes perfect sense when running an experiment yourself because the experiment is a physical thing, it's outcome is not based on your mental state or affected by it. scepticism merely ensures you read the results accurately with no hopium huffing getting in the way.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 6:00 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

You mean diamagnetism right.  Also note in the original video the sample for more than a moment falls to and rest on the magnet.  A superconductor would NEVER do that.   Then hover but only over a specific part of the magnet.   A superconductor expels all magnetic flux lines. (Flux pinning which happens due to impurities does not change this).  If it did not eddy currents caused by the magnetic fields would result in resistance.  Doesn't matter if the superconductor is 1 d 3 d 4 d or 11d and supersymmetric..

 

I've been seeing a lot of claims that the standing on edge behaviour is a paramagnetic effect. I just don't think that would apply to a sample as large as the original video as it only works for very small objects, (relative to the size of the magnetic field). I was simply outlining my thoughts there on that. But it might apply to diamagnetism as well, (As i understand it that wouldn't be stable on a single magnet and would try to fly off), but where getting into details i'm mush less sure of given my level of physics knowledge. 

[goodtofufriday]

Seems like a university just posted a paper. 

 

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/08/china-science-preprint-paper-claims-successful-lk-99-replication-and-levitation-and-expectation-of-useful-room-temperature-superconductors.html

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

Seems like a university just posted a paper. 

 

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/08/china-science-preprint-paper-claims-successful-lk-99-replication-and-levitation-and-expectation-of-useful-room-temperature-superconductors.html

This is a paper that has been posted about before.  Look upthread.    

It shows a degree of diamagnetic levitation but not the Meissener effect, or flux pinning etc. 

 

6 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Science isn't about being sceptical or hopeful though. It's about figuring out the truth, the application of scepticism in a specific way is a commonly applicable means to do that. Scepticism is not the end goal itself.

 

Yeah I have no idea what science is about.  

Of course the goal is not to be skeptical.  The goal is to find out what is true... which does not happen by stoking false hope.  It is basically the same as the presumption of innocence found in US jurisprudence.  "Innocent until proven guilty"   ==>  False until PROVEN true.   

Things cannot be disproven, only proven.  LK99 has not been proven to be a RTSC.  

IF I don't respond so much over the next few days it will be because I am going to be traveling from Chicago, Illinois to Copenhagen Denmark for an important theoretical physics meeting. (I know it sounds like bragging but it is simply true.)   I really REALLY hope to be wrong but ... I don't think that the researchers who have carefully worded what they did and did not find are.  So far no paper on this has claimed to find an RTSC other than the original papers. 

[Uttamattamakin]

Andrew Cote has posted a comprehensive case for why one should be skeptical about this and I cosign it.  The ones who want to hear from will be the national laboratories like Argonne.  I am certain they are working on checking this out and if there is anything to it will publish on it on arXiv. 

The videos show not flux pinning but standard diamagnetic repulsion.  The Meissener effect and flux pinning are much stronger than that.  IF you have seen them you know them.   They are as recognizable as an old friend from grade school.   Hence I showed videos.  The think to look for is great stability in the levitation. 

We also want to see a video showing the gathering of data showing Temp vs resistance with a drop to 0 at TC.   TC needs to be something over 373 K or 100 C.  (Remember 0K is absolute zero, anything far below 273K is NOT room temp.  273K is the freezing point of water). 

Don't trust me bro.  Trust the people who work on this.  Especially when they agree with me and not otherwise .

 

 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Of course the goal is not to be skeptical.  The goal is to find out what is true... which does not happen by stoking false hope.  It is basically the same as the presumption of innocence found in US jurisprudence.  "Innocent until proven guilty"   ==>  False until PROVEN true.   

What you are describing is a logical fallacy.

It's called "argument from ignorance". It states that asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or vice versa, is a false dichotomy.

 

You are not being a skeptic, even if you want to believe you are. Let's look at what being skeptical means:

 

Wikipedia:

Quote

skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim.

 

Cambridge Dictionary:

Quote

doubting that something is true or useful

Please note that "doubt" means unsure or to not be certain. It does not say "strongly believe something is true".

 

 

Dictionary.com:

Quote

inclined to skepticism; having an attitude of doubt:

Again, doubt means to be unsure.

 

 

Merriam-Webster:

Quote

the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

"Suspended judgment" means "not being sure either way so won't pick a side yet".

 

 

I could keep going but you get the point.

A skeptic doesn't say "this is false until proven true". A skeptic says "this may or may not be true".

 

You are not being a skeptic. You are being a dogmatic, close-minded person who is committing several logical fallacies such as argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance is expressed in the above link as:

Quote

Logical Forms:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

Does this sound familiar? It's because it's exactly what you said earlier.

You think you are being logical and reasonable, but you are actually being the exact opposite.

 

 

 

By the way, I asked the admins. It is totally fine to send personal information in a PM to verify who you are and your merits.

I understand if you don't want to disclose your personal information to me, but don't pretend like you want to but won't because of forum rules. There are no forum rules preventing it.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What you are describing is a logical fallacy.

It's called "argument from ignorance". It states that asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or vice versa, is a false dichotomy.

 

You are not being a skeptic, even if you want to believe you are. Let's look at what being skeptical means:

 

What?  I am saying that in science one who makes a claim needs to show proof it is true.  That's not argument from ignorance.  At all. 

You seem to think skepticism means being neutral.  The neutral position is what one says when they don't know.  

i.e. Before LK99 was even announced on the arXiv, when none of us knew anything about it, that was when we are ignorant.  

Now we know things.  We know it shows diamagnetic levitation (because many many researchers who have studied is so far say that's what they may have seen. 

We know it might show super conductivityh at 110 K (though that is one teams finding that is controversial.  Note 273K is the freezing point of water.

 

Sure check your DMs.  (I've posted you a link to my MS thesis which like all such is obscure... but unlike most has been cited 2 times.  As a rule MS theses are never cited.  Doctoral dissertations might be).   My specialty as I have said is theoretical astrophysics.  However, like all physicists in the last 50 years or so I've learned about superconductivity and experimented with it as a student. 

Which is why:

As for proving this is or is not a Superconductor.  As Adrew Cote said in that Tweet and /r/Physics pointed out we need real data, from a real credible lab that takes various key measurements.    

For the net and video I need real high resolution multi angle video showing not just normal paramagnetic but the Meissner effect and flux pinning.  (Which is not just floating over the center of a magnet but you can put the superconductor anywhere near the magnet and it will stay stiffly there... as if it were connected but without being connected.  It has to be super clear, and super obvious not UFO resolution 180p, one fixed angle nonsense. 

One thing more don't take anything personally.  As for skepticism well... in asking for me to prove I am a scientist IRL you are doing exactly the right thing.  That's skepticism.  I am just a random on the net.  I could be anyone.  I could be a transgender stripper instead of just about the only Transgender woman of color who is also a theoretical astrophysicist working on LISA.   So good you are learning well young student. 

 

 

[LAwLz]

28 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

What?  I am saying that in science one who makes a claim needs to show proof it is true.  That's not argument from ignorance.  At all. 

That's not what you said. If that's all you had said then I wouldn't have had any issues with your posts. My issues have been claims like this:  

On 8/5/2023 at 10:22 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

Everything is assumed to be false until it is PROVEN true. 

and this:  

On 8/6/2023 at 7:00 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

I never claimed to be neutral.

and this:  

7 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

False until PROVEN true.   

 

 

 

 

All of theses are in fact arguments from ignorance. Again, argument from ignorance is saying "X is false because you cannot prove that X is true".

You are literally saying "if we don't have evidence then it is false". That is argument from ignorance. A skeptic does not, no matter how much you try and repeat it, assume everything is false until proven true. That is just not what a skeptic does. No definition of the word will agree with you on this. 

We should not assume everything is false until proven true. We should keep an open mind and investigate new possibilities, and verify whether they are true or not.

Constantly cherry-picking and posting only sources that agree with you, while ignoring everything else, is dumb. It's what close-minded irrational people do. You are behaving EXACTLY the same way as people who think the moon landing is fake behaves. 

 

If you want to be a skeptic, then you should be neutral and open-minded. You should listen to both sides. You should investigate and consider that things may or may not be true, and that we don't know for sure until we investigate. That's what being a skeptic is about. That's what every definition of the world will tell you. Being a skeptic means being neutral. If you don't think it does then you don't understand what the word "skeptic" means. I have linked you several definitions of the word in case you want to look it up.

 

 

Nobody here who argues with you says we don't need evidence. Nobody. We all want credible labs to take measurements and provide real, solid data. We want as many labs as possible to look into this to determine if it's real or not. Nobody disagrees with you on that.

The reason why people argue against you is because of the whole "assume things are false until proven true" (a logical fallacy) and the whole "I am only going to post sources that agrees with me, and ignore all other ones because I am biased". 

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you want to be a skeptic, then you should be neutral and open-minded. 

No scientific skepticism is not being neutral and open minded.   

It is about being driven by the evidence.  So far the evidence is neutral to negative on LK99 being anything other than an interesting diamagnetic material.  That is far from proof of being a superconductor at room temp.  Again, that is not my word, that is the word of those who have worked on it and other superconductors. 

 

 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

A new paper is out.

[2308.03110] Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples (arxiv.org) 

 

Quote

Our measurements do not indicate the presence of the Meissner effect, nor zero resistance, in our samples, leading us to believe that our samples do not exhibit superconductivity.

Discussion:

 

 Well folks there we have it.  Per very credible research from Univ of Beijing, LK99 is NOT an RTSC.  Cross confirmation from an American lab will happen.  Sadly this is the case.  I wish it was not

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You should read the article (or at least the title) again. That's NOT what the article says.

The researchers were very careful with their wording and you blatantly ignoring that is disingenuous.

I did you can even read the quote in the abstract there where they say outright it's not a superconductor as far as they can tell.

Now like Hosenfelder said it becomes a matter of, well maybe this group didn't synthesize it correctly, and maybe it wasn't pure enough  et cetera et cetera. So far there have been 6 or 7 arXiv postings none of which found positive results. 

[Kamina]

I think it's just a matter of how we synthesize this properly based on reports. Could have just been an accidental synthesize. 

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

LK-99 seems to be a very interesting substance with vastly different characteristics. It's been two weeks and the scientific community clearly needs more time to understand what exactly is going on. Even if it's not room-temperature superconductivity, I think there is a lot of interesting research ahead of us.

[2308.03544] Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions (arxiv.org)

 

 

Please don't personalize this.  

So far the results are all negative for this being a superconductor at room temperature or anything like it. 

 

 It is incumbent upon those making the claim to prove it not only one else to disprove it until they prove it the correct scientific attitude to take is to not believe it.  The relevant subject matter trained experts are testing this and so far their findings are that it is not a superconductor at room temperature. 

[Uttamattamakin]

13 minutes ago, Kamina said:

I think it's just a matter of how we synthesize this properly based on reports. Could have just been an accidental synthesize. 

Sure that could be possible but it is up to some one to prove that is the case by synthesizing it and verifying superconductivity.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

No scientific skepticism is not being neutral and open minded.   

You are trying to redefine a word. I have already given you several definitions and all of them disagree with you.

Being skeptical means being neutral and open-minded until a consensus based on evidence has been reached. That is what the word means. Now please stop using the word incorrectly and follow one of the several dictionary definitions I linked you.

 

 

9 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It is about being driven by the evidence.  So far the evidence is neutral to negative on LK99 being anything other than an interesting diamagnetic material.  That is far from proof of being a superconductor at room temp.  Again, that is not my word, that is the word of those who have worked on it and other superconductors. 

Yes, and I completely agree with everything you said in this paragraph. But that is not what you said several times earlier.

I absolutely agree that a skeptic is driven by evidence. That is exactly why I am so against the things you say because you are not driven by evidence. You made up your mind before any evidence was presented. That is not what a skeptic does. 

Let me repeat what I just said so that it really sinks in. You made up your mind about what to believe before any evidence was presented. That is bad. Stop doing that. Please.

Saying something is false until proven true is foolish. It's a logical fallacy. It's not what a skeptic does. A skeptic is neutral and unbiased and then lets evidence decide which side to take. You are doing the opposite. You are letting a lack of facts and evidence decide what to believe in. You are not basing your beliefs and which "side" to take on facts. You are basing that on a lack of evidence and facts.

 

Do you really not understand what issue several others and I have with your posts? I have highlighted it over and over, and right now it feels like you are deliberately ignoring it and instead are getting distracted by something else and rambling on about that. Nobody has said that we shouldn't be driven by evidence. Nobody has said that we shouldn't wait for more evidence to come in. Nobody has said that we should just believe this is true.

What I am saying is that claiming this is false because we don't have any evidence is just as stupid as claiming it is true without any evidence. We need evidence before we can determine if it's true or false. Is that really so hard for you to understand? That we should wait for evidence before making our minds up? That's what I am advocating for.

 

 

Have you ever heard the quote "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence"? I think that's something you really need to learn.

Right now you are using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is wrong.

 

 

The things you are quoting do not say the things you claim they are saying. They use very careful wording that emphasizes the uncertainty and that more testing needs to be done, and you deliberately ignore all of that because of your confirmation bias, and then just proclaim that the deal is done and finished now, and that consensus has been reached.

 

Let me ask you this, if it is now confirmed that LK-99 isn't a room-temperature superconductor, why even run more experiments? We have already reached the truth, right? Hell, according to you, we shouldn't even have run experiments to begin with because it was obviously false from the get-go before we even tested it.

 

 

And just to clarify because you seem to need a lot of clarification, nobody here, neither me nor anyone else who has disagreed with you, has said that LK-99 is a room-temperature superconductor. What we have said is that we can't say one way or another before experiments have been done and evidence gathered. Even if it turns out that it isn't a room-temperature superconductor does not mean you were right in thinking the way you did. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and people can arrive at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

[tikker]

People are seeing first-hand how the frontiers of science operate: in chaos and uncertainty. It is not  as tidy or organised as we sometimes like to or are led to believe. Science is not usually a neutral business either, almost by construction, because we have priors, preconceived notions and (educated) opinions that all fold into how we approach things. Social media makes all of this worse of course by generating such a hype train around it. I actually wonder if throwing it out there with such a bold claim was partly a simple strategy to try and get a lot of research into this material in a very short period of time.

 

I mostly agree with "false until proven true" in this case, because we have good reason for that. Reading a Nature blog post published last week it is clear that we are still shrouded in uncertainty. We don't have to be neutral in this case in my opinion, just open to accept that it is if the key characteristic(s) of superconductivity are unambigiously observed.

 

I am in the negative camp. So far we have one observation claiming it is and a number of failed replication attempts. Some people will strongly hold opinions one way or the other, but what matters is whether they can change that opinion once solid evidence comes along. The fact that neither the single positive nor multiple negative attempts are accepted as "evidence" here already shows none of us are really neutral or unbiased.

[Uttamattamakin]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

....

I'm not ignoring what you're saying I'm trying to educate you.  

 

Science at this point of the discovery or not of a new material isn't really about a binary true or false.

 

A claim is unproven until and unless it is proven.

 

If I see a publication that has proof that says that the substance is superconducting I'll be the first to hail it.  

 

No one would like it to be true more than me I assure you. 

 

But I'm a fan of the Chicago Cubs I know not to think they're going to the World Series until they've already won it. I know not to assume the dress will fit until I've tried it on.

 

As for the issue people have with that... I'm sorry but what I've just said is how things actually work.  Not because I say so but because that's just how science works.

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

People are seeing first-hand how the frontiers of science operate: in chaos and uncertainty. It is not  as tidy or organised as we sometimes like to or are led to believe. Science is not usually a neutral business either, almost by construction, because we have priors, preconceived notions and (educated) opinions that all fold into how we approach things. Social media makes all of this worse of course by generating such a hype train around it. I actually wonder if throwing it out there with such a bold claim was partly a simple strategy to try and get a lot of research into this material in a very short period of time.

I agree with him cosign what you wrote and I also don't blame anyone for being frustrated with all of this.

 

The last years since early 2020 have been one Calamity after another the world could use some globally significant good news. 

 

I get it but let's not hit char emotions to a likely falsehood.

 

THE LATEST FROM ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY!!!

 

So far it is not Flux pinning, no Meissner effect, and not acting like known superconductors.  I personally know many who work at Argonne. I learned physics with and from them.  They know their stuff.  

[CarlBar]

A few posts i'm going to quote from the space battles thread of stuff they dug up or mentioned that feel very relevant.

 

Quote

My material science professor said that it's going to take a while to confirm exactly what LK-99 is. Synthesis of novel materials can be very difficult. There are many variables, and a slight change to any of them can produce hugely different results. Equipment you have on hand (not all autoclaves, centrifuges, and magnetic stirrers behave the same), the location your reagents were harvested from or the lab they were synthesized at (for instance, a successful experiment with reagents purchased from Sigma Aldrich may continually fail with those same reagents purchased through Fisher Scientific), and handling can all contribute to changes in your material. It sometimes feels chaotic (in the mathematical sense). If the stars align, you get what you want; if they don't, you get junk. This is why optimization is so important in material science.

 

As someone who had to do a fairly basic physical property focused materials science course in college, (and enjoyed and excelled at it), i've maintained a good interest in the field over the years and this fits with historical trends i've observed. It just expresses it more eloquently than i ever could so i wanted to quote it for that reason. My optimism levels have definitely gone down though in the last few days between the Argone Labs paper and the next thing i'll quote.

 

Quote

In this study, we investigated the transport and magnetic properties of pure Cu_2S and LK-99 containing Cu2S. We observed a sharp superconducting-like transition and a thermal hysteresis behavior in the resistivity and magnetic susceptibility. However, we did not observe zero-resistivity below the transition temperature. We argue that the so-called superconducting behavior in LK-99 is most likely due to a reduction in resistivity caused by the first order structural phase transition of Cu_2S at around 385 K, from the β phase at high temperature to the γ phase at low temperature.

 

The above is a quote from a paper by Beijing National Laboratory for Condensed Matter Physics at IoP-CAS. I'm not sure weather what they synthesised fits with the smattering of claims of testing of ferromagnetism and paramagnetism and coming up negetive, (not clear if their samples where non-ferromagnetic/paramagnetic). But if it does it probably explains 95% of the result including the weird inconsistencies in the original results.

 

That said there's still the paper with the 110K SC i'd like to see run down and people are going to start getting samples from the original lab later this month and i still want to see the results of that. basically more repetition of the results of this bejing paper to confirm all the details.

 

@Uttamattamakin I see a lot of professionals in a lot of fields blindly follow SOP and other standard parts of their profession without thinking about why they are there or what they are supposed to do. Scepticism in experimental science exists for good reason, but it's entirely possible to end up in a scenario where it's affecting your results. Analysis a large number of reports, most with limited data is one of the cases where it will do this. 

 

In experimental terms trying to analyse the publicly available results atm means without a lot of papers reporting identical results with clear and consistent explanations for each facet your running an experiment that won't produce a strong positive signal. Which leads to inherent negetive results regardless of the reality because the bias is overwhelming the actual data.

 

As more papers are coming out where getting more results that add together to produce a strong signal, but it's bene slow going with how many different reports of slightly different things we've been getting.

[Kamina]

On 8/8/2023 at 3:30 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

Sure that could be possible but it is up to some one to prove that is the case by synthesizing it and verifying superconductivity.

Sadly, I think we may never see one for awhile. Creating a crystal lattice to have a desired effect is complicated process. In this case, it's having Cooper pairs go through the material without little to no resistance at room temperature. Impurities or engineering of the material can make the final result very different. But what do I know? I mostly stick to chemistry and bio.

[PocketNerd]

Can @Uttamattamakin  and @LAwLz please hurry up and get a room so we can stop being innocent bystanders in this “what is word?” circle jerk?

[CarlBar]

A video has turned up from CHina, apparently the individual in it is well known enough to have his own page on the Chinese version of Wikipedia so not a random nobody. Still we don't have a lot to go on so apply large volume of salt.

 

Interesting part begins around 5:20

 

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Zh4y1F7X5/

 

It certainly looks convincing enough when stationary, a bit blurry when moving the magnet around. And i certainly wouldn't rule out Cu2's weird properties playing a role in getting an RTSC type material.