this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
378 points (96.3% liked)

science

14800 readers
92 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

xpost from https://lemmy.world/post/2494271

Researchers have discovered a new compound called LK-99 that could enable the fabrication of room-temperature, ambient-pressure superconductors. Two separate sources have provided very preliminary confirmations of this breakthrough, including a simulation indicating it could be possible and a short video from Chinese researchers that seems to indicate some properties of superconductivity.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 136 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Holy fucking shit

Edit: Article was disappointing, unfortunately. A roundup of preliminary analyses, including a supercomputer simulation, a Russian amateur claiming to have synthesized it, and a Chinese lab confirming the study. Given the fact that others are having difficulty replicating this, and the other drama surrounding the discovery I’m going to need better proof than this before getting really excited.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yep. This is one of those world changing tech advances.

Replication is a huge step.

But I temper the excitement with the memory that I read my first The Coming Room Temp Superconductor revolution 30 or so years ago. IIRC it was a cover story in Scientific American in the early 90s.

That said, fuck I hope they have cracked a scalable RTS.

[–] Apex_Fail 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First off, don't refer to the 90's as "30" years ago. That's just rude dude....

Second, yeah this has been an ongoing theme for decades....

Wait, did I get old? What the fuck?!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

Wait, did I get old?

Nah. No one every gets old... Old is always 10 years older than you are now.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Agreed, I want to believe so bad, but the Meisner effect is so easy to fake with cameras that even video proof doesn’t cut it for me. I guess at this point it’ll take a preprint from a National Lab . Thankfully that won’t take long apparently given how easy this is to synthesize.

[–] damnthefilibuster 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The 90s were 30 years ago? Damn.

[–] beigegull 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The Matrix" was released closer in time to the French Revolution than to today.

[–] damnthefilibuster 4 points 1 year ago

Please. Spare me.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

GenXer reading this... First time?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

actually agree, I copied the summary but it's more sensational than it should be.. I'm excited but I've just gone from 1% believing it to 5%, it's far from confirmed.

considering what it would mean I'm still super excited however.. but I'll edit the summary

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the Lawrence Livermore researcher seeming to post a simulation that supports it pushes me toward the "it's real" camp, but yeah someone needs to recreate this thing, if it can't be replicated from the paper then it's worthless, even if the original sample really is a rtsc

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Admittedly this isn’t anywhere near my field of expertise, but I do have some background in computer-aided drug design. Supercomputers are incredible tools, but they’re no slam dunk. Lots of candidates they propose don’t pan out in testing.

[–] schroedingershat 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's moderate consensus that there's a theoretical basis that this material should be an interesting candidate for a high temperature superconductor but is not a favourable output of the recipe used to make it.

Additionally there are now 4 independent reports (including the original and a highly prestigious chinese university) of it exhibiting diamagnetic properties (with no theoretical basis for non-superconducting diamagnetism).

This is more than enough evidence to say that the most reasonable interpretation is a room temperature superconducting material that sucks and is hard to make.

Upgrading that to a high confidence claim that the original research is reproduced will take a few weeks at least, so no super excitent yet, but the claim is fairly solid.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Cool edit, i came to read some comments in between reading the article cause I got bored, finished the article and saw your edit. Agreed.

[–] EsLisper 1 points 1 year ago

Ars has a interesting article about it and from what it said it's not as easy to fabricate as everyone claims. The process is simple but very random and imprecise. It's possible that you can get a superconductor this way but only sometimes and in parts of the crystal. This will make confirmation difficult and makes it sound even more like BS ("it works for me, you're doing it wrong...").

[–] dbaner 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Plaid_Kaleidoscope 2 points 1 year ago

Wow, great link. Thanks for that. Looking like bullshit.

[–] cll7793 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thank you so much! Comments like these is why I love Lemmy. A hidden gem in the sea of news spam.

If I can ask, how did you even find that place?

[–] dbaner 2 points 1 year ago

I found it on mastodon. Searching hashtag #LK99

[–] PixelatedSaturn 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No way this is true, come on. Room temperature super conductor made by some simple chemical reaction?

[–] ThreeHalflings 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Richard Feynman had a really good bit about how bad human intuition is about quantum physics. About how we evolved to throw a rock at an animal out on a grass plane, and not to make good guesses about the nature of particles so small we can't even fathom them.

Seems appropriate here.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not? Lots of technologies are literally just about mixing chemicals together, and we could have done that at any point in time prior, we just didn't.

Lithium ion battery technology is literally just mixing materials together. We've had access to lithium for centuries but we didn't turn that technology into batteries until about 30 years ago.

[–] PixelatedSaturn -2 points 1 year ago

It's not the same. This is almost like alchemy.

[–] schroedingershat 6 points 1 year ago

The simple chemistry is pretty specific and doesn't work very well (it usually makes a semiconductor instead, and even when it does work, it's a few tiny impure specks most of the time).

Why is it unbelievable?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Why not? The search space is massive, and it's not the first time humanity stumbled upon some simple revolutionary discovery.

Just because we failed to figure out the conceptually simple thing until now, doesn't mean it can't be the case. Anything else is just some form of human exceptionalism.

[–] artifice 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well you know about all those fancy battery technologies you’ve seen in the news? Some of those are already 30 years old by now and they are still stuck in the lab whereas Li-ion actually became a product. There has got to be a good reason why that happened. Maybe the technology was too expensive, too fragile, or maybe there was another drawback the article never mentioned. Same kinds of challenges face superconductors, graphene and fusion. That’s why we have these headlines periodically.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm super excited and hopeful. But then I remember the EmDrive and cold fusion, so these scientific hoaxes do occur. But damn if it's true!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one ever really believe the EmDrive worked. It was just the media getting super over excited about it, but no one with any actual credibility ever gave it much credence.

This however is actually getting attention a real scientists so it is a little different.

[–] machinin 1 points 1 year ago

NASA was testing the EM Drive. To me this feels exactly the same. I would probably also include Tabby's star as another analogy.

I want it to work, but I'm not getting my hopes up yet.

[–] anubis119 8 points 1 year ago

Dave Jones of the EEVBLOG recently did an informative and unfortunate video covering this. https://youtu.be/QHPFphlzwdQ

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Im so fucking hyped for this

[–] tallwookie -3 points 1 year ago

eh, gonna remain skeptical about this until a commercial application is developed and it's not just some stupid marketing term.