Room-temperature superconductor

[PlainName]

why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

Most people are crap at shooting videos. And most people that shoot crap videos don't realise how crap they are because they see what they want to see, knowing what it is they're seeing. I would suggest trying it yourself sometime, but you might not appreciate how the result looks to everyone else

[coppice]

I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

I do not understand why people good at explaining things, visualising things, and constructing a well crafted video presentation can't come up with the next breakthrough in superconductors.

[iMo]

@iMo, what is it you think this video is showing?

I do not know, you have to tell me
But I've stepped through the video frame by frame and "it seems" the "something" freely rotates around all axes..

[iMo]

I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

I do not understand why people good at explaining things, visualising things, and constructing a well crafted video presentation can't come up with the next breakthrough in superconductors.

The presentations/videos of those scientists always look like "I want to show you what I just have discovered, and I do not want to show you what I have just discovered as well".. 

[Bud]

Because such videos get passed via TikTok manh times and nobody knows the link to the source 

[coppice]

I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

I do not understand why people good at explaining things, visualising things, and constructing a well crafted video presentation can't come up with the next breakthrough in superconductors.

The presentations/videos of those scientists always look like "I want to show you what I just have discovered, and I do not want to show you what I have just discovered as well".. 

You might not be their target audience. They may be more interested in showing their work to others versed in their field.

[Brumby]

There was also some discussion on that thread about the possibility of islands of superconductivity, beyond my basic physics comprehension.

I heard something similar. Sounds kinda-sorta not very practical superconductory? 

@EEVblog

As I understand it, the manufacturing process at this stage is somewhat primitive.  As such, I would not find it all all difficult to believe that they don't create a homogenous superconducting substance throughout the entire volume of the material.  That would, as I see it, be the result of further refinement of the process.

To demonstrate an impure sample where superconductivity is indicated is a first step - just as the first silicon wafers would have been less than ideal for today's chip fabrication.  To get the ultimate product straight out of the gate is a bit overly optimistic, IMHO.


Nevertheless - let's see how things progress ...

[PlainName]

To get the ultimate product straight out of the gate is a bit overly optimistic, IMHO

But, nevertheless, if they don't then it's worth a BUSTED video, surely 

[Psi]

As I understand it, the manufacturing process at this stage is somewhat primitive.  As such, I would not find it all all difficult to believe that they don't create a homogenous superconducting substance throughout the entire volume of the material.

Yeah, its plausible that getting a sample that's homogenous enough to measure its superconductivity is quite rare.

[gnuarm]

@iMo, what is it you think this video is showing?

I do not know, you have to tell me
But I've stepped through the video frame by frame and "it seems" the "something" freely rotates around all axes..

You are the one who posted it.  I thought you had something to say...

[thm_w]

When not a fake below - I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

youtube.com/watch?v=tG1-RFWxPmo

This video was admitted to be faked:

The video in question is allegedly from the University of Science and Technology in Beijing and purports to show a small black substance floating in the air as it follows a magnet. According to the video's poster, he did it for "attention grabbing purposes" - it was a way to coast the hype around LK-99.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-video-fraud-taken-down

They seem to have regretted it massively.

[SiliconWizard]

As I understand it, the manufacturing process at this stage is somewhat primitive.  As such, I would not find it all all difficult to believe that they don't create a homogenous superconducting substance throughout the entire volume of the material.

Yeah, its plausible that getting a sample that's homogenous enough to measure its superconductivity is quite rare.

Like with graphene?

[Bud]

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, several research groups actually concluded this thing is an INSULATOR 

https://youtu.be/LoKWourNJEs

(Use pause control to read info in the scrolling table in LK99 update part of the video)

[EEVblog]

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, several research groups actually concluded this thing is an INSULATOR 

Both Sabine and Anton Petrov are two of the latest science summary Youtubers I follow, and yeah, both of them are not at all confident.

[Psi]

The current view seems to be that there's indeed some odd magnetic properties no one has seen before from those elements mixed together, but no one has been able to measure any low resistances path across their sample.

But as other have said, the samples come out pretty terrible quality with crap mixed in. So you can't really conclude anything from measuring across it.  Cant prove a negative etc..

I'm hoping we might get a video showing it fully levitating coming from a legit research company/person. but we will see.
The only video so far showing it fully levitating is very suspicious and has no other info or anyone backing it up.

[coppice]

So, the current consensus is that this new material is a superconductor..... or an insulator...... or an ordinary mundane conductor.

It is a type 1... or a type2..... or some entirely new kind of superconductor/conductor/insulator.

It is diamagnetic.... or ferromagnetic.... or paramagnetic.... or just sits there not getting magnetically involved.

It excludes flux.... and/or traps flux..... or doesn't give a toss about magnetic flux.

It superconducts at room temperature..... or below 100K..... or not at all.

And then we gets single studies, with no attempt at replication, being used in all sorts of scientific areas as gospel. "Breakthroughs" in science are interesting, but replication is where the rubber meets the road.

[TimFox]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

[coppice]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

[TimFox]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Decades ago, I attended a lecture at the Univ. of Chicago by Dr. Samuel Goudsmit, who discussed his tenure as editor of "Physical Review".
He had interesting anecdotes about peer review.
If I remember correctly, one author complained that "the reviewer was unfamiliar with the work of Frank Yang" (the English name for Dr. Yang Chen-Ning).
The reviewer was Frank Yang.
It was often said that Dr. Goudsmit (the co-discoverer of electron spin) did not get a Nobel Prize because everyone thought he already had it.

[gnuarm]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

You mean like the many opinions expressed in this discussion?  Yeah, pretty worthless. 

[Rick Law]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Decades ago, I attended a lecture at the Univ. of Chicago by Dr. Samuel Goudsmit, who discussed his tenure as editor of "Physical Review".
He had interesting anecdotes about peer review.
If I remember correctly, one author complained that "the reviewer was unfamiliar with the work of Frank Yang" (the English name for Dr. Yang Chen-Ning).
The reviewer was Frank Yang.
It was often said that Dr. Goudsmit (the co-discoverer of electron spin) did not get a Nobel Prize because everyone thought he already had it.

I think it will serve us well in this discussion to think of "peer review" and "replication" (aka "repeatability") as separate processes rather than lumping them together.

Peer review assess the process and the science, where as replication attempts to repeat the experiment in the hope of getting the same results.  Replication is often done as part of the "peer review" but not always.  Unlike "dark matter" or "multiverse", in this particular case, "replication" will give definitive results.

Thus far, as Sabine's "Superconductor LK99 UPDATE" episode pointed out, none of the replication attempts by multiple groups of scientist succeeded in creating a room-temperature superconducting lump of material.  So while the method did produce substance that could be superconducting, but it isn't.

Now I suppose there would be discussion by the scientist involved -- did every other team made a mistake in their replication experiment, or is it just over optimistic exaggeration with some misguided interpretation of results in the original work.

Mean time, I filed this LK99 info in the same pile as the University of Utah's "cold fusion achievement" and go back to doing something more fruitful -- I do need to finish making my time travel machine.

[EEVblog]

I think it will serve us well in this discussion to think of "peer review" and "replication" (aka "repeatability") as separate processes rather than lumping them together.

Indeed. There is no "peer review" in this case because AFAIK the paper was never submitted for peer review, it was leaked by one of the team (the disgruntled guy?) onto some working server.

[Bud]

OK, where are we with this thing...

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t has done a BUSTED video:

[EEVblog]

And an update from Anton: