Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs...
People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path.
It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.
I would find it very easy to believe that they produced something that is superconducting but following their directions didn't work. An unknown factor could very easily be involved. But proof that their sample is even "interesting" (it doesn't need to be "superconducting" in the strictest sense of the term to still be "interesting") would be enough to say "Hey, let's keep looking over here, we know there's something to find!"
Sometimes just knowing there's something to find at all is 90% of the battle. Many historical examples, in both science and non-science fields.
Oh that would be great! Sorry if my assumption is mistaken. I'd love this to be real! I'm not just thinking about this last week, though - if the LK group had these samples for multiple years, it seems like they would have been able to share & convince at least one PhD to support them publicly. The fact that they haven't just seems weird! Sure, they were preparing the papers, etc. etc but you do have to balance that against the life they would have if they just published asap - wealthy, famous, respected, free, as well as the benefits to the entire world of letting this be known.
Agreed, why haven't hundreds of journalists with cameras lined up on the lab yet? Document everything, film and publicize the floating sample, film the entire production process, have a press conference etc.
Interesting point, yes. Also, if LK-99 is real, there are may be some close or easy adjustments or improvements to it to produce other, new interesting materials, which a replicating lab would be set up to start exploring ASAP. So I can see their preference for that path.
>little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.
I don't believe in the current alien thing, but how exactly would it be easier for a whistleblower to steal the actual wreckage out of some secret lab? Compared to giving a testimony?
Validation proves that the material exists, it doesn't prove that the specified process creates the material. A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.
At the end of the day, materials science is still science. The institutional framework is optimized for a very specific process, so it's generally faster to let the process play out as usual rather than go and cut corners. Rest assured; there are a lot of scientists out there! We can afford to let a few of them chase clouds once in a while.
In any case... the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.
> the creation process described in the original paper is relatively cheap and low-tech enough that labs will likely generate their own samples in less time than any procurement process would take.
But what if the probability of synthesis failure is very high? This seems to be the case given then "1000 experiments" history of the original scientists. If they have a golden sample that is at least extremely paramagnetic, that would be huge.
And again... This is no ordinary claim. Everything in the procurement chain would be expedited. No sane lab would turn it down.
I'm really confused why everyone is claiming the replication would be easy. The paper specifies very large ranges for both times and temperatures that would take years to try all combinations, and ignores basically all of the details.
The effect could be caused by some incredibly lucky contamination/impurities and then nobody would ever be able to reproduce it at all. Why not reverse engineer this one apparently working sample instead?
Because knowing what something is tells you less about how to get there than the paper does?
You can see the exact chemical structure of the material and still have no idea how to create it. Especially for composite materials like these where the junction of dissimilar materials gives rise to the desired behavior.
How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?
Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.
Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).
If the specified procedure is incorrect, then we can't make it. It doesn't need to be an elaborate con, it could just be a reasearcher misread a measurement, or recorded the wrong number, or their feedstock was contaminated. Replication ensures that the recipe includes the secret sauce that makes it actually work.
I don't think they're arguing that no one should try to replicate the process of making it, just that it makes sense to have another lab test the sample that has already been created. If it is in fact what they claim it is, then the worst case scenario is that we have a repeat of FOGBANK[0] and have to reverse engineer it.
I'm not arguing that another lab shouldn't test the sample already created, just stating why replication is important. A FOGBANK situation is a very bad scenario.
Desperation? Momentary fame? To get funding to continue research? Any number of reasons humans do silly half-honest things…
There are some plausible allegations that the authors were a struggling pair of researchers and essentially stole this research and published a sloppy half baked paper they knew would make waves.
I think you're missing the point: there is no such thing yet as a room temperature superconductor. If they have such a thing, they made it. If they failed to document the process well, that's a separate issue from whether the sample they have actually is a superconductor at the temperatures described.
The data isn't good. They don’t have such a thing. They think they have such a thing. What they think they have is certainly interesting and potentially world changing, but if this (or some other reason like infighting over credit) lead them to rush publication, you have to be ready for the conclusion that whatever they have isn’t a superconductor as we know it.
This subthread is discussing whether it makes sense to have another lab validate the existing sample before we even try to follow their steps. Neither I nor the person you're responding to are assuming that the sample is what they claim it is, we're simply arguing that it doesn't matter how it was obtained—it's either a room temperature superconductor or it isn't, and if the researchers failed to document the process well but still have a room temperature superconductor then we can move on from there. If it turns out that it isn't, then we saved ourselves a bunch of time trying to follow their instructions.
> How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?
If you hand me a room temperature superconductor but your published recipe doesn't work for me, I'm about 95% as excited as I'd be if I had the right recipe.
Sure but if you had in your hands a superconductive material at room temperature and ambient pressure you’d be pretty amazed. That’s a lot of credibility right there.
no one gives a shit at all about any of that if anyone shows up this week with a room temperature/pressure superconductor.
whoever eventually does it gets a nobel prize and the front cover of whatever journal they pick, and then a chapter in the history of the 21st century.
CAS supposedly has a sample according to rumours amongst Chinese academics. They would certainly be logical to include in any sample dispersion, they're the closest very high quality/very high prestige institute.
That basically helps rule out scammers or gross incompetence and ensures that even if initial attempts to replicate fail because of the complexity or lack of clarity, people keep trying.
Any physicist can make up something that sounds reasonable to other physicists. With a little trick photography (or CGI!) you can make a video something levitating that looks like room temperature super conductors.
Don't read the above as an accusation. Only a justification to wait until it is replicated.
the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect, so every other solid state physics lab in the world is instead trying to follow the notional recipe and test their own sample.
There are claims that they are going to share, but since it is fragile and they only have a few samples the logistics are tricky. They might not be telling the truth about sharing samples, but I'd wait a couple months before accusing them of lies. In fact if they share too quick I'd suspect it is so they can ship a box of dust and claim shipping damaged the only sample!
There’s some emerging evidence that it may be a new class of “1-d” superconducting material that only superconducts in certain places/directions. Will turn into big academic fight to redefine superconductivity if so, I think.
That would support the existence of a material with the stated properties, which would be important on its own, but not that we can manufacture one. Why not prove both at once? Depending on the size of the sample produced, distributing it around several labs for independent testing may be impractical so you would still get this race as the sample was sent to one lab and the rest rush to try be first to reproduce the processes and test the result. Also transporting what could be a very valuable substance (maybe a fragile one, I've not looked into it) as far as another lab with the relevant equipment, may be difficult/costly to arrange.
Given the finding seems to have been rushed out, perhaps they did plan to send a sample (perhaps producing another themselves) to another lab for confirmation, but those plans have been overtaken by the interest as details slipped out earlier than they intended.
People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really avoid the areas where they would be easily disproven - they prefer murky, unspecified criteria. This paper is full of unspecified details, and also doesn't provide samples. Of course, there is a story for why - the drama between the scientists, etc. There always is a reason. But at the end of the day, they're claiming something amazing, which if they would just _send a piece of the material to MIT_ this whole drama would be over. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more suspicious it is that they haven't taken this path.
It's the same with the recent US Government reports on alleged aliens. There is a lot of focus on rare, hard-to capture or reproduce events, and little focus on just showing us the actual alien ship wreckage, even though that'd be much easier, if it were true.
I have made a play money market asking the same thing: "A physics lab will have received a package of the LK-99 material sent from the researchers by the end of August" [ https://manifold.markets/StrayClimb/a-physics-lab-will-have-... ]
Not many traders yet, 57% yes, too optimistic in my view.