Hoverboards, get your hoverboards (superconductors)
Discussion
New pre-print paper suggests room temperature superconductors from regular materials.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037...
The usual caveats of not peer reviewed, and 'yeah sure just like all the other times' apply, but the manufacture is simple and the results will be easily testable.
The 'quick skim through' reviews from people who know what they are talking about are positive so far.
If it is true, this could be the 21st century equivalent of the invention of the transistor.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037...
The usual caveats of not peer reviewed, and 'yeah sure just like all the other times' apply, but the manufacture is simple and the results will be easily testable.
The 'quick skim through' reviews from people who know what they are talking about are positive so far.
If it is true, this could be the 21st century equivalent of the invention of the transistor.
It's a weird one. My colleagues who know about superconductors think that the paper's a bit odd, in that it's missing some data you'd want to include to definitively prove it's superconducting. But on the other hand the Meissner effect levitation video is compelling and it's a respectable group publishing.
We'll know inside of a week because there'll be batches made all over the world.
We'll know inside of a week because there'll be batches made all over the world.
I think this will pan out to be true, the paper is a bit oddly written (although I am in adjacent field so maybe it’s just the norm for this area), but all the information needed to replicate is there (often not the case with dodgy reports), the authors are from a sensible institution, there is video footage of levitation as well as other more complex experiments showing superconducting characteristics (though heat capacity measurements are missing), and the authors even propose a mechanism for the superconductivity.
As others have mentioned it should be easy to replicate if true.
So, true, or honestly mistaken, not a hoax, is my bet.
Exciting times, if true over a 10-30 year timescale this would revolutionise technological societies. Normally in science ‘this is possible’ is a very powerful thing to show. Once people know something can be done they are much better at finding ways to do it than they are when it’s uncertain!
As others have mentioned it should be easy to replicate if true.
So, true, or honestly mistaken, not a hoax, is my bet.
Exciting times, if true over a 10-30 year timescale this would revolutionise technological societies. Normally in science ‘this is possible’ is a very powerful thing to show. Once people know something can be done they are much better at finding ways to do it than they are when it’s uncertain!
I thought the paper [abstract] looked crude [after it having been pointed out I must say!] but when you read up on why there were two papers released within a few hours of each other and the team dynamic rush etc then it's easy to ignore that bit.
Bag of salt as ever but fingers crossed it's true, we'll know soon enough - a real game changer, probably bring fusion forward 18 years of those perpetual 20
Just checking if my oven goes up to 725 degrees...
Bag of salt as ever but fingers crossed it's true, we'll know soon enough - a real game changer, probably bring fusion forward 18 years of those perpetual 20
Just checking if my oven goes up to 725 degrees...
Yeah I'm skeptical too. Like this guys attitude though- reads the paper and has a go:
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/168443384...
https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/168443384...
Crazy story - https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1685294623449874...
Xtract: [
]
"In total, all parties, each one experienced, and 3 of them eminent scientists, fully aware of the difference between diagmagnetism and superconductivity, while fighting with each other, are fully convinced that this is IT.
Either it replicates, or we have an SBF style mind cult that seized control of some of the smartest scientists in Korea."
Xtract: [
]"In total, all parties, each one experienced, and 3 of them eminent scientists, fully aware of the difference between diagmagnetism and superconductivity, while fighting with each other, are fully convinced that this is IT.
Either it replicates, or we have an SBF style mind cult that seized control of some of the smartest scientists in Korea."
Seeing quite a lot of noise about this on Twitter today, is it the real deal?
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
budgie smuggler said:
Seeing quite a lot of noise about this on Twitter today, is it the real deal?
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
That paper is saying there’s a potential theoretical basis for the claims made by the original authors about their compound.https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
Which is a big step to suggesting they’re not fraudsters or mistaken.
However the proof of the pudding will be in whether the reported experimental results can be replicated.
What’s lovely about this whole thing is how bent out of shape some theoreticians will be about what amounts to a process of “keep trying different things until something works” science
budgie smuggler said:
Seeing quite a lot of noise about this on Twitter today, is it the real deal?
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
Prediction markets now tipped over 50% on it from a 15% initial after the two papers, a good level simulation here from a reputable lab and I read this morning a vague positive sample from Huazhong Uni has been done, diamagnetic in opposite orientations - the talk is that the process is one involving 'luck' [for want of a better word] but that's just refinement/tweaking from now on I guess, if all true.https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
Fingers crossed, it'll be an interesting few decades when you join this up to the other few frontiers we're working on now...
Man: Thank you god for the gift to make computers
God: That's alright, that's why I gave you an abundance of lead and copper
Man: Yes, and silicon!
God: Er, hang on a minute, you mean....
budgie smuggler said:
Seeing quite a lot of noise about this on Twitter today, is it the real deal?
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
This is theoretical calculation based analysis of what the electronic properties would be of a/the material reported by the Korean authors.https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/16862081505...
The theory used is called density functional theory, which allows quantum mechanical calculations on molecules and materials from which structures, properties, and energies can be predicted. The method is very well established and reliable, tending to give small errors in terms of structure, properties, and energies.
The first question mark is whether the chemical/atomic/molecular structure that the calculations detail/were performed on is representative of the material that the Korean authors report, because there was fairly limited (from a structural POV) information about that in the initial papers on arxiv.
The second question mark is whether the evidence for ‘correlated isolated flat bands at the fermi level’ - a property of other higher temperature superconductors - are sufficient to support the reported new material as being a ROOM temperature superconductor….
The paper tells us then that: _A_ structure that COULD be similar to the that of the candidate material reported is PREDICTED to have electronic properties found in other high (but well below) room temperature superconductors.
Importantly though, the paper finds that the position in which lead atoms are replaced with copper is critical for generating the predicted properties proposed to be enabling for superconductivity, this gives experimental synthetic materials chemists a useful target to work on, increasing the chances of finding a good synthesis of a phase pure material.
As for the idea (in another post) of ‘playing around’ being anathema to theoretical scientists - all progress in science comes through play. You play with ideas, equations, chemicals, animals, molecules, whatever, and you find stuff out. There is no other way. People - governments - confuse engineering (e.g. space programme) with science (e.g. cure for cancer) to all of our detriment. It sounds entitled and delinquent, but if you want to make good technological progress, give clever and capable the resources to piss about doing what they are interested in, and you will get it. Ask them to justify their need for those resources (too much/often) or try to direct them to work on specific problems and you will simply inhibit them.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 1st August 17:05
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 1st August 17:17
PlywoodPascal said:
As for the idea (in another post) of ‘playing around’ being anathema to theoretical scientists - all progress in science comes through play. You play with ideas, equations, chemicals, animals, molecules, whatever, and you find stuff out. There is no other way. People - governments - confuse engineering (e.g. space programme) with science (e.g. cure for cancer) to all of our detriment. It sounds entitled and delinquent, but if you want to make good technological progress, give clever and capable the resources to piss about doing what they are interested in, and you will get it. Ask them to justify their need for those resources (too much/often) or try to direct them to work on specific problems and you will simply inhibit them.
Lol that was my point. I used to work in academia doing stuff I had to justify. I agree with you entirely.Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 1st August 17:05
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Tuesday 1st August 17:17
My point (badly made) was that there were a number of theoreticians commenting in the immediate aftermath of the original disclosure rather snootily observing that these Korean chaps were likely to be wrong / fraudulent because their paper didn’t suggest they knew much about the theoretical side of superconductivity.
As regards your other points, if predictions can be made as quickly as suggested, I’m not sure why we haven’t had the scientific equivalent of infinite monkeys running down every possible compound suggested by some constantly-running prediction engine?
AH, sorry, my mistake then.
Machine learning is being coupled to DFT calculations do do something like you suggest at the moment, it;’s an area of active research/work.
The problem is that although DFT calculations are quite good at telling you about the properties of something you can imagine or draw a structure of, they cannot really easily or reliably or accurately tell you how to make it or whether it would be stable to air, water, other chemicals, etc. etc.
So whilst DFT can give you a good idea whether something is a ‘stable minimum’ - i.e. might exist, it gives you NO idea whether a compound or material will decompose rapidly or very slowly, or under what conditions. It also gives you no clue how or whether you could make such a compound. You can run electronic structure calculations on all kinds of compounds that you have no hope of ever making and putting in a bottle.
So the ‘playing around with powders’ crew are still very much needed.
Machine learning is being coupled to DFT calculations do do something like you suggest at the moment, it;’s an area of active research/work.
The problem is that although DFT calculations are quite good at telling you about the properties of something you can imagine or draw a structure of, they cannot really easily or reliably or accurately tell you how to make it or whether it would be stable to air, water, other chemicals, etc. etc.
So whilst DFT can give you a good idea whether something is a ‘stable minimum’ - i.e. might exist, it gives you NO idea whether a compound or material will decompose rapidly or very slowly, or under what conditions. It also gives you no clue how or whether you could make such a compound. You can run electronic structure calculations on all kinds of compounds that you have no hope of ever making and putting in a bottle.
So the ‘playing around with powders’ crew are still very much needed.
https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/16868059611248...
Looks like it's not playing, or it is because it's a superconductor, but isn't until 110K (-163C), but it sorta maybe as that's a new record at ambient pressure, so it might be an interesting avenue opening up, or it may not be!
Looks like it's not playing, or it is because it's a superconductor, but isn't until 110K (-163C), but it sorta maybe as that's a new record at ambient pressure, so it might be an interesting avenue opening up, or it may not be!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff