https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR24/Session/A16.2
Kim Hyun-Tak has aparently declared today (March 4) The Day of Room Temperature Superconductor (TDRTS). "This is because it is the day when room-temperature superconductivity, such as magnetic levitation and zero resistance, is proven at the conference".
Here is an arxiv link to the research: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
What will happen or be true of the conference? Add your own answers!
Main LK-99 market:
Any RTSC by 2030 market:
I reserve the right to mark any answer as N/A for any reason.
All resolutions require proof posted as a comment for me to resolve within 48 hours. Otherwise, I will resolve them after 48 hours as if they have not happened.
Make your answer submissions as clear and descriptive as possible. I reserve the right to rephrase answers as needed. If you have questions regarding submissions, please tag the creator in the comment section.
Any mentions, says, comments etc. submissions will be resolved based on my own judgment if not mentioned otherwise in the submission. I will be fairly relaxed with words and phrasings. All of those statements can be made in a speech, interview, on social media, etc.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ75 | |
| 2 | Ṁ70 | |
| 3 | Ṁ36 | |
| 4 | Ṁ24 | |
| 5 | Ṁ21 |
I'm resolving this NO, mostly because I don't want to leave it around to accidentally bait people who haven't fully read the comments (or internalized the disclaimer on it). I'm confident at this point there wasn't another video shown at the conference that is clearer than the one labelled "Video 6", and while I fully understand it's debatable I'm not going to accept it as fulfilling the criteria.
@brianwang it may appear that way, but similar appearance can occur without total levitation. The area that looks like it might be beyond the flake could in fact just as well be in front of it.
@jim So far the papers claiming that it is sulfur contamination that gets some of the similar resistivity readings...matching a graph is not enough and those are the weakest part because the percentage of real active material is very little. I think the scientist claiming sulfur contamination is the reason need to show partial or full levitation with their materials. Then I can believe their reasoning and diagnosis of semiconductor or diamagnetic or paramagnetic or whatever.
Now we have claims of some level of experimental replication from SCT Labs in Korea, Beijing University researchers and South China University researchers. We have Berkeley National Labs and others with Density Function Theory simulations and modeling confirming this and modified versions could work. Berkeley Labs experimentalists saying the China experimental work was of high quality.
Resolution updates:
"There will be a live broadcast of the talk": I'm going to resolve this NO at market close unless someone links me evidence.
"There will be security guards at the talk": I'm going to resolve this NO at market close unless someone links me evidence.
"Video shown of floaty rock that fully floats without contacting a surface": I looked at the video (https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Gz42197jk/), and think this doesn't count for a YES resolution. There's no visible distance between the rock and the surface that I can see. Since there could be another video, I'm leaving this open until market close.
@DanMan314 here is the floating rock video but posted directly to youtube, so people can see with higher clarity https://youtu.be/46YF_db12Lo?si=QSH8C1uvq5juMCQx
@jim ugh it's just ambiguous enough that I can see there being reasonable debate. Thanks for the link.
Why would they take such a potato video for something something so central to their case for a supposedly groundbreaking discovery? It's exactly like the UFO videos that are conveniently just fuzzy enough to prevent drawing any clear conclusions.
Full maglev video 8:10 here: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Gz42197jk/
except it's "trust me bro" quality so I don't expect YES resolve
Petrscience at twitter thought that a sample should have been brought. The abstract said four videos would be shown and evidence (new slide on low resistance). Ten minute talk. IF they believe this is the real deal then why would they transport samples that take a long time to get one out of thousands of samples.
abstract:
We synthesized materials, Pb10-xCux(P(O1-ySy)4)6O1-zSz (PCPOSOS), called PCPOSOS, which exhibit superconducting behavior at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. These materials displayed characteristics of a superconductor, including zero resistance, the Meissner effect, and partial levitation when placed on a magnet (arXiv: 2307.12037). The partial levitation is caused by an inhomogeneity in the magnetic field of the magnet and occurred within the range of critical magnetic fields, Hc1 and Hc2. That is, the magnetic field of the magnet increased with going from center to the edge of magnet. The magnet had approximately 2000G at the center and approximately 3,000G at its edge. The levitation occurred near center. This indicates the center of the magnet is close to Hc1. It disappeared between center and the edge near Hc2, with Hc1 being much smaller than Hc2, because the magnetic moment at Hc2 is much smaller than that at Hc1. When the magnet is slightly moved, the levitation returns to its original position. This phenomenon is analyzed as flux pinning, which is typical of a type-II superconductor. Moreover, the quantum-locking phenomenon, characteristic of a Type-I superconductor, may appear. However, we interpret PCPOSOS as a Type-II superconductor. We will show two videos of levitations and two videos of magnets.
https://x.com/petrscience/status/1764667479316455707?s=46&t=U_-ytmnPcSdlCJ-QknefTg
I would love people to weigh in on this slide and whether it claims literally 0 (not n*10^-whatever) resistance. It’s been a while since my last physics class - the title says Zero Resistance, but are the graphs consistent with actually 0, or just very close?
The market is about what they’re claiming, so to be clear I’m leaning towards YES since they say it’s superconducting right at the top of the slide with these measurements, and I interpret dV/dl ∝ dV/dT = 0 to be claiming 0 resistance.
Twitter seems unconvinced with the rigor of the measurement, but that’s a separate question from the market.
@DanMan314 From the graph on the lower right, the best fit seems to be 0 Ω. Within the uncertainty of the experiment you can never rule out a very small resistance, but from the data, the resistance could just as likely be a very small negative value.
@DanMan314 ambiguity between "measured zero resistance' and "measured soemthing which implies zero resistance"
@jim yea I agree that's sort of ambiguous in a way I didn't expect it to be. I think most measurements in physics are at least mildly indirect though (even something like voltage is technically "proxied" by transistor behavior).
I'm going to go ahead and resolve YES and prevent further potential misunderstandings. It's hard for me to take anything away from the slide other than a claim of 0 resistance.
The Zero resistance slide says there was replication by the SCT Lab.
Petr Čermák from Charles University in Prague took a picture. "The small room is full". Should resolve NO. https://twitter.com/petrscience/status/1764654836060954862
@SanghyeonSeo https://twitter.com/sineatrix/status/1764659415611793553
Sinead Griffin is the Berkeley Labs Researcher who has been simulating LK99 and PCPOSOS on supercomputers. She says the room was full.
Victoria Merriman(@vikmez) from IOP Publishing will attend the talk, who is probably impartial. https://twitter.com/vikmez/status/1764512359060791606
There were security guards at the last year's talk about room temperature superconductor by Ranga Dias. https://twitter.com/PramodhYapa/status/1633244437034979329