Will the LK-99 room temp, ambient pressure superconductivity pre-print replicate before 2025?

Preprint here:


Companion paper here with description of synthesis:


Update 2023-08-05:

Updating to answer some more common questions. If anything here differs from the 2023-07-27 update, this update should supersede that one. I believe what I have written below maintains the spirit of the market and preserves its predictivity against weird edge cases.

Materials Impurities:

This question is specifically about LK-99. In the absence of overwhelming expert consensus (see below about resolution caveats), adding materials not in the original synthesis or characterization (replacing Cu with Au, Ag, etc) will not count toward a YES resolution. 

Removing impurities (like CuS) is OK.

Increasing impurities that were also present in LK-99 original XRD is OK, up to a point. I think I would be more accepting of this is it’s convincingly shown that the impurities are important to the superconductivity of LK-99. 

Synthesis of LK-99 by other means is totally fine, as long as the material characterization satisfies the criteria above. 


The original intent of this market was to bet on whether LK-99 exhibited the hallmarks of traditional superconductivity, but there have been a few questions on what happens if LK-99 is regions of 1D superconductivity in an insulating matrix, so it doesn’t display the expected R = 0 behavior below Tc. 

At this point, I’m going to hew to the original resolution criteria, in order of importance. 

Demonstration of:

  1. Meissner effect

  2. R = 0 below Tc (satisfied by electric field < 0.1 - 1 uV/cm or resistivity < ~10^-11 Ohm*cm)

  3. Phase change

While superconductor-insulator transitions have been observed, I’m not really familiar with them. Additionally, we don’t have good evidence that it is impossible to observe R=0 in LK-99, since at least some measurements show decreasing resistivity as a function of temperature. If we end up in a world where LK-99 convincingly displays a Meissner effect, but doesn’t show the expected resistivity behavior, I will solicit opinions from subject matter experts. After all, it would seem perverse to resolve NO if the majority of superconductivity experts think this is a YES.

Resolution Caveats:

I reserve the right to resolve to a probability if the experts I ask are split on the question of superconductivity.

I reserve the right to resolve according to whatever Wikipedia says about this material by Jan 1, 2025, especially if the experts I ask blow me off.

I reserve the right to revisit the resolution criteria if LK-99 or LK-99-like materials end up rewriting what we thought we knew about superconductivity. 


Update 2023-07-27:

Pasting my comment on resolution criteria

We're clearly all here because a) it's fun, and b) we're interested in room temperature superconductivity, not whether some other experimental group gets the same kinda sus data as the original paper. So, when I write 'replicate' in the question I am specifically asking: is the room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity of the compound LK-99 convincingly demonstrated?

Specifically, replications should convincingly demonstrate:

  1. Zero DC electrical resistivity (or something close enough if the measurement is AC).

  2. A phase change*, which is usually exhibited as a sharp discontinuity in the heat capacity.

  3. The Meissner effect (magnetic fields expelled).

If synthesizing the compound, there should be evidence that they did make something essentially the same as what is reported in the original paper.

2) has an asterisk because @BenjaminShindel suggests that a phase change might not be required for a quantum well superconductor. I think I see how this could be the case. Willing to adjust this criterion after receiving more info from relevant theorists/experimentalists.

I don't intend to require that replications be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The arXiv is sufficient for me. However, I do intend to wait a few weeks/months to resolve so that any pre-print can be adequately investigated for data manipulation, fraud, etc. In my utopia, labs that claim to have confirmed/disconfirmed this effect would also publish their raw data with their arXiv submissions, but I'm not holding my breath.

Since high Tc superconductivity is not my specific field of expertise, I'm willing to defer to a consensus of subject matter experts on whether a pre-print is convincing or not, and I am willing to contact some beyond the usual twitter personalities.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:

will this be enough ?

We’re so back

opened a Ṁ708 NO at 4% order

@Soren people cashing out positions due to the pivot

@BrunoParga The pivot is already making markets less accurate

I wonder what's going to happen to this market's % 👀

bought Ṁ1 YES at 4%

@SanghyeonSeo you know you deleverage every time you do this, right? You only got half of that back, the rest was a loan repayment you didn't need to make. You could have more YES shares if you didn't have this practice of always selling a little bit.

Edit: this comment was supposed to be a reply to a sell trade, but that's not showing up for some reason.

@chrisjbillington if he cared he'd use limit orders. It really doesn't matter. Either it resolves YES and he is the all-time ultimate whale, or it resolves NO and he dies.


A Chinese researcher summarised:

This is relatively new content that we have seen so far, and it can prove that there are different stable states, or quantum states, under the influence of magnetic fields. This is the pinning phenomenon.

@joshua (not that tagging is working)


new paper incoming from Professor Yao 🪄

@jim Instead of all these replications and experiments, why haven't the original authors simply given a sample to a lab to test for superconductivity?

The average scientist has never made a superconductor, so it's only natural that if they tried they would fail. And that if they did appear to succeed, it's probably noise because they don't know how to do it. So we should be disregarding all replications as noise and simply looking at the original material.

Have them give their best sample to a lab and just test it. Wouldn't that be easier than unrelated people trying to follow a recipe that might not be correct? The exact recipe doesn't even matter that much until confirmed.

@Mira LK-99 team: "I can fly instantaneously by the action of my mind, trivially, with no limits, at any time. This was a result of this long complex and vague procedure. Follow it"

Scientists: okay we'll try the procedure for a year despite you not helping explain how it works and everybody else failing

Sane people: how about you just fly up to the ceiling right now and show me you can really fly. Once you've done that we can talk.

Why would they share a sample with a public laboratory? Q-Center already has investors convinced and is valued at several billion USD. Their focus is no doubt on advancing in manufacturing process ASAP, not on trying to catch competitors up or to convince them to try to catch up.

in case you guys have missed it:

Shinsung Delta Tech's share price has soared as a result of it owning part of the Q-Center (which developed LK-99).

Professor Yao Yao and the Chinese groups are a different matter, and have discussed and declared willingness to share materials with labs. They engage in a lot of cooperation. I'm not sure the current status of this because I am not up to date on the Chinese language discussions.

@jim as I have laid out in previous comments, almost all my hopes for YES resolution lie with Chinese researchers. I think YES resolution is quite unlikely even assuming LK-99 is legit.

@jim Sharing a valid sample with a public laboratory would prove their claim, not invalidate their rights to it. An independently proven claim would push the stock significantly higher than it is now without any loss of rights to the material. If they ever wish to actually make money on the material such an exchange of the material would need to occur.

Arguing the current stock price is high due to the potential actually makes a strong argument opposite the way you intended though. I.e. one reason to not share a sample is it wouldn't be validated and the perceived value of the stock would return.


they dont need stock higher

all it would achieve is a rush of labs trying to overtake them

that's my point, if u want to engage with my comment it's what u gotta address

@jim There is nothing to overtake if they never sell a sample externally anyways and there is no other rush of labs to overtake them if they already have the rights.

@DanielSmith1ce0 it takes a long time and a lot of expertise to perfect the formulation and manufacture. I am not an expert on the rights, but considering the original LK-99 formula is no longer accurate, I suspect any rights are a matter of hope at best.

@jim I just wonder how they know they actually made the thing right in the first place. Like, what if they don't have the right formula anymore either, and maybe lost the sample? Or only remember having it?

Comment hidden

More related questions