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 Ṁ1,000 play money
Sort by:

lmao: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a46457141/room-temperature-superconductor-comeback/

someone want to buy this market up to like 10% or so, so I can stock up on more NO shares?

Link for non subscribers: https://archive.is/HjOl4

Here's a copy of this market, except it goes for one more year:



Dear freinds! Further, let's re-cap on the China results. With a copper-substituted lead apatite material synthesised by Hongyang Wang, an experiment was conducted which they believe demonstrates the Meisner effect (which is a sure sign of superconductivity). Because the synthesised material is in the powder phase, it is not easy to carry out a resistivity measurement. But they are now attempting to fabricate a large film, with which it would be easier to carry out an accurate resistivity measurement and confirm zero resistance. We can expect to see these results aproximately in March. And note that they were able to rule out ferromagnetism, so their results, if they are confirmed, already show extremely good evidence of superconductivity.

In summary, there is a path to a YES resolution here:

  • Their existing Meisner effect result is further confirmed

  • They successfully create a film of LK-99 and show zero resistivity

  • The zero resistivity result is confirmed (e.g. they share the material with an independent lab which sees same results)

Hello my dear freinds! Today I bring you great tidings: LK-99 is legit! I will show you the graph of Shinsung Delta Tech Co, Ltd.! Thanks for the investments, Shinsung.

Here you see the graph that has gone up to great heights as a result of a close freindship and investor partnership with Q-Centre (which developed LK-99)! If you look closely you can see the value explodes in conjunction with the credible RTSC results of Q-Centre researchers. This represents 3 billion of USD just from Q-Centre relationship. At this point, are NO holders feeling so secure? I think not!

Secondly, you can see at this page that we will get a presentation from Hyun-Tak Kim (an author in the LK-99 paper), in which he will present multiple images and video recordings of LK-99. This will occur on March 4. https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR24/Session/A16.2

Thanks for reading!

@jim hope you give us better prices with all that strong evidence!

@Bayesian hello dear, I have pushed the price from low 3% to full 4%. However, for nicer prices you must wait for the sensible market to kick into action.

@Bayesian It is difficult, because there are many whales who bet big on NO, quashing the % without a second thought. Whereas fellows such as myself who are not so wealthy can not move the market in proportion to our surity, even if we move all-in.

@jim don't worry, once this respolves YES you'll be swimming in mana and then you can be the 🐳

@Odoacre in very deed!

predicts YES



@Joshua Dear Joshua, can you explain the motivation for this trade?

@jim Non-epistemic

predicts YES

For the people who haven't been following, the videos appear to be from an author of this article: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10391

predicts YES

Now how about this, same person as before (Yao Yao from Meissner paper), disconnected inverted levitation

It has only been posted as a GIF (see the link, I tried to upload it here but it only shows a single frame), the video is coming soon (the information is 4 hours old). The pieces were all lying disconnected on the table before starting.
He manages to make a chain of the smaller three first but there the effect is rather weak:

Then he moves on to the big one, there is obvious contact at first but then it lowers slightly and moves perfectly in unison with the magnet while visually disconnected from it. This has to be either fraud or the jackpot now, right?

How I interpret the translation is that he also pushed a paper between the two samples but we don't have a video of that yet. I think they are saying they are now doing the magnetic measurements on the samples so we will have to wait

Updated with additional images, source unclear:

predicts YES

@Vozze can you post the link to the gif?

predicts YES

@jim full levitation is a very exciting development, if it is true. I don't put much weight into anything else.

predicts YES

@jim this is a re-upload, the original thread contains more info but can't be linked to from what I can tell: https://twitter.com/gimjiun79102152/status/1750553173922848839?t=goEVZcgrOYrSHkFyMN6aLg&s=19

@Vozze This video (assuming true) is indeed much more promising but the post notes they didn't check if the flake actually fully disconnecting (for whatever reason???) it just looked so. Looking forward to more videos with the checks.

predicts YES

@Vozze vozze bro, any ubdates?

predicts YES
bought Ṁ10 of YES


This has to be either fraud or the real thing, right? Can you achieve this effect with regular materials? Edit: apparently yes

For five other videos from the same person, see my other comment.

I think this deserves its own comment. Feel free to remove if it's too similar to my previous comment.

I think the rock might actually float

bought Ṁ10 NO at 4%

@Vozze I made an account just to say this does not really look like flux pinning. Flux pinning results in the material trying to stay where it is moved to, not just repelled from where it is attached. This looks a lot more like the behavior of a partially diamagnetic flake of material (or maybe even a partially normally magnetic flake of material finding itself line up like iron filings do). That's why it not only sticks to the magnet but tends to wiggle back to where it was - it's not flux pinned it's simply aligning with the field. True flux pinning should be more willing to stay in the spots it is prodded to and should have no problem pinning without one side prefering to touch the magnet (in fact, it shouldn't need to touch the magnet at all). The other video has it flying around a bit when moved too roughly, again a behavior of a diamagnetic material not evidence of flux pinning.

The same behavior was observed in LK-99 flakes confirmed not to be superconducting, as well as other traditional materials.

I'd bet against it as part of this but it seems like the market would give absolutely abysmal returns a long way out from now.

bought Ṁ10 NO at 4%
bought Ṁ10 of YES

@DanielSmith1ce0 okay, thanks for that info!

Differing opinion from the Meissner effect paper author can be found here: https://www.zhihu.com/question/639231751/answer/3360206503?utm_id=0


bought Ṁ10 of NO

So what is behind these incessant posts of "evidence" that has been explained away numerous times over the last 6 months? Are these alleged scientists who are making these videos/claims stupid, deranged, trolls, lonely, CIA operatives, or high? It's really quite baffling.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@AlQuinn here is the thinking from the author himself (Google translate, as far as I can tell this website doesn't allow you to copy a link to a comment)

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@DanielSmith1ce0 from what I can tell, Yao Yao's lab now has such pure samples (without iron) that they can't hold them near magnets at all. Something akin to superdiamagnetism?

bought Ṁ251 of YES

@Vozze I can feel the YES resolution in my bones... it is coming... sooner rather than later.

@Vozze Yes, I'd fully believe versions of a highly diamagnetic material without magnetic components would fling away. While interesting in its own right (strongly diamagnetic materials are very rare) that they fling away without the inclusion of the magnetic impurities is actually evidence against this behavior being related to flux pinning, not additional evidence it's some special form of flux pinning.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@DanielSmith1ce0 but flux pinning is not a requirement for superconductivity, right? Diamagnetism or Meissner are, and if that is what we are seeing then that's good?

@Vozze What I'm saying is the effect you've posted media about twice is neither flux pinning or unique to superconductors. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a superconductor without flux pinning (we know that's possible, we have some) but that it's diamagnetic (most things are) is not really a hint one way or the other.

The Meissner effect is a bit more telling in that without it you can't possibly have a superconductor but with confirmation of a complete Meissner effect you have something which at least isn't immediately ruled out as a superconductor. None of this media actually shows the Meissner effect though, for that you demonstrate the different behaviors as you modify the temperature not just that it behaves mostly diamagnetically as you prod it. The recent paper claims a possible Meissner effect was observed in the data, the interesting thing to watch will be better confirmations of that. Even then, the ultimate goal is someone just measure superconductivity and put that in a paper instead.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

@DanielSmith1ce0 that makes a lot of sense, thanks. Is there a certain threshold beyond which the strength of the diamagnetism can only be explained by superconductivity? Not saying that is shown here but from reading up on superdiamagnetism it seems like that can also be used like an indicator next to the Meissner effect?

@Vozze I don't know of any theoretical limits for how diamagnetic a traditional material can be compared to a superconductor but what would be interesting is so far our best diamagnetic materials have been thousands of times less diamagnetic. The claimed (but not yet consistently replicated) ranges for LK-99 have ranged from a normal diamagnetic material to thousands of times to seemingly everything in-between.

If it's the latter (a normal material that can be extremely diamagnetic if you make it right) but still not superconducting I'd personally be excited though. E.g. you could easily float plain diamagnetic materials in weak magnetic fields, they just wouldn't flux pin. Based on how close these magnets are getting in these particular videos though I'd say it seems unlikely these particular flakes are showing to be 1,000s of times more diamagnetic than say certain forms of graphite based on them even getting close to the magnet or not flinging apart from the magnetic parts when touching the magnet. I.e. if you can float graphite and these flakes were 5,000 times more diamagnetic then I wouldn't expect them to be able to get near the magnet at all.

predicts YES

@DanielSmith1ce0 makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

More related questions