To be resolved by scientific consensus, as measured by a survey of peer-reviewed papers on Dec 31, 2023. Papers will be identified by a Google Scholar search for "LK-99 1D superconductivity." If no clear consensus, market resolves to PROB: a weighted average of paper conclusions judged by whether they support a thesis of 1D superconductivity (100%), argue against it (0%), or are neutral (50%), with the weights provided by the 2023 impact factors of the journals they appear in. If no relevant papers have been published, but papers relevant for other LK-99 properties have been published, the question resolves NO.
To maintain objectivity in judging, the creator of this market will not trade in it.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ121 | |
| 2 | Ṁ5 | |
| 3 | Ṁ4 | |
| 4 | Ṁ0 |
@chrisjbillington Thanks for the bump. I had opened the Google Scholar links in a tab and then lost it. Using the two searches "LK-99 one dimensional superconductivity" and "LK-99 1D superconductivity," I looked at the "versions" file for every link on all the search result pages. The result was finding links to 15 unique articles which were not on preprint servers:
Several were totally irrelevant (10.3390/a16080382, 10.1145/3583133.3590638, 10.1021/jacs.3c08726)
Several were relevant, but had no relevant mention of "1D" or "dimens*" (10.1039/d3cp04984a, 10.1021/acs.chemmater.3c02054, 10.1039/D3CP04984A, 10.3390/cryst13091371 (to be safe I also searched for "dim").
Several papers were against superconductivity as a whole (10.1088/1361-648X/ad0673, 10.1038/s41598-023-48383-z)
Several papers provide hints of 1D conductivity, but stop short of claiming superconductivity:
"This unique structure promotes a one-dimensional electronic conduction channel along the c axis mediated by the O atoms, which may be related to superconductivity" - 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.224114
"The isothermal magnetization measurement at 280 K shows that as synthesized sample of LK-99 is paramagnetic." ... "It is worth mentioning that LK-99 is a 1D electrical material [1–3], hence appropriate doping of its Pb-apatite chains by Cu may be an uphill task." - 10.1088/1361-6668/acf002
"Considering the distance of approximately ∼7.4 Å, such a substantial hopping is unexpected and raises the possibility of inducing anisotropic, quasi one-dimensional transport in LK-99 (if it is a charge transfer insulator, and if LK-99 is hole doped)." - 10.1088/1361-648X/ad0673
"In addition, the PO4 units surrounding the cylindrical column formed by Pb2 atoms also exhibit insulating characteristics, leading to a one-dimensional-like conduction channel along the c-axis mediated by the 1/4-occupied O2 atoms." - 10.1016/j.jmst.2023.08.001 (theoretical paper)
The localization of the electron density is characteristic of a low-dimensional electride. (10,11) - 10.1021/acsenergylett.3c01651
One paper did not consider 1D superconductivity: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.107293
Two papers explicitly denied 1D superconductivity:
"In contrast to the undoped compound, the low-energy band structure of Pb 9 Cu(PO4 ) 6 O—corresponding to stacked triangular lattices—has no particular one-dimensional (1D) character." - 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L201122
"Scenarios of one-dimensional superconductivity [9] and tunneling between two-dimensional semiconductor quantum wells [8] have also been proposed. This is not supported by the rather similar dispersion of the low-energy Cu d-bands in and out of plane in Fig. 2(c). Only the extra O bands 3,4 below the Fermi energy with a large Γ-A dispersion could be considered to be one-dimensional in a first approximation." - 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L121110
And finally, the only paper which found explicit evidence of superconductivity is Lee et al, Journal of the Korean Crystal Growth and Crystal Technology (sic) [10.6111/JKCGCT.2023.33.2.061]. Not wanting to read 10 pages of boring technical Korean, I searched for all the Korean terms of "1D" I could think of: 1D, dim, 축, 차원, even 디멘. This revealed a lot of mis-spellings in the paper: "2-Dimention" (sic) and "디멘젼" (sic). wtf.
"이러한 관점에서 전자가 3차원의 자유도를 갖는 초전도 합금의 최고 임계온도인 28 K를 식(3)에 대입하였을 때, 2차원의 임계온도 상한은 약 50 K이며, 1차원의 임계온도 상한은 약 126 K이다." ["From this perspective, when 28 K, the highest critical temperature of a superconducting alloy in which electrons have three-dimensional degrees of freedom, is substituted into equation (3), the upper limit of the two-dimensional critical temperature is about 50 K, and the upper limit of the one-dimensional critical temperature is It's about 126 K."]
The paper goes on to claim superconductivity is a result of confining electrons to 1D (or near-1D).
But a single paper in a low-impact, non-English journal does not scientific consensus make.
Conclusion: Thanks @SirCryptomind for the resolution; it stands.
I see four papers that look peer-reviewed (just skipping over all the arxiv links returned by google scholar):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6668/acf002
https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L201122
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemmater.3c02054
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/cp/d3cp04984a/unauth
Three are theory papers, the first is experiment. None say it's a 1d superconductor.
Resolves NO I think @brp