Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ6,481 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,741 | |
| 3 | Ṁ3,455 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,233 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1,207 |
The original Korean researchers are presenting at APS conference March 4, 2024.
Chinese researchers are in the process of replicating. The Sulfur they are adding to the chemistry is binding to the carbon in the LK99. Not loose contamination. If the science gets more proven are we reversing the resolution of this ?
@brianwang If it's proven or replicated, then everyone will hear about it. Your definition of 'more proven' sounds like "still unproven, but just another straw for nonscientific speculators to hype with."
You are perfectly entitled to provide the evidence if it turns out to be real on this and the dozens of other LK99 prop bets. And I'll support your effort if it turns out to be the case.
In the mean time, will you also take the responsibility to update your terribly overconfident and uninformed speculations on your blog and twitter with an apology, especially to skeptical actual scientists like Hossenfelder that you've slandered? As of right now, her counsel to be patient and skeptical is orders of magnitude more accurate than your hot takes.
@Maniuser So all the skeptics are permitted to say it is not a superconductor but the skeptics of the skeptics must stay silent? I am informed by reading all of the patents and all of the papers on both sides. The skeptical papers did not deal with the thin film data from the original papers and patents. If the theory that it was all sulfur and metal contamination was right then they also assume that all of the pro superconductor DFT models are wrong. Why is it not worth investigating the chemical modifications from DFT models before declaring the entire class of materials is unworthy? There is now experiments from many labs in China indicating magnetic results inconsistent with sulfur contamination theory.
If after years and considerable effort all of the chemical variants of LK99 suggested by DFT models are investigated and there are flaws found that caused DFT to give false positives then I will say that the skeptics were right and apologize.
Right now I am unconvinced by the evidence of skeptics and I do not believe in the always doubt and wait approach voiced by Sabine. The mainstream can and has been wrong before. There were AI winters where everyone doubted neural networks as a field but then problems were fixed and results were achieved by people who kept trying. Where are the calls for apologies and where are the apologies from those who quash research who are proven wrong? Doubters and skeptics win when things are not working and then do not lose when things do work. But I will remind people of the history of those who said heavier than air flight would not work or space flight would not work.
I support trying to make things work. But I do favor cost and benefit analysis. The diamond anvil approaches are not providing enough science gain relative to the effort. This category of work is the most promising area to achieve room temperature and room pressure superconductors. It is also super cheap and super fast to investigate.
Before the Wright Brother fly is when they need support. How. Does the mechanism and process of trashing, demonizing and quashing trying to prove something unpopular help get more breakthroughs . If 50 scientists try to do something and spend a few million dollars then so what? If I like it and write about their efforts then why must you demand an apology from me?
Thousands have worked on the international tomomak project and spent tens of billions. Even if it works it will not lead to commercially priced energy. That is and was a major waste. The new companies and projects have a better chance to make something useful happen.
The Space Shuttle did work but it was too costly for what it did. SpaceX is showing the huge cost and waste of the space shuttle and ISS approaches and the companies behind them. Boeing is now repeating showing how they lost their way.
Here is the report from the Sukbae Lee (L in LK99 presentation).
The class of room temperature and room pressure superconductors is real.
He and other researchers have formed a corporation and the success of the company and its patents is the priority.
IBM is the first company to start discussions.
Sukbae Lee believes the China groups have successfully reproduced the sample.
They have a video detecting zero resistance.
Sukbae Lee and his team are confident
APL materials review process : Ongoing
Patent registration: Ongoing
Why no samples and data? -> We are a corporation. Patent.
We are going to be proved by other researchers
There are still instabilities and other issues to be worked through.
There are currently limitations around a narrow range of magnetic fields.
Weak Meissner effect detected, experimental, Jan 2 2024
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.00999.pdf
China experimentalist see microwave absorption that indicates superconductor
Dec 16 2023
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10391
Mar 4, 2024 part of the original team will be showing variant of LK99 that has full Meissner effect
APS presentation
@oh "last bet 3 weeks ago" means inactive to me. I don't look at comments (almost always if you haven't bet or made a market, you haven't commented). I still don't think a comment from 6d ago qualifies as active
@fortenforge FYI, moderators have been erring on the side of stepping in because of a deluge of markets that have closed at the end/beginning of year. Marcus is being more zealous than average, but he's just trying to help out the 400+ traders who'd have their mana locked up if you weren't as responsible as you were in coming on to resolve so quickly. The situation and norms right now are kinda all over the place, and at the end of the day, everyone’s trying their best. I’m sorry that your toes got stepped on!
@fortenforge What are the resolution criteria here? Is it "replication before the end of the year" or something else?
@jack I talked about resolution criteria here: https://manifold.markets/fortenforge/is-the-room-temperature-superconduc#0yhXitMlwac6xsFWRn1R
As to when I'll
resolve: definitely by end of year, possibly earlier if something major happens (a successful replication or a paper retraction).
https://vxtwitter.com/andercot/status/1686805961124855810 Team from Southeast University, Nanjing, produced high-purity sample. Observed zero resistance under warmer (ambient pressure) conditions than other SCs, but not even close to room temperature.
@LukeHanks Yes, up to 300K. They showed 0 resistance (or as low as they could measure) up to 110K. They have a chart in the video in the link.
A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments
I am guardedly optimistic at this point. The Shenyang and Lawrence Berkeley calculations are very positive developments, and take this well out of the cold-fusion "we can offer no explanation" territory. Not that there's anything wrong with new physics (!), but it sets a much, much higher bar if you have to invoke something in that range. I await more replication data, and with more than just social media videos backing them up. This is by far the most believable shot at room-temperature-and-pressure superconductivity the world has seen so far, and the coming days and weeks are going to be extremely damned interesting.
Looks like theory coming along while the race to replicate continues
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1686208150590935041?s=46&t=q-Ds0aJ7frdEfqZMJVfhJA