Will any peer-reviewed replication attempt before 2025 confirm the discovery of room temp superconductivity in LK-99?
Basic
30
6.9k
Jan 1
2%
chance

Resolves the same as https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18177/room-temp-superconductor-replicated-by-2025/

Copy of Metaculus's resolution criteria:

Will any peer-reviewed replication attempt before 2025 confirm the discovery of room-temperature and ambient-pressure superconductivity in LK-99?

This question will resolve as YES if a peer-reviewed replication of the superconductivity of LK-99 that confirms the main findings is published before January 1, 2025. The replication must be conducted by researchers at institution(s) independent from the authors of the original study.

A confirmatory replication would have to include the following:

  • Reproduction of the synthesis of LK-99

  • Confirmation that the critical temperature (Tc) exceeds 400 K (126.85C) — the Tc is the temperature at or below which the material becomes superconducting

  • Confirmation that the resistivity drops to the stated threshold of 10^-10 Ω·cm — true superconductors exhibit near-zero electrical resistance below their critical temperature

To be considered a confirmed replication the research must replicate all of the above.

Fine Print

  • Resolves ambiguous if there are no credible reports of a peer-reviewed replication attempt before January 1, 2025.

  • Metaculus will make a determination as to whether a replication satisfies these criteria and may resolve as ambiguous if the outcome is not clear.

Background

On July 22, 2023 a pre-print called "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor" was posted on arXiv in which the authors claim to have synthesized a material (termed LK-99) that exhibits superconducting properties at room temperature and ambient pressure. There is an accompanying pre-print on the synthesis of LK-99. This would be a significant breakthrough in superconductor research, if substantiated.

Get Ṁ1,000 play money
Sort by:

"Peer reviewed" is clear cut for resolution criteria but a bit uncorrelated to the question of interest. (Tons of nominally peer reviewed journals that are borderline predatory and might entertain a subpar work for publicity.)