Hm, but diamagnetism in itself doesn't mean that it's a superconductor, no? There are a few diamagnetic materials that aren't superconductors, AFAIK.

However, we have never seen a material with such strong diamagnetism that is not a superconductor

Really? That's encouraging, thanks.

Yes LK-99 if not a superconductor would be the strongest diamagnetic material by orders of magnitude.

And even if it turns out it isn't a superconductor, that's pretty cool in its own right, no? At least this layman would think so.

And it would go a way in explaining why so many take the claims seriously and try to replicate it, if we know there's something exciting going on either way.

True, but what I meant was that the labs that couldn't replicate even diamagnetism clearly haven't created the same material, as the original LK-99 was shown to be diamagnetic.

If someone can show that it is diamagnetic and not superconducting then that could be evidence that they recreated the same material, but that it doesn't show superconductivity.

That makes sense, thanks. So if the replication is not diamagnetic, it means that it's not LK-99, rather than that LK-99 is not diamagnetic itself, thanks.