Hopefully the controversy doesn't cloud researcher's judgement and cause us to miss out on the technology just because it was way more nuanced than first appeared.
It might also be that everyone loses interest and the original team get the extra time they needed to work in peace and make a comeback.
The original cold fusion release has had an overhang on any studies of low energy nuclear reactions. Regardless of whether they have any bearing on energy production.
As an example of this, it is obvious and known that metallic lattices can lower the energy barrier of a nuclear reaction. However the underlying physics of how much screening and when is illusive - and their is a high correlation of quackery with any attempts at studying these systems.
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-...
That is not possible in any known material. Unless thats an array of very elaborate fakes, its a RT superconductor.
But the simulation papers and conductance tests make me suspect its a topological superconductor that would fail such tests.
One of those has already been admitted to being outright faked:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-video-fraud-taken-do...
I am on mobile now, I will have to go back through my history and check the claims... But one such reproduction is from the Meissner or Bust channel. They have been documenting the production for days, and IIRC they showed full levitation on a single magnet.
1. https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1687405505604734978
So, some other material levitating itself in seemingly room temperature?
Currently this guy is practically using his real name, with his university and professor exposed. It takes some courage to lie at this point.
link(in Chinese): https://bilibili.com/video/BV1Zh4y1r7XL
======================
Edit: People sometimes speak in convoluted ways. I feel "The sample was not LK99" could have two interpretations here: 1. It is a completely different compound. 2. It is a derivative from LK99 with a different synthesis/doping method.
No, it doesn't. It is a nine second video. Not a research paper. Right now the topic is being hyped up and you might care but next year nobody is going to give a damn about some random video uploaded to bilibili.
Why does everyone on HN pretend that even the smallest of missteps is going to end a reserachers career and therefore even videos with almost no effort put into them, that to feed the rumor mills, are somehow the paragon of truth?
We’ve seen proper levitation of specks that hasn’t been falsified yet.
That said, I believe theory has shown it’s actually possible for a diamagnetic object to fully levitate over a magnet as long as it’s light enough, but unlike a flux-pinned superconductor, it will only levitate over the center of the magnet, as is happening in all the levitation videos.
You’d think that with the current excitement and relative simplicity of the apparatus, labs all over would be putting in some weekend hours to muck about.
Consistency might be a problem for fabrication and commercialization.
That's unfortunately not how science is incentivized.
The lab reproducing this would get exactly zero academic credit. Maybe a day of press fame, but that's it.
On the other hand, once/if this is proven to be real, there would be thousands of labs racing to improve it and cite each other's work.
Do you have a link to more than one showing complete levitation?
Yet people are arguing "it might still be a superconductor! Just an exotic type that no one can replicate and also doesn't look like a superconductor in any measurements!" Okay, so could any number of other compounds, many of which are far more promising than this one (e.g. some USOs have shown actual definite diamagnetism). Why should we care about this one?
my favorite xkcd: https://xkcd.com/683/
In reality, what we have is a family of lead-copper-phosphorus-oxygen compounds, each with a different crystal structure, some of which might or might not exhibit interesting properties.
If this hype doesn't fizzle out soon, scientists will probably converge on more neutral, precise terminology to refer to the various configurations in order to avoid talking past one another. Something like β-LK99-Cu-5-7.
Part of the reason we’re not using a full formula yet is that we don’t precisely know what it is (or, indeed, if it’s just one thing at all; the linked paper makes a good argument that this will necessarily be a mix of multiple phases if synthesized as-described). Once we know what it is, we can use one of several existing names.
For example 3,4-MDMA is a useful shorthand for people who want to be precise as to which isomer they're talking about, but don't want to spell out 3,4-methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine every time.
This phenomenon enables stabilized superconductive lattices at room temperature.
What's more, the introduction of dual-harmonic topological oscillations—a novel concept—leads to a "negative friction" state where energy loss becomes almost non-existent. Coupled with the integration of monopolar time crystals, the discovery of LK99 transcends conventional physics, paving the way for revolutionary applications such as zero-loss power grids and time-locked computational matrices.
Its unique synergy of phase change, half-dimensionality, and room-temperature superconductivity makes it one of the most exciting breakthroughs in modern science.
(For the uninitiated, this is a bunch of gibberish with a few science-y keywords for truthiness).
Even this sample could be marginal, going by the original paper.
But there has been plenty of "locked" levitation and lots of zero conductance failures. I believe LK-99 a finicky topological superconductor thats going to give researchers headaches for years, not something that will suddenly be a bulk superconductor with just the right synthesis in the coming months.