LK-99 isn’t a superconductor – how science sleuths solved the mystery

Re:LK-99 isn’t a superconductor – how science sleuths solved... by NovaDudely on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @08:26PM (#37155660)

While I was very skeptical of the base claims of LK99 (extrodinary evidence required), I did sort of fall a little bit for the hype of what this kind of material could be used for. Mostly in terms of computer clock rates and used in batteries. Turns out what seemed intuitive at first was mostly wrong.

But then that is what happens a lot in various fields. Something that seems obvious isn't done because those that actually know the field can explain all the details you didn't know. Anyone here in programming have had that battle with upper management...

Hey lesson learned in this case. Don't always assume you have a grasp of all the details.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LK-99 isn’t a superconductor – how science sleuths solved... by throwawaymaths on Thursday August 17, 2023 @05:05AM (#37159052)

Serious question: why is extraordinary evidence required? Room temperature superconductivity doesn't break any (known) laws of physics, doesn't introduce new particles or fields, etc, doesn't require an unprecedentedly sensitive instrument (like LIGO/VIRGO)...

There's a lot of modern physics, chemistry, biology that is uncritically accepted which I think deserves a somewhat higher bar of skepticism than RTSC

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LK-99 isn’t a superconductor – how science sleuths solved... by jacquesm on Thursday August 17, 2023 @07:56AM (#37160256)

I'd settle for regular evidence: a nice paper from a reputable lab that replicates the findings of the original team. Extraordinary evidence would be required for non standard model physics or aliens or something like that.

[ Parent | on HN ]