Jump to content

Talk:LK-99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wslack (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 4 August 2023 (→‎"Status" Column is confusing: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Authors

There is some speculation that the reason for multiple papers dropping in such a short-time is because of credit in-fighting for additional (third) authors beyond Lee & Kim:

‒Sladen (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find proof that the Hanyuang University affiliation of Keun Ho Auh is legitimate: https://www.hanyang.ac.kr/search/search.jsp?tabId=univ&query=Auh%252C+Keun+Ho&search_name=&selectVal=1&search=Auh%252C+Keun+Ho
-Alexanderlkaplan (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alexanderlkaplan: According to the Academy of Sciences bio,[1] Auh joined the University in 1983, and is a Professor Emeritus. Using the Hanyang University search page[2], and searching by name ("오근호") displays their name and role ("오근호 명예교수"), and email address. —Sladen (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome thank you! 2600:1017:B82F:C79F:4D63:EB96:825F:B533 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CLAIMED

Two edits in Special:Diff/1167517849/1167516509 removed use of the citation {{r|padavic-c-20230726}} (causing a syntax error) and introduced new wording at odds with MOS:CLAIMED in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. These have been temporary reverted in Special:Diff/1167521503. (Would encourage Osunpokeh to attempt their edits again in a way that do not break the page or introduce problematic wording.) —Sladen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many secondary sources are using the word "claimed" or "is claiming" so don't be scared to use it here too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, such statements (if necessary) can be specifically quoted and attributed to an individual. The phrasings added by the posted diff were "Media reports … mentioned" and "Scientists speculated that" (ie. WP:VAGUE, WP:WEASEL). —Sladen (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Style questions: "And it is at this point that we have an entirely new physics..."

Reflecting on articles about various miracle-cure physics and science articles: we could use a style for tagging / talking about claimed advances that deviate dramatically from existing models, with limited intervening discoveries or confirmed theoretical underpinning. <longer style rant + comments moved to User:Sj/miracles> – SJ + 09:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the comment: "Multiple dimensions of breakthrough at once [here lower pressure and higher Tc]" No at atmospheric pressures there are many known superconductors at liquid nitrogen temperatures. There are known superconductors at high pressures (beating temperature records for atmospheric pressure superconductors), but those are much less practical than low temperatures. "Improvements that are too good to be true: an order of magnitude improvement over the state of the art, all at once." The original discovery of High-temperature superconductors was a sudden discovery of superconductivity in copper oxides (yes not such a huge increase in temperature for the 1986 discovery but still a massive breakthrough). I'm not saying whether or not this will pan out or not, but we should wait for others to attempt to replicate it, not add categories calling it pseudoscience or anything like that before it had a chance to be properly investigated. 2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:98B4:8359:E774:D7B7 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: categories, I meant we can categorize this as something like "alleged breakthrough" and not "high-temperature superconductor" while still unconfirmed; not adding claims of pseudoscience. This avoids prematurely give credence to an untested claim.
Yes, YBCO was a magnificent breakthrough -- but built on LBCO and known mechanisms. And you are right, we do have many ambient-temp superconductors; high pressure is needed to overcome a limitation that this particular compound may not need. That idea is clear from the theory in their initial papers; though the new LBNL preprint provides a much more thorough + plausible explanation. – SJ + 09:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virality

Scientific American calls out the virality of this science reporting [3], which I think is notable and kind of bends the rules being discussed above. Is adding a "viral news" section a good idea? It seems dumb to leave it out. But then do we use the less-reliable sources, such as Vice [4] (who also note the virality), AutoEvolution [5] and Country & Town House [6] just as examples? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Garisto piece in Scientific American is included in LK-99#Further reading section, which is probably a reasonable compromise. —Sladen (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
… other editors have cited the Garisto article now, so it is in LK-99#References …despite only using Fahrenheit! —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article focuses too much on July for it not to be mentioned, yeah. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Elusiveness of negative results

2607: above suggested we would know soon whether this has "panned out or not". This may be true if there are a series of positive results. But if there are only negative results, this is unlikely, as negative claims are hard to prove. Some of the developments that might be expected even if results are negative for weeks:

Inconclusive support

  • Through confirmation bias and multiple comparisons, a number of others will also find potentially weakly-supporting evidence of the desired outcome
    • One or two labs will report they have a partial replication but will not publish their results, perhaps "to double check that their results are correct". They may never publish anything, but that initial statement can keep hope alive for years.
    • Some replicators will report instances that they claim show weakly statistically significant support for the breakthrough claims, or at least for one signal. Rather than taking extra care to rule out sources of error, or making sure they can replicate their own experiment under a range of setups and initial conditions, they will only note that as an intended followup. (This followup may take years, or for various reasons may never happen, or never be reported as widely as the initial hopeful result.)
    • A small community of enthusiasts will start doing casual replications and reporting their results, again without sparing too much thought for the implications of multiple comparisons.
    • Someone will produce an informal meta-study of results from these three groups that show any positive indicators for the hoped-for result. They will come up with theories about what those experimental setups had in common that "got it right", leading to another round of experiments.

Inconclusive disconfirmation

  • The most careful replication efforts will not succeed. But lack of success isn't the same as failure - maybe they didn't do it carefully enough!
    • Many groups w/ varying experimental precision will try to replicate the work. None of them will have obvious success, or will confirm non-superconductivity explanations for early observations
    • The discoverers will come up with novel reasons, based on new unknown physics, why this is a sign that this material is still close to a superconductor, and the space of similar materials should be searched even more carefully. They will be more sure than ever that their approach will work, and will continue patenting and fundraising for an expanded effort.
    • The discoverers will update their method to address specific arguments against their approach, and to make even purer samples. They may start to cite the positive facets of inconclusive results from others, or the informal meta-study, in slide decks.
    • Through citogenesis, this can be glossed as "the latest breakthrough, which could revolutionize society, that needs replication and further confirmation" without independent confirmation of method, underlying theory, or observation of the expected core results; and also without the discoverers even developing an unambiguous demonstration they can show to other experts in their field.

– SJ + 20:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SJ's comment looks like it would be a valuable addition to the Reproducibility article, with a link from this one. Frank MacCrory (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related comment by Sabine Hossenfelder - Wild guess: the first reproduction attempts will find the material isn't sc, there will be some discussion about whether the stuff was synthesized correctly, then we'll never hear about it again.

Partial success: style

Right now we have three partial success entries in the replication table. All have shown video of a tiny and thin flake, which is perhaps 100x lighter than the object shown w/ partial levitation in the initial paper. Pablogelo has glossed them as 'Preliminary results unavailable' and not 'partial success' which seems right, since this is a minimal result, with no data shared beyond grainy video. (Also: all labs tried to produce much larger quantity than those flakes, so there is likely be a reason they're all showing such tiny pieces through a magnifying glass; we should assume that larger fragments don't show this property. Also, none have showed their flakes alongside flakes of known diamagnets like graphite for comparing strength of interaction.) – SJ + 17:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other apatite superconductors?

Do we know any other high-temperature, low-pressure superconductors with an apatite structure?

If this is another novel aspect of the claim, then it seems important to mention. But Google isn't helping me figure out if it's novel. Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, see File:Timeline of Superconductivity from 1900 to 2015.svg Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical current

I was going to add a Fermi estimate of the critical current to the page, but I've concluded that the amount of guesswork required pushes it from WP:CALC to WP:OR. Lest the work go to waste, though, here's my notes:

Figure 6 in the six-author paper shows critical currents of about 0.3 A. But what size sample are they using?

"Materials and Methods" in the three-author paper talks about measurements on samples of size 40 mg and 60 mg; I'll assume these are typical and go with 60 mg for safety. This site gives a (computed) density of plumbous phosphate as about 7 g/cm3. I'll assume LK-99 isn't that different.

Now smush the numbers together until the units cancel:

(0.3 A)((60 mg)/(7 g/cm3))-2/3 = 7 A/cm2

Wolfram|Alpha informs me that this is the typical gate leakage in a computer processor 15 years ago, or about half the current density in an electromotor brush.

Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN nomination criteria

If the claims of this discovery are verified, this would very likely be something that would posted as a news item in ITN. I'm looking to get a few opinions on when that should be — what burden(s) of verification do we consider before we trust the result to an ITN-worthy degree? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ITN material. Atleast not till a good few month passes by when the claims can be replicated at multiple venues (or not). TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three reliable, independant institutions that firmly confirm the presence of superconductivity at room temperature and pressure.
Getting reliable news sources to cover the replication by these insitutions as reliable helps.
As of today, all RS are still skeptical. Skeptical superconductor claims are not newsworthy. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Osunpokeh, hold that ITN listing until next year's award of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Lee, Kim & Chair ;-)! —Sladen (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Less reliable or incomplete replication reports

Removed two lines from the article (no information on the researcher, lab, or any followup; minimal detail in videos). Please add any other questionable replication reports here; we can check on them to see if they have published anything more serious. See also this Wordpress and this forum thread for sporadically-updated lists. – SJ + 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if the inclusion of the CSIR-NPLI attempt is inappropriate. Little or no secondary coverage, and the paper itself seems specious; the authors write "[f]urther, our sample is not spongy as being reported in ref. 1. Rather it looks, as the same is slightly melted and reacted with quartz tube." Is it misleading to include this as having tested the material in question per se? Moonjail (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They published a full preprint, which is better than most. Certainly not inappropriate; we have no idea about the method of any of the others, often showing the smallest of material fragments, easily 100x smaller than the chunk used for the original paper. – SJ + 00:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that these likewise fail WP:N and WP:RS absent secondary coverage. Indeed, arXiv is perennially discussed and considered generally unreliable on its own. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims in question, few if any of these seem to merit inclusion in advance of peer review, and it seems premature to give the appearance of comparing them in quality.
Mitigating claims of "subject matter expertise" ought to have an especially high burden where novel physics is concerned. The initial papers that are the subject of the article are unique in that their notability is a product of this inherent controversy, and they have received substantial secondary attention as a result. The same cannot be said for the papers in response.
I am merely particularly concerned about reliability and relevance where authors openly admit that the composition of their final sample may have been complicated by an apparent side reaction. Moonjail (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn here. The "reliable" secondary sources in question are reporting any plausible claim by replicators, and even less plausible claims, even when they are just one-off videos on social media with no description of method, assumptions, reporting bias, &c. So compared to what is already being covered by media, any complete five-section arXiv paper is a huge step forward in clarity, reviewability [by serious secondary sources], verifiability. And I feel slightly more confident about reporting the results of a group of authors willing to estimate and catalog their potential sources of error than I would about a too-clean paper published on such short notice. I think we desperately need better standards for N and RS for this sort of topic, since the filters used by pop science and mainstream non-science news are forever failing in these areas + on these timescales. – SJ + 16:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, look at that Southeast paper, which seems like really shoddy work, with no preprint or writeup of any kind, and refusing to characterize or even acknowledge major sources of error. It is covered without scientific commentary by 'mainstream' Chinese news because of the exaggerated nature of their un-self-critical claims. 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Added 2 questionable replication reports as per request to do so. ShotoKye (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other potential replications

Any reported replication efforts with no results, or with teaser images/videos but no results, can go here. They can be moved back if/when they publish.

As the number of published experiments grows, the article should probably just summarize the most notable, but we can keep track of the longer list of verifiable experiments by notable people/labs here or on a subpage. – SJ + 09:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the Russian entry with the YouTube video. That one clearly is fake, the sample is attached to a spring. When the finger pushes it and releases, it snaps back to its original position. 46.114.227.151 (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) ++[reply]
Has been removed. Thanks. 46.114.227.151 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Group Country Status Result Notes
Southeast University  China 8/2: Graph of data from resistance measurement Confusing graph in isolation. There's no clear dropoff, no clear T_c, and a lot of noise at low resistance. While superconducting measurements regularly go down to 1e-7 Ohms, here noise dominates at 1e-5 Ohms. They mention in the preprint the artefact around 230-250K could be sensor error. We should caption carefully.
Argonne National Laboratory  United States Un­known — [1]
University of Wollongong  Australia Un­known — Dr. Xiaolin Wang et al.[2]
Sungkyunkwan University  South Korea Un­known — Committee from three institutions to validate superconducting claims[3]
Korea University Un­known —
Seoul National University Un­known —
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University (Prague)  Czechia Started on 2023-08-03 Department of Condensed Matter Physics[4]
University of Science and Technology of China  China Results unavailable 8/1: Video showing diamagnetism of small sample. Video uploaded to Zhihu.[5][original research]
Qufu Normal University  China Results unavailable 8/1: Video showing diamagnetism of small sample. Video uploaded to Zhihu.[6][original research]
Iris Alexandra[a 1] & Moscow Engineering Physics Institute  Russia Unpublished Photograph of small sample levitating in glass tube. Sample synthesis and photograph by Iris Alexandra.[7] Posting on Twitter. Analysis by Moscow Engineering Physics Institute.[8]

Press coverage:[9][10]

The University of Manchester  United Kingdom unknown Not Reported Ongoing synthesis and characterisation[11]
  1. ^ Pseudonym.

References from above

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference cho-20230727 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ryan, Jackson (2023-08-02). "LK-99 Superconductor: Maybe a Breakthrough, Maybe Not So Much". www.cnet.com. CNET. Archived from the original on 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2023-08-02.
  3. ^ Kim, Jin-Won. Haeyoung Park (ed.). "S.Korean academics to verify truth of room-temperature superconductor". Tech, Media & Telecom. The Korea Economic Daily Global Edition. Archived from the original on 2 August 2023. Retrieved 2023-08-02.
  4. ^ @CondMatfyz (August 3, 2023). "Our crystal growth team is thrilled to be part of the quest for room-temperature superconductivity" (Tweet). Retrieved 2023-08-03 – via Twitter.
  5. ^ "韩国研究人员声称发现常压室温超导材料，具体情况如何？可信度有多高？". www.zhihu.com. Retrieved 2023-08-01.
  6. ^ "LK-99材料尝试复现 - 知乎". www.zhihu.com. Retrieved 2023-08-01.
  7. ^ @iris_IGB (July 30, 2023). "Fanservice" (Tweet). Retrieved 2023-08-04 – via Twitter.
  8. ^ @iris_IGB (August 3, 2023). "Literally visited МИФИ today" (Tweet). Retrieved 2023-08-04 – via Twitter.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference ferr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Lanz, Jose Antonio (2023-08-02). Written at Decrypt Media. "Room-Temperature Superconductor Claim Sparks Excitement and Skepticism". Yahoo! Finance. Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved 2023-08-04.
  11. ^ "programmable matter - News". www.2dmatters.com. Retrieved 2023-08-03.

Less reliable sources

Let's use this section to discuss reliability of specific sources.

Non-scientist overviews on non-science websites

  • Tom's Hardware: Removed one ref from here (it wasn't the only ref for any claim, and made statements contradicted by physicists in other sources).
  • Nimo Rotem : A hoax. He admitted on Facebook (before deleting the post, just moments ago) that what his video shows is not LK-99 but “a mix of metal powders and a binder” which he at refers to as “JK-99”.
  • Space Battles Forums and eirifu (aggregators of replication reports): Removed. Do please dig into the source the users of spacebattles are themselves citing, rather than cite directly from Space Battles. [see also in Chinese: salye)
    ShotoKye (you and I are the ones mainly adding/removing this): We shouldn't source any particular entry to one of those, since the underlying sources should be cited directly. But we should cite each of them once on the page to indicate that they have been referenced by editors contributing to the page. Perhaps under an External Links section. – SJ + 13:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) OK, I took a stab. 16:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think adding the tables as external links might be beneficial, but am unsure how to do it in a way that would satisfy guidelines. Reference to the Vice article that covers the tables is possibly sufficient. ShotoKye (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources publishing only on Bilibili

Scientists, not obviously notable?

  • Unidentified Superconducting Objects as articulation of the steady stream of likely-seeming high-temperature candidates which don't resolve as sc
  • Examples of thin-film superconductivity (ex: [7]), to help clarify that what's normally referred to as the upper bound on high-T sc doesn't mean "for any sample, however small or thin". – SJ + 14:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to avoid using primary sources

A tweet, facebook, bilibi, youtube isn't a reliable source and should be avoided when updating this article, multiple users are forgetting it when editing the section on replications, please refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources I would suggest a mod to watch that section more thoroughly and a clean-up is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablogelo (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that we must be careful. Primary sources do suffice to demonstrate 'X claims Y'. We still have to decide which such claims are notable enough to include. I don't think it should be enough that someone claims to be in a lab from a notable institution. But a verified member of a lab by a notable researcher in a related field, who is posting regular updates, seems sufficient to confirm that a replication is happening at that lab, and to include in the table. On balance I think including the "original research" inline flag for those lines is a fine comrpomise, until that lab publishes something more formal about their method + results. – SJ + 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Original research" means the Wikipedia editor is the source. That's probably not what you want. Maybe {{better source needed}} instead. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks Bri. I didn't use that template + will replace in future with bsn. – SJ + 15:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been turning to this article a few times a day for the past few days, and one reason is that it's the only place where one can get a broad sense of where various replication efforts stand. I presume that in due course, we'll want to tighten up the sourcing, but I just want to make the case that in a fast breaking story of such potential importance, it's more ok than normal that we accept sources that meet some basic sanity-check standards even if we know that as the facts become clearer over time, a lot of these preliminary reports won't be all that important to keep.
I fully agree with this sentiment by Moonjail: "Indeed, arXiv is perennially discussed and considered generally unreliable" in terms of Wikipedia claiming that there has or has not been successful replication. So we should be very clear to readers about that. But at the same time, it is of encyclopedia interest that such-and-such reputable person from such-and-such reputable lab claimed thus-and-so. Because of the lack of peer review, the nature of arXiv as a source is similar to that of a tweet by a politician if you see what I mean - that a politician tweeted it, doesn't mean that it's true, but it can be of encyclopedic interest that they did tweet it. WP:Twitter is a useful though obviously imperect analogy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as secondary sources do not take note of a Arxiv publication (or, to borrow from your equivalence, a politician's tweet), it stays out. Otherwise, not only RS but also DUE is violated. And, we are not in the business of providing breaking news. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the right rule of thumb here. Per Graeme, aggressively removing what are clearly credible reports from clearly credible institutions on this rule would be mistaken, especially when secondary sources do exist and are being put in, but even if they aren't yet out but obviously will be soon enough. There's a big difference between a Russian cat woman on twitter and a preprint and press release from a team at MIT. A rule that would say those are not reliable sources, but a newspaper is, in this context, wouldn't lead us to a proper encyclopedic approach.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about my edit earlier, new to wiki and while i did keep tabs on the talk page i missed this! Littlerootlodge (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources do exist and are being put in, so please don't remove entries from the tables to make this process of adding references more difficult. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I observe the irony in begging to differ with you about the mandate of Wikipedia, and as an electrical engineer it's a difficult position for me to be the wet blanket on this topic; nonetheless I can't help but feel that excitement might tempt us to confuse comprehensive reporting with encyclopedic reporting. As secondary sources have been added I have grown more comfortable with the existing inclusions, and perhaps what I am actually nervous about is the evaluative presentation.
SJ rightly observed that we should prefer to see openly failed replications at this stage in the game. But when we report those as "preliminary negative results," we're playing the role of peer reviewers. Essentially Wikipedia then insinuates that "yes, this paper legitimately tested the substance in question, and preliminarily found that it doesn't work."
The reader surely has a burden here to recognize that failed replications are attributable to various causes, and top exercise discretion. Nonetheless I prefer that we be more conservative in the summary table. As to the want for a broad summary of present replication efforts, is there a reason this is not sufficient? Moonjail (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Only place where one can get a broad sense of where various replication efforts stand" does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, most of the table has been plagiarized from this blog post by Eiri Sanada, which they have strongly objected to on Twitter. [1] [2] I'll be deleting the table over copyvio concerns. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 04:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table is not a copyright infringement, as just about every content item and the layout is different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about your table. Reallyyoudidthat (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By her own admission to vice (https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d9yez/diy-scientists-and-institutions-are-racing-to-replicate-the-room-temperature-superconductor) she took the idea ("copied") the table from the Spacebattles forums (https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/page-21).
What we are doing is no different. She seems hypocritical and her posts saying she's a "former/retired editor" indicates she has a vendetta against Wikipedia. ShotoKye (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1. In terms of usefulness as a primary source (a clear record of what a verifiable person did, as plausibly claimed by them + not just attributed to them), I would say

arXiv paper by people at notable labs >> same as technical report on a blog >> social media post by notable scientist > social media post by researcher in materials lab >> social media post by pseudonym in a basement.

And our biggest challenge currently is we need more unambiguous papers. – SJ + 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy with persistent additions of blogs (such as wordpress) to the article. Blogs are only ok if they are written by an expert in the field, which in this case would probably amount to someone notable for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Status" Column is confusing

different phrases have the same color while the same phrase also has a different color, I guess the color is based on outcome but wouldn't it be smarter then to color the "Result" Column? Littlerootlodge (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, its a tad confusing. Could be more intuitive. Not a super big deal though. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is confusing. The reasoning for the colouring isn't intuitive. ShotoKye (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New suggested colouring scheme for status column. (I have made these changes so far.)
Text should be different for theoretical studies.
- Grey (unknown): "Unknown". - No information on results.
- Grey (unreleased): "Preliminary results unavailable". - No pre-print paper, some of the results announced.
- Yellow (partial): "Preliminary Results Available". - Pre-print paper available to read. Results announced.
- Green (active): "Peer-reviwed". Peer-reviwed paper in journal.
- Red (eliminated): "Redacted". Paper that failed peer review, redacted by authors or was redacted after publication in journal.
Possible also to use.
- Turquoise (unofficial2): Full results announced where no pre-print paper is expected (e.g. In form of patent or other channel.)
------------------
New suggested colouring scheme for "Result"
Unsure whether to colour theortical study results or leave them uncoloured.
- Grey (unknown): "-". - No results yet.
- Red (faliure): Results do not support LK-99 being room-temperature superconductor.
- Orange (partial faliure): Results mostly do not support LK-99 being room temperature superconductor.
- Yellow (partial success): Results mostly do support LK-99 being room-temperature superconductor.
- Green (success): Results support LK-99 being room-temperature superconductor.
e ShotoKye (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine. But: is the current color-setup automatically generated by the template? – SJ + 02:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Colours are defined by template seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Table_cell_templates
Template names for these colours I put in brackets in my list. ShotoKye (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added something quickly but agree th key needs to be built out more thoroughly. \/\/slack (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up doping

Some anon editors are confused about what doping means. (see recent back and forth in edit summaries and here) And one of the theory papers was a bit careless in some of its wording, adding to this confusion. I'll take a stab at it, so we don't keep running into this; corrections welcome!

  • Lead apatite – Pb10(PO4)6O – is an insulator at room temp.
  • LK-99 is lead apatite doped with Cu – that is, in some places a Pb atoms is replaced with a Cu atom, producing Pb9Cu(PO4)6O. This doesn't happen for every molecule of lead apatite.
  • As a result, LK-99 is sometimes written as Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O, where x describes the average number of doped Cu per molecule of lead apatite (0.9 < x < 1.1).
  • In the context of a particular substrate, where a new molecule is doped in, sometimes instead of describing the atom being added (e.g., "Cu doping") you might describe the change in electron population of a band : doping with an ion of a different charge can lead to say "hole doping" or "electron doping" depending on whether this change creates a missing electron (hole) or adds an extra electron in a band.

So LK-99 (and any similar material) is by definition doped. Si, et al. suggest near the end of their paper that they would be surprised to see superconduction in Pb9Cu1(PO4)6O (where x=1 above), and that electron or hole doping [which simply replacing Pb2+ with Cu2+ would not induce] may be necessary to see such a thing.

This is the line in question (which should be rewritten for clarity):

"but conjectured electronic correlations will make LK-99 a paramagnetic Mott or charge transfer insulator. This would mean, electron or hole doping of LK-99 is needed to make it (super)conducting and should be actively procured in the synthesis process"

– SJ + 01:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well replacing Pb2+ with Cu2+ does not lead to holes or electrons in excess. But if some was totally missing then there would be not enough + charges. The charge can be compensated by varying the oxygen ion amount. If copper was present in a +1 oxidation state, a similar effect could result, and copper is present as +1 in the copper phosphide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How would you vary the oxygen ion amount? And isn't all the cu here expected to come from the phosphide? – SJ + 02:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all not referenced, but those apatites can also have F, Cl or OH− instead of O2-. Exposure to oxygen gas even very low pressure, and water vapour could alter the composition. You are right about where the Cu comes from, and there appears to be much too much compared to P in the ingredients. So there is going to be quite a bit of left over copper in the final black mass, as it does not evaporate like sulfur. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and if oxygen leaks in via a crack then this will happen: Cu2S + O2 → 2 Cu + SO2 so it is possible that all the "conductor" effects are just due to copper metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Salvatore Pais?

https://twitter.com/tinyklaus/status/1686591279377911808 Foerdi (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, patents often include refs to potential prior art w/o any connection. (That ref was added by a patent examiner.) – SJ + 07:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replication efforts

These tables should be concise overviews to inform the article, not hat racks for any unreviewed preprints or claims that emerge. It so happens that some of the very early analyses were from highly notable labs. But in general these tables should be a selection of the most relevant work at any point in time. My take:

  • We shouldn't include self-reported efforts (e.g., me posting on twitter that my lab is starting a replication - like the Czech effort, currently.).
  • We shouldn't include other reported efforts that haven't published anything. (publishing setup, process, method, &c counts as something, which is an argument to keep Varda, but the others don't have a reason to be there)
  • We probably only need one of the 3 simultaneous DFT analyses, which largely go over the same ground and didn't see one another's work so duplicate rather than including by reference. Where they differ is in their conclusions (different directions of informed speculation). A comment can indicate the 2 other supporting works and the nuances each looked at.

The tables should also be more concise: perhaps we can drop the References column; refs should be inline with claims, wherever possible, and the rest can be attached to a "Media mentions:" line at the end of publication status. – SJ + 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting that Chinese Wikipedia is being much more lax on what to report and what not to report. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
Of the noted replication efforts confined to the Talk page, only the Russian effort on Twitter meets condition 1 (reported by Vice) and 2 (setup, process and method published to Twitter) you propose; however the person behind the effort is under a pseudonym and the more expansive Chinese Wikipedia list does not include this one. Possibly should wait until either more press coverage (aside from Vice) or until they confirm what University / Institute laboratory they have partnered with (photograph appears to show they are working in one to test their sample) before adding to main page? This would be in-line with Andrew McCalip, who has both of these things (partnered with named University and extra press coverage from Wired and Time). ShotoKye (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added Iris based on being in the same position as Andrew (press reporting, posted process AND partnered with a university) since she confirmed to be partnered with a named Institution.
Has 1 press report, but so does some Chinese studies listed.
I believe the criteria for addition to the list should be:
- Press Coverage (at least 1)
- Something announced (process or methods count) OR 3+ press reports (wide coverage).
- University / Institution or partnership with on sample replication.
Exception being the 3 South Korean universities due to there ties with the Replication Committee (these should be included).

ShotoKye (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iris herself claims she used an entirely different process and that it is not LK-99 replication. Her entire proof is a photo of a speck of dust in a syringe. How can you consider that credible enough for this article? She should be removed. --92.52.59.146 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not credible, but reported in a secondary source. But we should see if there is reliable secondary source assessment of that effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweet tieing herself to Moscow Engineering Physics Institute on replication adds credibility, similar to Andrew McCalip's partnership with University of South California.
There is also a photograph seemingly of the lab at Moscow Engineering Physics Institute: https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1687116970674794496?t=mwgWQStMkRORk0vKv1jaig I have also added a 2nd instance of coverage in the press.ShotoKye (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her only prove is her own (anonymous) twitter account. There is no secondary source to confirm that she is partnered with a university and that picture proves nothing. She stated she used an entirely different process, and if I understand the papers correctly growing the crystal takes days, while she states she just quickly did it as a hobby project in the middle of a workweek (in her kitchen).
She showed us a speck of dust in a tube.
I also feel like press coverage is a weird requirement. It doesn't take much for Vice or Yahoo Finance o briefly mention you in a story.
I will remove her from the list, she can be added again once there's an actual publication from the university she's apparently partnered with. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The below tweet sounds like she will publish something. When is not clear. I guess she reads everything in this talk page - hey Iris, give us some clear infos, Soviet girl
https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1687081038571335680 Foerdi (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another secondary ref for Iris: Wang, Brian (4 August 2023). "Iris Alexander's Better LK99 Results Could Ca From Sulfur". but Brian did not do much writing himself, just about all quoting tweets. So probably not useful for us. And what is "construction grade phosphorus"? - is that a translation variation on technical grade? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is clearly somebody without an academic affiliation. In this field, it is not really possible for people without affiliation to contribute anything meaningful. In addition, she is in Russia, and most of us are prohibited to collaborate with Russia. In short, just forget about it, at least until something comes out. Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that writing about research in Russia, is really "collaboration". But I agree that we should leave it on the talk page until there is enough published material to determine the facts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean writing, I meant real collaboration. At my university, there is a full prohibition for any joint projects with Russia, and this is pretty much the case everywhere in Europe. But, indeed, there is no case of taking this to the article. Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LK-99&oldid=1168698501"