Assuming this is all true, why is it just now coming to light? Did they just not know what they had? (I have not been following this closely, maybe this has already been explained)
2018 They got funding to research it further,
2020 was a first attempt of publication at Nature that was retracted, further improvements were made until 22/23 were two patents were filled, then suddenly 10 days ago Kwon, one of the co-researchers jumped the gun publishing a paper with the details, on one hand fearing a leak of someone else publishing first as that was too simple to replicate, on the other hand excluding everyone else from the paper and only listing him and Lee/Kim (LK) as authors as a Nobel prize can only be shared by three people. 2.5hrs later LK published again listing other 5 authors but him.
Huge respect for those in this field or others that don’t give up after so many years. Thank you
If it increases entropy as much as many suspect and it only took 1/3 of a couple humans' lives to open that phase space, the Universe has done what it wanted - to hasten heat-death.
The universe is A LOT younger than that.
Hawking’s explanation deduces that if the observable universe expanded from a singularity, we would be unable to meaningfully theorize what happened before then, since it would be beyond any form of observation to test the theory. Therefore, a scientific model rooted in observation can describe nothing earlier than the Big Bang.
However, not everything unseen is untrue. If a singularity were to form somewhere in Andromeda tomorrow — in all likelihood, one will — we will still have existed today.
Edit: The initial comment was meant as a lighthearted reply to the universe personification, but I ended up sensing a need to explain the reasoning.
There is a singularity in Andromeda, so I don't know why one forming matters
With that being said, I'm not sure if leaking a paper and selfishly putting your name on it and excluding others so that you win a Nobel Prize doesn't exactly seem "heroic". Certainly beneficial for mankind, but it seems like a self-serving action.
Yeah, advancing human knowledge serves humanity, but unfortunately not really those who are advancing that knowledge. Those with money will just use your invention and make more money, you will have a pat on the back. I wish it was more balanced, we would have a lot of inventions sooner and implemented faster.
This is why the calculations by Sinéad Griffin looked so interesting to me: they suggest that the superconductivity depends on an unconventional substitution pattern that might not (in fact should not) occur in most samples of Cu-doped lead apatite. So the active structure was only present in tiny quantities, requiring a long period of trial-and-error optimization.
Again, this is far from proof, but I thought it was at least very curious to have some theory that explains not just a mechanism for superconductivity but also why the samples seem to teeter on the edge of superconductivity so frustratingly.
The replies to my previous post ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36958419 ) suggesting that flat bands appear simply because copper doesn't belong in that lattice seem inconsistent with the fact that a flat band was not observed when copper substituted at the wrong type of lattice site. If flat bands appear merely because of the unpaired copper electron, they should appear when it is substituted only at Pb {2} sites, but they don't. The appearance of this band structure plus the observance of diamagnetism just takes us from happenstance to coincidence, so we need one more to conclude it is enemy action.
FWIW I don't work in condensed matter physics but I have taken the classes at grad level a few years back. I also should really be doing other things, but this is probably the most fun scientific news cycle since 'Oumuamua at least. (COVID doesn't count as "fun".)
Interesting! The uneven chunk shown in the original video was probably the best specimen they had after decades of attempts.
When I first saw it, my first thought was, "geez, why not at least try to make it uniform"...
It takes a week to bake/whatever a test sample. Which is why this is playing out so "slowly".
So, they had an idea and have been baking/testing/refining samples for decades. Science and funding takes a while.
What idea they started with and why they kept at it for 20 years is beyond me, that's a long time to chase an idea of you didn't have results or a hint that your idea would work. Maybe they had a weird sample that came from some other process in 1999 and have spent the intermediate time convincing funding people and doing the repetitive lab work required to get it to this point.
> Get involved with your local community of makers, get them intrigued by your idea and its potential, connect with people that will help you build it.
This will prevent me from patenting it. I can also make first prototype myself, I've started last year, will try to finish this year. Funding would just let me drop one job and make it faster.
> Patent it, and then raise funds via the Internet to try and build it. Seek out local VCs. I know that's a lot to ask, on top of two jobs, but I didn't organize our economy.
I don't have enough money for patenting something that might not work. That's why I need to make a prototype. That prototype will be MUCH cheaper than a proper patent but takes some time which I also don't have too much (but working on it slowly). When I'm sure it works, I already have enough connections to make it actually happen.
At this moment, funding my prototype would just benefit humanity with earlier knowledge of whether it works, so of course no one sane will fund it, that's the sad reality with human priorities.
> I know that's a lot to ask, on top of two jobs, but I didn't organize our economy.
Yeah, I've only asked for tips just in case you have some, I don't blame you or anything. Thank you!
This thread also describes WHY those LK-99 researchers sat on their invention for so long, they just couldn't find enough people interested in their material.
Of course I could just publish my idea, but it's possible that no one would be interested in this and I would like to have some money from this to pursue some other ideas without begging people for support.
They're experimentalists: they didn't find the material from first principles, they appear to have made it and decided to continue.
So did you make the engine and notice it's efficiency, or did you find it using first principles where no one else did?
I found it from first principles, I still don't know why no one else thought about it, but it requires sort of splitting and reversing a normal stirling engine inside-out. Since then I've found several attempts at going in that directions which I took, but no one connected all those pieces yet as far as I know. This doesn't require any advanced materials, just a new configuration of existing inventions. For 15 years I've thought why it should not work, but I can't find a flaw in my reasoning, so now I need to verify it with actual working machine, because I know I still might be wrong. If I'm right - this will change energy generation and storage (no more steam turbines and will replace PV panels). If I'm wrong - someone will potentially lose about $10k.
I don't want to whine or excuse myself, I only give an example of why some inventions take a long time to mature into working design. I will make this, just not in a month of real time.
That is a framing issue. How else do you want to get support? If you find a marketing person to glam it up, and have people come to you wanting support you instead of you going to them. The end result is the same though - you're being supported.
If I had something I think could change the world, I'd beg, borrow, and steal whatever I needed, just to get the equipment to be able to get the patent on it.
Like I said, there's a reason I'm not in charge of any VC stuff and I largely don't invest myself lol.
I wish you the best of luck with your invention though, please never give up and never stop dreaming. People like you even if you never produce it push us ALL forward. Thanks for what you do
I suppose they saw something favorable in that 99 sample and nobody else knew. The vagaries of chemical synthesis helped.
But it doesn't seem like they could have had a worse sample than what they fucking have now, while getting data that made them waste a quarter-century.
As much as people hype and have 'reproduced' it, I...dunno. If it's real, the autobiography will be worth an expensive translation.