Physicists coax superconductivity and more from quasicrystals | Hacker News Reader

Physicists coax superconductivity and more from quasicrystals

phys.org

30 pointspseudolus14 comments

Just a few comments on this late last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37712324

Isn’t it a bit premature to claim that? Is there a repro?

Not really, this work (as the article describes) builds upon well documented low-temperature superconductivity research where scientists at MIT made two layers of graphene with a differential rotation with respect to one another of 1.1 degrees - when cooled in a dilution fridge down to liquid helium temperatures it super conducted.

The theory of how both that and the OP article/research works is quite robust and decently well understood by the physicists working on it.

And this isn't some small team at some small college somewhere. This is a team at one of the best physics departments in the world doing this, and publishing these results. Like doubt is good in science, but these are scientists at the upper ranks of their field. The experts of their subdomain.

https://news.mit.edu/2022/superconducting-graphene-family-07...

One would think LK-99 should have been enough to prevent yet another completely unfounded claim of superconductivity, but apparently not.

The work claimed in the above article is proven, builds upon well established superconductivity research, and is published in nature, and is being done at one of the best physics departments in the world.

As a physicist reading these comments, it makes me wonder how much I should trust hackers news comment section for the tech discussions I am not working in.

https://news.mit.edu/2022/superconducting-graphene-family-07...

I apologize. There's no way for me to know the reputation of these scientists, as an outsider.

it's MIT, lol.

Oh you really shouldn't trust the comment section.

Superconductivity ≠ room-temperature superconductivity, the former is far more banal

Good to know. It's still a bit suspicious that there's no proof of their claims yet though. Hopefully there will actually be a delivery this time.

Why do you keep saying this? At the bottom of the article there’s a clear link to a peer reviewed paper in the journal Nature. Heck there’s a link in the first paragraph too. What is so suspicious here, like what’s the potential malintent being observed here? You seem to misunderstand what’s being presented here in its entirety, and are making a misguided point as a result. Granted, I’m no physicist, but it seems obvious to me that the rando group that reported lk-99 was making insane revolutionary claims regarding a supposed room-temperature superconductor, in a non peer reviewed paper. This is A) MIT. (Ie, extremely relevant in the name of physics) B) Only claiming the super conductivity of a previously unknown-to-be-superconductive material (or more aptly, a previously unknown process which makes a material superconductive), which is not anywhere even remotely close to being as potentially earth-shattering as the lk-99 claims. Plenty of things are superconductive- this one is just interesting because it’s new / novel (+ a couple of other important points I don’t particularly understand as I’m not a physicist. Go figure) C) Peer reviewed in a major journal Why do you keep pressing this angle as if the “claims” are so murky and unfounded and malevolent? There’s nothing about this paper to support that ideal that I can discern. What does “deliver” even mean in this context? They already have, in their peer reviewed paper. Arguably the Korea University students “delivered” with their paper on lk-99, it’s just that everyone checked after because of how crazy their claims being true would be, and found that they just fucked up. The two things you’re conflating here have no reason to be- they’re not remotely the same situation.

Jesus Christ you're impatient. Normally science doesn't move this fast.

> Jesus Christ you're impatient

The claim was allegedly made without evidence. I personally would have collected said evidence before making claims, so sorry if I say "citation needed".

Remember to stay civil on HN.

What do you mean by this, genuinely? They describe in their paper- the literal citation that is given at the bottom of the article, exactly what they did to observe superconductivity in this material.

No one alleged anything of the sorts that the claim has no evidence- not in the comments, nor in the article.

I think you misunderstood the original reply to your comment. When you said “… another completely unfounded claim of superconductivity,” you were way off base. Lk-99 was not a completely unfounded claim of superconductivity. It was a misguided (or malintented- who knows), non peer reviewed claim of *room temperature* superconductivity.

We know of plenty superconductive materials- finding and claiming one is not super crazy or subject to any undue scrutiny for the most part. Finding materials that are superconductive at room temperature however, absolutely is subject to extreme scrutiny, because it has literally never been observed before, we’re not sure if it’s possible, and we it would literally change the world as we know it if it were to be discovered.

The commenter was signaling you that comparing lk-99 to this is completely unfounded due to this, because discovering a superconductive property of a new material doesn’t even remotely have the same ramifications as the discovery of a room temperature superconductor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com