So this is getting interesting (following on from the failed replication study (posted here).

Quick Notes:

  • This is a simulation! So it lends credence to the possibilities of this being legit.
  • But it’s from an apparently credible lab
  • This line struck me as consistent with the difficulties people have been having with replication (from the twitter summary):

This means the material would be difficult to synthesize since only a small fraction of crystal gets its copper in just the right location.

EDIT: link to arxiv paper cited in the twitter posts

  • Max_Power@feddit.deEnglish
    30·
    10 months ago

    The way the original scientists published the paper was weird. Let’s hope others can reproduce the results. Looks like there is something to it. This is a big deal and could change the future for the better.

  • laurens@kbin.social
    11·
    10 months ago

    So my understanding with this new info is that LK99 is quite likely to be ‘something’, right? That something certainly does not have to be a superconductor, or anything even remotely impactful.

    But am I understanding it correctly that the explanations of pure fraud or ‘cat walked on keyboard during original measurements’ for the original papers can be mostly ruled out?