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·
    1 year 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·
    1 year 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?