Technology

37742 readers

510 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

National Lab (LBNL) results support LK-99 as a room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor (nitter.net)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/technology@beehaw.org

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MaxPower@feddit.de 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 9 points 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' can be mostly ruled out?

load more comments