Return to Tangent's Shared Notes
This was my initial script for making a video about LK-99. It was (mostly) replaced by a recording based on LK-99 Presentation.
Sorta maybe superseded by How to Spot a Fake Superconductor (rewrite).
(I am currently in danger of becoming homeless. If you can spare a few dollars, it would help a lot. PayPal.me/Guard13007)
(Reminder: In this script, aside from the initial parenthetical, every parenthetical is intended to be text on the screen - not spoken.)
(Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor am I claiming that the papers discussed are intentionally fake. Science is difficult, and it's possible that the papers are based on a faulty understanding of magnetic properties mis-identified as superconductivity.) I usually ignore clickbait when it comes to claims of major scientific breakthroughs. Sometimes it's just a lie, other times, the shocking news baffling scientists is just that we've once again confirmed the Standard Model and there is still little evidence of new physics (new physics refers to hints that our current understanding is wrong in fringe cases because we are missing information about reality).
The news of a potential room-temperature and room-pressure superconductor got to me anyhow through a science communication channel I follow. Sometimes it can be fun to think about why a proposed breakthrough isn't practical. For example, there have been an uncountable number of studies published creating batteries with absolutely amazing properties, but batteries aren't much better than they were a decade ago because every major breakthrough includes some critical flaw - but flaws don't make for good headlines, so the problems are never shown as clearly as the promises.
First thing I noticed was that it's made out of lead. Lead is very toxic, and has a low boiling point. Chemistry is complicated and you can't assume properties of a molecule based only on what elements it contains, but there's a chance that the Achilles heel on this material is that it is toxic, or can't be produced in a clean fashion, or is too fragile to be useful. I also found information suggesting that they believe this material to be superconductive due to internal stresses causing the effect of a high-pressure environment within the molecule. If true, that lends more possibility to the material being too weak to be useful. (If you didn't hear, there was a breakthrough in superconductivity a while back using extremely high pressures to make superconductivity work at room temperatures.. It turned out, this was a fake paper.) Likewise, it could just be expensive to make, or too difficult to scale up. These are common problems that slow or prevent new science from translating into things we see every day.
Then I found a video claiming to be the material exhibiting levitation due to the Meissner effect - a hallmark property of superconductivity. The problem is.. well.. here's what superconductivity looks like.. and this is what diamagnets can do without even adding electricity (though it's much easier with electricity)! To be honest, some of this is new to me. The initial video just looks like things I've done with regular magnets, so I figured it was either a fake source, or evidence the whole thing is fake. So I decided to make this video, and did more research.
I learned that the previous big breakthrough in superconductivity was a lie that has since been retracted. Unfortunately, science communication is very vocal about new ideas, and very quiet about when those ideas turn out to be false. This supported the original intent of writing this video - to talk about how science communication is really bad and needs improvement in many ways, especially because it seems no one is talking about how the footage of this material seems to be obviously just a diamagnet.
I also came across an explanation that the critical flaw might be that it can only handle extremely small amounts of current, and another explanation that describes how this could be a pseudo-superconductor (or perhaps a new way to approach trying to make superconductors).(A) Now, these are random people online, and, surprise, people lie on the internet, but these are at least plausible statements. I also discovered that cuprate superconductors are in production and usage now, though in limited applications, and that the mechanism behind how cuprate compounds achieve superconductivity isn't fully understood and diverges from BCS theory, which is the (as far as I know) basis of our understanding of superconductivity.
But anyhow.. like I said, I was going to talk about problems in science communication. The problem is.. I found that most articles about this topic are doing a very good job at writing about how this seems too good to be true, and is likely suspicious (when scientists say a paper looks suspicious, they're saying it looks wrong, but being polite about it because mistakes do happen, and calling it out can sometimes jeopardize their livelihoods). So, at least right now, with this specific topic, I don't have anything to say about science communication - well, other than to watch acollieastro's (How do I pronounce this?) video about science communication.
The description of this video will have links to more comments I find significant, as well as the sources used to produce it.
And when I went to find videos that show superconductivity and magnetic interactions that mimic superconductivity, I found really cool stuff. But before I suggest a few videos related to this, I want to make a couple things very clear:
(Maybe write a little more here to talk about the specific ways it is likely fake?)
So (here's where the video just turns into suggestions on what to watch next), what now? Well, I don't have much else to say, but I did find good videos that you should watch next related to magnetic levitation and the use of diamagnetic properties:
A: Another user writes about how internal strain is apparently significant in the production of superconductors.
Videos (aside from ones below)
A Chinese lab has partially replicated the process at a lower purity. It was revealed that a quartz tube cracked during the original synthesis, so introduction of oxygen may have an effect on purity. Some replications are stating there is evidence of superconductivity.
There's a serious problem in science: communication.
Footage Sources to obtain:
