Read on Twitter
The next #superconductivity hype?
I had a brief look, over breakfast🙄, at the associated Arxiv pre-print that came out a few days ago. SO here is a few initial thoughts. A short 🧵
I had a brief look, over breakfast🙄, at the associated Arxiv pre-print that came out a few days ago. SO here is a few initial thoughts. A short 🧵
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684044629191151616
What does the paper claim?
They claim to have produced a material that is superconducting at 'ambient' temperatures and pressures. If true this would be extremely interesting and potentially have very significant applications if material also hax suitable mechanical properties.
They claim to have produced a material that is superconducting at 'ambient' temperatures and pressures. If true this would be extremely interesting and potentially have very significant applications if material also hax suitable mechanical properties.
Does the paper produce evidence for the claim?
Yes and no. The paper is a it of a mixed bag in terms of what it provides. They are fairly specific about how they created the material, and speculate a lot about how the think its superconductivity comes about. The data they present
Yes and no. The paper is a it of a mixed bag in terms of what it provides. They are fairly specific about how they created the material, and speculate a lot about how the think its superconductivity comes about. The data they present
is however patchy, messy and sometimes leaves one wondering what they are actually trying to show with a certain graph. There is definitely not 'exceptionally strong evidence for their exceptionally strong claim'.
Does the paper look legit?
Well, the paper is terrible in terms of writing, structure, proper use of citations and all kinds of other stylistic stuff. It looks scrambled together in a hurry.
Well, the paper is terrible in terms of writing, structure, proper use of citations and all kinds of other stylistic stuff. It looks scrambled together in a hurry.
Does it come from a reputationally reliable source?
Here too there are question marks. The "Quantum Energy Institute" that supposedly funded and facilitated the work comes across as a "start-up" at best. However, anyone making the discovery they claim to have made ...
Here too there are question marks. The "Quantum Energy Institute" that supposedly funded and facilitated the work comes across as a "start-up" at best. However, anyone making the discovery they claim to have made ...
would probably also have started a start-up right-away and focussed on acquiring patents on everything related to their material. But overall this looks messy and rushed to say the least, dodgy quite possibly.
Were these authors at the forefront of superconductivity research?
No!
No!
Is this what they claim it is?
Well, if it is then we should know *soon* because the process they describe should be swiftly reproducible in better equipped labs. To me it seems there is a 75% chance the claims will evaporate upon attempted reproduction. If not: boy what a find!
Well, if it is then we should know *soon* because the process they describe should be swiftly reproducible in better equipped labs. To me it seems there is a 75% chance the claims will evaporate upon attempted reproduction. If not: boy what a find!
@Michael_82_GER the likelier it is that either someone will try to reproduce this, or that intenser scrutiny of the paper its follow-up as well as of the author backgrounds and affiliations will reveal relevant additional information. "Reproduction / verification" is a community process😉.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
