Talk:LK-99/Archive 1

Authors

There is some speculation that the reason for multiple papers dropping in such a short-time is because of credit in-fighting for additional (third) authors beyond Lee & Kim:

• @8teAPi (July 27, 2023). "The papers were not ready … Lee & Kim had been working on the material on and off since … 1999 (LK-99 geddit?). Lee … stuck as an adjunct professor 19 years later. Kim goes off to work in battery materials … 2018 - they get funding from industry for another go at it. … YH Kwon, … is parachuted in to babysit … Lee becomes CEO, Kwon CTO and Kim the Research Director … figure out a production process, … in 2021. … bring on board HyunTak, … from the College of William and Mary. Patent filing … in 2022 and March 2023. Kim starts to get nervous that they'll get scooped. … HyunTak insists more work on characterization is needed before publishing. It's Saturday 22 July 5pm in Korea. YH Kwon logs on to arxiv and pushes a paper from the Korea team. It lists Lee Kim and Kwon as the third author. No one else is listed. … A Nobel can be shared by 3 people. … 2.30 am in Virginia HyunTak gets a ping from his Korean contact. He rushes out his paper, by 6am that morning. It lists Lee, Kim and himself as the third author, along with 3 others, conspicuously leaving YH Kwon out of the picture" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

‒Sladen (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't find proof that the Hanyuang University affiliation of Keun Ho Auh is legitimate: https://www.hanyang.ac.kr/search/search.jsp?tabId=univ&query=Auh%252C+Keun+Ho&search_name=&selectVal=1&search=Auh%252C+Keun+Ho

-Alexanderlkaplan (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Alexanderlkaplan: According to the Academy of Sciences bio,[1] Auh joined the University in 1983, and is a Professor Emeritus. Using the Hanyang University search page[2], and searching by name ("오근호") displays their name and role ("오근호 명예교수"), and email address. —Sladen (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome thank you! 2600:1017:B82F:C79F:4D63:EB96:825F:B533 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Currently, two papers concerning LK-99 are available on the preprint service arXiv, which does not conduct peer review, and a related past study was published in the Journal of the Korean Crystal Growth and Crystal Technology in April 2023. Kim has only co-authored one of the arXiv papers, while the other is authored by his colleagues at QERC, some of whom also applied for a patent on LK-99 in August 2022. Both papers present similar measurements, however Kim says that the second paper contains “many defects” and was uploaded to arXiv without his permission. In that paper, the work is described as opening a “new era for humankind”."

The "second paper" referenced here is actually the first that was published, in which Young-Wan Kwon is the third author. If Ji-Hoon Kim states that this paper was not published with his permisison that does support the claim that Young-Wan Kwon quickly published it on arxiv to be the third author. The other paper was submitted by Hyun-Tak Kim just two hours later, listing himself as the third author.

Furthermore, Young-Wan Kwon isn't related to the Q-Centre anymore as he resigned from the function of CTO.

Representative Lee also revealed that research professor Kwon served as the chief technology officer (CTO) of the Quantum Energy Research Institute, but he resigned from the directorship four months ago and is currently not related to the company.

It's definitely a very interesting situation. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I updated the article to note who uploaded each preprint to arXiv. Would love to know who is listed in the submission to APL Materials. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake here, it is Hyun-Tak Kim, not Ji-Hoon Kim who spoke to New Scientist and stated that the first paper is faulty. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Replication efforts

• @andrewmccalip (July 27, 2023). "Meissner effect or bust. Day 1. … Since we're gated by the delivery of the PbO + Pb(SO₄), which should be tomorrow, we're working on infrastructure first" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

—Sladen (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a notable materials research group (as they self-identify, they're engineers w/ a high-tech shop who are excited to see how far they can get in their spare time, and don't consider their work comparable to a materials lab seriously trying to replicate the paper's results. But worth noting in the context of 'independent groups are trying to replicate', they are certainly the only one live-streaming their methods and efforts. – SJ + 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sladen: give me 2 min to resolve the edit conflict. – SJ + 13:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Supposedly there is a group at a university in Anhui province China that posted their progress to a popular chinese Quora-esque site and elsewhere, but all the links I found of it were dead. All i have is this unhelpful blogpost.

Maybe someone else could learn more.

85.147.66.47 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 85.147.66.47 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

peer reviewed paper

http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=ART002955269 RaphaelQS (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This provides more data than is available in the ArXiv preprint. --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lee & Kim+ (2023a) is already cited in the Wikipedia article. RaphaelQS: are there any improvements that could be made? —Sladen (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

What the sources state

Edits Special:Diff/1167586119/1167583975 introduce statements that are not supported the provided citation. Additionally the edits remove the information that is in a citation: concerning Kwon no longer being in contact with Korea University. Sj: please could you share what is trying to be achieved? —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The HT Kim quote in the lede is originally from New Scientist, I updated the cite. But it is mentioned by reference in the YNA piece as well. "Dr. Kim Hyun-tak also claimed in an interview with the American science magazine New Scientist that "the two papers have many flaws and were published without his permission." (via GTrans)

The KU quote about Kwon was combined with the other quotes from the same article, above the author table, per the edit summary. – SJ + 17:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Appreciations for Special:Diff/1167588708. An additional explicit quote= has been added in Special:Diff/1167591488 with the wording from the bottom of the New Scientist article—from this, it would appear that HT Kim is referring to the 3-author upload as having "defects". —Sladen (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like telephone game w/ the YNA piece extending a comment about one preprint to cover both. Speaks to the questionable reliability of breaking news sources in general for such details. – SJ + 19:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hence citing the original source for each separate quote/statement vs. recycled/double-translated versions. (This is (hopefully) fixed now?) —Sladen (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Yes! – SJ + 20:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sladen: I see the quote Yonhap got from a KU official about Kwon is still mentioned twice. I find this quote looks better next to the other quote from that article, but it's more important not to duplicate that sentence. Can you please remove one of them? Also, Normally only the first appearance of the news org would be linked. – SJ + 20:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Diamagnetism

Edit Special:Diff/1167690312 removed the coverage of diamagnetism along with an accompanying Richtie (2023) cite (and broke the page syntax). Osunpokeh: how could the wording be improved? —Sladen (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Other apatite superconductors?

Do we know any other high-temperature, low-pressure superconductors with an apatite structure?

If this is another novel aspect of the claim, then it seems important to mention. But Google isn't helping me figure out if it's novel. Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe so, see File:Timeline of Superconductivity from 1900 to 2015.svg Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Hyun-Tak Kim

I created a draft for Hyun-Tak Kim. I’m unsure if there is enough out there to demonstrate notability. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley: Currently there is no claim of importance. But if you add the connection to LK-99 that should do for that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

He is the most well-known member of the team from academia, not for the superconduct but for MIT theory. YouKnowOne (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

He certainly has a distinguished enough career to be notable; but there isn't a lot of English-language detail about his past work and life. More relevant for a bio stub would be a summary of that past work, affiliations, &c. – SJ + 09:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Htkim580711 edits Wikipedia (and answers questions on Quora), so you could ask him directly. – SJ + 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Theoretical foundation

For future inclusion we should careful watch the developments concerning this pre-print by Sinéad Griffin: Griffin, Sinéad M. "Origin of correlated isolated flat bands in copper-substituted lead phosphate apatite". arXiv:2307.16892.. See announced it via this tweet: Sinéad Griffin [@sineatrix] (August 1, 2023). "[Micdrop Gif]" (Tweet) – via Twitter.. WatkynBassett (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's lovely work – there's nothing like a nice, clean one-author paper. Added to the theory section. It's also in the 'replication' table even though it's not quite that. – SJ + 09:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove "First tangible use of quantum mechanics in superconductivity" section?

There are a few major issues with this section. First, the description of the quantum wells is already covered under Proposed Mechanism. The additional information this section provides doesn't seem to be accurate -- the source appears to be a blog post which isn't adding much to the article and isn't very reliable. Moreover, it doesn't seem to contain much of the information in this section. The claim that electron spins become "synced" would seem to me to imply that the Cooper pairs are in a triplet state, which I've seen no evidence of and which isn't backed-up by the source. The source also doesn't say anything about electrons behaving as "pure energy," which seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what entanglement means.

Since the important information about the alleged superconducting quantum well behavior is already covered above, I think it's best to just remove this section. Fourmatter (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Links to translated video?

For work like the latest Huazhong University levitation video (original in Chinese), where the source video doesn't have translation, how should we link to a subtitled version? Some people have used their own tools to generate subtitles on the video, and reposted the result; we end up linking to a semi-random person's repost. That's much more useful for people reading the article, but harder for editors to confirm the translation is correct.

This is one area where on-wiki tools for automatic captioning and translation would be fantastic. – SJ + 09:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Taking about the videos, why is one of the Southeast U video tagged as Template:Original research while the Huazhong video is not? Both are videos in Chinese how do we know they are not both original research?--ReyHahn (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I removed the tag for that video, it's clearly of the cited professor. I assume OR here referred to inference that the source was the claimed person (contra the 'verified authors' note for the paper from India). – SJ + 14:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to fully describe the timeline

This: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/15bfhq7/there_is_a_third_lk99_paper_with_much_better/ and all that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzL9cS3VW8 and all the interviews. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to make edits in the appropriate section, or to suggest specific changes here. The publishing timeline already includes the third paper and (afaict) everything Sabine mentions. SJ+ 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Style questions

From the comment: "Multiple dimensions of breakthrough at once [here lower pressure and higher Tc]" No at atmospheric pressures there are many known superconductors at liquid nitrogen temperatures. There are known superconductors at high pressures (beating temperature records for atmospheric pressure superconductors), but those are much less practical than low temperatures. "Improvements that are too good to be true: an order of magnitude improvement over the state of the art, all at once." The original discovery of High-temperature superconductors was a sudden discovery of superconductivity in copper oxides (yes not such a huge increase in temperature for the 1986 discovery but still a massive breakthrough). I'm not saying whether or not this will pan out or not, but we should wait for others to attempt to replicate it, not add categories calling it pseudoscience or anything like that before it had a chance to be properly investigated. 2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:98B4:8359:E774:D7B7 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: categories, I meant we can categorize this as something like "alleged breakthrough" and not "high-temperature superconductor" while still unconfirmed; not adding claims of pseudoscience. This avoids prematurely give credence to an untested claim.

Yes, YBCO was a magnificent breakthrough -- but built on LBCO and known mechanisms. And you are right, we do have many ambient-temp superconductors; high pressure is needed to overcome a limitation that this particular compound may not need. That idea is clear from the theory in their initial papers; though the new LBNL preprint provides a much more thorough + plausible explanation. – SJ + 09:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Virality

Scientific American calls out the virality of this science reporting [3], which I think is notable and kind of bends the rules being discussed above. Is adding a "viral news" section a good idea? It seems dumb to leave it out. But then do we use the less-reliable sources, such as Vice [4] (who also note the virality), AutoEvolution [5] and Country & Town House [6] just as examples? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Garisto piece in Scientific American is included in LK-99#Further reading section, which is probably a reasonable compromise. —Sladen (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

… other editors have cited the Garisto article now, so it is in LK-99#References …despite only using Fahrenheit! —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The article focuses too much on July for it not to be mentioned, yeah. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Critical current

I was going to add a Fermi estimate of the critical current to the page, but I've concluded that the amount of guesswork required pushes it from WP:CALC to WP:OR. Lest the work go to waste, though, here's my notes:

Figure 6 in the six-author paper shows critical currents of about 0.3 A. But what size sample are they using?

"Materials and Methods" in the three-author paper talks about measurements on samples of size 40 mg and 60 mg; I'll assume these are typical and go with 60 mg for safety. This site gives a (computed) density of plumbous phosphate as about 7 g/cm³. I'll assume LK-99 isn't that different.

Now smush the numbers together until the units cancel:

(0.3 A)((60 mg)/(7 g/cm³))^-2/3 = 7 A/cm²

Wolfram|Alpha informs me that this is the typical gate leakage in a computer processor 15 years ago, or about half the current density in an electromotor brush.

Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

ITN nomination criteria

If the claims of this discovery are verified, this would very likely be something that would posted as a news item in ITN. I'm looking to get a few opinions on when that should be — what burden(s) of verification do we consider before we trust the result to an ITN-worthy degree? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not ITN material. Atleast not till a good few month passes by when the claims can be replicated at multiple venues (or not). TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Three reliable, independant institutions that firmly confirm the presence of superconductivity at room temperature and pressure.

Getting reliable news sources to cover the replication by these insitutions as reliable helps.

As of today, all RS are still skeptical. Skeptical superconductor claims are not newsworthy. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Osunpokeh, hold that ITN listing until next year's award of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Lee, Kim & Chair ;-)! —Sladen (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Less reliable sources

Please remember to avoid using primary sources

A tweet, facebook, bilibi, youtube isn't a reliable source and should be avoided when updating this article, multiple users are forgetting it when editing the section on replications, please refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources I would suggest a mod to watch that section more thoroughly and a clean-up is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablogelo (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we must be careful. Primary sources do suffice to demonstrate 'X claims Y'. We still have to decide which such claims are notable enough to include. I don't think it should be enough that someone claims to be in a lab from a notable institution. But a verified member of a lab by a notable researcher in a related field, who is posting regular updates, seems sufficient to confirm that a replication is happening at that lab, and to include in the table. On balance I think including the "original research" inline flag for those lines is a fine comrpomise, until that lab publishes something more formal about their method + results. – SJ + 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Original research" means the Wikipedia editor is the source. That's probably not what you want. Maybe {{better source needed}} instead. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks Bri. I didn't use that template + will replace in future with bsn. – SJ + 15:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been turning to this article a few times a day for the past few days, and one reason is that it's the only place where one can get a broad sense of where various replication efforts stand. I presume that in due course, we'll want to tighten up the sourcing, but I just want to make the case that in a fast breaking story of such potential importance, it's more ok than normal that we accept sources that meet some basic sanity-check standards even if we know that as the facts become clearer over time, a lot of these preliminary reports won't be all that important to keep.

I fully agree with this sentiment by Moonjail: "Indeed, arXiv is perennially discussed and considered generally unreliable" in terms of Wikipedia claiming that there has or has not been successful replication. So we should be very clear to readers about that. But at the same time, it is of encyclopedia interest that such-and-such reputable person from such-and-such reputable lab claimed thus-and-so. Because of the lack of peer review, the nature of arXiv as a source is similar to that of a tweet by a politician if you see what I mean - that a politician tweeted it, doesn't mean that it's true, but it can be of encyclopedic interest that they did tweet it. WP:Twitter is a useful though obviously imperect analogy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As long as secondary sources do not take note of a Arxiv publication (or, to borrow from your equivalence, a politician's tweet), it stays out. Otherwise, not only RS but also DUE is violated. And, we are not in the business of providing breaking news. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right rule of thumb here. Per Graeme, aggressively removing what are clearly credible reports from clearly credible institutions on this rule would be mistaken, especially when secondary sources do exist and are being put in, but even if they aren't yet out but obviously will be soon enough. There's a big difference between a Russian cat woman on twitter and a preprint and press release from a team at MIT. A rule that would say those are not reliable sources, but a newspaper is, in this context, wouldn't lead us to a proper encyclopedic approach.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

sorry about my edit earlier, new to wiki and while i did keep tabs on the talk page i missed this! Littlerootlodge (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources do exist and are being put in, so please don't remove entries from the tables to make this process of adding references more difficult. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I observe the irony in begging to differ with you about the mandate of Wikipedia, and as an electrical engineer it's a difficult position for me to be the wet blanket on this topic; nonetheless I can't help but feel that excitement might tempt us to confuse comprehensive reporting with encyclopedic reporting. As secondary sources have been added I have grown more comfortable with the existing inclusions, and perhaps what I am actually nervous about is the evaluative presentation.

SJ rightly observed that we should prefer to see openly failed replications at this stage in the game. But when we report those as "preliminary negative results," we're playing the role of peer reviewers. Essentially Wikipedia then insinuates that "yes, this paper legitimately tested the substance in question, and preliminarily found that it doesn't work."

The reader surely has a burden here to recognize that failed replications are attributable to various causes, and top exercise discretion. Nonetheless I prefer that we be more conservative in the summary table. As to the want for a broad summary of present replication efforts, is there a reason this is not sufficient? Moonjail (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"Only place where one can get a broad sense of where various replication efforts stand" does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, most of the table has been plagiarized from this blog post by Eiri Sanada, which they have strongly objected to on Twitter. [1] [2] I'll be deleting the table over copyvio concerns. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 04:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The table is not a copyright infringement, as just about every content item and the layout is different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your table. Reallyyoudidthat (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

By her own admission to vice (https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d9yez/diy-scientists-and-institutions-are-racing-to-replicate-the-room-temperature-superconductor) she took the idea ("copied") the table from the Spacebattles forums (https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/page-21).

What we are doing is no different. She seems hypocritical and her posts saying she's a "former/retired editor" indicates she has a vendetta against Wikipedia. ShotoKye (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We're a bit out in the weeds now, but want to indicate my strong disagreement. That attribution seems like a bit of a reach, not to mention failing WP:AGF (which does not or should not apply only on-site). I read more concern for quality than ill will toward Wikipedia(ns). Moonjail (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

+1. In terms of usefulness as a primary source (a clear record of what a verifiable person did, as plausibly claimed by them + not just attributed to them), I would say

arXiv paper by people at notable labs >> same as technical report on a blog >> social media post by notable scientist > social media post by researcher in materials lab >> social media post by pseudonym in a basement.

And our biggest challenge currently is we need more unambiguous papers. – SJ + 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not happy with persistent additions of blogs (such as wordpress) to the article. Blogs are only ok if they are written by an expert in the field, which in this case would probably amount to someone notable for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Fakes

This reliable source mentions that there are fake videos around. Our article should mention that there are fakes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Added to Public Reaction section. ShotoKye (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Less reliable or incomplete replication reports

I am wondering if the inclusion of the CSIR-NPLI attempt is inappropriate. Little or no secondary coverage, and the paper itself seems specious; the authors write "[f]urther, our sample is not spongy as being reported in ref. 1. Rather it looks, as the same is slightly melted and reacted with quartz tube." Is it misleading to include this as having tested the material in question per se? Moonjail (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

They published a full preprint, which is better than most. Certainly not inappropriate; we have no idea about the method of any of the others, often showing the smallest of material fragments, easily 100x smaller than the chunk used for the original paper. – SJ + 00:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that these likewise fail WP:N and WP:RS absent secondary coverage. Indeed, arXiv is perennially discussed and considered generally unreliable on its own. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims in question, few if any of these seem to merit inclusion in advance of peer review, and it seems premature to give the appearance of comparing them in quality.

Mitigating claims of "subject matter expertise" ought to have an especially high burden where novel physics is concerned. The initial papers that are the subject of the article are unique in that their notability is a product of this inherent controversy, and they have received substantial secondary attention as a result. The same cannot be said for the papers in response.

I am merely particularly concerned about reliability and relevance where authors openly admit that the composition of their final sample may have been complicated by an apparent side reaction. Moonjail (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm torn here. The "reliable" secondary sources in question are reporting any plausible claim by replicators, and even less plausible claims, even when they are just one-off videos on social media with no description of method, assumptions, reporting bias, &c. So compared to what is already being covered by media, any complete five-section arXiv paper is a huge step forward in clarity, reviewability [by serious secondary sources], verifiability. And I feel slightly more confident about reporting the results of a group of authors willing to estimate and catalog their potential sources of error than I would about a too-clean paper published on such short notice. I think we desperately need better standards for N and RS for this sort of topic, since the filters used by pop science and mainstream non-science news are forever failing in these areas + on these timescales. – SJ + 16:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In contrast, look at that Southeast paper, which seems like really shoddy work, with no preprint or writeup of any kind, and refusing to characterize or even acknowledge major sources of error. It is covered without scientific commentary by 'mainstream' Chinese news because of the exaggerated nature of their un-self-critical claims. 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Of the noted replication efforts confined to the Talk page, only the Russian effort on Twitter meets condition 1 (reported by Vice) and 2 (setup, process and method published to Twitter) you propose; however the person behind the effort is under a pseudonym and the more expansive Chinese Wikipedia list does not include this one. Possibly should wait until either more press coverage (aside from Vice) or until they confirm what University / Institute laboratory they have partnered with (photograph appears to show they are working in one to test their sample) before adding to main page? This would be in-line with Andrew McCalip, who has both of these things (partnered with named University and extra press coverage from Wired and Time). ShotoKye (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Iris based on being in the same position as Andrew (press reporting, posted process AND partnered with a university) since she confirmed to be partnered with a named Institution.

Has 1 press report, but so does some Chinese studies listed.

I believe the criteria for addition to the list should be:

- Press Coverage (at least 1)

- Something announced (process or methods count) OR 3+ press reports (wide coverage).

- University / Institution or partnership with on sample replication.

Exception being the 3 South Korean universities due to there ties with the Replication Committee (these should be included). Iris herself claims she used an entirely different process and that it is not LK-99 replication. Her entire proof is a photo of a speck of dust in a syringe. How can you consider that credible enough for this article? She should be removed. --92.52.59.146 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Not credible, but reported in a secondary source. But we should see if there is reliable secondary source assessment of that effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Tweet tieing herself to Moscow Engineering Physics Institute on replication adds credibility, similar to Andrew McCalip's partnership with University of South California.

There is also a photograph seemingly of the lab at Moscow Engineering Physics Institute: https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1687116970674794496?t=mwgWQStMkRORk0vKv1jaig I have also added a 2nd instance of coverage in the press.ShotoKye (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Her only prove is her own (anonymous) twitter account. There is no secondary source to confirm that she is partnered with a university and that picture proves nothing. She stated she used an entirely different process, and if I understand the papers correctly growing the crystal takes days, while she states she just quickly did it as a hobby project in the middle of a workweek (in her kitchen).

She showed us a speck of dust in a tube.

I also feel like press coverage is a weird requirement. It doesn't take much for Vice or Yahoo Finance o briefly mention you in a story.

I will remove her from the list, she can be added again once there's an actual publication from the university she's apparently partnered with. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The below tweet sounds like she will publish something. When is not clear. I guess she reads everything in this talk page - hey Iris, give us some clear infos, Soviet girl

https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1687081038571335680 Foerdi (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Another secondary ref for Iris: Wang, Brian (4 August 2023). "Iris Alexander's Better LK99 Results Could Ca From Sulfur". but Brian did not do much writing himself, just about all quoting tweets. So probably not useful for us. And what is "construction grade phosphorus"? - is that a translation variation on technical grade? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

All references to Brian's blog in the article have been replaced with better sources (to my knowledge), it seems like we're not using blogs as references.

To get Iris added, we need a report from the media or press confirming her link to the "Moscow Physics Institute" on replication. If not then we will have to wait until if / when there's a preprint or full published paper in a science journal. ShotoKye (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

She is clearly somebody without an academic affiliation. In this field, it is not really possible for people without affiliation to contribute anything meaningful. In addition, she is in Russia, and most of us are prohibited to collaborate with Russia. In short, just forget about it, at least until something comes out. Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that writing about research in Russia, is really "collaboration". But I agree that we should leave it on the talk page until there is enough published material to determine the facts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean writing, I meant real collaboration. At my university, there is a full prohibition for any joint projects with Russia, and this is pretty much the case everywhere in Europe. But, indeed, there is no case of taking this to the article. Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That is obviously illegal even per international laws. And it is also a lie, Moscow plays key role in all science departments, especially bioengineering, as gain of function research is allowed in Russia. World wars always accelerate science. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is perfectly legal, Russia is sanctioned for having started and continuing an aggressive war. I do not see any problems with this. Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

She does claim to be a researcher working in biology (soil scientist), but that is indeed irrelevant to the field of superconductors. ShotoKye (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, she claims to be molecular biologist in Moscow. https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685740302227681280 Soil MSU faculty is completly different from bioengineering faculty of MSU and this. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Iris also included in one paragraph here: Barsted, George (2023-08-04). "Scramble to replicate supposed room temperature and pressure superconductor". Chemistry World. but still not adding anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As the article does not confirm her link to Moscow Physics Institute, I concur this article is not grounds for adding Iris in replication attempt table. ShotoKye (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC) What do you all think of adding a "date released" or similar column to the replication attempts table? It would be helpful to easily track the replication attempts over time. Mathgraph (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe this would be helpful, due to the various stages of an attempt being conducted (e.g. started, press coverage, preprint, peer reviewed publication). ShotoKye (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I second that. Individual lines in the comments section can note the dates in parens. We may end up with a section on peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and those can be ordered by date. So far there are none. – SJ + 19:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up doping

Some anon editors are confused about what doping means. (see recent back and forth in edit summaries and here) And one of the theory papers was a bit careless in some of its wording, adding to this confusion. I'll take a stab at it, so we don't keep running into this; corrections welcome!

• Lead apatite – Pb10(PO4)6O – is an insulator at room temp.
• LK-99 is lead apatite doped with Cu – that is, in some places a Pb atoms is replaced with a Cu atom, producing Pb9Cu(PO4)6O. This doesn't happen for every molecule of lead apatite.
• As a result, LK-99 is sometimes written as Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O, where x describes the average number of doped Cu per molecule of lead apatite (0.9 < x < 1.1).
• In the context of a particular substrate, where a new molecule is doped in, sometimes instead of describing the atom being added (e.g., "Cu doping") you might describe the change in electron population of a band : doping with an ion of a different charge can lead to say "hole doping" or "electron doping" depending on whether this change creates a missing electron (hole) or adds an extra electron in a band.

So LK-99 (and any similar material) is by definition doped. Si, et al. suggest near the end of their paper that they would be surprised to see superconduction in Pb9Cu1(PO4)6O (where x=1 above), and that electron or hole doping [which simply replacing Pb²⁺ with Cu²⁺ would not induce] may be necessary to see such a thing.

This is the line in question (which should be rewritten for clarity):

"but conjectured electronic correlations will make LK-99 a paramagnetic Mott or charge transfer insulator. This would mean, electron or hole doping of LK-99 is needed to make it (super)conducting and should be actively procured in the synthesis process"

– SJ + 01:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well replacing Pb²⁺ with Cu²⁺ does not lead to holes or electrons in excess. But if some was totally missing then there would be not enough + charges. The charge can be compensated by varying the oxygen ion amount. If copper was present in a +1 oxidation state, a similar effect could result, and copper is present as +1 in the copper phosphide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. How would you vary the oxygen ion amount? And isn't all the cu here expected to come from the phosphide? – SJ + 02:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is all not referenced, but those apatites can also have F, Cl or OH⁻ instead of O^2-. Exposure to oxygen gas even very low pressure, and water vapour could alter the composition. You are right about where the Cu comes from, and there appears to be much too much compared to P in the ingredients. So there is going to be quite a bit of left over copper in the final black mass, as it does not evaporate like sulfur. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

and if oxygen leaks in via a crack then this will happen: Cu₂S + O₂ → 2 Cu + SO₂ so it is possible that all the "conductor" effects are just due to copper metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Connection to Salvatore Pais?

https://twitter.com/tinyklaus/status/1686591279377911808 Foerdi (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, patents often include refs to potential prior art w/o any connection. (That ref was added by a patent examiner.) – SJ + 07:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests

Add this group in replication attempts: https://twitter.com/CondMatfyz Twitter isn't that trustable but I looked around on the internet and it seems to be one of the official Twitter accounts of that university. Antofire (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be these people: Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University (Prague), which are in the table above. Just based on twitter we don't add to the article, but if they get substantial press coverage, or publish some results then we can put them in.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This paragraph has an inaccuracy. Sinéad Griffin's paper was published on arxiv on July 31, 2023 as evidenced in the link to the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892. A proposed change would be to change this:

On 1 August 2023, three independent groups published analyses of LK-99 with density functional theory (DFT). Sinéad Griffin of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analyzed it with the Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package, showing that its structure would have correlated isolated flat bands, one of the signatures of high-transition-temperature superconductors.[17] Si and Held[18] found similar flat bands and conjectured that LK-99 is a Mott or charge transfer insulator, that electron or hole doping is needed to make it (super)conducting.

to

On 31 July 2023, Sinéad Griffin of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analyzed LK-99 with density functional theory (DFT) with the Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package, showing that its structure would have correlated isolated flat bands, one of the signatures of high-transition-temperature superconductors.[17] On 1 August 2023, two additional independent groups published analyses of LK-99 with density functional theory (DFT). Si and Held[18] found similar flat bands and conjectured that LK-99 is a Mott or charge transfer insulator, that electron or hole doping is needed to make it (super)conducting. MattMillerCA (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@MattMillerCA: Thanks, I have applied your change suggestion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

But for journal articles we report the publication date rather than the submission date. Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I am wrong, she has indeed the 31 July publication date. Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Papers which are submitted on arXiv typically get "published" (appear visible for everyone) next day. I hope this clears the confusion. Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a Typo in Line 8, it says “Temperatures below 400K” when it should say “Temperatures above 400K”. 78.100.225.177 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"below" is correct. I believe they had no equipment to test above 400K, so no statement above that temp. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Cu2S impurity is what makes it float

Even without Cu2S it still gets to 110K superconductivity. https://twitter.com/zoubairezzz0595/status/1687179930767880192?s=20 Valery Zapolodov (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Could we please stop citing Twits of unqualified people and wait for peer review journals? Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional Patents

Any particular reason the LK-99 patent, WO2023027537A1, "Room-temperature and atmospheric-pressure superconducting ceramic compound and preparation method therefor" published on 2023-03-02, is not being included within the article? [13]https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2023027537A1/en? 67.80.69.183 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added that patent. Thanks 67. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this was removed again? LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still mentioned under Publication history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Mechanism review

The mechanism section needs work, and should be shorter. While some theories have been proposed, none is known; and in the absence of observed sc it's hard to describe a potential mechanism for a potential observation w/o implying the observation has occurred. – SJ + 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I simplified the existing text, but I am afraid as soon as both references are in Korean I can not do much more. Tbh it is very suspicious that we do not have English references on the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the following section, as it's synth from old papers. The article should only contain summaries of mechanisms that are clearly described by secondary sources, or in quotes from interviews, or proposed specifically for this material (e.g., a new paper on "mechanism for LK-99 levitation", like the ferromagnetic half-levitation paper). – SJ + 08:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed mechanism for diamagnetism

Although the Meissner effect cannot be seen in one-dimensional superconductors, Hyun-Tak Kim claims that a sample of LK-99 shows a strong diamagnetism of 5450 times that of graphite, despite its low purity, although no Meissner effect was observed. A suggestion is that the measured three-dimensional LK-99 sample has a polycrystal structure which may result in appearance of both superconductive and diamagnetism. Chair also pointed out that single crystals and composites can have very different properties.

Currently, the section is misleading QCentre supports both SQW and and BR-BCS while it . In fact, SQW is Kwon's theory(sukbae-2023). Unfortunately, QCentre already stated they requested to discard the paper and they disagree to publish the paper. BR-BCS is Hyun-tak Kim's theory. Hyun-tak Kim wrote(ref: SBS interview) the paper(sukbae-2023-2) referring BR-BCS theory which QCentre team agreed. Their original theory is none of them. It was electron superfluid(sukbae-2023b). It is removed since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LK-99&diff=1169305425&oldid=1169304194. Since Hyun-tak Kim already finished LK-99 with BR-BCS in 2022(interview), both sukbae-2023b and sukbae-2023-2 are QCentre's official papers with different view with or without Hyuntak's theory. Since only Hyun-tak take interviews while Sukbae doesn't, confirming QCentre still keeps their original theory in sukbae-2023b will be hard at the moment. But confirming QCentre replaced sukbae-2023-2 with sukbae-2023b will be also impossible. At least the superfluid theory looks more important than SQW by citating QCentre.

The mechanism is complex and much more work is warranted as we can see from prior work in this area which was established through extensive theory connected with metrology. Adding relevant references from Rev.Mod.Phys to give the context is warranted. --QuantumJIM1994 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The prior brevity of this section which only cited a single arxiv paper from LBNL is too short. It risks making that single paper as the sole source (which can still be incorrect) The replication by other groups is relevant within the context of the LK99 research being new and fast changing. Also to note are the additional insights provided in the references. Citations to critical work listing the gaps should not be deleted to allow readers to have knowledge of the required future work. --QuantumJIM1994 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Youknowone (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Mention of Salvatore Pais ?

This patent [14] related to LK-99 mentions another patent [15] filed by Salvatore Pais. Apart from these WP:PRIMARY sources there seems to be no WP:RS connecting Pais to this article.

As such I have to ask: Is it really helpful to simply place a link to Pais in the "See also" section ?

I think not. Lklundin (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any relation between the two in WP:RS except in Wikipedia, just blogs and forums. "See also" seems fitting.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

With no context provided, I struggle to see how a typical reader would understand the relevance of a link to this individual.

Enix150: You added the link, how is the reader supposed to understand the relevance of this ? Lklundin (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, I added some context to the link in the article. Lklundin (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding context, I wasn't exactly sure how to summarize their relationship. Enix150 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Pais guy mentioned AT ALL?

On the page for that guy it links back here to LK-99 - this to me looks like link farming. 94.14.250.118 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

His controversial room-temperature superconductor patent is cited in the LK-99 patent. Enix150 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No reason to include. The cite in the patent was added by the reviewer because of keyword matches in the titles. Please don't keep adding this link. – SJ + 21:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Pais' patent is one of the five patents cited in the Patent Citations section, not the Similar Documents section that was added by the reviewer. Enix150 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say leave it out, as Pais' patent is for a totally different method. Also Pais' patent is not supported by papers or on-line frenzy, so it is a pretty different topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I will expand. The Pais superconductivity does not appear supported by research, publications, replication attempts and so appears to not be notable in itself. There are far more other claimants of high temperature conductivity, eg perforated graphite in aliphatic hydrocarbon, or nitrogen doped lutetium hydride, but we don't have to list hem all. It would be better for our reader to look at room-temperature superconductor article or unidentified superconducting object (looks like yet to be written) to see what is this all about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My original point was that NOTHING about this guy is mentioned anywhere else on the page this is link farming - neither page mentions the other EXCEPT in the see also section and it's just a link. 94.14.250.118 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, luckily, now you know how they are related because User:Lklundin added a description next to the link. Unfortunately, User:Sj has since removed it. Enix150 (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

 Not done: per WP:ARXIV. If the paper passes review we can use the journal citation. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 13:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: as your IP address is in the same city as the author's academic institution, you should disclose your relationship to this research. Thanks. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for help from another user

The user LS-Phys-86 sent me the following email asking for help editing the article (I suspect they don't understand how Wikipedia works and the purpose of the Talk page):

Both links, [27] and [91], lead to a same paper. [27] is correct. Please recover the [b1] superscript from this paper's reference.

I don't really have time to look into this, but if anyone wants to take a look and possibly help this user with their edit request, they can. RaphaelQS (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

change "" to "" LS-Phys-86 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done The two versions differ by just four numbers. Neither those numbers nor the dates of publication are referenced in the article, so it's a safe merge. Closhund/talk/ 15:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References