And importantly, at atmospheric pressure.

IF true, it will be Nobel Prize time and have a huge impact.

 

Here is the link to the original work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Note that arxiv.org is a preprint server ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv ). It fulfills an important role in scientific communication, but it does not do peer review. This means that this work has not been scrutinized by experts in the field. It may be right, it may be wrong. However, the authors have described in detail what they did, and a lot of other groups are already trying to reproduce their findings. We'll know soon enough whether this is indeed a big breakthrough. I will wait patiently 🙂

Peter

10 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

Note that arxiv.org is a preprint server

 

Yep, that was mentioned in the video.

 

10 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

We'll know soon enough whether this is indeed a big breakthrough. I will wait patiently

 

Me too. 👍

David Hudson reputedly achieved RTSc back in the 90s during his experiments with "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements" (ORME). Which is probably why the government shut him down!

Edited July 30, 20232 yr by SierraHotel

57 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

David Hudson reputedly achieved RTSc back in the 90s during his experiments with "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements" (ORME). Which is probably why the government shut him down!

 

That was  "modern alchemy" nonsense wasn't it? 

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Yep, that was mentioned in the video.

TBH, I didn't watch the video 🙂

 

On 7/29/2023 at 10:27 PM, qqwertzde said:

This means that this work has not been scrutinized by experts in the field

Scrutiny/peer research to establish whether hypotheses are true and repeatable is a, frankly, rubbish methodology.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-a-lot-of-peer-reviewed-research-is-actually-wrong

Biases, outmoded thinking and hierarchy, whether unintended or not, get in the way of testing the scientific result posited.

The real test of whether this fascinating discovery is true will be seeing  successful practical tests outside the lab.

Anyway, if this is true, everything changes.

Edited July 31, 20232 yr by F737MAX
Forgot links

17 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

TBH, I didn't watch the video 🙂

 

 

😲 You are a very bad boy.

6 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Scrutiny/peer research to establish whether hypotheses are true and repeatable is a, frankly, rubbish methodology.

Biases, outmoded thinking and hierarchy, whether unintended or not, get in the way of testing the scientific result posited.

The real test of whether this fascinating discovery is true will be seeing  successful practical tests outside the lab.

Oh my, that's quite opinionated. I think you draw the wrong conclusions from the two links you provided. Both are good resources, but your "peer review must be perfect or damned" approach doesn't help. To quote the last sentence from the video link you posted: "Peer review might be flawed, but it is still the best method we have". The scientific community is made up of humans, and scientists are no better than other humans. Some of them are selfish, some prejudiced, some are sloppy, jealous, and most are under extreme pressure in building their career. That won't change if you replace peer review by another method.

Most scientists acknowledge the issues with peer review. It is merely a sanity check, and it strongly depends on the journal, the reviewer, and the discipline how well this sanity check can be made. For instance, in medicine, it is virtually impossible to repeat exactly the same experiment because the samples (patients) are different each time. A reviewer has therefore no chance to test whether the data in a manuscript are proper or wrong. The other extreme is mathematics, where reviewers may take two years to go through a manuscript and try to make sure that it is actually correct.

Does that slow down or prevent scientific progress? Not so much anymore. Preprint servers like arxiv.org let you make your work known to the world within a day of submission. Peer review takes longer, but it helps people like me, who are not experts in superconductivity, to get an idea whether it is worth our time to dig into the details. Think of peer review like an old, fuzzy compass in an airplane. It doesn't work perfectly, it may be inaccurate, but it may still help you to arrive at your destination.

As you mentioned, the ultimate test whether a result is correct is independent, repeated, experimental verification. The truth why so many scientific papers are incorrect is that so many scientific papers contain only fairly unimportant results. They are good enough to pass the peer-review sanity check, but nobody bother trying to replicate the results. However, I guarantee you that 30 groups worldwide are working on replicating the Korean superconductivity experiment. With a claim of that magnitude, scrutiny will be intense. You cannot be sloppy or fraudulent with truly important research, as the Schoen scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal) has demonstrated.

Peter

Even if the superconducting properties are confirmed, the practical applications may be limited by the mechanical properties, e.g. flexibility, brittleness, mechanical strength, ability to be extruded, etc. However, the principle may be able to be applied to combinations other than this Lead/Copper example.

Edited July 31, 20232 yr by dmwalker

4 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

You cannot be sloppy or fraudulent with truly important research, as the Schoen scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal) has demonstrated.

Gee, talk about how to destroy one's entire reputation. I did not know that a university can revoke an earned degree...

7 hours ago, n4gix said:

Gee, talk about how to destroy one's entire reputation. I did not know that a university can revoke an earned degree...

They can, and do that frequently, if the degree was earned using fraudulent means. Plagiarism is the most common reason for revoking a degree. However, Schoen's case was really special: his PhD work was fine, but what he did afterwards was exceptionally fraudulent. They used an old German law that a degree can be revoked due to conduct unbecoming of a scientist. This law hasn't been used very often in post-war Germany since the word not allowed used it very often against Jewish academics. Schoen went all the way up to the highest court to fight the decision, but ultimately lost.

Sabine Hossenfelder has serious doubts:

 

So, I suppose this one is in jeopardy, too:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf 

Edited August 1, 20232 yr by dmwalker

Some verification apparently.

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/superconductor-breakthrough-replicated-twice

Compilation of Known Replication Attempt Claims:

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/page-11?post=94266395