The Verge writes that “LK-99 hasn’t turned out to be the miraculous superconductor some people initially claimed it was…”
[T]he results so far indicate that LK-99 is not a superconductor, at room temperature or otherwise. A slew of research groups have released studies that counter claims originally made about LK-99. “With a great deal of sadness, we now believe that the game is over. LK99 is NOT a superconductor, not even at room temperatures (or at very low temperatures). It is a very highly resistive poor quality material. Period. No point in fighting with the truth,” the University of Maryland’s Condensed Matter Theory Center (CMTC) posted on August 7th… [The last words of their tweet? “Data have spoken.”]
Labs hurriedly published their own results on ArXiv, the same server for preprints (papers that haven’t undergone peer review) where the original papers on LK-99 first appeared. Now, a body of evidence has piled up that disproves claims about LK-99. “There is no sign of superconductivity in LK-99 at room temperature,” says one preprint from the CSIR-National Physical Laboratory in India. (That was one of the papers cited by the University of Maryland’s Condensed Matter Theory Center this week when it posted that “the game is over….”) [H]opes that levitation meant that LK-99 is a superconductor were dashed this week after another preprint posed another explanation for why the material might float. The International Center for Quantum Materials in China found evidence that the material is ferromagnetic. That means it can be magnetized and then attracted or repelled by other magnetic materials (iron, for example, is ferromagnetic)…
[T]here are already well over a dozen papers on ArXiv casting doubt on LK-99. “There may be room temperature superconductors to find, but this does not seem to be one,” Chris Grovenor, professor of materials at the University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Applied Superconductivity, tells The Verge in an email.
The Washington Post reports that one of physicists who co-authored the discovery paper “countered in an email that other research groups’ failure to replicate their results are probably because they lack ‘know how’ in developing the sample the same way.”
