417
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
417 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
57944 readers
2969 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I swear I saw the opposite headline less than 12 hours ago.
I'm very skeptical, we have seen so many claims of room temperature superconductivity that have turned out to be fake... but considering that Berkeley National Laboratory replicated it, this makes me far more hopeful.
LBNL did not replicate, they simulated the material and found it promising. The lattice of the materials need some sort of substitution to happen in an less likely way, someone with knowledge will have to summarize better.
This is how it starts though. Smaller labs do simulations and get promising results which gets the attention of bigger labs with the capacity for actual experimentation.
We're talking about Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory doing the simulation here. That is not a small research facility.
Seems to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. Actual experiment shows promise, then large lab runs simulation.
There are lots reasons why a replication attempt might fail despite the stuff being a superconductor.
The process for producing the material isn’t reliable, so that doesn’t tell us much. They might just have been unlucky.