Replication of High-Temperature Superconductor Comes Up Empty (arstechnica.com) 43
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, the journal Nature released a report from Nanjing University researchers that had attempted to replicate an earlier paper that described a compound that superconducted at room temperature and relatively moderate pressures. Despite persuasive evidence that they've produced the same chemical, the team indicates they see no sign of superconductivity, even down to extremely low temperatures. The failure will undoubtedly raise further questions about the original research, which came from a lab that had an earlier paper on superconductivity retracted.
In 2020, the lab run by Ranga Dias at the University of Rochester reported a carbon-hydrogen-sulfur compound formed at extreme pressures could superconduct at room temperature. But the results were controversial, partly because it wasn't clear that the paper included enough information for anyone else to produce the same conditions and because Dias was uncooperative when asked to share experiment data. Eventually, it became apparent that the team had used undocumented methods of obtaining some of the data underlying the paper, and it was retracted. But Dias continued to claim that the superconductivity was present. (There's a good overview of the controversy on the American Physical Society website.)
Despite Nature retracting one of Dias' papers, the journal published another paper on superconductivity from his group. In this case, a lutetium-hydrogen chemical doped with nitrogen was reported to superconduct at room temperature but at much lower pressures, which could allow it to be tested with somewhat less specialized equipment. Given the history, the claim was greeted with an even higher degree of skepticism than the earlier paper.
In 2020, the lab run by Ranga Dias at the University of Rochester reported a carbon-hydrogen-sulfur compound formed at extreme pressures could superconduct at room temperature. But the results were controversial, partly because it wasn't clear that the paper included enough information for anyone else to produce the same conditions and because Dias was uncooperative when asked to share experiment data. Eventually, it became apparent that the team had used undocumented methods of obtaining some of the data underlying the paper, and it was retracted. But Dias continued to claim that the superconductivity was present. (There's a good overview of the controversy on the American Physical Society website.)
Despite Nature retracting one of Dias' papers, the journal published another paper on superconductivity from his group. In this case, a lutetium-hydrogen chemical doped with nitrogen was reported to superconduct at room temperature but at much lower pressures, which could allow it to be tested with somewhat less specialized equipment. Given the history, the claim was greeted with an even higher degree of skepticism than the earlier paper.
Modern alchemy (Score:5, Insightful)
The quest for room-temperature superconductivity seems a lot like a sort of modern alchemy. Scientists claim to have discovered an amazing new compound that has *finally* turned to gold--I mean--achieved room temperature superconductivity. But wait, nobody can replicate the results, making the research look like mad science than actual science.
Re: (Score:1)
People who care have already shifted to cryptosystems which should be resistant to being defeated through quantum methods
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're so smart, what makes you think that, say, Chinese will shut down room temperature superconductivity if they manage to achieve it? They definitely won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Modern alchemy (Score:2)
I mean, at least room temp superconductivity isnâ(TM)t theoretically impossible. And there has been some success - REBCO superconducts at substantially higher temperatures than previous superconductors, and more importantly, at much higher magnetic fields.
Re: Modern alchemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, neither is turning other stuff into gold impossible, theoretically or not. In fact, it has been done. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. So I would call Alchemy 1 : RTSC 0 here.
And while I'm already on the topic, alchemy really gets a bad rep unjustified. I mean it is understandable, the meme potential of our popular image of it is just too great. It sells. But alchemy was not some bullshit pseudoscience. It was THE science, all of it. Our modern physics, chemistry and biology all branched out of alchemy, as they got their foundations sorted out.
Alchemists made experiments and created theories, trying to understand the nature of reality. Yes, their tools both physical and intellectual were crude in the beginning, but this is the case with everything we do. At no point of time there was a moment when backwards alchemy was suddenly replaced with endgame science. It was a gradual, boiling the frog kind of a process.
To drive the point home, consider this. Newton was not a physicist. He was an alchemist. What we now know of as his physics and also his calculus were just tools he created to advance his alchemy. How's that for a pseudoscience? One of OUR most brilliant was actually one of THEM? Cancel him, I say...
Coming back to the gold-making. Imagine this. You are a wannabe scientist, that is alchemist back in the day. Your aristotelian metaphysics and egyptian mysticism might not be the best intellectual frameworks possible, but you don't know that yet, and in any case, it is top shelf stuff back then. But hey, at least with earth, water, air and fire you have the four states of matter at hand - solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Ok, no plasma, but fire does lead you to oxidation. So your available theories of transmutation do, in fact, have a strong basis in reality.
Ok, you have some basic building blocks of physics and chemistry at hand, and you want to play around with them. Where should you get the money to do it from? Some rich guy probably. What does the rich guy want in return? More money probably! Gold! Within your available framework of transmutations, creating gold certainly seems plausible. It certainly seems plausible to the investor, and that is all that matters. So off you go. Godspeed!
Re: Modern alchemy (Score:4, Informative)
It is true, as you say, that many alchemists did follow scientific principles, and as with Newton and many others, did form the foundations of modern science. This is the "pretty" side of alchemy.
There is also an "ugly" side. Because alchemy was rooted in a search for cheap gold, the field was rife with greed, fraud, and deception. This side of alchemy is what led to its stereotypical image, that of a mad scientist.
The search for room-temperature superconductors isn't so different. It too is a search for a "cheap" solution to superconductivity, which is currently very expensive. This pursuit has led many "researches" to sloppiness, and even greed, fraud, and deception. I can't say which category this specific scenario falls into. Perhaps the original researchers had pure motives and good methods, but that has yet to be established. Their track record is not good, considering that they have had to retract their research before, after previous bold proclamations. This pattern does not lead to trust.
The search for "miracle" medicines, such as weight-loss supplements or pills, is a similar category of science. There is real science going on, but also a lot of greed, fraud, and deception.
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely would not say alchemy was rooted in a search for cheap gold, and my post was an attempt to move away from this common misconception. Alchemy was rooted in the search of truth about, and the study of, god's creation. Exactly the same as is with science, whether you now consider the creation being of a god or of big bang.
We have created the false popular view of alchemy to serve our need to have someone to look down on. The same reason we have racism and classism, caste and in the bigger picture,
Re: Modern alchemy (Score:2)
Can you cite any works that back up your argument that the main point behind alchemy wasn't the transmutation of base metals into gold?
Re: (Score:2)
Any acquaintanceship with the evolution of chemistry from alchemy disposes of the idea that it was all about turning base metals to gold. It was a a rich and varied practice attempting to understand the nature of substances, their transformations, leading to the discovery of new compounds, acids, bases, new elements.
The key shortcoming of the practice was in not writing clear descriptions of procedures or observations - and it was when Agricola and others began writing clear practical descriptions of their
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely would not say alchemy was rooted in a search for cheap gold
I'm guessing you also believe that all software should be free.
In the real world, ultimately, it's always about money. Sure, there are people here and there who are in it for the pure science. But even then, those pure scientists have to fund their research somehow, and so it again comes back to money.
I'd like to see a source for your assertion that alchemy was *not* at its core, a search for cheap gold.
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, can not tell the difference between ends and means.
You know, the people here and there who are in it for the pure science are called... scientists. Maybe you have heard of them. There's quite a few of them, actually, and you can find a number of them in your local university. The fact that they need funding for their work does not mean they are in it for the money. As is witnessed by the simple fact that they are not making, and do not expect to make, money off of it. "- What is the difference bet
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still like to see your source backing up your assertion that alchemy was not about the search for cheap gold.
Re: (Score:1)
There is also an "ugly" side. Because alchemy was rooted in a search for cheap gold, the field was rife with greed, fraud, and deception
Ah, just like a lot of regular modern science
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. And Alchemy did result in a lot of actual scientific breakthroughs, just as today's greed-motivated science does result in actual scientific breakthroughs.
Re: (Score:2)
That may depend on the definition of "impossible."
It is technically possible to turn other elements into gold. It's just not through chemistry, and the cost is far higher than actually mining good.
The quest for room temperature superconductors is likewise a search for a cheaper way to accomplish superconductivity (i.e., no supercooling needed). Ultimately, it's a quest for patents and...riches. The quest for riches has a way of turning scientists into *mad* scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I wish the failure to replicate proved that the original paper was false, but it doesn't. The problem is that as things get more complex, there are more pieces that are important, and often some of them just aren't noticed. So it really *IS* like alchemy. The practitioners don't have a common vocabulary, and they want to keep their processes secret anyway. And also they don't know which parts of what they were doing are important. (And there are a lot of fakers practicing in the area.)
OTOH, there
Re: (Score:2)
I get the complexity. Software development isn't so different. When there is an unexplained, difficult-to-reproduce bug, sometimes finding it is like alchemy. I always tell my team, "If you can't explain what cause the bug, you haven't actually fixed it." Even if the bug goes away after a change to the code, the statement is true.
In the case of RTSC and this lab, I'd adapt that to say "If you can't explain why others can't replicate your experiment, then you haven't actually proved anything." Even if they g
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
That dude Ranga Dias keeps publishing BS after BS. First was the infamous "metallic hydrogen" paper in which they claimed they swore to God, scout's honor, on their mother, cross heart & hope to die level, that they had a sample of it clear as day .. until the apparatus cracked. Since getting away with that, he's been getting published in top journals with various impossible-to-replicate increasingly fanciful claims such as this room temperature superconductor one. Don't these journals have google?
Re: Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Several reviewers for Nature accepted the paper, so Iâ(TM)d say the scientists are deceived too.
Re: (Score:2)
B) Peer review doesn't detect outright lying. It's not set up to do that. That's what reproducibility is for.
So when I say scientists aren't deceived, I mean they aren't deceived by the blame, finding people to support him, confusing the issue, etc. That is all just rhetoric, and scientists try to look at fact. And the fact here is that it wasn't reproduced. All the rhetoric in the world won't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to remove his academic titles and fire him. People like that are worse than useless.
Re: Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing what it takes to do actually good research, assholes like that one just piss me off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
These journals probably do not disclose the authors to the reviewers, and the reviewers have better things to do than do reviews for no pay, so they just let it be published.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the samples are destroyed/no longer available that's his MO since the whole metallic hydrogen thing. If he had samples for examination there'd be no controversy. He's realized that he can make any claim he wants and get published over and over as long as he states he carried out careful measurement procedures.
Pretty sure his next move will be to raise millions of dollars off these publications to commercialize the superconductor. He can buy a few years with that I'm sure, and then state he couldn'
Darn It! (Score:5, Funny)
I really had my hopes up this time.
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. - Albert Einstein
Reproducibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Biology is the most cut-throat field of science. So far, anyway.