Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
48
Posted byMD-PhD-MBA1 month ago

Either This Data is Incorrect or These Physicists Just Changed the World - A paper posted to arXiv last month claims to have achieved superconductivity at room temperature, but other physicists say the data may be incorrect.

14 comments
88% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
level 1
MD-PhD-MBAOriginal Poster4 points · 1 month ago

Preprint reference:

Evidence for Superconductivity at Ambient Temperature and Pressure in Nanostructures

Dev Kumar Thapa, Anshu Pandey

(Submitted on 23 Jul 2018)

Despite being a low temperature phenomenon till date, superconductivity has found numerous applications in diverse fields of medicine, science and engineering. The great scientific interest in the phenomenon as well as its practical utility has motivated extensive efforts to discover and understand new superconductors. We report the observation of superconductivity at ambient temperature and pressure conditions in films and pellets of a nanostructured material that is composed of silver particles embedded into a gold matrix. Specifically, we observe that upon cooling below 236 K at ambient pressures, the resistance of sample films drops below 10-4 Ohm, being limited by instrument sensitivity. Further, below the transition temperature, samples become strongly diamagnetic, with volume susceptibilities as low as -0.056. We further describe methods to tune the transition to temperatures higher than room temperature.

Subjects: Superconductivity (cond-mat.supr-con)

Cite as: arXiv:1807.08572 [cond-mat.supr-con]

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08572

level 2
4 points · 1 month ago

And cold fusion, too?

level 3

Please don't be Fleischman & Pons, please don't...

level 1

And if the theories of Rupert Sheldrake are correct, if this feat was achieved, room temperature superconductivity will go from impossible to reproduce to nearly anyone able to do it. :-)

level 2

I prefer Charles Fort's Steam Engine Time. No need for morphogenic woo fields, just a cusp of potential.

level 1

“If you see two measurements, made at different times and under slightly different conditions, and you get the exact same pattern of random variations, that’s very unusual,” Skinner told me in an email. “It’s not clear yet what this repeated noise means. It could be a real and previous unknown natural phenomenon, or it could be an artifact of the measurement process which we also don’t understand. But it’s a sufficiently strange observation that it’s worth paying attention to.”

That's the most polite way of saying, "It's fake as shit", that I've ever seen.

level 2
Transhumanist3 points · 1 month ago

Actually I think he just said that it's an odd coincidence that requires further testing. It doesn't mean it's fake or real. It's just an interesting result that needs to be looked at further.

level 2
Comment deleted1 month ago(3 children)
level 3
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 4
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 5
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 1
3 points · 1 month ago

I feel like this headline is written in such a way to avoid betteridge's law.

The answer is obviously that the data is incorrect. At least this isn't as obviously bullshit as EmDrive.

level 1

These data. FTFY.

The ArXiv paper says

the resistance of sample films drops below 10-4 Ohm, being limited by instrument sensitivity.

That is exceedingly unimpressive. They go to press with a claim for superconductivity but can measure a resistance of 4 ohms? Junior science equipment can do better than that: the Wheatstone bridge, all that.

level 2

They are not measuring 4Ohms of resistance.

They are measuring lower than the 0,0001 Ohm range that their instruments are capable of, meaning the film's resistance is below 100 micro-Ohms, which if true for such a thin film, absolutely amazing.

level 3

The paper says 4-10 ohms. In the abstract. On ArXiv.

level 4
Best of 20153 points · 1 month ago

Look again, it actually says 10-4 Ohm, which looks a lot like someone meant 10-4 and didn't get the superscript markup right.

level 5

Agreed. Both right, then. :)

Community Details

13.3m

Subscribers

6.2k

Online

Welcome to r/Futurology, a subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.

Create Post
r/Futurology Rules
1.
Rule 1 - Respect
2.
Rule 2 - Future Focus
3.
Rule 3 - Images
4.
Rule 4 - Petitions, Polls, and Fundraising
5.
Rule 6 - Comment Quality
6.
Rule 9 - No Duplicates
7.
Rule 10 - In Depth
8.
Rule 11 - Title Quality
9.
Rule 12 - Original Sources
10.
Rule 13 - Content age
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.