Why it matters: The repeated question of blockbuster physics claims.
A superconductor is a material that allows electric current to flow easily. If such materials work at normal temperatures, they could potentially be used in power lines, magnetic resonance imaging equipment, and just about anything that uses electricity. Modern superconductors must be cooled to temperatures that limit their usefulness.
In the past few weeks, euphoria over LK-99, another substance South Korean scientists claim to be a room-temperature superconductor, has swept social media, but other scientists have confirmed it is a superconductor. Much of that excitement has since subsided since it could not be confirmed. I made an observation and came up with another plausible explanation.
However, fundamental laws of physics do not prohibit the possibility of room-temperature superconductors, and the search for such materials will continue.
Background: Another unproven room-temperature superconductor.
In March Paper published in NatureDiaz and co-workers say they have found a material that superconducts at temperatures up to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, even though it must be squeezed to 145,000 pounds per square inch.
Many other scientists met the announcement with skepticism. This is because an earlier Nature paper by Dr. Diaz had already described another less practical superconducting material. withdrawn.
Questions were also raised about the now-retracted Physical Review Letters paper. James Hamlin, a professor of physics at the University of Florida, told the editors of the journal that the curve in the figure in the paper describing the electrical resistance of the compound manganese sulfide resembled the curve in Dr. Diaz’s doctoral dissertation describing the behavior of manganese sulfide. He said he was. another material.
The magazine recruited outside experts to produce three independent reports to examine this figure and the underlying data. “The findings convincingly support the claims of data fabrication/falsification,” the journal’s editors wrote in an email to the study authors on July 10.
Dr. Diaz’s latest response was “inadequate and disappointing,” said one reviewer, who requested anonymity as it has not been published.
The reviewers communicated for several months between Dr. Hamlin, the author of the paper, and the editor of the Physical Review Letters, which was shared with the reviewers. Said it wasn’t mentioned. Here’s a better graph produced by his lab in December 2019.
Both the University of Rochester and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas should conduct open and transparent investigations into “suspected potential misconduct,” the reviewer said.
Dr. Salamat and Keith V. Lawler, a research professor at UNLV and the other lead author of the manganese sulfide paper, did not respond to requests for comment.
Next steps: Investigate and respond.
The University of Rochester is “undergoing a comprehensive investigation into the questions raised regarding the integrity of all data at issue in this and other studies,” a university spokesperson said in an email. Ta.
The university has so far conducted two preliminary investigations into Dr. Diaz’s work and has determined that the concerns do not warrant further scrutiny.This time, the university decided to launch an investigation as the next step. Mandated by Research Misconduct Policy.
A spokeswoman said the university has no plans to release the results of the investigation.
Dr. Hamlin said Tuesday that he was pleased the magazine took his concerns seriously. He said there were two more cases of apparent data duplication in Dr. Diaz’s study that he hoped would be investigated as well. One is, paper Published in Scientific Reports. The other is what Dr. Hamlin describes as duplication of data from Dr. Diaz’s paper.