this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
106 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37705 readers
117 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wikipedia said data was falsified https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 so that's where I took that information from.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An initial paper was submitted to Nature in 2020, but rejected.[10] Similarly-presented research on room-temperature superconductors by Ranga P. Dias had been published in Nature earlier that year, and received with skepticism—Dias's paper would subsequently be retracted in 2022 after its data was found to have been falsified.

Emphasis added. The paper that had falsified paper was by a different researcher and was about a completely different putative superconductor. Only Dias' paper appears to be based on falsified data. There's no indication that the LK-99 paper is based on falsified data. Unfortunately LK-99 is suffering guilt by association simply because both of these things are about room-temperature superconductors, but they share nothing in common with each other beyond that broad topic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I skim, read it, and missed that they were talking about a completely different material and paper. Honestly, fairly silly of Wikipedia and rare to bring up something that isn't really related to that specific topic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It explains why Nature might have been quicker to reject another paper about room temperature superconductivity than they otherwise would have been. But yeah, it's a little misleading stuck in there like that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The confusing part specifically is "Similarly-presented research" which doesn't say why it's similarly-presented. It sounds like looking into it that it's just "both were room temperature superconductors" but it could have also meant that "both are about LK-99", "both are from the same university" or something like that. It's ambiguous.