IJMPB2375001 in a nutshell: Displayed on top of the left-hand panel are the “superconducting signal” s(T) reported in Nature 586, 373 (2020), the “measured voltage” m(T) reported in arXiv:2111.15017 (2021) and the “background signal”  b(T) from s(T)=m(T)-b(T). Displayed on top of the right-hand panel are a simulation of the “measured voltage” m(T), a simulation of the “background signal” b(T) and the “superconducting signal” using s(T)=m(T)-b(T). Since m(T) and b(T) are independent, the function <Δ describing the correlation between these two signals displays only random noise nm;Δ nb> j . Because the background corrected signal is given by s(T)= m(T)– b(T), s(T) is necessarily correlated both with m(T) and with b(T). For <Δ> ns;Δ nm this is revealed as a peak and for j <Δ as a dip, both at ns;Δ nb> j j=0. The left-hand panel shows that s(T) reported in Nature 586, 373 (2020) is not compatible with a protocol where s(T) is obtained by subtracting from m(T) an independently measured signal b(T). It is compatible with the reverse protocol where b(T) and s(T) were obtained independently, causing them to be uncorrelated, and where m(T) was determined by adding b(T) to s(T). Quite obviously this clashes with the notion of m(T) representing raw data. The susceptibility data reported for the other 5 pressures (138, 166, 178, 182 and 189 GPa) exhibit the same type of correlations as those for 160 GPa .  The authors of Nature 586, 373 (2020) provided 4 different accounts of “the making of” the susceptibility data: Pedo mellon a minno.  <Δ = nm;Δ nb> j Σwhere iΔ nm iΔ nb i+j i labels temperature T, and i Δ is the n n th discrete derivative, see Eq. 7 of IJMPB2375001.  On 26 September 2022 Nature 586, 373 (2020) has been retracted.
“Anatomy of a retraction: Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride”, Maarten van Kampen; , 12 oct 2022. For Better Science
“Despite a retraction, a room-temperature superconductor claim isn’t dead yet”, James R. Riordon; Science News , 3 oct 2022.
“Stunning room-temperature superconducting claim is retracted”, David Castelvecchi; Nature, 27 sep 2022, DOI:10.1038/d41586-022-03066-z
“Something is seriously wrong”, Eric Hand; Science, 26 sep 2022, DOI:10.1126/science.adf0548
“Retraction Note: Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride”, Elliot Snider, Nathan Dasenbrock-Gammon, Raymond McBride, Mathew Debessai, Hiranya Vindana, Kevin Vencatasamy, Keith V. Lawler, Ashkan Salamat & Ranga P. Dias; Nature, 26 sept 2022, DOI:10.1038/s41586-022-05294-9
Room-temperature superconductivity – or not ? Comment on Nature 586, 373 (2020) by E. Snider et al”, Dirk van der Marel & Jorge E Hirsch; International Journal of Modern Physics B 2375001 (2022), DOI:10.1142/S0217979223750012
Incompatibility of published ac magnetic susceptibility of a room temperature superconductor with measured raw data”, J. E. Hirsch & D. van der Marel; Matter and Radiation at Extremes 7, 048401 (2022), DOI:10.1063/5.0088429
Room temperature superconductivity – or not ?”, Dirk van der Marel, Colloquium at city University of Hongkong, 7 June 2022, Video (mp4). Slides (pptx). Slides (pdf).
Room temperature superconductivity – or not ?”, Dirk van der Marel, Flatclub seminar, University of Geneva, 29 April 2022, Video (mp4). Slides (pptx). Slides (pdf).