Room temperature superconductivity ?

IJMPB2375001 in a nutshell: Displayed on top of the left-hand panel are a simulation of the “measured voltage” m(Ti ), a simulation of the “background signal” b(Ti ) and the “superconducting signal” using s(Ti )=m(Ti )-b(Ti ). Since m(Ti ) and b(Ti ) are independent, the function gmb(n)(j)=<Δnm;Δnb>j describing the correlation between the nth discrete derivatives Δnm(Ti ) and Δnb(Ti+j ) (in this figure n=4) displays only random noise [2]. Since the background corrected signal is given by s(Ti )=m(Ti )b(Ti ), Δns(Ti ) is necessarily correlated both with Δnm(Ti ) and with Δnb(Ti ). For gsm(n) this is revealed as a peak and for gsb(n) as a dip, both at j=0.
Displayed on top of the right-hand panel are the “superconducting signal” s(Ti ) reported in Nature 586, 373 (2020), the “measured voltage” m(Ti ) reported in arXiv:2111.15017 (2021) and the “background signal” [1] b(Ti ) from s(Ti )=m(Ti )-b(Ti ). The right-hand panel shows that s(Ti ) reported in Nature 586, 373 (2020) is not compatible with a protocol where s(Ti ) is obtained by subtracting from m(Ti ) an independently measured signal b(Ti ). It is compatible with the reverse protocol where b(Ti ) and s(Ti ) were obtained independently, causing them to be uncorrelated, and where m(Ti ) was determined by adding b(Ti ) to s(Ti ). Quite obviously this clashes with the notion of m(Ti ) 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 [3].

[1] The authors of Nature 586, 373 (2020) provided 4 different accounts of “the making of” the susceptibility data: Pedo mellon a minno.
[2] nm;Δnb>j = ΣiΔnmiΔnbi+j where i labels temperature Ti, and Δn is the nth discrete derivative, see Eq. 7 of IJMPB2375001.
[3] On 26 September 2022 Nature 586, 373 (2020) has been retracted.

Room temperature superconductivity – or not ?”, Dirk van der Marel, Virtual Science Forum “Does condensed matter physics need to worry about a replication crisis?”, 2 March 2023, youtube, download video, download slides.

“Anatomy of a retraction: Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride”, Maarten van Kampen; For Better Science, 12 oct 2022.

“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).