IJMPB2375001 in a nutshell: Displayed on top of the left-hand panel are a simulation of the “measured voltage” m(T, a simulation of the “background signal” ) i b(T and the “superconducting signal” using ) i s(T i )=m(T. Since )-b(T i ) i m(T and ) i b(T are independent, the function g ) i mb (n) (j)=<Δ describing the correlation between the nm;Δ nb> j n th discrete derivatives Δ and nm(T i ) Δ (in this figure nb(T i+j ) n=4) displays only random noise . Since the background corrected signal is given by s(T= ) i m(T– ) i b(T, ) i Δ is necessarily correlated both with ns(T ) i Δ and with nm(T ) i Δ. For nb(T ) i gthis is revealed as a peak and for sm (n) g as a dip, both at sb (n) j=0. Displayed on top of the right-hand panel are the “superconducting signal” s(T reported in ) i Nature 586, 373 (2020), the “measured voltage” m(T reported in arXiv:2111.15017 (2021) and the “background signal” ) i  b(T from ) i s(T. The right-hand panel shows that )=m(T i )-b(T i ) i s(T reported in ) i Nature 586, 373 (2020) is not compatible with a protocol where s(T is obtained by subtracting from ) i m(Tan independently measured signal ) i b(T. It ) i is compatible with the reverse protocol where b(T and ) i s(T were obtained independently, causing them to be uncorrelated, and where ) i m(T was determined by adding ) i b(T to ) i s(T. Quite obviously this clashes with the notion of ) i 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 ) i .  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  On 26 September 2022 Nature 586, 373 (2020) has been retracted.
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; , 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).