Lawrence Berkeley Lab Researchers Optimize Higher Density Copper Doping to Make LK99 Variant into a Superconductor

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab researchers have employed computational methods to outline an approach for optimizing the LK99 material as a superconductor.

Some may question why Nextbigfuture continues to cover LK99, given that some scientists claimed it was not a superconductor. Having covered science for over 20 years, I’ve encountered numerous instances where skeptics dismissed possibilities. Scientists aiming to debunk ideas are not the ones likely to discover how to make them work.

Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab invested time and utilized supercomputers to explore ways to make LK99 functional. Their computational work is showing promising results.

Experimental Results Supporting LK99

Half of the original Korean LK99 research team is set to present at the upcoming American Physical Society meeting. They will showcase videos of a new and improved material with sulfur, demonstrating room temperature superconductivity.

Two members of the original Korean team have joined forces to establish CCS, a company dedicated to developing superconductors.

Recent experimental work, mainly from China, indicates signs of superconductivity.

Notably, Chinese researchers observed a possible Meissner effect near room temperature in copper-substituted lead apatite.

Another group in China found microwave absorption evidence supporting the case for room temperature superconductivity.

Half of the original Korean LK99 research team is set to present at the upcoming American Physical Society meeting. They will showcase videos of a new and improved material with sulfur in the chemistry, demonstrating room temperature superconductivity.

Two other members of the original korean team have joined and created another company CCS to develop the superconductors.

Science is Hard

Science is a challenging endeavor. Historical setbacks, such as the AI winters, provide context. Marvin Minsky’s 1969 discovery highlighted the limitations of single-layer neural networks, leading to a slowdown in perceptron research. The breakthrough came in the mid-1980s with the work of John Hopfield, David Rumelhart, and others.

A 52-page paper by Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Philip Anderson, details his engagement with the high-Tc problem of cuprate superconductors. The paper reflects on the impossibility of separating early attempts from the complete restructuring of the problem achieved in the past decade. The 1977 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems to Philip Warren Anderson, Sir Nevill Francis Mott, and John Hasbrouck Van Vleck.

JANUARY 1987: THE CUPRATES CHANGE MY LIFE, TOO
It is not widely known that John Bardeen produced at least three wrong theories of superconductivity before BCS, the one which got it right. Two of his previous attempts were published, one, in 1951, with great fanfare. The difference between John and the many other brilliant physicists who attempted theories of superconductivity (among them Einstein, Feynman and Heisenberg ) was that he was willing to admit that he had been wrong, go back to the beginning and start over.

At Bell I met my close friend Ted Geballe, past supervisor and collaborator of the charismatic Bernd Matthias, who is rightly considered the father of the field of superconducting materials. Ted, it turned out, had just returned from the Materials Research Society meeting in Boston, the first week of December, where a highly reliable Japanese researcher, Kitazawa, had surprised everyone by confirming unequivocally the results on a new superconductor, (La,Ba)2CuO4, with a transition temperature over 30 degrees, which had been published obscurely six months earlier by Georg Bednorz and Alex Muller. Ted , although a very down-to-earth empiricist, who shares to an extent Bernd’s disdain for theories not his own, is somewhat optimistic on the subject of high-Tc superconductors, and has been known to fall for an occasional USO (unidentified superconducting object); but he convinced me this one was real. Paul Chu of Houston also confirmed the new results at this meeting.

You can see in the descriptions that people can get things completely wrong in science. It can take many tries and many years to work out complex problems and materials. Some very good scientists can have a disdain for theories that are not their own.

Twenty years of talking past each other: The theory of high Tc

In 1988, the outline of an essentially correct theory of the high Tc cuprates was published by two groups, Zhang et al. in Zurich and Kotliar et al. in the US, based on earlier suggestions. The rather startling experimental predictions:
1. that the gap would be real d-wave with nodes;

2. that the gap would greatly increase with underdoping;

3. that Tc would exhibit a dome terminating linearly around x = 30%;

were so bizarre that these papers gathered little attention from others, including myself and at least 8 other Nobel prize-winners, and as they came to be substantiated one by one nobody much noticed that fact until the method was revived a dozen years later by Paramekanti et al. and Sorella et al. I will discuss some recent achievements and generalizations of these methods.

Back the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Work

The flurry of theoretical and experimental studies following the report of room-temperature superconductivity at ambient pressure in Cu-substituted lead apatite CuxPb10−x(PO4)6O (‘LK99’) have explored whether and how this system might host strongly correlated physics including superconductivity. While first-principles calculations at low doping (x ≈ 1) have indicated a Cu-d9 configuration coordinated with oxygen giving rise to isolated, correlated bands, its other structural, electronic, and magnetic properties diverge significantly from those of other known cuprate systems. Here we find that higher densities of ordered Cu substitutions can result in the formation of contiguous edge-sharing Cu-O chains, akin to those found in some members of the cuprate superconductor family. Interestingly, while such quasi-one-dimensional edge-sharing chains are typically ferromagnetically coupled along the chain, we find an antiferromagnetic ground-state magnetic order for our cuprate fragments which is in proximity to a ferromagnetic quantum critical point. This is a result of the elongated Cu-Cu distance in Cu-substituted apatite that leads to larger Cu-O-Cu angles supporting antiferromagnetism, which we demonstrate to be controllable by strain. Finally, our electronic structure calculations confirm the low-dimensional nature of the system and show that the bandwidth is driven by the Cu-O plaquette connectivity, resulting in an intermediate correlated regime.

The Cu-substituted apatites provide a new system for understanding one-dimensional cuprate chains in a previously inaccessible coupling regime. The large lattice vector (Cu-Cu separation) compared with other edgesharing cuprates leads to a larger Cu-O-Cu angle. In turn, this enabled a stronger effective Cu-Cu nearestneighbor interaction, stabilizing antiferromagnetic ordering, in contrast to typically ferromagnetic edge-sharing cuprates. Calculations show that the Cu-4 structure is very close to a ferromagnetic ground state, indicative of strongly frustrated interactions and proximity to a quantum critical point.

This transition is dependent on the Cu-O-Cu angle, and can be tuned by structural modifications as seen below.

The increased band width of the Cu-dxy states at the Fermi level seen in Cu-2 and Cu-4 over the previously examined x = 1 structure is an expected result of halving the Cu-Cu separation along the c direction. While the Cu-Cu separation is large compared to other edgesharing cuprates, which could be expected to reduce the band width, the researchers find the structures to be in the intermediate coupling regime, favorable for superconductivity.

This is in part due to the distortion to larger Cu-O-Cu bond angles which is also seen to stabilize an antiferromagnetic ground state. The oxygen atoms that constitute the plaquettes are also bound to the PO4 units, the size of which, along with the c lattice constrains the CuO bond lengths and the Cu-O-Cu angle. Substitutions on the B sites may allow for a further tuning of the correlation and antiferromagnetic ordering.

The proposed structure requires substantially higher doping than has been reported experimentally and also with a high degree of site selectivity to facilitate macroscopic cuprate chains. This is not insurmountable as both solid-solution and ordered doping of apatite structures are common. Reported synthesis attempts have been carried out under ambient pressure and using oxygen as the channel species X. Recent theoretical work has identified that pressure, strain, and channel species call all have a strong effect on the site selectivity of the copper dopants.

10 thoughts on “Lawrence Berkeley Lab Researchers Optimize Higher Density Copper Doping to Make LK99 Variant into a Superconductor”

  1. China and the US wants to be at the lead here but how dare little South Korea come out with a bombshell discovery and future economic prosperity. Hence all the dismissive language and political maneuvering these nations have been doing behind the back

  2. A result not reproduced does not necessarily mean that it is NOT there… But please try to understand that any scientific result for its validity must remain universal and be seen experimentally by others as well. Nearly 6 months over but NO experimental confirmation. We at CSIR-NPL India started with it (LK-99), having 100% positive hope, however not yet. LK-99 superconductivity at ambient conditions is yet elusive. I hope the same proves to be right??..

  3. Thank you Brian, would be incredible if you turn out right about Lk99 being dismissed too easily. I don’t understand the science but I guess people are people. Hence it wouldn’t be surprising that physicists get arrogant and miss a major discovery just under their nose. If that’s the case a little humbling wouldn’t be out of place.

    • It’s unfortunate but common across all fields. Hence the term “confirmation bias.” People are predisposed to corroborate what they think they know; it is perhaps the evolutionary instinct that allowed our species to climb this far, but is now holding us back from our next evolutionary process.

  4. Why do you believe that the scientist are “angry”? Just because no one has been able to replicate the claims made by Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim in their arXiv paper doesn’t mean that the scientists have malicious intent. I believe the scientific community was overjoyed by the initial claims, delighted to make some for themselves and deeply disappointed when no one could replicate the claimed results. Just because you initially fell for these guys false claims, and still staunchly refuse to admit that they were false claims, doesn’t mean the entire scientific community is out to spite you or them. Many, many, very smart, very capable people have tried to replicate the claims and failed. If LK99 worked, someone else on the planet earth would claimed consistent reproducible success with it by now. I don’t understand why you are so willing to discount/demean everyone who has tried and failed to replicate these guys claims as “angry scientists”. They are just doing their job. One day we may have a room temperature superconductor, but lk99 isn’t it. Every other science blog and publication has recognized this except Nextbigfuture. M.I.T Technology Review, amongst many others, listed it as one of 2023’s worst technology failures. There is no conspiracy of angry scientist trying to debunk lk99. It just doesn’t work.

    • https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/12/anger-and-ridicule-should-not-be-used-against-lk99-superconductors-and-other-valid-science.html

      This same research was reported by Nextbigfuture and now it has passed peer review and has been published in the journal Matter. The Chinese Academy of Sciences press release in November has added more aggressive language and claims that LK99 was a myth.

      However, this STILL only addresses part of work around the science of LK99 room temperature superconductor claims.

      The Chinese have the same claims against the bulk LK99 part of the Korean work, BUT the Koreans never claimed to measure superconducting resistance for the bulk form of the LK99 material.

      The Koreans only claim near zero resistance that would qualify as superconducting resistance for the thin film form of LK99.

      The press releases are more angry and insulting with the shattered myth language. The ridicule and claims in the title of the press release for the Chinese work seeks to repeat the claim that LK99 science investigation is over. There seems to be a desire to make the public want to stop funding any work around LK99. Trillions of dollars are spent each year on scientific research and many billions are spent around analyzing and improving different kinds of superconducting materials.

      They claimed LK99 was a shattered myth. This was trying to scorch the Earth around those pursuing the science of LK99. Now, The China Academy of Science, the Journal Nature and others could be proved wrong.

    • It should be obvious to everyone that science is just as corrupt as politics. You dont think people conspire? Even scientists?

    • You are right about the initial reaction. But after being disappointed by the lack of success, people naturally get angry at the authors for publishing a result the appears to be a hoax.
      Personally, I don’t think it matters if this anger is justified or not; if LK99 is really a superconductor, then someone will reproduce it in an undeniable way. The reason why the scientific community at large has dismissed LK99 is because no one has presented sufficient evidence to confirm it. When someone makes a sample that can handle massive amounts of current or does undeniable flux pinning, people will begin to believe. At this point, though, that evidence does not exist.

    • I didn’t read the M.I.T Technology Review article, but calling LK-99 one of the years “worst technology failures” seems charged with more anger than seems necessary. The consensus that LK99 is not a superconductor has definitely carried a vibe of “of course it’s not a superconductor, the excitement around it was misplaced and stupid, people fell for a scam” etc. That energy is frustrating and a real misrepresentation of the truth of the situation, which is that nobody ever claimed to know for sure or 100% believe that LK99 was a superconductor. The details of the situation looked promising, and people got reasonably excited about the possibility. It’s very hard to feel excited about the future these days, it’s rare that something comes along that makes us feel real hope. And it was never completely settled, it was maybe 90% settled, but this new information is still worth looking at. The paper is a very interesting read and, if accurate, supports everything we’ve seen so far.

      The position of people interested in these papers and in LK-99 is to very cautiously wait for further results, because it wasn’t 100% proven to not be a superconductor, and because it’s almost definitely an interesting material with weird properties that might lead to further breakthroughs. The consensus position seems to be that it is entirely settled, that LK-99 is not worth further investigation or reporting, that people still interested in the small possibility of it being a superconductor are deluding themselves. The former seems way more scientific to me. Nobody’s claiming any of this is significant enough for major outlets to start reporting on it or anything, but for those still interested there’s no harm in keeping updated!

  5. All science is a function of trial and error. Just because one scientist says “no way this works” does not mean it is impossible.

    Thanks for the reminder, Brian!

Comments are closed.