A new advancement in technology is being hailed as “bigger than AI” by its creators. This innovation is the focus of my most read article, The Technology That Will Change Everything, as it holds the promise of revolutionizing computing, energy, medicine, and the economy simultaneously. It represents a step toward the long-sought dream of a perpetual motion machine, one that requires no energy input from us. This invention could stand as the most significant achievement of the 21st century, potentially ushering in a second industrial revolution and saving billions in energy costs annually.

We are referring to superconductors.

Superconductors are materials that significantly reduce the energy lost as heat. This inefficiency is prevalent across various technologies, from smartphones to power grids. A considerable amount of energy produced is wasted during transmission, which diminishes the efficiency of our devices and infrastructure. Superconductors, however, can transport electricity without energy loss, resulting in enhanced efficiency and more powerful electronic devices. In some experiments, scientists have maintained an electric current in a superconducting ring for years without needing to add energy, suggesting these currents could theoretically flow indefinitely or for hundreds of thousands of years without dissipating energy through heat or friction.

The implications are vast: faster transportation, portable medical devices, more effective electromagnets, and a more reliable energy grid, including applications in wind turbines and fusion energy. This could herald a new era for humanity.

> “Discovering a room-temperature, room-pressure superconductor would unlock an entirely new realm of technologies that we haven’t even begun to imagine.” — Eva Zurek, computational chemist.

However, with all groundbreaking innovations comes a cost.

Historically, superconducting materials have necessitated either extreme pressures or temperatures close to absolute zero, the coldest possible state (-459.67° F or -273.15° C). Achieving such low temperatures is crucial for superconductivity; at these levels, atomic movement is nearly halted, allowing electrons to flow without resistance. To attain these temperatures, scientists typically rely on liquid helium.

The alternative involves applying immense pressure. Previous studies that produced superconducting materials at higher temperatures (-94° F or -70° C) required pressures around 155 gigapascals (GPa). For context, the pressure at Earth's core is about 350 GPa, roughly 3.5 million times that of sea level. This means achieving superconductivity requires conditions far more extreme than those found in the deepest oceanic trenches.

The aspiration is to develop a superconductor that operates at both room temperature and room pressure. Remarkably, scientists are now claiming to have approached this goal. Although the new superconducting material does not function at exact room pressure, it operates at just 1 GPa—a significant advancement.

The announcement stirred considerable excitement and controversy within the scientific community, leading to sharp divides among researchers. While some have challenged the findings, others have strongly supported them. Physicist James Hamlin described the potential breakthrough as “an earth-shattering, groundbreaking, and thrilling discovery.”

Leading the research team is Ranga Dias, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering and physics at the University of Rochester. The team synthesized their superconducting material from a superhydride based on lutetium. Hydrides, which combine hydrogen with heavier atoms (often sulfur or other metals), are crucial for achieving superconductivity. By blending hydrogen with additional elements like carbon and nitrogen, scientists can facilitate superconductivity under more manageable pressures. Previous research has demonstrated superconductivity at temperatures as high as 8° F (-13° C) and pressures of 190 GPa.

The team’s sample, composed of lutetium, hydrogen, and nitrogen, underwent heating to 392° F (200° C) for several days, followed by compression using a diamond anvil cell at around 2 GPa. The researchers found that the material maintained its superconducting properties even as the pressure was reduced to just 1 GPa and at ambient temperature.

The samples fulfilled all scientific criteria for superconductors, including reduced resistance and the Meissner effect, which refers to the material's ability to expel magnetic fields. These findings align with what scientists expect when creating near-room-temperature and near-room-pressure superconductors.

Yet, there is a significant issue at hand, one that has fueled the ongoing debate in the scientific community: the team's controversial past.

Several members of the team have faced allegations of scientific misconduct. A prior paper by Dias published in Nature was retracted due to data disputes. This research claimed that a carbonaceous sulfur hydride (CSH) exhibited superconductivity at 57° F (14° C) and 267 GPa, but later analysis raised questions about the magnetic field methodology used, contradicting the raw data.

Typically, the magnetic susceptibility of hydrides is measured within a diamond anvil cell, which often captures background noise. Researchers commonly subtract this background from the raw data to obtain a final magnetic susceptibility reading. However, Dias and co-author Ashkan Salamat employed an unconventional method to eliminate magnetic interference, leading some physicists to suspect data manipulation. Dias asserted that the data was not tampered with, but rather misinterpreted.

Concerns also arose regarding the electrical resistance data, with some alleging that it was fabricated or manipulated, while other portions were left undisclosed. Investigations by the University of Rochester into the claims sided with Dias, yet independent labs have struggled to replicate the results from his earlier paper, likely due to the time-intensive nature of such experiments.

Another team member, Mathew Debessai, faced retraction of a paper on superconductivity for similar reasons. Furthermore, Dias' most recent papers have been scrutinized for alleged data duplication, specifically that electrical resistance data was lifted from his 2013 Ph.D. thesis. Salamat defended the integrity of their data, arguing that the similarities were coincidental and that the comparisons were flawed.

Despite the controversies, Dias remains firm in his belief that his data is genuine. He continues to conduct experiments at various laboratories nationwide and has invited independent scientists to observe his work. He is optimistic that his new paper submitted to Nature will address lingering doubts about his research. A new team member, Nilesh Salke, supports the claims regarding the material's significance, asserting it represents a breakthrough in superconductivity.

Dias' latest paper underwent an extensive peer-review process and additional scrutiny from Nature. He has included raw data with the submission to enhance transparency and confidence among skeptics. Given Dias' past, Nature likely performed thorough evaluations before deciding to publish the paper on March 8. Many experts believe Dias would not risk submitting another potentially retractable paper, opting instead to stand by his claims. Despite the turbulent history of the team, many argue that their findings deserve consideration.

> “To demonstrate superconductivity, you need to show that electrical resistance approaches zero, magnetic susceptibility confirms the expulsion of magnetic fields, and heat capacity measurements are consistent. Our group has successfully conducted all three types of measurements, including submeasures.” — Ranga Dias.

While the scientific community hopes Dias will distribute samples of his superconducting material for replication, he and Salamat have established Unearthly Materials, a startup backed by $20 million from investors including Spotify and OpenAI. Their lutetium hydride is moving toward patent status, making it unlikely that samples will be shared. Due to its proprietary nature, the specific methods and processes employed by the team may remain undisclosed. Nevertheless, Dias and his team have provided clear instructions for reproducing the material in laboratory settings. They hope that researchers will pursue replication efforts, allowing the field of superconductors to progress. Some scientists have embraced this opportunity, while others remain skeptical.

If another laboratory successfully reproduces the results, it could unlock immense potential for this material. Research could explore the material's structure, component ratios, and its implications for superconductivity theories, alongside its practical applications. The dawn of new technological advancements is on the horizon if these promising findings can overcome their troubled past.