This whole "high pressure superconductivity" field is mostly bunk. There's real scientists working in the field, but not very good ones, and there's also straight up charlatans in their midst as well.
Even the real scientists working on this stuff never actually demonstrate that they're seeing real superconductivity in their experiments, rather they just show stuff like a resistance drop that could be explained by a short circuit or even just a regular metallic phase (most of these conductivity measurements these people do can't even tell the difference between copper and a real superconductor).
I'd treat this sort of thing with extreme skepticism and move on.
Had you bothered to read the actual research paper, you would have seen that your description is not appropriate for it.
The experimental results described in detail in the paper are credible enough.
Obviously anyone who is competent enough can fabricate a plausible fake description of any experiments, so no research paper reporting novel experimental results can be trusted until someone else succeeds to reproduce the claimed results.
While such results cannot be trusted until independent confirmation, they also cannot be dismissed as fantasies of dilettantes, without serious evidence for this.
The paper concludes that this is a superconductor merely by doing a resistivity measurement, and then applying a magnetic field to see if the resistivity increases.
This is not a sufficient nor convincing measurment to demonstrate superconductivity.
I mean, maybe this is a real superconductor, but they havent demonstrated convincing evidence of it, and their peer researchers hold similarly low standards, so they will likely not be held to account.
This whole "high pressure superconductivity" field is mostly bunk. There's real scientists working in the field, but not very good ones, and there's also straight up charlatans in their midst as well.
Even the real scientists working on this stuff never actually demonstrate that they're seeing real superconductivity in their experiments, rather they just show stuff like a resistance drop that could be explained by a short circuit or even just a regular metallic phase (most of these conductivity measurements these people do can't even tell the difference between copper and a real superconductor).
I'd treat this sort of thing with extreme skepticism and move on.
Had you bothered to read the actual research paper, you would have seen that your description is not appropriate for it.
The experimental results described in detail in the paper are credible enough.
Obviously anyone who is competent enough can fabricate a plausible fake description of any experiments, so no research paper reporting novel experimental results can be trusted until someone else succeeds to reproduce the claimed results.
While such results cannot be trusted until independent confirmation, they also cannot be dismissed as fantasies of dilettantes, without serious evidence for this.
The paper concludes that this is a superconductor merely by doing a resistivity measurement, and then applying a magnetic field to see if the resistivity increases.
This is not a sufficient nor convincing measurment to demonstrate superconductivity.
I mean, maybe this is a real superconductor, but they havent demonstrated convincing evidence of it, and their peer researchers hold similarly low standards, so they will likely not be held to account.
2.4 million times the pressure of earths atmosphere but impressive if true.