On the ac magnetic susceptibility of a room temperature superconductor: anatomy of a probable scientific fraud

Abstract

In Nature 586, 373 (2020) [1], Snider et al announced the experimental discovery of room temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride under high pressure, hereafter called CSH. The paper reported sharp drops in the measured magnetic susceptibility as a function of temperature for five different pressures, that were claimed to be a superior test signaling a superconducting transition. Here I present several arguments indicating that the susceptibility data published in [1] were probably fraudulent. This calls into question the validity of the entire paper and its claim of detection of room temperature superconductivity. I also describe the roadblocks that I have encountered in reaching this conclusion. A variety of implications of this situation are discussed.

What led to retraction of the article on room-temperature superconductivity in the journal <i>Nature</i>: a series of oversights or falsification?

“…Neither the `background signal' nor the `measured voltage' was given in the original article, but only the result of the subtraction. After persistent criticism [14,15], the authors posted tables with the data of the `measured voltage' [21]. This made it possible to carefully check all the presented magnetic data.…”

How do you trust but verify hydride superconductivity?

“…In such cases, the reasons the authors invoke to justify their refusal to supply the data should be scrutinized by expert independent peer review, and ruled invalid if appropriate, instead of accepting them at face value. That is not currently being done [4,23], to the detriment of scientific progress.…”