Many people's moments were flooded yesterday when scientists in the United States claimed to have created room temperature superconductivity.

Ranga Dias, a physicist at the University of Rochester in New York, presented the team's new research progress on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society, Science News reported.

The superconductor they have created is said to operate at room temperature and under relatively low pressure. But the research is likely to face serious skepticism, in part because the team's earlier paper claimed to have found superconductivity in a material at 15°C.

The research team says they have discovered room-temperature superconductivity that works under practical conditions. The researchers mixed hydrogen, nitrogen, and lutetium materials in a diamond anvil, applied different pressures, and measured resistance.

At 21°C, the material loses electrical resistance, but it still requires about 10,000 times atmospheric pressure to achieve superconductivity. If the research results are confirmed, the material could be used in the real world.

On September 26, 2022, Nature retracted the paper, citing irregularities in the researchers' handling of the data. Now, the new findings are likely to face intense scrutiny.

This has also sparked heated debate on the Internet, with many calling it a fraud, while some netizens are curious about how they conducted the experiment under such pressure. It's just a theoretical study.

According to the retraction statement at the time, the validity of the study's critical data processing and analysis is in doubt, and while the authors maintain that the original data supports the main conclusions of the paper, frequent questioning of the data by other scientists over the past two years has certainly undermined the paper's credibility.

"People have questioned this work for quite some time," said James Hamlin, a condensed matter physicist at the University of Florida. The retraction isn't enough, says Jorge Hirsch, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, San Diego. Instead, he thinks it masks academic misconduct in the study. "I think there's a big problem here, and you can't dismiss it as a normal disagreement," he says.

Dias and Civera claim to have repeated previous experiments and observed the same results. "We copied a sample about a year ago under high pressure, but for technical reasons we couldn't measure the pressure, so we didn't publish it." "Mr. Civera said.