This is an attempt of a more coherent thread of why, imo, yesterday's prediction of a flat band at the Fermi level in #LK99 does not "bring us back" or does resolve the controversy. In short, the prediction assumes the proposed crystal structure is correct, but it might not be.
Schoop Lab
408 posts
We are working on the interface between chemistry and physics, using chemical principles to find new materials with exotic physical properties
- Here is a link to our recent findings on #LK99 together with @PrincetonPhys and @chhendon, which will appear on arxiv tomorrow. Most important findings are summarized below . drive.google.com/file/d/1ekD2KV…
- Finally it is official! Delighted to report that Leslie has been promoted to Associate Professor with tenure effective July first. Obviously this group deserves all the credit. Best lab ever!!! 🎉🥳😊
- Okay I think I need to comment here. It does not surprise me that there is a flatband with the assumed structure. More below. Problem is, is the structure correct? I have doubts. Would like to see phonon calculations to if it’s stable. Can you do this next?
- First phonons out (I would like to see more to me sure). Based on these phonons the crystal structure seems not stable to me, especially in context of the synthesis conditions. I would be extremely cautious about any predictions based on this crystal structure.Phonons for #LK99
- A belated happy new year from the Schoop lab! We start the year with the great news that we have been granted an @NSF CAREER grant. Stay tuned for more work on topological square- net materials!
- Replying to @SchoopLabIn a Material where I replace Pb2+ (s0) with Cu2+ (d9) it is very expected that a flat band will appear because what should the lonely d9 electrons do if they are not allowed to magnetize? They will make a flat band. This is why chemically it seems weird this doping is possible
- Hard disagree here. The problem is not a lack in precision of the analysis but a lack in proof that any predicted new material has actually been made. AI could very well made up materials that don’t exist. So far based on the analysis here, proof that these can be made is lacking
- We are also delighted to introduce Prof. Leslie Schoop @SchoopLab @PrincetonChem as the journal's first Topic Editor. Welcome Leslie! Here is the link to her group's website: go.acs.org/3G
- We are excited to share our awesome work on synthesizing a superconducting ink made of 1T-WS2 monolayers, led by @XiaoyuSong2 ! Here we show you can use chemical exfoliation to mass-produce high-quality 2D quantum materials. Also, the ink is stable in air! science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
- Thank you for providing more data, this is helpful. I have a few questions still that I would love to lean more about:Joining the A-Lab conversation: linkedin.com/feed/update/ur…
- It was very nice to collaborate with @Robert_Palgrave and students to analyze the autonomous lab paper.Our findings are summarized in the thread here. Most crucial finding imo is that compositional disorder in materials cannot be neglected,as is can lead to incorrect conclusions.We have now completed our analysis of new materials reported in the Google Deepmind / Berkeley autonomous lab paper. My own initial analysis is in the quote tweet. Happy to have worked with @SchoopLab to jointly put together a comprehensive analysis, now available on @ChemRxiv.
- Replying to @SchoopLabIn the mean time DFT people could do a phonon calculation, which could give us more insight into whether the structure is correct. Imo that would be the easiest next step to check.
- Replying to @SchoopLabFlat bands usually indicate that our structure is not stable. They could also indicate superconductivity, but only if you are 100% certain that the structure you inputted into the DFT calculation is correct. Very often, seeing flat bands says your structure is wrong.









