AWhat changed
Duk Y. Kim and Moses H. W. Chan redesigned a porous-glass torsional oscillator and reported no detectable low-temperature response attributable to nonclassical rotational inertia at a sensitivity of 2 × 10⁻⁵. In a separate bulk-helium study using rigid oscillators they reported a sample- and apparatus-dependent upper limit of 4 × 10⁻⁶ and a comparable period shift in solid helium-3 and helium-4.
Scientific scope
Duk Y. Kim and Moses H. W. Chan redesigned a porous-glass torsional oscillator and reported no detectable low-temperature response attributable to nonclassical rotational inertia at a sensitivity of 2 × 10⁻⁵. In a separate bulk-helium study using rigid oscillators they reported a sample- and apparatus-dependent upper limit of 4 × 10⁻⁶ and a comparable period shift in solid helium-3 and helium-4. These limits apply to the specified samples, sensitivity and oscillator response, not to all possible materials or measurements. The 2014 bulk study found period shifts three to four times its finite-element shear-modulus estimate and discusses imperfect rigidity, crystal properties and underestimated elastic response; its 4 × 10⁻⁶ bound attributes the small observed response entirely to possible nonclassical inertia. A helium-3 repeat differed from an earlier run whose instrumental stability was questioned. The 2012 confined-helium explanation of the earlier signal depends on an unknown solid-layer thickness. The earlier 2004 results are distinct; independent raw-data reanalysis and comparison with final journal versions remain outstanding. E. Kim in the 2004 work is not the later coauthor Duk Y. Kim.
Evidence
The linked original works support the scoped statement and contribution attribution. WRS has not independently replayed experiments or reconstructed a full mathematical proof. These limits apply to the specified samples, sensitivity and oscillator response, not to all possible materials or measurements. The 2014 bulk study found period shifts three to four times its finite-element shear-modulus estimate and discusses imperfect rigidity, crystal properties and underestimated elastic response; its 4 × 10⁻⁶ bound attributes the small observed response entirely to possible nonclassical inertia. A helium-3 repeat differed from an earlier run whose instrumental stability was questioned. The 2012 confined-helium explanation of the earlier signal depends on an unknown solid-layer thickness. The earlier 2004 results are distinct; independent raw-data reanalysis and comparison with final journal versions remain outstanding. E. Kim in the 2004 work is not the later coauthor Duk Y. Kim.
Contributors
- The named authors in the research record · SCIENCE: These are the listed authors of the cited contribution sources. Paper authorship does not quantify individual effort. An incomplete list is explicitly marked; same names are not automatically merged.
- Absence of supersolidity in solid helium in porous Vycor glass
- Upper limit of supersolidity in solid helium
Provisional WRS assessment, edition 2026-10-28.1. Independent expert calibration is pending. This grade does not certify correctness or assign ownership.
Full scientific record · Browse contribution grades · Request a correction