I saw a couple of interesting talks this morning before heading out:
- Alessandro Chiesa of Parma spoke about using spin-containing molecules potentially as qubits, and about chiral-induced spin selectivity (CISS) in electron transfer. Regarding the former, here is a review. Spin-containing molecules can have interesting properties as single qubits, or, for spins higher than 1/2, qudits, with unpaired electrons often confined to a transition metal or rare earth ion somewhat protected from the rest of the universe by the rest of the molecule. The result can be very long coherence times for their spins. Doing multi-qubit operations is very challenging with such building blocks, however. There are some theory proposals and attempts to couple molecular qubits to superconducting resonators, but it's tough! Regarding chiral induced spin selectivity, he discused recent work trying to use molecules where a donor region is linked to an acceptor region via a chiral bridge, and trying to manipulate spin centers this way. A question in all the CISS work is, how can the effects be large when spin-orbit coupling is generally very weak in light, organic molecules? He has a recent treatment of this, arguing that if one models the bridge as a chain of sites with large U/t, where U is the on-site repulsion energy and t is the hopping contribution, then exchange processes between sites can effectively amplify the otherwise weak spin-orbit effects. I need to read and think more about this.
- Richard Schlitz of Konstanz gave a nice talk about some pretty recent research using a scanning tunneling microscope tip (with magnetic iron atoms on the end) to drive electron paramagnetic resonance in a single pentacene molecule (sitting on MgO on Ag, where it tends to grab an electron from the silver and host a spin). The experimental approach was initially explained here. The actual polarized tunneling current can drive the resonance, and exactly how depends on the bias conditions. At high bias, when there is strong resonant tunneling, the current exerts a damping-like torque, while at low bias, when tunneling is far off resonance, the current exerts a field-like torque. Neat stuff.
- Leah Weiss from Chicago gave a clear presentation about not-yet-published results (based on earlier work), doing optically detected EPR of Er-containing molecules. These condense into mm-sized molecular crystals, with the molecular environment being nice and clean, leading to very little inhomogeneous broadening of the lines. There are spin-selective transitions that can be driven using near telecom-wavelength (1.55 μm) light. When the (anisotropic) g-factors of the different levels are different, there are some very promising ways to do orientation-selective and spin-selective spectroscopy. Looking forward to seeing the paper on this.
And that's it for me for the meeting. A couple of thoughts:
- I'm not sold on the combined March/April meeting. Six years ago when I was a DCMP member-at-large, the discussion was all about how the March Meeting was too big, making it hard to find and get good deals on host sites, and maybe the meeting should split. Now they've made it even bigger. Doesn't this make planning more difficult and hosting more expensive since there are fewer options? (I'm not an economist, but....) A benefit for the April meeting attendees is that grad students and postdocs get access to the career/networking events held at the MM. If you're going to do the combination, then it seems like you should have the courage of your convictions and really mingle the two, rather than keeping the March talks in the convention center and the April talks in site hotels.
- I understand that van der Waals/twisted materials are great laboratories for physics, and that topological states in these are exciting. Still, by my count there were 7 invited sessions broadly about this topic, and 35 invited talks on this over four days seems a bit extreme.
- By my count, there were eight dilution refrigerator vendors at the exhibition (Maybell, Bluefors, Ice, Oxford, Danaher/Leiden, Formfactor, Zero-Point Cryo, and Quantum Design if you count their PPMS insert). Wow.
I'm sure there will be other cool results presented today and tomorrow that I am missing - feel free to mention them in the comments.
9 comments:
The rumor that l heard was that the push the combine the meetings was, allegedly, driven by the dropoff in the number of in person attendees after the pandemic. Supposedly, the sense was that putting the two together would keep the total number of human bodies large enough to justify securing the larger convention centers. Not sure if it’s true or not, just what I heard.
I wonder if attendance at the Global Physics Summit (formerly known as the March Meeting) will drop off in coming years as it will be perceived as less worthwhile. In past years it seemed like groups would send most, or all, of their members, but this year it seems like groups are only sending one or two delegates, or not going at all. Might just be my sample size. The costs to attend are also ballooning, but grants are not.
On the other hand, other professional societies also have very large annual meetings. The American Geophysical Union's annual meeting is significantly larger than APS's, with typical attendance numbers being >25,000 and their recent meeting having over 31,000 attendees.
Thank you for the daily recap. It felt as if I was attending in person.
The UTe2 sessions showed steady progress towards understanding the order parameter. Seamus Davis is doing STM, and his and others' results seem consistent with "B1u" pairing, which is time-reversal symmetric, but incomplete 3-He-B-like p-wave of the form S_y P_y + S_z P_z. They see a constant LDoS on the (weird, 26-degree inclined) crystal surface they can tunnel into, consistent as far as I can understand with (pairs of) chiral Majorana fermion surface fluids (not zero modes).
If this all really holds up, should be getting more attention. World's first solid-state topological superconductor?
Thanks, Matt. Very interesting.
The pandemic decreased the numbers of course. But after that it's been steadily increasing. Even this year the "March meeting" numbers AND the "April meeting" numbers were each higher than last year (or ever before).
In-person or total?
In person
I'm generally an April meeting attendee, and refused to attend this joint monstrosity. To be honest, pragmatic concerns drove a lot of decision making (I have another meeting in SoCal scheduled for early April, and two cross country trips in 2.5 weeks was just not in the cards). Even without this I think I would have refused anyway. APS sent me a few surveys about my plans for the meeting, and I made sure to answer them with the crankiest language I could muster (and as a gray-haired 50something, I can do that pretty well). If they had been mingled the meetings, I might have been less cranky about this. I would have really enjoyed attending some of the higher level talks on things farther from my expertise, and would hope some of my students and former students who were there took the chance to mingle and speak outside their usual silos.
Post a Comment