nanoscale views
A blog about condensed matter and nanoscale physics. Why should high energy and astro folks have all the fun?
Search This Blog
Thursday, August 28, 2025
25 years of Nano Letters
Sunday, August 24, 2025
Learning and AI/LLMs - Why do we need to know or teach anything anymore?
Saturday, August 16, 2025
20 years of Nanoscale Views, + a couple of things to read
- Total views: 8.3M
- Most views in one day, this past May 31, with 272K
- Top two most-viewed posts are this one from 2023 with a comment thread about Ranga Dias, and this one from 2009 titled "What is a plasmon?"
- Just a reminder that I have collected a bunch of condensed matter terms and concept posts here.
- I've also written some career-related posts, like a guide to faculty job searches, advice on choosing a graduate school, needs-to-be-updated advice on postdoc positions, etc.
- Some personal favorite posts, some of which I wish had gotten more notice, include the physics of drying your hands, the physics of why whiskey stones aren't as good as ice to cool your drink, materials and condensed matter in science fiction, the physics of vibranium, the physics of beskar, the physics of ornithopters, and why curving your pizza slice keeps if from flopping over. I'm also happy with why soft matter is hard, which was a well-viewed post.
- I also like to point out my essay about J. Henrik Schön, because I worry that people have forgotten about that episode.
- This post about Maxwell's Demon from the Skull in the Stars blog (which has been around nearly as long as mine!) is an excellent and informative piece of writing. I'm definitely pointing my statistical and thermal physics undergraduate class to this next month.
- Ross McKenzie has a very nice looking review article up on the arXiv about emergence. I haven't read it yet, but I have no doubt that it will be well-written and thought-provoking.
Thursday, August 07, 2025
Brief items - Static electricity, quantum geometry, Hubbard model, + news
It's been a busy time that has cut into my blogging, but I wanted to point out some links from the past couple of weeks.
- Physics Today has a cover article this past issue about what is colloquially known as static electricity, but what is more technically described as triboelectricity, the transfer of charge between materials by rubbing. I just wrote about this six months ago, and the detailed mechanisms remain poorly understood. Large surface charge densities (like \(10^{12}\) electronic charges per square cm) can be created this way on insulators, leading to potential differences large enough to jump a spark from your finger to the door handle. This can also lead to static electric fields near surfaces that are not small and can reveal local variations in material properties.
- That leads right into this paper (which I learned about from here) about the extreme shapes of the heads of a family of insects called treehoppers. These little crawlies have head and body shapes that often have cuspy, pointy bits that stick out - spines, horns, etc. As we learn early on about electrostatics, elongated and pointy shapes tend to lead to large local electric fields and field gradients. The argument of this paper is that the spiky body and cranial morphology can help these insects better sense electric field distributions, and this makes it easier for them to find their way and avoid predators.
- This manuscript on the arXiv this week is a particularly nice, pedagogical review article (formatted for Rev Mod Phys) about quantum geometry and Berry curvature in condensed matter systems. I haven't had the chance to read it through, but I think this will end up being very impactful and a true resource for students to learn about these topics.
- Another very pretty recent preprint is this one, which examines the electronic phase diagram of twisted bilayers of WSe2, with a relative twist angle of 4.6°. Much attention has been paid to the idea that moiré lattices can be in a regime seemingly well described by a Hubbard-like model, with an on-site Coulomb repulsion energy \(U\) and an electronic bandwidth \(W\). This paper shows an exceptionally clean example of this, where disorder seems to be very weak, electron temperatures are quite cold, and phase diagrams are revealed that look remarkably like the phenomena seen in the cuprate superconductors (superconducting "domes" as a function of charge density adjacent to antiferromagnetic insulating states, and with "strange metal" linear-in-\(T\) resistance in the normal state near the superconducting charge density). Results like this make me more optimistic about overcoming some of the major challenges in using twisted van der Waals materials as simulators of hard-to-solve hamilitonians.
Wednesday, July 23, 2025
Research experience for teachers - why NSF education funds matter
![]() |
The beginning of a RET poster session |
Readers may be more familiar with the sibling Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs, which give undergraduate students the chance to work for 10 weeks or so in a lab that is very likely not at their home institution. REUs are a great way for students interested in research to get broad exposure to new topics, meet people and acquire new skills, and for some, figure out whether they like research (and maybe which topics are exciting to them). The educational goal of REUs is clear: providing direct research experience to interested undergrads, ideally while advancing a research project and for some small fraction of students resulting in an eventual publication.
RET programs are different: They are intended as professional development. The teachers are exposed to new topics, hopefully a fun research environment, and they are encouraged to think carefully about how they can take the concepts they learn and translate those for the classroom. I am very much not an expert in education research, but there is evidence (see here, for example) that teachers who participate in these programs get a great deal of satisfaction and have lower attrition from teaching professions. (Note that it's hard to do statistics well on questions like that, since the population of teachers that seek out opportunities like this may be a special subset of the total population of teachers.) An idea that makes sense to me: Enhancing the motivation and job satisfaction of a teacher can have a larger cumulative impact on educating students than an individual research project for a single student.
It would be a great shame if RET and REU programs are victims of large-scale cuts at NSF. The NSF is the only science agency with education as part of its mission (at least historically). All the more reason to try to persuade appropriators to not follow the draconian presidential budget request for the agency.
Friday, July 18, 2025
The latest on US science funding
The US House and Senate appropriations subcommittees have now completed their markups on the bills relevant to the FY26 appropriations for NSF, NASA, and NIST. The AAAS has an interactive dashboard with current information here if you want to click and look at all the science-related agencies. Other agencies still need to go through the Senate subcommittees.
Just a reminder of how this is supposed to work. The House and Senate mark up their own versions of the detailed appropriations bills. In principle these are passed by each chamber (with the Senate versions for practical purposes requiring 60/100 votes of support because of the filibuster). Then a conference committee hashes out the differences between the bills, and the conference version of the bills is then voted on by each chamber (again, needing 60/100 votes to pass in the Senate). Finally, the president signs the spending bills. In the fantasy land of Schoolhouse Rock, which largely described events until the 1990s, these annual spending bills are supposed to be passed in time for the start of the new fiscal year on October 1. In practice, Congress has been deeply dysfunctional for years, and there have been a lot of continuing resolutions, late budgets, and mammoth omnibus spending bills.
To summarize:
- NSF - House recommendation = $6.997B (a 20.7% cut from FY25), Senate = $9B (a 2% increase from FY25). These are in sharp contrast to the presidential budget request (PBR) of a 55.8% cut.
- NASA - House = flat from FY25, Senate = $24.9B (0.2% increase).
- NIST - House = $1.28B (10.6% increase from FY25), Senate = $1.6B (38.3% increase from FY25)
- NOAA - House = $5.7B (28.3% increase from FY25), Senate = $6.1B (36.3% increase from FY25)