The start of the semester has been very busy, but here are some items that seem interesting:
- As many know, there has been a lot of controversy in recent years about high pressure measurements of superconductivity. Here is a first-hand take by one of the people who helped bring the Dias scandal into the light. It's a fascinating if depressing read.
Related, a major challenge in the whole diamond anvil cell search for superconductivity is trying to perform techniques more robust and determinative than 4-point resistance measurements and optical spectroscopy. Back in March I had pointed out a Nature paper incorporating nitrogen-vacancy centers into the diamond anvils themselves to try in situ magnetometry of the Meissner effect. Earlier this month, I saw this Phys Rev Lett paper, in which the authors have incorporated a tunnel junction directly onto the diamond anvil facet. In addition to the usual Au leads for conduction measurements, they also have Ta leads that are coated with a native Ta2O5 oxide layer that functions as a tunnel barrier. They've demonstrated clean-looking tunneling spectroscopy on sulphur at 160 GPa, which is pretty impressive. Hopefully this will eventually be applied to the higher pressures and more dramatic systems of, e.g., H2S, reported to show 203 K superconductivity. I do wonder if they will have problems applying this to hydrides, as one could imagine that having lots of hydrogen around might not be good for the oxide tunnel barriers.Adapted from [1]. - Saw a talk this week by Dr. Dev Shenoy, head of the US DoD's microelectronics effort. It was very interesting and led me down the rabbit hole of learning more about the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines that are part of the state of the art. The most advanced of these are made by ASML, are as big as a freight car, and cost almost $400M a piece. Intel put up a video about taking delivery of one. The engineering is pretty ridiculous. Working with 13.5 nm light, you have to use mirrors rather than lenses, and the flatness/precision requirements on the optics are absurd. It would really be transformative if someone could pull a SpaceX and come up with an approach that works as well but only costs $50M per machine, say. (Of course, if it were easy, someone would have done it. I'm also old enough to remember Bell Labs' effort at a competing approach, projective electron beam lithography.)
- Lastly, Dan Ralph from Cornell has again performed a real pedagogical service to the community. A few years ago, he put on the arXiv a set of lecture notes about the modern topics of Berry curvature and electronic topology meant to slot into an Ashcroft and Mermin solid state course. Now he has uploaded another set of notes, this time on electron-electron interactions, the underpinnings of magnetism, and superconductivity, that again are at the right level to modernize and complement that kind of a course. Highly recommended.
That Kimber article is a fascinating perspective. The last part, where he describes his opinions on the systemic problems we have, and pushes to ‘Make Academia Academic Again’, is particularly thought-provoking. Whether you personally agree with his take or not, I’m willing to bet that a substantial fraction (maybe even a silent majority) of people within the system share his opinions. I’d also be curious to see how many of these systemic grievances are unique to academia in the United States specifically.
ReplyDeleteDias is probably done. He'll likely vanish in obscurity. My main question is "What about his enablers?" Rochester did two investigations of their own initially and didn't find anything wrong. Nature published the second paper as if nothing had happened. Even NSF funded a conference on reproducibility and sent the program director who funded Dias to explain reproduciblity and integrity to the rest of us (https://www.pqi.org/reproducibility-and-integrity-natural-sciences-discussion-panel). What about all this shamelessness and complicity for the sake of personal gain?
ReplyDeleteWhat will Dias end up doing? Could he get a job as a process engineer at one of the new fabs getting built here? He could also go into technical sales and marketing.
DeleteWho cares? Any job as far away from science as possible. He'll probably disappear like Schön and find new schmucks to swindle. The rest of the Rochester, Nature, NSF enablers will remain where they are.
DeleteBack in 2004 we joked that JH Schon now worked for Microcal Origin (with which he seemed to have generated curves).
Delete