A blog about condensed matter and nanoscale physics. Why should high energy and astro folks have all the fun?
Search This Blog
Wednesday, May 27, 2026
Info gathering: Excellent intro undergrad lab courses and facilities?
Sunday, May 24, 2026
The Manhattan Project and public communication
The Manhattan Project was the largest government sponsored research and development project of its time. Some things worth noting, in light of the present US government attitude toward science:
- It's hard to overstate the role played by immigrant scientists in this story. Szilard, Einstein, Fermi, Wigner, Teller, von Neumann, and many more.
- I was trying to remember when the Manhattan Project became publicly known in any detail. It turns out, within three days of the US bombing of Nagasaki, the US released a tidily written report headlined by Henry DeWolf Smyth on all the essentials, including the administrative story of how the project came to be and was managed. That report is available in many forms, including this cute version on the internet archive and simple pdf files at DOE and Princeton. It's an outstanding piece of clear, spare writing. It almost boggles the mind: Here was a technical topic that the national leadership considered important for the public to understand (!), so a highly readable report was prepared and released basically immediately following public knowledge of the bombs. (!!)
- The National Academies played a pivotal role in this story. On page 51: "In the spring of 1941, Briggs, feeling that an impartial review of the problem was desirable, requested [presidential science adviser Vannevar] Bush to appoint a reviewing committee. Bush then formally requested F. B. Jewett, president of the National Academy of Sciences, to appoint such a committee. Jewett complied, appointing A. H. Compton, chairman; W. D. Coolidge, E. O. Lawrence, J. C. Slater, J. H. Van Vleck, and B. Gherardi." Once upon a time, the national leadership respected the National Academies and trusted them to provide impartial, accurate scientific advice to inform policy. Somehow I doubt that Frank Baldwin Jewett, president of the NAS at the time, was worried that the government would cut off funding to the Academy if they didn't toe the line. (As far as I know, no one from the Roosevelt administration was taking “donations” for lucrative government contracts on the bomb, and no one from the cabinet or the Department of War were personally betting for profit on whether it would work, either, but I digress.)
Saturday, May 23, 2026
Brief items - news roundup, AI, international issues, good reading
Several items worth reading about as we head into a long weekend in the US. Starting with news related to funding and other aspects of US government policy:
- US government taking equity stakes in some quantum information sciences companies while investing around $2B (seemingly from the Department of Commerce and the CHIPs Act resources. (Non-paywall news story here). This raises a number of thorny issues.
- Some US funding agencies (NIH, NASA) are enacting restrictions (Science article here, Inside Higher Ed article here) on publishing scientific papers with non-US coauthors. It's understandable that US funding agencies are concerned about the possibility US funds directly or effectively supporting researchers in foreign countries. This is not that, though. Some people making policy seem to be moving toward wanting to ban any co-authorship, but even the agencies seem confused about what they want.
- In a move that will stress out many non-US-citizens in the country, the administration is floating making people leave the US to apply for green cards (PBS article here). This just was sort of announced yesterday, so I don't know anything about this other than on its face it sounds to me like a terrible idea for multiple reasons.
- The AAAS is pushing for a Senate hearing on the nominee for NSF director, on the theory that this issue and the nominee at least need to be discussed in a public forum rather than coasting along without a NSB and no end in sight to interim leadership.
- It would seem that some Republican congresspeople are pushing the idea of de-funding the National Academies. This is directly related to the issues mentioned here. I think the National Academies should be endowed and thus not so reliant on federal funding; this would be a way to make sure that they always feel secure in delivering reports even if the customer is a part of the government and the conclusions might be something the customer doesn't want to hear.
- There were three papers published in Nature about using AI agents to do science (here, here, and here, with a news and views). The first two papers are both about drug discovery research, and the third is about using AI to help write scientific software models (also medically related). It'll be interesting to see how this progresses.
- One of OpenAI's tools solved an Erdos problem (that's the OpenAI release) by finding a counterexample to a conjecture long thought to be true. Here is the accompanying paper, which includes commentary by several esteemed mathematicians. The commentary parts of the paper are very much for non-mathematicians and fascinating to read. It seems like the AI tools are genuinely good at pulling together complex arguments, and that so far a key advantage they have is an exhaustive familiarity with the full breadth of the literature.
- Unsurprisingly, university graduates are not fans of AI. This cartoon from this week's New Yorker is topical.
Additional suggestions that look cool but I haven't had time to actually read:
- Jeremy Levy at Pitt has posted his draft graduate quantum mechanics textbook to the arXiv - looks like an interesting take on the pedagogy of the subject for sure.
- Dimitrii Makarov at UT Austin has posted a list of critical papers in chemical physics.
- Samuel Braunstein at York has put up this preprint regarding the Clay Millennium Prize problem about the Navier-Stokes equations. His main points seem at a quick read to be (1) at finite temperature, fluctuation-dissipation requires some additional noise term be present in the N-S equations; and (2) the N-S equations assume a continuum fluid, so that infinitely-short wavelength excitations are permitted, while for all real fluids wavelengths get cut off at the molecule size. Basically the issues w/ the N-S equations come from unphysical aspects of the formulation.
Sunday, May 17, 2026
What are heavy fermions?
![]() |
Heavy fermions, adapted from here. (a) At high temperatures, the conduction electrons are not well coupled to the unpaired local 4f moments. (b) At low enough temperatures, Kondo scattering hybridizes the f electrons with the conduction electrons, boosting the carrier density. (c) The hybridized energy-momentum relation is much flatter near the Fermi energy leading to a large effective mass. |
So, two key ingredients for heavy fermions are itinerant conduction electrons and a periodic array of comparatively localized, unpaired electrons that have magnetic moments. It turns out that this combination can also be achieved in moiré lattice materials. There are no \(f\) electrons here, but the moiré lattice can localize spins. Apologies for not linking to all the relevant papers, but a couple of key theory results are here, here, and here, and a key experimental result is here. The tunability of the 2D material-based systems is an excellent feature for digging down into the detailed physics.
Hi Doug:An addendum to your very nice post on heavy fermions, to draw attention to what I think were important experimental results: Frank Steglich’s 1979 Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1892–1896 reporting superconductivity in CeCu2Si2 and Louis Taillefer and Gil Lonzarich’s 1988 determination of the quasiparticle mass and fermi surface in UPt3.Prior to Steglich’s paper we knew that some rare earth/actinide intermetallics (e.g. CeAl3) had a very enhanced specific heat coefficient at low temperatures and that the entropy implied by this specific heat was derived from the magnetic moments of the rare earth ions. But while it was plausible, there was no direct evidence that this enhanced specific heat was associated with heavy-mass fermions, so the physical relevance of the Kondo lattice concept remained uncertain.Steglich observed that in CeCu2Si2 the specific heat jump at the superconducting transition (which in BCS theory is basically the same size as the electronic specific heat at Tc) was about as big as the normal state specific heat coefficient, thus showing that the spin entropy had been transmuted into something that could go superconducting. Then (I think in subsequent experiments) Steglich observed that the rest of the superconducting thermodynamics in Cecu2Si2 was also consistent with pairing of heavy mass entities. This, I believe, is what convinced everyone that the spin entropy from the rare earth moments had been converted into heavy mass electrons—in other words, that the lattice Kondo effect was real.A few years after this, Louis Taillefer and Gil Lonzarich’s quantum oscillation study of UPt3 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1570 ) showed indeed that the U-f electrons (which appear as local moments at higher temperatures) were included in the Fermi surface at low T and had heavy masses, providing direct experimental confirmation of the Kondo lattice concept.CheersAndy Millis
Monday, May 11, 2026
NSF, National Science Board, and the politics of staying quiet
As I mentioned previously, the National Science Board was summarily fired on April 25. The NSB nominally advises the National Science Foundation. There have been a number of pieces written about this:
- Going back in time to 2022, this essay is interesting to read, about the history of the NSF and the NSB, and the compromises put in place with the administrative structure. Short version: Initially there was a real tension between the Director (reporting to the President) and the NSB. Over time, the NSB was made subordinate to the director (1968). Senatorial confirmation of board members was waived by the Senate in 2011.
- Many professional organizations issued statements expressing grave concern about this wholesale dismissal of the board. This AIP news article has a summary. The CEO of the APS wrote this, the ACS leadership wrote this, the AAS wrote this, etc.
- The presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Academy of Medicine issued this joint statement. That has to set some kind of record for blandness, as it somehow does not even mention that the NSB was fired. I fully understand that the Academies have a number of federal contracts, as one of their key responsibilities is leveraging their membership to do authoritative studies, with federal agencies usually being the customers. I have no inside knowledge, but it sure looks like they are trying to walk a line of not raising the administration's ire. (Surely this raises the question: If it's never acceptable to say anything that might upset the administration, then how can the objectivity of their reports relating to policy ever be trusted?)
- In contrast to the leadership, a lot of Academy membership has signed an open letter to Congress demanding the reinstatement of the board.
- Scientific American has very good reporting on this, including a no-holding-back statement by my colleague Neal Lane.
- Update: Here is Dan Garisto's reporting in Science about letters sent by House Democrats and by Senate Democrats demanding action on this. That article includes a statement by the fired head of the NSB, basically saying they were dismissed for defending the NSF budget from OMB. I'm glad these letters were sent, but without the R majority signing on, I'm not holding my breath.
- This is a sobering and interesting article about what the author describes as the anti-science movement.
- When is staying quiet effectively giving tacit support to administration policies? There is an article in The Nation (not readable without a free signup) talking about what they term "Vichy Science".
- Update: Essay by Holden Thorp, EIC of Science, including a link to a half-hour interview with Tim Snyder, author of "On Tyranny", about how resistance can work.
Saturday, May 02, 2026
Energy storage in the internal states of molecules - old and new
A science story first, then a US research ecosystem story later.
When we think about using molecules to store energy, it's usually in the context of food or fuel, so that chemical reactions take place - bonds are broken and remade, and in an exothermic reaction, the products end up with more kinetic energy (center of mass motion, molecular vibrations and rotations) than the initial reactants. However, there are other ways that molecules can store energy. I read about a cool example of this last week, but first I want to give tell you an old and very quantum mechanical story that I learned about in grad school when I did very low temperature physics.
Diatomic hydrogen, H2, is the simplest molecule there is, just two electrons and two protons. Roughly speaking, the \(1s\) orbitals of the H atoms hybridize to form \(\sigma\) bonding and \(\sigma*\) antibonding molecular orbitals. The lowest electronic state is the two electrons in a spin singlet, \((1/\sqrt{2})(|\uparrow \downarrow\rangle - |\downarrow \uparrow\rangle)\) in the \(\sigma\) molecular orbital. Remember, the electrons are fermions, so the electronic wavefunction has to be antisymmetric (pick up a minus sign) under exchange of the electrons. The spin singlet is antisymmetric under exchange, the \(\sigma\) orbital is spatially symmetric under exchange, so the full electronic wavefunction (product of the spin and spatial components) is appropriately antisymmetric.
That's not all there is to it, though, as explained thoroughly here. The protons (while being made up of quarks and gluons, etc.) are (composite) fermions, so we have to think about the quantum wavefunction that describes them, too. There are two possibilities. In the "para" configuration, the proton spins are in a singlet (antisymmetric), meaning that the spatial wavefunction of the protons must be symmetric under exchange. The spatial state of the bound protons can have some orbital angular momentum \(\mathbf{L}\), and the simplest, lowest energy situation is with quantum numbers \(\ell =0\) and therefore \(m_{\ell} = 0\). In contrast, in the "ortho" configuration, the proton spins form a triplet state (symmetric under exchange), meaning that the spatial wavefunction must be antisymmetric, \(\ell = 1\). Approximating the H2 molecule as a rigid barbell-like rotor with some moment of inertia \(I\), then ortho molecule has a rotational energy \(\hbar^2/2I\) larger than the para case. That works out to about 15 meV of energy per molecule. So, para-hydrogen is the true ground state. It turns out that the ortho/para spin isomer energy difference makes liquefying hydrogen a challenge, since the latent heat of vaporization for H2 is only 9.4 meV. That is, every time an ortho-hydrogen molecule converts to para-hydrogen through some collisional process, it releases enough energy to kick a hydrogen molecule out of the liquid. I learned about this in my thesis work playing around at ~ 1 mK temperatures - any H2 adsorbed or otherwise stuck in the apparatus could result in detectable long-term heating effect as it slowly converted from ortho to para. Bottom line: Energy can be stored in the internal states of molecules.
| From Fig. 1 of this paper. |
Saturday, April 25, 2026
News items and essays to read
- Breaking news: According to journalist Dan Garisto, as of April 25, 2026, the president has fired the entire National Science Board. The NSB helps oversee the National Science Foundation. From the outside, it had sure looked to me like the NSB had tried verrrrrrry hard to stay on the administration's good side. That was fraying recently, as this February article in Science included comments implying that not everyone was thrilled with the executive branch strongly shifting NSF priorities. It sure looks like their reward for not speaking out strongly about the importance of continued support for research was apparently to be terminated with prejudice. If any readers have first-hand knowledge of what happened, please post in the comments.
- I had already been planning to point out this article in Nature, which says that NSF funding may finally be about to flow, after a long, murky back-and-forth between the agency, Congress, and OMB. It's worth noting that Congress had stated in their guidance that no directorate within NSF should be cut by more than 5%, while OMB has mandated (apparently) different spending levels which, among other things, would cut Mathematics and Physical Sciences by 15% and Engineering by 18%. It sure doesn't look obvious to me, with everything else going on right now, that Congress is willing to truly push back on this. Surrendering microscopic spending authority to OMB seems like a complete abdication of congressional authority, but what do I know.
- I participated in a virtual workshop this week, Targeted Questions: Strange Metals. I have written about strange metals before (see here and here). The workshop was streamed, including the discussion sessions, and here is the youtube link if you are interested.
- There was a report by a Yale University committee about the erosion of trust in higher education in the US earlier this month. It certainly spurred a lot of conversation, and it raises many important issues. That said, it does seem to downplay the fact that there has been a decades-long campaign by some with the goal of eroding trust in higher education, as pointed out in this essay.
- A friend pointed me to this essay by Santiago Schnell about higher education in the era of AI - I found it very thoughtful, even though I don't agree with every aspect.
- Speaking of AI, this essay ("The future of everything is lies, I guess: Bullshit about bullshit machines") by Kyle Kingsbury was provocative and worth reading, again even if I don't agree with every aspect.
- Speaking of thoughtful commentary, here is an essay by a billionaire that is worth reading.
Saturday, April 18, 2026
Floating magnets to sense magnetic fields
We've all seen a traditional compass. A ferromagnetic, magnetized needle is mounted on a rotating bearing (or floated on the surface of a liquid) so that it can rotate in the \(x-y\) plane. If there is an in-plane magnetic field \(\mathbf{B}\), the needle will rotate to align with that component of the field. (It stops in the aligned state because of friction; otherwise it would "librate", oscillating back and forth about the field direction.) In first-year undergrad physics, we learn a simple model of why this happens. The magnetized needle can be modeled as a magnetic dipole \(\mathbf{m}\). We learn that a magnetic dipole in a uniform magnetic field generates a torque \(\boldsymbol{\tau} = \mathbf{m}\times \mathbf{B}\). If both \(\mathbf{m}\) and \(\mathbf{B}\) are in the \(x-y\) plane, any torque must be directed along \(z\), and the torque goes to zero when \(\mathbf{m} || \mathbf{B}\). The simplest result of \(\boldsymbol{\tau} || z\) is an angular acceleration that would cause an otherwise at-rest compass needle to rotate in the plane counterclockwise about the \(z\) axis.
this paper from a few years ago, which looks at this problem from the theoretical modeling side, and then this paper from last year that does the experiment. The magnet in question is a little (21 \(\mu\)m diameter) sphere of Nd2Fe14B, a rare-earth magnet. The authors put that inside a lead chamber with a rounded bottom, and they cool the lead down to 4.2 K, well below its superconducting transition temperature. As a result, the sphere is magnetically levitated inside thanks to the Meissner effect, with its magnetization lying in the \(x-y\) plane. There is some residual magnetic flux trapped in the setup that does lead to a preferred field direction. The authors can use cleverly wound pickup coils inside the chamber to detect the orientation of the sphere, as well as apply AC magnetic fields. The authors are primarily concerned in thinking about energy resolution of detection, because they are thinking about detecting unusual particles (e.g. dark matter, axions), but they point out that it should be possible to achieve tens of atto-Tesla per Hz\(^{1/2}\) field sensitivity per unit bandwidth - pretty wild.But wait, there's more! The magnetic moment of the magnetized needle originates from the spins of electrons in there. This is gyromagnetism, so \(\mathbf{m} \propto \mathbf{S}\), the total spin angular momentum of the electrons in the magnet. This means that in the presence of \(\boldsymbol{\tau} || z\), if mechanically possible the needle could start swinging up out of the \(x-y\) plane to project a component of \(\mathbf{S}\) along \(z\). This is gyroscopic precession. For macroscopic magnets, it's hard to be in the regime where this is the dominant effect, because that would require the precessional angular momentum to be small compared to \(\mathbf{S}\), and that's tough to achieve. Maxwell (!) tried to do it in 1861 (!!), with no success.
In a very recent paper, this precessional response was finally observed, again in Nd2Fe14B microspheres. (For a uniformly magnetized sphere of radius \(R\), the moment of inertia \(I \propto R^{5}\), and \(|\mathbf{S}| \propto R^{3}\), so it's easier to get into the precessional regime with smaller \(R\).) This precession approach is a pathway to even higher sensitivity measurements of magnetic fields.
I think this is very cool, and it is a strong reminder that spin angular momentum is just as real as any "mechanical rotation of solids" angular momentum.
Sunday, April 12, 2026
Disorder and illumination
No, this is not another grim post about the chaotic US research funding environment. Instead I wanted to write a bit about a good example of empiricism in experimental condensed matter physics, the use of illumination to (somewhat but not entirely mysteriously) improve electronic transport in 2D electronic systems.
This story goes back decades, and it's all about the role of "disorder" and its effects on electronic conduction. It's been appreciated since the 1930s that, at low temperatures so that lattice vibrations are frozen out, conduction in ordinary crystalline metals and semiconductors is limited by the charge carriers (let's work with electrons rather than holes to make discussion simpler) scattering from disorder, deviations from an infinite periodic crystal lattice. Grain boundaries, vacancies, impurities - these all can scatter electrons that would otherwise propagate ballistically through the material, and this is often modeled as a "disorder potential", a spatially varying potential energy \(V(\mathbf{r})\). If you want the best transport properties (longest elastic mean free path), you want \(V(\mathbf{r})\) to be small in magnitude and as smooth as possible. This is even more important if you want to study some delicate many-body state that is expected to arise at very low temperatures - you need the disorder potential to be small compared to the energy scale of that state to avoid messing it up.
In semiconductors, where the carrier density is low and screening is therefore not as good, charged defects are particularly effective at scattering. In modulation doping, the dopants that are the source of the charge carriers in some nearby semiconductor 2D interface or quantum well are spatially distant from where the current is going to be flowing, to minimize the scattering from those ionized donors.
For decades it has been known that, to get the best transport properties in GaAs-based (and other) semiconductor structures, it can be good to illuminate the devices at cryogenic temperatures with a red LED. See, for example, this paper trying to explore the upper limits of charge mobility in GaAs 2D electron gas (2DEG), where the authors say "For measurement, our samples are loaded into a 3He cryostat, where a red light-emitting diode (LED) is used to illuminate the samples for 5 min at \(T \sim \) 10 K. Following illumination, we wait for 30 min at \(T \sim \) 10 K after the LED has been turned off before resuming the cool down to base temperature." The qualitative explanation for this is that the photons provide enough energy to excite charge carriers, and those mobile carriers can occupy trap states, rearrange themselves, and generally set up a better screened disorder potential. In GaAs 2DEG, the result is higher mobilities (as inferred from conductivity + Hall effect) and much cleaner fractional quantum Hall effect data, showing that the post-illumination disorder is now sufficiently weak that more delicate states can form - see Fig. 1 of this paper (arXiv version) for the before/after. As far as I know, there is not a deep, rigorous theory of how this works, but it is known empirically.
Fig. 2 from this paper, showing electronic magnetotransport before/after illumination by a UV LED at low temperatures. |
Friday, April 03, 2026
FY27 Presidential budget request
To the surprise of no one at all, the 2027 presidential budget request is extremely bad for science. Remember, this is largely a political document, and Congress does not have to follow this. In the past year, Congress largely ignored the recommendations and appropriated a much flatter budget (though agency priorities are still set by the PBR for executive agencies). This new request shows that Vought et al. still would prefer to kill much public funding for science.
- NSF: request to cut from $8.8B (FY26 enacted) to $4B, a 56% cut that would eviscerate the agency.
- DOE: request to cut $1.1B from $8.4B (FY26 enacted) Office of Science budget.
- NASA: request to cut $5.6B from $24.4B (FY26 enacted), including $3.7B from science programs and $1.1B from the ISS.
- Commerce: This one shocks me. Request to cut $993M from NIST's $1.184B (FY26 enacted) budget. That would be an 84% cut (!!), seemingly destroying NIST. This needs to get headlines. Either the people making this recommendation have no idea what NIST does (seems plausible), or someone has a personal grudge against the standard kilogram. Update: Dan Garisto on bluesky points out that the enormous cut topline number is not consistent with the budget appendix, which implies a much smaller cut. Unclear what the answer is here - it'd be quite a goof to have a topline number that far off.
- NIH: Proposed $5.5B cut from $47.2B (FY26 enacted).
- DOD: It's very hard to tell, especially since they're proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending including for missile defense. The proposed DOD increases vastly outweigh the cuts described above.
These cuts are proposed despite constant fretting that China is surpassing the US scientifically. This past year it took aggressive lobbying to ensure that Congress pushed back against these kinds of cuts. For those who favor continued public investment in science and engineering research in the US, the task of arguing against these kinds of cuts begins again now. As I've written before, this is a marathon not a sprint, and this will be an annual exercise under this administration.
Sunday, March 29, 2026
Brief science items and news
- This article in ars technica is about this paper, in which a quantum interference experiment is performed that, in the most straightforward interpretation, involves superpositions of states where "event A preceded event B" and "event B preceded event A". This is in the same mind-zapping vein as quantum eraser experiments. I haven't read this in detail, but my typical takeaway from these things is two-fold: (1) the math of the usual quantum mechanics formalism is in excellent agreement with experiment every time it's been checked, and (2) nature doesn't care about our hang-ups about interpretation, especially when phrasing questions about quantum in terms of, "what classical past history should have happened here, when we weren't actually making observations?"
- This paper in Advanced Materials is a very nice overview about application-relevant magnetic materials (e.g., rare-earth magnets like Nd2Fe14B) and where we might want to look to find new ones.
- This youtube video is a great discussion and experimental proof of the Feynman inverse sprinkler problem. The short version: suppose an ordinary water sprinkler rotates clockwise when it's spewing water out of its arms, the momentum flux of the water generating a torque. If instead you immersed the sprinkler in water and had suction bring water in through the arms, which way would it spin, if it spins at all? I don't want to spoil it for you. Watch the video - it's very nicely done.
- I'm not sure the link will work for everyone, but there is an article in The Atlantic called "The Shocking Speed of China's Scientific Rise". For anyone paying the slightest bit of attention for the last decade, this must be some new definition of "shocking" with which I was previously unfamiliar.
- Info is beginning to trickle out about the likely presidential budget request for FY27, and guess what: some of the same folks who freak out that China might surpass the US as a science power are again going to pitch big budget cuts (article is about NIH, but it's hard to imagine other agencies won't be similarly viewed). Congress largely pushed back against the PBR this past year, but this is an annual exercise in the US - it never stops.
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
AI and the practice of theoretical physics
Matthew Schwartz of Harvard has made a big recent splash, between his public Aspen talk "10000 Einsteins" a year ago about the role of AI and the future of physics, and his talk last week at the APS Global Physics summit on the same topic, and now with this essay, "Vibe Physics: The AI Grad Student", on the website of Anthropic (producers of the AI tool Claude).
The essay talks about how Prof. Schwartz used Claude to write this paper, and he states that the AI tool functions roughly like a 2nd year grad student (one who also doesn't get tired or complain, but does need close checking and supervision). The claim is that with this approach to doing calculations and writing papers, he was able to come out with a piece of work that would've taken literally ten times longer if done by working with a human student. Note that he's not exactly unbiased, and he concludes his essay (on anthropic's site) saying you should spend the $20/month Claude subscription fee and it will change your life.
There is no doubt that AI tools can speed up certain kinds of work, and there is a every hope that applying this in science will lead to increased pace of progress. That said, right now these tools are (unsurprisingly) best at working in areas that are well-known and explored - one of my colleagues has tried applying these to really underexplored higher dimensional problems, and they're much less effective there. The essay's claim that "LLMs are profoundly creative" is provocative. There is also no discussion here about the cost of these tools, in financial, energy, and environmental terms.
Still, Schwartz raises many questions about the future of the field and graduate education in general. (His paragraph about how human beings will still be needed in science for getting experimental data, at least for a while, is really something.) University research is not just about answering scholarly questions; it's about educating people. Maybe some faculty will revel in writing papers without that kind of interaction, but somehow I don't think we're quite at the stage yet where we don't need to worry anymore about training experts in technical fields. I do agree that it's good advice for everyone to pay close attention to where these capabilities are going. We certainly live in interesting times.
Thursday, March 19, 2026
APS March Meeting 2026, Day 4 and wrap-up
Since I headed home early this afternoon, I was only able to go to a couple of talks this morning. Here are those highlights, and a couple of general observations about the meeting.
- Piers Coleman gave a very interesting talk that put me onto an experimental puzzle I'm sorry to say I had not seen previously. Some context: It is now well-established that one can do spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy, which (given certain constraints) can image magnetic contrast in conductors down to the atomic scale. The mechanism is basically the same as tunneling magnetoresistance: there is a difference in the density of states for spin-up and spin-down electrons, and so a spin-polarized (magnetic) tip results in a tunneling current into/out of a magnetic sample that depends on the local magnetization. That is, the sign of the current doesn't affect the sign of the magnetic contrast. I had missed this 2022 Science paper, where instead of a magnetic tip, the investigators used a tip made from a nanowire of SmB6. That peculiar material is widely (though not universally) viewed as a topological Kondo insulator that can host special surface states in which the spin direction is locked to the current direction. With that tip, they see magnetic contrast (!) that flips sign with the sign of the current (!!), which is at least hand-wavingly what you'd expect if the direction of the tunneling electron's spin is tied to the current direction. A more recent paper does something similar with a (BiBr)4 tip (another topologically nontrivial material). In the talk and related paper, the argument is made that something special happens to the surface states (the effect in SmB6 turns on below about 10 K) and that this tied to the condensed matter analog of axion physics.
- On a completely different note, I saw a talk by John Davis about a new, clever kind of continuously running refrigerator that has a base temperature of around 500 mK and uses only a couple of gas liters of 3He. One can pump on liquid 3He and get down to about 270 mK in one-shot mode, or about 450 mK if recondensing the 3He gas with a heat exchanger to get continuous operation, but 3He is very expensive. The new design works with a mixture that's mostly 4He. After condensing, pumping on this can cool it sufficiently that the 3He phase separates and rises to the top of the liquid, and then the 3He can be preferentially pumped (and recirculated back in). Very cute.
- Tangentially, one nice feature of conferences is that you can stumble upon facts you didn't know. For example, during that talk, Prof. Davis mentioned, off-handedly, that in 2D turbulence as studied in things like helium films, you can end up with long-time persistent vortices, and that this is similar to how cyclonic storms persist for centuries on Jupiter.
- Regarding the meeting in general, the APS is aware that there were some AV issues, including some of the rooms having 50" monitors rather than projectors. This was a surprise to the organizers. I'm still not sure how much I like the merger of the March and April meetings into one super-meeting. On the plus side, there are opportunities for cross-over events (e.g., the Kavli symposium, which I didn't see this time), and there are some financial benefits to the society via economies of scale. Still, 14,000 attendees makes things unwieldy for sure.
- I don't understand some of the choices re the meeting website and the meeting app. For example, people can upload their slides and make them available. However, on the meeting website, even when you're logged in, there's apparently no way to get to them. You can only find the files using the APS meetings app, and even then it's not trivial.
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
APS March Meeting 2026, Day 3
It was another eclectic day at the APS Global Physics Summit. Here is a selection of highlights based on my stochastic sampling of talks.
- I've written before about CISS (the chirality-induced spin selection effect). Joe Subotnik gave a neat invited talk related to this, based on something I'd never really considered. In physics we learn about the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, which basically says that electrons are fast and nuclei are slow, so we can often solve electronic problems without worrying about nuclear motion. In practice, as usually done, B-O theory does not strictly conserve momentum or angular momentum, so it cannot explain something like the Einstein-de Haas effect, where flipping electronic spins eventually results in actual mechanical rotation of a solid. Similarly, ordinary Marcus theory of electron transfer doesn't worry about angular momentum conservation. The talk focused on a recent approach (and here) that looks carefully at wavefunctions, involves the equivalent of Berry phase and quantum geometry and recaptures the key physics, and this may explain CISS.
- Javad Shabani presented his group's recent work on growing epitaxial layers of germanium substitutionally doped with gallium, at carrier densities around \(5 \times 10^{21}\) carriers per cc, basically around 1 Ga atom in each 8-atom unit cell. This hole-dopes the material enormously. The resulting films superconduct with a \(T_{c}\sim\) 3 K and good critical fields, and look very nice structurally. This is potentially a route toward creating arrays of millions of epitaxially nice Josephson junctions.
- I attended the AI Town Hall, which featured Hal Finkel from DOE talking about the Genesis Mission; Rachel Burley, chief publication officer of the APS, speaking about the challenges that AI presents to all facets of journals and scientific publishing; and Sarah Demers, chair of the physics department at Yale and chair of the APS's Panel on Public Affairs, discussing the community's effort to formulate an enduring position on physics and AI in this rapidly changing landscape.
- In the last session of the day, I attended the DCMP prize session, and it was very interesting to hear from this year's Buckley Prize winners about their journeys and what they've been doing lately.
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
APS March Meeting 2026, Day 2
Today was again a bit random, as I had talks for both one of my students and me, and meetings with folks. Some highlights:
- Edoardo Baldini gave a very nice talk about exotic phases and collective excitations in van der Waals magnets. This included using second harmonic generation microscopy and polarimetry to look at the evolution of magnetic phases in NiPS3 as a function of thickness, ending up at the monolayer which acts like a 2D XY magnet. In the paper, they see clear evidence of a BKT transition, plus a second lower temperature ordering of some kind.
- After some AV issues (seem like quite a few of those this year), Barry Zink gave an interesting presentation about using Cr as a spin detector in spin Seebeck measurements on YIG, and looking at how the antiferromagnetism of the Cr affects the measurement (see here). In new results, they have been adding in an intervening layer of antiferromagnetic IrMn, looking at how magnons in the IrMn affect the results.
- This was followed by a talk by Romain LeBrun all about spintronics in the GHz and THz, using hematite (Fe2O3) as an example antiferromagnetic insulator. They see some interesting nonlinear dynamics and rectification in antiferromagnetic resonance in Fe2O3. In NiO, they use optical excitation to drive coherent phonons, exciting a spin current, which then leads to a THz pulse when the spin current hits an inverse spin Hall detector (Pt or W). Similar experiments in BiFeO3 show that THz generation in that multiferroic system can arise just from oscillating the ferroelectric polarization.
- Andrew Dane from IBM gave a great presentation to a more-than-packed room about their recent studies of two-level systems in qubits. From waaaaay in the back, I learned about their use of nearby suspended electrodes to apply electric fields to try to shift the energies of some of the TLS (the ones with electric dipole moments and at the surface of the devices). TLS drastically suppress the coherence of superconducting qubits, and understanding their origins and ways to work around them (to characterize fab processes, for example) is very important. As I said in that post linked above, once again we see that TLS are everywhere, and they are evil. I need to think about whether there's anything I could contribute on this. The real highlight of the talk was the use of "percussive maintenance" (banging the side of the cryostat) to alter the not-field-tunable TLS distribution via some unknown mechanism.
- Bonking the experiment was taken to a new level in this talk about mechanoluminescence, which involved shooting the sample with an airsoft pellet gun under controlled conditions.
Monday, March 16, 2026
APS March Meeting 2026, Day 1
I hit a pretty random assortment of talks on my first day at the APS Global Physics Summit, after catching a very early flight to get to Denver. Here are a few highlights:
- My colleague Hanyu Zhu gave a nice talk about the coupling between chiral phonons (vibrational excitations of atomic motion that carry net orbital angular momentum) and their coupling to electronic spins. For example, chiral ionic motion can effectively generate enormous local magnetic fields (see here).
- I went to part of a session about magnons (quantized spin waves) and their connection to quantum information. There was a theory talk by Silvia Viola Kusminskiy about cavity manipulation of magnons, and there was an experimental talk by Mathias Weiler about using surface acoustic waves plus magnetoelastic coupling to set up all sorts of interesting nonreciprocal magnetoacoustic devices.
- My former postdoc Longji Cui gave a talk about molecular phononics - measuring thermal transport (by phonons) down to the single molecule level. For a nice review of the overall topic, see here. He then discussed extending this to measurements of polymers.
- There was a session about strange metals and the cuprates, which included a talk by Dragana Popovic about how there is evidence for persistent vortex-liquid-like phase fluctuations in these materials even into the normal state. This was followed by Nigel Hussey showing systematic studies of the magnetoresistance in both electron-doped and hole-doped cuprates. The upshot is that in the electron-doped materials, there is a clear anisotropic inelastic scattering rate (from spin fluctuations) that scales with the superconducting transition, implying that spin fluctuations are the "glue". In contrast, the hole-doped system has different systematics, implying that perhaps the strange metal fraction of material is what leads to superconductivity.
- For maybe the second time in my long attendance at the meeting, I attended the APS prize session, where they present the certificates associated with the various honors. It was very nice.
Saturday, March 14, 2026
Some science leading into the APS Global Physics Summit
Next week is the annual APS conference that was once the March Meeting and is now the combined March/April "Global Physics Summit". As I've done annually, I will try to give some impressions of interesting talks that I see, hopefully at an understandable level. This year I'm only there from Monday through late Thursday morning, so I may miss exciting things - hopefully people will still discuss such things here as has happened in past years.
A few science tidbits in the meantime:
- People sometimes time arXiv submissions to coincide with the APS meeting, and sometimes it's just coincidence. Two preprints (here and here) popped up very recently, both experiments on interferometry and braiding of anyons in bilayer graphene. There are many subtleties in such experiments. The colorized electron microscope images of the devices show how sophisticated fabrication has become in these systems, where very small amounts of disorder can disrupt the fragile many-body quantum states of interest.
- On a much more classical physics note, this preprint uses some sophisticated multiscale modeling to address the question, why is ice so slippery? A super-thin layer of water on the surface of the ice under sliding conditions is crucial, and the roles of frictional heating and heat transfer have been tricky to quantify.
- Meanwhile, across town from me at the University of Houston, Paul Chu and company have published this paper in PNAS, where they have demonstrated ambient pressure superconductivity in a mercury-based cuprate at 151 K, breaking the old ambient pressure record by 18 K (!). The trick here has been pressure annealing. Many superconductors, particularly the cuprates, tend to have higher transition temperatures at elevated pressures. One idea is that pressure distortion of certain bond angles favors superconductivity in this system, and Chu et al. have been exploring the idea of cycling pressure and temperature to "lock in" the altered crystal structure.
- Moving away from condensed matter and turning to science used in the aid of history: When Vesuvius erupted in 79 CE, the pyroclastic flow swept through Herculaneum and a nearby Roman villa, housing a library of more than 1800 now-carbonized scrolls. Using 3D x-ray tomography, it is hoped that these scrolls may actually be read without trying to physically unroll them, prompting the Vesuvius Prize. This effort, involving x-ray imaging and AI methods, seems to be bearing fruit. There may be many more scrolls still buried as well. It would be amazing if great lost works of ancient Greek and Roman literature could be recovered.
- Tangentially related to science, the arXiv is looking for a CEO - here is the position description. It's hard to overstate the impact of the arXiv and its relations in terms of open science, and in the chaotic world of scientific publishing, it's more important than ever.
- If you need evidence of how screwed up scientific publishing is, apparently Springer-Nature has been surveying people to see how willing they would be to pay an up-front fee (e.g. $299) just for the privilege of submitting an article.
Monday, March 09, 2026
RIP Tony Leggett
| (image from UIUC) |
Sunday, February 22, 2026
AI/ML, multiscale modeling, and emergence
I've been attending a lot of talks lately about AI/machine learning and multiscale modeling for materials design and control. This is a vast, rapidly evolving research area, so here is a little background and a few disorganized thoughts.
For a recent review article about AI and materials discovery, see here. There is a ton of work being done pursuing the grand goal of inverse design - name some desired properties, and have AI/ML formulate a material that fits those requirements and is actually synthesizable. Major companies with publicly known efforts include Google Deepmind and GNoME, Microsoft, Meta working on catalysts, Toyota Research Institute, IBM, and I'm certain that I'm missing major players. There are also a slew of startup companies on this topic (e.g. Periodic).
In addition to materials design and discovery, there is enormous effort being put into using AI/ML to bridge across length and timescales. Quantum chemistry methods can look at microscopic physics and chemistry, for example, but extending this to macroscopic system sizes with realistic disorder is often computationally intractable. There are approaches like time-dependent DFT and DMFT to try to capture dynamics, but following dynamics even as long as picoseconds is hard. Using microscopic methods and ML to try to compute and then parametrize force fields between atoms (for example), one can look at larger systems and longer timescales using molecular dynamics for atomic motions. However, getting from there to, e.g., the Navier-Stokes equations or understanding phase boundaries, is very difficult. (At the same time, there are approaches that use AI/ML to learn about the solutions of partial differential equations, so that one can, for example, compute good fluid flows quickly without actually having to solve the N-S equations - see here.)
We want to keep coarse-graining (looking at larger scales), while maintaining the microscopic physics constraints so that the results are accurate. There seems to be a lot of hope that either by design or by the action of the AI/ML tools themselves we can come up with descriptors that are good at capturing the essential physics as we move to larger and larger scales. To use a fluids example, somehow we are hoping that these tools will naturally capture that at scales much larger than one water molecule, it makes sense to track density, temperature, velocity fields, surface tension, liquid-vapor interfaces, etc.
| From the always fun xkcd |
It feels to me like in some AI/ML endeavors, we are hoping that these tools will figure out how emergence works better than humans have been able to do. This is certainly a worthy challenge, and it may well succeed in a lot of systems, but then we may have the added meta-challenge of trying to understand how our tools did that. Physics-informed and structured ML will hopefully take us well beyond the situation in the xkcd comic shown here.
Friday, February 13, 2026
Updates: The US government and STEM research
- Appropriators in Congress largely went against the FY26 presidential budget request, and various spending bills by and large slightly-less-than level-funded most US science agencies. A physics-oriented take is here. The devil is in the details. The AAAS federal R&D dashboard lets you explore this at a finer level. Nature has an interactive widget that visualizes what has been cut and what remains.
- Bear in mind, that was just year 1 of the present administration. All of the effort, all of the work pushing back against proffered absolutely draconian, agency-destroying cuts? That likely will have to be done again this year. And in subsequent years, if the administration still invests effort in pushing enormously slashed budgets in their budget requests.
- There is an issue of Science with the whole news section about how the past year has changed the science funding and pipeline in the US.
- In NSF news, the rate of awards remains very low, though there is almost certainly a major delay because of the lateness of the budget, coping with reduced staffing levels, and restructuring now that Divisions no longer exist. How greater emphasis on specific strategic priorities (beyond what is in the program calls) will affect operations remains unclear, at least to me.
- Also, some NSF graduate research fellowship applications, especially in the life sciences, seem to be getting kicked back without review - see here (sorry about the paywall). This seems to be a broad research area issue, despite no information to applicants about this (that lack of information flow is perhaps unsurprising).
- I'm not well-immersed in the world of NIH and the FDA, but I know things are bad. Fifteen out of 27 of the NIH institutes have vacant or acting director positions. The FDA declined to even take the application for Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine, a move not popular even with the Wall Street Journal. Moderna has also decided to shelve promising vaccines for a number of diseases because they no longer think the US will be a market for them, and it practically seems like someone wants to bring back polio. (Note: I will not have the comments become a back-and-forth about vaccines.)
- The back and forth about indirect cost rates continues, along with the relevant court cases. The recent appropriations have language to prevent sudden changes in rates. The FAIR model is not yet passed.
- Concerns still loom about impoundment.
- There has been an exodus of technically trained PhDs from government service.
- I could go on. I know I've left out critical areas, and I haven't talked about DOE or NASA or DOD or EPA or NOAA explicitly.
Sunday, February 08, 2026
Data centers in space make no sense to me
- While the cosmic microwave background is cold, cooling things in space is difficult, because vacuum is an excellent thermal insulator. On the ground, you can use conduction and convection to get rid of waste heat. In space, your only option (beyond throwing mass overboard, which is not readily replenishible) is radiative cooling. The key physics here is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is a triumph of statistical physics (and one of my favorite derivations to discuss in class - you combine the Planck result for the energy density of a "gas" of photons in thermal equilibrium at some temperature \(T\) with a basic kinetic theory of gases result for the flux of particles out of a small hole). It tells you that the best you can ever do is for an ideal black body, the total power radiated away is proportional to the area of the radiator and \(T^{4}\), with fundamental constants making up the proportionality constant with zero adjustable parameters.
Remember, data centers right now consume enormous amounts of power (and cooling water). While you can use heat pumps to try to get the radiators up to well above the operating temperatures of the electronics, that increases mass and waste power, and realistically there is an upper limit on the radiator temperature below 1000 K. An ideal black body radiator at 1000 K puts out about 57 kW per square meter, and you probably need to get rid of tens of megawatts, necessitating hundreds to thousands of square meters of radiator area. There are clever ideas on how to try to do this. For example, in the liquid droplet radiator, you could spray a bunch of hot droplets out into space, capitalizing on their large specific surface area. Of course, you'd need to recapture the cooled droplets, and the hot liquid needs to have sufficiently low vapor pressure that you don't lose a lot of material. Still, as far as I am aware, to date no one has actually deployed a large-scale (ten kW let alone MW level) droplet radiator in space.
A liquid droplet radiator, from this excellent site
- High end computational hardware is vulnerable to radiation damage. There are no rad-hard GPUs. Low earth orbit is a pretty serious radiation environment, with some flux of high energy cosmic rays quite a bit higher than on the ground. While there are tests going on, and astronauts are going to bring smartphones on the next Artemis mission, it's rough. Putting many thousands to millions of GPUs and huge quantities of memory in a harsh environment where they cannot be readily accessed or serviced seems unwise. (There are also serious questions of vulnerability to attack. Setting off a small nuclear warhead in LEO injects energetic electrons into the lower radiation belts and would be a huge mess.)

