tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post9043944772002405026..comments2024-03-29T02:45:10.096-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Big questions about condensed matter (part 3)Douglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-30490039524556844812019-09-09T13:33:01.077-05:002019-09-09T13:33:01.077-05:00You mention several times that the discovery of hi...You mention several times that the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity in cuprates was "a surprise". As a matter of fact, it was so for everyone except ... Bednorz and Mûller, who had been looking for years into these perovskite-type oxides ceramics as potential high-Tc superconductors. Their reasoning--which nowadays everyone believes was wrong--was that strong electron-phonon interactions in oxides can occur because of polaron formation. The mechanism they had in mind, and that they systematically searched for in these materials, was polaron formation by the Jahn-Teller effect. Isolated Fe4+ and Cu2+ ions in an octahedral oxygen environment were known to exhibit strong Jahn-Teller effects; oxygen deficiency in Cu based materials produced mixed valence phases, in which Cu3+ ions (that do not exhibit J-T effect) coexisted with Cu2+ ions and were expected to exhibit itinerant electronic states with strong electron-phonon coupling. They were so sure they had found high-Tc superconductivity when they observed the resistivity drop to zero, that they published their results before testing for the Meissner effect (albeit with a cautious title: "Possible high-Tc superconductivity ...". It would seem that the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity is a good example of "right for the wrong reasons"! Albertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16336852885831904411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-46357369769487362592019-09-07T17:17:29.359-05:002019-09-07T17:17:29.359-05:00Anon@8:02, I think you’re right. I was working fr...Anon@8:02, I think you’re right. I was working from memory, rather than digging out my copy of Crystal Fire.<br /><br />Anon@11:29, great question. Back in the day, I’m not sure - perhaps others will have good suggestions. My perspective is strongly affected by people I’ve encountered. Paul McEuen is very impressive as well as having broad interests. Phuan Ong has done work with an impressive variety of materials systems and techniques. Don Eigler and his intellectual progeny have done great things for STM, as has Seamus Davis. David Awschalom and John Martinis have always struck me as completely fearless about trying new, difficult things. I’m hesitant to start listing people, since I don’t want to stir up anyone by accidental omission. Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-19098796136790587472019-09-06T23:29:25.643-05:002019-09-06T23:29:25.643-05:00Nice post! On the note of crediting experimental p...Nice post! On the note of crediting experimental physicists, here's a quick question:<br /><br />For particle physicists in the old days, Luis Alvarez was the clever experimentalist everybody wanted to be. Who is the "Luis Alvarez" of condensed matter in the old days? And in modern times?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-73445380669028809302019-09-06T20:02:27.196-05:002019-09-06T20:02:27.196-05:00I think it was Fairchild and Bell Labs engineers w...I think it was Fairchild and Bell Labs engineers who traded notes on MOSFET technology as opposed to IBM and Bell Labs engineers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com