Prize season again - updated w/ Kavli winners

Once again the Breakthrough Prize and New Horizons Prize in fundamental physics are seeking nominations.  See here.  I have very mixed feelings about these prizes, given how the high energy theory components seem increasingly disconnected from experiment (and consider that a feature rather than a bug).

On a related note, the Kavli Prizes are being awarded this Thursday.  Past nanowinners are Millie Dresselhaus (2012), Don Eigler (love his current affiliation) and Nadrian Seeman (2010), and Louis Brus and Sumio Iijima (2008).   Not exactly a bunch of underachievers.  Place your bets.  Whitesides?  Alivisatos and Bawendi?

Update:  Thomas Ebbeson (extraordinary transmission through deep sub-wavelength apertures, thanks to plasmons), Stefan Hell (stimulated emission depletion microscopy, for deep subwavelength fluorescence microscopy resolution), and John Pendry (perfect lenses and cloaking).  Congratulations all around - all richly deserved.  I do think that the Kavli folks are in a sweet spot for nano prizes, as there is a good-sized pool of outstanding people that has built up, few of whom have been honored already by the Nobel.  This is a bit like the early days of the Nobel prize, though hopefully with much less political infighting (see this book if you really want to be disillusioned about the Nobel process in the early years).

Workshop on structural and electronic instabilities in oxide nanostructures

I've spent the last two days at a fun "Physics at the Falls" workshop at the University of Buffalo.  It's been cool learning about the impressive variety of physics at work in these systems.  A few takeaways:

• With enough stainless steel and high tech equipment you can grow (and in situ characterize with everything from electron diffraction to photoemission, angle-resolved and otherwise) just about anything these days!
• There's a lot of pretty work getting done growing epitaxial complex oxides down to the single unit cell level, and a lot of accompanying extremely high resolution transmission electron microscopy.
• Untangling thermal effects from optical effects in nonequilibrium experiments can be tricky.  Interesting to see that lower energy photons can be more efficient at kicking systems from one phase to another than photons much more energetic than any energy gap.
• There does seem to be some convergence on understanding LAO/STO oxide heterojunctions.
• We still don't understand superconductivity in strontium titanate, even though it's been known for decades.
• Orbitals really matter, when you are dealing with relatively localized electrons.
• Niagara Falls is very impressive!

Slow blogging + interesting links

The end of our academic year + travel + some major writing has cramped my blogging of late.  Things should pick back up to a more regular pace in a couple of weeks.  In the meantime, here are some links that caught my eye lately:

• On Sir Harold Kroto's website, here are some interesting lectures by Richard Feynman.  It's absolutely worth browsing around the rest of the site, too - lots of cool videos.
• This preprint by Sean Hartnoll looks very interesting.  There are materials out there that act like metals (in the sense of having lots of low energy excitations available, and an electrical resistivity that falls with decreasing temperature), but the electrons interact so strongly and in such a complex way that it no longer makes sense to think about "quasiparticles" that act basically like ordinary electrons.  The challenge is, if the quasiparticle picture (which works spectacularly well for materials like gold, copper, aluminum, doped semiconductors) fails, what's the right way to treat these systems?  This paper tries to look at what features would have to be there in such a system.
• This video is cute.  The material used in this LED has a bandgap that apparently increases a fair bit upon cooling.  As a result, the light emitted from the diode shifts toward the blue when the device is dipped in liquid nitrogen, and comes back toward the red when it's warmed.
• We still really don't understand triboelectricity, the "static electricity" you see when you rub a balloon against your hair or rub a glass rod with rabbit fur.  News story here.  It's amazing to me that we still don't know how this kind of charge transfer works, given that it was discovered thousands of years ago.  (As Pauli said, "God made the bulk; surfaces were the work of the devil.")

What are the Kramers-Kronig relations, physically?

Let me pose a puzzle.  Suppose you are in a completely dark room.  You know that at some point in the future, someone will turn on a light in that room for a few minutes, and then turn it off later.  Being a mathematically sophisticated person, it occurs to you that you could think about the time dependence of the electric field in the room.  It's zero for a while, oscillating (b/c that's what happens when there is light there) for a few minutes, and then zero again.  Being clever, you think about Fourier transforming that time dependence, and thinking about all the frequencies in there - the fact that the room right now is dark is actually because of the amazing cancellation of a whole bunch of frequency components!  Therefore, you should be able to put on glasses that are frequency-filtering, block out some of those components, and suddenly be able to see in a dark room!  Except that totally doesn't work, even in a completely classical world without photons.  Why not? 

Think about a material placed in a time-varying (say, harmonically varying, because that's what physicists like) electric field.  The material responds in some way - electrons rearrange themselves within the material in response to that electric field; if the field is slow enough, atoms or groups of atoms can even shift their positions.  The result is a polarization density (electric dipole moment per unit volume) \(\mathbf{P} \equiv \chi_{e}\mathbf{E}\).  Here \( \chi_{e}\) is the electric susceptibility (generally a tensor, meaning that \(\mathbf{P}\) and \(\mathbf{E}\) don't have to point in the same direction).  The dielectric function of a material is defined \(\epsilon \equiv \epsilon_{0}(1 + \chi_{e})\).  In general, the response of the material depends on the frequency \(\omega\) of the electric field, and it can be out of phase with the external electric field.  This is described in mathematical shorthand by considering \(\epsilon(\omega)\) to be complex, having real and imaginary components.

The Kramers-Kronig relations are fairly intimidating looking integral expressions that describe relationships that have to be obeyed between the real and imaginary components of \(\epsilon(\omega)\).  These relationships come from the fact that \(\mathbf{P}\) now can only depend on \(\mathbf{E}\) in the past, up until now.  This restriction of causality, plus the properties of Fourier transforms, are what leads to the K-K integrals.  The wikipedia page about this actually has a very nice description here.   So, while the math is not something that most people would think of as obvious, the basic idea (electromagnetic fields influence materials in a causal way, and that places constraints on how materials can respond as a function of frequency) is not too surprising.

National Nano Infrastructure Network - feedback requested

I wrote before about the saga of the NNIN and how painful the outcome was this year - no awards made, after thousands of person-hours invested on the writing and reviewing of proposals.  Well, NSF is requesting input, in part because they want guidance on structuring the new solicitation to come out this autumn.  So, please give your input if you're in the US and think this kind of support for shared infrastructure is valuable.  By the way, if it seems like NSF had already gone through an exercise like this before the last solicitation (the one where they didn't fund anyone), you're right - they even had a two-day workshop and produced a report.

Recurring themes in (condensed matter/nano) physics: Fermi's Golden Rule

Very often in condensed matter (or atomic) physics we are interested in trying to calculate the rate of some quantum process - this could be the absorption of photons by an isolated atom or a solid, for example.  In (advanced) undergraduate quantum mechanics, we can apply time-dependent perturbation theory to do such a calculation.  Typically you assume that the system starts in some initial state \( |i\rangle \), is subjected to some perturbation \(V\) that turns on at time \(t = 0\), and ends up in final state \( |f\rangle \).  If \(V\) has a harmonic time dependence with some (angular) frequency \(\omega\), then you can do a nice bit of math that calculates the rate at which this process happens.  You discover that at long times the only allowed transitions are the ones where the energies of the initial and final states differ by \(\hbar \omega\), and that the rate of that process is \( (2\pi/\hbar) |\langle i |V| f\rangle|^{2} \rho \), where \(\rho\) is the number of states per unit energy per unit volume that satisfy the energy constraint.

This result, associated with Enrico Fermi, shows up over and over, with some common motifs in condensed matter and nanoscale physics, at least in spirit (that is, sometimes people apply heuristically even though the perturbation may not be harmonic, for example).  First, the \( |\langle i |V| f\rangle|^{2} \) term is what gives us selection rules.  If you think about optical transitions in atoms, this is why you get electric dipole transitions from the 2\(p\) state of hydrogen to the 1\(s\) state, rather than from the 2\(s\) state; in the latter, this quantity is zero.  In crystalline solids, if the initial and final states are Bloch waves, it's the periodicity of the lattice that makes this quantity zero unless (crystal) momentum is conserved.  This is the root of the idea that processes ordinarily forbidden in macroscopic crystals can sometimes take place in nanocrystals or at surfaces.

Similarly, meso- and nanoscale systems can greatly constrain \( \rho \).  One reason that you can get very long mean free paths for charge carriers in semiconductor nanowires, carbon nanotubes, graphene, at the edges of quantum Hall systems, etc., is that the density of states available into which carriers can scatter is very restricted.  Similarly, enhancing \(\rho\) can pay dividends - this is the source of the Purcell effect, where radiative transition rates can be greatly enhanced by increasing the photon density of states, and is part of the reason for enhanced rates of optical processes near plasmonic nanostructures.

updated - Physics education and real world perspective

I was absolutely horrified to read about this story, about how more than 200 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by a radical Islamic group because they had the temerity to show up for a physics test (emblematic of getting a Western education).  I fervently hope that there is enough public outrage about this to get some positive action there, though it's hard to be optimistic.

Stories like this should remind many of us how petty our concerns (departmental rankings; referee comments; grant reviews; tenure decisions; grad school admissions decisions) really are, even if they seem stressful and important.  It is terrible that in the 21st century there are still large segments of the world where modern learning is expressly forbidden, on pain of death.

Update:  Uggh.  It would appear that the abducted girls have been forcibly married off.  There are so many things wrong here that it's hard to know where to begin.

Informal survey: How important are departmental rankings?

Coincident with the annual US graduate school admission season, I've had a few conversations in recent days where the topic of departmental rankings has come up.  I've written about this general topic before (here and here, for example).  I want to perform a non-serious (in the sense that it's a self-selected survey population that may well be atypical) survey here of those applying to grad school, currently in grad school, or recently (say within the last 4 years) completing grad school:  How important were official rankings (e.g., US News; NRC) of graduate programs in your grad school application process (where you decided to apply) and in your eventual decision?  

Recurring themes in (condensed matter/nano) physics: spatial periodicity

A defining characteristic of crystalline solids is that their constituent atoms are arranged in a spatially periodic way.  In fancy lingo, the atomic configuration breaks continuous translational and rotational invariance (that is, it picks out certain positions and orientations in space from an infinite variety of possible choices), but preserves discrete translational invariance (and other possible symmetries).  

The introduction of a characteristic spatial length scale, or equivalently a spatial frequency, is a big deal, because when other spatial length scales in the physical system coincide with that one, there can be big consequences.  For example, when the wavelength of x-rays or electrons or neutrons is some integer harmonic of the (projected) lattice spacing, then waves scattered from subsequent (or every second or every third, etc.) plane of atoms will interfere constructively - this is called the Bragg condition, is what gives diffraction patterns that have proven so useful in characterizing material structures.  Another way to think about this:  The spatial periodicity of the lattice is what forces the momentum of scattered x-rays (or electrons or neutrons) to change only by specified amounts.

It gets better.  When the wavelength of electrons bound in a crystalline solid corresponds to some integer multiple of the lattice spacing, this implies that the electrons strongly "feel" any interaction with the lattice atoms - in the nearly-free-electron picture, this matching of spatial frequencies is what opens up band gaps at particular wavevectors (and hence energies).  Similar physics happens with lattice vibrations.  Similar physics happens when we consider electromagnetic waves in spatially periodic dielectrics.  Similar physics happens when looking at electrons in a "superlattice" made by layering different semiconductors or a periodic modulation of surface relief.

One other important point.  The idea of a true spatial periodicity really only applies to infinitely large periodic systems.  If discrete translational invariance is broken (by a defect, or an interface), then some of the rules "enforced" by the periodicity can be evaded.  For example, momentum changes forbidden for elastic scattering in a perfect infinite crystal can take place at some rate at interfaces or in defective crystals.  Similarly, the optical selection rules that must be rigidly applied in perfect crystals can be bent a bit in nanocrystals, where lattice periodicity is not infinite.

Commensurate spatial periodicities between wave-like entities and lattices are responsible for electronic and optical bandgaps, phonon dispersion relations, x-ray/electron/neutron crystallography, (crystal) momentum conservation and its violation in defective and nanoscale structures, and optical selection rules and their violations in crystalline solids.  Rather far reaching consequences!

End of an era.

As long as we're talking about the (alleged) end of science, look at this picture (courtesy of Don Monroe).  This is demolition work being done in Murray Hill, NJ, as Alcatel-Lucent takes down a big hunk of Building 1 of Bell Labs. 

This building and others at the site were the setting for some of the most important industrial research of the 20th century.  (Before people ask, the particular lab where the transistor was first made is not being torn down here.)  I've written before about the near-demise of long-term basic research in the industrial setting in the US.  While Bell Labs still exists, this, like the demise of the Holmdel site, are painful marks of the end of an era.

John Horgan: Same old, same old.

John Horgan writes about science for National Geographic.  You may remember him from his book, The End of Science.   His thesis, 17 years ago, was that science is basically done - there just aren't going to be too many more profound discoveries, particularly in physics, because we've figured it all out and the rest is just details.  Well, I'll give him this for consistency:  He's still flogging this dead horse 17 years later, as seen in his recent column.  I disagree with his point of view.  Even if you limit yourself to physics, there are plenty of discoveries left to be made for a long time to come - things only look bleak if (a) you're only a reductionist; and (b) you limit your interest in physics to a narrow range of topics.  In other words, possibly looking for supersymmetric partners at the LHC might not be a great bet, but that doesn't mean that all of science is over.

A video interview for an online nano course

Two of my colleagues (Dan Mittleman and Vicki Colvin) put together a Coursera class this past year, "Nanotechnology:  The Basics", and as part of that they interviewed several Rice faculty about different bits and pieces.   They spoke to me about nanoelectronics, but the conversation ended up ranging into a discussion of hype in science and the importance of communicating to a general audience.  The video is now up online here, and the hype/science presentation discussion starts at around 18:38. 

Recurring themes in (condensed matter/nano) physics: hybridization

Suppose I have two identical systems, such as two copies of a mass attached to a spring (anchored to an immovable wall).  Each system by itself has some characteristic response, like a frequency of motion, and those responses are identical because the independent systems are identical.  Now consider coupling the two systems together, such as linking the two masses by another (weak) spring, and ask what the total coupled system response looks like.  With classical oscillators like our example, we would say that we find the "new normal modes" of the coupled system - instead of writing separate equations to describe Newton's laws for each mass separately, we can do some kind of change of variables and consider new coordinates that combine the motions of the two masses.  When we do this, we end up again with two characteristic frequencies (basically two effectively independent oscillators), but now the frequencies differ a bit, one being higher and one being lower than the original independent oscillator frequency.  You can generalize this to \(N\) oscillators and find \(N\) new normal modes with a band of frequencies, with the bandwidth determined by the strength of the couplings.

This coupling+splitting the modes crops up again and again.  You can use this to make an electronic band pass filter by capacitively coupling together a bunch of \(LC\) circuits.  You can make a mechanical band pass filter by elastically coupling together a bunch of mechanical oscillators.  You can make a miniband of electronic states by coupling together a bunch of quantum wells that each individually would have identical bound states.  You can make a band of electronic states by coupling together the single-particle atomic states of a periodic array of atoms.  The stronger the coupling, the wider the resulting bandwidth.  This basic idea (taking noninteracting systems, coupling them, and re-solving for new effectively noninteracting modes) is so powerful that when it doesn't work sometimes, it can be jarring.  

Any advice: LaTeX and makeindex

Readers - For a long time now I have been working on a very large LaTeX document (actually built out of a number of sub-documents) that I will discuss further in later posts.  I greatly desire to create an index for this document, and I know about the LaTeX package \makeindex.   The question is, does anyone know of a good frontend application that can make the creation of the index less tedious?  The brute force approach would require me to go through the document(s) by hand and insert a \makeindex tag every time a term that I wish to index appears.  For an index containing a couple of hundred entries, this looks excruciating.  What I would love is an application where I identify the terms for which I want index entries, and it then automatically inserts the appropriate tags (in a smart way, not putting tags inside LaTeX equations, for example).  While this would be imperfect, it would be easier to start from an over-complete index and pare down or modify than to start from scratch.  Yes, I am sure I could use perl or another scripting language to make something, but I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if someone has already solved this problem.  Thanks for any suggestions.

Recurring themes in (condensed matter/nano) physics: boundary conditions

This is the first in a series of posts about tropes that recur in (condensed matter/nano) physics.  I put that qualifier in parentheses because these topics obviously come up in many other places as well, but I run across them from my perspective.

Very often in physics we are effectively solving boundary value problems.  That is, we have some physical system that obeys some kind of differential equations describing the spatial dependence of some variable of interest.  This could be the electron wavefunction \( \psi(\mathbf{r})\), which has to obey the Schroedinger equation in some region of space with a potential energy \( V(\mathbf{r})\).  This could be the electric field \( \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r})\), which has to satisfy Maxwell's equations in some region of space that has a dielectric function \( \epsilon(\mathbf{r})\).  This could be the deflection of a drumhead \( u(x,y) \), where the drumhead itself must follow the rules of continuum elasticity.  This could be the pressure field \( p(z) \) of the air in a pipe that's part of a pipe organ. 

The thread that unites these diverse systems is that, in the absence of boundaries, these problems allow a continuum of solutions, but the imposition of boundaries drastically limits the solutions to a discrete set.  For example, the pressure in that pipe could (within reasonable limits set by the description of the air as a nice gas) have any spatial periodicity, described by some wavenumber \(k\), and along with that it would have some periodic time dependence with a frequency \(\omega\), so that \( \omega/k = c_{\mathrm{s}}\), where \(c_{\mathrm{s}}\) is the sound speed.  However, once we specify boundary conditions - say one end of the pipe closed, one end open - the rules that have to be satisfied at the boundary force there to be a discrete spectrum of allowed wavelengths, and hence frequencies.   Even trying to have no boundary, by installing periodic boundary conditions, does this. This general property, the emergence of discrete modes from the continuum, is what gives us the spectra of atoms and the sounds of guitars.

How should philanthropists and foundations fund science?

This article from the NY Times discusses the funding of science research by wealthy individuals and, by extension, philanthropic foundations set up by those folks.  It brings up an issue that I phrased in the form of a question as the title of this post.  I'm not going to offer any simple overarching answer, but I do want to make a couple of observations (strictly my opinion, of course):

• Many wealthy people and foundations support medical research.  This makes a lot of sense - generally philanthropists want to Help People, and supporting research that directly affects medical care and quality of life is a completely sensible choice.
• A smaller number of people and foundations support research in the physical sciences and engineering; like those who support medical research, they want to Help People, and they realize that supporting basic research and the education of technically skilled and creative people is a great way to do that.
• Both groups, however, face the challenge that any investment that they make is basically a drop in the bucket compared with what governments can do.  NIH puts tens of billions of dollars a year into medical research.  NSF's annual budget is around $7B.  
• In my experience, the philanthropic supporters of science are well aware of this - if they want to make sure that their money makes a difference, they need to invest in supporting things that are not what government agencies are already doing.  Their challenge, then, is to identify areas (and eventually institutions and people) where their investment will really move the needle.  Of course, they need to be able to tell wheat from chaff.  Peer review is a customary way to do this, and that is often how the government agencies (most of them, anyway) make judgments, but peer review tends toward being risk averse.  An alternative is to have a dedicated science board to do reviews and make decisions.  This, too, is tricky, particularly if the members aren't exact subject matter experts.  How much weight should be placed on prior track record?  Researchers who are senior and already have major awards, etc. can be a lower risk - they have already demonstrated that they can do great work.  On the other hand, if someone is already extremely well supported (as such people often are), how much difference will philanthropic support really make?  It seems like a very tricky decision process, particularly depending on the amounts involved.  
• There is no question that having grants with wide flexibility (e.g., Packard; presumably MacArthur) can be wonderful.  At the single investigator level, there is also no question that there can be real benefits from being able to concentrate on actual science - that's an argument for funding support large enough that it allows investigators to lay off writing other grants to some extent.  (That's one aim of things like the Howard Hughes Investigator program.)  

Feel free to comment below.  Perhaps additional philanthropic support is one way to get more "scientific mavericks" (as long as that doesn't mean funding of unfounded crazy stuff).  

Taking a few days, + a philanthropy suggest for Google or Intel

Last post for a few days.  I want to make a suggestion, though.  Hey large tech companies, like Intel or Google, or for that matter Sematech or the SRC, or foundations like Keck, Moore, Packard, MacArthur:  You may have heard that NSF seems to have put shared physical sciences research infrastructure on the back burner.   I firmly believe that this is a bad decision that will have lasting negative consequences for many people.  I've written before about how much impact on science and engineering research and education there would be if companies (or individuals, I suppose, if they were sufficiently wealthy) would step forward and endow shared research equipment and staffing at universities.   Now is the time, when there is likely to be a real federal gap here.  I'm serious, and I'd be happy to talk with any interested parties about how this could be done - just email me. 
Update:  this is highly relevant.

Coolest paper of 2014 so far, by a wide margin.

Sorry for the brief post, but I could not pass this up.

Check this out:  http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1211

I bow down before the awesomeness of an origami-based microscope. 

March Meeting wrap-up

I've been slow about writing a day 3/4/wrapup of the APS meeting because of general busy-ness.  I saw fewer general interest talks over that last day and a half in part because my own group's talks were clustered in that timeframe.  Still, I did see a couple of interesting bits.

• There was a great talk by Zhenchao Dong about this paper, where they are able to use the plasmonic properties of a scanning tunneling microscope tip to perform surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy on single molecules (in ultrahigh vacuum and cryogenic conditions) with sub-nm lateral resolution.  The data are gorgeous, though how the lateral resolution can possibly be that good is very mysterious.  Usually the lateral extent of the enhanced optical fields is something like the geometric mean of the tip radius of curvature and the tip-sample distance.  It's very hard to see how that ever gets to the sub-nm level, so something funky must be going on.
• I saw a talk by Yoshihiro Iwasa all about MoS₂, including work on optics and ionic liquid gating.  
• I went to a session on the presentation of physics to the public.  The talks that I managed to see were quite good, and Dennis Overbye's insights into the NY Times' science reporting were particularly interesting.  He pointed out that it's a very challenging marketplace when so much good (or at least interesting) science writing is given away for free (as in here or here or here).  He did give a shout-out to Peter Woit, particularly mentioning how good Peter's sources are.

I probably should wade into focus topic organizing again;  it seemed like this year there were more issues with parallel sessions about similar topics and some lack of cohesiveness within some of the contributed sessions.  (This isn't meant as a criticism of those who invested their time to do this, which is absolutely appreciated!  I am well aware how hard it is, particularly as the meeting keeps growing.)

The end of the National Nano Infrastructure Network? Federal support for shared facilities.

The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network is, as their page says, "an integrated networked partnership of user facilities, supported by the National Science Foundation, serving the needs of nanoscale science, engineering and technology".  Basically, the NNIN has been a mechanism for establishing nodes of excellence at sites around the US, where people could travel to use equipment and capabilities (high resolution transmission electron microscopy; sophisticated wafer-scale electron beam lithography; deep etching) that they lack at their home institutions.  Crucially, these shared facilities are supported by skilled technical staff that can train users, work with users to develop processes, perform fee-for-service work on occasion, etc.  The most famous sites are the Stanford Nanofab Facility and the Cornell Nanofab.  Over the years, the NNIN has been instrumental in an enormous amount of research progress.  Note that this effort is distinct from Major User Facilities (such as synchrotrons, neutron sources, etc).

This year, there was a competition for a Next Generation NNIN - the call is here.  The idea was very much to broaden the network into characterization as well as fabrication, and to reach new, growing communities of users in areas like bio, the environment, earth sciences/geo.  After a proposal process that boiled down to two teams (one with 18 universities; one with 20), very extensive full proposals, reverse site visits, written responses to reverse site visits and reviews, etc., the NSF decided not to make an award.  It would appear that there will be another call of some kind issued in fall, 2014.  For now, what this means is that the NNIN is ending.  Cornell, Stanford, and the other sites face major cuts in funding for staff and support for external users.  (Full disclosure:  I was the Rice rep on one of the teams.)

This whole issue is very complex, but it raises a number of questions that would benefit from a discussion in the community.  What should be the pathway to federal support for shared facilities and staffing, particularly tools and techniques that would be prohibitively expensive for individual universities to support via internal funds?  Should there be federal support for this?  Should it come from NSF?  How can we have a stable, sustained level of research infrastructure, including staffing, that serves the broad scientific community, in an era when funding is squeezed ever more tightly?  If the burden is shifting more toward individual universities having to support shared infrastructure basically with internal funding and user fees, what impact will that have?  Comment is invited.

UPDATE:  Here is a story that Science is running regarding the decision, or lack thereof.