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. 

March Meeting, Day 2

This is a meta-post - I'm writing it while sitting in the back of a session on presenting science to the public.  A brief list of some of the neat things I heard yesterday:

• I saw a very nice talk by Jelena Vuckovic about doing nonlinear and cavity optics, with (self-assembled InAs) quantum dots as the emitters, and the cavity being formed in 2d photonic band gap systems.  The latest work looks at nonlinear effects like photon blockade, and makes contact to some work involving "circuit" quantum electrodynamics (see here).
• I went to a talk by Ken Golden, who taught me sophomore differential equations, and he gave a fascinating presentation about applying rigorous math (percolation theory, treating microstructured composites like effective media) to the challenging problem of understanding melting polar sea ice.  As a side note, he showed a great picture that is an example of the "quasistatic limit" - long wavelength surface ocean waves don't "see" individual ice floes, but instead propagate in an effective medium.
• There was a great invited session about oxide heterostructures.  Mobilities are improving (under the right conditions) to the point where some ways of learning about the band structure through electronic transport are now becoming possible.  Very impressive was a talk by Shahal Ilani, where he presented a very compelling view of the importance of structural domains ("ferroelasticity") in the underlying strontium titanate - when those domains are under control, transport becomes much more clean, revealing the apparent existence of a magnetically interesting phase at high carrier density and high in-plane magnetic field.

March Meeting, Day 1

Observations from the first day of the APS March Meeting:

• There has been a lot of progress and excitement in looking at layered materials "beyond graphene".  It's interesting to see a resurgence of interest in transition metal (Ti, but more frequently W and Mo) dichalcogenides (S, Se, Te), a topic of great activity in bulk materials growth in the 1970s and early 80s.  There are clearly a lot of bright people working on ways to grow these materials layer-by-layer, with the long-term idea of making structures somewhat like semiconductor heterostructures (e.g., GaAs/AlGaAs), but with the richer palette provided by these materials (exhibiting charge density waves, strong spin-orbit effects, complex band structure, etc.).  Molecular beam epitaxy of these materials with high quality is generally very hard.  For example, Mo and W are extremely refractory, requiring electron beam evaporation at temperatures exceeding 2500 C, and sticking at the sample surface without much diffusion.  Whoever really gets layer-by-layer, large-area growth working with diverse materials is going to make a big impact.
• I saw Heinrich Jaeger give a great talk about granular materials by design.  These are entirely classical systems, but they are extremely challenging.  If you think about it, they are not crystalline (no long-range symmetries to exploit in modeling), they are non-ergodic (the constituent grains are kinetically limited, and can't explore all possible configurations), and nonlinear (the interactions between particles are short-ranged and very strong).  Very interesting.
• I caught two talks in the session looking at silicon-based quantum information processing.  It's possible to create and manipulate dangling bonds on the Si surface (localized states that can trap electrons) and look at how those bonds interact with each other.  Very neat.  Looking at particular individual impurities, with the right system (erbium in Si), you can couple a single impurity to a single-electron transistor charge sensor.  Then, you can manipulate that impurity with optical techniques and use the charge detection to determine its state.  Very impressive.
• The session on secrecy in science was very good.  The ability to manufacture viruses by design is genuinely frightening (though it loses some menace when the words "Pandemic - millions of deaths?" are projected in Comic Sans).  The discussion of intellectual property was great and the role of universities merits its own blog post.  Lastly, I was unaware of the WATCHMAN project, which is a very interesting neutrino physics experiment that as an added bonus should allow the international community to detect rogue nuclear reactors meant for weapons development.

Upcoming blogging: APS March Meeting + recurring physics themes

This coming week is the APS March Meeting in Denver.  I'll probably blog about some of the talks, but I may not give detailed recaps as I've done in some past years - it's hard to get a complete picture of a meeting that's grown so vast (and I have a ton of work I somehow need to get done over that week).  Topics that are clearly hot, based on the meeting program:  topological everything (insulators, superconductors, Majorana structures, etc.); layered everything (graphene, transition metal dichalcogenides, including optical properties); oxide heterostructure materials; quantum information; cold atoms to examine particular condensed matter problems incl systems out of equilibrium; unconventional superconductivity (incl quantum criticality, pnictides, cuprates, etc.); plasmonics.   I'll admit that I'm curious about the future of the New Media in the communication of science to the public. 

I've also been thinking about doing a series of posts really aimed at the public about recurring themes that crop up in physics.  This will require a bit of thought to make the writing really accessible to a general audience, but it could be fun.  This story by Adam Frank was very well done and inspirational in terms of what such a series could be.

Ballistic electrons in graphene nanoribbons at room T: whoa!

The de Heer group at Georgia Tech has a paper in this week's Nature where they present some results on graphene nanoribbons that are quite unexpected and exciting.  Rather than exfoliate graphene from graphite, or grow it via chemical vapor deposition, the Georgia Tech group creates graphene via the controlled transformation of silicon carbide.  In this latest work, they used a vicinal substrate (meaning that it is cut slightly off-axis from a high symmetry direction, so that the surface has regularly spaced atomic terraces).  When this substrate is annealed in a particular way, graphene forms across the surface.  Interestingly, on the plateaus, the resulting material appears to be semiconducting (based on tunneling measurements made by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM)), while the steps reconstruct and form sloping sidewalls that have 40 nm wide ribbons that are metallic graphene (as seen through tunneling and photoemission).

Using in situ multiple tungsten STM tips, they are able to measure the conductance of such ribbons as a function of length.  Remarkably, they find that the two-terminal conductance is approximately independent of length (!) over a broad range of lengths (from 0.5 \(\mu\)m to about 16 \(\mu\)m) even at room temperature, and it has the very suggestive value of \(e^{2}/h\), which is what you would expect for a single quantum channel, with one species of the electronic spin.  This kind of violation of "Ohm's Law" is expected when the electrons travel essentially without scattering from one end of a device to the other.  Ordinarily we can't see this at room temperature in macroscopic conductors, because there are many ways electrons can scatter, including inelastic processes involving lattice vibrations.  The authors have a number of other measurements that are consistent with the implication that a single channel is somehow able to propagate ballistically over these long distances at room temperature.  Indeed, they can use additional tips as "passive" scattering centers; placing an additional tip on the wire makes the conductance drop, presumably because that tip is able to cause back-scattering. 

These observations are very interesting, since they suggest that there is some kind of "protected" channel that allows conduction by basically making back-scattering (which would usually contribute to resistance) very disfavored.  The apparent spin polarization (inferred from the conductance value, not measured directly) is also intriguing.  I wonder if the "kink" at the edges of the ribbons where the sidewall transitions to the flat plateaus on either side of the ribbon acts as some sort of source of strong spin-orbit interactions (despite the low \(Z\) of carbon) by distorting the graphene lattice.  In any case, it is nice to see a genuinely surprising graphene result.

What's the deal w/ NIF and fusion?

The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Lab just published a couple of papers (PRL and Nature) about their latest results in inertial confinement fusion.   The idea is to hit a deuterium-tritium fuel pellet with 192 converging high power laser beams and dump enough energy into the nuclei (by various means) that they can overcome their Coulomb repulsion and fuse, releasing a helium nucleus, a neutron, and energy.  Their latest results demonstrate net "fuel gain" - they are able to infer via complicated means how much energy actually got coupled to the D/T (about 10 kJ in a shot), and from the neutrons they can determine how much energy came out from the fusion reactions (about 15 kJ in a shot).  This sounds great, and it's an important physics milestone for the researchers.  However, something gets lost in the press releases:  They dump in about 1.8 MJ from the lasers to get 10 kJ into the fuel.  That's an input coupling efficiency of 0.05%.  Also, bear in mind that they have to rebuild the whole sample holder and everything before each shot.

While the latest results are a nice and critical physics step, it is extremely hard for me to believe that the NIF approach will ever lead to anything resembling a power plant.  For a sense of scale, the NIF annual budget is something close to $1B, while the US commitment to ITER is on the order of $200M/yr, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab annual budget is around $100M, and the fusion program at Sandia is about $5M/yr.  (For reference, the F-35 fighter program costs about $12B/yr, and the NSF annual budget is around $7B/yr).   NIF is a fascinating physics testbed, a way to study certain processes without detonating nuclear weapons, and the warp core of the most recent iteration of the starship Enterprise.  However, press articles implying that this recent result is a breakthrough toward fusion power are misleading.

Are blogs really changing scientific discourse?

Lately there has been a fair bit of talk (here, for example, or here) about whether blogs, particularly those written by scientists, are actually changing the scientific discourse and the way science gets done (particularly in terms of debating controversies or resolving disagreements).   I was recently asked this by a science journalist, too.

My short answer is, "maybe, sometimes, but mostly 'no'."  (Thus, I am roughly consistent with the old adage that article titles posed in the form of a question are almost always answered by "no".)  The main reason that blogging is, in my view, not having some major transformative effect on science is that the vast majority of scientists do not blog, and a slightly smaller (but still vast) majority do not even read blogs let alone comment on them or ponder writing one.  Blogs are still far and away the exception rather than the rule in terms of how scientific discussions take place.

That being said, when the relevant participants participate in blog discussions (or the equivalent, as on mathoverflow), very cool things can take place.  However, I think the most productive version of this happens either when someone really tries to educate an interested audience (my attempted model here most of the time - a sort of science journalism by scientists), or when informed discussion happens between knowledgeable experts (sort of a virtual version of the kinds of conversations that can happen at good conferences).  I do think that unilateral discussions of controversies can serve a useful purpose.  However, one-sided presentations on the internet are not all peaches and cream, as you no doubt know. 

(A mildly amusing note:  My previous post got a big spike in pageviews thanks to Physics Today tweeting the link.  Thanks, PT!  Hopefully some of those people will stick around.  Of course, my most-viewed post of all time, by about a factor of 3, is still my commentary about whiskey stones.  Clearly I should routinely stake out an aggressive position on some physics point connected to good Scotch.)

Nanotechnology and industry - winning and losing

Thanks to Paul Weiss for pointing me to this article, which asks rather breathlessly (in response to this [pdf] report from the US Government Accountability Office) whether the US is somehow fumbling or screwing up the industrial deployment of nanotechnology.  The US government has sunk quite a bit of money over the last decade and a half into basic (and some applied) research on nanoscale science, clearly with the idea that this will energize the US economy in the long run by producing nanotechnology-based products in industry.  There is clearly some concern about whether the science is really making the transition to manufacturing, or is it stuck in the "valley of death". 

In my view, getting from largely university-based basic research to large scale industrial deployment of a technology is inherently difficult - at least as challenging and probably more so than what used to take place when companies broadly supported comparatively long-term industrial research.  To put it another way, it was always difficult to get something out of the lab and into a product at Bell Labs and IBM in the heyday of industrial research, and that involved technology transfer within a single company.  These days, companies are effectively trying to outsource much basic research to universities - super-short time horizons have combined with market forces to kill most US industrial long-term (that is, more than 3 years from a clear product) research (at least on the physical sciences side).  Companies have to get past the "not invented here" barrier, the fact that universities do not function like industrial labs, the fact that universities do not have the detailed knowledge or specialized equipment of scaled-up manufacturing, potential intellectual property challenges, general risk-averse behavior, etc.

My point is, getting from basic research to industrial deployment is a long, difficult path under the best of circumstances.   With our current system where companies are generally risk averse and they (and depressingly investors) are concerned with next quarter's stock price rather than where they will be in a decade, the situation is extremely challenging.  Be patient, don't panic, but don't be surprised if companies (likely foreign ones) with in-house research and a longer view are able to do well in the nano regime.

Science and public outreach - Nerd Nite

Last Thursday I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak at the first Nerd Nite Houston.  Nerd Nite was described to me as "like TED, only with alcohol," which seems to have been pretty accurate.  The event was largely organized by Amado Guloy, a solid state chemist by training who now does IP law, and the first speaker was Andy Boyd, who has been doing serious science outreach as a contributor to the syndicated-on-public-radio Engines of Our Ingenuity.  I spoke last of the three, which had the benefit of letting the audience get, umm, relaxed by the time I took the stage.  In some sense I gave a meta-talk - I was a scientist speaking to a general audience about scientists speaking to general audiences.  The quote in my title - "It's late; we're all tired; why should any of us care about anything you're saying?" - is something that I once heard a certain famously irascible condensed matter theorist say to a startled speaker who had committed the sin of not really giving an introduction to a talk.   Hopefully the video of the talks will be online soon, and when that happens I'll update this post to link there.  The talk went very well, and I had a great time.  The audience was terrific, particularly in the question period, when they asked about a variety of challenging topics (e.g., is the upcoming Bill Nye vs. creation museum guy debate a good thing?  How much can we expect average people to know and understand about science?  Isn't asking average people to trust us on science - taking science as a matter of faith - antithetical to the whole point of science as a skeptical way of interacting with the world?).  The whole experience really made me think yet again about how nice it would be to have a Sagan-esque figure in terms of explaining the cool, fascinating parts of condensed matter (emergence; the crossover from quantum to classical behaviour; the nature of irreversibility; how modern technology has roots in cm physics; to name a few) to the general public.

Speaking of Sagan, I hope that the new version of Cosmos is must-see viewing.  UPDATE:  check out this blog post from the Library of Congress - you can get Sagan's lecture materials and homeworks for a course that he taught at Harvard, and some stuff from a course on critical thinking at Cornell.  Very cool. 

Lastly, if you want a fun example of a Nerd Nite talk, check out "Godzilla:  History, Biology, and Behavior of Hyperevolved Therapod Kaiju". 

Undergrad research - fun, good for students, and sometimes just plain excellent

In the course of doing some graduate admissions and writing many rec letters, I've been thinking about the value of undergrad research experiences.  There is no question that doing one or more reasonably big science research projects can be of real benefit to undergrads in multiple ways.  Most importantly, the student gets to see how real research works - it's very different from problem set exercises and canned labs where you know that there's a well-defined answer or solution.  The student also gets in-depth experience in a particular subfield, so that they can get a sense of whether that's a specific area they might (or might not) like to study further.   In my case, my senior thesis helped me appreciate that I didn't really want to do computational modeling exclusively.  It's also good for students to see how much effort really goes into a big project, and gives them experience (ideally) in budgeting their time, planning, making presentations, structuring and writing a lengthy document, etc.  We've recently had a really nice insight into some mysterious data coming from an undergrad project in my lab, and it's been very fun to go through the process, with the student, of figuring out what the heck is going on, and to have the student come by my office with the confirming data in-hand. 

Sometimes undergrad research can also lead to big scientific results.  Here is a paper (see press release) by Dave Hall's group at Amherst College, where they have used ultracold atoms to create (effective) magnetic monopoles.  Note that this work was done at a liberal arts college by undergrad researchers.  Outstanding!

Fantasy physics, in two senses.

Having read this article, I have a modest proposal for a new, even geekier fantasy sport:  fantasy physics departments.  This would be like a typical fantasy sport.  Each member of the league would have to draft academic physicists, with the proviso that you have to have a reasonably balanced department (e.g., you can't only pick people working on graphene or plasmonics, to goose your citation metrics).  Then you use citations (via google scholar), federal grants (via public records), awards (via news blurbs and CVs), and graduated students/postdocs as a means of keeping score.  The downside of this is that the winning roster may end up being a hiring plan for a university operating in the superstar model of academia. 

Speaking of fantasy and physics, I see that there is a great deal of discussion going on out there in popular books and other settings about "the multiverse" (see here, for example) and even the idea that physics needs to set aside the notion that proper scientific theories need to be falsifiable.  Sorry, but that way lies madness, or at least rampant speculation.  It pains me greatly that a big part of the general public's impression of physics is dominated by people who express fantastical, speculative ideas with few or no qualifiers.  Gahh. 

Self-promotion - two papers, one post

Time for one of my comparatively rare scientific self-promotion posts.  I'm economizing by writing about two new papers in one post.  They're both fun results, and hopefully they're both reasonably accessible to a broad audience.

The first paper is this one.  I've written about plasmons before.   Light can come in and hit a metal nanostructure and be absorbed by exciting a plasmon (a sloshing of the electronic fluid, technically a coherent bunch of electron-hole excitations).  Over time, the energy in that plasmon eventually ends up as heat, slightly broadening the energy distribution of the electrons, and making the atoms vibrate.  A lot of people have been using the plasmon response of metal nanoparticles as a way to generate heat locally, with applications like cooking tumors or boiling water.  It's a real challenge, though, to measure the local increase in temperature, and to tell the difference between plasmon-based absorption and just ordinary absorption (which also dumps energy initially into the electrons, but not in a coherent way).   In our paper, my (now former) postdoc Joseph Herzog was able to do some clever measurements looking at plasmon-based heating in nanowires, with the wire itself being used as a resistive thermometer.  We could separate out the plasmon-based contribution because it has a very strong dependence on the polarization of the incident light, while ordinary absorption doesn't care much about that.  Mark Knight then did some really great optical + thermal modeling, and the results match the experiments very nicely.  Hopefully this will be a useful resource as people work on studying and engineering this kind of plasmon-based heating.  As a bonus, this tells us that in our other optics experiments on similar structures, the heating from having the laser on is probably only a few degrees.

The second paper is here, with a news release here.  Using special optical antenna structures, we have been able to do vibrational spectroscopy on single- or few-molecule junctions while driving current through them.  Previously we have shown that you can see when the electrons have enough energy to pump the molecular vibrations.  Recently, my student Yajing Li found, when looking at junctions containing C₆₀, that the energies of vibrational states (that is, the natural frequencies of the molecular vibrations) were systematically lower when a decent voltage was applied across the junction.  Initially, we thought that this was an example of something called the vibrational Stark effect, and we turned to theorist colleagues (Jeff Neaton and his student Peter Doak, and Leeor Kronik) to see if that explanation held water.  It turns out, no, this is not the vibrational Stark effect (which is too small and also does not systematically lower vibrational energies).  Instead, when we apply a voltage across the junction, we slightly increase how much electron density is sitting on the molecule.  That slight increase is enough to soften some of the molecular bonds a little, and therefore lower the vibrational frequencies.  In chemistry lingo, we are partly filling an antibonding orbital, so that weakens the bonds.  The theory does a nice job explaining the shape and magnitude of what we see (though there is still plenty to do in terms of understanding the details).  For the science fiction fans in my readership:  Unfortunately there is no obvious way to run this the other direction and arbitrarily dial up the strength of molecular bonds, so I will not be opening a company called General Products that sells unbreakable spacecraft hulls. 

Favor to ask - looking for a video clip.

Now that some big deadlines have passed and I'm worn out before the semester even starts, I'm hoping my readership can help me out.  I'm working on a public talk about presenting science to a general audience, and I would like to include a video clip from a Futurama episode, "Where No Fan Has Gone Before".  Specifically, to talk about the problems with using analogies to explain complicated concepts, I'd love to have video of this bit:

Fry: Usually on the show, they came up with a complicated plan, then explained it with a simple analogy.
Leela: Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.
Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!
Fry: Of course! It's all so simple!

It doesn't seem to exist on youtube.  Of course, this would be properly credited to Fox, and would be considered fair use from the standpoint of copyright.  Thanks for any suggestions or help.

UPDATE:  Thanks to one of you, I'm all set!  Thanks!

Links and thanks at the end of another year

Thank you, readers, for another year.  It is gratifying to hear from you and to meet people who have found this blog useful and informative (or at least worth noticing, which is something these days).  My posting frequency slumped quite a bit at the end of 2013 because of various writing commitments (a couple of which continue).  I'm hoping to have some more to say in the coming year, and I hope that there are opportunities out there to get some of the coolness of condensed matter and nanoscale physics to the general public as well as my more specialized readers.

Here are a few end-of-year links for your enjoyment:

• Sometimes people put amusing or snarky comments in the acknowledgments sections of papers.  Who knew?  (Full disclosure:  It's possible that the "M. Fleetwood" acknowledged in this paper is a musician.)
• Scientists and mathematicians have their own special brand of humor.  (I love the Mandelbrot joke.  This does omit one of my favorites:  What is purple and commutes?  An Abelian grape.)
• Bob Laughlin is jumping back into physics aiming to make a big splash:  He basically is arguing (see this preprint) that there really is no such thing as a Mott insulator.  That's a rather radical statement at this point, given (for example) experiments with optical lattices that seem to show that the Mott insulator appears to exist as a realizable state.  (I'm sure there are ways to argue that those experiments are not really in the thermodynamic limit and involve interactions that are not the Coulomb interaction, etc.)
• Snowflakes are still cool.  (A repeat, but worth it.)