Condensed concepts

If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new material. There is a long history of this and it is worth considering the wise observations of Robert Cava , back in 1997, contained in a tutorial lecture. It would have been useful indeed in the early days of the field [cuprate superconductors] to have set up a "commission" to set some minimum standard of data quality and reproducibility for reporting new superconductors. An almost countless number of "false alarms" have been reported in the past decade, some truly spectacular. Koichi Kitazawa from the University of Tokyo coined these reports "USOs", for Unidentified Superconducting Objects , in a clever cross-cultural double entendre likening them to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, which certainly are their equivalent in many ways) and to "lies" in the Japanese translation of USO.   These have caused g

Here are some biting critiques of some of the "best" research at the "best" universities, by several distinguished scholars. The large numbers of younger faculty competing for a professorship feel forced to specialize in narrow areas of their discipline and to publish as many papers as possible during the five to ten years before a tenure decision is made. Unfortunately, most of the facts in these reports have neither practical utility nor theoretical significance ; they are tiny stones looking for a place in a cathedral. The majority of ‘empirical facts’ in the social sciences have a half-life of about ten years. Jerome Kagan  [Harvard psychologist], The Three Cultures Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21st Century [I thank Vinoth Ramachandra for bringing this quote to my attention]. [The distinguished philosopher Alasdair] MacIntyre provides a useful tool to test how far a university has moved to this fragmented condition. He as

I find the following book synopsis rather disturbing. Is everything in a university for sale if the price is right? In this book, the author cautions that the answer is all too often "yes." Taking the first comprehensive look at the growing commercialization of our academic institutions, the author probes the efforts on campus to profit financially not only from athletics but increasingly, from education and research as well. He shows how such ventures are undermining core academic values and what universities can do to limit the damage.   Commercialization has many causes, but it could never have grown to its present state had it not been for the recent, rapid growth of money-making opportunities in a more technologically complex, knowledge-based economy. A brave new world has now emerged in which university presidents, enterprising professors, and even administrative staff can all find seductive opportunities to turn specialized knowledge into profit.   The author ar

Last month The Economist had a cover story and large section on commercial technologies based on quantum information. To give the flavour here is a sample from one of the articles Very few in the field think it will take less than a decade [to build a large quantum computer], and many say far longer. But the time for investment, all agree, is now—because even the smaller and less capable machines that will soon be engineered will have the potential to earn revenue . Already, startups and consulting firms are springing up to match prospective small quantum computers to problems faced in sectors including quantitative finance, drug discovery and oil and gas . .... Quantum simulators might help in the design of room-temperature superconductors allowing electricity to be transmitted without losses, or with investigating the nitrogenase reaction used to make most of the world’s fertiliser. I know people are making advances [which are interesting from a fundamental science point of

In Australia, grant reviewers are usually asked to score applications according to three aspects: investigator, project, and research environment. These are usually weighted by something like 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. Previously, I wrote how I think the research environment aspect is problematic. I struggle to see why investigator and project should have equal weighting. For example, consider the following caricatures. John writes highly polished proposals with well defined projects on important topics. However, he has limited technical expertise relevant to the ambitious goals in the proposal. He also tends to write superficial papers on hot topics. Joan is not particularly well organised and does not write polished proposals. She does not plan her projects but lets her curiosity and creativity lead her. Although she does not write a lot of papers she has a good track record of moving into new areas and making substantial contributions. This raises the question of wheth

Faculty vary greatly in their level of involvement with the details of the research projects of the undergrads, Ph.D students, and postdocs they supervise. Here are three different examples based on real senior people. A. gives the student or postdoc a project topic and basically does not want to talk to them again until they bring a draft of a paper. B. talks to their students regularly but boasts that they have not looked at a line of computer code since they became a faculty member. It is the sole responsibility of students to write and debug code. C. is very involved. One night before a conference presentation they stayed up until 3 am trying to debug a students code in the hope of getting some more results to present the next day. Similar issues arise with analytical calculations or getting experimental apparatus to work. What is an appropriate level of involvement? On the one hand, it is important that students take responsibility for their projects and learn to solve

I enjoyed watching the movie Hidden Figures . It is based on a book that recounts the little-known history of the contributions of three African-American women to NASA and the first manned space flights in the 1960s. The movie is quite entertaining and moving while raising significant issues about racism and sexism in science. I grimaced at some of the scenes. On the one hand, some would argue we have come a long way in fifty years. On the other hand, we should be concerned about how the rise of Trump will play out in science. One minor question I have is how much of the math on the blackboards is realistic? Something worth considering is the extent to which the movie fits the too-common white savior narrative , as highlighted in a critical review , by Marie Hicks.

I am currently helping teach a second year undergraduate course Thermodynamics and Condensed Matter Physics. For the first time I am helping out in some of the lab sessions. Two of the experiments are based on the  drinking bird . This illustrates two important topics: heat engines and liquid-vapour equilibria. Here are a few observations fo in random order. * I still find it fascinating to watch. Why isn't it a perpetual motion machine? * Several more surprising things are: a. it operates on such a small temperature difference, b. that there is a temperature difference between the head and bulb, c. it is so sensitive to perturbations such as warming with your fingers or changes in humidity. * It took me quite a while to understand what is going on, which makes me wonder about the students doing the lab. How much are they following the recipe and saying the mantra... * I try to encourage the students to think critically and scientifically about what is going on, as