Science and Engineering Graduate Enrollment Increased in 2007

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has released its latest statistics on graduate school enrollment in science and engineering for 2007 academic year.

U.S. enrollment in science and engineering (S&E) graduate programs in 2007 increased by 3.3% over comparable data for 2006. This is the highest annual growth rate since 2002 and is nearly double the 1.7% growth rate seen in 2006. First-time, full-time enrollment of foreign students (the terms foreign student and temporary visa holder are equivalent in this report) eclipsed its previous high, set in 2001, and total enrollment of temporary visa holders topped its 2003 high. Despite this growth, the proportion of S&E graduate students who are temporary visa holders remained below its peak level, set in 2002, because of growth in the numbers of U.S. citizens and permanent residents pursuing graduate-level study in S&E fields.

While this looks encouraging as a whole, a closer look at the "Physical Sciences" shows that the enrollment level between 2006 and 2007 remains flat, at best. Certainly there is a slight increasing number of enrollment since 2000, but it seems have leveled off around 2005. Coincidentally, this was the period of some of the most challenging times in funding for physics, with the Bush Administration and Congress trying to out-muscle each other, with funding in physics being the victim.

Zz.

What Is Science?

HOLY COW!

I think I'm becoming a HUGE fan of Helen Quinn.

I highlighted one of her writings in Physics Today a while back, and flat out wrote that you must read her article. That advice still stands, but now, add another one that is written by her that you MUST read.

The article is titled "What Is Science", published in the July 2009 issue of Physics Today. IT IS AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE, and practically mirrored almost 100% of my own opinion (maybe that's why I like her writings so much! :)). She wrote it in a very sensible manner, and accessible for the general public that isn't trained in science. For example, she tries to describe the process of science that is typically covered in what we normally call the "scientific method" that is taught in elementary education:

Readers of PHYSICS TODAY know that science is a process, based on interpretation of experimental or observational data using models and theories, within a tightly constrained logical structure. The constraints arise from needing a logically self-consistent explanation of multiple phenomena. Any apparent contradiction between different theories or models, between evidence and theory, or between different sources of evidence must be examined and resolved. Asking questions is a big part of doing science, and choosing to pursue answers to the more compelling and productive ones helps shape a given field. Eventually, something resembling an answer might emerge, only to be tested against further observations, models, or theories, a process that often leads to further questions. The work continues, iteratively refining both the theory or model and the questions being examined. Iterations are essential because the process is inherently messy. There are many false starts, with misinterpretations and incomplete information sometimes sending science off on a wild goose chase for a while. We scientists could well be more forthright about the fits and starts of research; after all, clearing up the inconsistencies is what confers much of the authority on the results.

But I think what is even more important is when she addressed the differences between asking WHY about something when asked by a scientist, versus that of the general public:

In everyday usage the question “Why?” can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. Modern science focuses our attention on just those questions that can have definitive answers based on observations. Where science does find a path to compare theory with observations, the theories so developed provide a powerful way to understand the world and even to make some predictions about the future. Science offers us new options that may be applied—for example, in technology and medicine—to change the way we live and extend our capabilities. However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate.

Excellent! If you've followed this blog for any considerable period of time, you would have seen several entries on similar topic, where the use of the same word can mean different things in science, and for the general public (example: "theory").

If you have a subscription to Physics Today, you may access it directly here. PT should really make this available for free, since this is one of those article that everyone should read.

Highly, highly, recommended reading.

Zz.

Physicists In Industrial R&D

This is a report from a comprehensive 5-year study by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) on physicists working in industrial R&D.

Abstract: The halls of industry have always been peopled with physicists. For many years a bit more than a third of PhD physicists worked in industry, while almost half went into academic research and teaching. By the mid-1990s the numbers for new PhDs had reversed, with more than half going into industry and a little less than one-third going into academic institutions (see PHYSICS TODAY, April 2007, page 28). Notwithstanding the important relationship between physicists and industry, the kind of work that industrial physicists do and the way industrial R&D is organized have, until recently, been largely a matter of speculation. In 2003 the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics began a five-year study of the history of physicists in industry—the first systematic assessment of the work that physicists do in the corporate sector, how the organization and funding of industrial R&D have changed over the past several decades, and the extent to which the records of physicists in industry are being preserved for current and future researchers.

Here are the principle findings from the study:

Companies haven’t achieved a consensus on how to conduct R&D and are struggling to find the best mix of longer-term research and short-term development. That is to say, they are trying to balance the need for a stream of innovative technologies with the ongoing need to report profits.

The funding and organizational structures of corporate R&D have undergone radical changes since the 1980s. In particular, the traditional centralized R&D laboratory is an endangered species.

Many companies rely on external sources—especially physicist entrepreneurs and physics startups—for innovative technology.

No standards exist for preserving the records of corporate R&D. As a result, historically valuable records, including the once ubiquitous laboratory notebook, are being lost.

Zz.

LIGO: the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory

There is a comprehensive overview article on LIGO that just appeared. It's 25 pages long, and I think the first few pages are just the listing of all the authors alone! :)

B P Abbott et al Rep. Prog. Phys. v.72, p.076901 (2009).

Abstract: The goal of the Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is to detect and study gravitational waves (GWs) of astrophysical origin. Direct detection of GWs holds the promise of testing general relativity in the strong-field regime, of providing a new probe of exotic objects such as black holes and neutron stars and of uncovering unanticipated new astrophysics. LIGO, a joint Caltech–MIT project supported by the National Science Foundation, operates three multi-kilometer interferometers at two widely separated sites in the United States. These detectors are the result of decades of worldwide technology development, design, construction and commissioning. They are now operating at their design sensitivity, and are sensitive to gravitational wave strains smaller than one part in 10^21. With this unprecedented sensitivity, the data are being analyzed to detect or place limits on GWs from a variety of potential astrophysical sources.

I can't think of a more complete and up-to-date article on LIGO than this at the present moment.

Zz.

JLab

With a few minor quibbles, such as the phrase "... machine fires electronics that reach nearly the speed of light ...", this is a quick news summary of the Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, one of the DOE's National Laboratories.

The Energy Department's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, or Jefferson Lab, was created to study nuclear physics — the most basic pieces that make up our universe.

It takes a massive machine to study the smallest particles known to man. That machine, the centerpiece of the lab's work, is the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility.

I always wonder whenever we have accounts like this, that someone eventually will get confused into wondering the difference between high energy physics and nuclear physics. For example, the Tevatron and LHC are "high energy physics" machines, while CEBAF and RHIC are "nuclear physics" machines. Most of us in physics kinda understand the energy range and even the type of studies being done in those machines that vaguely separates "nuclear" from "high energy/elementary particles". However, the general description we give to the public (see this news article, for example, doesn't have any distinguishing features that separates one from the other. I mean, saying something like:

"...created to study nuclear physics — the most basic pieces that make up our universe...."

and

"... a massive machine to study the smallest particles known to man... "

would be an accurate description of high energy physics endeavor as well. If I were a very astute layman, I could have easily noticed the "non-difference" and ask "OK, so how is this any different than high energy physics?"

I would have been a tremendous service to the public if news articles like this emphasize why this is specifically a "nuclear physics" facility.

Zz.

Catching Relativity Violations With Atoms

A very interesting review in APS's Physics today on another paper that tries to measure any violation of a local Lorentz symmetry (the link also gives you a free copy of the PRD paper).

What makes this paper "interesting" is the list of authors. One of the author is a "Steven Chu". You may have heard of him! :)

I'm sure our current Secretary of the Dept. of Energy did this work before he was appointed. In fact, there was a similar preprint related to this work that he co-authored that appeared on arXiv the day that Chu was confirmed at the Energy Secretary. It is nice to know that he was an active physicist right to the point that he was appointed to this position.

Zz.

Scientists Work on New Particle Accelerator

This news report describes the planned upgrade of the laser plasma wakefield accelerator at Berkeley Nat'l Lab.

Researchers at the Berkeley Lab plan to use microscopic waves to charge and accelerate some of the smallest particles in the universe.

The process will take place in the lab's "table-top" Berkeley Lab Laser Accelerator, a device that is planned to be built by fall 2009 and will replace the lab's current, smaller accelerator.

Not sure what the article meant as ".. some of the smallest particles in the universe.. " when they can just mention "electrons" and be done with, because that is accurately what the facility will accelerate.

The news report has some rather puzzling statements. For example:

A laser beam will then puncture the gas and cause a "wake" that will accelerate and charge the particle that follows the beam, said Paul Preuss, a member of the communications department for the lab.

The laser will cause the wake, yes, but it also "charge up" the following particle that is being accelerated? It will charge up the gas and turning it into a plasma, but the particles being accelerated, which are electrons, are already "charged"!

In this scheme, a high-powered pulsed laser passes through a cloud of neutral gas. The laser's electric field then ionizes the gas for a split second, creating a region of very high electric field gradient (what the news article kept referring to as creating "charge"). This high gradient is the accelerating gradient that will accelerate an electron bunch that trails after the laser pulse. I've highlighted this technique a while back.

This is such an amazing technique that can achieve quite high gradient. If it can be implemented, the energy ceiling for high energy physics experiments can be raised quite a bit without busting a budget. Too bad the reporting of the physics isn't that clear.

Zz.

Cooking Eggs Using Only Sunlight

This contest sounds like a lot of fun! And I suppose it helps that it is held in the desert when the midday temperature of more than 100 F.

Many contestant gathered to cook their eggs, but without using any gas, fuel, or electricity.

People of all ages and skill levels came to the 19th annual Oatman sidewalk egg fry. Contestants were given 15 minutes to fry their eggs using whatever devises they deemed necessary and that would assist the egg cooking process. The eggs were provided by the Oatman Chamber of Commerce, which sponsors the event.

I like the description of one of the setup.

Perhaps the most innovative - and certainly most effective - method of frying eggs on Saturday was that of Eric Schmidt and Xinaxiao Chou from Cibola, Ariz. Using a Frensel lens to intensify the heat, Schmidt was able to cook a perfect - and edible - sunny-side up egg in about 60 seconds.

“The Fresnel lens sequesters the carbon from the carbon dioxide. The heat coming out of the lens is about 3,800 degrees,” Schmidt said. Chou was a physics professor in Beijing and came up with the idea, he said.

The Frensel lens, named for French physicist Augustin Jean Fresnel, is a thin, optical lens of many concentric rings, which amplify light - and heat.

We could probably use this to motive students in Optics courses. :)

Zz.

The Quantum Life

Paul Davis has an intriguing article on the question if quantum mechanics can describe life.

Half a century later, the dream that quantum mechanics would somehow explain life “at a stroke” — as it had explained other states of matter so distinctively and comprehensively — has not been fulfilled. Undoubtedly, quantum mechanics is needed to explain the sizes and shapes of molecules and the details of their chemical bonding, but no clear-cut “life principle” has emerged from the quantum realm that would single out the living state as in any way special. Furthermore, classical ball-and-stick models seem adequate for most explanations in molecular biology.

Quantum mechanics is certainly relevant in biology and chemistry, which provides the fundamental building blocks of life. However, I'm not sure if QM can currently be used to explain life until both biology and chemistry have adequately describe the "transition" between "non-life" to "life".

Zz.

Jury Acquits in Quantum Physics Assault

This is both jaw-dropping and amusing, all at the same time, very much like a quantum superposition of states. :)

Shortly before the incident, Fava was chatting with an acquaintance, who is also homeless, about "quantum physics and the splitting of atoms," according to prosecutors.

Authorities had said Keller joined in the conversation and, for reasons unknown, got upset. He was accused of picking up his skateboard and hitting Fava in the face with it, splitting his lip. Fava then fell and broke his ankle.

That is utterly hysterical! I've been in seminars and conferences where there were quite heated arguments that went on, but nothing like this. Come to think of it, this would have made such seminars pretty memorable! :)

Zz.

Five Great Problems In Theoretical Physics

Many people, and many organinzations/publications have such list. So here's another one, done by theorist Paul Fendley. I happen to agree with most in the list, with a minor exception to "quantum computer".

Still, here is his whole list if you don't want to read the article.

1. Dark matter/dark energy
2. High Tc superconductivity
3. The Higgs
4. Quantum computer
5. Be nice! :)

Zz.

Where is the quantum critical point in the curprate superconductors?

The existence of one (or more) quantum critical point has been one of the central issue in the puzzle of the cuprate superconductors. In this article, Subir Sachdev, a world-renowned expert in this area, discusses where such quantum criticality might exist in the cuprate phase diagram based on electrical transport measurements.

Zz.

Supernova Shock Wave Accelerates Cosmic Protons

This is a rather interesting report on a paper that appeared in Science last week. It describes the confirmation that the shock wave from a supernova can accelerate protons to such tremendous energy.

Astronomers have suspected for more than a decade that supernova shock waves can act like giant particle accelerators. The basic idea is this: As the remnant of a dead star hurtles through space at up to 30 million kilometers per hour, it creates a shock wave as it interacts with the so-called interstellar medium (ISM). Protons in the shock wave get trapped by the magnetic field of the ISM, which bounces the protons back toward the remnant. But the remnant has its own magnetic field, which repels the protons.

Each bounce adds more energy, and eventually the magnetic tennis match accelerates the protons to nearly the speed of light. Knocked free of the remnant and out into deep space, some of the protons finally hit Earth's atmosphere. The particles are so energetic that astronauts have reported seeing flashes of light--caused by single protons striking their retinas--even when their eyes are closed.

That last part is fascinating! I've never heard about that before. I wonder if that can do damage to one's eyesight. How do you have ample shielding to prevent that? I suppose it doesn't occur too frequently for it to be a concern. I also wonder if these protons are also the one detected by the Auger observatory?

Zz.

On Vacation

I've been on vacation since June 23, and won't be back till July 2nd. So there probably won't be any exciting blog entry in the world of physics till then.

Hope the world doesn't get sucked into a blackhole before then. I'd hate to miss something like that!

:)

Zz.

Work Begins on Homestake Mine

Ground breaking occurred today on the Homestake Mine as the new underground mine to study neutrinos and other things.

Scientists, politicians and other officials gathered Monday for a groundbreaking of sorts at a lab 4,850 foot below the surface of an old gold mine that was once the site of Nobel Prize-winning physics research.

The site is ideal for experiments because its location is largely shielded from cosmic rays that could interfere with efforts to prove the existence of dark matter, which is thought to make up nearly a quarter of the mass of the universe.

Zz.

Iconic Einstein Photo Sells For $74K

Just like Elvis, Einstein's memorabilia still fetches a lot of money half a century after his death.

The iconic, signed photo of Einstein sticking his tongue out was sold for more than $74,000 at an auction. In the short news article, I found out the circumstances surrounding that photo that I didn't know about.

Einstein had nine prints made. He signed the print that was auctioned on Thursday and gave it to journalist Howard K. Smith.

In his inscription, Einstein said his gesture was aimed at all of humanity. Livingston says it also was aimed at the Red Scare and the McCarthy anti-Communist hearings of the 1950s.

I guess he was defiant till the end.

Zz.

The Golden Age of Cosmology

This is a fascinating article by Nobel Laureate George Smoot on our current understanding of Cosmology.

The second reason why this is such an incredibly exciting time in cosmology is that these observations, combined with careful reasoning and an occasional brilliant insight, have allowed us to formulate an elegant and precisely quantitative model for the origin and evolution of the universe. This model reproduces to high accuracy everything that we observe over the history of the universe, images of which are displayed in the planetarium.

We now have precise observations of a very early epoch in the universe through the images made using the CMB radiation and we hope to start a newer and even more precise and illuminating effort with the launch of the Planck Mission on 14 May. However, we also have many impressive galaxy surveys and plans for even more extensive surveys using new ideas to see the relics of the acoustic oscillations in the very, very early universe, as well as the gravitational lensing caused by the more recently formed large-scale structures, such as clusters of galaxies that slightly warp the fabric of space–time by their presence. Each will give us new images and thus new information about the overall history of the universe.

Zz.

Quantum Entanglement

This is a monstrous review article on quantum entanglement[1]. It is 78 pages long!

Abstract: From the point of view of quantum information science, entanglement is a resource that can be used to perform tasks that are impossible in a classical world. In a certain sense, the more entanglement we have, the better we can perform those tasks. Thus, one of the main goals in this field has been to identify under which conditions two or more systems are entangled, and how entangled they are. This paper reviews the main criteria to detect entanglement as well as entanglement measures and also discusses the role of entanglement in quantum communication and cryptography.

Even if you can't read the whole thing (who can?), at the very least, the wealth of references is more than ample reason to keep a copy of this thing.

Zz.

[1] Horodecki et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. v.81, p865 (2009); the ArXiv version can be found here.

Dressing for a Job Interview

It's one of those things that isn't high on the list of things to pay attention to - dressing for an interview. Especially in academia/research, and especially in the physics profession, dressing appropriately isn't something that we pay that much emphasis on. I mean, during the summer months, I come to work in shorts, t-shirt, and sneakers. So one can already tell that I am not that "fashion conscious" (just don't anyone dare call Stacy and Clinton from "What Not To Wear"!).

Still, when one goes for a job interview, even for a job in physics/sciences, what would be appropriate to wear? Well, the Science career section this week has good tips for what to wear and what not to wear. It covers a wide enough situation, from formal to less formal, that one can buy a wardrobe to suit almost all the possible needs. And this covers for both men and women.

From the point of view of the interviewer, I would like your ability and your knowledge to stand out. This means that your outfit and how you are presented should NOT be a distraction. If you walk out of the interview and a day later, I don't remember what you wore, but I do remember exactly what you said, then you have done a good job in dressing yourself. We care more about your knowledge rather than your appearance, but your appearance can be a hindrance to our focus in deciding on what you know.

Luckily, I don't think I've ever come across an interviewee who hasn't dressed appropriately. And certainly I haven't come across anything similar to the person mentioned at the beginning of this article (it just shows lack of respect more than anything else, and that would have turned me off as an interviewer).

Zz.

Students Went Into Zero-G To Do Experiment

Well, this sounds like a lot of fun.

A number of students from New Jersey went into the "Weightless Wonder", a NASA plane that can make zero-g dives, to do their experiment on plasma dust clouds.

In 2008, the first Team DPX -- comprised only of students -- boarded a DC-9. This year, NASA invited Zwicker, who was one of the mentors for both DPX teams, to join the students. The 2009 team -- including several additional students -- took aboard a second dusty plasma experiment, as well as upgraded equipment and additional cameras.

That's almost as an exotic of a "location" to do one's experiment as going to the Antarctica. Still, I wish the news report tells us a little bit more of the nature of the experiment and what exactly is being observed.

Zz.

How Does Time Travel Really Work, Sean Carroll?

Caltech's Sean Carroll took time off from his work to answer a few questions about time travel that we have seen in the movies. If nothing else, this news article gets a chuckle or two. For example:

"Superman" (1978 version)

How time travel is achieved: Superman zips into space and flies faster than the speed of light, round and round, reversing the planet's spin and reversing time.

Carroll says: "It would cause earthquakes and kill millions. And really, if you can do this, then why, if you're Superman, don't you do this all the time? He should be held to a higher standard."

:)

Zz.

Prototype Nokia Cell Phone Recharges Using Ambient Radio Waves?

OK, I read this and I started laughing hysterically.

Sure, I was skeptical, but I also don't doubt that this COULD work. Still it looks like they will need quite a bit of work left to do before they could harvest enough energy just from the ambient EM wave.

Nokia thinks that they have developed a cell phone that doesn't need recharging. It recharges itself from the surrounding radio waves that is almost everywhere.

While "traditional" (if there is such a thing) wireless power systems are specifically designed with a transmitter and receiver in mind, Nokia's system isn't finicky about where it gets its wireless waves. TV, radio, other mobile phone systems -- all of this stuff just bounces around the air and most of it is wasted, absorbed into the environment or scattered into the ether. Nokia picks up all the bits and pieces of these waves and uses the collected electromagnetic energy to create electrical current, then uses that to recharge the phone's battery. A huge range of frequencies can be utilized by the system (there's no other way, really, as the energy in any given wave is infinitesimal). It's the same idea that Tesla was exploring 100 years ago, just on a tiny scale.

Mind you, harvesting ambient electromagnetic energy is never going to offer enough electricity to power your whole house or office, but it just might be enough to keep a cell phone alive and kicking. Currently Nokia is able to harvest all of 5 milliwatts from the air; the goal is to increase that to 20 milliwatts in the short term and 50 milliwatts down the line. That wouldn't be enough to keep the phone alive during an active call, but would be enough to slowly recharge the cell phone battery while it's in standby mode, theoretically offering infinite power -- provided you're not stuck deep underground where radio waves can't penetrate.

Question is, how SLOW does it recharge?

Zz.

The Elusive Memristor: Properties of Basic Electrical Circuits

I'm guessing that there's a flurry of activity after last year's publication of the discovery of a memristor. There is a handy article in Eur. J. Phys. describing the basics of memristor and its properties as an electrical component[1].

Abstract: We present an introduction to and a tutorial on the properties of the recently discovered ideal circuit element, a memristor. By definition, a memristor M relates the charge q and the magnetic flux phi in a circuit and complements a resistor R, a capacitor C and an inductor L as an ingredient of ideal electrical circuits. The properties of these three elements and their circuits are a part of the standard curricula. The existence of the memristor as the fourth ideal circuit element was predicted in 1971 based on symmetry arguments, but was clearly experimentally demonstrated just last year. We present the properties of a single memristor, memristors in series and parallel, as well as ideal memristor–capacitor (MC), memristor–inductor (ML) and memristor–capacitor–inductor (MCL) circuits. We find that the memristor has hysteretic current–voltage characteristics. We show that the ideal MC (ML) circuit undergoes non-exponential charge (current) decay with two time scales and that by switching the polarity of the capacitor, an ideal MCL circuit can be tuned from overdamped to underdamped. We present simple models which show that these unusual properties are closely related to the memristor's internal dynamics. This tutorial complements the pedagogy of ideal circuit elements (R, C and L) and the properties of their circuits, and is aimed at undergraduate physics and electrical engineering students.

Zz.

[1] Y.N. Joglekar and S.J. Wolf, Eur. J. Phys. v.30, p.661 (2009).

High-Tc Superconductors Are Very Kinky - Update 6

Another preprint appears today on the origin of the "kink" that in ARPES spectra of high-Tc superconductors. This time, there is a careful analysis of the role of phonons in producing such an effect[1]. By making the assumption that the magnetic effects play no role at all, they calculated the possible outcome of the phonon mode as the sole source of the band kink. They concluded that for optimally-doped Bi2212, phonons contribute only 10% to this effect.

So from this work, phonons are not the dominant factor in causing the kink.

I have updated the original blog entry to contain this reference.

Zz.

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2627