Physics is a point of view about the world

picture from : Hopfield, John J. “Whatever Happened to Solid State Physics?” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5, no. Volume 5, 2014 (March 10, 2014): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031113-133924.

The title of this blog is the closing line of an autobiographical essay written by John Hopfield (pictured above), one of the physics Nobel laureates today: “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.”

In this essay, he retraces his trajectory across various sub-disciplines of physics and how he eventually used his knowledge of physics to work on a problem in neurobiology that further connects to machine learning.

The title of the essay is provocative(see below) but worth reading to understand how physics has evolved over the years and its profound impact on various disciplines.

Reference: Hopfield, John J. “Whatever Happened to Solid State Physics?” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5, no. Volume 5, 2014 (March 10, 2014): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031113-133924.

Thanks to Gautam Menon for bringing the essay to my notice.

By the way, Hopfield and Deepak Dhar shared the 2022 Boltzmann medal, and after the award, he gave a wonderful online talk at IMSc, Chennai. Thanks to Arnab Pal of IMSc for bringing this to my notice on X.

Let me end this post quoting Hopfield from the mentioned essay:

What is physics? To me—growing up with a father and mother who were both physicists—physics was not subject matter. The atom, the troposphere, the nucleus, a piece of glass, the washing machine, my bicycle, the phonograph, a magnet—these were all incidentally the subject matter. The central idea was that the world is understandable, that you should be able to take anything apart, understand the relationships between its constituents, do experiments, and on that basis be able to develop a quantitative understanding of its behavior. Physics was a point of view that the world around us is, with effort, ingenuity, and adequate resources, understandable in a predictive and reasonably quantitative fashion. Being a physicist is a dedication to the quest for this kind of understanding.

Let that quest never die!

Optothermal revolution – preprint

We have an Arxiv preprint on how a mixture of colloids (thermally active + passive particles in water) can lead to the emergence of revolution dynamics in an optical ring trap (dotted line). Super effort by our lab members Rahul Chand and Ashutosh Shukla.

Interestingly, the revolution emerges only when an active and a passive colloid are combined (not as individuals) in a ring potential (dotted line)

the direction (clock or anti-clockwise) of the revolution depends on the relative placement of the colloids in the trap

This revolution can be further used to propel a third active colloid

There are many more details in the paper. Check it out: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16792

Questions as a class assignment

Over the years, I have been giving student assignments to write about their questions (rather than answers to my Qs).

Snapshot of email to my class below.

I have found some gems in the process and importantly reduces the ‘burden’ of single right answers. Student feedback on this process has been positive.

Even in the ChatGPT era, it is the quality of Qs that determines the answer, and in this assignment, students are free to choose their Qs as per their interest and experience connected to what I teach…something harder for ChatGPT to grasp (as of now).

Interesting times ahead.

Graviton-like modes – link and some questions

Recently, I wrote a blog on Graviton-like modes in solids.

There is a nice report from the Columbia Quantum Initiative on the Nature paper.

It highlights the role of Aron (a key author in the paper, who passed away in 2022) and his legacy.

Undoubtedly, the graviton-like connection has created a buzz. As the above report mentions, it has also taken a lot of time and effort on the part of the authors to measure it.

Thanks to my colleague Surjeet Singh, I also learnt about the importance of heterostructures in this work and that authors do not oversell the connection to gravitons in the paper.

For me, as an outsider to the field(s), a few questions remain:

  • What lessons can we learn from graviton-like modes in solids that will help us understand the actual undetected graviton?
  • How is it different from the collective excitation of quasiparticles, such as exciton-polaritons in semiconductor heterostructures? Similar experimental methods are used to study them. 
  • Is the prominence only due to spin-2 collective excitation? 
  • Finally – applying Occam’s razor – can there be a simple explanation without evoking graviton-like modes?

It would be great to know the answers, hopefully, in the coming days.

Graviton modes in solids: Old Argentinian wine in new Bottle ?

Recently, there has been a buzz about a Nature paper titled Evidence for chiral graviton modes in fractional quantum Hall liquids. There has been some media reportage on the paper too.

The paper makes interesting claim on observation of ‘chiral graviton modes’ in certain ultra-cooled semiconductors (Gallium Arsenide – famously called GaAs). The cooled temperature is quite low (~50 mK), which is impressive, and the chirality of the mode is unveiled using polarization-resolved Raman scattering. The observation of this so-called ‘Graviton modes’ is essentially a quasiparticle excitation, and has created some buzz. In my opinion, graviton-like behavior is a bit of an exaggeration.

Anyway, this paper has set an interesting discussion among my colleagues (condensed matter and high energy physics) in our department. To add to their discussion, I wrote on 2 points (and an inference) from optics perspective, which I am sharing below :

  1. The measurement scheme used to unveil the chirality of the quasi-particles is a well-known trick in polarization optics. In fact, I teach it to our undergrads. Notice the use of quarter-wave plates (indicated by the arrow in the figure below). This is also the measurement at the heart of unveiling optical anisotropy. Experimentally, what is impressive is the ultra-low energy excitation captured via Raman scattering. This is again thanks to the excellent cooling of the sample (50 mK).
Figure from the Nature paper.

2. The last author of this paper, Aron Pinczuk, was a well-known expert in light scattering in solids. He was an Argentinian-American professor at Columbia University, and passed away in 2022.

Aron Pinczuk

He and the legendary Manuel Cardona were instrumental (pun intended) in laying the foundation for using inelastic light scattering methods in solids. The first edition of the series “Light Scattering in Solids”, written in 1976, has Pincuk discussing the very measurement scheme used in the paper (see picture).  

The first edition (1976) of a great series : Light Scattering in Solids

My initial inference on the paper : This is an old Argentinan wine of quasiparticles in a new GaAs bottle at ultra-low temperature….and NATURE is selling it as champagne de graviton made in China ! 

Planck replies to Sommerfeld

Gamow, George. 1966. Thirty Years That Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory.

An excerpt from the book mentioned above:

“Planck was a typical German professor of his time, serious and probably pedantic, but not without a warm human feeling, which is evidenced in his correspondence with Arnold Sommerfeld who, following the work of Niels Bohr, was applying the Quantum Theory to the structure of the atom. Referring to the quantum as Planck’s notion, Sommerfeld in a letter to him wrote:

You cultivate the virgin soil,
Where picking flowers was my only toil.

and to this answered Planck:

You picked flowers—well, so have I.
Let them be, then, combined;
Let us exchange our flowers fair,
And in the brightest wreath them bind.”

Who thought these scientists were so poetic!

Teaching LASERs – snapshots

Today, I will be teaching the origins of LASERs in my optics class. Some of the content may interest science enthusiasts here. I present some snapshots from my notes. As expected, it starts with Einstein introducing his A and B coefficients and the stimulated emission.

He introduced them in a paper written in German: Einstein, A. (1916). “Strahlungs-Emission und -Absorption nach der Quantentheorie”. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft. 18: 318–323.

The English translation of the paper: “Volume 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917 (English Translation Supplement) Page 212 (224 of 462).” Accessed November 3, 2023. https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/224.

Under thermodynamic equilibrium, the detailed balance gives us the connection between the coefficients…and amplification and stimulated emission of radiation become a measurable prospect.

The pic shows the leading characters behind the invention of the Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (LASER) Charles Townes was the intellectual pioneer behind microwave variety… and Maiman….the freak behind the optical version..

The history of the invention is fascinating and dramatic. I did a podcast on this a few months ago. Check it out..

Oliver Heaviside : A Maxwellian

Oliver Heaviside

18 May 1850 – 3 February 1925

Maxwell’s equation as per Heaviside formulation. Image courtesy Wikipedia.
  • I have been teaching Optics course this semester, and in order to introduce wave theory of light, I had to use Maxwell’s equation. In there, I mentioned that the expression for Maxwell’s equation that we use now is mainly thanks to the formulation of  Oliver Heaviside.
  • Born in 1850, Heaviside grew up in poverty and had physical illness in his childhood.
  • Oliver Heaviside had an unusual life. He did not have a formal education in science or engineering, but contributed immensely to what is now called as classical electromagnetism.
  • He was nephew of Wheatstone (of the fame of Wheatstone network), who helped him to find a job in a telegraph company, which was in 1870s, a booming industry.
  • Heaviside showed a lot of promise in his work, and learnt a lot on the go.
  • Around 1872, at the age of 22, he published his first research paper in Philosophical Magazine, which caught the attention of people such as Lord Kelvin and James Maxwell.
  • At the age of 24, Heaviside quit his job (because of various reasons including ill health), and went back to live with his parents.
  • Around 1873, Maxwell’s treatise on Electricity and Magnetism was published, and this mesmerized Heaviside.
  • He studied it with dedication, but could not understand it. Therefore, he decided to re-write Maxwell’s treatise.
  • Maxwell had used quaternion, which was a number system devised by Hamilton. 
  • This formulation was cumbersome, and was not easy to understand especially in the context of electricity and magnetism.
  • Heaviside took this formulation, and re-casted it in terms of vector calculus.
  • Interestingly, Gibbs had also done the same (earlier than Heaviside), but had not published his results.
  • Nevertheless, both Heaviside and Gibbs pushed this formulation further, and eventually the research community saw its utility.
  • There are many contributions of Heaviside towards electromagnetism, and inductive loading was one of them. Initially, this loading method of introducing repeated coils along the cable was met with a lot of opposition. But eventually, the advantage was realized and Oliver (and his brother, who initiated the work) were vindicated.  
  • Heaviside was a prolific researcher, and published 3 volumes on electromagnetic theory, in addition to various research papers.
  • He also wrote a column spanning over 20 years in a magazine named The Electrician.
  • After 1914 or so, Heaviside’s could not work due to ill health and paranoia, which disturbed his mind.
  • In 1925, Oliver Heaviside passed away. 
  • There are some excellent books and  biographical notes on Heaviside. Below are a few :
  • Hunt, Bruce J. The Maxwellians. Cornell University Press, 1994.
  • Hunt, Bruce J. “Oliver Heaviside: A First-Rate Oddity.” Physics Today 65, no. 11 (November 1, 2012): 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1788.
  • Nahin, Paul J. Oliver Heaviside: The Life, Work, and Times of an Electrical Genius of the Victorian Age. Second Edition. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Among the books and discussion on this topic, I found this book by science historian Bruce Hunt to be very interesting. He identifies 3 plus 1 people who extensively developed Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory and presented in a way that the world could understand its significance. They were G. F. FitzGerald, Oliver Heaviside, Oliver Lodge and to a certain extent – Heinrich Hertz.

The foreword of this excellent book was written by a well known historian of science L. Peerce Williams and he sums the situation in which the theory was developed :

“Like Newton’s Principia, Maxwell’s Treatise did not immediately convince
the scientific community. The concepts in it were strange and the
mathematics was clumsy and involved. Most of the experimental basis
was drawn from the researches of Michael Faraday, whose results were
undeniable, but whose ideas seemed bizarre to the orthodox physicist.
The British had, more or less, become accustomed to Faraday’s “vision,”
but continental physicists, while accepting the new facts that poured
from his laboratory, rejected his conceptual structures. One of Maxwell’s
purposes in writing his treatise was to put Faraday’s ideas into the language
of mathematical physics precisely so that orthodox physicists
would be persuaded of their importance.
Maxwell died in 1879, midway through preparing a second edition of
the Treatise. At that time, he had convinced only a very few of his fellow
countrymen and none of his continental colleagues. That task now fell to
his disciples.

The story that Bruce Hunt tells in this volume is the story of the ways
in which Maxwell’s ideas were picked up in Great Britain, modified,
organized, and reworked mathematically so that the Treatise as a whole
and Maxwell’s concepts were clarified and made palatable, indeed irresistible,
to the physicists of the late nineteenth century. The men who
accomplished this, G. F. FitzGerald, Oliver Heaviside, Oliver Lodge, and
others, make up the group that Hunt calls the “Maxwellians.” Their relations
with one another and with Maxwell’s works make for a fascinating
study of the ways in which new and revolutionary scientific ideas move
from the periphery of scientific thought to the very center. In the process,
Professor Hunt also, by extensive use of manuscript sources, examines
the genesis of some of the more important ideas that fed into and
led to the scientific revolution of the twentieth century.