Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from nanoscale views
Many things have been happening in and around US science. This is a non-exhaustive list of recent developments and links: There have been very large scale personnel cuts across HHS, FDA, CDC, NIH - see here. This includes groups like the people who monitor lead in drinking water. There is reporting about the upcoming presidential budget requests about NASA and NOAA. The requested cuts are very deep. To quote Eric Berger's article linked above, for the science part of NASA, "Among the proposals were: A two-thirds cut to astrophysics, down to $487 million; a greater than two-thirds cut to heliophysics, down to $455 million; a greater than 50 percent cut to Earth science, down to $1.033 billion; and a 30 percent cut to Planetary science, down to $1.929 billion." The proposed cuts to NOAA are similarly deep, seeking to end climate study in the agency, as Science puts it. The full presidential budget request, including NSF, DOE, NIST, etc. is still to come. Remember, Congress in the past has often essentially ignored presidential budget requests. It is unclear if the will exists to do so now. Speaking of NSF, the graduate research fellowship program award announcements for this year came out this past week. The agency awarded slightly under half as many of these prestigious 3-year fellowships as in each of the last 15 years. I can only presume that this is because the agency is deeply concerned about its budgets for the next couple of fiscal years. Grants are being frozen at several top private universities - these include Columbia (new cancellations), the University of Pennsylvania (here), Harvard (here), Northwestern and Cornell (here), and Princeton (here). There are various law suits filed about all of these. Princeton and Harvard have been borrowing money (issuing bonds) to partly deal with the disruption as litigation continues. The president of Princeton has been more vocal than many about this. There has been a surge in visa revocations and unannounced student status changes in SEVIS for international students in the US. To say that this is unsettling is an enormous understatement. See here for a limited discussion. There seems to be deep reluctance for universities to speak out about this, presumably from the worry that saying the wrong thing will end up placing their international students and scholars at greater exposure. On Friday evening, the US Department of Energy put out a "policy flash", stating that indirect cost rates on its grants would be cut immediately to 15%. This sounds familiar. Legal challenges are undoubtedly beginning. Added bonus: According to the Washington Post, DOGE (whatever they say they are this week) is now in control of grants.gov, the website that posts funding opportunities. As the article says, "Now the responsibility of posting these grant opportunities is poised to rest with DOGE — and if its employees delay those postings or stop them altogether, 'it could effectively shut down federal-grant making,' said one federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal operations." None of this is good news for the future of science and engineering research in the US. If you are a US voter and you think that university-based research is important, I encourage you to contact your legislators and make your opinions heard. (As I have put in my profile, what I write here are my personal opinions; I am not in any way speaking for my employer. That should be obvious, but it never hurts to state it explicitly.)
(A post summarizing recent US science-related events will be coming later. For now, here is my promised post about multiferroics, inspired in part by a recent visit to Rice by Yoshi Tokura.) Electrons carry spins and therefore magnetic moments (that is, they can act in some ways like little bar magnets), and as I was teaching undergrads this past week, under certain conditions some of the electrons in a material can spontaneously develop long-range magnetic order. That is, rather than being, on average, randomly oriented, instead below some critical temperature the spins take on a pattern that repeats throughout the material. In the ordered state, if you know the arrangement of spins in one (magnetic) unit cell of the material, that pattern is repeated over many (perhaps all, if the system is a single domain) the unit cells. In picking out this pattern, the overall symmetry of the material is lowered compared to the non-ordered state. (There can be local moment magnets, when the electrons with the magnetic moments are localized to particular atoms; there can also be itinerant magnets, when the mobile electrons in a metal take on a net spin polarization.) The most famous kind of magnetic order is ferromagnetism, when the magnetic moments spontaneously align along a particular direction, often leading to magnetic fields projected out of the material. Magnetic materials can be metals, semiconductors, or insulators. In insulators, an additional kind of order is possible, based on electric polarization, \(\mathbf{P}\). There is subtlety about defining polarization, but for the purposes of this discussion, the question is whether the atoms within each unit cell bond appropriately and are displaced below some critical temperature to create a net electric dipole moment, leading to ferroelectricity. (Antiferroelectricity is also possible.) Again, the ordered state has lower symmetry than the non-ordered state. Ferroelectric materials have some interesting applications. BiFeO3, a multiferroic antiferromagnet, image from here. Multiferroics are materials that have simultaneous magnetic order and electric polarization order. A good recent review is here. For applications, obviously it would be convenient if both the magnetic and polarization ordering happened well above room temperature. There can be deep connections between the magnetic order and the electric polarization - see this paper, and this commentary. Because of these connections, the low energy excitations of multiferroics can be really complicated, like electromagnons. Similarly, there can be combined "spin textures" and polarization textures in such materials - see here and here. Multiferroics raise the possibility of using applied voltages (and hence electric fields) to flip \(\mathbf{P}\), and thus toggle around \(\mathbf{M}\). This has been proposed as a key enabling capability for information processing devices, as in this approach. These materials are extremely rich, and it feels like their full potential has not yet been realized.
Here are a couple of neat papers that I came across in the last week. (Planning to write something about multiferroics as well, once I have a bit of time.) The idea of directly extracting useful energy from the rotation of the earth sounds like something out of an H. G. Wells novel. At a rough estimate (and it's impressive to me that AI tools are now able to provide a convincing step-by-step calculation of this; I tried w/ gemini.google.com) the rotational kinetic energy of the earth is about \(2.6 \times 10^{29}\) J. The tricky bit is, how do you get at it? You might imagine constructing some kind of big space-based pick-up coil and getting some inductive voltage generation as the earth rotates its magnetic field past the coil. Intuitively, though, it seems like while sitting on the (rotating) earth, you should in some sense be comoving with respect to the local magnetic field, so it shouldn't be possible to do anything clever that way. It turns out, though, that Lorentz forces still apply when moving a wire through the axially symmetric parts of the earth's field. This has some conceptual contact with Faraday's dc electric generator. With the right choice of geometry and materials, it is possible to use such an approach to extract some (tiny at the moment) power. For the theory proposal, see here. For an experimental demonstration, using thermoelectric effects as a way to measure this (and confirm that the orientation of the cylindrical shell has the expected effect), see here. I need to read this more closely to decide if I really understand the nuances of how it works. On a completely different note, this paper came out on Friday. (Full disclosure: The PI is my former postdoc and the second author was one of my students.) It's an impressive technical achievement. We are used to the fact that usually macroscopic objects don't show signatures of quantum interference. Inelastic interactions of the object with its environment effectively suppress quantum interference effects on some time scale (and therefore some distance scale). Small molecules are expected to still show electronic quantum effects at room temperature, since they are tiny and their electronic levels are widely spaced, and here is a review of what this could do in electronic measurements. Quantum interference effects should also be possible in molecular vibrations at room temperature, and they could manifest themselves through the vibrational thermal conduction through single molecules, as considered theoretically here. This experimental paper does a bridge measurement to compare the thermal transport between a single-molecule-containing junction between a tip and a surface, and an empty (farther spaced) twin tip-surface geometry. They argue that they see differences between two kinds of molecules that originate from such quantum interference effects. As for more global issues about the US research climate, there will be more announcements soon about reductions in force and the forthcoming presidential budget request. (Here is an online petition regarding the plan to shutter the NIST atomic spectroscopy group.) Please pay attention to these issues, and if you're a US citizen, I urge you to contact your legislators and make your voice heard.
I saw a couple of interesting talks this morning before heading out: Alessandro Chiesa of Parma spoke about using spin-containing molecules potentially as qubits, and about chiral-induced spin selectivity (CISS) in electron transfer. Regarding the former, here is a review. Spin-containing molecules can have interesting properties as single qubits, or, for spins higher than 1/2, qudits, with unpaired electrons often confined to a transition metal or rare earth ion somewhat protected from the rest of the universe by the rest of the molecule. The result can be very long coherence times for their spins. Doing multi-qubit operations is very challenging with such building blocks, however. There are some theory proposals and attempts to couple molecular qubits to superconducting resonators, but it's tough! Regarding chiral induced spin selectivity, he discused recent work trying to use molecules where a donor region is linked to an acceptor region via a chiral bridge, and trying to manipulate spin centers this way. A question in all the CISS work is, how can the effects be large when spin-orbit coupling is generally very weak in light, organic molecules? He has a recent treatment of this, arguing that if one models the bridge as a chain of sites with large \(U/t\), where \(U\) is the on-site repulsion energy and \(t\) is the hopping contribution, then exchange processes between sites can effectively amplify the otherwise weak spin-orbit effects. I need to read and think more about this. Richard Schlitz of Konstanz gave a nice talk about some pretty recent research using a scanning tunneling microscope tip (with magnetic iron atoms on the end) to drive electron paramagnetic resonance in a single pentacene molecule (sitting on MgO on Ag, where it tends to grab an electron from the silver and host a spin). The experimental approach was initially explained here. The actual polarized tunneling current can drive the resonance, and exactly how depends on the bias conditions. At high bias, when there is strong resonant tunneling, the current exerts a damping-like torque, while at low bias, when tunneling is far off resonance, the current exerts a field-like torque. Neat stuff. Leah Weiss from Chicago gave a clear presentation about not-yet-published results (based on earlier work), doing optically detected EPR of Er-containing molecules. These condense into mm-sized molecular crystals, with the molecular environment being nice and clean, leading to very little inhomogeneous broadening of the lines. There are spin-selective transitions that can be driven using near telecom-wavelength (1.55 \(\mu m\)) light. When the (anisotropic) \(g\)-factors of the different levels are different, there are some very promising ways to do orientation-selective and spin-selective spectroscopy. Looking forward to seeing the paper on this. And that's it for me for the meeting. A couple of thoughts: I'm not sold on the combined March/April meeting. Six years ago when I was a DCMP member-at-large, the discussion was all about how the March Meeting was too big, making it hard to find and get good deals on host sites, and maybe the meeting should split. Now they've made it even bigger. Doesn't this make planning more difficult and hosting more expensive since there are fewer options? (I'm not an economist, but....) A benefit for the April meeting attendees is that grad students and postdocs get access to the career/networking events held at the MM. If you're going to do the combination, then it seems like you should have the courage of your convictions and really mingle the two, rather than keeping the March talks in the convention center and the April talks in site hotels. I understand that van der Waals/twisted materials are great laboratories for physics, and that topological states in these are exciting. Still, by my count there were 7 invited sessions broadly about this topic, and 35 invited talks on this over four days seems a bit extreme. By my count, there were eight dilution refrigerator vendors at the exhibition (Maybell, Bluefors, Ice, Oxford, Danaher/Leiden, Formfactor, Zero-Point Cryo, and Quantum Design if you count their PPMS insert). Wow. I'm sure there will be other cool results presented today and tomorrow that I am missing - feel free to mention them in the comments.
More in science
[Note that this article is a transcript of the video embedded above.] Late in the night of Valentine’s Day 2014, air monitors at an underground nuclear waste repository outside Carlsbad, New Mexico, detected the release of radioactive elements, including americium and plutonium, into the environment. Ventilation fans automatically switched on to exhaust contaminated air up through a shaft, through filters, and out to the environment above ground. When filters were checked the following morning, technicians found that they contained transuranic materials, highly radioactive particles that are not naturally found on Earth. In other words, a container of nuclear waste in the repository had been breached. The site was shut down and employees sent home, but it would be more than a year before the bizarre cause of the incident was released. I’m Grady, and this is Practical Engineering. The dangers of the development of nuclear weapons aren’t limited to mushroom clouds and doomsday scenarios. The process of creating the exotic, transuranic materials necessary to build thermonuclear weapons creates a lot of waste, which itself is uniquely hazardous. Clothes, tools, and materials used in the process may stay dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. So, a huge part of working with nuclear materials is planning how to manage waste. I try not to make predictions about the future, but I think it’s safe to say that the world will probably be a bit different in 10,000 years. More likely, it will be unimaginably different. So, ethical disposal of nuclear waste means not only protecting ourselves but also protecting whoever is here long after we are ancient memories or even forgotten altogether. It’s an engineering challenge pretty much unlike any other, and it demands some creative solutions. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, was built in the 1980s in the desert outside Carlsbad, New Mexico, a site selected for a very specific reason: salt. One of the most critical jobs for long-term permanent storage is to keep radioactive waste from entering groundwater and dispersing into the environment. So, WIPP was built inside an enormous and geologically stable formation of salt, roughly 2000 feet or 600 meters below the surface. The presence of ancient salt is an indication that groundwater doesn’t reach this area since the water would dissolve it. And the salt has another beneficial behavior: it’s mobile. Over time, the walls and ceilings of mined-out salt tend to act in a plastic manner, slowly creeping inwards to fill the void. This is ideal in the long term because it will ultimately entomb the waste at WIPP in a permanent manner. It does make things more complicated in the meantime, though, since they have to constantly work to keep the underground open during operation. This process, called “ground control,” involves techniques like drilling and installing roof bolts in epoxy to hold up the ceilings. I have an older video on that process if you want to learn more after this. The challenge in this case is that, eventually, we want the roof bolts to fail, allowing a gentle collapse of salt to fill the void because it does an important job. The salt, and just being deep underground in general, acts to shield the environment from radiation. In fact, a deep salt mine is such a well-shielded area that there’s an experimental laboratory located in WIPP across on the other side of the underground from the waste panels where various universities do cutting-edge physics experiments precisely because of the low radiation levels. The thousands of feet of material above the lab shield it from cosmic and solar radiation, and the salt has much lower levels of inherent radioactivity than other kinds of rock. Imagine that: a low-radiation lab inside a nuclear waste dump. Four shafts extend from the surface into the underground repository for moving people, waste, and air into and out of the facility. Room-and-pillar mining is used to excavate horizontal drifts or panels where waste is stored. Investigators were eventually able to re-enter the repository and search for the cause of the breach. They found the source in Panel 7, Room 7, the area of active disposal at the time. Pressure and heat had burst a drum, starting a fire, damaging nearby containers, and ultimately releasing radioactive materials into the air. On activation of the radiation alarm, the underground ventilation system automatically switched to filtration mode, sending air through massive HEPA filters. Interestingly, although they’re a pretty common consumer good now, High Efficiency Particulate Air, or HEPA, filters actually got their start during the Manhattan Project specifically to filter radionuclides from the air. The ventilation system at WIPP performed well, although there was some leakage past the filters, allowing a small percentage of radioactive material to bypass the filters and release directly into the atmosphere at the surface. 21 workers tested positive for low-level exposure to radioactive contamination but, thankfully, were unharmed. Both WIPP and independent testing organizations confirmed that detected levels were very low, the particles did not spread far, and were extremely unlikely to result in radiation-related health effects to workers or the public. Thankfully, the safety features at the facility worked, but it would take investigators much longer to understand what went wrong in the first place, and that involved tracing that waste barrel back to its source. It all started at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the labs created as part of the 1940s Manhattan Project that first developed atomic bombs in the desert of New Mexico. The 1970s brought a renewed interest in cleaning up various Department of Energy sites. Los Alamos was tasked with recovering plutonium from residue materials left over from previous wartime and research efforts. That process involved using nitric acid to separate plutonium from uranium. Once plutonium is extracted, you’re left with nitrate solutions that get neutralized or evaporated, creating a solid waste stream that contains residual radioactive isotopes. In 1985, a volume of this waste was placed in a lead-lined 55-gallon drum along with an absorbent to soak up any moisture and put into temporary storage at Los Alamos, where it sat for years. But in the summer of 2011, the Las Conchas wildfire threatened the Los Alamos facility, coming within just a few miles of the storage area. This actual fire lit a metaphorical fire under various officials, and wheels were set into motion to get the transuranic waste safely into a long-term storage facility. In other words, ship it down the road to WIPP. Transporting transuranic wastes on the road from one facility to another is quite an ordeal, even when they’re only going through the New Mexican desert. There are rules preventing the transportation of ignitable, corrosive, or reactive waste, and special casks are required to minimize the risk of radiological release in the unlikely event of a crash. WIPP also had rules about how waste can be packaged in order to be placed for long-term disposal called the Waste Acceptance Criteria, which included limits on free liquids. Los Alamos concluded that barrel didn’t meet the requirements and needed to be repackaged before shipping to WIPP. But, there were concerns about which absorbent to use. Los Alamos used various absorbent materials within waste barrels over the years to minimize the amount of moisture and free liquid inside. Any time you’re mixing nuclear waste with another material, you have to be sure there won’t be any unexpected reactions. The procedure for repackaging nitrate salts required that a superabsorbent polymer be used, similar to the beads I’ve used in some of my demos, but concerns about reactivity led to meetings and investigations about whether it was the right material for the job. Ultimately, Los Alamos and their contractors concluded that the materials were incompatible and decided to make a switch. In May 2012, Los Alamos published a white paper titled “Amount of Zeolite Required to Meet the Constraints Established by the EMRTC Report RF 10-13: Application of LANL Evaporator Nitrate Salts.” In other words, “How much kitty litter should be added to radioactive waste?” The answer was about 1.2 to 1, inorganic zeolite clay to nitrate salt waste, by volume. That guidance was then translated into the actual procedures that technicians would use to repackage the waste in gloveboxes at Los Alamos. But something got lost in translation. As far as investigators could determine, here’s what happened: In a meeting in May 2012, the manager responsible for glovebox operations took personal notes about this switch in materials. Those notes were sent in an email and eventually incorporated into the written procedures: “Ensure an organic absorbent is added to the waste material at a minimum of 1.5 absorbent to 1 part waste ratio.” Did you hear that? The white paper’s requirement to use an inorganic absorbent became “...an organic absorbent” in the procedures. We’ll never know where the confusion came from, but it could have been as simple as mishearing the word in the meeting. Nonetheless, that’s what the procedure became. Contractors at Los Alamos procured a large quantity of Swheat Scoop, an organic, wheat-based cat litter, and started using it to repackage the nitrate salt wastes. Our barrel first packaged in 1985 was repackaged in December 2013 with the new kitty litter. It was tested and certified in January 2014, shipped to WIPP later that month, and placed underground. And then it blew up. The unthinkable had happened; the wrong kind of kitty litter had caused a nuclear disaster. While the nitrates are relatively unreactive with inorganic, mineral-based zeolite kitty litter that should have been used, the organic, carbon-based wheat material could undergo oxidation reactions with nitrate wastes. I think it’s also interesting to note here that the issue is a reaction that was totally unrelated to the presence of transuranic waste. It was a chemical reaction - not a nuclear reaction - that caused the problem. Ultimately, the direct cause of the incident was determined to be “an exothermic reaction of incompatible materials in LANL waste drum 68660 that led to thermal runaway, which resulted in over-pressurization of the drum, breach of the drum, and release of a portion of the drum’s contents (combustible gases, waste, and wheat-based absorbent) into the WIPP underground.” Of course, the root cause is deeper than that and has to do with systemic issues at Los Alamos and how they handled the repackaging of the material. The investigation report identified 12 contributing causes that, while individually did not cause the accident, increased the likelihood or severity of it. These are written in a way that is pretty difficult for a non-DOE expert to parse: take a stab at digesting contributing cause number 5: “Failure of Los Alamos Field Office (NA-LA) and the National Transuranic (TRU) Program/Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) to ensure that the CCP [that is, the Central Characterization Program] and LANS [that is, that is the contractor, Los Alamos National Security] complied with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements in the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) and the LANL HWFP, as well as the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC).” Still, as bad as it all seems, it really could have been a lot worse. In a sense, WIPP performed precisely how you’d want it to in such an event, and it’s a really good thing the barrel was in the underground when it burst. Had the same happened at Los Alamos or on the way to WIPP, things could have been much worse. Thankfully, none of the other barrels packaged in the same way experienced a thermal runaway, and they were later collected and sealed in larger containers. Regardless, the consequences of the “cat-astrophe” were severe and very expensive. The cleanup involved shutting down the WIPP facility for several years and entirely replacing the ventilation system. WIPP itself didn’t formally reopen until January of 2017, nearly three full years after the incident, with the cleanup costing about half a billion dollars. Today, WIPP remains controversial, not least because of shifting timelines and public communication. Early estimates once projected closure by 2024. Now, that date is sometime between 2050 and 2085. And events like this only add fuel to the fire. Setting aside broader debates on nuclear weapons themselves, the wastes these weapons generate are dangerous now, and they will remain dangerous for generations. WIPP has even explored ideas on how to mark the site post-closure, making sure that future generations clearly understand the enduring danger. Radioactive hazards persist long after languages and societies may have changed beyond recognition, making it essential but challenging to communicate clearly about risks. Sometimes, it’s easy to forget - amidst all the technical complexity and bureaucratic red tape that surrounds anything nuclear - that it’s just people doing the work. It’s almost unbelievable that we entrust ourselves - squishy, sometimes hapless bags of water, meat, and bones - to navigate protocols of such profound complexity needed to safely take advantage of radioactive materials. I don’t tell this story because I think we should be paralyzed by the idea of using nuclear materials - there are enormous benefits to be had in many areas of science, engineering, and medicine. But there are enormous costs as well, many of which we might not be aware of if we don’t make it a habit to read obscure government investigation reports. This event is a reminder that the extent of our vigilance has to match the permanence of the hazards we create.
How can we keep these bots in check??
France's decline coincided with a collapse in its birth rate – now we know why.
As I research the country, these are the most interesting and surprising facts I gathered—and some beautiful images along the way.
