An excellent (and depressing?) question

My colleague, Ben Powell, recently sent me the thought provoking email below. I think it raises an excellent question. I want to think about my answer more, before I post something. Although, it is a little depressing that I cannot immediately rattle off several things....
Others should feel free to post their thoughts, provided it does not involve self-promotion.
When I was walking home last night I started wondering about the following question (brought on by the fact I realised that it is now more than 10 years since I started my PhD).

What do we KNOW now about CMT [Condensed Matter Theory] that we didn't know 10 years ago?

I stress the T in CMT as I specifically want to rule things like "that the pnictides superconduct" as the seem like chance discoveries - however interesting they are, but really I want understanding about real materials, which is clearly rapped up in the border between theory & expt. I'd like things to be on a firm footing and generally agreed upon, but really I'm happy to be a little fast and lose with
that.

Comments

  1. JFebruary 27, 2010 at 4:40 AM

    Certainly the prediction and discovery of topological insulators and many of their properties has to count as an advance in cmT of the last decade.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is it an Unidentified Superconducting Object (USO)?

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
Read more

What is Herzberg-Teller coupling?

Image
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thrown around. Google scholar yields more than 3000 hits. But I have found its precise meaning and the relevant physics hard to pin down. Quantum mechanics in chemistry by Schatz and Ratner is an excellent book , but the discussion on page 204 did not help me. "Herzberg-Teller" never appears in Atkins' Molecular quantum mechanics. So here is my limited understanding. Herzberg and Teller wanted to understand why one observed certain vibronic (combined electronic and vibrational) transitions that were not expected, particularly some that were expected to be forbidden on symmetry grounds. " Intensity borrowing " occurred. Herzberg and Teller pointed out that his could be understood if the dipole transition moment for the electronic transition depended on the nuclear co-ordinate associated with the vibration. In the Franck-Condo
Read more

What should be the order of authors on a conference poster or talk?

I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With regard to paper authorship my general rule is that the person who does the bulk of the work, including actually writing the paper should be the first author. Doug Natelson has a good post on co-authorship , that I largely agree with. My only difference is that I am not really convinced that good practice prevails in the majority of circumstances. I fear there are increasing numbers of co-authors, particularly senior ones, with marginal contributions. But, what about conference talks and posters? Many of these are based on work that is already or about to be published. Should the author order be identical as the associated papers? I am not sure it should necessarily be. My tentative view is that the person who writes and submits the abstract and actually prepares and presents the post/talk should be the first author. Perhaps they should also highlig
Read more