The wonders of gallium

 A friend recently showed me that solid gallium can melt in your hand.

I did not know this. I was quite familiar with liquid mercury, but not gallium. 

The existence of elemental gallium was predicted by Mendeleev in 1869 after he constructed the periodic table. It was discovered within six years. He was able to predict that it would have a low-melting temperature, based on extrapolations from the known melting temperatures of elements close to it in the periodic table.

Solid gallium is soft enough to be cut with a knife.

Three different stable crystal structures for solid gallium are shown below.

The phase diagram of pure gallium is shown below.

Note the negative slope of the phase boundary between the liquid and the solid alpha-Ga. This is like water. It follows from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation that the solid state has lower density than the liquid state. Gallium is the only elemental metal with this property. (The semi-metals antinomy and bismuth also do).

Gallium remains liquid over a wider range of temperatures (2373 K) than any other known substance.

The figures above are taken from the following paper from 2020.

Ab initio phase diagram and nucleation of gallium  Haiyang Niu, Luigi Bonati, Pablo M. Piaggi, and Michele Parrinello

Unfortunately, that paper does not provide much insight into the low melting temperature. The key is that the solid state contains dimers of Ga, that are weakly bonded to each other. A helpful discussion is the introduction to the following paper.

On the bonding of Ga2, structures of Gan clusters and the relation to the bulk structure of gallium 

N. Gaston and A.J. Parker

The image above is from the entry on Gallium in the beautiful book The Elements by Theodore Gray.

I thank my young friend Alexey for introducing me to the wonders of gallium.

Very Short Introduction can be pre-ordered

 

I am currently working on the proofs and index for Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction. It is wonderful to have got to this stage.

It is slated for release on December 29. It can be pre-ordered from Oxford UP (GDP 9) , Amazon (US $12), Book Depository (US $16), ...

The value of "simple" models for complex systems

Significant understanding of emergent phenomena in quantum materials has come from the study of model Hamiltonians such as those associated with the names Hubbard, Anderson, Kondo, Heisenberg, Kitaev, Haldane, BCS,...

I had not appreciated until recently that an early key to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary biology (that brought together Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian genetics) was the development of simple mathematical models. The discussion below is taken from

Towards a unified science of cultural evolution 

Alex Mesoudi, Andrew Whiten and Kevin N. Laland 

Significant advances were made in the study of biological [micro]evolution before its molecular basis was understood, in no small part through the use of simplified mathematical models, pioneered by Fisher (1930), Wright (1931), and J.B.S. Haldane (1932)... 

Mathematical models such as [those for cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution] are often treated with suspicion and even hostility by some social scientists, who consider them to be oversimplifications of reality... The alternatives..., however, are usually either analysis at a single (purely genetic or purely cultural) level or vague verbal accounts of “complex interactions,” neither of which we believe to be productive. Gene-culture analyses have repeatedly revealed circumstances under which the interactions between genetic and cultural processes lead populations to different equilibria than those predicted by single level models or anticipated in verbal accounts... as illustrated by the aforementioned examples of dairy farming and handedness.  

Interestingly, fifty years ago the same reservations about simplifying assumptions were voiced about the use of population genetic models in biology by the prominent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1963). He argued that using such models was akin to treating genetics as pulling coloured beans from a bag (coining the phrase “beanbag genetics”), ignoring complex physiological and developmental processes that lead to interactions between genes. 

 

In his classic article “A Defense ofBeanbag Genetics,” J. B. S. Haldane (1964) countered that the simplification of reality embodied in these models is the very reason for their usefulness. Such simplification can significantly aid our understanding of processes that are too complex to be considered through verbal arguments alone, because mathematical models force their authors to specify explicitly and exactly all of their assumptions, to focus on major factors, and to generate logically sound conclusions. Indeed, such conclusions are often counterintuitive to human minds relying solely on informal verbal reasoning. 

Haldane (1964) provided several examples in which empirical facts follow the predictions of population genetic models in spite of their simplifying assumptions, and noted that models can often highlight the kind of data that need to be collected to evaluate a particular theory. Ultimately, Haldane won the argument, and population genetic modelling is now an established and invaluable tool in evolutionary biology (Crow 2001). We can only echo Haldane’s defence and argue that the same arguments apply to the use of similar mathematical models in the social sciences.

A more recent version of J.B. S. Haldane's argument is Not Just a Theory—The Utility of Mathematical Models in Evolutionary Biology Maria R. Servedio,Yaniv Brandvain, Sumit Dhole, Courtney L. Fitzpatrick, Emma E. Goldberg, Caitlin A. Stern, Jeremy Van Cleve, D. Justin Yeh 

All models are wrong but some are useful. I first learnt this aphorism from Scott Page, in his wonderful course Model Thinking at Coursera.  This short talk discusses how models help us think more clearly. Simple quantitative models, such as agent-based models, in the social sciences, have the value that their assumptions can be clearly stated, and then the consequences of these assumptions can be investigated in a rigorous manner.

There is also a nice discussion of the importance of model building for science in John Holland's beautiful book, Emergence. 

Hysteresis, hype, niches, nudges and social change

The world is a mess. Most people want a better world. Sometimes nothing changes. Sometimes things change incredibly rapidly. Sometimes changes are positive. Other times the change is negative. Often this change is unanticipated, even by experts who have been studying the relevant topic for decades. Wicked problems are things that seem to be incredibly resilient to change. Examples of rapid changes that were (largely) positive and unanticipated were the peaceful collapse of the former Soviet empire, smoking in public becoming taboo, and increased public concern about climate change. Examples of negative changes include the rise of Trumpism, misinformation on social media, and the global financial crisis of 2008.

Many people in government, public policy, NGOs, and social activists want to implement policies and take actions that will produce outcomes that (they believe) are positive. Here I discuss some basic but very important insights from "social physics", such as discussed in my previous two posts.

Suppose the system of interest can be modelled by some type of Ising model where the pseudospin corresponds to two choices (good and bad) for each agent in the system. The policy maker wants to change something such as increase the incentive for agents to make the "good" choice. There are two qualitatively different possible behaviours and they are shown in the Figure below (taken from Bouchaud). 

The vertical axis is the "magnetisation", i.e, the fraction of agents who make the good choice. The horizontal axis is the "external field", i.e, the level of incentive provided for agents to make the good choice. 

Case I. Smooth curve (blue). This occurs when the interaction between agents is weaker than some threshold strength. Suppose that a small but not insignificant minority of agents are already making the good choice and then incentive is increased slightly. If one is near the steep part of the blue curve then this "nudge" can produce a desired outcome for the society.

Case II. Discontinuous curve (red). This occurs when the interaction between agents is greater than some threshold strength. People's choices are influenced more by their friends than by what the government or an NGO is telling them to do. Then one has to provided very large incentives to get a change in agent choice, far beyond the incentive required for a single isolated agent. The system is stuck in a state that is not good for the society as a whole. It is a metastable state, as shown in the figure below.

On the other hand, if the "polarisation field" is sitting near a critical value (5 in the figure, a tipping point), then a "nudge" can lead to a dramatic change for good. 

I think there are important implications for social activists of all stripes. Realistic expectations are key.

1. Don't expect even the best-designed and well-intentioned policy or action to necessarily have the impact you hope for.

2. Be sceptical about hype and ideology. In the public space there are a lot of claims, whether from political parties, pundits, or NGOs, that if we just do X (change this law, donate money, do what my book says, ...) then the good Y will inevitably follow.

The problem with unrealistic expectations is that they lead to disappointment, disillusionment, and burnout. People give up. Then the next fad or "silver bullet" comes along...

Inspired by a rugged landscape perspective, a better and more sustainable approach is that of learning and adaptation. One identifies what one thinks the best "nudge" is, tries something, evaluates the effect, adapts, and tries out some new ideas. One does not claim or expect the first few iterations to produce a significant desired effect. Here, somewhat "random" sampling of the landscape may help. Here a diversity of perspectives and methods can play a positive role. A more concrete version of this argument is in a paper concerned with public health initiatives. Rugged landscapes: complexity and implementation science, by Joseph T. Ornstein, Ross A. Hammond, Margaret Padek, Stephanie Mazzucca & Ross C. Brownson 

Postscript. After posting this I remember reading a recent article in The Economist pointing out how nudges often do not work.

Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky 

The academic literature is plagued by publication bias 

It references three recent Letters in PNAS, including this one, that come to the opposite conclusion to an earlier PNAS paper.

The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains 

Stephanie Mertens, Mario Herberz, Ulf J. J. Hahnel, and Tobias Brosch

Sociological insights from statistical physics

Condensed matter physics and sociology are both about emergence. Phenomena in sociology that are intellectually fascinating and important for public policy often involve qualitative change, tipping points, and collective effects. One example is how social networks influence individual choices, such as whether or not to get vaccinated. In my previous post, I briefly introduced some Ising-type models that allow the investigation of fundamental questions in sociology. The main idea is to include heterogeneities and interactions in models of decision. 

What follows is drawn from Sections 2 and 3 of the following paper from the Journal of Statistical Physics. 

Crises and Collective Socio-Economic Phenomena: Simple Models and Challenges by Jean-Philippe Bouchaud

Bouchaud first considers a homogeneous population which reaches an equilibrium state. This is then described by an Ising model with an interaction (between agents) J, in an external field, F that describes the incentive for the agents to make one of the choices. The state of the model (in the mean-field approximation) is then found by solving the Curie-Weiss equation. In the sociological context, this was first derived by Weidlich and in the economic context re-derived by Brock and Durlauf.  (Aside: The latter paper is in one of the "top-five" economic journals, was published five years after submission, and has been cited more than 2000 times.)

As first noted by Weidlich, a spontaneous “polarization” of the population occurs in the low noise regime β>β c , i.e. [the average equilibrium value of S_z] ϕ ∗≠1/2 even in the absence of any individually preferred choice (i.e. F=0). When F≠0, one of the two equilibria is exponentially more probable than the other, and in principle the population should be locked into the most likely one: ϕ ∗>1/2 whenever F>0 and ϕ ∗<1/2 whenever F<0.

Unfortunately, the equilibrium analysis is not sufficient to draw such an optimistic conclusion. A more detailed analysis of the dynamics is needed, which reveals that the time needed to reach equilibrium is exponentially large in the number of agents, and as noted by Keynes, "in the long run, we are all dead." This situation is well-known to physicists, but is perhaps not so well appreciated in other circles—for example, it is not discussed by Brock and Durlauf.

Bouchaud then discusses the meta-stability associated with the two possible polarisations, as occurs in a first-order phase transition. From a non-equilibrium dynamical analysis, based on a Langevin equation, 

one finds that the time τ needed for the system, starting around ϕ=0, to reach ϕ ∗≈1 is given by: 𝜏 ∝ exp[𝐴𝑁(1−𝐹/𝐽)], where A is a numerical factor. This means that whenever 0<F<J, the system should really be in the socially good minimum ϕ ∗≈1, but the time to reach it is exponentially large in the population size.  The important point about this formula is the presence of the factor N(1−F/J) in the exponential.

In other words, it has no chance of ever getting there on its own for large populations. Only when F reaches J, i.e. when the adoption cost C becomes zero will the population be convinced to shift to the socially optimal equilibrium...

This is very different from the standard model of innovation diffusion, based on a simple differential equation proposed by Bass in 1969 [cited more than 10,000 times].

In physics, the existence of mutually inaccessible minima with different potentials is a pathology of mean-field models that disappears when the interaction is short-ranged. In this case, the transition proceeds through “nucleation”, i.e. droplets of the good minimum appear in space and then grow by flipping spins at the boundaries. 

This suggests an interesting policy solution when social pressure resists the adoption of a beneficial practice or product: subsidize the cost locally, or make the change compulsory there, so that adoption takes place in localized spots from which it will invade the whole population. The very same social pressure that was preventing the change will make it happen as soon as it is initiated somewhere.

This analysis provides concepts to understand wicked problems. Societies get "trapped" in situations that are not for the common good and outside interventions, such as providing incentives for individuals to make better choices, have little impact.

In the next post, I hope to discuss the role of heterogeneity (i.e. the role of a random field in the Ising model). A seminal paper published in the American Journal of Sociology in 1978 is Threshold models of collective behavior  by Mark Granovetter. It has been cited more than 6000 times. The central idea is how changes in heterogeneity can induce a transition between two different collective states.

Aside: The famous Keynes quote was in his 1923 publication, The Tract on Monetary Reform. The fuller quote is “But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.”

Models for collective social phenomena

World news is full of dramatic and unexpected events in politics and economics, from stock market crashes to the rapid rise of extreme political parties. Trust in an institution can evaporate overnight.

The world is plagued by "wicked problems" (corruption, belief in conspiracy theories, poverty, ...) that resist a solution even when considerable resources (money, personnel, expertise, government policy, incentives, social activism) are devoted to addressing the problem. 

Here I introduce some ideas and models that are helpful for efforts to understand these emergent phenomena. Besides rapid change and discontinuities, other relevant properties include herding, trending, tipping points, and resilient equilibria. Some cultural traits or habits are incredibly persistent, even when they are damaging to a community. 

I now consider some key elements for minimal models of these phenomena: discrete choices, utility, incentives, noise, social interactions, and heterogeneity.

Discrete choices

The system consists of N agents {i} who make individual choices. Examples of binary choices are whether or not to buy a particular product, vote for a political candidate, believe a conspiracy theory, accept bribes, get vaccinated, or join a riot. For binary choices, the state of each agent is modelled by an "Ising spin", S_i = +1 or -1. 

Utility

This is the function each agent wants to maximise; what they think they will gain or lose by their decision. This could be happiness, health, ease of life, money, or pleasure.  The utility U_i will depend on the incentives provided to make a particular choice, the personal inclination of the agent, and possibly the state of other agents.

Personal inclination

Let f_i be a number representing the tendency for agent i to choose S_1=+1. 

Incentives

All individuals make their decision based on the incentives offered. Knowledge of incentives is informed by public information.  This incentive F(t) may change with time. For example, the price of a product may decrease due to an advance in technology or a government may run an advertising program for a public health initiative.

Noise

No agent has access to perfect information in order to make their decision. This uncertainty can be modelled by a parameter beta, which increases with decreasing noise. According to the log-it rule the probability that of a particular decision is

1/beta is the analogue of temperature in statistical mechanics and this probability function is the Fermi-Dirac probability distribution! 

Social interactions

No human is an island. Social pressure and imitation play a role in making choices. Even the most "independent-minded" individual makes decisions that are influenced somewhat by the decisions of others they interact with. These "neighbours" may be friends, newspaper columnists, relatives, advertisers, or participants in an internet forum. The utility for an individual may depend on the choices of others. The interaction parameter J_ij is the strength of the influence of agent j on agent i.

Heterogeneity

Everyone is different. People have different sensitivities to different incentives. This diversity reflects different personalities, values, and life circumstances. This heterogeneity can be modelled by assigning a probability distribution rho(f_i).

Putting all the ideas above together the utility function for agent i is the following.

This means that the minimal model to investigate is a Random Field Ising model. It exhibits rich phenomena, many of which are similar to the social phenomena that were mentioned at the beginning of the post. Later posts will explore this.

The discussion above is drawn from a nice paper published in the Journal of Statistical Physics in 2013.

Crises and Collective Socio-Economic Phenomena: Simple Models and Challenges by Jean-Philippe Bouchaud.

Famous last words

If you ever write a popular book about science I suggest you spend a lot of time honing your very last paragraph. If it is eloquent, grand, and hyperbolic it may be so widely quoted that many people will think that this is actually what the book is about or has proven. Here are a few examples that I often see.

Where then shall we find the source of truth and the moral inspiration for a really scientific socialist humanism? Only, we suggest, in the sources of science itself,..... it is the conclusion to which the search for authenticity necessarily leads. The ancient covenant is in pieces; man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immmensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose.''

Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modem Biology, trans. Austryn Wainhouse (New York: Knopf, 1971), p. 167

But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself. Men and women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life; they also build telescopes and satellites and accelerators, and sit at their desks for endless hours working out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.

Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (Basic Books, 1977), pages 154-155.

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, .... Then we shall all ...[discuss] why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would truly know the mind of God.  

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Can you think of any other examples of famous last paragraphs?