Strike4BlackLives

Post compiled by Ankita Anirban.

10 June 2020 is #Strike4BlackLives and we urge you to participate in this strike. Organised by a group of physicists, led by Brian Nord and Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, this is a day to #ShutDownAcademia and #ShutDownSTEM in solidarity with Black colleagues, Black students and Black people who are excluded from academia. Learn more about the strike here.

“As researchers, teachers, students, and staff we devote an immense amount of our time and mental energy to learning more about the world and ourselves within the framework of our own discipline. The strike day gives us the space and time to center Black lives, show solidarity with academics with marginalized ascribed identities, to educate ourselves about the ways in which we and our institutions are complicit in anti-Black racism, and to take concrete action for change.” –  Particles for Justice call to action.

Thousands have pledged to join the strike, including the arXiv and the American Physical Society. Today, take time to pause your academic work and reflect on your role within the academic institution. Talk to your colleagues, organise within your department and work to become anti-racist.

In the UK, just 1.7% of first year physics undergraduates in 2016 were Black and an IOP report from 2012 shows that for PhD- holding researchers, the number is even lower at 0.1%. If you are not Black, take a moment to count how many Black physicists you have come across in your academic career.

Source: https://cx.report/2020/06/02/equity/

It is clear that academic institutions are in need of radical structural change. Yet with so few Black voices within the system, there is an urgent need for non-Black allies to take an active role in campaigning for change.

Here we provide some starting points we have found useful for learning more about racism in academia, how racism and science are inextricably linked and the case for a more inclusive and pluralist science.

Being Black in physics

For non-Black academics, the first step to understanding the extent to which racism pervades academic life is to hear the stories of Black academics. One place to start is the  #BlackintheIvory hashtag on Twitter which has been used to share experiences of Black academics.

Op-ed: The ‘Benefits’ of Black physics students by Jedidah Isler, New York Times, 2015

News: Why are there so few Black physicists? by Ryan Mandelbaum, Gizmodo, 2020 

Perspective: Curiosity and the end of discimination by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Nature Astronomy, 2017

Blog: Ain’t I a woman? At the intersection of gender, race and sexuality by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Women in Astronomy blog, 2014

Addressing the inequalities and discrimination within academia requires structural change. As an individual, you can campaign within your department to recognise the need for this change and enact it in policies regarding hiring, mentoring and support for Black students. When organising a conference or a new collaboration, reflect on your choice of participants and strive to include more Black voices in the conversation.

500 Women Scientists – Black History Month

Fellows of the National Society of Black Physicists

Who are the Black Physicists? A historical list

Science and colonialism

Modern science as we practise it today has inextricable links to empire, colonialism and the slave trade. Here are some accessible resources which introduce how colonialism has shaped science:

Podcast: BBC Radio 4 In Our Time – on astronomy and the British empire

Blog: Black Women Physicists In the Wake by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, 2017

Reading list: Decolonising science reading list compiled by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

Building a more inclusive science

In addition to recognising the historical impact of colonialism on science, it is also important to acknowledge the influence it continues to wield within scientific practice today.  Here are some resources that re-centre Indigenous science:

Australian Indigenous Astronomy 

Blog: The fight for Mauna Kea and the future of science by Sara Segura Kahanamoku, Massive Science, 2019

Comment: Towards inclusive practices with indigenous knowledge by Aparna Venkatesan et al., Nature Astronomy, 2019

Article: Challenging epistemologies: Exploring knowledge practices in Palikur astronomy by Lesley Green, Futures, 2009

Article: ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ and ‘Science’: Reframing the Debate on Knowledge Diversity by Lesley Green, Archaeologies, 2008

Long Reads:

Superior by Angela Saini.

Reaching for the Moon: The Autobiography of NASA Mathematician by Katherine Johnson

Hidden Figures by Margot Lee Shetterly

Beyond Banneker: Black Mathematicians and the Paths to Excellence by Erica N. Walker 

A different kind of dark energy: placing race and gender in physics, BSc thesis by Lauren Chambers, Department of African American Studies, Yale University

Neutrino physics: past, present and future

On 19th December we hosted a neutrino symposium in our Springer Nature campus in London. We invited four scientists to share their views and excitement about the past, present and future of neutrino physics. The meeting was organised together with King’s College London and with the support of JSPS.

Mark Vagins, professor at UC Irvine and the first full-time foreign professor at Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Japan told the history of supernova neutrinos and explained the gadolinium detection he invented, claiming he owns more gadolinium than any other human.

Atsuko Ichikawa, associate professor at Kyoto University and the spokesperson of the T2K experiment in Japan started her talk by asking “why am I here?” It turned out that she was referring to the reason why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe rather than question her presence at the meeting. This became clear as she explained the mechanism of neutrino oscillations and CP violation.

Linda Cremonesi introduced the NoVA, DUNE and ANITA experiments illustrating her slides with the iconic particlezoo neutrinos. She explained how one launches and recovers a balloon-borne experiment such as ANITA in the most remote locations in Antarctica and described the IceCube experiment at the South Pole.

During the lunch break Ben Still, visiting research fellow at Queen Mary University London, particle physicist, author and educator gave a live demonstration of his unique way of explaining particle physics using LEGO bricks. The participants had the opportunity to build their own particles.

David Wark, professor at University of Oxford and former director of the particle physics group at the STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, T2K international spokesperson, UK co-spokesperson of SNO experiment, gave a round-up talk explaining what we knew, and thought we knew back in 1981 compared what we know, we think we know, and we really do not know today. There are many exciting questions about neutrinos.

A keen group of sixth form students attended the symposium. “I’d vaguely heard of neutrinos, but I didn’t know much about what they were” one of them told us. When asked whether they could follow the talks they answered “Yeah, at least most of it. I especially love the LEGO demonstration, it’s so interactive and accessible”. Most of the students are planning to study physics at university – although one student said he was there just for fun!

The event ended with and open discussion moderated by Yoshi Uchida, professor at Imperial College.

The first question was where are we going in the longer term future (>10 years) and what is the public support for the neutrino program? In Japan the funding looks good as Hyper-Kamiokande has just been given green light and the speakers called the neutrino “the national particle of Japan”. The speakers recalled personal experiences with members of the general public being extremely knowledgeable, supportive and sometimes in awe of neutrino physics.  David Wark pointed out that in most areas of science, you wouldn’t dream of having a strategy for 10 years or more.

Asked about the challenges of working in large collaborations the speakers mentioned cultural differences, major travel and communication over different time zones. Astuko Ichikawa compared large collaboration to the teams behind Formula 1 cars, or a rocket going to the Moon. For winning the Grand Prix or reaching the Moon you need large teams of experts and you need them to cooperate. Everyone has their own part to play and each project is a creative one, each person has to do a creative work so it is very rewarding.

Another question was whether we are running out of testable theories? None of the speakers thought that was the case, although they agreed that most theories are unlikely to be correct. Linda Cremonesi pointed out that saying we don’t have any good theories is a very LHC-centric view of things. There are a lot of open questions in neutrino physics and many exciting possibilities.

When asked what do they do outside of work, the speakers came up with unexpected hobbies such as a rock band, standup comedy and impersonating Santa Claus.

When asked whether they would bet on neutrinos being Majorana or Dirac particle, four out of five speakers voted for Majorana and only Mark Vagins proved to be a Dirac supporter.

When asked what is THE thing they want to find out in the next decade most of the speakers agreed on: measuring neutrinos from the Big Bang, confirming the CP violation and understanding how big is it and answering whether neutrinos are Majorana particles or not. David Wark added that he wants to see something genuinely unexpected, because we haven’t had anything completely unpredicted – that turned out to be correct – for a long time.

What it’s like to be a Reviews editor

Have you ever wondered what reviews editors do? Chasing authors to submit and making edits to the text of the reviews? That is just a small part of it.

In this editorial we outlined the story of a Review from commissioning to publication. As editors, we spend a lot of time searching for ideas for potential reviews. We travel to conferences and visit labs to find out what the community is interested in and whet types of reviews are missing. Then we work closely with authors to develop the idea of the review, and then polish the text before publication to make it accessible and self-contained so that physicists from other fields can follow, make use of — and enjoy — the article.

Some of the crew on an ice skating trip last winter

Being an editor is a busy and stimulating job. Producing monthly issues means regular deadlines and a lot of planning ahead. We coordinate and liaise with authors, referees, art and production editors to make sure that the content is published regularly as the readers expect. The job is also very sociable. We are part of the journal teams and the wider physical sciences reviews journal teams and even wider reviews team. We also interact a lot with our colleagues at Nature, Nature Communications and the Nature research journals. All editors have academic backgrounds and we all share the love of science and common experiences from our PhD and postdoc years.

Here are some comments from editors of Nature Reviews journals in the physical sciences:

Iulia Georgescu, Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Physics: I think the role of reviews editors is not well understood. We are not gate-keepers, but guides walking together with the authors all the way from idea to publication. We often think of manuscripts as ‘our babies’ because we are as invested as the authors who wrote them. It is a wonderful thing to see a Review evolve from a vague idea, to a well-structured outline and then a full manuscript. We feel great satisfaction when we see the reviews we worked on published and take pride when they are well-received by the community. I often think: look at my baby and how well it’s doing.

The editor’s natural habitat

Giulia Pacchioni, Senior Editor at Nature Reviews Materials: Being a Reviews editor is a lot of fun — I like keeping an eye on how ideas evolve from initial results presented at a conference to a flurry of publications as the topic becomes more established, and deciding when is the perfect moment to commission a Review. I am lucky to have the opportunity to travel to plenty of conferences and lab visits to keep in touch with the community, and to spend a lot of time reading and thinking about science.

Claire Ashworth, who works for our inter-journal team providing support to Nature Reviews Physics, Nature Reviews Materials and Nature Reviews Chemistry: I enjoy seeing an idea develop into a published Review and working with authors at each stage of the publication process to achieve this. I think that Reviews editors are quite unique in terms of the amount of time that we invest into each article and the extent to which we use both our scientific knowledge and editorial experience to help to ‘shape’ an article.

Stephen Davey, Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Chemistry: The Reviews editor role is rather different to that of a primary research journal editor – and not just because I spend my time chasing authors rather than being chased by them. I get to put a lot into every manuscript that I handle. And I do it all while travelling the world, meeting interesting people and slaking my thirst for knowledge.

Zoe Budrikis, Associate Editor at Nature Reviews Physics: Every day — every hour, sometimes! — in this job is different. I can go from looking for commissioning ideas in soft matter physics, to line-editing a review on the physics of climate modelling, to discussing with editors in other journals about what the latest trends in complexity research are.

Nuclear fusion: Creating artificial stars

Too little does the public hear about nuclear fusion — a process in which two light nuclei collide at high speed and fuse into a heavier nucleus — which is surprising considering the need for alternative energy sources and fusion’s promise to deliver limitless clean and safe energy. If the word fusion brings anything to the mind of the wider public, this is likely related to ITER, a research reactor under construction in France that has repeatedly made the news by over blowing its budget and being substantially behind schedule. Is this all there is to know about fusion? By all means, no. “Let there be light – the 100 years journey to fusion” brings the audience on a fascinating journey across time and ideas into the complex landscape of past and present fusion research.

The documentary, directed by Mila Aung-Thwin and Van Ryoko, was released in March 2017, and explores the world of fusion mainly through the eyes of four of its protagonists, each bringing a different point of view.

Credit: Heath Cairns

Mark Henderson works at ITER, a reactor based on a tokamak design, in which a powerful magnetic field confines the plasma in a toroidal shape. ITER is poised to become the biggest fusion reactor in the world, and its goal is to demonstrate that fusion at the power-plant scale is feasible. At ITER, Henderson is in charge of the systems heating the plasma.

Eric Lerner develops a fusion concept called dense plasma focus, in which large electrical currents run through the plasma, harnessing its natural instabilities to confine and compress it; this type of reactor has the advantage of being much smaller and cheaper than other designs, but technologically is not as advanced. “The first error of the governments in the 1970s was to put all their eggs in the tokamak basket”, he comments. “But actually we still don’t know which route will lead to practical and economical fusion: you should invest not in ideas you think will work, but in all ideas you can’t prove won’t work”.

Michel Laberge is the founder of General Fusion, a private company developing a fusion power device that, instead of employing magnetic fields, uses pistons to compress liquid metal surrounding the plasma to create fusion conditions. “It’s pistons and its’ rings, it’s metal and pipes, it’s plumbing,” he explains. “Turning that into a power plant would actually be not that complicated. I have a saying, I tell my engineers: if you can’t find it at Home Depot it doesn’t go in the machine.”

Finally, Sibylle Gunter is the scientific director of Wendelstein 7-X, an experimental reactor in Germany that is the largest stellarator device in the world. Stellarators, which have worst plasma confinement than tokamaks but can run continuously — an important advantage for future power plants — are based on complicated coils optimized to generate a specific magnetic field configuration. Although stellarators are technologically behind tokamaks, some believe it is stellarators that will eventually deliver fusion on the grid.

The documentary takes the audience right at the beginning of the history of fusion, to the time when, in 1939, Hans Bethe understood the proton–proton reaction that powers stars. A decade later, in the USSR, a self-educated Red Army sergeant posted to a remote island suggested a concept that would become the tokamak; physicist Andrei Sakharov completed the projects for the first reactor in 1950. That same year, the claim (then proven fraudulent) that fusion had been achieved in Argentina inspired Lyman Spitzer, an American physicist, to develop the stellarator. The importance of international collaboration to achieve fusion was recognized already during the cold war (it helped that fusion has no military applications), and in 1985 Gorbachev and Reagan agreed to start a collaborative international project to develop fusion energy, laying the basis for the ITER project.

Among scientists, a period of tremendous enthusiasm in the 1960s was followed by a decade of doubt and skepticism when it was realized that the problem was more complex than initially thought. In the 1980s, on the wake of a new wave of enthusiasm, it was believed that fusion would be on the grid within 50 years, and indeed until 2000 advances were fast. But to take the next step a new machine was needed, bigger, more complex: ITER, which is likely the most complex machine ever built.  I know I will be retired by the time ITER is successful” says Henderson, “so I’m like the guy building a cathedral, who knows he is gonna […] spend his entire career putting bricks together, but he will never see the end piece.

Indeed, ITER is more than a decade behind schedule — first plasma was originally planned for 2016 — and several billion dollars over budget. In a management assessment back in 2013 the problem was pinned down as poor management, ill-defined decision-making processes and poor communications within the project. In 2015 a new Director General was appointed, Bernard Bigot. ITER now has a new date for first plasma, Christmas 2025. “I think ITER will probably work; it will demonstrate that fusion is doable,” says Laberge. “They are gonna blow their budget and their schedule big time, it will burn money at twice the rate you need to, but it will get built and it will work, and this will give a big shot in the arm of fusion.”

One point everybody seems to agree on is that more funding is needed to develop fusion. “The more money you put in, the faster the return. And we have really being putting in peanuts,” comments Henderson. “Fusion is about 20 billions for 20 years. One billion a year. One fancy bridge a year. Peanuts! Let’s do it!” says Laberge. “How long it will take to achieve fusion? At current levels of financing, it will take approximately the age of the universe,” concludes Lerner.

With its beautiful images, helpful animations and an engaging soundtrack, the documentary, which is all narrated through interviews and original clips, is informative and enjoyable. It does not shy away from the challenges and doubts about the feasibility of a complex project such as ITER, but keeps a positive outlook.  It is a welcome reminder that achieving fusion is an extremely important goal, and all potential avenues need to be explored. Whether expert on fusion or curious onlooker, in “Let there be light” there is something for everyone.

Escape into the wonders of physics

Post by Giulia Pacchioni

LabEscape is an escape room based on physics – I got the opportunity to explore it during the APS March meeting in Boston, where it was set up for one week away from its usual site in Urbana, Illinois.

Prof. Schrödenberg went missing, and an important grant needs to be submitted. As her new interns we need to log into the computer and hit the submit button. Easy… well, we need to figure out the password, but luckily the professor left hints around the lab in case she forgot it!

Together with a team of five other physicists (the other interns in the lab), before entering the room I was handled information sheets covering some essential physics concepts laid out in a very digestible way. Indeed, the room, which is the brainchild of Paul Kwiat, a physics professor at the University of Illinois, is by all means not designed for physicists (even though it’s an absolute delight for them). It was created to provide an experience that demonstrates to the general public that physics is useful, permeates everyday objects and is, yes, fun.

Peter recommended we read the material carefully no matter how well we thought we knew it already, as knowing which concepts are illustrated in the room can help understanding how to crack the puzzles inside. Apparently, a group of physicists who refused to go through the material couldn’t escape in the set time, whereas a family with no scientific background who did their reading (as any good intern should do!) aced the challenge.

The main suggestion from Paul was to work as a team, with two or three people looking at each hint or object to combine different points of view, and to share all information with the others. He had to help us a bit, reminding us to work together each time we went our separate ways exploring the fascinating bits and pieces scattered around the lab.

The room contains a clever mix of challenges ranging from the usual looking around for hints and tools to actual small experiments using lab equipment that needs to be manipulated and sometimes completed with missing pieces. As in any good lab, instructions on how to use the instruments are provided, accompanied by extra explanations about how each experience works for the curious explorer. I don’t want to give too much away, but we got to play with an oscilloscope and a laser, polarizing glasses and, of course, a dead/alive cat in a box!

The riddles are generally simple, but require some lateral thinking and careful observation, which makes the experience fun and varied without it ever getting boring or frustrating. The experiments use scientific instruments in very creative ways, the type that stimulates a wow reaction both in science novices who think ‘how is this even possible!’ and physicists who think ‘I never thought of using it like THIS!’ Marveling at the various tricks was so fun that escaping the room became a bit of a secondary focus. Even after we did work out the password and could have escaped, my fellow interns had plenty of questions for Paul about how everything worked and how they could use some of the ideas in their own outreach activities.

For me, the take home message is that that working on a problem together and listening to each team member’s ideas is essential for overcoming challenges in the lab. Also in real life.

Interactions: Zoe Budrikis

Zoe Budrikis joined Nature Reviews Physics after postdoctoral research at the ISI Foundation in Turin and at the Center for Complexity and Biosystems at the University of Milan and a PhD from the University of Western Australia.

What made you want to be a physicist?
In high school, I didn’t plan to study physics. I wanted to take Ancient History instead. But the timetable didn’t work out so I took physics classes and enjoyed them, and then I took some physics courses at university and enjoyed them so much I changed my degree. The rest, as they say, is history.

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?
It’s a cliché, but my backup plan/daydream is to open a bakery. I love seeing people enjoy food I’ve made, which is easy to do with cake! Plus, thinking about how to put unusual flavours and ingredients together is the kind of problem-solving I find relaxing. Of course, there’s a lot of physics involved in understanding how food works.

Which is the development that you would really like to see in the next 10 years?
Interdisciplinary science has really come to the fore in recent years, and I’m excited to see where that will take us. Especially because so many of the big problems in science and society – climate change springs to mind – require people with different backgrounds to work together to find a solution.

Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with — and why?
I’d love to meet some of the everyday people of the past. Any era, really. Most of what I know about history is about big political figures, or famous authors/artists/inventors, and I think it would be fun to sit down with someone not at all famous and find out what their life was actually like.

What Sci-Fi technology would you most like to have (and why)?
I’d like everyone to have the Babel Fish from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

What is your non-scientifically accurate guilty pleasure (could be film/series/book)?
I watched a lot of classic Dr Who as a teenager, and I retain a soft spot for alien planets that look remarkably like quarries.

Interactions: Giulia Pacchioni

Giulia Pacchioni played a big part in the launch of Nature Reviews Physics, but will return to Nature Reviews Materials next month. Still, she will always be part of the team.

What made you want to be a physicist? 
Feynman’s autobiography, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! I read it as a teenager and it kicked off a long-lasting fascination for physics. For a while I also thought about becoming a mathematician, but then I was drawn by the richness of physics, a subject that stretches from the understanding of the origin of the universe to the conception of next-generation electronic devices. As many others I entered university thinking I wanted to be an astrophysicist, but after finding out more about the marvels of solid-state systems I ended up being a condensed matter physicist instead.

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

I considered studying classics — I was particularly fascinated by the evolution of the Greek ancient language, as it gives insight on how languages developed. However, my secret plan has always been to open my own factory of soft toys. I would make fluffy versions of all the cutest animals, from the domestic to the rare. But I haven’t totally discarded the idea of owning a chocolate factory either.

Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with — and why?

Dinner with Aristotle would be cool. He was such a great thinker I suspect there would be no shortage of topics to discuss, starting from his deep questions about the physical world. Maybe he could bring along his pupil Alexander the Great. He must have had a magnetic personality.

What would be your (physics) superpower?

Teleportation! I could pop in for lunch with friends in Paris, and chill on a beach in Sardinia in the afternoon. Coffee and cake on the Amalfi coast.

What’s your favourite (quasi-)particle?

Definitely skyrmions. They look so awesome with their arrangement of colourful spins. There is a lot of fascinating materials research going on to obtain smaller and more controllable skyrmions, and they have cool potential applications. Lately I’m getting into Majorana quasiparticles as well, as their observation requires top-notch condensed matter physics experiments and they might enable error-protected quantum computers. In preparation for when I will have my toy shop, I made a soft Majorana fermion that keeps me company in the office.

What Sci-Fi gadget / technology would you most like to have / see come true (and why)?

In Italy there is a comic-book character,  Eta Beta, who wears a little black skirt in which he can stock anything, a bit like in Mary Poppins’ bag, as objects become incredibly small (and hopefully light!) as they are stored in the pockets. I find such a garment would be practical, provided the storage is organized enough to find stuff speedily.

Interactions: Iulia Georgescu

Iulia Georgescu is the Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Physics. Previously, she was an editor of Nature Physics, where she managed to sneak in three original “Alice in wonderland” illustrations (1, 2, 3) and the self-declared best cover-line ever.

What made you want to be a physicist? 

Star Trek. More precisely Mr Spock and Mr Data. Do I need to say more?

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

A SF/fantasy writer or a manga artist because I love daydreaming about fantastic adventures. I hope it’s not too late, and my best-selling work is yet to be published (well, written first).

Which is the development that you would really like to see in the next 10 years?

Detection of dark matter or anything else beyond the standard model.

What would be your (physics) superpower?

Flying would be pretty cool. What is nice about this superpower is that you can imagine various ways in which flight would work with its strength and limitations.

What Sci-Fi technology would you most like to have (and why)?

Teleportation would come in very handy, in particular to save my commute time.

What is your non-scientifically accurate guilty pleasure (could be film/series/book)?

As you might have guessed by now SF/fantasy books and manga/anime, although I do not feel guilty in the least.

Interactions: Andrea Taroni

Andrea Taroni is the Chief Editor of Nature Physics.

What made you want to be a physicist? 

Being the enlightened souls that they were, my parents told me I could study anything I wanted, provided it was a science. So I chose chemistry, because it was somehow in the middle between biology (which I tended to like) and physics (which I tended to find quite boring, at least at school) – but long term I had no intention of staying in science. Anyway, as things went on I realised that I hadn’t quite appreciated that a) chemistry is only in the middle if you imagine the spectrum between the sciences to be on a logarithmic scale (that is, physics explains A LOT more than I had initially thought); b) physics research is a lot more interesting than physics lessons; and c) I wasn’t very good at chemistry to begin with. I was lucky to work with a chap called Steve Bramwell in my last year of university: thanks to the project I worked on with him, I realised I liked magnetism. And in order to study that, I had to get a better grasp of fundamental ideas rooted in statistical physics and, ultimately, symmetry. This struck is very deep and very beautiful and it had the effect of helping me to start thinking like a physicist.

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

I’m now beyond the age where it is even possible for me to cling on to my dream of being a footballer, but that was, alas, my burning ambition when I was growing up. I enjoy what I am doing right now a lot, but compared to football it is a very distant plan B. Had a pro football career come off, I would be now be looking at investing my money in property on the Mediterranean coast…and I can’t say I would be too disappointed with that. But you ask what I would like to be, and “property developer” is not something I ever aspired to be. The people I admire the most these days are, for want of a better description, practitioners: people that have dedicated themselves with passion and discipline to a particular art or craft. You can just tell when you meet such people – they might be famous artists or simply very good teachers that don’t get as much recognition as they deserve – but measured over time their influence over the people around them is huge.

Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with — and why?

I answered this question the last time I did this kind of Q&A, and I said Julius Cesar and Cleopatra. I’m going to stick with that.

What would be your (physics) superpower?

Without doubt it would be the power of flight. Am I aiming to low? Because that still strikes me as a cool thing to be able to do.

What’s your favourite (quasi-)particle?

Probably the magnon, as I worked with it while I was doing research. It’s a nice, simple quasi-particle with a distinguished history in the physics literature. And once you understand how they work, you understand how a lot of other quasiparticles work too.

Which physicist would you like to see interviewed on Interactions — and why?

If you could go back in time, I would suggest Ludwig Boltzmann. As you can’t, I’m going to say Philip Anderson.

The perfect pitch

Do you have a good idea for a Review article, or perhaps a Comment? Here’s a brief guide on how to pitch ideas to editors.

How to write a cover letter? That is a question Nature editors are often asked. When submitting a primary research article, a cover letter is only needed if the authors wish to convey some additional information not included in the manuscript (Some editors still love a good old cover letter. Here are some great tips for writing cover letters for primary research). However, if you want to propose a Review article or a Comment piece, a good cover letter is essential. Here is how to write it:

Dear Editor,

[Spend a few seconds to check the relevant editor’s name on the website, you would not like to receive emails everyday starting with Dear Researcher. It is good practice to get the name of the journal and editor right. Cover letters addressed to another journal suggest that the paper has been rejected by the other journal, which is not necessarily flattering. (Rest assured that this will not lead to the immediate rejection of the proposal, but it does say something about your attention to detail. This is a good moment to double-check the date and the correct spelling of the editor’s name)]

Who are you?

[Introduce yourself very briefly]

Why are you writing to us?

[I would like to propose a Review article, a Comment piece]

Why this topic?

[This is the most important part. Keep it concise, but at the same time convincing. Bring solid arguments but don’t overdo it. Some tips:

  • It has to make us think “what a great idea”!
  • It’s an interesting and relevant topic that has not been covered too recently in the journal. Do check that we have not published this before!
  • Recent findings opening up a new field
  • New insights/new angle into an existing field
  • Bringing together two/more fields
  • Explain the main findings, avoiding peripheral circumstances
  • Be clear, concise, and provide context, but don’t go into a full bibliographic analysis
  • Are there competitor reviews? How are they different from your idea?]

Why now? [This is also very important. Why is the proposed piece timely? Why now and not two years ago or in two years’ time? Highlight recent papers that demonstrate the timeliness of the topic.]

Why you? [Are you are expert in the field, a ‘key opinion leader’ and have an established research background in the field? Will people want to hear what you have to say, are you a good communicator? What new angle are you bringing? If you are a team of authors how do you complement each other?]

Why us? [Why do you want to write in this journal and not in another? Take the time to check the journal website and see what it published in term of article types and content. Is this really the right outlet for your proposed article? Think of your audience: who would you like to read this Review?]

Other information. [When are you available to write, do you have any restrictions, requirements?]

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours’

 

Here are some further tips:

Do:

  • Mention if you had contact with the editors, perhaps we met and chatted at some point.
  • If there are recent meetings on the topic that showcase the interest of the community in this topic.
  • Mention any related developments in the field: projects, facilities, collaborations.

Don’t: [no, no,no]

  • Copy and paste the abstract as the cover letter.
  • Get the journal name wrong.
  • Name-drop “I ran my idea by (famous) Prof so-and-so and he/she think it’s a great idea for a Review”.
  • Include hype, clichés, empty statements.

[All these Donts are worth keeping in mind for primary research cover letters too]

{credit}Iulia Georgescu{/credit}

As editorial lore goes there is a saying: “For a good Review you need the right topic, the right author and the right time”. So the pitch in the cover letter should make it clear why this article, why you, and why now. Good luck!

 

Many thanks to Linda Koch (Nature Reviews Genetics) and Annette Fenner (Nature Reviews Urology) for sharing their tips.

 

Spreading the love of light

Post by Nina Meinzer and Heather Partner

If you have been following this blog for the last few weeks you will already know that some of us at Nature Research really love the science of everything light and its applications. But we didn’t want to stop at talking about different wavelength ranges on the internet, we also wanted to go out there and talk to people directly; and this being the International Day of Light (IDL), we didn’t limit our outreach events to only one country either.

Enlightening the next generation

In London, we went on a journey to the (for us editors) fairly undiscovered country of schools outreach. Thankfully, we found a great partner in UCL who soon took the lead in organising the lectures and the hands-on science stations.

The three short lectures nicely showcased the interdisciplinarity of the IDL. For the first one Andrea Sella joined us from the chemistry department and, after asking the house lights in the lecture theatre to be turned down completely for a moment, talked about how light is generated by fluorescence. But instead of reaching into the chemicals cabinet, he reached into the kitchen cupboard and demonstrated fluorescence from olive oil, chlorophyll (extracted from greens) and even Marmite. The archaeologists Charlotte Friersen and Anne de Vareilles then recapped a million years of humans controlling light, which until the late 19th century meant light from fire. Finally, we delved underwater with Danbee Kim to learn about the vision and the variable colouring of cuttlefish, who can see polarization and whose skin pattern shows their success in hunting shrimp.

Of course, 240 11- to 13-year-olds won’t sit in lectures for a whole day, and science isn’t that much about listening to other people telling facts anyway. The lectures were therefore embedded in two interactive sessions where the students could get more involved in a range of demonstrations: changing the colour of an LED to one of their choice, learning about spectroscopy and its uses for astronomy, getting their brain imaged while doing some maths, and playing with reflection, diffraction and polarization (among other things). Here, they could also speak to active scientist and — unknown to them — a few of our editors who revisited their own research days by helping out on a station. The students also found out that they could get more involved with science themselves in one of the many citizen science projects at UCL.

The day was an enormous success and both the teachers and students told us that they enjoyed themselves greatly and at the same time learned a lot. For us volunteers, seeing the fascination on their faces when they heard about some of the fun and interesting things scientist can do with light, was the best reward we could have wished for.

Bright lights, bright people

Volkhard Kempter — True Lite Standard II (1998) and Don’t look now! – 50 Hz (2017)

In Berlin, we celebrated the Day of Light with an evening at the Springer Nature building. The main event was a public lecture A Closer Look: Seeing atoms with a Laser by Professor Oliver Benson of the Humboldt University of Berlin. He shared his knowledge about lasers with us by first discussing some of the history of their development and the basic concepts behind coherent light. He went on to explain how we use lasers to see the basic pieces of matter — atoms and molecules — including an acoustic analogue demonstration of how monochromatic waves can be coupled resonantly into an atom. Finally, during the questions, Professor Benson shared his views about which future technologies could become as influential as the laser.

As a pre-programme, 5 PhD students met our challenge for them to describe their PhD projects to the audience in 3 minutes each, which as one organiser pointed out, is equivalent to reducing the novel War and Peace to a few words. From research on magnetic memories, biological imaging and flexible displays to measuring gravity and recycling plastic — all using light as a key ingredient — the students managed to explain the essence of their work in only a few minutes. The most popular pitch, selected by the audience via smartphone voting, was Juggling atoms to measure gravity presented by Bastian Leykauf of the Humboldt University of Berlin. As a thank you, all speakers received the very fitting memoir of Theodore Maiman.

Light is not only a topic of science; it also influences our daily lives and culture. To complement the scientific programme, through the Centre for International Light Art in Unna, Germany we joined forces with an artist, Volkhard Kempter, based in Berlin. His work uses light and darkness, and the question of how one evokes the other, as a central element. He brought two installations to our venue for the event: True Light Standard II, a circle of irregularly flashing fluorescent tubes facing inward to form a flickering, very bright source which attracts attention, but is too bright to look into, and Don’t look now! – 50 Hz, a photomontage of 6 different states that a fluorescent tube goes through while being switched on, that we wouldn’t usually notice in the brief moment it takes for the light to arise. These displays provided an opportunity to contemplate how pervasive artificial light is in our lives, which we hope our guests took home with them after they left.

Terahertz: Entering applications

Post by Oliver Graydon

spectrum_THz

{credit}Image by Bethany Vukomanovic {/credit}

The electromagnetic spectrum spans a rich range of wavelengths – from short-wavelength, highly energetic x-rays at one end through to long-wavelength radiowaves at the other. While many regions of this spectrum have already been explored by mankind and put to good use there is one that is still largely underexploited – that of terahertz waves. Lying in the region between infrared light and microwaves, terahertz waves (photons with a frequency between ~300 GHz and 10 THz), fall into a gap between the worlds of photonics and electronics. However, in recent years scientists have been increasingly exploring how such terahertz waves can be exploited. Historically, difficulties in efficiently generating and manipulating terahertz waves served as a barrier for the area. However, several developments have changed the fortunes of the field.

The advent of the quantum cascade laser in the mid-1990s provided access to a solid-state laser technology that evolved to emit milliwatts of power of terahertz radiation from a convenient semiconductor device, albeit cooled. More recently, engineered structures called “metamaterials” have been designed that can switch and modulate terahertz waves.

As for applications, researchers have found that terahertz waves can be useful for security screening, in particular. For example, it’s known that terahertz waves can pass through thin layers of clothing and organic materials but are blocked by metals, such as a knife blade, and that certain explosives and pharmaceuticals have a clear absorption fingerprint. As a result, several companies have since commercialized the technology for security scanners for use at airports and elsewhere. Other potential applications include the use of terahertz waves instead of radiowaves as a high-frequency carrier wave for future mobile communications opening the door to ultra-high-bandwidth data connections. There are also efforts to use terahertz waves for biomedical applications such as skin cancer detection, however the strong water absorption of terahertz waves limits many biological applications.

One thing’s for sure: the region is evolving from being a once neglected gap in the electromagnetic spectrum to a highly active area of science that is rich in potential applications and opportunities.

 

Mid-Infrared: the molecular fingerprint region

Post by Nina MeiznerMolecular_Fingerprinting

Mid-infrared (mid-IR) radiation – typically defined as 2.5–10 µm wavelengths (although the exact values can vary) – is not something many of us come across in our daily lives. We can’t see it and we don’t use it for data transmission either. So, why do we care about it at all? Well, mid-infrared radiation can help us identify many materials by their characteristic spectra.

To understand this better, let’s take a little detour into the world of molecules. Even if they don’t move around widely, molecules can be in different excited states: they can stretch along their bonds, vibrate around their centre of mass and rotate around one of their axes. Like a stretching spring or the balance of a watch, these excitations store energy and, of course, energy can be expressed in wavelengths and the energy of many of these rotational and vibrational (ro-vibrational) excitations correspond to mid-IR wavelengths. And because the energy stored in each of these excitations is characteristic to a specific molecule, we can use these spectral fingerprints to identify materials using spectroscopy. That’s why airport security use spectrometers to check for dangerous substances when they swipe your laptop.

While we can use mid-IR radiation to identify materials, materials are also one of the biggest challenges for mid-IR applications because all the materials typically used at shorter wavelengths don’t work the same way at longer wavelengths. For example, the silica glass used for microscope slides, lenses and optical fibres in the visible and near-infrared, is no longer transparent above about 4 µm, forbidding such applications in the mid-IR. Two common silica replacements for the mid-IR are calcium fluoride or chalcogenide glasses, but the search continues, especially for nonlinear applications.

But how do we make mid-IR light in the first place? Well, that has long been a bottle neck in mid-IR technology, but the last few years have brought some improvement and mid-IR sources can these days even be bought off the shelf. These are usually frequency combs – trains of sharp spectral lines with an equidistant frequency spacing  – often derived from quantum cascade lasers, but many of them do not cover the full mid-IR range. Compared to the adjacent near-infrared, however, the choice of sources is limited, and more advanced frequency converters like optical parametric oscillators (OPO), which are standard lab-equipment in the near-IR, are still few and far between in the longer mid-IR.

Luckily, these challenges are opportunities rather than obstacles, and although we’ll never be able to see it in a literal sense, we will for sure see a lot more (figuratively) of the mid-IR in the near future.

Near-Infrared: A fact sheet

Post by Lina Persechini

Fibre_wikipedia

What?
As you move away from the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum you encounter the Infrared region. Infrared light is divided into three spectral regions: near, mid- and far-infrared

Where?
The near-infrared (NIR) can be defined as the region between 750 nm and 2,500 nm, although the boundary between the NIR and the mid-Infrared (MIR) region can vary slightly.

When?
In the year 1800, astronomer and composer William Herschel had been using dark filters in a telescope to study the sun when he noticed that he could still feel the heat of the sun’s rays through the filters. It was through this ‘sensation of heat’ that he concluded that there must be invisible light beyond the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

How….can we use it?
Herschel’s discovery led to the development of astronomical spectrophotometry as a means to understand our stars and galaxies. NIR spectroscopy can also be used to understand the chemical composition of different media we have right here on Earth. However, the most significant and relevant use of NIR radiation is in fibre-optic communication, where information is carried through NIR light rather than through electric cables. The telecom window between 800 – 900 nm was originally used for transmitting information, but it turned out the optical fibre losses over longer distances were too high in this region. Later, the range 1,260 – 1,360 nm (or more affectionately known as the original ‘O’-band) was used, as the optical fibres produced in the 1970s were of the lowest loss in this region. Nowadays the C-band (1,530 nm to 1,565 nm) is the most conventionally used band for long-haul and submarine optical transmission. In total we can boast around 6 bands (O, E, S, C, L, U) which have been defined and standardized to meet our information requirements.

 

Visible spectrum: On our wavelength

Post by Mark Daly

The Earth’s Sun emits a tremendous amount of electromagnetic radiation in the Earth’s direction. Even though the entire spectrum of light is incident on this planet, why is it that we humans only see in a tiny band that we have — rather appropriately — named the visible spectrum?

world-1582347_1280

At first, we could simply dismiss the problem as being purely evolutionary, but there must have been a driving factor — some evolutionary pressure — that led us down this path. With a little thought and some ‘light’ physics, we can use the process of elimination to lead us to a logical solution.

Let’s begin with the source of all our light, the aforementioned Sun. The Sun can be described as a ‘black body’. Without getting too bogged down in the somewhat confusing name for such a bright object, let’s just say it means that the Sun is capable of emitting light continuously over the entire frequency spectrum. (More interested readers can take a look at the Wikipedia entry for more information).  Luckily, our good friend Max Planck worked out the distribution of light across the different frequencies emitted by such a black body back in the 1900s. Using Planck’s law, we can input our Sun’s temperature and discover that the peak of its emission just so happens to be in the visible spectrum. You might be forgiven for thinking ‘Ah-ha! This is why we see in this range’, and you would be partially correct. Yet we can still dig a little deeper.

Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg

Atmospheric absorption of light from the sun. Image credit: NASA, SVG by Mysid

Not all of the light that is incident on Earth makes it down to the ground in any meaningful abundance. In fact, there are huge absorption bands in our atmosphere. The only bands of light that could be candidates for vision are ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and longer radio wavelengths.

Technically speaking, all of these types of light would be viable candidates for providing some information about the world around us. However, the scale of the fine details on Earth limits it further. Radio wavelengths are very long, ranging from a few millimetres to kilometres! Because of their long wavelengths they turn out to be very useful, because they aren’t absorbed much by thin obstructions. However, because of their large dimensions, if we relied on radio wavelengths to see we wouldn’t be able to make out any fine details in our surroundings, so we can rule them out.

What about the infrared spectrum? Some animals do see in the infrared, but these animals are typically cold-blooded. Why? Well, hot objects emit quite a bit of infrared radiation, so we would be all but blinded by the heat from our own bodies if we could see in this regime. Ultraviolet light contains a lot of energy – the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy of a single photon. Although some animals do see in the UV, we humans cannot. We know that even on a seemingly cloudy day, UV radiation can damage our skin, so it’s best not to focus this powerful light onto our delicate retinas.

Ultimately, after exhausting all other options, we are left with one contender: the good old reliable visible spectrum.

Ultraviolet radiation: Not just for a suntan

Post by Gaia Donati

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation identifies the region of the electromagnetic spectrum where wavelengths are longer than those of X-rays. The extreme UV (XUV) range identifies light with a wavelength around 10 nm and up to 100 nm; far-UV and middle-UV regions are characterised by wavelengths between about 100 nm and 200 nm and between 200 nm and 300 nm, respectively. Near-UV radiation extends to around 400 nm, which is commonly taken as the lower value for visible wavelengths. You may wonder – why should one bother to label these intervals so diligently? While the precise boundaries of these ranges are not set in stone, the UV region peculiarly spans two different orders of magnitude in wavelength (or, equivalently, in frequency): the fastidious labels for each sub-region are there to remind us that the features and applications of light in the longer-wavelength near-UV region are distinct from those characterising short-wavelength XUV radiation, for example.UV_Photo_GD

If you check the label on your sunscreen, this will probably read “UVB protection” or “UVB and UVA protection” – and it just so happens that UVB and UVA identify wavelengths ranges which almost coincide with the middle- and near-UV regions, respectively. Of all kinds of UV light, UVB and UVA rays are the ones that penetrate the deepest into human skin – with its longer wavelength, UVA light reaches all the way into the epidermis and the dermis. Therefore, it is important to protect our skin from these rays: overexposure to UVA and UVB radiation – including tanning beds – is now known to increase the risk of developing various forms of skin cancer. On a more positive health-related note, light in the UVB region is instrumental to the activation of vitamin D in the organism, and is thus crucial for calcium absorption.

Let’s put aside the interaction of light with our human bodies and look instead at what happens when light interacts with media such as a crystal slab or a gas. Under specific conditions, it is possible to observe a variety of so-called nonlinear interactions between these states of matter and electromagnetic radiation: nonlinear frequency conversion, for instance, describes processes whereby shining light at a given wavelength through a crystal produces an output radiation at a different wavelength. An ‘extreme’ form of nonlinear frequency conversion involves the interaction between an intense, focussed laser pulse (which has a fixed temporal duration, as opposed to the continuous light beam produced by a laser pointer) and a gas, resulting in the generation of light at high multiples of the optical frequency of the original pulse: this process, known as high harmonic generation, has proven incredibly successful for obtaining short laser pulses in the XUV range. These short pulses, which have durations around and below 100 attoseconds (where an attosecond equals one quintillionth of a second), can be turned into probes for the study of physical phenomena taking place on the same temporal scale – think of a very fast camera capturing the dynamics of electrons in matter, for example. Ultraviolet? Ultrafast, too.

X-rays : a tale of bones, molecules and mummies

Post by Giulia Pacchioni

x-raysX-rays are the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that falls between gamma rays and the ultraviolet (UV) — their wavelength is of the order 0.01−10 nanometres. What’s fascinating about them is their extremely wide range of applications, going from astronomy to art.

The history of X-rays goes back a long way: they were accidentally discovered by Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895. As it wasn’t clear what the nature of the new radiation was, Röntgen just labelled it ‘X’. The name was supposed to be temporary… but it stuck. As X-rays penetrate soft tissues but not bones, the potential for medical imaging was immediately clear, so much that X-rays were already in use during World War I. Röntgen received the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery − and not just a Nobel Prize, but the very first one − in 1901.

An interesting fact is that in the early days there was no suspicion that the new radiation might be harmful, and, for a while, a proper X-rays mania arose, with products advertised as ‘X-rays headache tablets’ and ‘X-rays stove polish’ (and it’s still a mystery what X-rays actually had to do with them). Until the 1950s, X-rays machines could be found in shoe stores, with the purpose of ensuring a perfect fit.

As it soon became clear, X-rays have enormous potential beyond medical imaging as means to shed light on the structure of matter: for example, X-ray crystallography unlocked the structure of DNA in 1953, which led to a Nobel Prize in 1962 (yes, another one. 15 Nobel prizes were awarded for research related to X-rays over the years). The brightest X-rays are found in synchrotron facilities, and the fun fact here is that originally X-rays were an unwanted by-product of particle accelerators developed for high-energy physics (particles moving along a curved trajectory emit radiation, and when their speed is close to that of light this radiation comes in the form of X-rays). Starting from the 1980s synchrotrons entirely dedicated to X-rays came on-line, starting a very productive era of discoveries in materials science, chemistry, biology and drug discovery. Nowadays the first X-ray free electron lasers, which offer ultrafast and very bright X-rays, make it possible to film chemical reactions and determine the structure of single biomolecules.

But the range of X-ray applications does not end here. They are used to investigate the Universe, studying black holes and dark matter, to unveil underpaintings and changes in works of art, revealing what went through an artist’s mind while working on a masterpiece. X-rays allowed us to study Egyptian mummies without unwrapping or damaging them (examples here and here), to read ancient scrolls without unrolling them (here and here), to find out that a wooden statue contained an ancient Chinese mummy… and even to see inside the remains of dinosaurs. And not to mention applications in daily life, such as in airport security.

We went a long way from the very first X-ray image — the hand of Röntgen’s wife — and in directions he would never have imagined.

Behind the paper: Serendipitous encounters

Post by Iulia Georgescu

If you meet an editor of the Nature journals they will likely assure you that to get published you just need good science. But, the truth is there is some luck involved too – especially for interdisciplinary work. Sometimes the editors accidentally come across gems of papers. Bart Verberck and Liesbeth Venema tell two such stories.

Bart Verberck: Mathematics and lizards

One of the most pleasant aspects of being a Nature Physics editor is the need to be in touch with the scientific community, which means a fair share of your time is spent away from your desk, at conferences and institutes.

On one such occasion, I found myself attending a conference called “Science of the Future” in Kazan, Russia.  The event was memorable for a number of reasons.  On the plane from Moscow to Kazan, for example, I happened to sit next to a French physicist checking his presentation for the conference, in which he referred to a (Physical Review B) paper I had co-authored back in the day when I was an active researcher.  And at the conference, as soon as I had expressed an interest in seeing the museum–room of Yevgeny Zavoisky — credited with the discovery of electron paramagnetic resonance, at the University of Kazan — hey presto, I was given a tour.

The scope of the conference was extremely broad; in one session of plenary talks one could hear from a historian (a first for me), a bioinformatician, a physicist and a mathematician.  The mathematician was Stanislav Smirnov, recipient of the 2010 Fields Medal.  His presentation touched on percolation and cellular automata, a subject I had been fascinated by for many years.

At the conference dinner, I approached Smirnov.  I wanted to know his opinion on Stephen Wolfram’s viewpoint that cellular automata are a sort of governing principle in nature, as expressed in his book A New Kind of Science.  After chatting a bit, Smirnov mentioned he was involved in a piece of work at the boundary between mathematics and biology.  He wondered whether, scope-wise, it would fit Nature

I would have loved to see the work submitted to Nature Physics, but, when I got an e-mail from Smirnov a few weeks later, asking for advice on where and how to submit, I did the honourable thing and put him in touch with Liesbeth Venema from Nature.  He submitted the paper — on how the pattern formation on the skin of a particular type of lizard is governed by, yes, a cellular automaton — to Nature, where it successfully went through peer review.  The paper’s publication in 2017 coincided with the centenary of “On Growth and Form” by D’Arcy Thompson and was on the cover of Nature.  Of course, I wrote a research highlight  about it in Nature Physics.

naturecover

Liesbeth Venema: Pyramids and robots

Another main attraction of being a Nature manuscript editor has always been, for me, the chance to learn a new scientific topic every week. This never gets boring. Admittedly, it helps if lizards are involved. Or sharks, spiders and tree frogs – all have played their parts in Nature papers I handled over the years.  Continue reading

Nature Reviews Physics is coming!

Post by Giulia Pacchioni

A new Reviews journal in physics will launch soon, publishing Reviews, Perspectives, Roadmaps and much more across the whole spectrum of physics. How will it look like and why will it be relevant for you? Find all the answers in this amazing short video that the PhD comics guys created to introduce the new title to its future readers and authors!

You can also read more about how the journal plans to bring new types of content to the scene in the blog post More or more diverse? by the chief editor Iulia Georgescu. Stay tuned!

Interactions: Tatiana Webb

Tatiana receives the prize from Robert Birgeneau

Tatiana receives the prize from Robert Birgeneau{credit}Zhi-Xun Shen{/credit}

Post by Giulia Pacchioni

Tatiana is a 4th year graduate student at Harvard University working in Jenny Hoffman’s lab, where she uses scanning tunneling microscopy to image the electronic structure of high-temperature superconductors with atomic resolution. She was recently awarded the Martin and Beate Block Winter Award, which is given to a promising young physicist at each winter conference organized by the Aspen center for physics.

1. Can you briefly describe the results for which you got the award?

We are trying to understand electron interactions in the cuprate high-temperature phase diagram by studying broken symmetries.

2. What do you hope will be the impact of your research?

I hope that this work, and my research in general, will help to uncover the mechanisms behind high-temperature superconductivity.

3. What made you want to be a physicist in the first place?

Most fundamentally, I enjoy trying to solve challenging puzzles, and want to understand as much as I can about how the world functions around me.  I also see the opportunity as a physicist to impact the development of new technologies, which is exciting.

4. If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

I think that there are many careers that I would enjoy.  As long as I have a good balance of challenge and feeling useful, I am satisfied.

5. What Sci-Fi gadget or technology would you most like to have / see come true (and why)?

I would love to have Hermione’s time-turner from the Harry Potter series, because I wish that I could choose to use my time in a number of different ways!