Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Trio Wins Nobel Prize In Physics For Study of Exotic Matter (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the strange-states dept.

Dave Knott writes: David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday for discoveries in condensed-matter physics that have transformed the understanding of matter that assumes strange shapes. All three were born in Britain but work in the United States. Using advanced mathematical models, the three scientists studied unusual phases, or states, of matter, such as superconductors, superfluids or thin magnetic films. Their findings have relevance for materials science and electronics. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm awarded the prize for "theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter." Topology is a branch of mathematics that describes properties that change only in increments. In the early 1970s, Dr. Kosterlitz and Dr. Thouless "demonstrated that superconductivity could occur at low temperatures and also explained the mechanism, phase transition, that makes superconductivity disappear at higher temperatures," the academy found. In the 1980s, Dr. Thouless showed that the integers by which the conductivity of electricity could be measured were topological in their nature. Around that time, Dr. Haldane discovered how topological concepts could be used to understand the properties of chains of small magnets found in some materials. "We now know of many topological phases, not only in thin layers and threads, but also in ordinary three-dimensional materials," the academy said. "Over the last decade, this area has boosted front-line research in condensed matter physics, not least because of the hope that topological materials could be used in new generations of electronics and superconductors, or in future quantum computers."

25 comments

  1. Using advanced mathematical models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gnarleigh

  2. Haldane by Opyros · · Score: 1

    So is this a relative of J. B. S. Haldane?

    1. Re:Haldane by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia was uninformative.
      I found a genealogy site with a page for JBS: https://www.geni.com/people/J-...
      Unfortunately, sometimes the links are to a 'private' person, at which point the chain is broken.
      JBS had a stepchild but no children of his own. His dad was famous, as were his dad's two brothers and his grandfather. One of those (Richard Burdon Sanderson Haldane) was a viscount and Lord Chancellor, but had no sons. The other, Sir William Stowell Haldane had three sons.

      William's sons: Thomas Graeme Nelson Haldane (1897-1981): a 'private' child and a son Richard W Haldane. Richard W has four children, all 'private', three of whom have different surnames so we can guess they were daughters.
      Archie Richard Burdon Haldane (1900-1982): two children, but they are listed 'private'
      Patrick Haldane (1893-1915): no children listed.

      So assuming the listings are accurate (no missing children), it is possible that the Nobel Laureate is descended from JBS's grandfather via JBS's uncle William.
      The Laureate's full name is Frederick Duncan Michael Haldane, and he goes by Duncan. This pattern of three first names, using the second, appears a number of times in JBS's family tree.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:Haldane by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This pattern of three first names

      I've always admired people with three first names. My family was poor so I only got the one.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: Haldane by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you still made Pope. Or is Pope your first name?

  3. Exotic matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure about exotic matter, but if there's a Nobel for studying exotic dancers, I've got it locked up.

    1. Re:Exotic matter? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Not sure about exotic matter, but if there's a Nobel for studying exotic dancers, I've got it locked up.

      I volunteer to do peer review.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Exotic matter? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I volunteer to do peer review.

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Exotic matter? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

      *blushes*

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Exotic matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what they do to FAGGOTS like you when you can't walk anymore? Huh?

    5. Re:Exotic matter? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Do you know what they do to FAGGOTS like you when you can't walk anymore? Huh?

      You are adorable when you're so mad.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Worst Description of Topology ...Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Then out came the Bagels....

    Face meet palm.

    1. Re:Worst Description of Topology ...Ever. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. . . Bagels!

    2. Re:Worst Description of Topology ...Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that your simplistic definition of "Topology" differs from that of actual Physicists doing work in this field. Are you one of those Rejects that found Refuge in Computer "Science"?
      I, for just this once recently on Slashdot, found the summary concise, well written, and clear in the concepts.
      And the referenced article is pretty good. Topology in Materials Science is now very "Hot". My last efforts, before retiring, involved Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering on Liquid Molecular Surface Structures undergoing Change. Basic modern Physics Topology.

      Thank you, Messrs. Thouless, Duncan, Haldane, and Kosterlitz.

    3. Re:Worst Description of Topology ...Ever. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      TFS described topology as a branch of mathematics, which is in fact not physics. It then said that it was the study of things that change in increments, which is barely even wrong. Topology is the study of certain properties of sets, which can be finite or infinite, and don't have to be quantized. What people think of when they talk about topology is the study of properties that are invariant under transformations involving continuous functions. Sets of discrete objects can have topologies, but mathematicians are usually more interested in topologies on infinite sets that are continuous in some definition or other. This doesn't mean that physicists can't use topology as they please, and it may be that topologies on some set of the integers are what they use most, but they don't get to define it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. who cares? how many pokemon have you caught? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any free drinks at the local bar?

  6. Goddam furriners! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Trump will build the Atlantic Ocean and make the Limeys pay for it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Half a century late by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So they're rewarding NOW research from early 1970s. What's the point? The Nobel prize was designed to provide funds to the best scientists so they can continue research without wasting most of their time begging for sponsors(then)/grants(now). Instead, it degenerated into a list of "greatest minds of the last century who haven't still keeled over" that'd fit more in a random popsci colourful periodical.

    That, and the Political Correctness ("Peace") prize.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Half a century late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nobel prize wasn't ever really about funding more research and had more of just a prize from the start. The typical age of winners, for physics at least, has been in late 40s to 50s, with a sprinkling of ages above that (Bragg being the only one really to win it early in his career) Rontgen and Rayleigh, for two early examples, were 56 and 62. By the time they won the award, their science work had tapered off and they were in more of an administrative role.

      The Nobel prize was designed to provide funds to the best scientists so they can continue research without wasting most of their time begging for sponsors(then)/grants(now).

      The prize money was much smaller in the past, even adjusted for inflation. Enough money for a professor and a couple of students for a year or two is no where near enough to stop them from spending their time seeking grants (not to mention how grant seeking changed a lot since the creation of the prize...). That is more on the order of the size of a prize you would give to jump start a young researcher's career, i.e. a ~30 year old, and while such awards can do a lot to get a career rolling, it still doesn't do anything to protect them from time spent grant seeking. But it is quite rare for someone that young to have contributed a "greatest benefit on mankind" to a field including the couple years it takes to recognize and confirm significant work.

      That said, a large number of Nobel prize winners have donated their prize money to research they think can make a difference to the future.

    2. Re:Half a century late by Shinobi · · Score: 2

      No, that's not what the Nobel price was about. It was a recognition reward, not an equivalent of a sponsorship or a grant, for discoveries in certain fields, as outlined by his will, that contributed the most to mankind(yes, that is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the will that laid out the rules that govern the foundation). At the same time, the people involved in science have increased a couple of orders of magnitude. Also, some discoveries take decades to understand the exact worth. So you get awards like this.

  8. Topology is?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Topology is a branch of mathematics that describes properties that change only in increments."

    No it isn't. This is so basic I don't know where to start.

    1. Re:Topology is?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know where to start...
      22 comments so far on a Nobel Prize for Physics. Geek Much. Slashdot Fail.

      Topology, depending on the fields that it applies to, can have many meanings. This is a common trait; a Barn in Physics means something altogether different than a Barn in Architecture. But worming out just _why_ a Barn can have a Physics meaning is pure Geek joy; even more fun can be found behind "yrast".

      But going from Geek to Greek, "Topology" means the Study of "Place" or "Locality". Inherent in this meaning, within this context, is the concept of "Change", and that is where, in Physics, Topology runs free and unfettered. (In Maths, and especially in Computer Science, Topology is dull, dull, dull...)
      Let us now discuss the Topology of Slashdot. This particular very well written Subject: has, as of now, 22 comments. Meanwhile, a gushing article about an admitted Con Man with absolutely no Geek cred, (He has a fucking MBA...), has 204 comments. What does this tell us about the Topology of Slashdot? One has to go way back in studying this issue. But by projecting from then to now, and into the future, it seems inevitable that the Place for Slashdot will eventually be sucked into Kim Kardashian's huge and flabby ass, and thence condemned to farting out Tweets.

      Slashdot... how far it has fallen...

      Captcha: unwiser (?)

    2. Re: Topology is?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A word can have different meanings in different fields. Topology in math and physics is not one of those words. It is a branch of mathematics with many applied uses in physics, but still the same foundation principles of connections between open set structures. More applied aspects that get into things like differential geometry can appear like a different field, but is still the same field and subfields as in math. I say this having come from a physics career, but had a math background originally.