Nobel Prize in Physics 2007 for Giant Magnetoresistance

The Nobel Prize in physics for 2007 has been awarded to Albert Fert and Peter Grünberg . First of all this is very cool, because (1) condensed matter physicist never get enough respect IMHO and (2) once again the physics Nobel goes to a piece of physics research whose exciting use is…information technology 🙂 Giant magnetoresistance forms the basis for magnetic field reading heads in our hard drives, albeit in a slightly different form than that of the original discovery work for which the Nobel prize was awarded.
The basic idea of the GMR effect can be explained by a very simplistic model. First you need to know what to compare to, i.e. what is ordinary magnetoresistance. Ordinary magnetoresistance is simply the change of electrical resistance to a current flowing through a material in response to an applied magnetic field. This effect was first discovered way back in 1856 by Lord Kelvin (you can see the paper here if you have the proper insitution subscription.) But the effect is rather small, with changes of only about five percent or so possible (the effect is usually also anisotropic, having a differing magnitude depending on what direction the current is in comparison to the magnet field.)
Okay, now with ordinary magnetoresistance down, onward and upward to giant magnetoresistance. Suppose you have two ferromagnetic metals separated by a nonmagnetic layer only a few atoms thick. Then, under the proper circumstance, there is an antiferromagnetic coupling between these two materials. This means that the two layers will allign their spin in different directions, call one spin up and one spin down. Well this is what will happen at zero external magnetic field. If you crank up a magnetic field, then this external field will overwelm this antiferromagnetic coupling and both layers will allign in the same direction.
Okay so what does this have to do with resistance? Well in a ferromagnetic metal like iron, the spin up and spin down have different resistances. Call the resistance of the spin up [tex]$R_{uparrow}$[/tex] and the resistance of spin down [tex]$R_{downarrow}$[/tex] where “up” and “down” are defined with respect to the magnetic moment of the ferromagnetic material your traveling through.
What does this simple picture mean for the setup we’ve described above? First consider the case where the external magnetic field is zero. Consider a current starting in one ferromagnetic layer, then going through the nonmagnetic spacing layer and coming out in the other ferromagnetic later. In this case, a spin up electron will start in one layer, experiencing a resistance of [tex]$R_{uparrow}$[/tex], it will then traverse the nonmagnetic layer and enter into the other ferromagnetic layer. But remember at zero field, this layer has a magnetic moment pointing in the opposite direction. So the spin up electron, spin up relative to the first layer, will now experience a resistance as if it was a spin down electron in the first layer, [tex]$R_{downarrow}$[/tex]. Reistances add in series, so the total resistance for this spin up electron will be [tex]$R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow}[/tex]. A spin down electron in the first layer will similarly experience the same resistance (in the opposite order, but reistance commutes 🙂 ) [tex]$R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow}[/tex]. A current coming from and leaving to a non-ferromagnetic layer can be thought of as splitting into the spin up or spin down currents and then experiencing these two resistances, now in series. Thus the total resistance when the external magnetic field is [tex]${1 over 2}(R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow})[/tex].
Okay what about when there is a magnetic field. Well now a spin up always experiences the same resistance in both layers, so the resistance for this current will be [tex]$2R_{uparrow}$[/tex]. Similarly a spin down electron will experience the same resistance in both layers, [tex]$2R_{downarrow}$[/tex]. Combining these in parallel gives, [tex]$2 R_{uparrow} R_{downarrow} over (R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow})$[/tex].
Okay so now we can figure out what the change in resistance is between there being an external magnetic field and there not being an external magnetic field. It is just the difference of the two resistances we just derived, i.e.
[tex]$Delta R={2 R_{uparrow} R_{downarrow} over (R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow})}-{1 over 2}(R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow})=-{1 over 2} {(R_{uparrow}-R_{downarrow})^2 over (R_{uparrow}+R_{downarrow})}$[/tex].
So now we see that the larger the difference between the two resistances, the larger the change in the resistance is, i.e. the larger giant magnetic resistance is. What has happened, of course, is that in the case of zero external magnetic field, any electron must traverse a bad region where its resistance is the higher of the two resistances, thus creating a high resistance. When an external magnetic field is applied, however, there are now pathways where the electron only travels through the low restistance pathway, thus lowering the resistance. This is the origin of giant magnetoresistance.
By the way, there are even larger magnetoresistances possible. Since “giant” has already been taken, these are called “colossal” magnetoresistance. While the effects for colossal magnetoresistance are even larger, these results haven’t made their way into technology because of the large magnetic fields needed to induce the effects. And, interstingly, last I remember there wasn’t a consensus on what causes colossal magnetoresistance (allthough some quick googling leads me to here for some very recent interesting work.)
Anyway, happy times for the Nobel prize winners and thanks to them for the discovery that led directly to my hard drive being so big! Err, I mean small. Okay: dense!

Must Resist Early Adoption, Cannot, Cannot

Tess Dog
What’s that in my hand you ask Tess dog? Yes, I know I said that I’d been trapped into being an early adopter one too many times and I had finally learned a lesson. Yes, I know I said that. But my old Treo 650 had totally died (different from “really” died, or just plain “died”). I mean, as in it would regularly crash and I would get a battery overheat white screen of death. So I really did need a new phone. Why could I just get a new regular cell phone? I made the mistake of playing with the iPhone at that kiosk. Yes, it was the deadly kiosk that did it. But look at it this way, Tess dog, now I’ll get to take more photos of you since my Treo’s camera really stunk. Exciting, no? Hey stop licking my iPhone.

Sometimes The Bad Jokes Just Flow

Today during our quantum meeting:

Speaker: Imagine you are moving through imaginary time…
Snarky me: Um, if you’re imagining moving through imaginary time, wouldn’t you just be moving through real time
Other audience member: Actually I think you’d be moving backwards in time…

Spoon Bending Is Trivial for Quantum Kooks

I guess “trivial” is in the eye of the beholder (or the eye of the guy who doesn’t understand quantum theory):

I have always maintained there is no such thing is supernatural or paranormal. All observed phenomena, if accurate, are natural and normal. We call something supernatural or paranormal when we can’t explain it. Once we know the
explanation, its science. Before that it’s spooky. Everything I write about can be understood if you understand non locality and non local correlation and the inseparability of mind and matter as different expressions of consciousness. Let’s not waste any more time on spoon bending. For millions of people it’s now a trivial example of mind and matter as inseparably one.
Love and God bless!
Deepak
P.S. Dear Skeptisch, please come to NY at your own expense and I will make sure you can experience spoon bending for yourself. If you can’t, or don’t want to do that, then stop talking over and over again about the same thing. It’s boring

I think “it’s boring” means something like “dude, stop cramping my book sales.” Thanks to hana for pointing me to this gem.

Rethinking Scientific Talks

I’ve seen many a scientific talk, ranging from the truely inspiring, to the incredibly painful. I’ve also given many a scientific talk, ranging mostly to the incredibly painful end of the spectrum. Stuck in back of my head when I’m giving a not so good talk, there has always been a little devil saying “Come on, Dave, there has got to be a better way to give a talk!” Well usually I just ignore that little devil (“see him again on the forth of July”) but today watching a colloquium by Richard Anderson inspired me to think some crazy thoughts. Not because of the style of Richards talk, but instead because Richard is involved in a host of collaborative technology and its use in education, including the very cool Classroom presenter which I highly recommend for tablet based teaching.
Okay, so let me dream up a new way to give a scientific talk. First of all, I think we should take a lesson from Stephen Hawking. No, not a lesson in general relativity (allthough I’m quite certain that would be a great lesson, or at least a very hard lesson), but I mean I am totally jealous of Hawking’s speaking abilities. Why? Because he gets to write his talk before hand, plug it into his hand dandy speech synthesizer (“This synthesiser is by far the best I have heard, because it varies the intonation, and doesn’t speak like a Dalek. The only trouble is that it gives me an American accent.”), and then lets it rip. He just gets to sit back and enjoy his talk. Now I don’t think this is where I want scientific talks to be going totally. I don’t want prerecorded audio/video to be the only medium available for a talk. I mean sure, it is great to have resources like talks at the KITP, but I think scientific talks serve a broader goal than just the discinimation of a non-interactive lecture. But, let’s face it, giving a talk is hard. I mean live television, for example, is hard. But actors get to do multiple takes. They get to slowly think out the plan of their talk in advance and then don’t suffer from execution problems since they get to correct their mistakes. Certainly good speakers are the ones who can execute on demand, but isn’t there some way that we can use technology in an inovative manner to help bad speakers like me?
Deep breath. Okay so what am I advocating. First of all I want better presentation software. This software should allow me to prerecord parts of my talk. I should be able to then play this back at my own pace, stoping the prerecorded parts when I need to, jumping to parts which I’ve also recorded which explain tangential thoughts, as well as the ability for me to give a normal talk at any point AND I want this normal part of the talk to be recorded for posteriety so that I can use it if need be when I want to. I want giving a scientific talk to be more like being a music producer who can also sing their own song. I want my good explanations to be repeated and my bad ones to be easily thrown away. One inspiration for this is a talk which Manny Knill gives on fault-tolerance. As far as I can tell he has a big pdf file with all of the details of his work and he can easily move hyperlink style through the different relevant bits of information. This allows for a level of customization which the standard linear powerpoint doesn’t make natural (allthough I’m guessing there is a way to get powerpoint to imitate this, I just haven’t tried this or seen many people use it.)
Second I want vast communication to be occuring while I give a talk. One of the beauties of classroom presenter is that students can write on their tablet PCs and then send you up what they are writing. And its been my experience that the best talks are the talks where a great questioner is in the audience (for example any talk with Dorit Aharonov in the audience is destined to be a better talk!) Now the danger with allowing communication between the audience memebers during a talk is that they will be distracting. So first of all I think the in audience communication should not be point to point between audience members, but on a shared medium. Of great importance in this setup is people expressing questions or points they do not understand during a talk. I mean I can’t recall how many times I’ve given a talk and wondered how lost everyone is. With real time feedback it should be possible for talks to be adjusted on the fly to meet the demands of the audience. Further I think it can also help in that with a wide spectrum of viewers, some of the more informed viewers can actually help avert bad questions, which is probably almost as important as having a good questioner in the audience.
Okay, well the technology for carrying out talks like that I describe above is probably workable today. I think we lecture in particular styles because they have worked in the past, but I also think that we could probably use technology to allow us to give talks in an even more coherent and fullfilling manner. Well maybe I’m just dreaming, but someday, someday, I hope to give a heck of a talk that isn’t just me fumbling around with the laser pointer and mumbling something about hidden subgroups.

Quantum Scandal Involving….Fashion Models?

Scott Aaronson’s lecture notes make their way from his webpage to an Australian commercial:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saWCyZupO4U[/youtube]
Scott asks what he should do. Personally I think it’s a great opportunity for Scott to change career direction and enter into a contract writing for Madison Avenue. Or maybe the Simpsons. Or at least to get a date with a fashion model. 😉

I say, We can dance, We can dance, Everything out of control

A psuedo-paper dance today: a perspective I wrote just appeared in Science. The perspective is about this paper: “Symmetrized Characterization of Noisy Quantum Processes,” Joseph Emerson, Marcus Silva, Osama Moussa, Colm Ryan, Martin Laforest, Jonathan Baugh, David G. Cory, and Raymond Laflamme, Science 317, 1893 (2007) Check out my raytracing skillz in the picture accompanying the perspective 🙂