Talks

Physical theories ought to be built up from colloquial notions such as ’long bodies’, ’energetic sources’ etc. in terms of which one can define pre-theoretic ordering relations such as ’longer than’, ’more energetic than’. One of the questions addressed in previous work is how to make the transition from these pre-theoretic notions to quantification, such as making the transition from the ordering relation of ’longer than’ (if one body covers the other) to the notion of how much longer. In similar way we introduce dynamical notions ’more impulse’ (if in a collision one object overruns the other) and ’more energetic’ (if the effect of one source exceeds the effect of the other). In a physical model - built by coupling congruent standard actions - those basic pre-theoretic notions become measurable. We derive all (classical and relativistic) equations between basic physical quantities of Energy,  Momentum and Inertial Mass and ultimately the principle of least action.

We present a set of models which realize interacting topological phases. The models are constructed in 2 dimensions for a system with U(1)xU(1) symmetry. We demonstrate that the models are topological by measuring their Hall conductivity, and demonstrating that they have gapless edge modes. We have also studied the models numerically.

Weak values were introduced by Aharonov, Albert, and Vaidman 25 years ago, but it is only in the last 10 years that they have begun to enter into mainstream physics. I will introduce weak values as done by AAV, but then give them a modern definition in terms of generalized measurements. I will discuss their properties and their uses in experiment. Finally I will talk about what they have to contribute to quantum foundations. 

In this talk, I will present recent work aimed at tackling two cornerstone problems in the field of strongly correlated electrons---(1) conducting non-Fermi liquid electronic fluids and (2) the continuous Mott metal-insulator transition---via controlled numerical and analytical studies of concrete electronic models in quasi-one-dimension.  The former is motivated strongly by the enigmatic "strange metal" central to the cuprates, while the latter is pertinent to, e.g., the spin-liquid candidate 2D triangular
lattice organic materials \kappa-(BEDT-TTF)_{2}Cu_{2}(CN)_{3} and EtMe_{3}Sb[Pd(dmit)_{2}]_{2}.  In the first part of the talk, I will focus on point (1) and discuss our realization on the two-leg ladder of a novel non-Fermi liquid quantum phase---the "d-wave metal"---which we construct by placing the charge sector of the electronic system into a "Bose metal" with strong d-wave correlations.  Importantly, this phase is non-perturbative in that it cannot be accessed starting from free electrons and slowly turning on interactions.  Remarkably, we are able to realize this strange metal as the ground state of reasonable microscopic Hamiltonian by augmenting the t-J model with a simple, local four-site ring-exchange interaction.  In the second half of the talk, I will discuss recent work on various half-filled electronic models on the two-leg triangular strip in which we have identified a continuous Mott transition between a metal and "spin Bose metal", where the latter is a novel
Mott-insulating spin-liquid phase obtained from the former by gapping out only the overall charge mode at strong coupling. Our Mott transition is shown to be in the XY universality class and thus
constitutes a clear and direct quasi-1D analog of the elegant higher-dimensional scenario recently proposed by Senthil [1].  Finally, I will touch on the potential relevance of these studies to the actual 2D materials which inspired them:  the cuprates and the organics.

[1]  T. Senthil, PRB 78, 045109 (2008).

"A well constructed theory is in some respects undoubtedly an artistic production." - Sir Ernest Rutherford

"Design is the synthesis of form and content."-Paul Rand

On the surface, the scientific method (primarily analytic) and design methodologies (primarily synthetic) seem to be quite different processes but there is considerable overlap and communicating science involves a blend of both. Scientists tend to use a scientific approach when
communicating science but there are benefits to using a designer's approach. Communicating science always requires finding solutions to difficult, ill-defined problems but employing design frameworks can help. 

One such framework is "design thinking", a powerful approach to problem solving that is rarely explicitly used in science or science communication. Design thinking consists of a set of analytic and
synthetic steps, although not a purely linear sequence, involving various modes of thought and processes. Design thinking is user-centered, collaborative, experimental, and has a bias toward action. This colloquium will present a design-thinking framework that can be useful in communicating science and examine how it differs from a typical scientific approach to problem solving.

Although the colloquium will focus primarily on outreach-type communication, we shall also consider applying the framework to writing scientific papers. In the end we'll find that scientists are designers
too, but that reframing the intellectual toolkits on hand can be useful for scientists when  communicating science.