All That Matters

Permanent electric polarization. Left: the electron density of the rubidium Rydberg electron in one of the atoms of the molecule. The asymmetry is hardly visible. Right: The same electron density, but with the density of the Rydberg atom on its own subtracted. The difference clearly shows an asymmetric distribution of electrons roughly at the position of the second rubidium atom, causing an electric polarization. (c) 2011 Science Magazine

Apply an electric field to a material, and its positive and negative charges will separate, creating an electric polarization. This is the fundamental effect behind capacitors used in electronics as well as in ferroelectrics used in some computer memories. In the latter case, to achieve a permanent electric polarization, the positive and negative charges need to be shifted permanently. This is the case if in a crystal all positive and all negative ions in a crystal are shifted in the same way with respect to each other.

The separation of positive and negative ions in a crystal can lead to a permanent electric polarization. A similar effect has now been achieved with electrons.

In a paper in Science from last week, researchers from the group of Tilman Pfau at the University of Stuttgart in Germany with colleagues from a number of other institutions have now demonstrated an entirely new way of achieving permanent electric polarization – namely by using electrons and not ions. This effect is remarkable, because electrons usually are much more mobile than atoms. Normally, any charge imbalance in the electron distribution of a material or molecule is easily neutralized simply by shifting electrons in the molecule around. At the same time, looking far ahead, such electron-based effects could lead to applications where the electric polarization needs to switch ultrafast.

However, the molecule studied by the researchers is quite different to usual molecules. It is formed by two rubidium atoms, which means that normally it should not show any electric polarization, simply because both atoms in the molecule are identical and for symmetry reasons no positive or negative ions would form in the first place.

But although they are both rubidium atoms, here there is a crucial difference in the electronic states. One of the atoms is in its energetic ground state, while the other is a so-called Rydberg atom, which means that its outermost electron is excited into a very high energy state and circulates the atom’s nucleus at a large distance. Rydberg atoms are huge in comparison. Here, the rubidium atom is roughly about 50 nanometres in size, corresponding to about 1,000 times the size of a oxygen molecule – and is larger also than the transistors in modern computer chips. […]

The young Max Planck, when completing his high school degree, asked a professor of physics at the University of Munich, Philipp von Jolly, whether he should study physics. He got the famous answer that this wouldn’t make much sense, because physics is an almost fully mature science with not much to discover. (If you happen to speak German, it is worth reading the original text, reprinted in this biography of Max Planck.)

Of course, luckily Planck ignored this advice and went on to make some of the most profound discoveries in modern physics. And well, if you think we are in a similarly dull situation in physics at present, the past few weeks would have certainly disproved this, because a couple of intriguing, unpublished (in the academic sense) research findings have appeared widely in the news: neutrinos that continue to appear to be faster than the speed of light, a completely new view on wavefunctions in quantum mechanics, and it seems also that there isn’t much hiding space left for the Higgs boson, if it exists.

Arthur Eddington's 1919 photograph of the sun during a total eclipse. The position of the stars appearing behind the sun verified Einstein's theory of relativity. Photo via Wikimedia.

Those discoveries all come with the promise of significant changes to our understanding of physics, and we’ve seen some exposure in the news (and the occasional hype, too). This is perhaps not surprising. The neutrino experiment questions the theory of relativity. The absence of the Higgs boson on the other hand would open the question again about the different masses of particles. And the new view of wavefunctions seems to add further to the arguments whether the wavefunctions in quantum mechanics are purely an expression of probability to find an object in a certain physical state, or are a representation of actual reality. The paper now rules out the possibility that wavefunctions are probabilistic states, but still having an underlying reality. Instead, there are two interpretations left. One can either fall back to the argument that there is no underlying reality in quantum mechanics and wavefunctions simply are nothing but probabilistic. Or, the second option is that wavefunctions are an expression of actual reality, abandoning the probabilistic interpretation. Not surprisingly, for this reason the paper got lots of headlines. Most people my colleagues at Nature spoke to were quite enthusiastic, whereas Scott Aaronson didn’t seem to see that much of a surprise. Matt Leifer has an informative, quite detailed description of the paper on his blog. […]

You may imagine vacuum as complete emptiness, as the very definition of nothing. But that’s not the case at all. Vacuum is humming with activity, as has now been demonstrated impressively in a study by researchers from Chalmers University of Technology in Göteborg, Sweden, RIKEN in Japan, the University of Michigan in the US and other institutions. They have created light basically out of nothing but the electromagnetic fields existing even in total vacuum.

Where does this contradiction come from that vacuum isn’t really ever empty? One of physics fundamental laws of physics, Heisenberg’s principle, states that even in vacuum virtual particles can exist. These are particles that appear only for such brief moments of time that they’re not noticeable to an observer. Indeed, vacuum is buzzing with all sorts of virtual particles and fields. One of Stephen Hawking’s most well-known predictions is that black holes emit light, which is an effect that relies on virtual particles. […]