Spin Milestones

MILESTONES
M iles T one 1
Physics is set spinning

it would take nearly three decades for this anomalous Zeeman effect to be explained
It was not simply out of a spirit of contradiction that I exposed a light source to a magnetic field, so said Pieter Zeeman, on receiving the 1902 Nobel Prize in Physics with Hendrik Lorentz. The effect of a magnetic field on light had been studied years before, most notably by Michael Faraday: in 1845, he showed that when light passes through certain materials immersed in a magnetic field, the plane in which the light oscillates is rotated now known as Faraday rotation, this was the first experimental evidence of a connection between light and electromagnetism. Later in his life, Faraday wondered whether a magnetic field could have a direct influence on a light source specifically, on the light emitted by atoms or molecules when excited in a flame. This investigation was the last experiment recorded in his laboratory notebook, but the result was negative: on 12 March 1862, Faraday wrote that there was not the slightest effect demonstrable. Possibly referring to this experiment, James Clerk Maxwell stated in 1870, on the subject of light-emitting particles, that no force in nature can alter even very slightly either their mass or their period of oscillation. This statement, coming from the mouth of the founder of the electromagnetic light theory and spoken with such intensity, greatly troubled Zeeman. Motivated by his own studies of the magneto-optic Kerr effect (a phenomenon closely related to the Faraday effect, but measured for light reflected from a magnetized medium), Zeeman decided in 1896 to revisit Faradays last experiment. Two recent technical advances proved useful. The first was the invention, by Henry Augustus Rowland, of diffraction gratings consisting of mirrors ruled with a large number of parallel lines; Rowlands gratings offered unprecedented spectral resolution. The second was the steady development of photography, which brought with it the possibility of capturing spectra and analysing them later. Zeeman was soon able to show that, for a sodium flame placed in an electromagnet, there was a broadening of the sodium D-lines when the magnet was switched on. The effect was reportedly far from conspicuous; however, firm support was provided by the observation of characteristic polarization effects. This confirmed predictions made by Lorentz immediately after seeing the first results produced by Zeeman, he had proposed a model of electrons vibrating within the lightemitting particles. In 1897, Zeeman reported much clearer splittings in the blue line of cadmium. Although Lorentzs theory did explain the most elementary splitting patterns, it was not long before numerous exceptions were found, as more elements were studied in greater detail. Nature gives us all, including Professor Lorentz, surprises, concluded Zeeman. He might have been surprised to know that it would take nearly three decades for this anomalous Zeeman effect to be explained fully when it was realized that the splitting is a consequence of spin (Milestone 3).
Andreas Trabesinger, Senior Editor, Nature Physics
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Zeeman, P. Over den invloed eener magnetisatie op den aard van het door een stof uitgezonden licht. Versl. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 5, 181184, 242248 (1896) | Zeeman, P. Over doubletten en tripletten in het spektrum, teweeggebracht door uitwendige magnetische krachten. Versl. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 6, 1318, 99102, 260262 (1897) FUrTher reaDing Zeeman, P. The effect of magnetisation on the nature of light emitted by a substance. Nature 55, 347 (1897) | Zeeman, P. Light radiation in a magnetic field, Nobel Lecture, 2 May, 1903. Nobelprize.org [online], <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1902/ zeeman-lecture.html> (1903) | Rayleigh. Pieter Zeeman. 18651943. Obit. Not. Fellows R. Soc. 4, 591595 (1944)
nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

2008 Nature Publishing Group
mARCH 2008 | S5
Razvanjp | Dreamstime.com
MILESTONES
M iles T one 2
Answers on a postcard
The fact that quantities such as energy, mass and charge come in discrete and indivisible amounts, or quanta, is now so fundamental to our understanding of the Universe that it is often taken for granted. It is difficult to appreciate fully just how counterintuitive an idea it was to suggest that the angular momentum of an object should take on similarly quantized values. The roots of this idea lay in the 1913 description by Niels Bohr of the structure of the atom, later refined by Arnold Sommerfeld in 1916, which suggested that not only do electrons exist in orbitals of well-defined size and shape, but that the orientation of these orbitals is strictly defined a characteristic known as space quantization. In 1920, most physicists, including Max Born, who was one of the architects of quantum mechanics, considered the idea to be more a mathematical abstraction than a concrete physical reality. Yet, in 1922, Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach demonstrated such a reality beyond all reasonable doubt. Their experiment involved passing a collimated beam of silver atoms through an inhomogeneous magnetic field and onto a glass slide where the deposits formed a pattern. Classical models suggested that the electron orbitals around the nucleus of these atoms should be randomly and continuously distributed, and that a single,
Postcard from Gerlach to Bohr. Image courtesy of Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen.
broad and continuous spot of silver should form in the centre of the slide. The BohrSommerfeld model, by contrast, predicted that space quantization of these orbitals should cause the beam to be split into several discrete parts in the inhomogeneous field, forming discrete lines of silver deposits on the slide. Despite its elegant simplicity, the experiment almost never happened. For one thing, for there to be any observable splitting, the alignment of the beam and the centre of the magnetic field had to be just right. More prosaically, in the middle of a worsening economic depression, funding the construction of the experiment proved to be almost as difficult. Thankfully, perseverance on the part of Stern and Gerlach, and a cheque for several hundred dollars provided by Henry Goldman (co-founder of the investment firm Goldman Sachs), allowed them to observe the splitting predicted by quantum theory a result
M iles T one 3
The spinning electron

between the angular momenta of the core of electrons in closed shells and of the radiant electron in the outermost unclosed shell. Yet calculations made on this basis notably by Arnold Sommerfeld and Alfred Land, using an Ersatzmodell failed to match experimental data. The helium atom posed a particular problem: which of its two electrons should be considered core and which radiant? Also, no one could explain why, if an atom were in its ground state, all its electrons were not bound into the innermost shell. In 1924, Land gave up the struggle as impossible once and for all. Wolfgang Pauli, however, was undeterred. He dropped the notion of an interaction between core and radiant electron and proposed instead that line splitting arose as a consequence of an intrinsic property of the electron: eine klassisch nicht beschreibbare Art von Zweideutigkeit a classically indescribable twovaluedness as he wrote in the first of his two 1925 Zeitschrift fr Physik papers.
Pauli and Bohr watch a spinning top. Photograph by Erik Gustafson, courtesy of AIP Emilio Segr Visual Archives, Margrethe Bohr Collection.
By 1920, physicists were still struggling to make sense of the splitting of atomic spectral lines in a magnetic field, discovered by Pieter Zeeman (Milestone 1). With the Bohr atom of 1913 had come the notion of quantized orbits for electrons around the atomic nucleus. Perhaps, it was thought, the Zeeman splitting arose from the interaction
Ralph Kronig, a young physicist in Lands laboratory, suggested to Pauli that this might be imagined as the rotation of an electron about its own axis with one half-unit of angular momentum in other words, spin. Pauli disliked the idea: it was still classically indescribable and, moreover, the calculations of level splitting by Kronig were a factor of two out from measured values. Kronig did not publish, but later that year George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit did the same idea, beset by the same problems. Pauli still didnt like it. Nevertheless, it was a short step from the two-valuedness of an intrinsic electron quantum number for Pauli to realize why all electrons in an atom are not bound in the innermost state. Guided by comments made by Edmund C. Stoner, Pauli saw that, if the four numbers used to describe line splitting (denoted n, k, m and j) were thought of as quantum numbers of the electron, then once an electron existed in some state defined by particular values of n, k, m and j, no other electron could enter that state. Using this exclusion principle, Pauli could derive the exact shell structure of the atom two electrons to close the innermost shell, eight to close the next, and so on. The deal was sealed early in 1926, with the publication by Llewellyn H. Thomas of what became known as the
S6 | mARCH 2008
www.nature.com/milestones/spin
that is now most famously recorded on a postcard from Gerlach to Bohr congratulating him on the success of his theory. Although the SternGerlach experiment categorically disproved classical models of the atom, it was also inconsistent with the BohrSommerfeld model. In fact, the observed splitting of the silver beam had nothing to do with the orbital angular momentum, but was due to the spin angular momentum of the unpaired electron in the atomic structure of silver something that was not appreciated until years later, following the introduction of the idea of electron spin by Wolfgang Pauli (Milestone 3). Not content with realizing what is perhaps the clearest and most direct demonstration of the quantum nature of atoms, Stern went on to demonstrate and measure the quantized spin of the proton together with the size of its magnetic moment for which he was awarded the 1943 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Original research papers Gerlach, W. & Stern, O. Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld. Z. Phys. 9, 349352 (1922) | Frisch, R. & Stern, O. ber die magnetische Ablenkung von Wasserstoff-Moleklen und das magnetische Moment des Protons. I. Z. Phys. 85, 416 (1933) | Estermann, I. & Stern, O. ber die magnetische Ablenkung von Wasserstoff-Moleklen und das magnetische Moment des Protons. II. Z. Phys. 85, 1724 (1933) FUrTher reaDing Friedrich, B. & Herschbach, D. Stern and Gerlach: how a bad cigar helped reorient atomic physics. Phys. Today 56 (12), 5359 (2003)
M iles T one 4
A relative success
The idea of the spinning electron, as proposed by Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck in 1925 (Milestone 3), and incorporated into the formalism of quantum mechanics by Wolfgang Pauli, was a solution of expediency. Yet this contrivance threw up a more fundamental question: as a 25-year-old postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge formulated the problem in 1928, why should nature have chosen this particular model for the electron, instead of being satisfied with a point charge? The young postdocs name was Paul Dirac, and in two papers published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, he set out to explain why. Using the clear, austere prose and adroit mathematics that were his hallmarks, he showed how spin emerged as a natural consequence of the correct application of special relativity to the quantum mechanics of the electron. Dirac was able to remove the nonlinearities in space and time derivatives that had confounded other attempts to marry those two great new physical theories. The corollary of his logic was that the wavefunction of the electron must have four components, and must be operated on by four-dimensional matrices. These matrices required an additional degree of freedom beyond position and momentum in the physical description of the electron. Inspection revealed them to be extensions of the two-dimensional spin matrices introduced by Pauli in his earlier ad hoc treatment. Applied to an electron in an electromagnetic field, the new formalism delivered the exact value of the magnetic moment assumed in the spinning electron model. What had emerged was an equation that, in its authors words, governs most of physics and the whole of chemistry. Dirac was a famously modest man, and was not wont to exaggerate. The Dirac equation is still today the best description not just of the electron, but of all spin-1/2 particles including all the quarks and leptons from which matter is made. When asked what had led him to his formula, Dirac replied simply I found it beautiful. His equation is indeed a powerful example of the deep and mysterious connection between the language of mathematics and the expressions of the physical world. Yet, however much beauty might be indicative of rightness, a physical theory is judged on its predictive power. The Dirac equation did not disappoint. The interpretation of two of its four solutions was clear: they were the two spin states of the electron. But the other two solutions seemed to require particles exactly like electrons, but with a positive charge. Dirac did not immediately and explicitly state the now-obvious conclusion out of pure cowardice, he explained later. But when, in 1932, Carl Anderson confirmed the existence of the positron, Diracs fame was assured. He shared the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics its second-youngest-ever recipient and his equation went on to become the bedrock of quantum electrodynamics, the quantum field theory of the electromagnetic interaction. Following his death in 1984, a stone was set into the floor of Westminster Abbey in London. It was inscribed with his name and i=m the shortest and sweetest rendering of his extraordinary brainchild. Richard Webb, Senior Editor, Nature News & Views
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERs Dirac, P. A. M. The quantum theory of the electron. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 117, 610624 (1928); ibid. 118, 351361 (1928) FUrTher reaDing Dirac, P. A. M. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Int. Ser. Monograph. Phys. 27) 4th edn (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 1982) | Pais, A., Jacob, M., Olive, D. I. & Atiyah, M. F. Paul Dirac: The Man and his Work (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998)
Ed Gerstner, Senior Editor, Nature Physics
Paulis twovaluedness was indeed due to the spin of the electron.
Thomas factor the missing factor of two. Thomas classical analysis finally won over Pauli the perfectionist (Paul Dirac would soon supply the full quantum relativistic formalism; Milestone 4). Paulis two-valuedness was indeed due to the spin of the electron. Probably the great man was cheered, having written to Kronig in May 1925, At the moment physics is again terribly confused. In any case, it is too difficult for me, and I wish I had been a movie comedian or something of the sort and had never heard of physics. Alison Wright, Chief Editor, Nature Physics
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Stoner, E. C. The distribution of electrons among atomic levels. Phil. Mag. 48, 719736 (1924) | Pauli, W. ber den Einflu der Geschwindigkeitsabhngigkeit der Elektronenmasse auf den Zeemaneffekt. Z. Phys. 31, 373385 (1925) | Pauli, W. ber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen im Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren. Z. Phys. 31, 765783 (1925) | Uhlenbeck, G. E. & Goudsmit, S. A. Ersetzung der Hypothese vom unmechanischen Zwang durch eine Forderung bezglich des inneren Verhaltens jedes einzelnen Elektrons. Naturwiss. 13, 953954 (1925) | Thomas, L. H. The motion of the spinning electron. Nature 117, 514 (1926) FUrTher READING Pauli, W. Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics, Nobel Lecture, 13 December, 1946. Nobelprize.org [online], <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ physics/laureates/1945/pauli-lecture.html> (1946) | Tomonaga, S. The Story of Spin (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997)

mARCH 2008 | S7
Image courtesy of Lida Lopes Cardozo Kindersley.
MILESTONES
M iles T one 5
An attractive theory
Since the earliest observation that a lump of lodestone attracts iron, around 600 BC, magnetism has attracted numerous philosophers and physicists eager to understand its secrets. Yet the physical explanation came only with the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s after all, magnetism is a purely quantum effect arising from the spin property of the electron. By convention, we say that the spin points either up or down. This means that there are two distinct spin states instead of one;
facts that an electron has spin, as well as charge, and that two identical electrons must occupy different states, are the keys to the periodic table. Until then, the force aligning the electron spins could not be explained hence, certain theories were out in terms of known interactions, none by a factor of two with respect to of which was strong enough. In the experiments. words of Paul Dirac: the solution of Following a series of papers this difficulty [] is provided by the published in the years 1925 to 1927 exchange (austausch) interaction of during which quantum mechanthe electrons, which arises owing to ics was developed, interpreted and the electrons being indistinguishable one from another. Two electrons may applied to atoms with more than one electron outside a closed shell change places without our knowing Werner Heisenberg solved the it, and the proper allowance for the mystery of ferromagnetism using the possibility of quantum jumps of this concept of spin plus the exclusion nature, which can be made in a treatprinciple formulated by Wolfgang ment of the problem by quantum Pauli, which states that two electrons mechanics, gives rise to the new kind with the same energy and momentum of interaction. The energies involved, cannot occupy the same quantum the so-called exchange energies, are state. In other words, two electrons quite large. with the same energy but different By applying such an energy spins can lie in the same orbital. The tax on indistinguishable particles,
STO CKB YTE
M iles T one 6
Spins nuclear sibling

In 1932, Werner Heisenberg mused on an odd fact. The proton and the neutron (which had been discovered only earlier that same year by James Chadwick) had almost exactly the same mass. Despite their different charges, they also responded identically to the forces that dominate within the atomic nucleus. To Heisenbergs nose, this had a whiff of an uncovered symmetry about it. Appropriating the mathematics that Wolfgang Pauli had used to describe spin (Milestone 3), he postulated that the proton and neutron were two states of the same particle, the nucleon. These states differed only in a quantity analogous to spin the isotopic spin, or isospin as it came to be known. The nuclear force conserved isospin, which accounted for the similarities between protons and neutrons. Other forces, such as electromagnetism, broke isospin symmetry, which explained the nucleons differences. As Eugene Wigner wrote of the isospin concept in a 1937 paper, no such states are known to be of any importance [] [but they] will turn out to be very useful. In that paper, he used isospin to predict correctly the energies of all nuclei up to atomic number 42; more recent work has extended that success to even heavier nuclei. Much like the quantum-relativistic prediction of a spinning electron by Paul Dirac (Milestone 4), isospin was an example of what Wigner would later, in a celebrated essay, describe as the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in predicting physical phenomena. And how. In 1935, Hideki Yukawa modelled a nuclear force mediated by lighter particles exchanged between the nucleons. Isospin conservation demanded three such particles. Believers in unreasonable effectiveness could not have been surprised when, some 10 years later, three particles answering the description turned up in cosmic rays and in the first accelerator experiments: the two charged and one neutral pion. In 1954, Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills took the ideas of Yukawa further to establish their principle of gauge invariance. This was the centrepiece of
Werner Heisenberg. Photograph by Friedrich Hund, courtesy of AIP Emilio Segr Visual Archives.
a generalized mathematical description of forces mediated by exchange particles of integer spin and isospin the bedrock of current quantum field theories of the fundamental forces of nature. Meanwhile, however, physics was entering the accelerator age, and the discovery of a seemingly unordered menagerie of particles similar to the pions was straining the foundation of isospin symmetry. It gradually became clear that isospin was not a fundamental symmetry, but just one corner of a larger edifice. In addition, the proton and neutron were not two states of the same particle. In fact, they were not elementary particles at all, but were made up of smaller entities quarks.
S8 | mARCH 2008
MILESTONES
Heisenberg proposed a model that counted up all the spins and included the exchange interaction between nearest neighbours only; for example, in a linear chain of spins, only two neighbouring spins would count, in a square lattice, four. When these were summed, Heisenberg found a ground state (lowest-energy configuration) in which all the spins of the electrons lined up in parallel that is, a ferromagnetic state without the need for any external magnetic field.
M iles T one 7
Vital statistics
The Dirac equation is monumental in physics, encapsulating so beautifully, in relativistic terms, the behaviour of a spinning electron, or indeed of any particle that has half-integer spin (Milestone 4). Wolfgang Pauli on whose ideas the concept of a spinning electron was based was impressed by the mathematical acrobatics of Paul Dirac in arriving at the succinct expression, published in 1928, but he was not, however, satisfied. Pauli questioned the reliance of Diracs theory on the exclusion principle and the emphasis on a half-unit of spin why should nature permit only half units? With Victor Weisskopf, Pauli set about resurrecting the KleinGordon equation, which describes a particle that has zero spin, but which had been all but abandoned following the unsuccessful attempt by Erwin Schrdinger in 1926 to build it into a theory of quantum-wave mechanics. Weisskopf and Pauli, however, succeeded in quantizing the KleinGordon equation to obtain spin-0 particles of both negative and positive charge just as Dirac had obtained spin-1/2 particles of negative and positive charge from his equation. These spin-0 particles, moreover, did not obey the exclusion principle. Diracs positive electron the positron was discovered (although not immediately recognized as such) by Carl Anderson in 1932, the same year that James Chadwick discovered the neutron; in 1935, Hideki Yukawa postulated the existence of the meson, and the muon was discovered in 1936. There was suddenly a growing family of particles to describe, alongside the electron, proton and photon. It was m .co thinking about how to reconcile the KleinGordon and Dirac me i t s am equations, and the existence of all these particles (how many re |D z more might be discovered?) that led Pauli to one of the most lu los Mi subtle concepts of modern physics the spinstatistics theorem. In his 1940 paper, Pauli identified a vital connection between spin and quantum statistics (in the 1920s, it had been realized that something more than the MaxwellBoltzmann variety was needed at the quantum level). According to Pauli, particles of half-integer spin obey FermiDirac statistics (and, hence, are now called fermions) and those of integer spin obey BoseEinstein statistics (bosons). Mathematically speaking, the quantization of fields with half-integer spin relies on plus commutation relations, whereas that of fields with integer spin uses minus commutation relations. Put another way, the wavefunction of a system of bosons is symmetric if any pair of bosons is interchanged, but is antisymmetric for interchanged particles in a system of fermions. Subtle indeed, but from Paulis spinstatistics connection arises the exclusion principle for fermions, with its implications for atomic structure, and a non-exclusion principle for bosons many bosons can adopt the According to same quantum state at once, as happens in a BoseEinstein condensate. Pauli, particles of Further particle discoveries since 1940 and the subsequent building of the half-integer spin standard model have also served to confirm that nature works with both obey FermiDirac integer and half-integer spins.
Alison Wright, Chief Editor, Nature Physics
May Chiao, Senior Editor, Nature Physics
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Heisenberg,W. Zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus. Z. Phys. 49, 619636 (1928) | Dirac, P. A. M. Quantum mechanics in many-electron systems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 123, 714733 (1929) FUrTher reaDing Mott, N. & Peierls, R. Werner Heisenberg. 5 December 19011 February 1976. Biogr. Mem. Fellows R. Soc. 23, 212251 (1977)
Once deprived of its original legitimacy, one might have expected spins nuclear sibling to disappear. In fact, the same mathematical description resurfaced within the new fundamental paradigm as weak isospin, which is a property of quarks that is conserved in weak interactions a testament to how deeply embedded the language of spin seems to be in the workings of the world. Richard Webb, Senior Editor, Nature News & Views
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Heisenberg, W. ber den Bau der Atomkerne. Z. Phys. 77, 111 (1932) | Yukawa, H. On the interaction of elementary particles. Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jap. 17, 4857 (1935) | Wigner, E. On the consequences of the symmetry of the nuclear Hamiltonian on the spectroscopy of nuclei. Phys. Rev. 51, 106119 (1937) | Yang, C. N. & Mills, R. L. Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance. Phys. Rev. 96, 191195 (1954) | Gell-Mann, M. Symmetries of baryons and mesons. Phys. Rev. 125, 10671084 (1962) FUrTher reaDing Wigner, E. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 13, 114 (1960) | Robson, D. Isospin in nuclei. Science 179, 133139 (1973) | Warner, D. D., Bentley, M. A. & Van Isacker, P. The role of isospin symmetry in collective nuclear structure. Nature Phys. 2, 311318 (2006) | Anderson, R. & Joshi, G. C. Interpreting mathematics in physics: charting the applications of SU(2) in 20th century physics, arXiv.org [online] <http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/ physics/pdf/0605/0605012v1.pdf> (2006)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Pauli, W. & Weisskopf, V. F. ber die Quantisierung der skalaren relativistischen Wellengleichung. Helv. Phys. Acta 7, 709731 (1934) | Pauli, W. The connection between spin and statistics. Phys. Rev. 58, 716722 (1940) FUrTher reaDing Duck, I. & Sudarshan, E. C. G. Toward an understanding of the spinstatistics theorem. Am. J. Phys. 66, 284303 (1998) | Tomonaga, S. The Story of Spin (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997)
statistics and those of integer spin obey BoseEinstein statistics.

mARCH 2008 | S9
MILESTONES
M iles T one 8
magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The 1946 work of Edward Mills Purcell at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Felix Bloch at Stanford University gave new relevance to one object of intense gentlemanly interest before the war: the Zeeman splitting of nuclear spin states in a magnetic field (Milestone 1). The degree of splitting at a particular magnetic field strength depends on the gyromagnetic ratio of the nucleus. In NMR, a second, transverse field at the characteristic (typically radio) spin-transition frequency produces an absorption resonance a powerful way to identify the nuclei present in a sample. Purcell et al. brought protons (1H) in solid paraffin to resonance; Bloch et al. did the same in liquid water. The coincident timing was no accident: the development of radar technologies during the war, for which several of the researchers involved had won their spurs, had made sources of radiofrequency radiation freely available for the first time. The effect itself was not entirely new. In 1938, Isidor Rabi had used it to measure magnetic moments of both atomic species in a lithium chloride molecular beam, receiving the 1944 Nobel Prize in Physics for that advance. Even earlier, the Dutch physicist Cornelis J. Gorter had looked for the resonance of 7Li in lithium fluoride and 1 H in alum, using a calorimetric method. Hampered by experimental vagaries and limited resources, he published a negative result. (In later years, on receiving a prize for his contributions to low-temperature physics, Gorter would muse on his strange ability to miss out on groundbreaking discoveries in this and other instances.) The innovations offered by Bloch and Purcells approaches were the transition to real liquid and solid systems, and, in Blochs case, the use of an induction coil to pick up and sharpen the resonance signal. These opened the way for the use of NMR in all manner of contexts, including in living tissue where it became the lynchpin of magnetic resonance imaging (Milestone 15). In 1944, although shielded in the relative obscurity of Kazan in the steppes of Tatarstan, the Soviet physicist Yevgeny Zavoisky published the first measurements of an analogous effect involving electron spins. Electron paramagnetic resonance depends on an atom possessing an unpaired electron,
New resonance
If, during the 1920s and 1930s, the atomic nucleus had seemed of interest to few besides the (mostly) gentleman scientists studying it, by the end of the Second World War its wider importance was abundantly clear. The coming of the nuclear age was an appropriate cue for the two papers that cleared the way for arguably the most widespread practical application of nuclear spin today: nuclear
The coming of the nuclear age was an appropriate cue for arguably the most widespread practical application of nuclear spin today.
First NMR signals from water. Image reprinted with permission from Bloch, F., Hansen, W. W. and Packard, M. Phys. Rev. 70, 474485 (1946). Courtesy of the American Physical Society.
M iles T one 9
From the compass to Apollo

Long before the concept of spin had been realized, the phenomenon of magnetism was a source of fascination and curiosity. The first scientific record of magnetism was made by the Greek philosopher Thales of Miletos, who, in the sixth century bc, studied the attraction of materials such as iron to loadstone (magnetite). The first magnetic device was, of course, the compass probably invented by several cultures independently and first documented in Chinese literature in the eleventh century ad. Nearly a millennium later, and particularly since the 1950s, devices based on magnetism are once more proving significant in shaping our way of life. The magnetic tape, which was invented in 1878 by Oberlin Smith, was commercialized in the 1930s by AEG and BASF. In later
S10 | mARCH 2008
decades, it was developed into, for example, videotape in 1951 and the magnetic stripes on credit cards in the 1960s. Following the invention of modern computers, technology similar to magnetic tape was the logical choice for long-term data storage. The first hard drive with a moveable head was built into the IBM 305 computer, which shipped in 1956. Its large hard disks 24 inches in diameter had a storage density of 2 kilobits per square inch. IBM was also a pioneer in the development of the removable floppy disk. The first floppy disk, which had a diameter of 8 inches and a storage capacity of about 80 kilobytes, dates from 1969. The cumbersome 8-inch format was soon brought down in size: the last popular format was the Sony 3.5-inch floppy.
Magnetism has also been the key to several other, historical, storage techniques. The earliest was the drum memory in the 1950s, which consisted of rotating circular metallic plates coated with a magnetic material. Drum memory was superseded in the 1960s by the core memory a hand-woven grid of wires with small ferrite rings (the cores) at the intersections. Complex current pulses
Magnetic core random access memory. Image courtesy of H. J. Sommer III, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Penn State University.
MILESTONES
thereby limiting the range of its application, but making it useful for the detection and identification of free radicals. Zavoisky might also have been the first to see an NMR signal, but he did not follow it up, at least not with publications. Had the vicissitudes of the age been less, and the dissemination of scientific information easier, his claim might have been better heard in the West. As it was, the 1952 Nobel Prize in Physics went to Bloch and Purcell. Richard Webb, Senior Editor, Nature News & Views
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Gorter, C. J. Negative results of an attempt to detect nuclear magnetic spins. Physica 9, 995998 (1936) | Rabi, I. I., Zacharias, J. R., Millman, S. & Kusch, P. A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. 53, 318 (1938) | Zavoisky, E. Relaxation of liquid solutions for perpendicular fields. J. Phys. USSR 9, 211216 (1945) | Purcell, E. M., Torrey, H. C. & Pound, R. V. Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid. Phys. Rev. 69, 3738 (1946)| Bloch, F., Hansen, W. W. & Packard, M. Nuclear induction. Phys. Rev. 69, 127 (1946) | Zavoisky, E. Spin magnetic resonance in the decimetre-wave region. J. Phys. USSR 10, 197198 (1946) FUrTher reaDing Gorter, C. J. Bad luck in attempts to make scientific discoveries. Phys. Today 20 (1), 7681 (1967) | Kochelaev, B. I. & Yablokov, Y. V. The Beginning of Paramagnetic Resonance (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995)
M iles T one 1 0
A shift in expectations
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy (Milestone 8) is one of the most powerful analytical techniques in modern chemistry a window into the world of molecules that can provide information about their structures, dynamic behaviour and how they interact with one another. Prior to the 1950s, the study of NMR was rooted firmly in the physics community. It was assumed that the frequency at which a given nucleus resonated depended only on the strength of the magnetic field in which it was placed. Physicists therefore anticipated that they could use the technique to measure with unprecedented precision the magnetic moments of different nuclei. When, in 1950, Warren Proctor and Fu Chun Yu set out to do this for 14N, something unexpected happened. For their experiments, they chose the compound ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), which is highly soluble in water and contains two nitrogen nuclei per molecule factors that were expected to improve the NMR signal. In what they described as a surprising observation, however, not one but two resonance frequencies were detected one for the nitrogen nuclei in the ammonium (NH4+) ions and the other for those in the nitrate (NO3) ions. This was the first reported observation of the phenomenon that soon became known as chemical shift, in which the local chemical environment surrounding a nucleus influences the frequency at which it resonates. The implications of NMR for the structural analysis of organic compounds became apparent soon afterwards, when, in 1951, a group of researchers from Stanford University showed that different 1H nuclei in the same molecule resonate at different frequencies. James Arnold, Srinivas Dharmatti and Martin Packard demonstrated the huge potential of NMR spectroscopy by applying the technique to ethanol (CH3CH2OH), a compound in which each molecule comprises three sets of non-equivalent 1 H nuclei. Using tiny sample volumes and placing them in the most uniform region within a magnetic field, they obtained a spectrum displaying three separate lines, corresponding to the resonant frequencies of the 1H nuclei in the CH3, CH2 and OH groups, respectively. Moreover, the relative intensities of the three signals corresponded with the number of protons in each different chemical environment. So it was possible not only to identify different molecular fragments but also to glean
Paolotoscani | Dreamstime.com
through the wires were able to read, as well as set, the magnetization of the cores. Despite being an intricate device, a core memory of two cubic feet, with a capacity of 4,096 words, was used in the Apollo guidance computer, onboard the NASA missions to the Moon. Computer memory was miniaturized further in the late 1970s, for example using bubble memory in which data storage is based on small magnetic domains on a thin film. Soon afterwards, hard drives became the dominant data-storage system for computers. The history of magnetic devices illustrates well how, with a little inventiveness, the macroscopic manifestations of magnetism can be harvested to achieve amazing technological advances. However, it would take a more fundamental understanding of spin physics to achieve the next technological revolution in computing and information storage (Milestone 18).
quantitative information about the number of equivalent nuclei in each. Later in 1951, Herbert Gutowsky and David McCall showed that different spin-active nuclei in the same molecule interact with one another, giving rise to fine structure in the NMR signals that encodes a wealth of information regarding molecular connectivity and structure. It did not take the chemistry community long to embrace the technique for the spectroscopic analysis of compounds. Techniques using radiofrequency pulses rather than a continuous source broadened the scope of NMR spectroscopy, and Fourier-transform methods of data processing notably improved the sensitivity of the method. The combination of these advances allowed the development of sophisticated multidimensional NMR experiments that revolutionized the field (Milestone 16).
Stuart Cantrill, Chief Editor, Nature Chemistry
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Proctor, W. G. & Yu, F. C. The dependence of a nuclear magnetic resonance frequency upon chemical compound. Phys. Rev. 77, 717 (1950) | Hahn, E. L. Spin echoes. Phys. Rev. 80, 580594 (1950) | Arnold, J. T., Dharmatti, S. S. & Packard, M. E. Chemical effects on nuclear induction signals from organic compounds. J. Chem. Phys. 19, 507 (1951) | Gutowsky, H. S. & McCall, D. W. Nuclear magnetic resonance fine structure in liquids. Phys. Rev. 82, 748749 (1951) | Carr, H. Y. & Purcell, E. M. Effects of diffusion on free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments. Phys. Rev. 94, 630638 (1954) | Ernst, R. R. & Anderson, W. A. Application of Fourier transform spectroscopy to magnetic resonance. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 37, 93102 (1966) | Aue, W. P., Bartholdi, E. & Ernst, R. R. Two dimensional spectroscopy. Application to nuclear magnetic resonance. J. Chem. Phys. 64, 22292246 (1976) FUrTher reaDing Becker, E. D. Magnetic resonance: an account of some key discoveries and their consequences. Appl. Spectrosc. 50, 16A28A (1996)
Joerg Heber, Senior Editor, Nature Materials

mARCH 2008 | S11
M iles T one 1 1
Mind-boggling reality
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen questioned whether quantum mechanics fully describes physical reality. Their paper, which was intended to illustrate that quantum mechanics is incomplete, sparked discussions that go deep into the philosophical aspects of reality and how physics can describe it. Later that year, Einstein confessed in a letter to Erwin Schrdinger that he felt that the main point was, so to speak, buried by erudition, and began publishing his own versions of the incompleteness argument. All of these accounts, and the original EinsteinPodolskyRosen paper, made their point using continuous variables that is, position and momentum. However, the version that is most widely discussed in the modern literature, and also forms
David Bohm. Image from Library of Congress, New York Telegram and Sun Collection, courtesy of AIP Emilio Segr Visual Archives.
the basis of many experimental investigations, presents the argument in a simpler and clearer form, in terms of discrete spin variables. It was penned by David Bohm and appeared originally in his 1951 book Quantum Theory; he developed the argument further, in the context of experimental proofs, with Yakir Aharonov in 1957. Bohm and Aharonov considered a molecule made of two atoms each having one half-unit of spin combined such that the total spin of the molecule is zero. When the two atoms are separated, and, for one of the spins, the spin component is measured along a given direction, the same component is immediately known for the other spin it is exactly the opposite, as the total spin still has to be zero. At first sight, it might not seem surprising that information about the properties of the second particle of a composite system can be deduced without performing any measurement on it, and without any interaction between the two particles, if the initial condition restricts how the two particles behave with respect to each other.
For a quantum spin, however, the situation is more subtle. Quantum mechanics allows only one component of the spin to have a definite value. If, for instance, the x component of the spin is known, then the components along the y and z axes must be indeterminate; the component that is definite is determined by its measurement. Yet, in this case of two separated spin-1/2 particles, an experimenter can decide at the last minute long after the two constituents have been separated along which direction the first spin is measured. And this choice has immediate consequences on which component of the second, unobserved, spin is definite. How can the second spin know what has been done to the first? Is there some kind of hidden interaction that quantum theory does not account for? Does quantum mechanics allow what Einstein famously called spooky action at a distance (an idea he did not like)? Einstein argued that if no action at a distance can instantaneously influence the second spin, then it must have had all its components well defined from the
M iles T one 1 2
Odd one out

Impurities are not always unwanted. With the right type and dose of impurity atoms, the bulk properties of a material can be tuned in a beneficial way, which is a technique made heavy use of, for example, in standard silicon technology. At the microscopic level, interesting questions arise about how an impurity atom interacts with its host. In 1964, Jun Kondo resolved a long-standing question regarding the electrical resistance of magnetic impurity-doped metals. The mystery was this: the resistance of a metal should decrease with decreasing temperature, as atomic vibrations freeze out, so that conduction electrons can move more easily through the material; however, for magnetically doped metals, the resistance was found to increase again below a certain temperature. Kondo discovered that it is the intrinsic spin of magnetic impurity atoms that leads to this anomalous resistance. The amount of scattering that electrons experience at the impurities does not decrease but increases when the temperature goes down, and this leads to the observed minimum in total resistance. Not only did this finding explain a nagging problem but it also triggered a vast amount of theoretical follow-up work. The initial issue to tackle was that the effect seemed to yield infinite resistance as zero temperature is approached clearly an unphysical result. It was soon found that this divergence of resistance is suppressed, below a certain temperature (the Kondo temperature), by the formation of a bound state between impurity and conduction electrons, in which electron spins line up to screen the spin of the impurity atom. A later development was
Jun Kondo. Image courtesy of AIST, Tokyo.
the extension of the theory to Kondo lattices in which electrons interact not only with the odd magnetic impurity but rather with an array of localized spins, and are significantly slowed down by the strong interactions. This model can explain some of the unusual properties, such as anomalous superconductivity, displayed by so-called heavy-fermion compounds. Another line of research is the Kondo effect in nanometre-sized structures, such as quantum dots, in which the interactions between a single magnetic impurity and its environment can be controlled. A quantum dot can be tuned to contain an odd number of electrons that is, an unpaired spin. Below the Kondo temperature, this localized spin can form a bound state with the free electrons in the electrodes on either side of the quantum dot, similar to the classical Kondo effect. However, this Kondo resonance opens an additional pathway for electrons to flow through the quantum dot and, as a result, the resistance decreases, in contrast to the original effect.
S12 | mARCH 2008

outset hence, quantum mechanics must be incomplete. A decisive step came in 1964 when John Bell, building on the BohmAharonov formulation in spin variables, showed that quantum mechanics makes predictions that contradict the local-realistic world view of Einstein and do require action at a distance of some sort. Bells theorem has been put to the test many times since, and although there is, as yet, no single experiment that closes all possible loopholes, the weight of evidence does still favour quantum mechanics.
M iles T one 1 3
Super symmetry
The way that spin is woven into the very fabric of the Universe is writ large in the standard model of particle physics. In this model, which took shape in the 1970s and can explain the results of all particle-physics experiments to date, matter (and antimatter) is made of three families of quarks and leptons, which are all fermions, whereas the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces that act on these particles are carried by other particles, such as photons and gluons, which are all bosons. Despite its success, the standard model is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, although the electromagnetic and weak forces have been unified into a single force, a grand unified theory that brings the strong interaction into the fold remains elusive. Second, the origins of mass are not fully understood. Third, gravity is not included. Moreover, there are other, less obvious problems with the standard model. The two natural mass scales in nature are zero and the Planck mass, ~ 1019 GeV c2. Neither photons nor gluons (which carry the electromagnetic and strong forces, respectively) have mass, but the W and Z bosons that are responsible for the weak force have masses of about 90 GeV c2. Where does this mass scale come from? This hierarchy problem can be solved by finetuning the model so that various quantum fluctuations cancel out, although many physicists are uncomfortable with this solution because some parameters must be fine-tuned to better than 1 part in 1015. However, a form of symmetry between fermions and bosons called supersymmetry offers a much more elegant solution because the quantum fluctuations caused by bosons are naturally cancelled out by those caused by fermions and vice versa. Symmetry plays a central role in physics. The fact that the laws of physics are, for instance, symmetric in time (that is, they do not change with time) leads to the conservation of energy. These laws are also symmetric with respect to space, rotation and relative motion. Initially explored in the early 1970s, supersymmetry is a less obvious kind of symmetry, which, if it exists in nature, would mean that the laws of physics do
Andreas Trabesinger, Senior Editor, Nature Physics
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantummechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777780 (1935) | Bohm, D. Quantum Theory Ch. XXII (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1951) | Bohm, D. & Aharonov, Y. Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Phys. Rev. 108, 10701076 (1957) | Bell, J. S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195200 (1964) FUrTher reaDing Bell, J. S. Bertlmanns socks and the nature of reality. J. Phys. 42, 4162 (1981) | Sauer, T. An Einstein manuscript on the EPR paradox for spin observables. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 38, 879887 (2007)
The ATLAS experiment under construction at the Large Hadron Collider. Image courtesy of CERN.
The ideas and methods developed by Kondo and his fellow theorists turned out to be relevant to a wide range of problems that involve strong interactions between particles. As a result, the Kondo effect which, in truth, comprises a range of phenomena to do with collective behaviour arising fromlocalized magnetic impurities is an active research topictoday and one that still throws up surprises. Liesbeth Venema, Senior Editor, Nature
not change when bosons are replaced by fermions, and fermions are replaced by bosons. Although it is difficult to explain supersymmetry through analogies to classical physics, its consequences are dramatic it predicts that every fundamental particle has a superpartner with half a unit of spin less. The electron, for instance, has a spin of a half, so its superpartner (which is known as a selectron) has zero spin. This means that the superpartner of a boson is always a fermion and vice versa. Supersymmetry also plays a central role in theories that attempt to unify the forces in the standard model with gravity by treating fundamental particles as vibrating strings or membranes in 10-dimensional or 11-dimensional spacetimes. In these theories the gravitational force is carried by a spin-two boson called the graviton. Searching for supersymmetric particles will be a priority when the Large Hadron Collider comes into operation at CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, in 2008.
Peter Rodgers, Chief Editor, Nature Nanotechnology
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Golfand, Y. A. & Likhtman, E. P. Extension of the algebra of Poincar group generators and violation of P invariance. JETP Lett. 13, 323326 (1971) | Neveu, A. & Schwarz, J. H. Factorizable dual model of pions. Nucl. Phys. B 31, 86112 (1971)| Ramond, P. Dual theory for free fermions. Phys. Rev. D 3, 24152418 (1971) | Wess, J. & Zumino, B. Supergauge transformations in four dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B 70, 3950 (1974)| Wess, J. & Zumino, B. A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations. Phys. Lett. B 49, 5254 (1974) FUrTher reaDing Dimopoulos, S., Raby, S. & Wilczek, F. Supersymmetry and the scale of unification. Phys. Rev. D 24, 16811683 (1981) | Almadi, U., de Boar, W. & Furstenau, H. Comparison of grand unified theories with electroweak and strong coupling constants measured at LEP. Phys. Lett. B 260, 447455 (1991) | Greene, B. The Elegant Universe (Vintage, London, 2000)| Kane, G. & Shifman, M. (eds) The Supersymmetric World: The Beginnings of the Theory (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Kondo, J. Resistance minimum in dilute magnetic alloys. Prog. Theor. Phys. 32, 3749 (1964) | Anderson, P. W. A poor mans derivation of scaling laws for the Kondo problem. J. Phys. C 3, 23462441 (1970) | Goldhaber-Gordon, D. et al. Kondo effect in a single-electron transistor. Nature 391, 156159 (1998) FUrTher reaDing Wilson, K. G. The renormalization group: critical phenomena and the Kondo problem. Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773840 (1975)| Tsvelik, A. M. & Wiegmann, P. B. Exact results in the theory of magnetic alloys. Adv. Phys. 32, 453713 (1983) | Kouwenhoven, L. & Glazman, L. Revival of the Kondo effect. Phys. World 14(1), 3338 (2001)

mARCH 2008 | S13
MILESTONES
Miles T one 1 4
Sticking together
The fact that a dirty metal can support an electric current flowing without resistance might sound exotic to some, but it is a textbook property of conventional superconductors. When spins are involved, however, the superconductors do become exotic. The conventional mechanism of superconductivity was explained by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer (in what is known as the BCS theory) back in 1957. For decades, it was a mystery how electrons, which are classified as fermions, could be forced into a single ground state that was more typical for bosons (as when they undergo BoseEinstein condensation). Fermions cannot all pile into the same ground state because only two one with its spin pointing upwards and the other pointing downwards can occupy each quantum state; bosons do not heed such conventions. As it turns
out, the only way for fermions to form a condensate is for them to pair up, with the help of the crystalline lattice: when one electron passes through the lattice, the positive ions are slightly attracted to the passing negative electron; if a second electron comes along, it will sense the deformed lattice and be attracted to the net positive charge, and hence to the original electron. This kind of lattice-assisted coupling is weak, but it is strong enough for the paired electrons to drop down to a collective ground state. Naturally, people considered whether such pairing could glue other fermions together, in particular 3 He. As 4He exhibits superfluidity that is, the liquid can flow without viscosity below a certain temperature it was believed (hoped) that 3He would do likewise. Yet, given that 4He is a boson and 3He is a fermion, it was not clear how 3He could condense until the BCS theory came along. However, the magnetic interactions between the 3He particles are strong, and so they cannot pair up as electrons do. Instead, the pairing glue must come from another source.
The first authors to propose ferromagnetic fluctuations of the spins as such a glue were A. Layzer and D. Fay. When one particle whizzes through the liquid, its spin (pointing upwards, for instance) attracts other spin-up particles and repels spin-down particles. The effective spin-up polarization can then attract another spin-up particle, leading to a spin-upspin-up pair. When coupled in this way, the 3He atoms are able to form a superfluid. Amazingly, all the theoretical groundwork, including that by Philip Anderson and Pierre Morel, and by Roger Balian and Richard Werthamer, was laid down before the experimental confirmation of a superfluid state in 3He that came in 1972 and earned its authors, Douglas Osheroff, Robert Richardson and David Lee, the Nobel prize in Physics in 1996. Although superfluidity was anticipated, measurements revealed several unique superfluid phases in 3He. Moreover, because of the non-zero spin of the pairs (in conventional superconductors the net spin is zero),
Miles T one 1 5
From spectrum to snapshot

The scientific principles of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stem from those of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR; Milestone 8); however, now, especially in the mind of the public, the latter lies very much in the shadow of the former. The technological jump from NMR spectrum to MR image began in the early 1970s, and subsequent developments have established MRI as a priceless technique in medical research and diagnostics. MRI uses magnetic fields and radiowaves to produce, in a non-invasive manner, tomographic images of a three-dimensional object. Paul Lauterbur introduced the scientific basis behind this mode of visualization as image formation by induced local interactions. His idea was to combine two magnetic fields, so that one induces an interaction whereas the other restricts this interaction to a localized region in space. He proposed the term zeugmatography to describe the technique, from a Greek word meaning that which is used for joining; however, the name never became widely accepted. Lauterburs pioneering experiment involved the imaging of a cross-section through two glass tubes of ordinary water (H2O) attached to the inside wall of a larger tube of deuterated water (D2O). A two-dimensional image
showing the location of the tubes of H2O was generated by combining four projections taken from different angles around the set-up. Some scepticism surrounded this initial observation. It seemed counterintuitive that radiowaves could be used to image objects that were much smaller than their wavelength. Yet it was because the interactions were restricted to certain regions that, in fact, the technique became independent of wavelength. Lauterbur recognized the potential of the concept at the time of the first simple experiment. He believed it could be used to investigate complex systems and noted the possibility of visualizing biological tissues in particular, distinguishing between malignant tumours and healthy tissue. Many of the early practical developments in MRI were made by Peter Mansfield, who discovered how to acquire images rapidly. In recognition of their contributions, Lauterbur and Mansfield shared the 2003 Nobel Prize in Medicine. The invention of MRI has not been without controversy. Others have claimed to have produced the first
S14 | mARCH 2008

MILESTONES
He also yielded some unexpected properties. In 1987, a team working in Moscow discovered a pure spin supercurrent. Unlike the supercurrent in a conventional superconductor that carries charge and mass, the spin supercurrent carries only spin and there is no mass flow. 3He is truly exotic, because of its spin.
3
M iles T one 1 6
Solution for solution structures

In the mid-1970s, major advances in solution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy set the stage for a revolutionary new application: solving the three-dimensional (3D) structures of proteins in the solution state. At the time, X-ray crystallography was already a well-established tool for the determination of protein crystal structures. Unlike crystallography, NMR does not require proteins to form diffracting crystals and this broadens the range of proteins that can be investigated. Furthermore, most proteins exist naturally in a solution state, or in contact with fluids, so knowledge of their properties in their native environment has physiological relevance. A unique strength of NMR is its ability to supplement molecular structures with information on dynamic processes, which may be influenced, for example, by ligand binding in solution: even before structure determination by NMR became feasible, the technique was used to obtain information about protein dynamics. In 1971, Adam Allerhand and colleagues demonstrated the existence of sub-nanosecond segmental motions in proteins, and by the middle of the decade, the groups of Brian Sykes, Robert J. P. Williams and Kurt Wthrich presented evidence for lower-frequency motions in globular proteins. Two fundamental advances in the late 1970s set the scene for the development of NMR into a method for determining previously unknown protein structures (rather than refining incomplete structures). First, Richard Ernst, building on a breakthrough idea by Jean Jeener, demonstrated the principle of two-dimensional (2D) NMR spectroscopy. This technique, which also applies to other spectroscopies, allowed researchers to record not only chemical shifts (Milestone 10) but also the interactions between pairs of nuclear spins it later won Ernst the 1991 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Second, Wthrich discovered that the nuclear Overhauser effect could be exploited in NMR experiments with proteins, allowing the mapping of networks of near-by atom pairs that are not connected through covalent bonds. Beginning in 1976, Wthrich and Ernst joined forces, and with Kuniaki Nagayama and Anil Kumar they developed a number of 2D NMR experiments, which became the basis for solving protein structures. In 1982, Gerhard Wagner and Wthrich published the sequence-specific assignments for a small protein, basic pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. Meanwhile, Werner Braun and Timothy Havel in the Wthrich group were developing algorithms
May Chiao, Senior Editor, Nature Physics
NMR has become a powerful technique for protein structure determination.

and software capable of calculating protein structures from NMR data. In 1985, Michael Williamson, Havel and Wthrich reported the first solution-state protein structure that of proteinase inhibitor IIA from bull seminal plasma. The results were met with disbelief. It was not until several structures solved initially using NMR were solved again using crystallography that the NMR technique was accepted. In 2002, Wthrich was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. NMR has become a powerful technique for protein structure determination. Numerous advances made during the past two decades including the development of three- and fourdimensional spectroscopy, isotope labelling methods, and increases in magnetic field strength have raised the limit on the size of proteins that can be investigated. Currently, about 10% of structures being deposited in the Protein Data Bank are solved using NMR. Perhaps the most exciting frontier is the application of NMR to investigate protein dynamics, especially for large molecular machines, which will undoubtedly lead to new insights in biology.
Allison Doerr, Associate Editor, Nature Methods
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Allerhand, A. et al. Conformation and segmental motion of native and denatured ribonuclease A in solution. Application of natural-abundance carbon-13 partially relaxed Fourier transform nuclear magnetic resonance. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 93, 544546 (1971) | Wthrich, K. & Wagner, G. NMR investigations of the dynamics of the aromatic amino acid residues in the basic pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. FEBS Lett. 50, 265268 (1975) | Dobson, C. M., Moore, G. R. & Williams, R. J. P. Assignment of aromatic amino acid PMR resonances of horse ferricytochrome c. FEBS Lett. 51, 6065 (1975) | Snyder, G. H., Rowan, R. & Sykes, B. D. Complete tyrosine assignments in the high-field proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor selectively reduced and carboxamidomethylated at cystine 14-38. Biochemistry 15, 22752283 (1976) | Aue, W. P., Bartholdi, E. & Ernst, R. R. Two-dimensional spectroscopy. Application to nuclear magnetic resonance. J. Chem. Phys. 64, 22292246 (1976) | Nagayama, K., Wthrich, K., Bachmann, P. & Ernst, R.R. Two-dimensional J-resolved 1 H NMR spectroscopy for studies of biological macromolecules. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 78, 99105 (1977) | Kumar, A., Ernst, R. R. & Wthrich, K. A two-dimensional nuclear Overhauser enhancement (2D NOE) experiment for the elucidation of complete protonproton cross-relaxation networks in biological macromolecules. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 95, 16 (1980) | Wagner, G. & Wthrich, K. Sequential resonance assignments in protein 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectra: basic pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. J. Mol. Biol. 155, 347366 (1982) | Williamson, M. P., Havel, T. F. & Wthrich, K. Solution conformation of proteinase inhibitor IIA from bull seminal plasma by 1H nuclear magnetic resonance and distance geometry. J. Mol. Biol. 182, 295315 (1985)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Bardeen, J., Cooper, L. N. & Schrieffer, J. R. Microscopic theory of superconductivity. Phys. Rev. 106, 162164 (1957) | Anderson, P. W. & Morel, P. Generalized BardeenCooperSchrieffer states and the proposed low-temperature phase of liquid He3. Phys. Rev. 123, 19111934 (1961) | Balian, R. & Werthamer, N. R. Superconductivity with pairs in a relative p wave. Phys. Rev. 131, 15531564 (1963) | Layzer, A. & Fay, D. Superconducting pairing tendency in nearly ferromagnetic systems. Int. J. Magn. 1, 135141 (1971) | Osheroff, D. D., Richardson, R. C. & Lee, D. M. Evidence for a new phase of solid He3. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 885888 (1972) | Osheroff, D. D., Gully, W. J., Richardson, R. C. & Lee, D. M. New magnetic phenomena in liquid He3 below 3 mK. Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 920923 (1972) | BorovikRomanov, A. S., Bunkov, Yu. M., Dmitriev, V. V. & Mukharskii, Yu. M. Observation of phase slippage during the flow of a superfluid spin current in 3He-B. JETP Lett. 45, 124128 (1987) FUrTher reaDing Leggett, A. J. A theoretical description of the new phases of liquid 3He Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 331414 (1975)
NMR image, most notably Raymond Damadian, who had reported in 1971 the ability to distinguish between normal tissue and tumours using magnetic resonance. On the announcement of the prize, he fervently disputed the decision of the Nobel committee. The unquestionable fact remains that, although the invention of MRI with its marriage of magnetic fields took scientists by surprise at its conception, in its more recent lifetime it has proved to be an invaluable tool for the medical world. Alison Stoddart, Associate Editor, Nature Materials
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Damadian, R. Tumor detection by nuclear magnetic resonance. Science 171, 11511153 (1971) | Lauterbur, P. C. Image formation by induced local interactions: examples employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature 242, 190191 (1973) | Mansfield, P. & Grannell, P. K. NMR diffraction in solids? J. Phys. C 6, L422L426 (1973) | Mansfield, P., Garroway, A. N. & Grannell, P. K. Image formation in NMR by a selective irradiative process. J. Phys. C 7, L457L462 (1974) | Mansfield, P. Multi-planar imaging formation using NMR spin echoes. J. Phys. C 10, L55L58 (1977)

mARCH 2008 | S15
M iles T one 1 7
Dilute for impact

Towards the end of the 1960s, scientists had begun exploring the technological potential of magnetism combined with semiconductor physics. Having succeeded in introducing small amounts of magnetic impurities into otherwise non-magnetic semiconductors, Robert Gaazka and colleagues presented, in 1978, remarkable data on IIVI compounds doped with manganese. In these diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMSs), the lowconcentration defects (the manganese ions) did not compromise the quality of the material, meaning that its magnetooptical and magneto-transport properties could be probed. At the same time, pronounced magnetic properties could be observed such as the spin splitting of electronic or impurity bands.
Image courtesy of P. M. Koenraad, Eindhoven University of Technology.
A further breakthrough came in the early 1990s, with the advent of lowtemperature molecular-beam epitaxy. By growing semiconductor films under conditions that were far from thermal equilibrium, it became possible to introduce manganese impurities into IIIV materials (which is more difficult under equilibrium conditions owing to the low solubility of manganese). Hideo Ohno and colleagues then demonstrated, in 1992, ferromagnetic order in the DMS (In,Mn)As indium arsenide containing only 1.3% manganese by measuring magneto-transport and, in particular, an anomalous Hall effect in the material. The work was followed up, in 1996, with proof of ferromagnetism in doped gallium arsenide (Ga,Mn)As at temperatures up to 110 K. As GaAs can be used in electronic devices that operate at room temperature, these studies established the basis for research into technologically relevant DMSs. The 1990s also brought theoretical work by Tomasz Dietl, in collaboration with Ohnos group, which explained the origin of ferromagnetism in (Ga,Mn)As using a model developed, by Clarence
Zener in 1950, for ferromagnetism in transition metals. According to this model, the magnetic order originates from the delocalized holes that mediate the interaction between localized magnetic moments. The importance of the work was twofold. First, the carrier-mediated magnetic order suggested the possibility of controlling the ferromagnetism using electric fields which was soon demonstrated and, beyond that, the development of efficient spintronics devices. Second, the Dietl model provided an effective recipe for calculating the Curie temperature of other zinc-blende and wurzite semiconductors, to advance the search for a room-temperature DMS. In particular, Dietl showed that DMSs based on zinc oxide (ZnO) or gallium nitride (GaN) could have Curie temperatures as high as 300 K. Investigations since then have indeed revealed room-temperature ferromagnetism in oxides and semiconductors that include ZnO or GaN. However, it is yet to be proved that the carrier-mediated mechanism proposed by Dietl is really at work
Miles T one 1 8
A giant leap for electronics

In retrospect, it seems surprising that, although spin and charge are two of the most fundamental properties of electrons, the advantage that could be gained from combining them in a consumer device was only realized in the 1990s, when IBM introduced a new type of hard-disk drive that would revolutionize data storage. Crucial to this technological revolution was an earlier discovery made by the groups of Albert Fert and Peter Grnberg for which the two won the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics. In 1988, they had observed a large change in the electrical resistance of thin metal layers as a function of an external magnetic field. Although bulk magnetoresistive effects had been known for more than a century (discovered by William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin), they were usually only moderate. However, in the studies led by Fert and Grnberg, the effect was much more pronounced. From the outset, these thin magnetic multilayer structures
showed magnetoresistance of up to 50%; the phenomenon was dubbed giant magnetoresistance (GMR). GMR is based on the spin-dependent scattering of electrons travelling across metallic thin films. In its most basic realization, a GMR device consists of two thin magnetic metal films, separated by a non-magnetic metal. If the magnetic layers have a different magnetic orientation with respect to each other, the electrons scatter strongly in the trilayer structure and the electrical resistance is high. However, once the magnetic orientation of the magnetic layers is aligned using an external magnetic field, electrons with spins antiparallel to that direction scatter much less, and move more easily between the magnetic and non-magnetic layers hence, the electrical resistance is low. This groundbreaking discovery quickly led to the use of GMR to miniaturize the recording heads of hard-disk drives. IBM had already, in 1991, developed a hard drive based on the smaller bulk magnetoresistance effect; in 1997, thanks largely to the efforts of Stuart Parkin and colleagues in the IBM laboratories, the first hard drives based on GMR were commercialized. More recently, a new magnetoresistive
device has been incorporated into hard-disk drives the magnetic tunnel junction. Magnetic tunnel junctions (introduced in 1975 by Michel Jullire) are similar in structure to the GMR trilayers, except that the metallic non-magnetic layer is replaced by an insulating layer. However, it was only in 1995, following advances in techniques for growing materials, that Jagadeesh Moodera and colleagues, and Terunobu Miyazaki and Nobuki Tezuka, were able to realize tunnel junctions with practical magnetoresistance. Further work by Parkin et al. and by Shinji Yuasa and colleagues, in 2004, proved that satisfactory room-temperature operation could be achieved when the barrier layer was made of magnesium oxide. The advance made in reducing the size of read and write heads has raised the hope that such spin-electronic effects might also be used for solid-state data storage. Indeed, the tunnel-junction structure is a useful template for such magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM) devices, as the two possible relative orientations of the magnetic layers could be interpreted as bits in a storage device. Moreover, new concepts for devices are evolving continually (see also Milestone 20) for example,
S16 | mARCH 2008

in these systems. The origin of this ferromagnetism and its potential use in spintronics devices is still a matter of controversy, yet the search for a carrier-mediated room-temperature DMS continues. Fabio Pulizzi, Associate Editor, Nature Materials
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Von Molnar, S. & Methfessel,S. Giant negative magnetoresistance in ferromagnetic Eu1xGdxSe. J. Appl. Phys. 38, 959964 (1967) | Gazka, R. R. in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Physics of Semiconductors (ed. Wilson, B. L. H.) 133 (Institute of Physics, Bristol, 1978) | Munekata, H. et al. Diluted magnetic IIIV semiconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 18491852 (1989) | Ohno, H., Munekata, H., Penny, T., von Molnr, S. & Chang, L. L. Magnetotransport properties of p-type (In,Mn)As diluted magnetic IIIIV semiconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 26642667 (1992) | Ohno, H. et al. (Ga,Mn)As: a new ferromagnetic semiconductor based onGaAs Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 363365 (1996) | Dietl, T., Ohno, H., Matsukura, F., Cibert, J. & Ferrand, D. Zener model description of ferromagnetism in zincblende magnetic semiconductors. Science 287, 10191022 (2000) | Ohno, H. et al. Electric-field control of ferromagnetism. Nature 408, 944946 (2000) FUrTher reaDing Furdyna, J. K. & Kossut, J. (eds) Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors, Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol. 25 (Academic, London, 1988)
Miles T one 1 9
Read my mind
First, they demonstrated that changes in the level of deoxygenated haemoglobin in blood changed the proton signal from the water molecules surrounding the vessels an effect called bloodoxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) contrast. Because metabolic activity in the brain involves changes in the relative levels of oxyhaemoglobin and deoxyhaemoglobin, Ogawa reasoned that it should be possible to track changes in brain activity by measuring the BOLD contrast and in his third paper of 1990, he demonstrated exactly this. Manipulation of the brain metabolism and, hence, the blood oxygen of an anaesthetized rat by adjusting anaesthesia or the composition of inhaled gas, or by inducing hypoglycaemia led to changes in the BOLD contrast throughout the brain. Two years after this ground-breaking proof of principle, three independent groups (including that of Ogawa) published, almost simultaneously, demonstrations of task-related changes in the BOLD contrast in the human brain proving not only that this method could be translated from anaesthetized animals to awake humans, but also that it could reveal localized brain function evoked by specific stimuli, such as visual images. BOLD-contrast imaging or functional MRI (fMRI) as the technique is now commonly known quickly became a mainstay of cognitive neuroscience. It is an accessible option for measuring brain activity with relatively high spatial resolution resolution that has improved with advances in MRI hardware and techniques, and analysis methods. From the detailed characterization of the function of human visual brain areas to the discovery of areas that are potentially involved in higher cognitive functions, such as face recognition, empathy and self-awareness, the possibilities revealed by fMRI seem endless. I-han Chou, Senior Editor, Nature
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Roy, C. S. & Sherrington, C. S. On the regulation of the blood supply of the brain. J. Physiol. 11, 85108 (1890) | Pauling, L. & Coryell, C. D. The magnetic properties and structure of hemoglobin, oxyhemoglobin and carbonmonoxyhemoglobin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 22, 210216 (1936) | Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Kay, A. R. & Tank, D. W. Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 98689872 (1990) | Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Nayak, A. & Glynn, P. Oxygenation-sensitive contrast in magnetic resonance image of rodent brain at high magnetic fields. Magn. Reson. Med. 14, 6878 (1990) | Ogawa, S. & Lee, T. M. Magnetic resonance imaging of blood vessels at high fields: in vivo and in vitro measurements and image simulation. Magn. Reson. Med. 16, 918 (1990) | Bandettini, P. A., Wong, E. C., Hinks, R. S., Tikofsky, R. S. & Hyde, J. S. Time course EPI of human brain function during task activation. Magn. Reson. Med. 25, 390397 (1992) | Kwong, K. K. et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 56755679 (1992) | Ogawa, S. et al. Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 59515955 (1992)
as proposed by Parkin, using the thin domain walls that separate the regions of different magnetic orientation to store data in a single nanostructure, such as a narrow wire. Joerg Heber, Senior Editor, Nature Materials
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Thomson, W. On the electro-dynamic qualities of metals: effects of magnetization on the electric conductivity of nickel and of iron. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 8, 546550 (18561857) | Jullire, M. Tunneling between ferromagnetic films. Phys. Lett. A 54, 225226 (1975) | Baibich, M. N. et al. Giant magnetoresistance of (001)Fe/(001)Cr magnetic superlattices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 24722475 (1988) | Binasch, G., Grnberg, P., Saurenbach, F. & Zinn, W. Enhanced magnetoresistance in layered magnetic structures with antiferromagnetic interlayer exchange. Phys. Rev. B 39, 48284830 (1989) | Miyazaki, T. & Tezuka, N. Giant magnetic tunneling effect in Fe/Al2O3/Fe junction. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 139, L231L234 (1995) | Moodera, J. S., Kinder, L. R., Wong, T. M. & Meservey, R. Large magnetoresistance at room temperature in ferromagnetic thin film tunnel junctions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 32733276 (1995) | Parkin, S. S. P. et al. Giant tunnelling magnetoresistance at room temperature with MgO (100) tunnel barriers. Nature Mater. 3, 862867 (2004) | Yuasa, S., Nagahama, T., Fukushima, A., Suzuki, Y. & Ando, K. Giant roomtemperature magnetoresistance in single-crystal Fe/MgO/Fe magnetic tunnel junctions. Nature Mater. 3, 868871 (2004) FUrTher reaDing Chappert, C., Fert, A. & Nguyen van Dau, F. The emergence of spin electronics in data storage. Nature Mater. 6, 813823 (2007)
By the late 1980s, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; Milestone 15) had become a standard technique in hospitals and laboratories for the anatomical imaging of various tissues, from muscle to brain. However, MRI was only capable of revealing static structure and physiochemical information, but not actual function. The options for functional imaging were generally cumbersome, with low spatial resolution, and could require the injection of radioactive tracers into the bloodstream, as in positron emission tomography (PET), meaning that individual subjects could be scanned only infrequently. In 1990, however, Seiji Ogawa and colleagues published a series of breakthroughs that transformed MRI into a non-invasive and relatively inexpensive means of revealing physiological activity in the brain, sparking a revolution in the study of brain and behaviour. Ogawa et al. exploited two physiological phenomena that stemmed from observations made years earlier. First, in 1890, Charles Roy and Charles Sherrington had suggested that metabolic activity in the brain could be linked to vascular changes that would refresh blood supply. Later work established a more refined view: vasculature responds in an exquisitely localized fashion to bring oxygenated blood to areas of increased neural activity. This phenomenon was already being exploited in PET and other techniques. Second, Linus Pauling and Charles Coryell had reported, in 1936, that haemoglobin the metalloprotein in red blood cells that acts as a major transporter of oxygen in humans and other species has different magnetic properties in its oxygenated and deoxygenated forms. In three papers published in 1990, Ogawa and colleagues now showed how these two phenomena could be detected using MRI.

mARCH 2008 | S17
MILESTONES
M iles T one 2 0
Information in a spin
The success of the digital age, and the prosperity of the world economy, owes much to the development of the silicon chip and the idea that information can be represented, manipulated and transmitted in the form of electronic charge. The power and speed of computers has doubled approximately every two years for more than half a century, but within the next decade such exponential progress in silicon-based computing is expected to end with potentially serious consequences. In 1990, Supriyo Datta and Biswajit Das proposed a device that uses electronic spin rather than charge to process information an idea that has the potential to go beyond the fundamental limitations of silicon electronics. The practical use of spin in the context of electronics originated from the discovery of giant magnetoresistance (Milestone 18). When an electric current flows from a magnetized material, such as a ferromagnetic metal contact, to a nonmagnetic material, the charges that carry this flow become polarized so that their spins point predominantly in one direction. If this spin current is injected from the non-magnetic material into a second ferromagnetic contact, it will experience a resistance that depends on the relative orientation of the magnetic field of the contact. Such behaviour forms the basis of operation of the spin valve a device that detects the orientation of a magnetic field, facilitating substantial improvements in the storage capacity of modern computer hard disks. Yet the spin valve is little more than a passive sensor that converts information stored magnetically into a charge-based signal that can
Intel Corp
be read by conventional electronics. By contrast, the device described by Datta and Das acts as a switch, similar in concept to the transistors of a silicon chip. Known as a DattaDas spin field-effect transistor or
M iles T one 2 1
Feel the force

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; Milestone 15) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) have been two of the most widely used imaging techniques of recent decades. Building on previous work in nuclear magnetic resonance, MRI can provide three-dimensional (3D) images of systems containing unpaired nuclear spins (such as the protons in water molecules), and is now used extensively in many areas of fundamental research and medicine. AFM, by contrast, is a member of the large family of scanning probe microscopies and can provide detailed images of a wide range of different surfaces. In conventional MRI, the sample is placed in a magnetic field gradient, which causes all the unpaired spins in the sample to point in the same direction as the magnetic field. A resonant radiofrequency (RF) pulse is then used to flip the spins so that they point in the opposite direction. Over time, the spins flip back again, emitting an RF signal that contains a wealth of information about the sample. The basic idea of AFM is to scan a flexible cantilever containing a sharp tip over a surface, and to measure the deflection of the cantilever caused by the forces acting between the
Signature of a single spin. Adapted from Nature 430, 329332 (2004).
surface and the tip. Many different forces including van der Waals, chemical and magnetic can be exploited in AFM to produce images of the surface with atomic resolution. In 1991, John Sidles proposed combining these two techniques to make the magnetic resonance force microscope (MRFM). The first MRFM was demonstrated by Dan Rugar, Costantino Yannoni and Sidles a year later. The resolution that is possible in MRI is limited by the use of coils to detect the RF signal. The MRFM gets around this problem by placing the sample on an oscillating cantilever and detecting the magnetic resonance mechanically (by using a laser to measure changes in the resonant frequency of the cantilever), although a coil is still needed to produce the RF field. In their initial paper, Rugar et al. reported that they had imaged the spatial distribution of electron spins in their sample with a resolution of 19m in one dimension. In the years that followed, performance was improved by using lower temperatures, higher gradients and more sensitive
S18 | mARCH 2008

spin-FET, the device would exploit the fact that in certain semiconducting materials with strong spinorbit coupling that is, the coupling between the orbital angular momentum of its electronic states and the spin of the electrons that fill these states an applied electric field can rotate the direction of an injected spin current. Although no one has yet succeeded in building a DattaDas spin-FET, owing to several outstanding technical challenges, its proposal planted the idea that spin could be used in its own right as a means to carry and manipulate information and gave birth to the new field of spintronics.
M iles T one 2 2
The difficult middle ground

Much of physics lends itself to a convenient division between big and small: the macroscopic classical world and the microscopic world of the quantum. Yet the transition between these spheres of influence is far from clear-cut, and increasingly we are seeing examples of phenomena that are manifestly quantum mechanical encroaching into territory once believed to be the exclusive purview of classical physics. Spin is no exception. The year 1996 saw the publication, by Jonathan Friedman et al. and Luc Thomas et al., of what many consider to be the definitive proof that mesoscopic spin systems (that is, systems with sizes or numbers of component spins that place them firmly in the conceptually difficult middle ground) can undergo quantum-mechanical tunnelling of their total magnetization. These experiments revealed transitions between bulk magnetic states that were not driven by thermal fluctuations, as one would expect classically; instead, they corresponded unambiguously to quantum-mechanical tunnelling events between different collective spin states of the whole system that have been brought into resonance by an applied magnetic field. The idea that macroscopic (or rather mesoscopic) quantum phenomena might be realized in magnetic spin systems has a long and convoluted history, with hints of such behaviour stretching back at least to work by Bernard Barbara and colleagues in 1972. However, it was not until the 1980s that such ideas were placed on a firm theoretical footing. Yet more experimental results suggestive of mesoscopic quantum behaviour were soon forthcoming; however, the response of the physics community remained largely ambivalent, even sceptical, about the central claims. A key problem with the early experiments was that any tunnelling effects in the thin films and quantum dots utilized in these studies could be readily masked by other factors such as a distribution of energy barriers between magnetic states rendering any proof of mesoscopic quantum behaviour ambiguous. What was needed was an experimentally clean system: either the ability to probe experimentally the magnetization properties of a single mesoscopic particle or the availability of an ensemble of strictly identical particles. In the meantime, chemist Roberta Sessoli and colleagues were investigating small molecular clusters containing several manganese ions that were magnetically coupled to give a high-spin
Ed Gerstner, Senior Editor, Nature Physics
The molecular magnet Mn12. Image courtesy of Jens Kortus, Tunna Baruah and Mark Pederson.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER Datta, S. & Das, B. Electronic analog of the electro-optic modulator. Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 665667 (1990) FUrTher reaDing uti, I, Fabian, J. & Das Sarma, S. Spintronics: fundamentals and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323410 (2004) | Awschalom, D. D. & Flatt, M. E. Challenges for semiconductor spintronics. Nature Phys. 3, 153159 (2007)
cantilevers. By 1994, nuclear spins which have much smaller magnetic moments than electrons had been detected and the resolution had improved to 2.6m in one dimension; in 2007, it reached 90 nm. The ultimate goal in MRFM is to detect a single nuclear spin, but Rugar and colleagues passed a major milestone in 2004 when they detected the spin of a single electron. Peter Rodgers, Chief Editor, Nature Nanotechnology
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Sidles, J. A. Noninductive detection of single-proton magnetic resonance. Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 28542856 (1991) | Rugar, D., Yannoni, C. S. & Sidles, J. A. Mechanical detection of magnetic resonance. Nature 360, 563566 (1992) | Rugar, D. et al. Force detection of nuclear magnetic resonance. Science 264, 15601563 (1994) | Stowe, T. D. et al. Attonewton force detection using ultrathin silicon cantilevers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 288290 (1997) | Rugar, D., Budakian, R., Mamin, H. J. & Chui, B. W. Single spin detection by magnetic resonance force microscopy. Nature 430, 329332 (2004) | Mamin, H. J., Poggio, M., Degen, C. L. & Rugar, D. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging with 90-nm resolution. Nature Nanotech. 2, 301306 (2007)
(S = 10) ground state. The motivation for their 1993 work was to develop, using the powerful bottom-up methods of chemical synthesis, welldefined molecular materials with potentially useful magnetic properties. Yet these chemists also had in their hands, or rather in their testtubes, the very thing that the physicists needed to realize convincingly mesoscopic quantum effects: ensembles of identical magnetic molecules. By 1995, Miguel Novak and Sessoli, and Barbara and colleagues, had the first evidence of resonances between the high-spin states of these molecular magnets; and, barely a year later, came the smoking-gun demonstration of mesoscopic quantum tunnelling. Now the pursuit of exciting new physics could begin...
Karl Ziemelis, Chief Editor Physical Sciences, Nature
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Barbara, B., Fillion, G., Gignoux, D. & Lemaire, R. Magnetic aftereffect associated with narrow domain walls in some rare earth based intermetallic compounds. Solid State Commun. 10, 11491151 (1972) | Enz, M. & Schilling, R. Spin tunneling in the semiclassical limit. J. Phys. C 19, 17651770 (1986) | van Hemmen, J. L. & Suto, A. Tunneling of quantum spins. Europhys. Lett. 1, 481490 (1986) | Chudnovsky, E. M. & Gunther, L. Quantum tunneling of magnetization in small ferromagnetic particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 661664 (1988) | Sessoli, R., Gatteschi, D., Caneschi, A. & Novak, M. A. Magnetic bistability in a metal-ion cluster. Nature 365, 141143 (1993) | Barbara, B. et al. Mesoscopic quantum tunneling of the magnetization. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 140, 18251828 (1995) | Novak, M. A. & Sessoli, R. in Quantum Tunneling of Magnetization QTM 94. NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences Vol. 301 (eds Gunther, L. & Barbara, B.) 171188 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995) | Friedman, J. R., Sarachik, M. P., Tejada, J. & Ziolo, R. Macroscopic measurement of resonant magnetization tunneling in high-spin molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 38303833 (1996) | Thomas, L. et al. Macroscopic quantum tunnelling of magnetization in a single crystal of nanomagnets. Nature 383, 145147 (1996) FUrTher reaDing Stamp, P. C. E., Chudnovsky, E. M. & Barbara, B. Quantum tunneling of magnetization in solids. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 6, 13551473 (1992) | Barbara, B. & Gunther, L. Magnets, molecules and quantum mechanics. Phys. World. 12 (3), 3539 (1999)

mARCH 2008 | S19
MILESTONES
M iles T one 2 3
The rise of semiconductor spintronics

1999 from groups led by Laurens Molenkamp and Awschalom, both of which used a light-emitting diode to demonstrate spin injection into a gallium-arsenide layer, a wide range of work has established spin injection into semiconductors. Spin polarization can also be created and manipulated without ferromagnetic contacts or external magnetic fields. In 2004, Yuichiro Kato et al. demonstrated, in a gallium-arsenide layer, that an electrical current generates polarized electron spins, along with a transverse spin current, leading to spin polarization at the edges of the conducting channel. The phenomenon is known as the spin Hall effect predicted in 1971 by Mikhail Dyakonov and Vladimir Perel and following the first observation by Kato, it has been seen in a wide range of other materials, including metallic structures.
Demarco | Dreamstime.com
Most of the electronic devices that we use in everyday life exploit the intrinsic electronic structure of semiconductors, by using electric fields to control charge transport and optical emission. Adding control of the spin degree of freedom of electrons is a natural route forwards, leading to the integration of current technology with spintronics devices. A series of breakthroughs has brought semiconductors on a par with metals (Milestone 18) in the race towards spintronics applications. Following early work on spin effects in semiconductors in which the groups around Ionel Solomon in Paris and Boris Zakharchenya in Saint Petersburg were prime movers it was David Awschalom and colleagues who put non-magnetic semiconductors on the map in spintronics research. In 1997, they discovered coherence times for spin states of up to 1 ns in a IIVI compound proving that the spin state can live for long enough, in principle, to allow external manipulation, which is an essential requirement for any spintronics device. Two years later, the same group also measured
S20 | mARCH 2008
Adding control of the spin degree of freedom of electrons is a natural route forwards, leading to the integration of current technology with spintronics devices.
Fabio Pulizzi, Associate Editor, Nature Materials
coherence times exceeding 100 ns in IIIV compounds, and showed that, under the influence of an electric field, charges can diffuse over distances greater than 100 m without changing their spin state. To make full use of these developments, the spins must be prepared in a well-defined state at the outset; with an eye on practical application, this should ideally happen by electrical means. In 1976, Arkady Aronov and Gregory Pikus had shown that it should be possible theoretically to inject spins with a defined orientation from external electrodes into a semiconductor. Following on from initial experimental studies in
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS Lampel, G. Nuclear dynamic polarization by optical electronic saturation and optical pumping in semiconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 491493 (1968) | Dyakonov, M. I. & Perel V. I. Current-induced spin orientation of electrons in semiconductors. Phys. Lett. A 35, 459460 (1971) | Aronov, A. G. & Pikus, G. E. Spin injection into semiconductors. Fiz. Tekh. Poluprovodn. 10, 11771179 (1976); Sov. Phys. Semicond. 10, 698700 (1976) | Kikkawa, J. M., Awschalom, D. D., Smorchkova, I. P. & Samarth, N. Room-temperature spin memory in twodimensional electron gases. Science 277, 12841287 (1997) | Kikkawa, J. M. & Awschalom, D. D., Resonant spin amplification in n-type GaAs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4313 (1998) | Kikkawa, J. M. & Awschalom, D. D. Lateral drag of spin coherence in gallium arsenide. Nature 397, 139141 (1999) | Fiederling, R. et al. Injection and detection of a spin-polarized current in a lightemitting diode. Nature 402, 787790 (1999) | Ohno, Y. et al. Electrical spin injection in a ferromagnetic semiconductor heterostructure. Nature 402, 790792 (1999) | Hanbicki, A. T., Jonker, B. T., Itskos, G., Kioseoglou, G. & Petrou, A. Efficient electrical spin injection from a magnetic metal/ tunnel barrier contact into a semiconductor. Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 12401242 (2002) | Kato, Y. K., Myers, R. C., Gossard, A. C. & Awschalom, D. D. Observation of the spin hall effect in semiconductors. Science 306, 19101913 (2004) FUrTher reaDing Meier, F. & Zakharchenya, B. P. Optical Orientation, Modern Problems in Condensed Matter Science Series, Vol. 8 (NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1984) | Awschalom, D. D. & Flatt, M. E. Nature Phys. Challenges for semiconductor spintronics. 3, 153159 (2007)

Spin Milestones

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Spin Milestones

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MILESTONES

Physics is set spinning

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

The spinning electron

Ed Gerstner, Senior Editor, Nature Physics

Paulis twovaluedness was indeed due to the spin of the electron.

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

Image courtesy of Lida Lopes Cardozo Kindersley.

STO CKB YTE

Spins nuclear sibling

May Chiao, Senior Editor, Nature Physics

statistics and those of integer spin obey BoseEinstein statistics.

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

From the compass to Apollo

Joerg Heber, Senior Editor, Nature Materials

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

mARCH 2008 | S11

Odd one out

Jun Kondo. Image courtesy of AIST, Tokyo.

S12 | mARCH 2008

Andreas Trabesinger, Senior Editor, Nature Physics

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

mARCH 2008 | S13

From spectrum to snapshot

S14 | mARCH 2008

Solution for solution structures

May Chiao, Senior Editor, Nature Physics

NMR has become a powerful technique for protein structure determination.

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

mARCH 2008 | S15

Dilute for impact

Image courtesy of P. M. Koenraad, Eindhoven University of Technology.

A giant leap for electronics

S16 | mARCH 2008

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

mARCH 2008 | S17

Feel the force

Signature of a single spin. Adapted from Nature 430, 329332 (2004).

S18 | mARCH 2008

The difficult middle ground

Ed Gerstner, Senior Editor, Nature Physics

nATURE MILESTONES | SPIN

mARCH 2008 | S19

The rise of semiconductor spintronics

Fabio Pulizzi, Associate Editor, Nature Materials

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi