An ad-lib from yesterday's lecture about interactions between electric fields and neutral matter, paraphrased:
So, we can divide macroscopic objects into two categories, based on what happens when you bring large numbers of atoms together. In materials that are insulators, the electrons aren't free to move. The atoms hold onto their electrons very tightly. They're kind of like Republicans.
In materials that are conductors, on the other hand, the electrons are free to move. The atoms share their electrons freely through the whole material. They're basically Communists.
Semiconductors are like Democrats, but that's beyond the scope of this class.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In the reader request thread, Brad asks about superconductors:
Why is a room temperature superconductor so hard? Why do things have to be cold for there to be no resistance (I can guess, but my knowledge of super conductors consists of the words "Cooper pairs" which does not get me very far.)…
A little while back, I was put in touch with a Wall Street Journal writer who was looking into a new-ish health fad called "earthing," which involves people sleeping on special grounded mats and that sort of thing. The basis of this particular bit of quackery is the notion that spending time…
In the initial "Basic Concepts" post, I discussed the concept of Force in physics. This time out, I'll be talking about fields, which is a much dicier proposition. Not only are fields considerably more abstract than forces, but I've never lectured on fields in general (specific instances of fields…
Yesterday's post about how nobody cares about condensed matter physics produced a surprising number of comments of the form "I was really hoping you would post about topological insulators," which surprised me a bit. Anyway, since people asked for it, I'll give it a shot. The important caveats here…
Absolutely brilliant.
...hold onto their electrons very tightly. They're kind of like Republicans.
hmmm, are you sure about that?
Kind of wondering how appropriate this is.
I'm saving my ammo for the really big issues, not pissing it away on cheap shots, that aren't entirely accurate in any case.
Shouldn't a truly Republican material concentrate all of the electrons on the top 1% of the molecules, and tell the other molecules that's just natural and they deserve it because they work harder?
So, there are n- and p- type Democrats? And does this correspond to the current primary battle?
I'm not sure that there's as much difference between Republicans and Democrats as all that; maybe semi-conductors are more like... Canadians.
That said, still a delightful analogy.
I like it.
But what political party do superinsulators belong to?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33643
Maybe superinsulators=right wing wackos who set up militias and compounds in the middle of nowhere. They hold on to everything they have for a very long time.
Clever. I'll have to work that variant into my summer class.
For years I have used a similar explanation starting from the types of chemical bonds and their relation to electrical and physical properties as well as chemical ones.
Metals are, indeed, communists (lower c) ... but more in the form seen in a hippie commune or kibbutz where shared resources help hold the community together in a way quite unlike State Socialism or Communism. I often use a kids in day-care analogy where lots of toys are shared by lots of kids. Again, communal ownership.
Covalent bonds are more like two kids hanging onto a pair of prized toys with each hand or a family with one car. They have no choice but to travel together. Ionic bonds involve theft, and chasing the thief (give me my toy back), rather than sharing.
I have found it quite effective in the majors class as well, when I remind them of what they learned in chemistry (ha!) about metallic bonds when asking them why "metals" conduct.
Perhaps Europe is like a superconductor: the countries become more and more socialist as temperature decreases.