Ivar Giaever, Nobel Winner in Quantum Physics, Dies at 96
It was 1956, and he was applying for a position at the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, N.Y. The interviewer looked at his grades, from the Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim, where Dr. Giaever (pronounced JAY-ver) had studied mechanical engineering, and was impressed: The young applicant had scored 4.0 marks in math and physics. The recruiter congratulated him.
But what the recruiter didn't know was that in Norway, the best grade was a 1.0, not a 4.0, the top grade in American schools. In fact, a 4.0 in Norway was barely passing — something like a D on American report cards. In reality, his academic record in Norway had been anything but impressive.
He did not want to be dishonest, Dr. Giaever would say in recounting the episode with some amusement over the years, but he also did not correct the interviewer. He got the job.
He proceeded to spend the next 32 years at the laboratory, along the way developing an experiment using superconductors that provided proof of a central idea in quantum physics — that subatomic particles can behave like powerful waves — confirming a game-changing theory about superconductivity. For his work, Dr. Giaever shared the Nobel Prize in 1973.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
9 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump warned by top Senate Democrats to rethink advanced AI chip sales to China
Six Senate Democrats on Friday released an open letter asking President Donald Trump to reconsider his decision to allow tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to sell AI semiconductor chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenue from the sales. The letter — signed by Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Christopher Coons, D-Del.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — was in response to an Aug. 11 announcement by Trump that Nvidia and AMD would pay the U.S. government a 15% cut of revenue from chip sales to China in exchange for export licenses. "Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies," the letter states. "The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm," the letter continues. Senators also warned that selling advanced AI chips — specifically Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips — to China could help strengthen its military systems, a claim that Nvidia denies. In a statement to CNBC, a Nvidia spokesperson said: "The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit." The letter from Senate Democrats also requests a detailed response from the administration by Friday, Aug. 22, regarding the current deal involving Nvidia and AMD, as well as any similar arrangements being made with other companies. "We again urge your administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership," the letter states. A request for comment from the White House and AMD was not immediately returned. Despite Trump allowing chip sales to resume, it has already become clear that China isn't welcoming Nvidia back with open arms, instead urging tech companies to avoid buying U.S. companies' chips, according to a Bloomberg report. "We're hearing that this is a hard mandate, and that [authorities are actually] stopping additional orders of H20s for some companies," Qingyuan Lin, a senior analyst covering China semiconductors at Bernstein, told CNBC. In a separate report, The Information said regulators in China have ordered major tech companies, including ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases until a national security review is complete. —
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
America's nuclear energy moment is here — let's seize it
In 1960, Dr. Glenn Seaborg, then-chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, confidently predicted that nuclear energy would power half of American homes by the year 2000. For a while, it looked like he might be right. Between 1967 and 1974, U.S. utilities ordered nearly 200 nuclear reactors. But momentum stalled as cost overruns, regulatory hurdles, slowing demand and accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and later Fukushima eroded public confidence. Projects were canceled, and the nation's once-robust nuclear manufacturing base faded. Today, it seems like Seaborg's prediction wasn't wrong — just too early. A new generation of nuclear reactors — with advanced designs that safely cool and shut down reactors without the need for power or operator intervention — has made such accidents virtually impossible. Meanwhile, soaring electricity demand, driven by artificial intelligence, and rising geopolitical risks have underscored the need for energy that is clean, safe, reliable and abundant — four boxes that only nuclear energy checks. I have witnessed nuclear's resurgence firsthand in my role at the engineering and construction firm Bechtel. We successfully helped bring Georgia Power's two new reactors online in 2023 and 2024, and are currently working to deliver nuclear projects in Tennessee and Wyoming. Overseas, we're helping Poland build its first nuclear plant — a reminder that U.S. nuclear leadership also expands our geopolitical influence, rather than ceding it to Russia and China. Fortunately, the Trump administration understands the stakes and has issued executive orders aimed at quadrupling domestic nuclear capacity by 2050. With its sights set on a true nuclear renaissance, the government — together with the nuclear industry — should focus on clearing the four biggest hurdles in nuclear's path. First, we must confront the elephant in the room: cost. Critics who say nuclear energy is too expensive underestimate both its long-term value and American ingenuity. A nuclear plant's low operating costs and long lifespan make the cost per unit of energy highly competitive. Meanwhile, each new project helps technology developers and utilities standardize reactors, enabling builders like Bechtel to standardize engineering designs, scale supply chains and deploy new construction methods such as digital execution and modularization. The result is shorter schedules, lower costs and greater certainty of outcome. Controlling cost is also about reducing 'project execution' risk for investors. If we want to expand nuclear energy and unlock efficiency gains, we will need more help from the government to assume some of the financial risk of first-mover projects. As the industry rebuilds its capability to deliver, new nuclear projects can be susceptible to delays and cost overruns that deter investors. To stimulate the market, the government must absorb some of the early project cost overrun risks — just as other countries are already doing to grow their nuclear power output. Second, the U.S. should deliver on its obligation under law to establish a sustainable national program for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel. While today's storage methods are designed to work safely for 80 years or more, a long-term solution would resolve this challenge and strengthen public confidence in nuclear power. Third, regulators must continue modernizing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular, plays an indispensable role in maintaining high industry standards and has made progress in updating its approach to approving projects. But the framework, built in the 1970s, lags behind the modular, standardized and inherently safer designs of today's nuclear reactors. Significant opportunities remain to streamline approvals without compromising safety. The Trump administration's new executive order encouraging the commission to reform is a welcome step in the right direction. Fourth, and perhaps most urgently, we need people. America is grappling with a skilled labor shortage, from welders to electricians and heavy equipment operators. Here, too, the administration can and is beginning to lead by incentivizing partnerships between industry and education and by expanding access to vocational training. We need to make sure that joining the construction trades is a rewarding, fulfilling and safe career. We need to reshape perceptions that you can only get ahead with a four-year degree, which is simply not true and even misleading to the younger generation. A national campaign should champion these careers as mission-driven, innovative and essential to America's future. There are no silver bullets in energy policy. Solar, gas and emerging technologies will all be part of the equation. But failing to realize the full potential of nuclear energy's promise would be a costly mistake — economically, environmentally and geopolitically. A strong U.S. nuclear program will produce more than megawatts. It will catalyze life-changing technologies, a robust national industrial base and a brighter future for generations. If we get it right, maybe someone in 2075 will look back at today as the moment when America glimpsed its energy moonshot and seized the opportunity to lead. Craig Albert is president and chief operating officer of the engineering and construction company Bechtel. He previously led its nuclear, security and environmental unit.
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
