Graduate Academic Council
2002 – 2003
Minutes of the Council meeting of November 15, 2002
Approved by the Council on Februrary 28, 2003
In attendance:
S. Maloney, H. Charalambous, B. Spanier, C. Bischoff, E. Block, J. Mumpower, K.
Trent, K. Sarfoh, L. Raffalovich, L. Trubitt, M. Genkin, R. Irving , C. MacDonald
(Chair), J. Bartow (staff)
Unable to attend: M. Gallant, L. Cohen, C. Smith, G. Singh, J. Rudolph
Guests:
Dean Kaloyeros and faculty from the School of Nanosciences and Nanoengineering;
faculty from the Physics Department; Senate Chairperson John Pipkin
1.
Minutes from the GAC meeting of 11/1/02 were approved without amendment.
2.
Chair’s Report – Carolyn MacDonald
A faculty forum will be held on 11/25/02 with the topic to be changes to the By-
Laws.
A request has been received from a grad student asking that open assistantships be
listed on the website.
3.
Report of the Committee on Curriculum & Instruction – L. Raffalovich (report appended to the
end of these minutes)
Prof. Raffalovich presented the committee report, noting a correction in item five, first sentence, to
be the word importance, rather than important. The Council acted to unanimously accept the
report and approved the items within it.
4.
Report of the Committee on Educational Policy and Procedures – Richard Irving
The committee has been discussing the proposal received from the UAC regarding grading
grievance policy and procedures. Further contact with the UAC is being pursued.
5.
Old Business – NanoSciences and NanoEngineering Programs Proposal
Discussion resumed regarding the Proposal. It was reported that since the last GAC meeting that
correspondence has been received from the Chemistry and Physics departments indicating that
both were supportive of the Nanosciences proposal. The message from Physics indicated that
there was some on-going concern about cross-listing or overlap of course offerings. These
concerns were detailed in an additional letter signed by six members of the Physics department.
An additional letter from the Nanosciences faculty was distributed which responded to the
concerns expressed in the letter from the six Physics faculty.
Council members focused on the issue of cross listing of courses. Prof. Caticha from Physics
explained that the six faculty members did not wish to delay the Nanosciences proposal, but would
like to have the two faculty bodies talk about the potential cross-listings. Dean Kaloyeros from
the SNN drew reference to the supporting letters from both the Chemistry and Physics
departments. In regard to the cross listing issue, he indicated that it was important for SNN core
courses to be taught within the SNN. Professor Block expressed frustration that since the last
GAC meeting the Physics faculty had been unable to meet as a whole to discuss the SNN
proposal, like the Chemistry department had. He suggested that one of the deans should convene
such a meeting and made a motion to that effect. Dean Mumpower said that the Council’s by-
laws implied that it should focus on the academic merit of the proposal rather than the resource
implications. Dean Kaloyeros drew attention to the external site visit report that strongly
supported the proposal. Professor Raffalovich spoke against the motion to require a Physics
department meeting, questioning what was to be gained. Dean Mumpower suggested that moving
the proposal forward was a priority. Prof. Bakru, Physics Chair, commented that while there had
not been a time since the last GAC meeting when all Physics faculty could meet, all had been
individually consulted regarding their support for the SNN proposal and all were supportive. Prof.
Block withdrew his motion to table the proposal and require the Physics department to meet.
Dean Mumpower moved that the curriculum proposal be approved and that the Physics
department and SNN be encouraged to meet to discuss possible cross-listings. Professor
Raffalovich inquired as to whether an influx of students from Physics to SNN was expected. Dean
Kaloyeros indicated yes. Mr. Bartow inquired as to whether the issue at hand was of cross-listed
identical courses or the establishment of approved course substitutions.
A question was raised about the quality and cohesiveness of the curriculum. Dean Kaloyeros
pointed the Council to the external site visit report. He noted that some additional pre-requisites
had been added. He clarified the intent of the three program “tracks.” Professor Block inquired
about library resources in support of the proposal. Dean Kaloyeros indicated that the SUNY
format was being followed and that such matters had been considered by EPC when it reviewed
and approved the Letter of Intent. Professor MacDonald asked the Council to continue to meet for
an additional 15 minutes. A question was raised about campus ability to provide course pre-
requisites. Dean Kaloyeros indicated that the numbers were small and that shouldn’t be a
significant issue, but deficiencies in prerequisites would need to be made up by students. A
question was raised about the publications requirement. Prof. Bakru indicated this was not
uncommon in Physics.
Chairperson MacDonald asked for clarification of the motion and of which version of the proposal
was to be considered. Dean Mumpower indicated it should be to approve the curriculum proposal,
with its three tracks. In reporting to the Senate, it could also be recommended that the Physics
department and SNN meet to discuss the potential course overlap/cross-listing issues. Dean
Kaloyeros reiterated the establishment of the three “tracks.” Professor Spanier indicated that
academic integrity and coherence is important and that efforts of the faculties to meet are
important, but should not delay the proposal approval process.
Mike Genkin called for the question (motion) to be voted on. Professor Raffalovich seconded this
call. The Council voted unanimously to approve the SNN proposal and recommend its approval
by the Senate.
5.
A motion for adjournment was made, seconded and approved.
Appended to these minutes are the nanoscience proposal, and letters from members of the physics and
nanoscience faculty.
END OF 11/15/02 GAC MINUTES
To:
Graduate Academic Council
From:
Larry Raffalovich, Chair
GAC Committee on Curriculum & Instruction (CC&I)
Date:
November 13, 2002
Subj.:
Report and Recommendations
The CC&I met on 10/29/02. In attendance were: L. Raffalovich (Chair), G. Pogarsky, D. Parker, J. Bartow
(staff), R.-M. Weber, F. Henderson, E. Block, & A. Cervantes-Rodriguez. Professors M. Gallant, K. Quinn
& K. Sarfoh were unable to attend, although Prof. Gallant did forward comments in advance pertaining to
agenda items.
Four proposals were considered. Two (items 1 & 2 below) are recommended to the GAC for approval,
while two more (item 3 below) pertaining to graduate instruction have been tabled for further inquiry. The
matter of graduate instruction policy is also a topic for further report to the Council (items 4 & 5 below).
1.
The faculty of French Studies have requested that the admissions application requirement for the
submittal of GRE scores become optional for applicants to their programs. The faculty submit
that “that the exams do not serve as reliable predictors of student success in our programs, and that
this is especially true for our many applicants who are not native speakers of English. Though we
wish to encourage our applicants to take the exams, we feel that requiring them to do so often acts
as a deterrent to their completing the application process.” The Committee discussed the request
and unanimously (7 – 0) recommends approval to the Council.
2.
The faculty of Criminal Justice propose the establishment of an optional information technology
concentration within their MA and PhD programs. For both, the concentration would be optional
within the elective course components of the programs. The Committee discussed the request and
is supportive of the proposal. Minor discrepancies in credits and course numbers were noted. The
Committee voted unanimously (7 – 0) to recommend approval to the GAC, contingent upon
corrections of these discrepancies (received 11/5/02).
3.
The Committee received requests to authorize graduate instruction by individuals not possessing
the doctoral degree, or holding the rank of Associate Professor, from the Department of
Economics (3) and Department of Educational Administration (1). The Committee discussed the
issue of quality assurance in graduate instruction at great length. It was determined that such
requests for exception to policy should contain:
Proposed name of instructor, course to be taught and term of instruction
Course syllabus
Instructor’s résumé
Support correspondence from Chair explaining why the exception is warranted,
summarizing qualifications in relation to course content, audience, enrollment, need and
essentiality.
Support statement from Dean of the School/College.
Although noting that the requests before the Committee were for Fall 2002 course offerings, the
Committee tabled the requests, to allow for any missing components from the above list to be
solicited from the respective proposing units. Further action on the general matter of graduate
instruction policy was taken by the Committee (4 & 5 below).
4.
The Committee unanimously recommends that the Council pass a resolution asking the
administration to take definitive steps to insure that graduate courses not be scheduled with
instruction to be provided by individuals who do not meet the criteria spelled out in graduate
policy.
5.
The Committee considers the policy on graduate instruction of great importance in regard to
quality assurance. Yet, recognizing the pragmatic difficulty of obtaining consideration of graduate
instruction exceptions (from the GAC) in a timely manner, as currently specified in policy, the
Committee recommends the Council ask its Committee on Educational Policy & Procedures to
examine the current policy and consider proposing revisions that would enable more timely review
of such requests.
End of 11/13/2002 GAC CC&I Minutes
______________________________________________________________________________________
The undersigned physics faculty congratulate the School of Nanoscience on its nascence and
support its pursuit of excellence in this topical field. Nanoscience is a natural outgrowth, nationally, of
materials science and bioengineering and, locally, of materials physics at this university. In 1976 this
physics department chose to change its focus from nuclear to materials physics, metamorphosing the
nuclear accelerator facility into an unparalleled materials modification and analysis laboratory. Nuclear
chemist Walter Gibson, now James Corbett Distinguished Professor Emeritus, was recruited to chair the
physics department and lead that venture. Under his leadership, and in the years that followed, the physics
department developed as its primary focus of excellence a mature world-class materials physics program,
and recruited and nurtured a number of outstanding young materials physicists. This program has been
extraordinarily successful and forward-looking, spawning, in 1993 the Center for Advanced Technology in
Thin films. The 1997 long-range plan of the department predicted that the next major thrust of department
would be in the field of nanotechnology, which has now, in fact, generated the new school.
The new school will provide students a unique opportunity to receive an interdisciplinary
education and training in a new technology area in an environment specially designed for the purpose. This
is something that the physics department could not possibly provide while still remaining what it is
supposed to be, a department devoted to physics. Thus, we regard the new school as a natural continuation
of several decades of sustained effort by this department in the area of materials physics, and we endorse
this new school’s development of a specialized curriculum. However, we do have a few concerns about
some specifics of the current proposal.
A primary concern is the high degree of overlap between several proposed nanoscience courses
and existing physics courses. It could be argued that it is not unusual for engineering schools to teach
courses which appear to duplicate in title, if not content, offerings of traditional science departments.
However, the overlap here is more substantive, precisely because of the long history of this department in
producing and supporting cutting edge materials and nanomaterials research. Further, there are important
considerations beyond those of resource conservation, however compelling they might be in the current
budget climate. It is a raison d'être of a research university that students benefit substantially from the
unique disciplinary perspective of courses taught by professors actively engaged in research. It is also
argued that, however efficiently physics faculty believe they could teach the necessary tools of calculus to
physics students, there is a true pedagogical advantage in exposing students to the full theoretical
foundation of a traditional mathematics course. We would argue along similar lines. A physics perspective
on such fields as quantum mechanics is broad-based, an essential foundation for students who would strive
to keep pace with, and even drive, the evolving field of nanotechnology. This is particularly true from a
physics department with a mature materials focus and many years of providing eminently successful core
education to students who have performed their doctoral theses on topics ranging from atmospheric science
to protein crystallography. Further, we believe that we would benefit from the consequent closer
association with nanoscience students and their faculty, and their faculty from us.
In some courses, an increased emphasis on some practical aspects of nanostructure devices may be
desirable. We have no objection to this and will be happy to adapt our courses as necessary to serve the
needs of the students, of both nanoscience and physics, to keep abreast of changing technology. This
adaptation has always been a natural evolution in our curriculum. A historical example has been in
response to the differing needs of exchange program students. We especially welcome input from the
nanoscience faculty. A primary descriptor of the nanoscience initiative is "interdisciplinary", and we
welcome their continuing interaction with the physics department.
We do understand that some duplication of material is unavoidable whenever a program in an
interdisciplinary field is being launched. However, we feel that a closer coordination between the two
programs is possible. Indeed, given the close ties between the physics department and the new school, we
are somewhat surprised that an effort in this direction has not already been undertaken. We can only
attribute this to the urgency with which the new school is being established and with which we have no
intention to interfere. Therefore, in the interests of expediency we suggest the following slight
modifications to the curriculum:
The two currently proposed tracks of EITHER seven physics courses, OR seven nanoscience
courses, should be replaced with a single more flexible, combined track, more in keeping with the
original proposal. The nanoscience courses listed in the table below should be replaced by physics
courses that already cover a very substantial fraction of the material. This fraction, through a
proper coordinating effort, can be increased. In cases where a 400 level physics course has been
deemed equivalent to a 500 level nanoscience course, because of the high degree of specialization
typical for undergraduates in physics, the physics department should apply for 400/500 shared
resource status.
We also look forward to future discussions and the possibility of joint undertakings such as cross-
listing new or jointly taught material. We certainly do not feel that there is any shortage of courses that
should be taught which would justify duplication, and cite the large number of exciting proposed new
courses listed in the proposed curriculum as examples.
Of the 55 proposed new courses, we feel that there is particularly high degree of overlap for the 9
courses listed below. This exists partially because of the unusually strong focus of this physics department
on materials and nanoscale phenomenon.
Proposed
Existing
SNN 502
Mathematical Methods for Non-Biological
Nanosciences
Phy 510
Mathematical Methods in Physics
SNN 505
Crystallinity and Structure of Nanomaterials
Phy 566
X-Ray Optics, Analysis and Imaging (Phy
566 and 562 together cover SNN 505 and
519)
SNN 511
Quantum Theory of Solids I
Phy 450
Quantum Mechanics II
SNN 512
Quantum Theory of Solids II
Phy 532
Solid State Physics
SNN 516
Physical Kinetics
Phy 460
Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics
SNN 517
Science and Nanoengineering of
Semiconductor Materials and Nanostructures
Phy 567
Physics of Semiconductor Devices
SNN 519
Principles of Materials Nanoengineering
Phy 562
Structure and Properties of Materials
SNN 667
Surface Analysis
Phy 563
Particle-Solid Interactions
SNN 670
Transmission Electron Microscopy
Phy 580
Electron Diffraction and Microscopy
Finally, we would like to offer some suggestions to the Nanoscience faculty that we feel would
strengthen their curriculum proposal.
1)
Several of the courses, e.g. SNN 541, 606, 632, etc. would appear to be parts of natural
sequences or otherwise need more clearly defined prerequisites. Other courses, for example
632, 665 and 670 appear to have some overlap which should be clarified, perhaps by
specifying prerequisites..
2)
Clarification of prerequisites for 600 level courses needs to be made if multiple non-identical
core sequences exist.
3)
Explicit suggestions could be listed for the "external", elective courses, such as Phy 560 or
570, or specific biology, chemistry or computer science courses.
Respectfully,
Ariel Caticha
Jesse Ernst
T.S. Kuan
William Lanford
Susanne Lee
Carolyn MacDonald
End of Letter
The undersigned SNN faculty and instructors wish to thank the group of physics faculty for their well
meaning and eloquent open letter of Thursday November 14. The SNN faculty members echo the desires
and feelings of the group of physics faculty, particularly in terms of building a mutually beneficial
collaborative relationship between the SNN and the physics department to best leverage inter-departmental
instructional resources, and position the faculty of both academic units to optimize joint capabilities to
support teachings loads across departmental lines.
However, the letter contains a number of erroneous assumptions and inappropriate concepts that require a
thorough and detailed response for the sake of historical accuracy and scientific veracity, as outlined below.
1.
The fields of nanosciences are not “a natural outgrowth, nationally, of materials science and
bioengineering.” As succinctly captured in the 2001 Report by the U.S. Commission on National
Security in the 21st Century, “the world is entering an era of dramatic progress in bioscience,
materials science, and information technology... Brought together and accelerated by nanoscience,
these rapidly developing research fields will transform our understanding of the world and our
capacity to manipulate it.” Clearly, nanoscience is not a “topical field” that is a “natural
outgrowth of material science and bioengineering,” but instead the fundamental knowledge base
that underlies and drives materials science and bioengineering, as well as many other fields.
As further affirmation of the definition of nanosciences, the 2002 Edition of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, published by the National Science Foundation (NSF), emphasizes that
nanosciences consist of those interdisciplinary fields that reside at the intersection of chemistry,
physics, and biology. These fields are intended to develop and disseminate the “knowledge base
necessary for controlling the growth of the basic building blocks of physical, chemical, and
biological systems at the molecular level, atom by atom, leading to the formation of real life
systems with novel properties, unique performance, and innovative functions.”
In this respect, for a group of well-intended physicists whose area of expertise is not nanosciences
to claim that nanotechnology at the campus level is an outgrowth of materials physics, and ignore
the equally important contributions of the chemistry and biology, demonstrates a basic
misunderstanding of the entire concept of nanosciences. It is the belief of the SNN faculty that
this basic misunderstanding translates into an erroneous perception of the presence of a
substantively larger overlap than what really exists between selected SNN courses and their
physics counterparts.
2.
The “1997 Long-Range Plan for the Physics Department” which, incidentally, was prepared with
active and extensive participation by physics faculty who are presently also concurrent members
of the SNN, did not “predict that the next major thrust in the department would be in the field of
nanotechnology.” Not only was the field of nanotechnology not defined by the National Academy
of Science until 2000, but the long range plan of the physics department does not mention
nanotechnology once, nor does it call for the initiation of a major thrust in the area of
nanosciences (a copy of the 1997 1997 Long-Range Plan for the Physics Department is enclosed
as reference).
3.
The SNN faculty members strongly disagree with the assessment of the group of physics faculty
that a substantive overlap exists between selected SNN and physics courses. The SNN courses in
question are primarily focused on fundamental treatments of nansocale phenomena and associated
applications to nanoscale systems that are at the intersection of physics, chemistry, and biology.
This fact was recognized by the physics faculty, who stated that “The new school will provide
students a unique opportunity to receive an interdisciplinary education and training …in an
environment specially designed for the purpose. This is something that the physics department
could not possibly provide while still remaining what it is supposed to be, a department devoted to
physics.”
In this respect, it is the unanimous and unambiguous opinion of the SNN faculty that the offer
advanced by the physics faculty to modify physics courses to provide “an increased emphasis on
some practical aspects of nanostructure devices may be desirable…and…be happy to adapt our
courses as necessary to serve the needs of the students of both nanosciences and physics, to keep
abreast of changing technology” is well-intending, yet unsuitable and unrealistic because it is
based on the flawed premise of replacing SNN courses with physics courses, instead of cross-
referencing or cross-listing of courses. The elimination of SNN courses and their replacement
with physics courses is a serious problem for the reasons discussed below.
First, by offering to modify physics courses to increase emphasis on “some practical aspects of
nanostructure devices” demonstrates again a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept
of nanosciences. As argued earlier, nanosciences are not a “new technology area” but true
scientific fields. We would therefore have serious reservations and significant doubts that faculty
who are not well verse in the field of nanotechnology can actually revise physics courses to
accommodate the needs of nanosciences. More importantly, modifying physics courses to simply
include some practical aspects of nanostructure devices does not provide students with the
necessary intellectual tools and scientific knowledge base necessary for a true nanosciences
education.
Second, the proposal to modify physics courses “as necessary to serve the needs of the students, of
both nanosciences and physics…” could seriously jeopardize the core educational mission of what
should be a true physics department. In this respect, it is the consensus of SNN faculty that the
proposal to change physics courses violates the essential premise expressed by the group of
physics faculty that a physics department could not possibly provide the interdisciplinary
education and training required for nanosciences courses “…while still remaining what it is
supposed to be, a department devoted to physics.”
Thirdly, the SNN faculty is driven by a strong and unequivocal commitment to the development of
the SNN curriculum as a sound, viable, self-contained, and comprehensive instructional vehicle
that best serves the needs of the university student clientele in the rapidly expanding disciplines of
nanosciences and nanoengineering. It is a raison d’etre of any successful academic unit to retain
control over the content of its core courses to ensure that a distinctive, student-centered
pedagogical experience “which will be highly competitive as the result of its intellectual
coherence, rigor and engagement of students with faculty in the process of inquiry and discovery.”
Accordingly, the SNN faculty members fully agree with the statement of the group of physics faculty that
“students benefit substantially from the unique disciplinary perspective of courses taught by professors
actively engaged in research.” In this respect, wouldn’t be in the best interest of the students to be taught
the core courses in question by faculty who are actively involved in nanotechnology research, i.e., the SNN
faculty? Isn’t this consideration a primary driver in the decision of traditional science departments to teach
courses that appear to overlap substantively with their counterparts in other academic departments (see
Table 1 enclosed)?
In closing, the SNN faculty members strongly believe in a close association with the physics, chemistry,
and biology departments. We especially have and will continue to welcome their input in formulating a
continuing and expanding partnership with the SNN, and propose leveraging of inter-departmental
instructional resources by providing critical faculty capabilities to support the teachings loads in these
departments.
However, this close association has to be based on a model that is equitable, mutually beneficial, and
consistent with prevailing instructional paradigms. Most importantly, the model must, first and foremost,
provide students with the best educational opportunities possible. In particular, a close coordination with
physics is already in place, and we are surprised that the group of physics faculty ignored the fact that our
initial proposal included cross-listing (or cross-referencing) of the courses in question between the SNN
and Physics in a fashion that is consistent with prevailing inter-departmental partnerships. The cross-listing
approach is certainly supported by many examples of existing inter-departmental arrangements, such as
PHY 570A (CHEM 544) THEORY AND TECHNIQUES OF BIOPHYSICS AND BIOPHYSICAL
CHEMISTRY; PHY 563 (CHM 563) PARTICLE-SOLID INTERACTIONS (see Table I).
We are equally surprised that the group of physics faculty chose to ignore the fact that some of its members
demanded removal of such cross-listing, a request that was promptly implemented to demonstrate our
willingness to be responsive to the concerns of our colleagues, without sacrificing or jeopardizing the
integrity and worth of our proposed curriculum.
We urge the group of physics faculty to reconsider their proposal and, in the interests of expediency, accept
the recommendation to implement a cross-listing model of courses that best leverages combined resources
while ensuring a “…distinctive, student-centered pedagogical experience…” which will be highly
competitive as the result of “…its intellectual coherence, rigor and engagement of students with faculty in
the process of inquiry and discovery.” (University Mission Statement). Thank you.
Hassaram Bakhru; Michael Carpenter; James Castracane; Katharine Dovidenko;
Kathleen Dunn; Eric Eisenbraun; Harry Efstathiadis; Michael Fancher; JoAnne Feeney;
Robert Geer; Pradeep Haldar; John Hartley; Mengbing Huang; Alain E. Kaloyeros;
Vincent Labella; Ernest Levine; Eric Lifshin; Richard Moore; Serge Oktyabrsky; James
Raynolds; Fatemah Shahedipour; Timothy Stoner; Vadim Tokranov; Paul Toscano; Bai
Xu; John Welch; Di Wu.
Table I. Examples of Existing Chemistry and Physics Courses with Various Degrees of Overlap.
Chemistry Course
Equivalent Physics Course
CHM 525A--Physical Organic Chemistry
Topics in physical organic chemistry, including
electronic
structure,
stereochemistry,
and
conformational analysis.
PHY 532--Solid State Physics
A broad survey of the phenomena of solid state
physics. Symmetry restrictions on physical
properties; electronic and vibrational band
structures in crystalline metals, semiconductors,
and insulators, and in liquids; electronic
properties include transport and optical
properties; magnetism; superconductivity.
CHM 535B--Advanced Physical Chemistry
Selected topics in thermodynamics, statistical
mechanics, and chemical kinetics.
PHY 460--Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics
PHY 612 -- Statistical Mechanics
CHM 555--Quantum Chemistry
The quantum theory of chemical bonding and
structure; abinitio, empirical and semi-empirical
methods of approximation including: self-consistent
field, Hartree-Fock theory, configuration interaction,
Huckel theory, expanded Huckel theory and NDO
methods.
PHY 617--Quantum Mechanics II
Theory of angular momentum; rotation, Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients, Wigner-Eckart theorem. Approximation,
methods, perturbation, variation and WKB approaches,
identical particles, Thomas-Fermi model, Hartree-Fock
equation. Semiclassical theory of radiation
CHM 560--Chemical Thermodynamics
Examination of the laws of thermodynamics;
application of the laws to chemical and biochemical
systems. Topics include: states of matter,
PHY 612--Statistical Mechanics
An introduction to statistical methods and the description
of a variety of phenomena on a statistical basis.
Thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetic
thermochemistry, chemical equilibrium, phase
changes and equilibrium, the nature and descriptions
of solutions.
theory are presented from a unified point of view. Topics
include elements of probability theory, interaction
between macroscopic systems and their parameters,
equilibrium, ensembles, classical and quantum statistics,
systems of interacting particles, Boltzmann equation,
irreversible processes, and fluctuations.
Table I. Examples of Existing Chemistry and Physics Courses with Various Degrees of Overlap
(Continued).
Chemistry Course
Equivalent Physics Course
CHM 544--Theory and Techniques of Biophysics and
Biophysical Chemistry
Comprehensive study of the physical chemistry of
biopolymers;
structure-
confirmation-function
interrelations, including systematic coverage of
theoretical and experimental aspects of such topics as
solution thermal dynamics, hydrodynamics, and
optical and magnetic characteristics. Prerequisites:
One year of biochemistry and one year of physical
chemistry.
Phy 570A (CHM 544)--Theory and Techniques
of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry
Introductory theory and applications of thermodynamics,
spectroscopy, and diffraction as used to probe
biomolecular structure in modern quantitative biology,
biophysics, and biochemistry. A Physics Department
survey course.
CHM 563--Particle-Solid Interactions (3)
A survey of basic phenomena encountered in the
interaction of atomic particles with a solid and of their
underlying physical principles. Topics include
stopping power and particle beam methods for
materials characterization, modification, and removal
such as backscattering and channeling, ion
implantation, and sputtering.
PHY 563--Particle-Solid Interactions
A survey of basic phenomena encountered in
the interaction of atomic particles with a solid
and of their underlying physical principles.
Topics include stopping power and particle
beam methods for materials characterization,
modification, and removal such as
backscattering
and
channeling,
ion
implantation, and sputtering.
CHM 570--Crystallography
The geometry and structure of crystalline solids, and
methods of importance in their investigation. Internal
and external symmetry properties as a consequence of
atomic types and bonding possibilities: lattice types
and space groups, x-ray diffraction, and optical
techniques. Open to chemistry and physics majors,
and others with consent of instructor.
PHY 566--X-Ray optics, Analysis and Imaging
A broad survey of x-ray optics and their uses.
Introduction to the theory of x-ray interaction with
matter, including refraction, diffraction, total reflection,
image formation, fluorescence, absorption, and surface
roughness. Applications include x-ray astronomy,
microscopy, lithography, materials analysis and medical
imaging.
CHM 644--Chemical Statistical Thermodynamics
Fundamentals of classical and quantum
PHY 612--Statistical Mechanics
An introduction to statistical methods and the description
of a variety of phenomena on a
Table I. Examples of Existing Chemistry and Physics Courses with Various Degrees of Overlap
(Continued).
Chemistry Course
Equivalent Physics Course
statistical mechanics. The calculation of
thermodynamic properties of ideal gases, crystals and
ideal rubber elasticity. An overview of cooperative
systems and their phase transitions. An introduction to
topics in transport theory.
statistical basis. Thermodynamics, statistical mechanics,
and kinetic theory are presented from a unified point of
view. Topics include elements of probability theory,
interaction between macroscopic systems and their
parameters, equilibrium, ensembles, classical and
quantum statistics, systems of interacting particles,
Boltzmann equation, irreversible processes, and
fluctuations.
Chm 685A,B (PHY 855A,B)--Seminar in Chemical
Physics (2,2)
Lecture-discussion presented by faculty and graduate
students on current literature in their field. Same as
Phy 855A and B. Offered jointly with the Department
of Physics.
PHY 855A,B (CHM 685A,B) Seminar in
Chemical Physics (2,2)
Lecture-discussion presented by faculty and
graduate students on current literature in their
field.
End of Letter 2
Excerpt from Physics Department Long Range Plan of 5/27/1997
….page 12
5.5 Developing New Thrusts
Before we consider developing new thrusts, we should resume the build-up of our materials program.
However, we should also consider new and exciting areas of research. An incomplete list of new frontiers
worth considering would include:
Micromechanical Structures and Sensors
: The is a frontier field, where integrated circuit
techniques are used to design micromechanical structures and sensors for applications in a variety
of fields.
AFM and STM Spectroscopy
: Manipulation of materials at the level of single atoms and
molecules is an exciting new field. A person with experience in atomic force and scanning tunnel
microscopy would be ideally qualified for research in this area.
