What Have I Been up to?

People often wonder about what I do.  Physics professors such as me are eternally busy, often doing self-imposed work at all hours of the day, including weekends.  One of the advantages of a faculty position is the flexibility to take some little bits of time off here and there to recharge ones batteries.

When I pay myself summary salary from a grant, usually for no more than two months out of the three summer months, I end up working all of the time.  Summer provides the opportunity to catch up on research backlog, which builds up during the academic year due to teaching and service commitments.

A week ago, I took Monday off to drive up to our wilderness north of Spokane to work on installing a solar power collection system.  Even though I had worked through the weekend, it was difficult to pull myself away from all the accumulated commitments;  I had considered cancelling the trip several time until I got behind the wheel of my car.

The outing was worth it.  Working in the wilderness under blue skies and pure air rejuvenates the body and mind.  It's the only activity that completely removes even the slightest pang of anxiety from the pile-up of work demanding my attention.  Upon my return, I am more efficient and approach the tasks at hand with a reduced level of anxiety.

A glimpse of my recent activities can be gleaned for a narrative I was required to provide with my annual review materials.  It is reproduced below in its raw and unedited form.  Please excuse all of the typos and awkwardness, which is partially due to my distaste for having to write about my activities -- a process akin to holding one's breadth while trying to quickly empty the trash at the county landfill.

Here it is:

As described below, much of my work integrates teaching and research, making a fuzzy demarcation between the two, such as turning our research-grade apparatus into one that can be built by a high school student.

Research

Since the last review, I published 10 papers in six distinct refereed journals, all of them in the top tier of their specialty.  The work spans from fundamental quantum mechanics to applications and covers cutting-edge research, pedagogy, and broad-interest topics.  Highlights of the work follows.

The highest impact paper was a massive 170-page invited review article/tutorial that appeared in Advances in Optics and Photonics and covers the new emerging field of photomechanics.  A related invited paper, which included new research results, appeared in Journal of the Optical Society of America B.  Most recently we published a definitive paper on the mechanisms of the photomechanical effect in dye-doped polymer optical fibers, which appeared in Applied Sciences.  The latter work combines several experiments and varying conditions and two independent theories that together pin down the mechanisms with more confidence than would be possible with a single measurement and theory.  These three papers together position our group at WSU as a leader in the field.

On the pedagogy front, we published several articles in the American Journal of Physics.  One paper describes using a mobile phone for collecting data at home, enabling isolated students to do labs remotely.  A more fundamental paper elucidates subtle concepts underlying the Quantum no-cloning theorem and entanglement.  Finally, the paper on quantum length introduces new ideas and paradoxes that challenge our understanding of quantum mechanics and measurement.

A fundamental paper that describes a new method of using a proxy state to account for the quantum continuum appeared in Optics Letters while an applied paper on distributed Bragg fiber lasers that self-heal after burning out appeared in Applied Physics Letters, earning an Editors Choice recognition.  A  unique paper on how the nonlinear-optical response of novel hybrid quantum systems can be controlled with topology appeared in Journal of the Optical Society of America B.

Our visibility in the field of photomechanical materials and devices continues to increase with increased international exposure.  I gave the Keynote Address on the topic at the SPIE meeting in San Diego and presented an invited seminar at the Abu Dhabi Campus of New York University in the United Arab Emirates.  I have also been invited to speak at an international meeting in Cetraro, Italy on this topic.

I have been invited to guest-edit a special issue on photomechanical materials and applications for Applied Sciences and have already assembled an international team of co-editors.  This will enhance our visibility in the field. 

The quantum work continues to generate interest.  I presented our work on quantum NLO theory at the Foundations of nonlinear Optics as an invited speaker held at the Air Force Institute of Technology in Dayton, OH.

My work in fundamental quantum mechanics and pedagogy was presented in two Colloquiums: one at Colgate University and one at Skidmore College.  In addition to the technical presentation, I also presented an overview of our department and graduate program for recruitment purposes.

Our work over the past 10 years has focused on the physics of photomechanical materials and their applications, understanding the mechanism behind self-healing in dye-doped polymeric materials, and studying the quantum origins of the nonlinear-optic response.  We are in the process of transitioning into new areas while fortifying existing research strengths.

Taking advantage of the NLO Lab’s present strength in photomechanics, we are pursuing single-PI grants to support work with collaborators who make materials.  The near-term goal is to reinforce our interactions with international colleagues such as the exceptional groups at Tempere University in Finland and others in Morocco and Japan.  The long-term goal is to compete for larger grants.  The self-healing work, on the other hand, is attractive based on our past dominance in the field.  We have submitted a white paper to AFOSR, who share an interest in the topic.  However, we have experienced delays due to personnel changes at AFOSR.  Our group is still competitive in quantum nonlinear optics, so I plan on sending a proposal to NSF.  My efforts in the near future will focus on getting at least one of these three viable projects funded.

To leverage our unique abilities in quantum NLO, I am investing a significant effort in developing a framework for implementing quantum computing using nonlinear optics to color-entangle photons.  Given the large investment being made by the United States in quantum computing due to its importance to national security and competitiveness in the high-tech markets, the rewards are high but so are the risks.  I plan to focus most of my energy on this work throughout this calendar year and working on white papers with our larger physics-based team.

Teaching

I continue to teach undergraduate and graduate courses, advise graduate students in their masters and dissertation research, and advise undergraduates who are working on research and thesis projects.  Since 2018, I have graduated three PhD students and have served on numerous graduate thesis and dissertation committees.   Many of these students have been awarded mini-grants from within the university at the departmental and college level.  Traditional courses that I have taught over this period include Physics 320, Physics 533, Physics 534 and Physics 545.  I arranged for free licenses of Origin to be made available to students in Physics 320 and Physics 545 for class projects.  The first author in the American Journal of Physics publication on using cell phones for data was an undergraduate student whose research originated as a class project.  I also did similar projects with students taking the undergraduate seminar.

Service

I am active in service at all levels within the university and in my profession.  I advise the student chapters of OPTICA/SPIE, which do lots of outreach and run the laser maze during various university events.  I’m on the departmental committee for producing the APS video which will be used for recruitment, work with the College on undergraduate weekend recruitment presentations and have been involved in producing the departmental Comprehensive exam.

At the professional level I am on the editorial board or editor for several journals, act as a reviewer for more journals than I can count and have been awarded IOP trusted reviewer status.  The citation reads: “IOP trusted reviewer status acknowledges that you have demonstrated a high level of peer review competence, with the ability to critique scientific literature to an excellent standard.  You are one of our first reviewers to have achieved this status, so congratulations!”  I am active in organizing international conferences, two of which I founded: International Conference on Organic Nonlinear Optics (ICONO) and Foundations of Nonlinear Optics (FoNLO). 

A Journal Reviewer who gets the point

Even as a senior professor, I still cringe at negative reviews of my work.  It's nice to occasionally get a good one, as I did for a recent paper.  Below is the review:


Review of “A path to ultralarge nonlinear‐optical susceptibilities” by Mark G. Kuzyk

This paper is essentially a quantitative ‘stream of consciousness’ of its author as he ruminates about the origins of the nonlinear polarization in molecular‐scale objects.  Not every author could get away with this type of discourse, but this author is the pioneer of explorations of the fundamental limits of nonlinear optical phenomena and also the founder of the fundamental understanding of scaling phenomena in nonlinear optical molecules.  Those two achievements enable the author to precisely reveal the essential elements of what constitutes a good nonlinear optical structure in this most original of works.

The present paper brings together the two concepts of limits and scaling to attempt to understand how to build a quantum unit (a molecule, in the author’s nomenclature) whose absolute nonlinearity gets large with size when its intrinsic nonlinearity is constant with molecule size.  Many of the scaling concepts are familiar to readers of his papers, but this paper appears to be the first to step back and take a close look at the origin of nonlinearities as a function of the number of participating electrons.  The author carefully examines the quantum to classical transition and shows that the ideal system is made of microscopic units whose size falls just below the classical limit, provided they are properly arranged in the bulk form.  The author examines scaling in 1D and 3D, showing that the existence of transverse modes in 3D essentially removes electrons from participating in the nonlinear response, whereas in 1D, all electrons are longitudinal and can participate, provided they aren't otherwise tied up keeping the molecule bound together or living in shells close to the nucleus.  The emphasis on ‘participating’ electrons isn't new, but their use in scaling arguments appears to be original.

The author emphasizes the need to optimize the so‐called figure of merit (FOM) of a material, a macroscopic quantity related to the physics of a device or phenomena exploited in a device.  Recent work by Mossman et al. has shown how this works using resonant enhancement in a nonlinear material.  The fact that the present paper raises the issue of FOM optimization indicates an attempt by the author to shift the collective discussion of how to make better molecules from a focus on better nonlinearities to a focus on better materials.  The reviewer believes this paper may be referenced in future years as a turning point for the field of nonlinear optics materials research, much as the author’s 2000 Phys. Rev. Letter on the fundamental limits led to discoveries of the origins of large intrinsic nonlinearities, delineation of the required spectral properties of good molecules, and the invention of new materials.

In brief, it is an excellent, original piece of work and should be published.

My original pleasure induced by these strokes to my ego dissipated quickly.  I detest authority and would not want to become one.  Everyone should make judgments based on the strength of the evidence, not on the source.  I don't want to be given a free pass, nor do I want to impose my will on others.

Accepting the title of "authority" admits to stagnation.  I would rather be exploring new territories, filled with confusion but fueled by a drive to seek an understanding of the mysterious novelties that are just out of reach.  Answers always lead to more questions, like a series of stepping stones that stretch out in all directions with new branches emanating from each one.  The stepping stones in the distance are an alluring draw from the familiar ones that I have visited.  I yearn for them.

My many years as an academic have brought me great fulfillment in making discoveries and learning new things in the companionship of students and colleagues.  It keeps me young.  On the flip side, I am burdened by responsibilities that are neither intellectually stimulating, nor produce any tangible benefits to my constituents.  I stand at a crossroads where I am bursting with ideas that are squelched by inane responsibilities.  Should I abrogate my duties and dive into my research, whose benefits I know will surpass my selfish desire to learn, or should I continue to be a loyal soldier, obeying orders that restrain intellectual creativity?  It is a decision that I alone need to make, and nobody can lesson this burden.  The sense of responsibility yanks me away from my passions.

I dream of becoming a recluse for a summer or a semester, surrounded by my books and doing calculations on  huge sheets of paper, without interruption.  I would have to ignore funding agency reporting requirements that ask the same questions in 14 different ways, as if to excise every bit of creative energy.  I would have to ignore annual reviews that force me to waste a day filling in boxes in a form that neither makes the provided information clearer or more assessable.  I would have to ignore calls for proposals, which require researchers to come up with ideas that are not so novel as to not be appreciated, but beyond trivial so that reviewers can be impressed.  I would have to ignore nagging emails that incessantly interrupt my train of thought. Ignoring these activities would surely result in a loss of funding, something that the university expects, but that I wouldn't need.  Is it ethical to use the security of my tenure to ignore expectations that come from above even though I believe the university would potentially benefit more in the long run?

The guilt strings pull at my gut as I spend time writing this post, even though I'm at the keyboard at 9:00pm on a Saturday night -- a time that should be my own. Airing out these frustrations, I hope, will be an exercise that will help me sleep, which has not come easily these days. The obligations that are pulling me in multiple directions prevent me from making any meaningful progress in my most important activities, and I lay in bed in panic that I will miss important deadline.

The check list on my desk has many items that need attention.  I just finished grading and need to prepare for lectures, make up homework problems, and solve them -- a process that I find deeply fulfilling.  Next I need to reply to the reviewers' comments and revise my manuscript.  Rereading my manuscript, which is necessary when making revisions, is like visiting with old friends and rehashing the past, a pleasant pastime where ideas are batted around and reformed.  Since my colleagues were kind enough to review my manuscripts, I am ethically bound to act as a reviewer when asked.  Obligations of this sort are made many times each day, so I must accept the fact that I will never be able to withdraw fully.

Now it's time to get back to responding to the reviewers and revising my paper.  The details in the reviews suggest that both reviewers took the time to critically read manuscript and understood the nuances of my paper. For this I am grateful and excuse them for implying that I am an authority.  Since it's almost 10:00pm, it's time for me to complete this post.  No time to proof it.  No apologies.

Who should be a coauthor

Over the past two years, I have been leading a collaboration of 4 universities.  We are now writing a bunch of papers and giving talks, so naturally, my graduate students are asking me who should be included as coauthors?.  Almost three decades ago, this same question came up while I worked at Bell Labs as part of a large team.  Since there was pressure to publish, conflict was inevitable when a researcher was dropped from the author list.

One of my collaborators found a document that spelled out reasonable guidelines.  I have not been able to locate my copy -- since it was on paper, I probably lost it --  but here is what I remember.

Collaboration is integral to science, reaping rewards that exceed the sum of individual efforts.  Success thus requires an understanding between collaborators that researchers who do the work can expect to be coauthors.  There are many types of contributions, and all are critical, so it is pointless to argue which are more important.  To  this end, the criteria for coauthorship can be parsed into five broad classes.  Coauthorship requires that the individual contribute substantively to at least three of these five.  The five criteria, in typical chronological order follow:

1.  Having the idea.  All research is initiated by a question and a rough outline of activities that will lead to an answer.  For example, recent data show evidence that the earth is warming.  A stroke of insight leads to the realization that a temperature record is literally frozen in place in polar ice caps that goes way back in time.  The scientist then imagines ways that a core can be extracted and how they will be evaluated to determine a historic temperature profile.

2.  Getting support for the work.  Research requires resources.  An individual like Albert Einstein had deep insights and worked out his ideas at home after work as a patent examiner.  In this case, he supported his own research.  Collecting ice core samples, on the other hand, requires expensive expeditions, specialized equipment, and technical expertise.  A scientist proposing such experiments to a funding agency must succinctly pose the question to be answered, provide a meticulous plan for experimental protocols with well-defined timelines, and estimate the cost of the project, including manpower needs.  Getting funding is a time-consuming activity with low chances of success, so is an important ingredient to research. 

3.  Doing the research.  Once the idea is generated and funding secured for the project, someone has to do the work.  To get credit for doing the research, one must do a substantial chunk of the work and should also contribute both intellect and muscle.  If a technician is given specific instructions, such as turn this knob and write down this number, that doesn't count even if (s)he spends a significant amount of time and effort.  Acting like a machine taking data and being a computer following code is not the creative activity we call research.  On the other hand, interacting with a colleague or advisor who guides the direction of the work warrants co-authorship even if that individual did not work in the lab, analyze data or wrote code.

4.  Writing the paper.  All researchers who have made a contribution to a piece of work will typically provide input to the manuscript.  Writing the paper implies a significant amount of work that includes interpreting the results and tying it all together.  Proofing the manuscript is required of coauthors but correcting typos is not sufficient to count as writing the paper.  Adding an overall wrapping to the work that ties it together is part of the creative process.

5.  Understanding the paper.  This is less of an activity and more the result of being involved in the day-to-day work in generating results and writing the paper.  Each coauthor should have a good enough grasp of the science to be able to explain the work to other scientists.  There are always exceptions, especially when doing  interdisciplinary work.  A chemist may need to muster loads of creative juices to figure out how to make a compound that a Physicist measures to get the result.  It is unreasonable to require the physicist to understand synthetic chemistry and the chemist should not be required to understand relativistic quantum mechanics.  If the chemist writes a strictly synthesis paper, the physicist need not be a coauthor unless the reason for making the material is integral to the argument for making the material.  Similarly, the chemist need not be included as a coauthor in a series of physics papers that use the chemist's material.  However, if the chemist makes a material with the specific requirements for the physics experiment, that counts as creative input, and the chemist should be included as a coauthor provided he or she has contributed to two other categories.

These guidelines are not meant to be applied as absolute rules.  Nor should they be used as an excuse to cut off a potential coauthor.    Rather, they should be the starting point for discussions.  There are undoubtedly many exceptions for a diversity of reasons, so treat each of these thoughtfully.  When in doubt, err on the side of including your collaborators as coauthors.  It never hurts to add a coauthor to a paper.  However, it is unethical to add undeserving authors.

There are many reasons for not adding coauthors.  Years ago it was common practice to add the name of a highly-respected colleague to paper to give it added credibility.  As a result, high-profile publications now ask who did what in the reported research.  Clearly, it is unethical to make deals with collaborators to add my name to your papers in expectations of reciprocation.

Then there are the fuzzy areas.  For example, it often happens that a researcher worked on a project side-by-side with team mates, but his or her part didn't pan out.  If this person is involved in writing the paper and has a firm grasp of the results, then he or she should be a coauthor.

I am sure that you can think of many exceptions and gray areas.  Treat them thoughtfully and you will have good collaborators for a lifetime.  Let me know what you think.

What I expect of my PhD students

Every graduate student needs to be aware of expectations.  Each adviser is unique and operates on different principles.  A small number view their students as a pair of hands to do the dirty work.  In the old days, some advisers expected their grad students to mow their lawn and do housework. A friend of mine from grad school had an old-school adviser who had him come to his place on the weekend for services.  However, most faculty members by that time had already moved into the modern era and this kind of despicable practice is no longer tolerated.

It is important that each student have an understanding of what they are getting into when they join a research group. Here I will explain what I expect.

My highest principle is thinking of a graduate student as a junior-colleague-to-be.  Even the best students start out incapable of doing real research.  They are clumsy in the lab and need lots of hard work to sharpen their analytical skills.  As such, my first criterion is that they be good students who like to learn.  That doesn't mean that they need to be straight-A students.  In fact, many A students make poor researchers because they lack creativity.

On the topic of classes, I believe that the more the better.  I encourage students who are in the middle of their research phase to take classes.  Ironically, the students themselves resist because they feel it interferes with research.  Even some of my colleagues prefer that their students not take courses that are not of direct help to the research at hand.  I strongly disagree with this premise. The process of learning new things sows new ideas.  I myself enjoy learning because these new nuggets of knowledge invariably get incorporated into my research, which leads to totally new and wonderful directions.

Principle 1.  Always keep learning from classes, reading the literature, and just thinking about crazy ideas.  If you feel yourself to be leaving your comfort zone, you are on the right track.  I expect my students to never stop learning and to be constantly pushing themselves.

An important part of being a PhD scientist is independence.  Grants, which support research activities, expect results.  Many advisers thus give their students a very short leash.  The end result is bad for the student's independence.  I prefer to give the student a specific assignment, and let her and him work on it for a year or so without giving them a detailed map of how to get there.  However, I do give lots of course corrections and teach them things they need to know along the way (or send them to the literature) if their struggles are based on missing information.

I once had a PhD student who complained that I seemed to be giving another student lots of attention while neglecting him.  I treat PhD and masters degrees differently.  The individual with a masters degree needs skills to survive in industry, while a PhD scientist is required to come up with new ideas and find ways to tackle a new problem.  Having said that, some of my best and independent students happened to be masters students who were quite capable of getting a PhD.

Principle 2. Learn to be self reliant early on in your research.  Read the literature and talk to others to gain the skills you need to do your work, but don't wait for someone to tell you what to do with those skills.  Constantly try new things in the lab or with paper and pencil to both sharpen your skills and generate new ideas.  You will make lots of mistakes along the way when not given step-by-step instructions, but making these mistakes and getting through them are the most important part of the experience.

I do not yell at my students, ever.  I may tell them when I am displeased with research performance, but if a student does not perform, (s)he will not get a degree.  Passing the Prelim and being in a research group is no guarantee of success.   I disagree with the idea espoused by the administration that we need to help the students along so that we increase our graduation rate.  Graduating a PhD without the proper skills and talents serves nobody.  A PhD degree is not a ticket to a good job.  It's the skills that the individual has mastered and the ability to think independently that makes him or her valuable to society.  A huge pool of unemployed physicists is not what we want to be generating.

It takes lots of hard work and perseverance to finish a PhD degree.  People often ask me how many hours they should work.  My answer is all the time.  If you are not excited by your work and don't enjoy thinking about physics beyond your area of expertise, then you're in the wrong field.  Academic jobs are tough to get, and real research jobs in industry are rare.  However, PhD physicists have lots of success in engineering jobs, which are more plentiful.  If you like to tinker, then engineering may be an excellent way to earn a good living while having fun.

A PhD degree should not only be a guarantee of skills, but of work effort and perseverance.

Principle 3.  Approach your research with a passion.  The benefit of enjoying your work, aside form the direct rush of endorphins, is that you will put in the time required to do a good job.

One of the most important attributes is perseverance.  Watching Star Trek, or other sci-fi shows/movies gives one the impression that scientists apply skills to very easily solve problems.  This is not the case unless a student is super lucky.  I have a long list of stories on the same theme;  students who would spend months trying to get an experiment to run, only to have to start from scratch to try a different approach.  Aside from being good problem solvers, the PhD degree is an imprimatur of a person that does not give up.

In my PhD work, I had spent quite some time building an experiment on a 5' x 10' table optical table, which was filled with all sorts of laser sources and optics, resembling a Borg city.  Each step in the process often required a step backwards.  After completing the construction of the experiment, it still didn't work.  I then figured out the reason, tore the experiment apart and rebuilt the whole thing on another optical table with another laser.  Luckily, it ended up working.  Only then could I start taking the data that was the topic of my thesis.

Principle 4. Don't give up.  When something doesn't work, don't shy away from the problem.  Work twice as hard.  This will serve you well in all aspects of your lives.  When I was a new faculty member, aware of the importance of getting grants, I would write two new proposals for every one that did not get funded.  After my first two years, I built a healthy portfolio of projects.

Many people do not recognize the creativity behind science.  Creativity is part of choosing a scientific problem to study, helps in problem solving, and leads to interesting new science.

Principle 5.  Be creative.  Always think about neat implications of what you are doing or find new ways of looking at old problems.  This skill is particularity important in the career of young scientists who want to make it to the next level.

Principle 6.  Be meticulously careful in your work. Do not publish sloppy results, which will come back to haunt you, and always apply the highest standards to yourself.  You should be more critical of your own work than I am of you as your  adviser.  On the flip side, do not let this attitude prevent you from finishing a project.  In the end, we can never be sure if we are right, and there will always be a mistake somewhere.  If a paper is perfect, it is not science.  When working in the unknown, there are always huge dark shadows in the areas not exposed by your searchlight.

Principle 7.  Be honest with others, but especially with yourself.  Many very good scientists have fallen into the trap of fooling themselves into believing in something that is false.  Consider cold fusion, N-rays. etc.  Design experiments that are resistant to experimenter bias.  Also, do not try to make data fit your adviser's expectations.  I need to know when an experiment contradicts my viewpoint.  And it goes without saying that you should never fudge data in any way or plagiarize the work of others.

Principle 8. Impress me.  When you graduate, I need to make an honest assessment of your strengths and weaknesses in the letter of recommendation, which will determine your success on the job market.  Follow all of the above principles.  Do not come to my office to ask what you should do next.  Tell me the issues you are having, your line of reasoning, possible explanations, and engage me in debate about the possibilities.  You should act as a junior colleague.  Don't worry about offending me.  I am more interested in getting at the truth than being right.  However, that does not give you the right to be caustic.

What I have posted above mentions nothing of the content of the work, which is of central importance.  A short post cannot cover the nuances.  To zeroth-order approximation, I expect the student to add a new piece of physics to the body of knowledge.  This could be a theory that helps us understand a phenomenon or the discovery of a new phenomena.  Fitting data to a mathematical expression is not enough.  The parameters of the theory must have meaning that is independently testable, be interpretable in terms of fundamental processes, and make predictions well beyond the domain of the original results that generated the theory.  Perhaps I will write more on the topic later.

If you approach everything in life with a passion, it will be a fulfilling one.   When you take a break from physics, make it count.  While I may seem one-dimensional in this post, I do find time for other activities.  Though I am not good at it, I play ice hockey with a passion.  I enjoy playing the piano and writing.  Taking a break from work is, in a sense, work.  During times of alternate activities, things percolate in the brain.  I have had the most profound revelations while driving my car in the middle of nowhere or playing the piano.  So, don't hesitate to take a break with intense activities.

I have to run now.  After I finish packing, I will take a short walk around San Diego, then I have to catch a plane back to Pullman.  Until then, get excited about physics.

It's all hanging over my head

I have too many things on my plate! Part of the huge pileup I owe to internet difficulties I had when visiting the east coast in mid July. Given all that needs to get done at the start of the semester, I regret that we agreed to a two-day vacation on Lake Chelan, which in reality will chew up 4 days when adding the overhead for driving. In short, I find vacations stressful.

Though I may be accused of whining, my intent is to describe the daunting tasks that are keeping me me busy since we got back from Philly. This post may make me appear illiterate, but please excuse all the typos. Don't have time to edit.

First, there is a backlog of papers that I am writing and editing.

1. My collaborator and I completed a piece of work almost a year ago on the gamma landscape that I still need to write up. This work shows that the problem of gamma is much richer than beta, and that the universal properties of potentials that are near a local maximum separate into several distinct classes. I have been working on this paper on an off for a while and plan to finish it soon. Working on it.

2. Xavi sent me his SPIE paper where he did some sum-rule gymnastics to show that a two-level model is unphysical. I checked the paper, so now it is out of my hair. Done!

3. and 4. Shoresh is giving a talk at SPIE on quantum graphs and a talk on how the energy spectrum affects the nonlinear optical response. I finished editing these two papers today and Shoresh has submitted them. Because I have a type A personality and hate even the smallest imperfection, I spend lots of time even on conference proceedings. Done!

5. and 6. Nathan has been patiently waiting for me to edit two huge papers on cascading - a process by which lower-order nonlinearities work together to attain an enhanced higher-order one, where we show that nature does not provide any loopholes for getting a bigger nonlinear response than calculated using the limits. That is my next priority. Given the complexity of this work, it will take some effort to plow through all the details.

7. I have been invited to write special review article for JOSA B with George Stegeman. Bob Boyd is also a potentially a coauthor. This paper has an upcoming deadline of a few months because the special issue is to coincide with one of the Optical Society's important anniversaries (I don't recall which one). Haven't started yet and am stressed out over the amount of work this will involve.

8. I have been invited to write a massive review article on sum rules and scaling for the high impact journal called Physics Reports. These are huge amounts of work, but I will have some help from my two coauthors. Need to start working on it soon.

9. Ironically, I was part of another group to write a Physics Reports review on organic nonlinear optical materials. This paper has been delayed by my coauthors, but if I need to write it parallel with the other one, I will have no time to sleep.

10. I am working on a paper with a collaborator on the nonlinear properties of air. This paper will be written in the near future since most of the data is in place. Will be working on this soon.

11. Shoresh is waiting for me to read his paper on Monte Carlo calculations on quantum loops. I know we will need to generalize the paper to include the band structure of the quantum wire. Lots more work!

12. An undergraduate REU student sent me his results on bent quantum wires. I eventually need to turn this into a paper. Luckily, he is traveling overseas for a year with minimal email contact, so this gives me an excuse to procrastinate. Back burner...

13, 14 and 15. Three papers are out for review: one on the diffusion mechanism in polymers, one one on transverse sum rules, and one a critique of a paper on nonlinear Miller's delta. Once these papers are reviewed, there will undoubtedly be revisions. Soon, another deadline!

16 and 17. Two papers have been accepted: one on the theoretical models of the heating mechanism of the photochemical effect and one on the... damn, I just forgot what is was while writing. Anyway, there will be page proofs to correct.

18. As I reported a while back, we finally finished the huge paper on AF455. The reviewer wanted to revisions. Xavi made the first set of revisions and I just finished making my changes. Took most of the day. I even managed to add another little piece of analysis that makes the results even stronger. I sent it all back to Xavi and he will make a couple of minor changes before submitting it. Hopefully in the next couple of days. (He too is busy.)

19. 20... I am sure I have missed something.

Now that I see this list, I am already getting more stressed out. There is more work than I thought.

I had good news that my NSF proposal would probably be funded, provided that I answer some questions about the project. That brings me to proposals. I have actually been writing fewer proposals than usual because I am finding that I cannot keep up with everything as it is. If I get more funding, I will need to do more stuff. Here is what I am up to.

1. I responded to NSF about my proposal. It actually took me a couple of days to do so because I need to be careful not to say something stupid. I submitted my answers and a day later was notified that I forgot to explain my educational plan. I rewrite the damn abstract to stay within the work limit and resubmit it. They tell me it's all in order, so I cross my fingers and wait for the final decision.

2. I need to write a report to NSF for my present funding. It takes forever filling out the forms. My program manager likes to see lots of technical details so I try to upload a huge pdf file. The system balks and I have to contact technical support. I am procrastinating.

3. The Air Force needs a report for our grant. Ben writes a first draft, then I spend a day rewriting it. We go back and forth a few times to iron out problems. The report is done over the weekend - just in time.

4. Luckily, my AFOSR report was due before the trip to Philly. Already done!

5. I need to court the Air Force to renew my funding. Because of the problems with the federal budget, a grant that should have been of 5 year duration is cut after one year. I need to generate creative ideas that will convince the air force people that our work is critical to them.

6. Our lasers are getting old. Need to write an equipment proposal that is due in September. Need to start work on that soon. There are lots of complex forms that need to be filled out. Luckily, office staff can help.

7. We are doing exploratory work on a secret project. I'll divulge details later after we write a proposal on the topic.

As a faculty member, and unfortunately associate chair, I have all sorts of other work.

1. I am on a search committee to hire a new office staff person. Emails go back and forth constantly as we go over folders and determine who to interview. Then there are interviews and eventually an offer and negotiation for salary, etc.

2. A recent announcement informs us that the college of sciences may be merging with liberal arts. Everyone thinks its a bad idea except for the administration. Looks like they want to do it. I need to go to meetings.

3. Since the chair is away, lots of things to sign. travel vouchers, etc.

Not enough time, so I am going into stream of conciseness mode to finish this post. Don't know why I am wasting the time...

Am working on a couple of promotions of our faculty. Will be getting a bunch of reports from external reviewers. Will need to go over everything, call a faculty meeting to decide on each case, and then represent each case at the COS T&P committee meeting.

Having been a professor for over 2 decades, I get solicited to write letters of recommendation form students who have graduated as long as 20 years ago. This includes my graduate students, grad students on whose committees I have served, undergrads, as well as students who have taken my classes.

There are always professional service activities. I always get lots of requests to review papers. Since I publish a fair amount, I should be reviewing 2 to 3 times as many papers as I submit. I am on the reviewing list of a few dozen journals. A week does not go by without being asked to review, and many weeks I get several "invitations." Just to decide which ones I will review, which ones I will pass along to others, or which I will just decline takes some time (I need to look over the manuscript to decide). At the moment, I have a couple of reviews hanging over my head. Sure, I can sometimes pass along reviews to my grad students, which I do to teach them about the process, but it take me longer to show them how its done or to edit their reviews than it takes for me to do myself.

And then there are tenure and promotion letters that I need to write for faculty at other universities. I need to carefully read the thick packages for each case to do a competent job. These days one can get sued if the individual does not like the result. Sitting on such a review now.

Then there are conferences to organize as a member of the organizing committee or program committee, which decides which papers to select and who to invite to give a talk. Luckily, only on a couple low-key committees now.

Then there is teaching. Need to prepare my syllabus for my class this fall. Also, in the week before classes start, I am running a discussion group on a common reading book at the honors college and am involved in orientation for the newgraduate students.

In grant administration, there are always budgets to manage, who gets appointed on an RA, how do we spend money on time, how we re-budget colors of money to buy what we need. Just yesterday, we exchanged an item leading to a credit on the equipment part of a grant. Have to figure out a way to spend it before the grant runs out in a few weeks. Don't want to waste precious funds. Also, get budget statements every month. Need to make sure we are not overspending or underspending.

Then there are emails with collaborators that seem to come at me form all directions. We are starting a new collaboration with Nathan's new group. Communicated with the PI yesterday with a couple of back and forth emails. Then there are colleagues who are giving talks who need slides or colleagues writing proposals who need support letters. These trickle in all the time.

A big pain is updating my CV. Seems to take as much time to document what I do as doing what I do. Not really, but seems that way.

And then, of course, there is managing my research group. I need to meet with each student typically every day or at least every other day. There are always puzzling data, equipment that is breaking down, or new experiments that need to be designed and built. Everyone's problem weighs on me like it's my own. Well, it really is my own. We work together to get ideas and troubleshoot. Takes at least a couple hours a day and often most of the day.

Then there are thesis committees, both my own and other students in the department. To edit a student's dissertation takes me about a month of full time effort. Reading and understanding a dissertation from another group can take a day to a few days. In addition, during the writing process, there are many scientific problems that usually get ironed out. Will have at least a few of these during this academic year.

When the semester starts, I will need to prepare for each lecture, which takes me one to two hours per lecture hour if I already have prepared notes. When preparing a new course, it takes almost all my time. Last academic year I had a new grad class each semester. Then there is one full day a week grading, usually Saturday, and some time to prepare each exam. And there are office hours to answer student's questions. Teaching (aside from grading) is one of the more fun parts of the job.

Then there is all the paperwork. Need to sign off when students change their program of study (i.e. which courses will count toward the degree), figuring out how to juggle courses to make sure the students meet requirements in years where a required course is not offered. The office staff is great at figuring these things out. To many little things to list hear.

When there are budget cuts, we need to make painful decisions on how to make cuts without impacting our mission. Last academic year, we spent quite a bit of time determining which things could be cut and by how much. Some of these cuts are being implemented this semester. More cuts are in store for the next academic year. Thus, more work and more meetings.

What little time is left I devote to thinking about physics and doing some work with pencil and paper. I need to be generating new ideas that will become the focus for future research. I find thinking to be a pleasurable activity. Luckily, I generate more ideas than I could possibly pursue.

In the midst of all of this work, I get annoyed with the clumsy system used by our university to enter out activities for the year. My main complaint is that it was designed with the mediocre individual in mind, and therefore takes much longer to complete if you are really doing lots of things. It takes me almost 2 days each year to fill out the damn template.

In the spring, I will be doing annual reviews of the faculty once again - a two-week full-time process. Since the chair will be away most of the time, I will undoubtedly be going to many more meetings.

Then there is the stress of travel. First, preparing a talk and then making all of the travel plans, then when returning, putting together all the receipts for reimbursement. In addition to the time away, it probably takes a few days to prepare. Typically, I travel a few weeks each year (maybe an overseas trip this September - I hate traveling during classes). Many of my colleagues are on the road much more. Don't know how they do it.

I am editor of two journals, which requires assigning editors and making decisions on manuscripts. The work comes in spurts, like dealing with a plagiarism case last academic year. Luckily, not to much activity this month asside from needing to bug authors to submit their manuscripts. You know who you are!

To fight the stress, I try to play hockey twice a week. For these few hours, I forget about all of the work that is piling up. Also, at about 10:00pm each night, I spend 30 to 45 minutes studying Italian. Turns out I end up only having time for this 3 nights a week. But, I am compulsive and continue to work on it to meet my goal of someday being fluent. Doesn't feel like it will ever happen, but I continue to try.

Other than these breaks, I am usually working 7 days a week. True, I need to take a break (usually on Sundays) to pay the bills; and of course, there are the occasional social outings. But, that is why entropy seems to continually take control of our home.

...ping... Just got an email to review another paper and a request to write a letter on behalf of a colleague for a sabbatical. ...ping.. problem with a grant budget ...ping... an email about the merger of COS and CLA. ... Gotta run to get some real work done. (Glad I have two big screens with about 20 windows open at all times so that I can multitask.)

Later...