Milestone-Proposal talk:Fractional Quantum Hall Effect

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is the proposal for an achievement rather than for a person? If the citation includes a person's name, have the proposers provided the required justification for inclusion of the person's name?
2. Was the proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, have they been properly considered in the background information and in the citation?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is the proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references should be from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the Advocate. If the Advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the Advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Does the proposed citation explain why the achievement was successful and impactful?
8. Does the proposed citation include important technical aspects of the achievement?
9. Is the proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
10. Will the citation be read correctly in the future by only using past tense? Does the citation wording avoid statements that read accurately only at the time that the proposal is written?
11. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
12. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
13. Are any scientific and technical units correct (e.g., km, mm, hertz, etc.)? Are acronyms correct and properly upper-cased or lower-cased? Are the letters in any acronym explained in the title or the citation?
14. Are date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? Helpful Hints on Citations, plaque locations
15. Do the year(s) appearing in the citation fall within the range of the year(s) included at the end of the title?
16. Note that it is the Advocate's responsibility to confirm that the independent reviewers have no conflict of interest (e.g., that they do not work for a company or a team involved in the achievement being proposed, that they have not published with the proposer(s), and have not worked on a project related to the funding of the achievement). An example of a way to check for this would be to search reviewers' publications on IEEE Xplore.

Independent Expert Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?
5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that independent expert reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log (For staff use only)

Submitted date: 25 November 2024
Advocate approval date: 18 February 2025
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This milestone proposal needs some additional work. Historical background tied to sources should be expanded. One sentence responses to questions intended to address historical claims need to be expanded. Supporting materials should be identified and linked. The context of the achievement and its challenges need further explanation.

I suggest limited edits to the milestone text to get it down to 70 words and to include the year in the title:

Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, 1982

The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) was discovered in 1982 by Daniel Tsui, Horst Stormer, and Art Gossard. They demonstrated that a new state of matter with macroscopic quantum properties, an incompressible quantum liquid that hosts fractional charges, could be created in a two-dimensional electron system. This revolutionized the scientific understanding of quantum states and introduced the concept of topological order, a key physical ingredient enabling fault-tolerant quantum devices.

Dave Bart Milestone Advocate

Re: Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the updated proposal. Work is progressing but needs to finish addressing my earlier comments. Dave Bart

Support of Milestone Proposal -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers, and they have addressed all my concerns. I fully support this milestone proposal, and in my opinion the requirements have been met, subject to the expert reviews. The responses of the experts will be posted as they come in. This milestone will require a name inclusion review by the milestone subcommittee. David Bart - Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #1 -- Jbart64 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Jainendra K. Jain is the Evan Pugh University Professor, Erwin W. Mueller Professor of Physics, and Holder of Eberly Family Chair of Physics at the Pennsylvania State University. He received the Oliver E. Buckley Prize of the American Physical Society in 2002, was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2021, and was selected as a Foreign Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy in 2024. Jain is known for his theoretical work on quantum many-body systems, most notably for postulating particles known as Composite Fermions. He received bachelor's degree at Maharaja College, Jaipur, his master's degree in physics at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur and PhD at the Stony Brook University, where he worked with Profs. Philip B. Allen and Steven Kivelson. After post-doctoral positions at the University of Maryland and Yale University, he returned to Stony Brook University as a faculty member in 1989. In 1998, he moved to the Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Jain sent this expert review on Feb 16, 2025, at 5:18 PM:

I have reviewed the proposal. Here is my brief response to the questions you asked. Please let me know if this is not sufficient.

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? I find the wording to be mostly accurate, except that the meaning of “upended the understanding of quantum states of matter” is unclear. May I suggest for your consideration a modified version (which I think flows somewhat better):

“In 1982, Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer experimentally observed the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures engineered by Arthur Gossard. This groundbreaking discovery unveiled a new phase of matter — an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges — leading to a wealth of new phenomena and transformative concepts with potential applications in future technologies.”

2. Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? The evidence presented is highly substantive and mostly accurate, and it definitely supports the citation.

3. Does the proposed Citation represent a significant historical site? It does so, without any question.

4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? In my view, there have been no competing achievements during the past 50 years. The fractional quantum Hall effect is a once-in-a-lifetime discovery. The proposers have adequately outlined many of the subsequent developments.

5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? I think so. They have noted the promise of using topological order, an offshoot of the FQHE, in making solid-state devices that could be used in fault-tolerant quantum memory and quantum computation.

Sincerely, Jainendra Jain Evan Pugh University Professor & Holder of Eberly Family Chain in Physics & Erwin W. Mueller Professor of Physics Pennsylvania State University

Expert Review #2 -- Jbart64 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Kun Yang (杨昆) is McKenzie Professor of Physics at Florida State University, and an affiliated member of National High Magnetic Field Lab in Tallahassee, Florida, USA. He received his Ph.D. from Indiana University in 1994. After postdoctoral work at Princeton and Caltech, he joined the faculty of Florida State University in 1999. His research interest is in theoretical condensed matter and statistical physics. The honors and awards he received over the years include Alfred Sloan fellowship in 1999, Outstanding Young Researcher award of Overseas Chinese Physics Association in 2004, and Outstanding Referee award of American Physical Society in 2015. He was elected fellow of American Physical Society in 2011, fellow of American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2016 and named Distinguished Research Professor by Florida State University in 2019.

I received an expert review from Dr. Yang on Sunday, February 17, 2025 03:24 PM:

I am happy and honored to provide you with my review below, because I strongly recommend this proposal (which is long-overdue in my opinion).

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? It is. I suggest adding "that exhibit fractional statistics" after "fractional charge." The fractional statistics is, in some sense, even more novel and fundamental than fractional charge because fractional charge relies on charge conservation, but fractional statistics only depends on topological order.

2. Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? It is. Again, some mention/discussion of fractional statistics would be ideal and strengthen the appeal.

3. Does the proposed Citation represent a significant historical site? It definitely is. The discovery of FQHE is a water-shedding moment in science, not just physics. It is comparable to the discovery of the 2.3K microwave background radiation of the universe, also at Bell Labs. The main difference being the latter was anticipated by theorists, even though the discovery was accidental, while Tsui and Stormer were internationally looking for something new and interesting and ended up with the discovery nobody could have imagined!

4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? The only one that comes to mind is integer QHE. It was mentioned briefly. Perhaps a more detailed discussion would be appropriate.

5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? Not really. But this is basic research, so any benefit would be indirect and in the long term. I don't think that should be considered a hard requirement.

Re: Expert Review #2 -- Dae-Gwon Jeong (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

On the Editor's Review on 5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? Not really. But this is basic research, so any benefit would be indirect and in the long term. I don't think that should be considered a hard requirement.

1. The FQHE has not been published in IEEE journals, but only in Physics journals as proposed. Its application seems not known to IEEE engineers, but expects a potential application in quantum information processing, missing in citation. To me, the FQHE is not mature for IEEE Milestone's purpose as described as for the benefit of humanity.

Dae-Gwon

Final approval -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers and Brian Berg. The proposers have addressed all suggestions and concerns and this proposal is ready for milestone committee review. This will need a name inclusion review. David Bart, Milestone Advocate

more specific 2nd sentence? -- Amy Bix (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The last part of the second sentence here is pretty vague - "This groundbreaking discovery unveiled a new phase of matter — an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges — leading to a wealth of new phenomena and transformative concepts with potential applications in future technologies." As we try to tell students for when they're writing, vague hand-waving doesn't really tell you much. Is there any way to make the second part of the second sentence less vague? maybe borrow some of the wording from the abstract: "This groundbreaking discovery unveiled a new phase of matter — an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges — transforming key concepts in physics, while opening new directions in quantum computation and other potential applications."

Expert Review #3 -- Jbart64 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Eduardo Hector Fradkin is an Argentinian theoretical physicist known for working in various areas of condensed matter physics, primarily using quantum field theoretical approaches. He is a Donald Biggar Willett Professor of Physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, where he is the director of the Institute for Condensed Matter Theory, and is the author of the books Quantum Field Theory: An Integrated Approach and Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics. He earned a master's degree from the University of Buenos Aires. He completed his doctorate from Stanford University in 1979, under the supervision of Leonard Susskind, and came to the University of Illinois faculty as a postdoctoral researcher with Gordon Baym and Michael Wortis.

I received the following expert review from Dr. Fradkin on February 23, 2025 at 11:42AM:

Thank you for contacting me. I will be brief. I strongly support the proposed IEEE Milestone. The fractional quantum Hall effect is one of the most important discoveries in Physics since 1980. Its consequences, both conceptual and technological, are playing out even today. The FQH state was there first, and [it is the] best-documented, example of a topological quantum state of matter. This discovery required a complete rethinking of the way in which large assemblies of electrons behave deep in the quantum domain. In this respect, the only other comparable discovery is superconductivity. It is also an example of fundamental new physics that is made possible only by the development of cutting-edge electronic technologies. In this respect, Bell Laboratories has played a key role all along, and the IEEE Milestone marker for Bell Labs is a clear and important recognition of the discovery and of the historical role of the institution. I read the proposed text for the Plaque Citation and I agree with it. As you can see from what I write above I agree with the presented evidence for the significance of the discovery and for the historical role of Bell Laboratories. In summary I strongly support this initiative.

David Bart Milestone Advocate

Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Bberg (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The citation needed to be modified to move the persons' names to after the invention, and to improve the last sentence. Here are my proposed 66 words:

In 1982, the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures was engineered by Arthur Gossard, and then experimentally observed by Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer. This groundbreaking discovery unveiled a new phase of matter as an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges. This led to a deeper understanding of complex quantum systems, thereby enabling applications in topological quantum computing.

Brian Berg

Re: Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Jbart64 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to push back on this edit. It is not clear to a reader what is going on. I think the proposal is better stated and more succinct. In essence, two people observed the effect in something that was engineered by someone else. This is much more direct and clear. Blending the last two suggestions, I end up with:

In 1982, Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer experimentally observed the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures engineered by Arthur Gossard. This groundbreaking discovery unveiled a new phase of matter — an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges — transforming key concepts in physics, while opening new directions in quantum computation and other potential applications.

Dave Bart

Re: Re: Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Tsizer (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Replaced the current citation with one that addresses the requirement that the person(s) name follows the invention itself. Made change to the proposal from B.Berg to clarify the relationship between the three names mentioned.

Tod

Re: Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Dae-Gwon Jeong (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I would change the order of engineering and experimental observation as follows

In 1982, the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures was experimentally observed by Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer, and then engineered by Arthur Gossard. This groundbreaking discovery unveiled a new phase of matter as an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges. This led to a deeper understanding of complex quantum systems, thereby enabling applications in topological quantum computing.

Dae-Gwon

Re: Re: Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Jbart64 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion and the proposers believe they have addressed everyone's comments. I understand this is the current citation, including a small edit in the last sentence (Named..., it). I approve this version:

In 1982, research at Bell Labs made a groundbreaking discovery unveiling a new phase of matter — an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges — leading to a wealth of new phenomena and transformative concepts with potential applications in future technologies. Named the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE), it was experimentally observed by Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures engineered by Arthur Gossard.

David Bart

Re: Re: Re: Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Tsizer (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The Citation has been updated to the latest version indicated by David Bart.

Tod Sizer

Re: Re: Re: Citation Should Move the Persons' Name to After the Invention -- Amy Bix (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry - but, ick. This has three problems: 1. major run-on sentences that will be really hard to read and appreciate on a plaque, and 2) back to the vagueness of "new phenomena and transformative concepts" and 3) passive voice. How about: In 1982, research at Bell Labs revealed a new phase of matter, an incompressible quantum fluid supporting fractional charges. Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer experimentally observed this result in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures engineered by Arthur Gossard. This discovery, named the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE), transformed key concepts in physics, while opening new directions in quantum computation and other potential applications.

Updates -- Tsizer (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of the Citation agreed and entered into the proposal. Clarification in the historical section of the Justification of Names, role of Arthur Gossard, and notation of the inability to patent a fundamental result. Tod Sizer

Re: Updates -- Dmichelson (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Title of the proposed milestone:

Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, 1982

Plaque citation

In 1982, researchers at Bell Labs revealed a new phase of matter, an incompressible quantum fluid that supports fractional charges. Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer experimentally observed this result in two-dimensional electron systems confined within gallium arsenide heterostructures engineered by Arthur Gossard. This discovery, named the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE), transformed key concepts in physics, while opening new directions in quantum computation and other potential applications.

[67 words]

"In 1982, research at Bell Labs" research seems a bit cold and abstract. I suggest "research" -> "researchers"

"supporting" -> "that supports"

Re: Re: Updates -- John Vardalas (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I support this proposal as expressed in the latest version of the citation. However, I feel the “Bell Labs” should be replacerd with the formal title “Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill”. I believe that at the "Bell Laboratories" existed in several locations. I’ve added the geographical name of the location to make clear to which laboratory the citation refers.

Re: Re: Re: Updates -- Dmichelson (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

In 1982, the organization's formal name was Bell Telephone Laboratories. From 1983-1995, it was AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Having said that, the term Bell Labs was often used in formal settings, e.g., in the name of the publication Bell Labs Technical Journal. It might be worth asking Bell Labs what name they prefer in this setting.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Updates -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I approve the most recent edits and updates. Thanks everyone for your input. I can accept either Bell Labs or Bell Laboratories, since you do see both in print, although I like the more formal Bell Laboratories for a plaque. This is up to the proposer, but it should be consistent across all the Bell Labs-related milestones. Dave Bart

=Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updates -- Administrator5 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)=

Officially, prior to 1984 (as in this case), it is Bell Laboratories, Inc.

Citation updates -- Tsizer (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree to the minor changes in the citation and have made the change in the citation. I agree with Administrator5 that the name cited should be the name given at the time of the milestone and so have changed to Bell Laboratories in the citation. The current name is Nokia Bell Labs, however believe this would be inappropriate to include for past discoveries when Bell Labs was part of a different company. I've asked for internal validation of this approach and will update if I am overruled. Tod Sizer