Orientation-dependent pseudomorphic growth of InAs for use in lattice-mismatched mid-infrared photonic structures

In this study, InAs was deposited on GaAs (100) and GaAs (111)B 2 degrees towardssubstrates for the purpose of differentiating the InAs growth mode stemming from strain and then analyzed using in-situ reflection high energy electron diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, reflectance spectroscopy, and atomic force microscopy. The procession of InAs deposition throughout a range of deposition conditions results in assorted forms of strain relief revealing that, despite lattice mismatch for InAs on GaAs (approximately 7%), InAs does not necessarily result in typical quantum dot/wire formation on (111) surfaces, but instead proceeds two-dimensionally due primarily to the surface orientation

Bending and Breathing Modes of the Galactic Disk

We explore the hypothesis that a passing satellite or dark matter subhalo has excited coherent oscillations of the Milky Way's stellar disk in the direction perpendicular to the Galactic midplane. This work is motivated by recent observations of spatially dependent bulk vertical motions within ~ kpc of the Sun. A satellite can transfer a fraction of its orbital energy to the disk stars as it plunges through the Galactic midplane thereby heating and thickening the disk. Bulk motions arise during the early stages of such an event when the disk is still in an unrelaxed state. We present simple toy-model calculations and simulations of disk-satellite interactions, which show that the response of the disk depends on the relative velocity of the satellite. When the component of the satellite's velocity perpendicular to the disk is small compared with that of the stars, the perturbation is predominantly a bending mode. Conversely, breathing and higher order modes are excited when the vertical velocity of the satellite is larger than that of the stars. We argue that the compression and rarefaction motions seen in three different surveys are in fact breathing mode perturbations of the Galactic disk.Comment: 12 pages, 12 figure

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past and Present

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court\u27s Daubert\u27 decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about junk science ? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics

Fighting Legal Innumeracy

An old joke quips that lawyers go to law school precisely because they never liked math or were never good at math – and that therefore medical school (or these days, Wall Street) was not an option. While this tired joke may have a kernel of truth, I want to suggest that we should be very wary of internalizing it. Numeracy is a fundamental skill for any intelligent, engaged participant in society, and we lawyers ignore it at our peril. The term “innumeracy” was coined by Douglas Hofstadter in a 1982 article in Scientific American and perhaps made famous by John Allen Paulos. In his book, Paulos observes that while readers frequently condemn grammatical errors, wild mathematical ones often pass undetected. If this observation is true for anybody, it is definitely true for lawyers. Playing gotcha with typos is practically the official sport of the bench and bar. Yet, lawyers and courts notoriously make incorrect numerical calculations – sometimes caught, sometimes not – but generally without the same snarky rebukes.The primary focus of Hoftstadter and Paulos, however, is on the inability of the public to grapple with numbers. Accordingly, they stress the importance of estimation and orders of magnitude. For example, just how big is a billion dollars, or a trillion dollars? Or more trivially – though not so for aspiring management consultants – how many ping-pong balls will fit into a backyard swimming pool? I want to recast the numeracy problem to be a bit more lawcentric. For lawyers, numeracy should be less about numbers per se and more about statistical inference or how to interpret and understand scientific or social scientific studies

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past and Present

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court\u27s Daubert decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about junk science ? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics. To this literature, Professor Tal Golan adds Laws of Men and Laws of Nature, a welcome and much-needed book-length work on the history of scientific evidence. The book, which derives from Golan\u27s doctoral dissertation, can be roughly divided into two principal parts: The lion\u27s share concentrates on nineteenth-century developments in England and the United States, often in the context of business-related civil litigation. The remainder looks at fin de siecle America, more narrowly focusing on the relationship between the legal system and three then-emerging technologies: blood microscopy, x-rays, and lie detectors. An epilogue attempts to tie these historical discussions to the modern day Frye-Daubert debates, but it is largely an afterthought and is appropriately separated as such

Changing Scientific Evidence

A number of high-profile toxic tort cases, such as silicone breast implants, have followed a familiar and disturbing path: Early studies suggest a link between a suspected substance and a particular illness. Based on these initial studies, lawsuits are brought and juries award large judgments to various plaintiffs. Then later, more comprehensive studies find no evidence of a causal link. How should the legal system cope with this problem in which new scientific evidence calls into question previous findings of liability? These erroneous judgments seriously harm social welfare and legitimacy. Beneficial products are needlessly discontinued or are made more expensive, and public confidence is undermined by decisions entirely at odds with science. This Article observes that in a subset of cases, the legal system\u27s traditional emphasis on speedy dispute resolution and finality is brought into direct conflict with science\u27s culture of incremental study and constant reevaluation. The resulting timing mismatch is at the root of the changing scientific evidence problem. To alleviate it, the Article suggests the use of two alternative procedural devices. Courts could stay proceedings for a fixed period of time when additional confirmatory studies were anticipated. Alternatively, courts could address changing scientific evidence after final judgment through an expansion of post-judgment relief. Either of these options would enable courts to be more accommodating to the scientific process, while simultaneously spurring scientists to better serve legal inquiry