#Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences

[kriswager]

Harry Frankfurt (1929-2023)

I am sorry to see that Harry Frankfurt has died. He was a emeritus professor of philosophy at Princeton University, but most of us probably knows him from his impactful book On Bullshit. It was originally printed in Raritan, volume 06 number 2, Fall 1986 from the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences. On Bullshit is a slim volume, and brings a core message about the role of bullshit, as distinct…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Robert Lynch

Published: April 7, 2023

In my first year of graduate school at Rutgers, I attended a colloquium designed to forge connections between the cultural and biological wings of the anthropology department. It was the early 2000s, and anthropology departments across the country were splitting across disciplinary lines. These lectures would be a last, and ultimately futile, attempt to build interdisciplinary links between these increasingly hostile factions at Rutgers; it was like trying to establish common research goals for the math and art departments.

This time, it was the turn of the biological anthropologists, and the primatologist Ryne Palombit was giving a lecture for which he was uniquely qualified — infanticide in Chacma baboons. Much of the talk was devoted to sex differences in baboon behavior and when it was time for questions the hand of the chair of the department, a cultural anthropologist, shot up and demanded to know “What exactly do you mean by these so-called males and females?” I didn’t know it at the time but looking back I see that this was the beginning of a broad anti-science movement that has enveloped nearly all the social sciences and distorted public understanding of basic biology. The assumption that sex is an arbitrary category is no longer confined to the backwaters of cultural anthropology departments, and the willful ignorance of what sex is has permeated both academia and public discussion of the topic.

Male and female are not capricious categories imposed by scientists on the natural world, but rather refer to fundamental distinctions deeply rooted in evolution. The biological definition of males and females rests on the size of the sex cells, termed gametes, that they produce. Males produce large numbers of small gametes, while females produce fewer, larger ones. In animals, this means that males produce lots of tiny sperm (between 200 and 500 million sperm in humans) while females produce far fewer, but much larger, eggs called ova (women have a lifetime supply of around 400). Whenever scientists discover a new sexually reproducing species, gamete size is what they use to distinguish between the males and the females.

Although this asymmetry in gamete size may not seem that significant, it is. And it leads to a cascade of evolutionary effects that often results in fundamentally different developmental (and even behavioral) trajectories for the two respective sexes. Whether you call the two groups A and B, Big and Little, or Male and Female, this foundational cell-sized difference in gamete size has profound effects on evolution, morphology, and behavior. Sexual reproduction that involves the union of gametes of different sizes is termed anisogamy, and it sets the stage for characteristic, and frequently stereotypical, differences between males and females.

My PhD advisor, the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, was at that doomed colloquium at Rutgers. It was Trivers, who four decades earlier as a graduate student at Harvard, laid down the basic evolutionary argument in one of the most cited papers in biology. Throwing down the gauntlet and explaining something that had puzzled biologists since Darwin, he wrote, “What governs the operation of sexual selection is the relative parental investment of the sexes in their offspring.” In a single legendary stroke of insight, which he later described in biblical terms (“the scales fell from my eyes”), he revolutionized the field and provided a broad framework for understanding the emergence of sex differences across all sexually reproducing species.

Because males produce millions of sperm cells quickly and cheaply, the main factor limiting their evolutionary success lies in their ability to attract females. Meanwhile, the primary bottleneck for females, who, in humans, spend an additional nine months carrying the baby, is access to resources. The most successful males, such as Genghis Khan who is likely to have had more than 16 million direct male descendants, can invest relatively little and let the chips fall where they may, while the most successful women are restricted by the length of their pregnancy. Trivers’ genius, however, was in extracting the more general argument from these observations.

By replacing “female” with “the sex that invests more in its offspring,” he made one of the most falsifiable predictions in evolution — the sex that invests more in its offspring will be more selective when choosing a mate while the sex that invests less will compete over access to mates. That insight not only explains the rule, but it also explains the exceptions to it. Because of the initial disparity in investment (i.e., gamete size) females will usually be more selective in choosing mates. However, that trajectory can be reversed under certain conditions, and sometimes the male of a species will invest more in offspring and so be choosier.

When these so-called sex role reversals occur, such as in seahorses where the males “get pregnant” by having the female transfer her fertilized eggs into a structure termed the male’s brood pouch and hence becoming more invested in their offspring, it is the females who are larger and compete over mates, while the males are more selective. Find a species where the sex that invests less in offspring is choosier, and the theory will be disproven.

The assertion that male and female are arbitrary classifications is false on every level. Not only does it confuse primary sexual characteristics (i.e., the reproductive organs) which are unambiguously male or female at birth 99.8 percent of the time with secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., more hair on the faces of men or larger breasts in women), it ignores the very definition of biological sex — men produce many small sex cells termed sperm while women produce fewer large sex cells termed eggs. Although much is sometimes made of the fact that sex differences in body size, hormonal profiles, behavior, and lots of other traits vary across species, that these differences are minimal or non-existent in some species, or that a small percentage of individuals, due to disorders of development, possess an anomalous mix of female and male traits, that does not undermine this basic distinction. There is no third sex. Sex is, by definition, binary.

In the 50 years since Trivers’ epiphany, much has tried to obscure his crucial insight. As biology enters a golden age, with daily advances in genotyping transforming our understanding of evolution and medicine, the social sciences have taken a vastly different direction. Many are now openly hostile to findings outside their narrow field, walling off their respective disciplines from biological knowledge. Why bother learning about new findings in genetics or incorporating discoveries from other fields, if you can assert that all such findings are, by definition, sexist?

Prior to 1955, gender was almost exclusively used to refer to grammatical categories (e.g., masculine and feminine nouns in French). A major shift occurred in the 1960s when the word gender has been applied to distinguish social/cultural differences from biological differences (sex). Harvard Biologist, David Haig documented that from 1988 to 1999 the ratio of the use of “sex” versus “gender” in scientific journals shrank from 10 to 1 to less than 2 to 1, and that after 1988 gender outnumbered sex in all social science journals. The last twenty years have seen a rapid acceleration in this trend, and today this distinction is rarely observed. Indeed, the biological concept of sex in reference to humans has become largely taboo outside of journals that focus on evolution. Many, however, are not content with limiting the gender concept to humans and a new policy instituted by all Nature journals requires that manuscripts include a discussion of how gender was considered in all studies with human participants, on other vertebrates, or on cell lines. When would including gender be appropriate in a genetic study of fruit flies?

This change is not merely stylistic. Rather, it is part of a much larger cultural and political movement that denies or attempts to explain away the effects of biology and evolution in humans altogether. The prevailing dominant view in the social sciences is that human sex differences are entirely socially constructed. In that interpretation, all differential outcomes between men and women are the result of unequal social, economic, and political conditions, and so we do all we can to eliminate them, particularly by changing our expectations and encouraging gender-neutral play in children. This received wisdom and policies based upon it, however, are unlikely to produce the results proponents long for. Why is that?

Because sex differences in behavior are among the strongest effect sizes in social, and what might be better termed, behavioral sciences. Humans are notoriously inept at understanding differences between continuous variables, so it is first useful to define precisely what “statistical differences between men and women” does and does not mean. Although gamete size and the reproductive organs in humans are either male or female at birth in over 99 percent of cases, many secondary sexual characteristics such as differences in upper body strength and differences in behavior are not so differentially distributed. Rather, there is considerable overlap between men and women. Life scientists often use something called the effect size as a way to determine if any observed differences are large (and therefore consequential) or so small as to be ignored for almost all practical purposes.

Conceptually, the effect size is a statistical method for comparing any two groups to see how substantially different they are. Graphically, it can be thought of as the distance between the peaks of the two distributions divided by the width of those distributions. For example, men are on average about 6 inches taller than women in the United States (mean height for American women is 5 feet 3 inches and the mean height for American men is approximately 5 feet 9 inches). The spread of the height distributions for men and women, also known as the standard deviations, are also somewhat different, and this is slightly higher for men at 2.9 inches vs 2.8 inches for women. For traits such as height that are normally distributed (that is, they fit the familiar bell curve shape), one standard deviation on either side of the mean encompasses about 68 percent of the distribution, while two standard deviations on either side of the mean encompass 95 percent of the total distribution. In other words, 68 percent of women will be between 60.2 inches and 65.8 inches tall, and 95 percent will be between 57.5 to 68.6 inches. So, in a random sample of 1000 adult women in the U.S., approximately 50 of them will be taller than the average man (see figure above).

A large effect size, or the standardized mean difference, is anything over 0.8 and is usually seen as an effect that most people would notice without using a calculator. The effect size for sex differences in height is approximately 1.9. This is considered to be a pretty big effect size. But it is certainly not binary, and there are lots of taller-than-average women who are taller than lots of shorter-than-average men (see overlap area in figure). Therefore, when determining whether an effect is small or large, it is important to remember that the cutoffs are always to some degree arbitrary and that what might seem like small differences between the means can become magnified when comparing the number of cases that fall in the extremes of (the tails of their respective distributions) of each group.

In other words, men and women may, on average, be quite similar on a given trait but will be quite different in the number who fall at the extreme (low and high) ends of their respective distributions. This is particularly true of sex differences because natural selection acts more strongly on men, and males have had higher reproductive variance than females over our evolutionary history. That is to say that a greater number of men than women have left no descendants, while a very few men have left far more. Both the maximum number of eggs that a woman produces over the course of her reproductive life versus the number of sperm a man produces and the length of pregnancy, during which another reproduction cannot occur, place an upper limit on the number of offspring women can have. What this means is that males often have wider distributions for a trait (i.e., more at the low end and more at the high end) so that sex differences can be magnified at the tail ends of the distribution. In practical terms, this means that when comparing men and women, it is also important to look at the tails of their respective distributions (e.g., the extremes in mental ability).

The strongest effect sizes where men tend to have the advantage are in physical abilities such as throwing distance or speed, spatial relations tasks, and some social behaviors such as assertiveness. Women, meanwhile, tend to have an edge in verbal ability, social cognition, and in being more extroverted, trusting, and nurturing. Some of the largest sex differences, however, are in human mate choice and behaviors that emerge out of the evolutionary logic of Trivers’ parental investment theory. In study after study, women are found to give more weight to traits in partners that signal an ability to acquire resources, such as socioeconomic status and ambition, while men tend to give more weight to traits that signal fertility, such as youth and attractiveness.

Indeed these attitudes are also revealed in behavior such as age at marriage (men are on average older than women in every country on earth), frequency of masturbation, indulging in pornography, and paying for sex. Although these results are often dismissed, largely on ideological grounds, the science is rarely challenged, and the data suggest some biological difference (which may be amplified, indeed enshrined, by social practices).

The evidence that many sex differences in behavior have a biological origin is powerful. There are three primary ways that scientists use to determine whether a trait is rooted in biology or not. The first is if the same pattern is seen across cultures. This is because the likelihood that a particular characteristic, such as husbands being older than their wives, is culturally determined declines every time the same pattern is seen in another society — somewhat like the odds of getting heads 200 times in a row. The second indication that a trait has a biological origin is if it is seen in young children who have not yet been fully exposed to a given culture. For example, if boy babies are more aggressive than girl babies, which they generally are, it suggests that the behavior may have a biological basis. Finally, if the same pattern, such as males being more aggressive than females, is observed in closely related species, it also suggests an evolutionary basis. While some gender role “theories” can attempt to account for culturally universal sex differences, they cannot explain sex differences that are found in infants who haven’t yet learned to speak, as well as in the young of other related species.

Many human sex differences satisfy all three conditions — they are culturally universal, are observable in newborns, and a similar pattern is seen in apes and other mammals. The largest sex differences found with striking cross-cultural similarity are in mate preferences, but other differences arise across societies and among young children before the age of three as boys and girls tend to self-segregate into different groups with distinct and stereotypical styles. These patterns, which include more play fighting in males, are observable in other apes and mammal species, which, like humans, follow the logic of Trivers’ theory of parental investment and have higher variance in male reproduction, and therefore more intense competition among males as compared to females.

If so, why then has the opposite message — that these differences are either non-existent or solely the result of social construction — been so vehemently argued? The reason, I submit, is essentially political. The idea that any consequential differences between men and women have no foundation in biology has wide appeal because it fosters the illusion of control. If gender role “theories” are correct, then all we need to do to eliminate them is to modify the social environment (e.g., give kids gender-neutral toys, and the problem is solved). If, however, sex differences are hardwired into human nature, they will be more difficult to change.

Acknowledging the role of biology also opens the door to conceding the possibility that the existence of statistically unequal outcomes for men and women are not just something to be expected but may even be…desirable. Consider the so-called gender equality paradox whereby sex differences in personality and occupation are higher in countries with greater opportunities for women. Countries with the highest gender equality,24 such as Finland, have the lowest proportion of women who graduate college with degrees in stereotypically masculine STEM fields, while the least gender equal countries such as Saudi Arabia, have the highest. Similarly, the female-to-male sex ratio in stereotypically female occupations such nursing is 40 to 1 in Scandinavia, but only 2 to 1 in countries like Morocco.

The above numbers are consistent with cross-cultural research that indicates that women are, on average, more attracted to professions focused on people such as medicine and biology, while men are, again, on average, more attracted to professions focused on things such as mathematics and engineering. These findings are not a matter of dispute, but they are inconvenient for gender role theorists because they suggest that women and men have different preferences upon which they act when given the choice. Indeed, it is only a “paradox” if one assumes that sex is entirely socially constructed. As opportunities for women opened up in Europe and the United States in the sixties and seventies, employment outcomes changed rapidly. However, the proportions of men and women in various fields stabilized sometime around the early 1990s and have barely moved in the last thirty years. These findings imply that there is a limited capacity for outside interventions imposed from the top down to alter these behaviors.

In the cold logic of evolution, neither sex is, or can be, better or worse. Although this may not be the kind of equality some might want, we need to move beyond simplistic ideas of hierarchy.

It is understandable, however, for some to fear that any concession to nature will be used to justify and perpetuate bias and discrimination. Although arguments for why women should be prohibited from certain types of employment or why they should not be allowed to vote were ideological, sex differences have been used to justify a number of historical injustices. Still, is the fear of abuse so great that denying any biological sex differences is the only alternative?

The rhetorical contortions and inscrutable jargon required to assert that gender and sex are nothing more than chosen identities and deny what every parent knows require increasingly complex and incoherent arguments. This not only subverts the public’s rapidly waning confidence in science, but it also leads to extreme exaggerations designed to silence those who don’t agree, such as the claim that discussing biological differences is violence. The lengths to which many previously trusted institutions, such as the American Medical Association, go to deny the impact that hormones have on development are extraordinary. These efforts are also likely to backfire politically when gender-neutral terms are mandated by elites, such as the term “Latinx,” which is opposed by 98 percent of Hispanic Americans.

Acknowledging the existence of a biological basis for sex differences does not mean that we should accept unequal opportunities for men and women. Indeed, the crux of the problem lies in conflating equality with statistical identity and in our failure to respect and value difference. These differences should not be ranked in terms of inferior or superior, nor do they have any bearing on the worth or dignity of men and women as a group. They cannot be categorized as being either good or bad because it depends on which traits you want to optimize. This is real diversity that we should acknowledge and even celebrate.

Ever since the origin of sexual reproduction approximately two billion years ago, sexual selection, governed by an initial disparity in the size of the sex cells, has driven a cascade of differences, a few absolute, many more statistical, between males and females. As a result, men and women have been experiencing distinct evolutionary pressures. At the same time, however, this process has ruthlessly enforced an equality between the sexes, ensured by the fact that it takes one male and one female to reproduce, which guarantees the equal average reproduction of men and women. The production of sons and daughters, who inherit a near equal split of their parents’ genetic material, also demands that mothers and fathers contribute equally to their same- and their opposite-sex children. In the cold logic of evolution, neither sex is, or can be, better or worse. Although this may not be the kind of equality some might want, we need to move beyond simplistic ideas of hierarchy, naively confusing difference with claims of inferiority/superiority, or confusing dominance with power. In the currency of evolution, better just means more copies, dominance only matters if it leads to more offspring, and there are many paths to power.

The assertion that children are born without sex and are molded into gender roles by their parents is wildly implausible. It undermines what little public trust in science remains and delegitimizes other scientific claims. If we can’t be honest about something every parent knows, what else might we be lying about? Confusion about this issue leads to inane propositions, such as a pro-choice doctor testifying to Congress asserting that men can give birth. When people are shamed into silence about the obvious male advantages in almost all sports (but note women do as well or better in small bore rifle competition, and no man can match the flexibility of female gymnasts) and when transgender women compete in women’s sports, it endangers the vulnerable. When children are taught that all sex differences are entirely grounded in mere identity (whether self-chosen or culturally-imposed) and are in no way the result of biology, more “masculine” girls and more “feminine” boys may become confused about their sex, or sexual orientation, and harmful stereotypes can take over. The sudden rapid rise in the number of young girls diagnosed with gender dysphoria is a warning sign of how dangerously disoriented our culture can become.

Pathologizing gender nonconforming behavior often does the opposite of what proponents intend by creating stereotypes where none existed. Boys are told that if they like dolls, they are really girls trapped with male organs, while girls who display interests in sports or science are told they are boys trapped with female organs and born in the wrong body. Feminine boys, who might end up being homosexual, are encouraged to start down the road towards irreversible medical interventions, hormone blockers, and infertility. Like gay conversion therapy before, such practices can shame individuals for feeling misaligned with their birth sex and encourage them to resort to hormone “therapy” and/or surgery to change their bodies to reflect this new identity. Can that be truly seen as progressive and liberating?

The push for a biologically sexless society is an arrogant utopian vision that cuts us off from our evolutionary history, promotes the delusion that humans are not animals, and undercuts respecting each individual for their unique individuality. Sex is neither simply a matter of socialization, nor a personal choice. Making such assertions without understanding the profound role that an initial biological asymmetry in gamete size plays in sexual selection is neither scientific nor sensible. 

-

Robert Lynch is an evolutionary anthropologist at Penn State who specializes in how biology, the environment, and culture transact to shape life outcomes. His scientific research includes the effect of religious beliefs on social mobility, sex differences in social relationships, the impact of immigration on social capital, how social isolation can promote populism, and the evolutionary function of laughter.

==

I've said before that I learned more about evolution as a result of combatting evolution denial from the religious than I ever did at school. It's similarly true that I've learned more about sex, biology, chromosomes, genes and hormones as a result of the sex-denialism and anti-science attitudes of the gender cult.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Bisexual individuals may feel discriminated against and have high rates of stress and depression because they believe that their sexual identity is often questioned or denied by others, according to a Rutgers study.

“Our findings suggest that the unique experiences of discrimination that bisexual individuals deal with on a regular basis may negatively impact their own feelings of acceptance in the world and their mental health,” said Melanie Maimon, lead researcher and a graduate student of social psychology at Rutgers.

The study, which appears in the journal Self and Identity, is among the first to examine and find that concerns about belonging are associated with depressive symptoms for bisexual people.

The researchers found that bisexual individuals experienced identity denial, which made them feel less accepted and open to greater depressive symptoms, according to the study.

Across two samples, 445 bisexual individuals were recruited and participated in an online questionnaire. The participants responded to inquires about their experiences with identity denial, how much they thought others endorsed negative stereotypes about bisexuality, their thoughts on societal beliefs that bisexuality is not a legitimate identity and their concerns about their belonging. Participants were also asked to indicate any depressive symptoms that arose after they realized their sexual orientation.

The study asked questions such as, “When your sexuality comes up in conversation, how frequently have others said or implied that you’re just confused about your sexuality?” and “To what extent do you think that other people believe that people who identify as bisexual are cheaters?”.

Rutgers researchers found that bisexual individuals who experience identity denial are more likely to believe that society endorses negative stereotypes about them, such as the belief that bisexuality is not a real sexual orientation and that bisexuals are actually heterosexual, gay or lesbian.

Past work has found that bisexual individuals tend to have higher rates of mood disorders than do heterosexuals, gay individuals and lesbians. These findings may help explain why this difference in mental health may occur, Maimon said.

“With a better understanding of the relationships between depressive symptoms, identity denial, uncertainty about belonging and beliefs that society has negative views of bisexuality, we can attempt to reduce the negative experiences that seem to be harming bisexuals and their mental health,” said Diana Sanchez, coauthor and professor of psychology at Rutgers–New Brunswick’s School of Arts and Sciences.

The researchers recommended the general public be open-minded when interacting with people who are bisexual, learn more about bisexuality and respect how bisexual individuals choose to identify.

The study’s coauthors included Analia Albjua and Kristina Howansky, graduate students of social psychology at Rutgers.

[evoldir]

Fwd: Job: RutgersU.EvolutionaryMedicine

Begin forwarded message: > From: evoldir@evol.biology.mcmaster.ca > Subject: Job: RutgersU.EvolutionaryMedicine > Date: 4 September 2024 at 07:19:52 BST > To: rdmpage@gmail.com > > > The Department of Genetics in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers, > The State University of New Jersey in Piscataway, NJ invites applications > for an outstanding tenure-track Assistant Professor in Genetics. > > We seek a researcher who leverages genetic and/or computational > biology methods to investigate infectious and/or chronic human > disease within an evolutionary framework. Relevant research > programs would involve human or model organisms with a focus > including, but not limited to, topics such as genetic variation, > epigenetics, comparative genomics, reproduction, host-pathogen > and/or vector co-evolution, and aging/degeneration. Candidates whose > work involves the impact of rapid climate and/or environmental > change on human health are especially encouraged to apply. This > hire is part of a new faculty cluster in Evolutionary Medicine > (https://ift.tt/2WncXYS) > that will catalyze research and teaching initiatives at Rutgers > University aimed at developing innovative approaches to the treatment of > chronic and acute illnesses. Other departments in the cluster include > the Rutgers Departments of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, > Anthropology, Biochemistry & Microbiology, the Rutgers Health departments > of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Psychiatry, and the Institute > for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases. > > New faculty may leverage partnerships between the Department of Genetics > and areas of existing strength at Rutgers, including the Center for Human > Evolutionary Studies, the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, > the Institute for Food Nutrition and Health, the School of Public Health, > the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute and the > Rutgers Global Health Institute. > > We are part of a vibrant, diverse, and interactive research community > at Rutgers, an elite research institution, topping $929 million > in yearly research funding (FY’23). Rutgers Life and Biomedical > Sciences includes over 200 faculty members across multiple outstanding > departments and institutes. Our 25 departmental faculty drive federally > funded research programs in many areas of genetics and genomics. See > https://ift.tt/4zA0x6E for a full description of departmental > research. Core resources, start-up funds, and modern laboratory space > will be provided. > > Rutgers University hosts one of the most diverse student bodies > in the United States. We are committed to diversity, equity, > and inclusion, as outlined in the Rutgers DEI strategic plan > (https://ift.tt/MNQcC9Y). We especially encourage > applications from those with backgrounds underrepresented in STEM, > including Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, female, and LGBTQ+ scientists. > > Applicants should submit a CV, a 2-3 page statement of research > interests, a teaching statement, full contact information for three > individuals willing to provide letters of reference, and a separate > statement addressing ways in which your research, teaching, and service > will foster connections with and engage our diverse student body as > well as contribute to Rutgers’ commitment to enhancing diversity and > inclusiveness (broadly construed). Review of applications will begin on > October 15th and continue until the position is filled; timely submission > of materials is recommended. > > https://ift.tt/fijNlnQ > > Christopher Ellison

[vizstara]

Vizstara: Your Pathway to Success in Dental Schools, New Jersey

Are you considering a career in dentistry and looking to pursue your education in New Jersey? Choosing the right dental school is crucial for laying a solid foundation for your future career. In New Jersey, several prestigious institutions offer excellent dental programs that cater to aspiring dentists' needs. Whether you're a local resident or considering relocating to the Garden State for your studies, understanding your options and making an informed decision is key to your success.

Exploring Dental Education in New Jersey

New Jersey boasts a range of dental schools that are renowned for their academic excellence and comprehensive dental programs. These institutions not only focus on theoretical knowledge but also emphasize hands-on clinical experience, preparing students to become competent and skilled dental professionals. Here's a look at some of the leading dental schools in the state:

Rutgers School of Dental Medicine: Located in Newark, Rutgers offers a diverse range of dental programs, including Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) and postgraduate residency programs. Known for its state-of-the-art facilities and research opportunities, Rutgers provides a rigorous academic environment that fosters learning and innovation.

Fairleigh Dickinson University School of Dentistry: Situated in Teaneck, FDU's School of Dentistry provides a collaborative learning environment with a focus on community engagement and patient-centered care. The school offers programs designed to equip students with the skills needed to address oral health challenges in diverse populations.

New Jersey Dental School: Part of Rutgers University, this institution in Newark offers a comprehensive dental education curriculum that integrates basic sciences with clinical practice. The school is committed to serving the local community through its clinics and outreach programs, providing students with valuable hands-on experience.

Join best dental schools in new jersey

Why Choose Vizstara for Your Dental Education?

Among the various options available, Vizstara stands out as a premier destination for aspiring dentists. Here’s why:

Holistic Approach to Education: Vizstara adopts a holistic approach to dental education, combining rigorous academic training with practical clinical experience. The curriculum is designed to ensure that students not only excel in theoretical knowledge but also develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills essential for modern dental practice.

State-of-the-Art Facilities: The campus at Vizstara is equipped with cutting-edge facilities, including simulation labs and dental clinics that replicate real-world practice settings. Students have access to advanced technology and equipment, preparing them to handle complex dental procedures with confidence.

Expert Faculty: The faculty members at Vizstara are experienced professionals and experts in their respective fields. They are dedicated to mentoring and guiding students throughout their academic journey, offering valuable insights and personalized support.

Clinical Rotations and Internships: Vizstara places a strong emphasis on clinical training through rotations and internships at affiliated hospitals and dental clinics across New Jersey. This hands-on experience allows students to apply their knowledge in a practical setting under the supervision of seasoned professionals.

Student Life at Vizstara

Beyond academics, Vizstara offers a vibrant student life experience that fosters personal growth and camaraderie among students. From student clubs and organizations to social events and volunteer opportunities, there are plenty of ways to enrich your educational experience and build lasting connections within the dental community.

Conclusion

Choosing Vizstara for your dental education in New Jersey is more than just a decision; it’s a pathway to success in the field of dentistry. With a commitment to excellence, state-of-the-art facilities, and a supportive learning environment, Vizstara prepares you to make a meaningful impact in oral healthcare. Whether you aspire to specialize in orthodontics, periodontics, or general dentistry, Vizstara provides the resources and guidance you need to achieve your career goals.

[lboogie1906]

Dr. Randal D. Pinkett (born April 9, 1971) is a business consultant who was the winner of season four of the reality television show The Apprentice. He is the first African American to win the US version of The Apprentice.

With an educational background in engineering and business, he is both a Rhodes Scholar and a Walter Byers Scholar. Before entering the reality show, he had established a business career and had become co-founder of the business consulting firm BCT Partners. As winner of The Apprentice Season 4, he undertook a yearlong apprenticeship with Trump Entertainment Resorts.

He has continued as chairman and CEO of BCT Partners, while acting as a public speaker and appearing on later editions of the show, and on CEO Exchange.

He graduated from Hightstown High School. He graduated from Rutgers University summa cum laude, with a BS in Electrical Engineering. He is the first African American from Rutgers to become a Rhodes Scholar. He graduated from the University of Oxford, where he earned an MS in Computer Science. He graduated with an MS in Electrical Engineering and an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management through the Leaders for Global Operations program. He continued his education at MIT, where he earned a Ph.D. in Media Arts and Sciences from the MIT Media Laboratory.

He was an academic All-American at Rutgers. He was named a member of the USA TODAY All-USA Academic Team and he was a member of the Cap and Skull organization. He served as President of MEET, the Rutgers Chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers, and was the captain of the Rutgers varsity men’s track and field team, competing both as a high jumper and long jumper. He was named Arthur Ashe Jr. Sports Scholar by Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. He was the male Walter Byers Scholarship winner as the NCAA’s top scholar-athlete. He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. He was given the Paul Robeson Leadership Award by Concerned Black Men of Massachusetts.

He and his wife, Zahara have a daughter. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha

[ruhonorscollnb]

Honors College Affinity Groups—A Place to Connect

By Bianca Caproni

Class of 2024, School of Arts and Sciences, Member of the Honors College

While working as a Resident Assistant, I walk through the Honors College and often see our lounges full with groups of students casually chatting with each other.

However, for students with underrepresented identities, finding a ‘group’ to be a part of here at Rutgers or knowing where to look for others with shared experiences can be hard. 

Over the last few years, I’ve helped to develop this community through the Honors College’s Affinity Groups, where we strive to create diverse and inclusive spaces for students who identify as Asian, Black, Latinx, LGBTQ+, and international. Our groups provide affirming communities where students can foster connections and enhance their sense of belonging. You can see the Affinity Group student leaders here in this photo with me!

College can be an especially exciting (and sometimes scary) time for understanding one’s identity.

Luckily, I also found the Organization of Luso-Americans and Gen HC, the Honors College’s first-generation college student support program. Involvement in groups like these has been important for me to connect with other students.

As an affinity lead, I found our meeting space to be a time for crucial conversations and check-ins, both from me to student members and from students to other students. The day-to-day in college can be pretty hectic, and there are some days when you don’t get the chance to have an intentional interaction with your peers. However, the Affinity Group meeting space is meant to offer this opportunity in students’ busy schedules. The Honors College and its Affinity Groups are a home base for students to begin exploring the many opportunities at their fingertips, with peers and mentors in these spaces supporting them along their journeys. 

What I’ve found most exciting about being a student leader is to see new students grow from shy, uncertain first-years to confident student leaders. Some of my own mentees, residents, and students have gone on to lead Affinity Groups or other groups around campus, and it is so exciting to see them put in the work of building community here at the Honors College and Rutgers at large. 

Learn more about the Honors College Affinity Groups on our website.

[myfeeds]

For type 2 diabetics who exercise some approaches are better than others

The study, published in The American Journal of Medicine, provides a comprehensive but straightforward summary of the benefits of exercise on controlling blood glucose levels in people with Type 2 diabetes. “The challenge with this is that most, if not all, people know exercise is good for them but they don’t know the best approach,” said Steven Malin, an associate professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Health at the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences and an author of the study. “We targeted this issue by focusing on a few key parameters: the utility of aerobics versus weightlifting, the time of day that is optimal for exercise, whether to exercise before or after meals and whether we have to lose weight to get benefits or not.” As part of the analysis, researchers sifted through dozens of studies and extracted common conclusions. Some of the key findings include: Habitual aerobic exercise: Physical activity, such as cycling, swimming and walking, that increases the heart rate and the body’s use of oxygen helps manage blood glucose. Resistance exercise: Working muscles using an opposing force such as dumbbells, resistance bands or a person’s own body weight benefits insulin sensitivity in those with Type 2 diabetes. Movement throughout the day by breaking up sitting time benefits blood glucose control and insulin levels. Performing exercise later in the day can result in better control of blood sugar levels as well as improve insulin sensitivity. “In short, any movement is good and more is generally better,” Malin said. “The combination of aerobic exercise and weightlifting is likely better than either alone. Exercise in the afternoon might work better than exercise in the morning for glucose control, and exercise after a meal may help slightly more than before a meal. And, you don’t have to lose weight to see the benefits of exercise. That is because exercise can lower body fat and increase muscle mass.” More than 37 million Americans have diabetes, and between 90 and 95 percent have Type 2 diabetes, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. People with Type 2 diabetes are insulin resistant, meaning that their cells don’t respond normally to insulin, a hormone that controls the level of sugar, or glucose, in the blood. High blood sugar is damaging to the body and can cause serious health issues. While insulin resistance is harmful, scientists believe increased insulin sensitivity is beneficial. High insulin sensitivity allows the cells of the body to use blood glucose more effectively, reducing blood sugar. Malin researches insulin sensitivity and teaches kinesiology, the study of human movement. He and several other faculty members at Rutgers support the concept of “exercise as medicine.” The idea, which is supported by the American College of Sports Medicine and is increasingly being borne out by research, is that exercise can be considered a first-line therapy. “I’m one of those individuals who subscribes to that notion, and in that way, I think of exercise as a drug,” Malin said. Malin and colleagues authored the study to offer the medical community up-to-date practical advice for their patients. “Together, this idea of exercise timing and type is important because it helps medical professionals more accurately recommend exercise prescriptions to combat high blood glucose,” Malin said. Other Rutgers researchers on the study included: Afsheen Syeda, a graduate student in the Department of Nutritional Sciences in the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences; Daniel Battillo, a graduate student in the Department of Kinesiology and Health; and Aayush Visaria, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He conducted the research as a postdoctoral fellow with the Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research.

[deepikapawar]

Sanskrit Language is finding its way back to People’s Tongues

The letters and akharas used for creating Sanskrit are the most precise. It has already been incorporated into the Brahmi and Devanagari scripts. This is a global acknowledgment of the language, which even the computational language has adopted. Sanskrit has long been employed for therapeutic purposes, whether psychological or spiritual. The Globe accepted it and incorporated it into their daily lives through their practice of yoga and meditation. Many people are enrolling for Sanskrit courses online, where they can learn every aspect of the language in any form of communication.

One thing that makes Sanskrit different from other languages is its clarity. The fact that Sanskrit is not an object-specific language is among its most significant characteristics in this regard. Aspirant can take up Sanskrit course online helping to gain the insight of the traditional language.

Use of Clear Language in Today’s Time

Sanskrit has numerous words for the same object. Most people believe that this makes learning Sanskrit challenging because there isn’t consistency among the different terms that could be used to refer to a specific object. Though, it clarifies and narrows the meaning.

One of the significant examples of how Sanskrit is back in today’s time is its use at NASA. Since Sanskrit adheres to strict grammar rules and has an ordered syntax, it will be much more appropriate for use in artificial intelligence (AI) for space communication. The meaning remains the same even if you rearrange the words in a Sanskrit sentence. NASA has long expressed interest in Sanskrit. As a result, there is less ambiguity, even though Sanskrit never asks about the topic of ambiguity because words and sentences always mean the same thing.

Use of Sanskrit in AI

In AI, natural language is developed to strengthen logical relationships with scientific accuracy. The deployment of the Lisp language in the operation of AI presented numerous difficulties. Sanskrit is an accurate language, and as AI evolves, much progress needs to be made. By now, the program ought to be finished. The addition of Sanskrit is flawless and will undoubtedly give the work an advantage. The comment raised by NASA Sanskrit Correction is accurate, even though the agency has not yet released an official statement. It still needs to be determined how AI evolved and how it came to function like a human.

Use of Sanskrit in Art

Not just science but art is also adopting Sanskrit as a part of communication. At the Habitat International Film Festival in Delhi, many movies were shown, including the Sanskrit movie Taya. The film about a Namboodiri woman was presented at the international film festivals in Bengaluru and Kolkata, receiving a lot of positive feedback.

A film festival specifically for Sanskrit movies has been developed in response to the increase of powerful movies in the language. Rashtriya Sanskrit Chalachitra Utsav (Film Festival), the first Sanskrit film festival, was held in Ujjain to promote and honor Sanskrit cinema. A Sanskrit translation of the Spanish epic Don Quixote was unveiled when Luis Garca Montero, director general of the Instituto Cervantes in Spain, visited Delhi in July this year. The novel explores idealism vs. materialism, life and death, and other universal themes. Sanskrit experts Nityanand Shastri and Jagaddhar Zadoo translated the text. Eight chapters from the book’s first section are translated into contemporary Sanskrit in the current edition.

India’s PM Narendra Modi, too, pressed on the Sanskrit language learning. He named Irish national Rutger Kortenhorst, a Sanskrit scholar who teaches Sanskrit in Ireland. He also named professor Shriman Boris Zakharin, a Sanskrit teacher at Moscow State University in Russia, who successfully published many books and research papers while also mentioning the Sydney Sanskrit School in Australia, where the language is taught.

Sanskrit studies are now offered at several prestigious institutions in the country where the language originated, including the IITs and Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU).

Sanskrit — The Past and Future

One of the oldest languages still in use, Sanskrit has made a significant impact on the development of Indian culture and civilization. But even now, its elegance, reason, and nearly faultless construction have a worldwide allure. Sanskrit is used correctly in daily life and can give its user more imagination and creativity, clearer thinking, deeper attention, and better memory.

Sanskrit improves students’ ability and comprehension in science, math, and computers, as well as their self-awareness, speech clarity, language skills, and capacity for logical thought. Additionally, Sanskrit speaking course helps students develop a deeper understanding of who they are and the world around them. These are enduring traits.

Conclusion

One of the best ways to learn the deeper aspect of Sanskrit is by taking spoken Sanskrit classes from expert tutors. Sanskrit speaking course by Sanskrit Shiksha is the best medium to learn the language and bring it back in today’s time.

[deniigi]

Hi Dr. Matt! I absolutely adore all your verses, they are beautifully written and comforting in a very real-life way. I am here to seek academic wisdom however! I am an undergrad who hopes to apply to grad school next year. I feel kind of behind in academia tho. What are your top suggestions to try and accomplish in undergrad to get into a good graduate program? I have a high GPA but my school is kind of lacking on the research front. I am first gen college in my family and kinda struggling :^)

Hi Anon!

1) No need to feel behind in Academia. We have a toxic culture that already makes everyone feel behind enough as it is ❤ If I could give any potential grad student one piece of advice it would be not to partake in that sort of grind/perpetually-catching-up culture.

2) these are great questions! And it all comes down to the type of institution you are applying to for graduate school and what you are applying for (Masters of Arts, Masters of Science, PhD, etc).

There are different levels of schools, although it's never really explained what they are (hidden curriculum like WOAH).

Essentially you have state-level schools like a state universities, private institutions like Brown or Rice, and then like hyper liberal institutions like the Open University.

If you want to do a PhD, I'm not gonna lie: it often pays to do it at a high-level research institution like the University of California or Yale or Rutgers etc. But if you're looking to do an Masters and don't have plans to get into academia (for example, you need the Masters for the job you want like to go into counseling or to become a professional artist), then it is WAY WAY cheaper to do that shit at a state university or the hippie equivalent in your area (lookin' at you, Open Uni. It's okay babe, if I had to do another master's I'd pick you every time).

So depending on the institution(s) you're applying to, your preparation requirements will change.

Generally speaking, if you're going into an MA or MS at a mid-level university, then you don't actually need to have that much research experience.

Here is what a typical Master's application requires from you:

Application

Writing Sample

CV/Resume

2-3 Letters of Recommendation (1-2 from Academic sources like professors preferred)

Possibly a personal statement, this varies from school to school.

Possibly GRE scores. Also varies from school to school.

In terms of building up your CV to be competitive: maybe a conference or publishing a paper in a student journal your last year would be good, but you don't have to like, be published in Nature or some shit.

If you can join a few academic honor societies (example, for history we have Phi Alpha Theta: https://phialphatheta.org/ go ahead and google your field + university-level honor society to see what you can join) and get involved with doing assistant research work for a professor or the library or a local institution, that will help too.

What you for sure want to do for sure if you're planning on doing an MA, is to try to write at least one long/significant research paper your final year of undergrad so that you'll have a writing sample for your chosen institutions. The more feedback you get on that sample, the better. This is where the Admissions folks are going to gauge your research skills. A lot of people just use papers they wrote for class and they tweak them a little before submission.

Now, let's say that you're a fucking beast who's trying to go straight from Undergrad to PhD (which I don't actually recommend btw, but that's a whole different conversation), in this case, you want to do everything outlined above but harder. And on top of that, you want to be really sure to start looking at potential funding sources. PhDs in the US will sometimes only accept you if you demonstrate you have money or are going to come into money. But under NO circumstance would I ever recommend self-funding your PhD.

There is not one good reason to do this. I don't give a singular shit what anyone has to say. If you aren't paid to do your PhD, don't do it.

That being said, you can take out loans for your Masters, but a lot of schools have scholarships and fellowships that you can earn during your masters to help you pay for tuition etc. Just be aware that Masters-level programs are rarely covered by Subsidized financial aid.

What that means is that when you complete your FAFSA in the US, many students are awarded money that they do not have to pay back (these are often called grants). These grants are very seldom available to people pursuing post-graduate degrees, so expect to be offered loan money and work out how you're going to pay for everything else (for example there are scholarships for folks who want to become STEM teacher or internal scholarships for folks who demonstrate strong academic progress once they're in their departments. I funded my MA via loans, getting merit fellowships and working part-time).

If you want more specific advice, I'm happy to help more, but these are probably some of the more important things to be aware of/get involved with if you're planning on grad school. Let me know if you want me to cover any additional issues!

[matthewskorny]

Matthew Skorny is a third-year student at Rutgers University School of Arts and Sciences, pursuing a degree in economics. He is looking to get an internship the summer after his junior year of college. 

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Exotic “Blinking” Crystals May Convert CO2 Into Fuels, Power Quantum Computers

Unusual nanoparticles could benefit the quest to build a quantum computer.

Imagine tiny crystals that “blink” like fireflies and can convert carbon dioxide, a key cause of climate change, into fuels.

A Rutgers-led team has created ultra-small titanium dioxide crystals that exhibit unusual “blinking” behavior and may help to produce methane and other fuels, according to a study in the journal Angewandte Chemie. The crystals, also known as nanoparticles, stay charged for a long time and could benefit efforts to develop quantum computers.

“Our findings are quite important and intriguing in a number of ways, and more research is needed to understand how these exotic crystals work and to fulfill their potential,” said senior author Tewodros (Teddy) Asefa, a professor in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University–New Brunswick. He’s also a professor in the Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering in the School of Engineering.

Read more.

[hollywoodorthodontics]

Meet Dr. Peter Feibish

I appreciate the fact that my patients allow me to become a part of their lives while I provide them with a new and beautiful smile. One of the things that I love about orthodontics is that I get to see many patients throughout the course of a workday, each having their own desires for their smile. I provide this for them by building a relationship rooted in positive communication that sets the foundation for a special and unique bond that I cherish.

I am truly thankful to my parents who made the decision to invest in improving my smile through orthodontic care. As an adolescent, I had a profoundly positive experience with my own orthodontist. I marveled at how genuinely happy my orthodontist was as he worked through his day. Now as an orthodontist myself, I am passionate about providing a service that has a life-changing effect for my patients, young and old. Seeing my patients change as people, in part because of the work that I do, invigorates me to construct a beautiful and healthy smile that is individualized for each patient.

Education and Continuing Education

I am a Sparta, NJ native, and earned my Bachelor of Arts in biology from Rutgers University. I became passionate about pursuing a career in dentistry during a pre-doctoral externship at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center in New Brunswick, NJ. I completed my Doctorate of Dental Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, and graduated as one of the school’s most awarded clinical and academic dental students. While at Temple, I was inducted into the Omicron Kappa Upsilon fraternity, which recognizes excellence in the study of dentistry. My research was presented at the American Dental Association’s annual meeting, where I earned a rarely awarded membership into SCADA, the Student Clinicians of the American Dental Association.

I completed my specialty orthodontic training at Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, where I earned a Master of Science and orthodontic certificate.

I take pride in delivering the finest in service and quality orthodontic treatment. This is accomplished through continuing education on the most advanced orthodontic treatment options, including Damon®, Invisalign®, and Incognito™. I am also a member of the American Association of Orthodontists, the American Dental Association, the Northeastern Society of Orthodontists, the Queens County Dental Society, the Greater New York Damon Study Club, and the Columbia University Alumni Association.

Outside the Office

I currently reside in New York City and an avid Yankees and Jets fan. In my free time, I enjoy playing golf, tennis, and baseball.

[ruhonorscollnb]

Kickin’ Off My Boots—My Journey from Texas to the Honors College 

By Jasmine Tbaba

Class of 2024, School of Arts and Sciences, Member of the Honors College

Through all of the chaos and uncertainty of the college application process, the one thing I was sure of was: I wanted to go out of state.

I was born and raised in Dallas, Texas and was ready for something completely new. For me, Rutgers was just that! When Move-In Day approached, my family rented a minivan, packed up my life, and set off across the country. As the landscape slowly changed from the prairies of north Texas to the lush mountains of Tennessee, the reality of my decision truly sunk in. Each passing mile was one mile farther away from home. 

Though fear was present in the back of my mind, the excitement and enthusiasm of starting a new chapter in my life overpowered it. This excitement grew when Welcome Days festivities began. I was met with friendly faces and began connecting with the community that would prove to be transformative in my life over the next four years. My first month at the Honors College was a whirlwind of events, meeting new people, and exploring new places. As an out-of-state student, I was eager to make the most of my experience and jumped in head first. 

My time at Rutgers has been incredible and has surpassed every expectation I had coming into college. However, moving across the country on your own can be hard, and I inevitably faced some challenges. I was in an unfamiliar place that was wildly different from the one I grew up in. There were times I felt lost, alone, and doubted my decision. It was in these moments that the support of the Honors College was most critical. On the holiday weekends when my in-state friends went home and I couldn’t, the Faculty Fellows remained in the building so there were still familiar faces passing by while I was studying or doing laundry. When I needed someone to talk to, my Changemaking Mentor had drop-in hours open for me. When I wanted to explore, my friends in the HC were always down for a day trip to New York City. The HC community was integral to me finding my footing at Rutgers, and continues to be a very important part of my college experience. 

Heading into my last semester, I am beginning to reflect on my experience at Rutgers and the HC. Deciding to go to college so far away from home was the biggest decision I’ve made in my life and it has shaped me in unimaginable ways. I have grown immensely as not just an academic and a professional, but as a human. The Honors College has given me a community within the vastness of Rutgers University and the entire Northeast. If I could say anything to the girl looking out of the window in the back of a minivan in the middle of Tennessee: get ready for the wildest, most challenging, yet fulfilling adventure of your life.

[jcmarchi]

Researchers Craft New Way to Make High-Temperature Superconductors – With a Twist - Technology Org

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/researchers-craft-new-way-to-make-high-temperature-superconductors-with-a-twist-technology-org/

Researchers Craft New Way to Make High-Temperature Superconductors – With a Twist - Technology Org

Theory becomes reality when Rutgers–New Brunswick scientists help develop process for twisting materials in ways never thought possible

An international team that includes Rutgers University–New Brunswick scientists has developed a new method for making and manipulating a widely studied class of high-temperature superconductors.

This technique should pave the way for the creation of unusual forms of superconductivity in previously unattainable materials.

Superconductors can conduct electricity without resistance or energy loss when cooled to a critical temperature. These materials have intrigued physicists for decades because they can achieve a state of perfect conductivity allowing an electric current to flow indefinitely. But most superconductors only exhibit this peculiarity at low temperatures – a few degrees above absolute zero – which renders them impractical.

The new work, published in Science, describes experiments that grew out of theoretical calculations that included those by a Rutgers team led by Jedediah Pixley, an associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences.

The experiments confirmed predictions by Pixley and Pavel Volkov, who were a postdoctoral fellow at the Rutgers Center for Materials Theory at the time. These predictions, based on mathematical models Pixley and Volkov (now at the University of Connecticut) devised to represent the underlying quantum physical behavior, projected how cuprate superconductors would behave if they were placed in proximity in specific configurations and at varying angles.

Superconductors are already in use today. Since the 1970s, scientists have employed superconducting magnets to generate the powerful magnetic fields needed for the operation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. Maglev trains using the technology were introduced in the 1980s. More recently, scientists have harnessed the power of superconducting magnets to guide electron beams in experimental devices such as synchrotrons and accelerators.

In the future, scientists envision a world where ultra-efficient electricity grids, ultrafast and energy-efficient computer chips, and even quantum computers are powered by new kinds of superconducting materials.

The new experiments that validated Pixley and Volkov’s ideas were conducted by a team at Harvard University led by professor and physicist Philip Kim.

“We took two cuprate superconductors – materials that already were interesting – and, in placing them together and twisting them in a precise way, made something else that was very interesting: another superconductor which could have lots of technological applications,” said Pixley, a condensed matter theorist.

Because of its unique properties, the new superconductor is a promising candidate for the world’s first high-temperature, superconducting diode, essentially a switch that controls the flow of electrical current, the researchers said.

Such a device could potentially fuel fledgling industries such as quantum computing, which rely on fleeting phenomena produced in materials like superconductors, they added.

Pixley, who joined the Rutgers faculty in 2017, earned his doctoral degree by studying the conditions involved in producing superconductivity in unconventional materials. The latest research extends the field of “twistronics,” which involves twisting flat layers of two-dimensional materials to produce physical effects at the subatomic level that are observable on the macroscopic scale.

To Pixley, the study enlarges the paradigm of what materials can exhibit superconducting properties when twisted. The work yields other insights, as well.

“At the same time, we have found that this leads to a novel type of ‘magnetic’ superconducting state that has been long sought after, showing definitively that different superconducting phases can be reached via a twist,” he said.

The experimentalists first split an extremely thin film of a superconductive cuprate – nicknamed “BSCCO” and made of bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide – into two layers. Then, maintaining frigid conditions, they stacked the layers at a 45-degree twist, like an ice cream sandwich with askew wafers, retaining superconductivity at the fragile interface.

Cuprates are copper oxides that, decades ago, upended the physics world by showing they become superconducting at much higher temperatures than theorists had thought possible. BSCCO is considered a high-temperature superconductor because it starts superconducting at about -288 Fahrenheit. That is very cold by practical standards, but astonishingly high among classical superconductors, which typically must be cooled to about -400 Fahrenheit.

The work opens the door to more experiments, Pixley said.

“It will be very exciting to extend these experiments to other configurations of superconductors – twisted monolayers and a few twisted multilayers of superconductors at small twist angles,” Pixley said.

Source: Rutgers University

You can offer your link to a page which is relevant to the topic of this post.