Department of Physics Third Year Handbook 2014/15

Department of Physics Third Year Handbook 2014/15 6CCP3131 Third Year Project in Physics 6CCP3132 Literature Review in Physics 6CCP3133 University Ambassadors Scheme www.kcl.ac.uk/physics

Contents Introduction... 3 Assessment and Timetables... 4 6CCP3132 Literature Review Timetable... 4 6CCP3131 Project Timetable... 4 6CCP3133 UAS Timetable... 5 Late Submissions... 5 Written Reports, Talks and Posters... 6 Examination Regulations... 6 Guidelines for Writing Reports... 6 The Marking Scheme and Guidelines used by your Examiners... 7 Undergraduate Marking Criteria 2014/15... 9 Submission of Reports... 13 Oral Presentations... 13 Poster Presentations... 14 6CCP3132 Literature Review in Physics... 15 Organisation... 15 Topic Research... 15 Assessment... 16 Topic Descriptions... 17 Topics in Experimental Biophysics & Nanotechnology... 18 Topics in Theory & Simulation of Condensed Matter... 19 Topics in Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology... 20 Topics in History of Physics... 21 6CCP3131 Third Year Project in Physics... 22 Organisation... 22 Assessment... 22 Work Timetable... 22 Project Descriptions... 23 Projects in Experimental Biophysics & Nanotechnology... 24 Projects in Theory & Simulation of Condensed Matter... 25 Projects in Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology... 26 6CCP3133 University Ambassadors Scheme... 28 Important Note... 28 Description... 28 Module Aims... 28 Learning Outcomes... 28 Module Content... 29 Organisation... 30 Work Timetable... 30 Assessment... 30 College statement on plagiarism... 32 How to avoid plagiarism... 32 Third year project/literature review selection form... 33 2

Introduction An important aspect of your third year is project work. In the Physics Department we have three modules designed to facilitate this and each of these modules is explained in this booklet. The modules are: 6CCP3131 Third Year Project in Physics; 6CCP3132 Literature Review in Physics; 6CCP3133 University Ambassadors Scheme (UAS). Each of these 15 credit modules has a duration of one semester. The Literature Review runs in semester 1, while the project and UAS run in semester 2. Students must take a minimum of ONE of the modules but you have the OPTION of choosing more than one if you wish. You may not, however, take the same module twice for example you could choose to do UAS and a Literature Review, but you may not do two Literature Reviews. Thus there are seven possible combinations of options for third year students: Project (semester 2) Literature Review (semester 1) UAS (semester 2) Project and Literature Review Project and UAS Literature Review and UAS Literature Review, Project and UAS 3

Assessment and Timetables 6CCP3132 Literature Review Timetable There will be an introductory session at 14:00 on 22 nd September in room S-2.08. You must hand in your literature review preferences to the UG Programme Office by 4pm on Friday 26 th September 2014 Literature Reviews will be allocated on Monday 29 th September and work on them will start by arrangement with the project supervisor. The electronic copy of your written report must be submitted by 12 noon on Friday 12 th December 2014 via Turnitin on KEATS. Any reports submitted after this time will be regarded as late. In addition two hard copies of the written report and a signed plagiarism declaration must be submitted to the Department Office by 4pm on Friday 12 th December 2014. Oral presentations will take place within the week beginning 6 th January 2015. A timetable will be available nearer the time. Assessment The report counts for 70% of the final mark. The oral presentation counts for 30%. 6CCP3131 Project Timetable There will be an introductory session at 14:00 on 22 nd September in room S-2.08. You must hand in your project preferences to the UG Programme Office by 4pm on Friday 26 th September. Projects will be allocated on Monday 29 th September. The project itself will start week beginning 12 th January 2015 or by arrangement with the project supervisor. The electronic copy of the written report must be submitted by 12 noon 27 th March 2015 via Turnitin on KEATS. Any reports submitted after this time will be regarded as late. In addition two hard copies of the written report must be submitted to the Department Officer by 4pm on 27 th March 2015. Posters will be presented in revision week (week beginning 27 th April 2015). A timetable will be available nearer the time. Oral presentations will take place in the revision or exam period (beginning 27 th April 2015). A timetable will be available nearer the time. Assessment The report and supervisor s assessment count for 70% of the final mark. The oral presentation counts for 20% of the final mark. The poster counts for 10% of the final mark. 4

6CCP3133 UAS Timetable There will be an introductory session at 14:00 on 22 nd September in room S-2.08, followed by interviews with Prof. Sarkar which will take place from 13:00 on 24th September 2014 in room S3.39 which you MUST attend. The UAS placement itself will start on week beginning 12 th January 2014 or by arrangement with the UAS co-ordinator (Prof. Sarkar) or the school in which you are placed. The electronic copy of the written report must be submitted by 12 noon 27 th March 2014 via Turnitin on KEATS. Any reports submitted after this time will be regarded as late. In addition two hard copies of the written report must be submitted to the UG Programme Office by 4pm on 27 th March 2014. Oral presentations will take place in the revision or exam period (beginning 27 th April 2015). A timetable will be available nearer the time. Assessment The report counts for 70% of the final mark. The oral presentation counts for 30%. Late Submissions Reports that are submitted late; within twenty four hours of the electronic submission deadline will be capped at 40%. Reports that are submitted late; after twenty four hours from the electronic submission deadline will receive a mark of zero. Where mitigating circumstances mean that you will be unable to submit your report on time, an Extension Request Form should be used to request an extension to a deadline as soon as you become aware of the problem. You can submit the form, along with appropriate documentary evidence, any time before the deadline. 5

Written Reports, Talks and Posters Examination Regulations The following is an extract from the regulations for students: Where the Regulations for any qualification provide for part of an examination to consist of work written in the candidate s own time, the work submitted by the candidate must be his [or her] own and any quotation from the published or unpublished work of other persons must be acknowledged. Copying without acknowledgement from any source including books, journals, the internet and other students is plagiarism, which is regarded by the Board of Examiners as a very serious matter. It will result in deduction of marks and may lead to formal disciplinary action. For more information see: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/governance/acboard/examiners/assessment/plagiarism.ht ml Guidelines for Writing Reports Reports should normally be about 3000-5000 words, but you should discuss this with your supervisor. You should find that this is the right length to describe your work without being either too brief or too verbose. Discuss with your project supervisor if you feel that you must go outside this range. Any supporting material, e.g., listings of computer programs, should be presented in appendices and should not be included in the word count. You should keep copies of your reports as those submitted will be retained for inspection by the Visiting Examiners. All reports must be prepared using a word processing package with 1½ line spacing, printed on A4 paper and bound in simple folders. The style should conform to that of published scientific papers (Day, 1989), i.e., the report should consist only of text (with appropriate headings and sub-headings), figures (all graphs, diagrams and photographs are figures and must be referred to as such) and tables. All figures and tables must be numbered, have descriptive captions (by convention, figure captions go below the figure while table captions go above the table) and be referred to in the text. References to published work consulted during the project must be given in the text, using either the Harvard system, i.e., name (year) or (name, year) as in the example earlier in this paragraph, or the numerical system by (1) or [1] with the references numbered in the order in which they appear. A complete list of references must be given at the end of the report (see section 2.6), alphabetical in the Harvard system or numbered in the numerical system. Pages must be numbered and the report must be divided into numbered sections and, where appropriate, sub-sections. The report should include: a title page with the course number and title, the project title, authors names, supervisor s name and an abstract, which must contain brief summaries of the objectives and main results; 6

an introduction setting the project work in perspective; a discussion of any background, e.g., theoretical, materials; a description of the work actually done; analysis and presentation of the results of the work, including errors (see, e.g., Taylor, 1997); a discussion of the significance of the results; a final summary and conclusions and possible future research; a complete list of references. Although the project is undertaken as a group, each member of that group should be assigned a specific role if in any doubt ask your supervisor. This specific role should form the basis of your report. However, your examiners will be looking for evidence in your report that you are aware of the work of other group members and that you are informed about the project in its entirety. You should also be able to demonstrate an understanding of the project in its wider scientific context. The Marking Scheme and Guidelines used by your Examiners This is a general and not exhaustive list of points that will be used to assess your work. The Written Report [70% of the total mark for the module] 1) Student performance and initiative. [20% of the total mark for the report, this mark is decided by the supervisor] Did the student attend and contribute to the tutorial classes? Did the student play an active role in the group? Did the student show great skill & initiative or did s\he require a lot of help and guidance? Did the student plan the project well? Should the student have been able to achieve more in the available time? How well did the student acquire new experimental, computational or theoretical skills? How well did the student handle any unexpected difficulties? 2) Presentation of the report. [10% of the total mark for the report, marked independently by both the supervisor and second examiner]. Is the report neat & does the style conform to that required of published work? Are the grammar & spelling good? Is the report divided into appropriate sections & sub-sections arranged in a logical order? Is the quality of graphical & other figures acceptable? Are all the equations, figures & tables numbered? Do the figure and tables have appropriate captions? Is a complete list of references given in a logical style, at the end of the report? 7

. 3) Content of the Report. [70% of the total mark for the report, marked independently by both the supervisor and second examiner]. Is the significance of the project explained? What is the scientific interest in this work? Has the project been placed in a wider context? Is the particular aim of the project made clear? Are there sufficient references to earlier work, and is there evidence of a successful literature search? Is the theory discussed clearly and concisely, with all symbols explained? Is it sufficient for the reader to understand the theory to be used? Are the (experimental, computational or theoretical) techniques described adequately? In experimental work, are the equipment & samples described? Are all the techniques used justified? Are the results presented in a comprehensible manner? Is the quality of the results good? Is the quantity of the results sufficient? Are errors & uncertainties in the data & methods discussed adequately? Have any cross checks been made to verify the data? Have the data been checked against any existing similar data? Is the analysis appropriate? Could further conclusions have been drawn from the student s data? Are the results summarised concisely? Are directions for future work suggested? 4) Oral presentation [30% of the total mark for the Literature Review or UAS module; 20% of the total mark for the Project module. Jointly agreed upon by both the supervisor and second examiner] Were the descriptions of the aims clear and results of the project given? Were the graphs and diagrams legible, comprehensive and explained well? Was a confident knowledge of the subject apparent? Were questions answered correctly and completely? Was good use made of the allotted time? 5) Poster presentation [10% of the total mark for the Project module. Jointly agreed upon by both the supervisor and second examiner] Was a clear description of the aims & results of the project given? Were the graphs and diagrams legible, comprehensive & explained well? Was the poster visually interesting? In discussions with each member of the group: Was a confident knowledge of the subject apparent and were questions answered correctly & completely. 8

Undergraduate Marking Criteria 2014/15 The guidelines below are applicable to all levels of study within an undergraduate degree programme. FIRST CLASS A++ >90% Written Examinations Practical Work & Oral Examinations Reports & Essays Understanding: Able to analyse critically, Exceptionally well prepared, displaying a A complete systematic and accurate account with arguments soundly based, and fully systematic and carefully planned approach with a of the assignment; exceptionally well supported by relevant facts. Able to apply comprehensive understanding of the material and organised and clearly presented. correct methods to complex problem-solving methodology. An outstanding record of the aims and tasks and to reach an essentially complete Able to work independently, or to take a leading methods of the work. answer. Exceptional evidence of an original role in a group. Data manipulation and analysis carried out or creative approach. Outstanding presentational skills showing an thoroughly, correctly and with evidence of Selection and coverage of material: accurate and fluent analysis of the topic or originality. Questions answered accurately and with problem. Critical, comparative and constructive insight, demonstrating a comprehensive Answers questions thoughtfully and accurately with comments on all observations, with no loose knowledge of the topic and an outstanding independent ideas. ends (unexplained observations or unjustified mastery of relevant skills. 1. Able to reach valid/relevant/perceptive claims and speculations). Structure and presentation: Logical and wellorganised conclusions and to suggest logical and original Considerable evidence of extended reading flow of content, clearly expressed. extensions of the work. and original or innovative thinking. FIRST CLASS A+ 80-89% FIRST CLASS A 70-79% Understanding: Able to analyse critically, with arguments soundly based, and very well supported by relevant facts. Able to apply correct methods to complex problem-solving tasks and obtain a largely correct answer. Strong evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered accurately and with insight, demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the topic and a clear mastery of relevant skills. Structure and presentation: Logical and wellorganised flow of content, clearly expressed. Understanding: Able to analyse critically, with arguments soundly based and well supported by relevant facts. Able to apply correct methods to problem-solving tasks. Evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered accurately and with insight, demonstrating a well-informed knowledge of the topic and a mastery of relevant skills. Structure and presentation: Logical and wellorganised flow of content, clearly expressed. Excellently prepared, displaying a systematic and carefully planned approach with a thorough understanding of the material and methodology. Able to work independently or to participate effectively in a group. Excellent presentational skills showing an accurate and fluent analysis of the topic or problem. Answers questions thoughtfully and accurately with independent ideas. 2. Able to reach valid/relevant/perceptive conclusions and to suggest logical and appropriate extensions of the work. Very well prepared, displaying a systematic and carefully planned approach with a clear understanding of the material and methodology. Able to work independently or to participate constructively in a group. Very good presentational skills showing an accurate and fluent analysis of the topic or problem. Answers questions thoughtfully and accurately with independent ideas. 3. Able to reach valid/relevant conclusions and to suggest logical extensions of the work. A comprehensive systematic and accurate account of the assignment; exceptionally well organised and clearly presented. An excellent record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis carried out thoroughly, correctly and with insight. Critical and comparative comments on all observations, with no loose ends. Considerable evidence of extended reading and some original or innovative thinking. A wide-ranging systematic and accurate account of the assignment; exceptionally well organised and clearly presented. A very clear record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis carried out thoroughly and correctly. Critical comments on all observations, with no loose ends. Evidence of extended reading and original or innovative thinking.

UPPER SECOND CLASS B+ (65-69) B (60-64) 60 69% LOWER SECOND CLASS C 50 59% Understanding: Able to analyse critically, with sound arguments, supported by relevant facts. Able to apply correct methods to problem-solving tasks. Some evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered largely correctly, demonstrating an informed knowledge of the topic and good facility with the relevant skills. Structure and presentation: Logical flow of content, clearly expressed. Understanding: Attempts to analyse critically, with arguments supported by some relevant facts. Familiar with the correct methods needed for problem-solving tasks but with some difficulties in their use. Little evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered incompletely, but demonstrating some knowledge of the topic and some capability with the relevant skills. Well prepared, displaying a systematic approach and a good understanding of the material and methodology. Able to work independently or to participate actively in a group. Good presentational skills showing a fluent analysis of the topic or problem. Answers questions thoughtfully with some independent ideas. Able to reach valid/relevant conclusions and to suggest some logical extensions of the work. Adequately prepared, displaying a reasonably systematic approach and some understanding of the material and methodology. Able to work independently or to participate in a group. Adequate presentational skills showing a credible analysis of the topic or problem. Answers questions with some wider understanding of the key ideas. Able to reach valid conclusions and to suggest extensions of the work. A systematic and largely accurate account of the assignment; well organised and presented. A clear record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis carried out correctly. 4. Reasonable comments on all observations, and only a few loose ends Evidence of some extended reading and some original or innovative thinking. A systematic account of the assignment, reasonably presented. 5. An adequate record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis contains few inaccuracies or omissions. Comments on most observations, mainly reasonable, but with several loose ends. Little evidence of extended reading or of any original or innovative thinking. THIRD CLASS D 40-49% Structure and presentation: Logical flow of content with reasonable clarity of expression. Understanding: Some capacity to analyse critically, but arguments not always supported by relevant facts. Familiar with some of the methods needed for problem-solving tasks but unable to apply them routinely. No evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered incompletely, demonstrating a patchy knowledge of the topic and limited capability with the relevant skills. Disorganised preparation, displaying an unsystematic approach, and only partial understanding of the material and methodology. Has difficulty in working independently or participates only passively in a group. Inadequate presentational skills showing a confused analysis of the topic or problem. Answers to questions show limited understanding of the key ideas. Able to reach some valid conclusions but unable to suggest appropriate extensions of the work. An unsystematic account of the assignment/task. An incomplete record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis contains some inaccuracies or omissions. Few comments on the observations with many loose ends. No evidence of extended reading. Structure and presentation: Logical flow of content but with poor clarity of expression. 10

FAIL F 30-39% Understanding: Some attempts to analyse critically, with unconvincing arguments unsupported by relevant facts. Familiar with only a few methods needed for problemsolving tasks but unable to apply them routinely. No evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered incompletely, demonstrating neither breadth nor depth of knowledge. Answers with key skills rarely deployed when tackling problems. Poor preparation, displaying an unsystematic approach and very limited understanding of the material and methodology. Has difficulty in working independently or participates ineffectively in a group. Poor presentational skills showing a confused analysis of the topic or problem. Answers to questions show little understanding of the key ideas. Unable to reach valid conclusions or to suggest appropriate extensions of the work. An unsystematic or incomplete account of the assignment. A sketchy record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis contains significant inaccuracies or omissions. Very few comments on the observations with many loose ends. No evidence of further reading. FAIL F 20-29% FAIL F 10-19% Structure and presentation: Disorganised flow of content with poor clarity of expression. Understanding: Limited attempts to analyse critically, with suspect arguments unsupported by relevant facts. Unfamiliar with most methods needed for problem-solving tasks and unable to apply them routinely. No evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Questions answered incompletely, demonstrating neither breadth nor depth of knowledge. Answers often irrelevant, with key skills inappropriately deployed when tackling problems. Structure and presentation: Disorganised flow of content, with poor clarity of expression. Understanding: Almost no attempt to analyse critically, with unsound arguments unsupported by relevant facts. Unfamiliar with basic methods needed for problem-solving tasks and unable to apply them routinely. No evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: Inadequate attempt to answer the question asked with largely irrelevant or unacceptably brief material. Limited preparation, displaying an unsystematic approach and little understanding of the material and methodology. Has difficulty in working independently or participates ineffectively in a group. Very poor presentational skills showing a very confused analysis of the topic or problem. Answers to questions show very little understanding of the key ideas. Unable to reach valid conclusions or to suggest appropriate extensions of the work. Very limited preparation with no understanding of the material and methodology. Has great difficulty in working independently or unable to work in a group. Almost no presentational skills with no analysis of the topic or problem. Answers to questions show almost no understanding of the subject. Unable to reach any relevant conclusions. An unsystematic, incomplete and inaccurate account of the assignment. A sketchy record of the aims and methods of the work. Data manipulation and analysis contains numerous inaccuracies or omissions. Very few comments on the observations with many loose ends. No evidence of further reading. An unsystematic, incomplete and inaccurate account of the assignment. No record of the aims and methods of the work. Almost no evidence of data manipulation and analysis. No comments on the observations. No evidence of further reading. Structure and presentation: Totally disorganised flow of content with no clarity of expression. 11

FAIL F < 10% Understanding: No attempt to analyse critically, with no relevant arguments. No awareness of problem-solving methods. No evidence of an original or creative approach. Selection and coverage of material: No serious attempt to answer the question asked. Structure and presentation: No discernible structure. No effective preparation. Cannot work independently or in a group. Absence of presentational skills. Unable to answer questions on the subject. No meaningful account provided. 12

Submission of Reports One electronic copy of the report must be submitted via Turnitin by the deadline given earlier. Two hard copies of your report should be given to the UG Programme Officer by the deadline stated earlier. The electronic and hard copies must of course be identical. You will be given the opportunity to submit drafts of your report to Turnitin from about two weeks before the deadline. This will allow you to learn how plagiarism can be detected and to understand how to present information gleaned from the literature. The time and date of submission will be noted. You should not assume that a late submission will automatically be marked unless there is a medical or other extenuating reason for lateness, supported by an appropriate medical certificate or documentation. Each student should retain a copy of their report as the copies submitted will be retained for inspection by the External Examiners. Oral Presentations These presentations are part of the examination process and students must be available to attend them at the specified times. For the Literature Review, students will be required to give an individual oral presentation of no more than 10 minutes duration plus 5 minutes for questions. The topic of your presentation must be discussed and agreed with you supervisor in advance. The oral presentation is worth 30% of the final mark. For the Project, the group oral presentation will last for a maximum of 25 minutes, followed by 20 minutes of questions from the panel of examiners. Each student should speak for around 5 minutes, concentrating on their particular role in the project. There should be a general introduction and conclusion as well. For UAS, see the UAS section later in this booklet. For all Oral Presentations, in order to be sure that you keep to the allotted times, you are strongly advised to practice your talk before the actual presentation. Talks should be prepared for computer presentation, for example Powerpoint. You must either use the computer provided or ensure beforehand that your own computer is compatible with the projector to ensure that there are no connection problems.

All the examiners (normally two or three) in attendance at the oral examination will award a mark based on the following criteria; as always, the criteria outlined in the departmental handbook will be used to assign appropriate marks. Was a clear description of the aims and results of the project given? Were the graphs and diagrams legible, comprehensive and explained well? Was a confident knowledge of the subject apparent? Were questions answered correctly and completely? Was good use made of the allotted time? Poster Presentations The poster, its presentation and design must be undertaken by the entire group. The poster presentations for all the projects will take place simultaneously, in the Revision Period a timetable will be distributed nearer the time. All students must attend the poster session, where they will be questioned by panels of examiners. The session will be open to all members of the Department, and there will be a small prize for the best poster. Posters should occupy a space no larger than an A0 sheet of paper (10978cm), and it is recommended that posters are prepared using PowerPoint and the DesignJet A0 printer at the Maugham Library (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iss/it/paws/print/posters.html). In assessing the posters the examiners will award marks based on the following criteria. The visual impact of the poster. How easy it is to understand the aims and results of the project. The scientific content of the poster. How well the questions were answered. One electronic (PDF) copy per group should be emailed to the UG programme officer no later than the date of the Poster presentation session. A short talk on how to prepare and present posters will be given in semester 2; attendance is not compulsory, but each group is advised to send at least one representative. References Day RA 1989 How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Taylor JR 1997 An Introduction to Error Analysis (Sausalito: University Science Books) 14

6CCP3132 Literature Review in Physics This module aims to provide an insight to some physics areas of current interest. The module is taught using tutorials/seminars backed up with essays, literature reviews and problem sheets. In particular, students are encouraged to research the literature themselves to gain an in-depth understanding of a topic. There is no final written examination and assessment is through coursework. The module is intended for those with an interest in current research in science and technology and with the selfmotivation for self-study. Organisation Descriptions for a number of topics proposed by different research groups within the department are listed in this booklet. Each topic is a self-contained programme over one semester on an area of physics of current interest. Students will be able to make a choice of areas of research of interest and will be allocated an appropriate topic. Students will work in groups, the sizes of the groups depending on the number of students taking this option. A session on information retrieval will be held at the beginning of the term, date and venue as in the Work Timetable below; attendance is compulsory for students taking 6CCP3132. A central component of the module is researching the literature relevant to the topic and so full awareness of the available tools for literature searches and retrieval of material is essential. Supervisors will organise with their topic group times for tutorials for the topic; students will see their tutor every one or two weeks, the details to be arranged between the tutor and the group. Tutors will in some cases direct you towards relevant reading, set tasks, set problem sheets and give general instructions and advice. This will depend on the topic chosen. All students taking 6CCP3132 are required to attend the tutorials. Students should expect to spend about 150 hours on this module, including attending the tutorials, their own reading and study, writing the report and preparing for the oral examination. Topic Research A key objective of this module is to provide students with the opportunity to research for themselves a topical area of physics, under guidance from the topic supervisor. To this end, students are expected to perform literature searches, using tools such as the Web of Science, and tracing the development of an area through citations in research articles. At the beginning of each topic, students will be expected to have performed some initial research into the topic (guided, e.g., by a set of introductory questions) before the first tutorial. Students are expected to refer extensively to peer-reviewed research articles published in research journals. They should NOT rely on obtaining material from the Internet, although this can be a useful resource for finding background information. Students are 15

encouraged to work together for the research of a topic; however, all assessed material should be each student s own work (unless explicitly directed otherwise). The demonstration of a successful literature search forms an important element of the assessment of this module. Assessment Report Each student must submit an individual written report on some specific aspect of the topic. Each report should be of no more than 3000-5000 words, and should be submitted (two copies) by the deadline indicated in the Work Timetable below. The report is worth 70% of the final mark. Oral Presentation: Students will be required to give individual oral presentations of no more than 10 minutes plus 5 minutes for questions (see Work Timetable below). The presentation should be on some specific issue associated with the topic, as discussed with and agreed by your supervisor in advance. The oral presentation is worth 30% of the final mark. Work Timetable (dates are given in the Introduction to this booklet) All reports must be handed in by the deadlines, unless otherwise communicated by e- mail. 14:00 on 22 nd September in room S-2.08: There will be an introductory session explaining how projects and Literature Reviews work and what topics are offered. Project booklets and topic selection forms will be handed out at this session so it is very important that you attend. 26 September 2014: You must hand in your topic preferences to the UG Programme Officer; copies of this form can be found at that back of this booklet and will also be distributed during the introductory session. The Literature Reviews will start (or on a date specified by your supervisor. Reading Week: Students give the supervisor a short written progress report in which they assess their own and their peers contribution where appropriate. 12 noon on Friday 12 December 2014: The electronic copy of your written report must be submitted via Turnitin. Any reports submitted after this time will be regarded as late. 4pm on Friday 12 December 2014: The (two) hard copies of the written report must be submitted to the UG Programme Officer. Week beginning 5 January 2015: Oral presentations will take place. A timetable will be available nearer the time. 16

Topic Descriptions Projects are organised and taught by research groups within the Department. You have a choice of doing a Literature Review in the following areas: Experimental Biophysics & Nanotechnology Theory and Simulation of Condensed Matter Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology History of Physics There are several potential literature reviews available in each group and these will be allocated as appropriate by the head of that research group and the project co-ordinator. The descriptions in the following pages are brief outlines of the literature reviews on offer. They are not meant to describe in detail exactly what is to be done; students are encouraged to explore interesting lines of work which arise during the course of the project, so that the work carried out may differ from that originally envisaged. Students are asked to state their preferences between categories of research topics. Each category includes several possible topics, and could be supervised by any one of a small group of supervisors. In some cases the initials of the probable supervisor is listed in brackets after the topic title but again, this is subject to change. You must be aware that some topics will be much more popular than others, and only some will run. Therefore, you have three choices, and we will try to ensure that you are allocated one of these. Students are encouraged to investigate the various research categories and the specific topics to see what interests them and then to list their preferences on the form at the back of this booklet. 17

Topics in Experimental Biophysics & Nanotechnology Dr. Wayne Dickson Room S7.33 Metamaterials Since their conception in the late 20 th Century to the first experimental realization in the early 21 st Century, electromagnetic metamaterials have promised to revolutionize the field of optics and the host of disciplines that rely on optics for advanced applications. Demonstrating unique and eye catching phenomenon, such as optical cloaking and negative refraction, these materials have delivered extraordinary optical properties not found in any natural materials. Based on the construction of artificial materials, comprised of elements that are separated by distances much smaller than the incident radiation wavelength, early work considered electromagnetic radiation in the microwave regime making material construction relatively simply, despite the complex calculations required for their design. Recent research has moved this field ever downwards in wavelength and currently into the optical regime and now fabrication challenges, materials responses at such small scales and optical design are paramount considerations. This review will assess the historical origins of the field, the technological progress to date, the current applications of such materials and their future prospects. The project requires background knowledge of optics and electromagnetism Prof. Samjid Mannan Room S7.11 Maxwell s demon; historical and current interpretations Originally presented as a thought experiment probing the limits of the second law of thermodynamics, interpretation of Maxwell s demon requires careful analysis of the interplay between thermodynamics, quantum measurement theory and information theory. The group will analyze recent theoretical developments and experiments linked to Maxwell s demon. They will also chart both historical misinterpretations and criticisms of the current commonly agreed explanation, based on Landauer s principle, of why any experimental implementation of Maxwell s demon cannot lead to violations of the second law. Dylan Owen Room S3.07 Super-resolution fluorescence microscopy for bioimaging Fluorescence microscopy is a widely used tool in biology to study the structure of cells. It is non-invasive and can show the locations of specific molecules in real time. However, the resolution of a fluorescence image is limited by diffraction within the microscope to be of the order of 200nm. Many cellular structures are smaller than this and there has recently been a push to break this diffraction limit barrier. In 2008, Nature Methods hailed Super-resolution fluorescence microscopy as a key up-and-coming technology. Here we will review the literature concerning the development of the three main super-resolution fluorescence microscopy techniques: Stimulated emission depletion microscopy (STED), 18

Photoactivated localization microscopy (PALM) and structures illumination microscopy (SIM) and how they have impacted the field of bioimaging. Dr. Shahriar Sajadi Room S3.12 Review on Droplet Size Predictions in Droplet Microfluidics Microfluidics is a technique which can deliver uniform drops in emulsions. Emulsions are dispersions of one phase in another with the aid of a surfactant. In a microfluidic emulsification process, a liquid phase is pressed through a capillary to form droplets. The size of droplets is governed by the forces acting on droplets. In this research, a comprehensive and critical literature review on analytical methods available in the literature to predict the size of simple as well as core-shell droplets in vertical and horizontal microfluidic devices is sought. Prof. Anatoly Zayats Room S7.10 Photonic crystal fibres Optical communication systems rely on the use of fibres to transfer optical signals. In addition to conventional optical fibres, the recent advances in photonic band-gap materials has allowed development of new types of fibres, the so-called Photonic Crystal Fibres (PCF), with various unique properties not available in conventional fibres. This literature review will involve researching publications on the subject of photonic crystal fibres and describing the basic physical phenomena behind the PCF concept, main differences between PCFs and conventional fibres, and the main advantages and applications of PCFs. Topics in Theory & Simulation of Condensed Matter Dr Evgeny Kozik Room S4.02.e Optical Lattice Emulators Theoretical understanding of some of the most fascinating properties of modern materials has proven extremely difficult due to intricate quantum-mechanical behavior of interacting constituting elections. Recent dramatic developments in cooling and manipulating individual quantum particles have given birth to the idea of constructing an artificial material whose behavior is governed by the same underlying mathematical description as that of electrons in solids. Construction, control, and measurement of properties of these artificial materials, called Optical Lattice Emulators (OLE), is expected to enable profound advances in fundamental understanding of such technologically promising phenomena as high-temperature superconductivity. This literature review is focused on underlying physics of OLE, their achievements and promises. 19

Dr. Chris Lorenz Room S7.27 Molecular biophysics of disease This literature review project will focus on the molecular interactions that govern the cause and/or treatment of various diseases i.e. influenza, Alzheimer s, African sleeping sickness. The student will be allowed to choose a disease/illness that they are most interested in. The resulting literature review will provide an overview of the current state of the understanding of the molecular cause of the given disease and the state-of-the-art as far as trying to prevent/treat the disease. Prof. Mark Van Schilfgaarde RoomS4.02.a Meta-materials Negative refractive index materials; invisibility and superlenses applications; electromagnetic bandgap materials; acoustic metamaterials. Topics in Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology Dr. Bobby Acharaya Room S7.22 The theory and discovery of the Higgs boson You will study the basic theory behind the Higgs mechanism -- which is a key part of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and is responsible for giving quarks, leptons and some gauge bosons mass. You will develop a basic picture of the Standard Model, particularly of the interactions between elementary particles. You will then go on to study how the Higgs boson as discovered at experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This will involve developing an overview of the LHC and particle detectors, how a Higgs boson can be produced in a collision between two protons, what happens to it once it is produced and how it is detected from its decay products. This project is most suited to students that have taken the symmetries course, two quantum mechanics courses and are taking the 3rd year particle physics course Dr. Eugene Lim Room S7.20 The Standard Model for Cosmology In this project, you will undertake a literature review on the current state of our understanding of Cosmology its composition, its origins, and its possible future. Prof. Mairi Sakellariadou Room S7.18 Cosmological inflation We will study the shortcomings of the hot big bang model and introduce the paradigm of cosmological inflation. We will then examine different inflationary models and their predictions in particular on the cosmic microwave background temperature anisotropies and on reheating. 20