Quantum Resistance in Thin Metal Films

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For years, physicists have wondered why metals, which are so good at conducting electricity, lose that ability when they are made in ultrathin films. But a recent paper in Nature suggests a surprising answer that delves into the quantum realm. Most scientists sought a solution by first creating a thin film from vaporized metals and then testing the films for conductivity. Inevitably, they found poor conductivity¿probably because the vapors of most metals fall in droplets and make a granular film, says Philip W. Adams of Louisiana State University.

Adams and postdoctoral researcher Vladimir Y. Butko approached the problem in a slightly different way. They discovered that vaporized beryllium makes a smooth film, and that it, too, did not conduct electricity very well¿until they applied a magnetic field. As they increased the magnetic field, the beryllium's resistance fell, until finally it stabilized at what is known as the quantum resistance. The find was especially surprising because beryllium is not magnetic, but the researchers suspect that all metals behave in this way. The significance, Adams says, is that there is a universal standard for limiting a metal film's resistance to conductivity.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe