Welcome to American Issues, Take One. I'm Tim Appichell, your host. Today's topic, today's title is, MAGA GOP Defines Control of the House. We just had our midterm elections and the predicted red title wave didn't occur. And that's for two reasons. One reason is the moderate GOP, I think was burned out on Trump fatigue, the burned out on the election deniers. So they decided either not to vote or they voted for a Democrat party. And the other reason is the independents felt the same way. They just felt it was too much for all these election deniers, particularly in the swing states and all the Mishigas and rhetoric they were throwing out in the primaries and certainly leading up to the midterm election. So you would think that the GOP had learned a lesson, although they probably haven't fully discussed what happened and why the red title wave didn't occur, but they pretty much know that, again, independents and the moderate GOP didn't go their way. So what do they do in response to that? Well, immediately, various members of the House of Representatives, now knowing it's gonna be in GOP control, they take to the microphone. Specifically, James Comer from Kentucky, he's out there talking about how the House is gonna vote for impeachment of President Joe Biden. That's where they're going. And you would wonder why is it that they're taking such extreme measures when they just received the vote not to be so extreme. So that's the topic of the day and I'm gonna introduce our guests. Today, we have our special esteemed guests, Chuck Crumpton and my co-host, Jay Fidel. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Jim. Good morning, Jim. Jay. Jay, I'd like to read a quote from a representative, Don Bacon, a Republican representative from Nebraska and get your reaction to this quote. He says, I wanna warn our colleagues. There may be activists in our party that want impeachment, but I can tell you that the swing voters and the independent voters don't want that. We wanna change leadership by elections, not impeachment. Impeachment is the outlier. Your response to that quote and is that something that other Republicans should pay attention to? Yes, I agree. I would state it more stridently, but he's right. And it's good advice to the Republicans, but the Republicans are not likely to take it. It's funny, every time I look, I think it's Marjorie Taylor Greene is running the house. She's running the Republican caucus and of course she's serving at the pleasure of Kevin McCarthy, who is serving likewise at the pleasure of Donald Trump. So the inmates, how do they say this, Chuck? The inmates are running the proverbial asylum and they're not likely to stop.  They got their own agenda and they have no interest in serving the public or even serving those voters who sent them a message a couple of Wednesdays ago on election day. So is it the leadership that let them get away with this or the leadership is ineffective and can't stop them? Yes, to all of the foregoing. But the reality, which is what we should address is are they gonna be able to get away with it? Are they gonna do it? I think it's a fair chance that Kevin McCarthy is gonna stay in position or be in position, although it's not certain but it's likely to be in position as a speaker and he'll let them get away with it. And I mean, I know people who have spent some time in Congress and they say that the public including us three has this sort of legacy feeling that the people in Congress are smart, they're educated, they understand, they understand their obligation, they trust their oath to the country and they walk around understanding that they are an important governmental institution. But in fact, that's not true. In fact, some of them really can't hold a candle to an elementary school degree. They have no idea what's going on and they're held ransom to people who don't have an idea about what's going on. And I think that's what I would say right now with the GOP Republicans who are the inmates, so to speak, running the asylum. And so I think they'll probably do it. They'll actually probably take a vote, maybe even succeed in that vote. Why do I feel that Shruck is not gonna agree with me? And they'll start an investigation of Hunter Biden and maybe some impeachments. And it's all completely absurd. It's absurd in the sense that don't we have business to conduct here? Don't we have policies inside? Don't we have important legislation that's pending right now that has come from the Democrats? Don't we have to preserve and protect democracy and the country and the people? But no, they're gonna do their own agenda. I wouldn't even say it's political. It's some kind of strange, grumpy and punitive, divisive and completely negative hostile experience. And it has no benefit for anyone. All right. Chuck, just to take from Jay, I mean, he's right. I mean, is this a Trumpian wish list that they are marching to and dam the voters, dam the independence, dam the moderate GOP voters that didn't give them the red tidal wave? And now we have the house at margin of a very thin margin as far as an advantage of representatives. What, as Jay likes to say, K-PASA. Why are they not learning the lessons of the vote? And they're going down this pathway that only Donald Trump would really be happy with. Well, if you look at the people who were involved, all of them are power-based people. Whether it's McCarthy or Gates or Green or Boebert or any of the rest of them. And they care more about getting and wielding power than they do about coordinating effective leadership or governance or decision-making with each other. So you're all still having people like Matt Gates come out within the last day saying, McCarthy doesn't have the votes to get his leadership. He's in a position where he's gonna have to broker deals for committee assignments, for legislative packages. There may be a Hunter Biden chase just to satisfy people in there if they can get trade-offs that will give them committee control or legislative act control. But the Republicans are gonna be bargaining and dealing with each other. Their factions are not unified. And the way that the leaders of those factions approach them are divisive, not unifying. That's worked for them. Why would we expect them to give that up, whether it's McCarthy or Gates or any of the others? Well, I question whether or not it has worked for them. I mean, on the last show, I said if the Republicans wanna start winning elections, they're gonna have to stop following a personality, that personality being Donald Trump. So if Donald Trump handed them the loss in 2018 midterms, handed them the loss of the 2020 presidential election, handled them the loss of the special election in 2021 in Georgia, and now handed them the most recent midterm or loss of 2022, at what point do they kind of knock themselves in the head and going, hey, following this guy is not winning election for us. What's their next step? You know what? I think you're making the assumption that Donald Trump does not learn by his mistakes. You're making a mistake. No, he has nothing to do with it. Donald Trump will be Donald Trump. I'm talking about the moderate GOP that's still basically running the show, the mega GOP still on the wings, but even the moderate GOPs are still saying, we don't have a platform, we don't have a policy platform, our platform is Donald Trump. Well, all I'm saying is that things change. And I think in some corner of their minds, these guys are thinking that they can do this now and they can do what I call entertainment government, where if you can get on the headlines and be first on Sinclair radio or Salem radio, there have been articles about those radio stations how influential they are. Then, you know, you can entertain me, people. And they can wait, they can wait a year or more before they try to make the case that there's serious representatives of the people. I guess they feel they don't have to make that case right now. The only thing they gotta do right now is have power, as Chuck says, and have entertainment value. Okay, Chuck, do you think without a policy platform that they clearly don't have, will that serve them well in 2023 and 2024? Why should that change either? Right, it didn't work well for them in 2020, 2021, or again in 2022, the new media word is underperformed. So we're not seeing leadership on the Republican side that is in any way unifying, that is any way party over faction, party over individual. We're still seeing the opposite. Why would anything change? We're seeing potential candidates other than DeSantis, say Chris Christie, I mean, he certainly gets it. He said it a hundred times, you know, if we don't start focusing on the economy and things that are important to the American, you know, kitchen table, we are going to lose again. So there's other candidates like Chris Christie. Even Mike Pence knows that you've got to have policies that are important to the American people, whether they're GOP or not. So these other candidates that may come out later, do you think they focus in on the bread and butter issues around the kitchen table, or do they stay on the extreme wingnut side of the party, which is mega GOP? Well, two things, one, they always follow the money. And as long as Trump dominates the donors and the money as he has, maybe not to the extent that he previously did, but still more than any other one person, you're going to see Rubio and Cruz and the rest of them still performing in pretty much the same manner. That's the pocket that they want to tap. We don't see anyone, as far as I can tell, and I'm open to your insights on this, both of you. We don't see anyone like the old Ev Dirksen's or Bob Dole's or people like that, who had any respect or any sway at all on the other side of the aisle. We don't see people who can deliver. The closest they got McConnell could marshal all of his 50 troops to vote against something, even if 60, 70% of the American people wanted it to happen, whether it's infrastructure support or whatever. Well, let's look at Mitch McConnell, minority leader of the Senate. He's no fan of Donald Trump. We all know that, yet he has admitted that the GOP does not have a policy platform. Does that change? Does that change because, one, he can't stand Donald Trump? Two, he's acknowledging that without a policy platform, the Republicans will continue to lose these elections in so many ways. Do we see a change, a more strident change out of Mitch McConnell? I think we know the four corners of Mitch McConnell, and he's not capable of leading on policy. He hasn't, and he's not going to. Whether he has the power or not, the second part of that is there's still plenty of MAGA Republicans in the Senate. He's got to keep them under control, and that's his focus. So I don't think you're going to see a change in Mitch McConnell. Pray as you might, it's not going to happen. Chuck, do you agree with that? Yeah, why should McConnell change? He has no reason to think that what he's been doing for decades has not worked for him. He's pretty much a one-trick pony in terms of, I'm here to keep the Democrats from passing anything that might give them any leverage in elections at all, or any other gain. And he's done that to some extent, relatively effectively, with some help from people like Manchin and Sinema who broke ranks. Yeah. Well, we heard this week, we heard this week, you know, former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, explicitly in an interview say, I'm never Trump-er. And his rationale was, it's not that I wasn't proud of the things we did as far as judge selection and some of the policies we did on tax reform. He said, I'm proud of those accomplishments. He said, the bottom line is Trump can't win anymore, and he's going to force the GOP party to lose. He was that explicit. Now, you know, Paul Ryan's not in politics anymore, at least for now, but do other candidates pick up on that? We know that Chris, excuse me, that DeSantis won't because he just got elected governor. So he's going to have to be pretty silent for at least, I would think, eight months to a year. Otherwise, he voters aren't going to be happy that he's switching out of the governor seat, trying to get into the presidential seat. So are there other candidates, Chuck, that pick up that baton that Paul Ryan has left now on the stage? I don't see any, I'm open to you folks, but I just don't need anybody out there. Paul Ryan is not in the house. He's not there. And a lot of the names you mentioned, Tim, they're not there. They're not running it. The people in the house are running it, and the caucus is running it. And we'll see about Kevin McCarthy, but the likelihood is he will run it. And Marjorie Taylor Greene's running it. All these people are inmates in the asylum. The guys on the outside, the guys who are former, the guys who have had a stroke of conscience now years later, they don't mean much. And by the way, I'm no fan of Paul Ryan. He's the guy that ran through the tax quote reform act of January, 2017, only a couple of weeks after Trump got in office, a tax reform act that favored the rich and dumped on the poor. We all know that. And Ryan became Trump's lap dog. And so for him to criticize Trump now, it doesn't mean too much. It's hypocritical as it is for so many of them. All right, well, let me get to my next question on this, Jay, for you. The mega GOP, both in the house and Senate, they seem to be rattling a lot of chains about investigations on Hunter Biden and how that connects to Joe Biden. Is there motivation, again, a strategy of years of distraction until the election of 2024? As was the Benghazi Senate Committee hearings, is that their strategy of distraction or they really think there's something to it? All they know to a man and woman, there's nothing to it. It is merely a distraction. It is that entertainment I was talking about it. It'll make headlines, everything they find about his drug usage and so forth. They're never gonna hit any pay dirt on it. And it's worse than Benghazi. In Benghazi, at least there was a threat of possibility that Hillary Clinton did some wrong. But there's nothing that Hunter Biden did this worth spending our taxpayer money on and distracting Congress this way and avoiding the need to actually address policy. This is only a political, okay, well, not sideshow. This is the part that just throws me off my chair and I don't understand it. If you know, a week ago, you just lost a major election where you had the greatest of opportunities and you lost it for these very things, these wackadoodle approaches to governance, i.e. impeachments and investigations of things that are not even close to being a reality. Why is the leadership of the GOP not stepping in and putting a stop to it? Don't forget, they're also talking about impeaching Merrick Garland. Yes. That has more moment to it in the sense that he's the attorney general. I think it's just a way to attack Joe Biden, a way to attack Joe Biden's government. They never lose an opportunity. They don't get credit for anything, but they attack him on these irrelevant points. Is this the leadership of the GOP that's allowing it or they're just not managing the store at all? Well, we kind of covered that early on. I know, but I'm not getting the answers. I know you're fascinated with that question, but why don't we move on to Merrick Garland? I would really want to talk about Merrick Garland. Let's move on to Merrick Garland. Chuck, Merrick Garland punted. He got brought into special counsel. Why did he do that? I think one of the things that you got to look carefully at with somebody like Merrick Garland and his team is he's a long-term player and he's a strategist. This move has been out there for a long time. Trump dropped the other shoe and Garland was immediately ready for him, said, fine, I've got a special counsel. And look who he picked. Jack Smith, who's a really experienced, really highly respected war crimes prosecutor with neutral political reputation. The people who know him best say, he doesn't play it for one side or the other. So if you are gonna pick a strategy or a person to diffuse it, he's also positioned himself because if the GOP goes after Hunter Biden, and that's their attack on Joe Biden as opposed to the January 6th plus Mar-A-Lago documents, DOJ investigations on Trump, it either cuts no weight with the voters or if it weighs it all, it weighs in favor of Biden and against Trump because his offenses are far more personal, far more serious, far more characteristic of his way of dealing with people and power.  I think two things. One, as we talked about a little earlier with whether the GOP leadership in the house lets some of its people go off after Hunter Biden or off after impeachment on Joe Biden or whatever. If they get trade-offs for that, that enable them to get power out of them, that enable them to get power in committees or power for legislative action, that will be the underpinnings of those moves, but it doesn't get them any stronger position for the 2024 election. So the real question is exactly the one that Jay brought up and you're inferring is who's gonna do the most to connect with what really concerns the American people between now and the 2024 elections?  January 6th, we've learned what we have to learn about that or Mar-a-Lago, we've learned probably most of what we have to learn about that. But what's gonna happen between now and November 2024 that may appeal to independents and to young voters who are the two groups who made the biggest difference in the 2022 election midterms? Alrighty, thanks, Chuck. Jay, what are your thoughts about the appointment of a special counsel from Merrick Garland? Yeah, first I wanna say that whether the American voting system and American democracy works is an open question. The jury's out on that. And I'm watching Kerry Lake very carefully because if she prevails on the absurd arguments that she and Steve Bannon are making and Mike Flynn too, oh, God, they're back, you know? They're back, yeah. It's like the monsters on television, they're back and here they are arguing the same points that Trump argued before. It's all the lie in Arizona, unbelievable. Well, we still have two counties in Arizona, Cochise County and I don't remember the other one that are gonna refuse to certify their election results. It's, you know, the problem is the system may be broken. And it's not only Arizona, you know, there are other states that Trump set up before he left. And where Republican legislatures, you know, adopted and governors adopted legislation that was anti-democratic and that is still in place. And the Supreme Court is not likely to fix it and Congress is less likely to fix it. So we make the assumption for 2024 that they'll be a legitimate, you know, true and fair vote. I'm not making that assumption just yet. I wanna see what happens. But going back to Merrick Garland, first of all, I wanna be a kind of classic about Jack Smith. You know, we, when these guys have been nominated and brought into, you know, the winner's circle there, the press and the people around them said in the past, over and over again, they're really good guys and they have a great, you know, background and credentials and they'll be fine, you know? It's like Bill Barr. Everybody said, oh, he's a great choice. He was a terrible choice. I'm here to tell you, he was corrupt from day one. But all these fellows, including a lot of, you know, Democrats were saying, no, he's a good choice. You'll see it'll work out fine. Bob Mueller, he was a great choice. Mr. Chicken Mueller, it didn't work out fine, did it? But everybody said, you can't find anybody better than Bob Mueller. Bad appointment, I'm sorry. And they knew in the Department of Justice. I mean, we've had a lot of bad appointments. And look at some of those crazy appointments that Trump was making, actually successfully making at the end of his term. They're still in office, including in the Department of Justice. So now looking for Jack, Jack Smith. I love that name, Mr. Smith goes to Washington. He was doing war crimes, prosecutions. I'm here to tell you that Think Tech has a regular show called Transitional Justice. And we talk to people in Ukraine all the time, every two weeks, who are familiar with the war crimes prosecution in the same court that Jack Smith has been associated with. And I wanna tell you here on American issues, take one. Okay, that so far in nine, now 10 months of full global acknowledgement and recognition of all the war crimes that have been taking place and are still taking place, guess how many war crimes prosecutions, guess how many indictments have actually been achieved in the court of criminal justice in The Hague? You get one guess. You first, Chuck. A very tiny number. How about zero? I might get a guess, Jake. You disagree. Yeah. How about nada? Nada. So I'm saying, well, okay.  Does that, should we jump up and down about that? He hasn't been successful in the most critical period of war crimes in our lives. How about that? And I guess it's good that he's not associated with Washington Beltway and he's not a politician. He's a quote prosecutor. But A, so I'm not so sure about Jack Smith. And I just refer back to some of these other appointments where everybody's got so excited about the appointment and it turned out to be a gold plated dud. The jury's out on Jack Smith. Sorry, sorry. I know I sound like an iconoclast. Okay, then there's Merrick Garland. I'm really the big question of the month anyway. Is why did Merrick Garland feel at this point it was necessary? From a legal point of view, and Chuck will agree with me, it makes no difference whether Trump put his hat in a ring or not. Merrick Garland could have, should have, set a grand jury for an indictment a long time ago. He didn't need anything more than the three of us read in the newspaper to make that indictment on both of these cases. They still have a thing called circumstantial evidence. It's still part of American law. What are they waiting for? Waiting for Godot to write in from Mexico? What is it? He could have had an indictment months ago on both of those cases. What is he waiting for? I submit to you that he's a chicken and he doesn't wanna do it. And for reasons of his own reluctance or lack of confidence or political concern, he is not moving. He hasn't moved in two years on January 6th. So this is a way to defer it. Arguably, this is a way to get him off the griddle. And the ironic point is that at the end, he's gonna have to sign off on it anyway. And when it gives him a layer of protection, it gives him deniability. I'm only signing off because Jack Smith told me to. That sort of thing. It's not my decision. So I'm very concerned that Merrick Garland is not the right man for the job. He was also great credentials, but he's not the right man for the job. He's been sitting behind the bench too long, I'm sorry. The other thing and we've discussed this about 10 times is are these indictments gonna make a difference?  And then they come back and win elections. Trump has 50 ways to avoid all these indictments and all these prosecutions and delay them until it's right up the crunch in 2024. I do not believe that any of those indictments or potential prosecutions are actually gonna stop him.  And I think, you know, look at the way he got Kevin McCarthy to spin around 360. Look at the way he got Mitch McConnell to spin around 360. And Cruz, you know, the great story of Cruz and his non-endorsement in the 2016, you know, convention, Republican convention, how he spun around and began to, and he refused to endorse Trump and Trump attacked him. And this is in the frontline movie called Trump and U.S. Democracy. And it's very clear that he's just another one of these guys that spun around. Oh, and Graham, Lindsey Graham, watch him spinning like a dervish. So if these guys, and Trump is thinking about this, we're thinking about it, he's thinking about it.  All right. And make those 11 o'clock calls. You know, have his acolytes make those calls to threaten them over us. So what I'm saying is I don't think that Merrick Garland's gonna get home on this. I'm not sure at all that Jack Smith is gonna help Merrick Garland get home on this and go back to my earlier point. Trump has lots of possibilities, he's gonna play them out. We do not live in a time where we can be all that optimistic. Okay. Thank you, Jay. You know, this last October represents my six years working with Think Tech Hawaii. And certainly a big part of that has been, you know, talking about politics, Trump week, shows like that. And it was six years ago, I asked a question, I never got an answer to, and I like to answer it again.   And it was, don't look up. Oh. And that's where that comes from.  It's really Leonardo DiCaprio sitting at the table with the families, and it's like Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving, right? And they're talking about what brand of coffee you buy at the market when the whole world has only a few minutes to live. And they discovered the comment, they know about it, but they're completely distracted because they can't stand the reality. And don't look up as a profound movie. I urge everybody to see it. And it's not funny. It's not funny at all. And I think we live in a world where we abuse ourselves. We do not recognize the reality. We do not recognize what would happen if we lost our democracy. And the comment of the loss of our democracy is coming closer every day. No, that is a good point, Jay. I always appreciate when you make it. That is an important point to make. Chuck, we've run out of time, but Jay said that, I'm sure Chuck will agree with me on this. Do you? And number two is, what are your last thoughts cause we're out of time? Well, to respond to the first question, there is a first time for everything. So. Thank you. Good. As many judges told Jay and me many times, it's taken under advisement, right? But I don't think the point is whether indictments or trials or verdicts or judgments take place before the 2024 elections. This is gonna be a point-by-point strategy war and whichever party manages to come up with and convey to people some sort of unifying leadership strategy may be the one that appeals to those swing voters, the independents, the young voters and the others. We'll see. Okay, we'll see. Jay, you get the final word for today's show and let it roll. Okay. Aside from everything we've discussed today and with respect to that five year period you described, we have been concerned with the possibility of what happens when you lose your democracy. People don't think about that, they don't think about the comet striking the earth. But the reality is if you don't have government and you don't have public safety anymore, if you don't have an orderly transfer of power, you have chaos and chaos means chaos in the streets. Okay, I mentioned that because I have always wondered just how that evolves, how that happens, how you see it present itself. And so far in the past what, 10 days we've had half a dozen mass murders in this country. If you charted out, you would see that the number is increasing dramatically. Over the period of the past year, 2022, there have been dozens and dozens of mass murders around this country. Violence, like for its own sake, people who are really unhinged and feel that they have permission somehow to do mass murder and suicide and what have you. And it's not just COVID, it's the political environment. It's the political virus. And I think we may be seeing a forerunner, a canary in the coal mine on what will happen if we don't, if we, all of us, including the electorate and the right thinking officials, if we don't take steps and reverse the trends that American issues take one and take two have identified. Well, that's what I like. Think Tech, that's why for the last six years I've been volunteering my time for Think Tech Hawaii is to encourage anyone and everyone to step up and speak out. And Think Tech is a great opportunity and an avenue to do such things. So I want to thank Jay Fidel and Chuck Krupton this morning for their thoughts and opinions about this important topic. I wish to say to everyone, happy, great and happy Thanksgiving. And we will see you shortly. And until then, thank you for tuning in for American Issues, Take One. I'm Tim Appichelle, your host. Happy Thanksgiving Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com. Mahalo.


Let's wait for everybody to join in on this colloquium. I see the number of participants is increasing as the capable Zoom servers allow the connections. Three people per second. So maybe we can start and people will keep joining as the first minutes go. It's a great pleasure for us to have today Professor Pablo de Benedetti from Princeton University. He will be giving this Zoom ICTP colloquium today. And just a quick bio sketch. Professor de Benedetti is one of the world leaders in the study of metastable liquids, which will tell us about today. He's class of 1950 professor in engineering and applied science and professor of chemical and biological engineering and dean of research. He joined the faculty of Princeton University more than 30 years ago and among his many professional owners is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Science, the National Academy of Science, and his fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the American Association for the Mountains of Science and the American Physical Society. And he wrote a very nice book called Metastable Liquids. And oh, she's here. Okay, very good. So we also have the director. So I was doing the honors. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, there was some issue with my zoom link. We got used to this now. Okay, so I was just telling the audience that Professor de Benedetti is a great expert in metastable liquids. And I was just making a list of the many, many honors that that he has achieved in his career. I joined you in the beginning, but I know so I'm very pleased actually, let me say on behalf of ICTP that we are very pleased to have Professor Pablo de Benedetti here. My colleague, Antonio has already given introduction to his many achievements. As I understand his last visit to ICTP was in 2004. Once an activity in glass physics as a speaker. So it will have a nice to welcome him here in person, but maybe hopefully sometime in the future. We can bring him back to ICTP. Thank you. So, please go ahead and yours and and you can share the screen and start the presentation. One notice to the audience. There is a Q&A window where you can ask questions that will be moderated and if you know relevant to ask to Professor de Benedetti during his talk. I suppose you don't mind being interrupted every now and then. No, no, not a problem. Not a problem. As you said, I cannot, I cannot see the questions when I'm sharing my screen so you can forward them to me, hopefully that will work. But anyway, it's a it's a real honor and a pleasure to join you this morning or this afternoon for you. I'm going to be talking about the thermodynamics of liquid water below the melting point or below the freezing point. This is a subject that has caught the interest of physicists, chemists, atmospheric scientists and biophysicists for more than half a century. For reasons that I will explain and it is an area where computer simulations have played a very important role. And I will explain why that is the case. So I will begin with presenting some experimental facts about super cool water and introduce the so called liquid liquid phase transition hypothesis and then I'll talk about three works very recent. One in which we find clear evidence of a second critical point into classical but very realistic models of water. One in which we obtain evidence consistent with again a second critical point in an ab initio neural network model of water. And the third more recent work in which we find an intriguing connection between criticality and the long range structure of glassy phases of water and I will end with conclusions. So just to put everyone on the same playing field. We all know that atmospheric pressure liquid water is stable between the melting and the boiling point. But if you're a good experimental is you can keep water in the liquid state above the boiling point that is called superheated water. And the world's record to which this has been achieved is 180 degrees above the boiling point. On the other hand you can cool water below the freezing point that's what I'm going to be talking about today and maintain it in the liquid state. And that can be done up to now up to minus 44 degrees C you see that these lines that I'm talking about are dotted. They are fixed because they are dictated not by thermodynamics but by kinetics and therefore it's interaction of thermodynamics and kinetics and your own experimental ingenuity that dictates how metastable you can be water like any liquid cool sufficiently fast come form a glass. If you heat that glass there is a glass transition. Above that, you have spontaneous crystallization to cubic ice and I'm going to be talking a lot about the properties of water in this region where water is cold enough that it tends to spontaneously freeze upon cooling but also hot enough that it tends to freeze upon heating from below the vitrifying. So it's very challenging to observe metastable liquid under these conditions. Cool water is not just laboratory curiosity the greatest inventory existing clouds. So here I show you schematically the temperature profiles in the atmosphere and I'm going to be concentrating on one on on the troposphere which is the lower 11 to 12 kilometers where weather happens. This is much better at absorbing solar radiation than the gases in the atmosphere. The troposphere is heated from below. So we probably it's very easy as sufficient altitude to reach sub freezing conditions. And because of the relative positive the of efficient ice nucleating particles is very common to see droplets of water super cool in clouds. And temperatures below minus 30 degrees C. The freezing when it happens it happens homogeneously without the need of solid particles at relatively higher temperatures. It happens to terror geniously catalyze by solid particles. And there is a lot of super cool water. Here I show you the major inventories of water on earth. If you look at the left hand column, I've translated everything to the radius of an equivalent sphere if we condense all the water in liquid form. You can see that we would have a sphere of radius of nine miles. And all the all the water that is in the atmosphere. Not all of it in the form of liquid droplets of course a lot of it in the form of water vapor. The properties of super cool water are highly unusual. The pioneering work here was done by the late Austin Angel that passed away recently. And the thermal compressibility that is the response of density to changes in pressure. And whereas most liquids, when you cool them the compressibility does nothing interesting in water, it really shoots up but continues increasing as far as one can measure. And a few years later they did similar measurements for the heat capacity which is the response function for the entropy or for the enthalpy. Again, highly unusual behavior you can see that the more you super cool, the higher the heat capacity becomes. And if you're interested in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, this really gets your juices flowing because these are response functions that cannot keep increasing by themselves, something needs to happen. And the key question in this field is what is about to happen is what is water tending to the properties of super cool water. All of them are unusual. The most well known is probably the density maximum the fact that below four degrees C the density decreases instead of increasing upon cooling and sharp contrast to the behavior of simple liquid. Here I show the thermal expansion coefficient which not only becomes negative but the rate at which its magnitude increases continues to increase sharply upon super cooling. The heat capacity increases dramatically and I just told you that and the compressibility also increases all in sharp contrast to the behavior of a simple liquid. And microscopically, each of these response functions is associated with a fluctuation. So, super cool water is unusual because there is a negative correlation between entropy and volume fluctuations. The heat capacity increase indicates an increase in enthalpy fluctuations, the compressibility increase indicates an increase in density fluctuations. So what is water fluctuating between that is a question that one seeks to answer. The next step in the, at least the formulation of a governing hypothesis was taken in 1992 this pioneering work in the group of jeans Stanley, done by then graduate student Peter pool, working with then postdoc Francesco shorty now. If I could concentrate your attention on the curse denoted by liquid, they were studying the equation of state of super cool water. The equation is that as you lower the volume as you compress the liquid, the pressure will start increasing sharper and sharper. But as you can see, as they decrease the temperature, all of a sudden they observe exactly the opposite, the liquid became highly compressible, as you can see by an almost horizontal portion of the curse. If you take this with a grain of salt but look carefully this looks almost like the beginnings of a van der Waals loop. Notice that this is not a typographical mistake. The pressure is decreasing at constant density as we increase the temperature that's one of the anomalies of water. It's related to the fact that the thermal expansion coefficient in this region is negative. And if you very rapidly quench and form a glass on the computer and then compress the glass, instead of going continuously from a low density to high density, you see almost a sharp discontinuity. And so this led these authors to propose the bold hypothesis that they were approaching a liquid liquid transition a metastable liquid liquid transition, and perhaps a critical point, as you would have if you had a van der Waals loop in this region. This experiment this work is remarkable because it's one of the few instances where a computer simulation preceded the experimental result. Two years later Osama Mishima did a remarkable set of experiments in which he compressed so called low density amorphous ice this is the glass that you form by cooling liquid water very fast. When you compress you see that the volume decreases, almost through a first order phase transition of course these are metastable phases they're out of equilibrium. When you do a cycle, there's here low density amorphous ice high density amorphous ice, you see hysteresis, I see here a question, let me see. What I was asked for me is how does water remain liquid when the temperatures increase more than 100 degrees. Well, water is metastable. That's the answer and the way to do that experiment is for example by putting liquid liquid water in in an immiscible fluid in which it rises and continue to heat the immiscible fluid and in which water rises. The absence of a sharp interface with respect to a solid allows water to be superheated, and that has been done in the lab and you can do it up to 180 degrees C so I hope I answered that question, but returning to this slide. Mishima did the experiment exactly what I showed in the computer simulation except that here it's rotated by 90 degrees because he manipulated the pressure not the volume and simulations they manipulate the volume not the pressure. And so this led to the formulation of the so called liquid liquid transition hypothesis for water which I show here. That says that deep in the super cool region below the homogeneous nucleation temperature but above the glass transition temperature, there is a metastable liquid liquid transition terminating at a critical point. And that critical point is the origin of all the anomalies that you saw experimentally measured that is the increase in heat capacity, the increase in compressibility. Observing this has been a challenge and I'm going to show you a list of experimental papers. The preponderance of the evidence is certainly consistent with the existence of the critical point, but we don't have what we would call in the US a smoking gun that is a completely definitive and part of it is the difficulty in observing liquid water without crystallizing in this region. On the other hand in computer simulations, it's very easy to super cool and avoid crystallization so computer simulations provide a complimentary set of characteristics that make this problem very challenging to study but very appropriate to study by computer simulation, because the characteristic times for relaxation and freezing are very well separate. And so computer simulations have played a crucial role in exploring the possibility of the existence of this liquid liquid transition and a critical point again the main idea. As we know from the theory of critical phenomena, the presence of a critical point is always felt not just in the immediate vicinity of the critical point but very far away. And it is hypothesized that it is this critical point that give rise to this unusual behavior. Here I show a list of experimental papers that are consistent with liquid liquid transition. You can all see this. I don't expect you to memorize all this this talk is being recorded. The point that I want to make. These are not the titles of the papers these are the techniques that were used in any case, and there is a wide variety of techniques, all of which if you read these papers show very clear evidence that is very consistent with the existence of critical point. So let me now begin with the first piece of work from our lab that I want to talk about. We're going to be talking about simulations of a classical model to models called to poor P 2005 tip for P eyes. They belong to a family of rigid body models of water with localized charges. But these have the characteristics that they are very realistic in fact they do a fairly good job at representing the very complex solid phase diagram of water which is a highly non trivial thing to do. And so I'm going to show you results of calculations in which we measure density and energy fluctuations and analyze the results in light of the theory of critical phenomena. So this is the raw data. I have the simulations of tip five p and tip for P 2005 tip for p eyes close to what will turn out to be their meta stable critic second critical point. And you notice that the density is doing something very curious, instead of oscillating around an equilibrium value. It's fluctuating between two equilibrium values. This of course is the signature of a vicinity to a phase transition. For those of you who do simulations I want you to notice the extremely long times 40 microseconds so simulations on the order of tens of microseconds are necessary in order to collect good statistics. And using the techniques that I'm going to explain the next slide, we're able to convert this to smooth two dimensional probability distribution diagrams for density and energy fluctuations at the critical points and these are again metastable critical points because these are highly super cool conditions. So how do we obtain the values of the critical point. We use a technique called histogram reweighting I'll explain in words and then I'll take you through these equations. In words the idea is if you're interested in the statistics of the distribution of an order parameter and in isobaric simulation, an order parameter could be the fluctuating density or the fluctuating energy. Then what you do is you collect histograms of the value of these fluctuating order parameters, and you approximate the true distribution by the collection of histograms. You weigh the histograms with statistical weights, and then you require that you minimize the deviation between the histograms that you collected and the true distribution of the order parameter. And when you do that, you end up with a set of couple equations, where I going from I to R are the thermodynamic conditions under which you do simulations. F sub I is the histogram in the I thermodynamic condition that has values of volume equal to be an energy equal to E. This gives you the probability distribution of observing the order parameter at conditions P and T. F is simply the total number of observations or configurations in simulation I and C is an effective free energy defined here. So these two equations need to be solved in a coupled numerical way. When you do that, you will see here I show you a collection of extrapolated histograms, essentially they allow it to extrapolate the histograms of fluctuating quantity away from the conditions at which you simulate. In this series of curves, the symbols denote simulations, the curves are calculated histograms and you see that the technique works extremely well. These are a series of isothermal simulations at a series of pressures going from 1.5 kilobars to 2 kilobars. What you see what the system is doing, it's evolving from a low density to a high density as you increase the pressure that's expected. But instead of doing it continuously, it goes through a clear region of a phase transition because you have a very broad distribution and in fact you have by modality. And so this again indicates the existence of a phase transition and the proximity to a critical point. We wanted to really qualify and understand what type of criticality we had. And of course, when you have short range interactions and a scalar order parameter, the default thing that you look for is the icing universality class. As shown by wilding the relevant order parameter is a linear combination of density and energy here S is a field mixing parameters not the entropy and T is simply the combined linearly combined order parameter. So, this is because of the lack of particle hole symmetry in a real fluid manifested by the breakdown for example of the law of linear diameters. And we use the very useful parametrization very accurate but empirical parametrization of the distribution of magnetization fluctuations due to SIPPEN and BLUTE who fitted this to the universalizing distribution. And we compare it with our own observed fluctuation distributions for the rescaled value of this mixed order parameter defined such that it has zero mean and unit variance. And so really what you do is you compare the observed fluctuations you regress the temperature and the pressure that gives you the best fit to the icing universality class. And from which you obtain the critical parameters. So the green curve here is the universalizing distribution and the dots are the observed distributions and the simulations and you can see that you get a very good approximation to the icing model. And you can regress values of the critical parameter using this technique. So this gives you clear proof that indeed the fluctuations correspond to a critical point of the icing universality class. In this same work, we did a second calculation. So we simulated a scattering experiment we calculated the structure factor. The structure factor is related in the K equals zero. Can I interrupt you a second. Yes, please. Yes, so regarding this icing. Yes. Symmetry class. So since you said there is no particle or symmetry. It's like in the icing model, when you have an external magnetic field, right. Yes. So, and, and so you are following that you are looking at the transition the first of the transition along that line and getting closer to the critical point. Actually, the line is at the critical point and the fit of the curves are the best fit that you can get to the distribution where you are regressing. Of course, the fit will be different at different temperatures and pressures. So you're regressing the best fit for the critical temperature and the critical pressure. It's a numerical fit to the icing distribution. Okay, I was just asking, I mean, at the critical point, the icing, the icing model as critical exponents and everything. I will show you that's where I'm going. I will show you the exponents. Okay, very good. So this fit is just for the distribution of the magnetization and then you will show for the correlations. Okay. Exactly. So we calculate the structure factor, which is related to the compressibility in the K equals zero limit. We use the fact that close to the critical point the structure factor can be decomposing to a normal and anomalous component. The anomalous component has a Lorentzian form where Chi is the correlation length. Chi is the wave vector. And we do simulations with a very large system. So we have in this case, these are very expensive simulations on the order of 50,000 molecules exactly 36,000. Why so many, because we want to measure the correlation length and we want to make sure that our computational box contains several correlation lens. So we fix the density and we converge to the expected critical point and you can see very clearly the enhanced fluctuations given by the growth in the structure in the in the low key value of the structure factor. And so here's the question that you were asking. So what are the predictions from if you have a system that satisfies the icing universality class. These are the icing critical exponents. So we took our numerical data for the correlation length and the compressibility. And here we show a line with a slope fixed by the predictions of the critical exponents of the Isaac universality class. The critical temperature as the regress parameter and you can see that within numerical accuracy. This is also very consistent with the icing universality class. It's as good as you can do in the simulations these are extremely demanding simulations, both because of the size of the computational cell, and because of critical slowing down so you need to run extremely long simulation but very satisfying me. So the critical temperature that we regress is very consistent with what we obtained by doing the icing fit. So this first piece of work shows the existence of a metastable critical point in two models that do a very good job at representing the properties of water, but these models are empirical. The question is, can we do better than this. There's no question that simulations have helped us gather insights into the behavior of water and there are many, many examples of very active field. Can we do the same. Can we improve and say something about the behavior of water in this region that I've been talking about. I've been a type models or initial type calculations until very recently, the answer to this would have been known because of the very long times required for relaxation and comparatively large sample sizes. So I'm going to show you in this work how using a combination of machine learning computational chemistry and statistical mechanics. We were able to develop an ab initio quality model without adjustable parameters. And this model shows behavior consistent with the existence of a metastable critical point. So the development of model involves generation of a deep neural network model of water with training data prepared with scan at the density functional theory level with a scan exchange correlation functional. And so as to reproduce ab initio energies and forces, and we use deep potential molecular dynamics in the multi thermal multi barric ensemble to generate the equation of state I'll go into those details in a second. So initial training doing density functional theory calculations on a small number of configurations involving both the liquid and 15 nice phases and add new new training data by iterative exploration of configurational space. And here are the details. We ended up having roughly 20,000 structures in the final training set. And so this model was then obtained in this iterative fashion fashion. So how does this work so I'm going to show you the predictions of the model. I want you to concentrate on the top left figure. Here I'm showing the height of the second peak of the oxygen oxygen pair correlation function with the diamonds are experimental data and the circles are simulations. We see very good agreement in order to obtain this good agreement. We had to shift the simulation data by 47 Kelvin but once we do that. We obtain a good fairly good representation of the properties of super cool water, and these are highly non trivial predictions remember there are no adjustable parameters here. And in fact, we're able to reproduce both the density maximum again, diamonds are simulations circles are experiments. So this is one of water's anomalies, the diffusion anomaly if you notice the diffusion goes up with pressure when water is cold that's another of water's anomaly, both increasing diffusivity and the decrease in viscosity upon pressurization are intensive anomalies of liquid water. And here we show the anomalous increase in compressibility. Once we shift the temperatures, the model does a very good job at one kilobar. It does a good job at moderate super cooling but not as good a job at deep super cooling at one bar. Meaning sources of discrepancy and this is an active area of investigation could involve nuclear quantum effects is a nuclear treated classically, or limitations of the density functional theory but this is the model that we're going to use. Even with this, even though we were it runs much faster than an ab initium molecular dynamics. It is still too slow for the problem that we're interested in, because you need, you can only sample if you use straightforward molecular dynamics, the immediate vicinity of the point at which you're simulating. We'd like to be able to enhance the fluctuations of volume and energy and sample a broader range of configurations. So we use the technique of multi thermal multi barric multi thermal multi barric ensemble developed in the killer Pyrenees group. Pablo Piagis a co author of this paper that again enhances by adding a bias to the potential enhances the fluctuations in volume and energy. And essentially what you're doing is you're reweighting what you observe to other conditions noted here by T prime and P prime. So these are the results. In the left panel I show you the equation of state this is density versus temperature and various pressures. And though it's very difficult to see I'm actually showing two sets of data, the data that are reweighted by this multi thermal multi barric ensemble and the data obtained by MPT simulations you see that they're almost indistinguishable. And the model is showing a low temperatures and enhance vast enhanced fluctuations which you can see by an increase in the slope of row versus P. Here we take the derivatives and we calculate the compressibility. And you notice lines through the points. And so what we use to get the lines through the points is a phenomenological thermodynamic model called two state thermodynamics. What happens in super cool water is that molecules can be very easily distinguished by the local configurations in a computer simulation. And these are intend to be by model, either a molecule has a local environment that is tetrahedral the coordinated and low density, or the tetrahedral is highly distorted with the invasion of a fifth neighbor for example, and high density so you can easily classify the water molecules in one or two environments. So you develop a so called mixture model where X is the fraction of water that has a low density environment. You postulate an ideal entropy of mixing with some interaction that reflects the non ideality. But what I want to stress is that when I use the word mixture here is in quotation marks, because this is not a true mixer is a single component. The difference of molecules that have a low density environment is obtained by minimization of the Gibbs free energy is not imposed a priori. So you postulate an expansion between the difference in free energy between water molecules that have low density and high density environments. In general this to if I mean you can easily see by taking two derivatives since this model is symmetric by the exchange X to one minus X that at Omega equals to you have a critical point, and you make this more general you make interaction energy temperature dependent. You have a series of adjustable parameters which you obtained by fitting the model to the simulation data for example for the fraction of water molecules that have a low density environment. I see a question. So the question is what do GA and GB pertain to in the first equation of two state thermodynamics GA and GB are the chemical potential of free energy per molecule of a water molecule that has a low density local environment and a high density local environment. So they are the precursors of the two different liquid phases. And when you do that, you obtain very good fit to simulation data this is earlier work, but for our model these are the fits. You can see that you obtain excellent fit to the simulation data. We had to stop at this temperature because of the low temperature long relaxation times, but you can see that the fit through the model predicts again the mixing and the existence of a liquid liquid critical point. In this case at 224 Kelvin and you subtract remember we to the 47 degree shift. You get a pretty decent agreement with our previous predictions the important thing here is that this is informed, whereas it before this was a rigorous profile by numerical. Here the simulation stop at a temperature below the critical point exists below the temperature that we simulated in this work, but nonetheless, the fit is very satisfactory and is strong evidence consistent with again the existence of metastable critical point in this model. Can I stop you for a second so just to, to understand a little bit so GA and GB are essentially fitting parameters for for for the day they're not found microscopically you're using your two state model to to find this delta P delta T which are essentially GA minus GB from the data. So I postulate that GA minus GB has an expansion in temperature and pressure and what I obtained are the coefficients. Okay, and what I'm measuring my simulations is X, that is to say at any given point, I do simulations I can by using a certain type of when a molecule has a low density local environment and a high density local environment at any given TMP, I know what X is. So that gives me a parameter to fit, and I obtained with this the parameters of model, and that then gives me the lines, but also T C is a is a fitting parameter. Exactly, exactly. So, from from that, what shows when GB and GA are equal for the temperature which they are equal and pressure for which they are equal. That's the point of the face transition that's the red circle there. That's the locus of the face transition in fact that condition defines the critical point and the continuation which is the weird online when GA is equal to GB. Okay. Okay. Just just to make clear to Thank you. And once you have that then you can do excellent fit to the simulation so here we have the predicted critical point. This is a line of maximum density, the symbols are the simulations, the line is the predicted fit, the two state fit. The same thing with the maximum of heat capacity the maximum of compressibility. And then they merge at the critical point as they should so this gives you essentially control of the whole thermodynamics. But as I said, our simulations, numerically stop at 250 and the critical point is predicted to be below that. The last topic that I want to talk takes us back to the glasses so I want to remind you the basic phenomenology that I showed a low density glass and a high density glass. These clearly are non equilibrium phases, and we became very interested in the connection between glasses and criticality by a very interesting paper by salt or quattro falso martelli. Nicholas Johan Batista and Roberto car of a few years ago. We did numerical calculations on water glasses, and show that the glasses were what cell has come to call hyper uniform. That is to say that, rather than having the structure factor go to infinity as I showed before the knowing the noting enhance long range fluctuations. The structure factor that goes to zero, or that is very small denoting an anomalous suppression density fluctuations. So then we asked the question something really interesting is happening here because you go from s equals zero to a diverging as of zero. And so the change in the structure of the glass, perhaps could reflect passage close to the critical element. So we decided to investigate this numerically. By doing the following computational experiments that is quenching water glasses and we're going to be using the tip for P 2005 at different pressures and see if something unusual happens to glasses formed at pressures that cross the critical element that we previously calculated. And obviously the answer is yes otherwise I wouldn't be talking about this and so the rest of the talk I want to show you some interesting results. Now we wanted to have a comparison as to the expected behavior. So we use three models one is this tip for P 2005. The other one is a very popular course green model of water that doesn't have a liquid liquid transition. It's a single side model developed and use very successfully by valeria mollinero that enforces to tragedy reality by three body term. So this is intermediate in the sense that it has all of water's anomalies but doesn't have a metastable critical point. And then something that is a canonical glass former. It's a mixture of Leonard Jones with different energy and size parameters is called the Cobb Anderson mixture. It's a canonical glass former. It's very difficult to crystallize and very easy to form glasses, but has no reason to form to display any of water's anomalies. So we quench these at different pressures and measure the structure factor. So this is the Cobb Anderson binary Leonard Jones. So what you see on the on the on the right hand side is the numerical calculation of something called the spectral density, which denotes volume fraction fluctuations it's analogous to the structure factor. So, again, we're quenching isobarically the red is the initial temperature, blue denotes the final temperature, and nothing unusual happens in the structure factor. As we change the pressure, you see reduced fluctuations as you increase the pressure the behavior that you would expect for MW. You see the same although there's an interesting non monotonicity, but basically you see the same qualitative behavior as in the Cobb Anderson mixture. But for water, or at least for the tip for P model of water you see very interesting and very different behavior. So the structure factor at the K equals zero limit of the structure factor shows pronounced enhancements in the glass phase. Very close to the pressure where we calculated that there is a critical point. So this was very intriguing to us because it's telling us that the glass shows remnants of long range density fluctuations that originate by being close to the critical point. So we decided to look at this more carefully. So here I show you the same information, but I'm showing you the structure factor as it evolves during the quench of the liquid to the glassy phase. You see that both at low pressures and at very high pressures the trend is monotonic. You see a decrease in the structure factor, but an intermediate pressures close to the critical point as you super cool the liquid, the structure factor starts to increase, and then it's frozen into the glass. So then the question that drove this investigation is, is what we see a sign of fluctuations being frozen upon crossing the widow line now the widow line. I alluded to it before is the locus of maximum correlation lens every critical point has a widow line emanating from it. And the line of maximum compressibilities and maximum heat capacities asymptotically become the widow line asymptotically close to the critical point. So we decided to look at that. And the question we are asking is how does the glass transition influence these phenomena. So we computed here the glass transition of this tip for P 2005 water model for different cooling rates as you lower the cooling rate. The glass transition dips lower that's basic phenomenology, but you see one more of water's anomalies, you see two types, or two families of glass transition at lower pressures, you have water like anomalous behavior in that the glass transition decreases as you pressurize the fluid, whereas at high pressure the glass transition increases as you pressurize the fluid. This is the normal behavior that you see in any liquid. This is telling you that as you compress the liquid, the molecules gain mobility if you want to speak loosely, and that is because at low density water forms a very open low density to tradeally coordinated network. This is the critical point that we calculated and you see that the glass transition line computed at the lowest cooling rate that we attained in the simulations is close to but below the critical temperature. So even though today I talk very little about dynamics, I want you to notice that this point has a combination of critical slowing down. It is also metastable with respect to a crystal so you have to worry about nucleation, and it is also close to the glass transition so dynamics here is extremely rich and very interesting. So here I'm showing you the structure factor as a function of pressure for these points, and you see that as you at different cooling rates, you see a maximum as you lower the cooling rates, the maximum becomes sharper. And the lowest cooling rate that we could see this maximum coincides with the critical pressure and within numerical accuracy. These maxima correspond to points along the widow line emanating with the critical point. So the physical picture is extremely rich and attractive and is summarized here as you cool a liquid. At constant pressure, you're quenching and then you're going to freeze the fluctuations, the maximum fluctuations that you see when you cool and the glass transition intersects the widow line. Those are the fluctuations that are being frozen. And that's why you see signatures of criticality because if you're able to cool at a rate, excuse me, such as the glass transition lies below the critical point. You will preserve the fluctuations that you see in passing through the critical point. This is extremely intriguing because it suggests an experimental access to the possible existence of critical point by studying the long range structure of glasses as a function of pressure and I'm collaborating with Thomas Lerting at Innsbruck, where he was doing experiments, trying to see if we see this effect. So summarizing the behavior of the glass transition that we saw for the covenants of mixture normal liquid behavior for MW you see water like behavior. But you don't see an in an anomalous increase in the structure factor correspond to passage to a critical point. But for tip for P you see both water like behavior in the sense of having a low density branch and a high density branch with different pressure dependence of the glass transition line. But also along this branch and anomalous increase in the long range density fluctuations in the glass. So let me summarize the implications of the third part, the third calculation that I talked about the long range structure of water like tip for P 2005 glasses shows a surprising signature of metastable criticality. In W model exhibits water like anomalies in TG shows two branches, but no evidence of liquid liquid transition. And we hypothesize that the low that the locate at the low way vector limit of the structure factor in his pressure dependence may distinguish between systems that have a liquid liquid phase transition and those that don't. And so it could be maybe an experimentally accessible accessible metric that does not rely on having to observe liquid water without without crystallizing in in this region. So let me summarize the conclusions of what I told you both tip for P 2005 and tip for P is possess a second critical point. We see signatures of liquid liquid phase transition and that I've been issued deep neural network model of water. I've shown you long range structure of tip for P 2005 glasses showing signatures of criticality. And the intriguing concept that the intersection of the widow line and the glass transition line freezes long range structure in glasses. I don't want you to leave this talk with impression that I'm saying that real water has a critical point a second critical point. This will need to be determined by experiments, but some of the experimental evidence the papers that I listed in that single slide is very compelling and consistent with the existence of criticality. But again, the definitive proof will have to come from experiments not from simulations. We don't have a systematic understanding of how force fields affect and shift the liquid liquid transition. I alluded to the fact that dynamics is extremely rich we're starting to explore it there is a confluence of critical slowing down, nucleation and vitrification. I didn't talk today about scaling and universality but there are several features associated with the second critical point that allow considerable collapse of very different models provided you do the right scaling. And I do want to end by really acknowledging the people who did this work on the metastable criticality this is my postdoc good sir say and I've had the pleasure of collaborating with Francesco shorty know in Rome. On the deep neural network model postdoc Thomas Gardner and Pablo Piaggi, former postdoc Lin Feng Zhang, and this was a collaboration with Thanos Panajatopoulos and Roberto Carr. And the work on water glasses again the work of Thomas Gardner collaboration with Roberto Carr and Salto Quattro funding of National Science Foundation and Department of Energy. And we made abundant use of the Princeton super computing resources so I really want to thank you for your attention and I'm very happy to try to answer any questions you may have thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Pablo for for the beautiful talk so we do have one question which was asked by Stefano Baroni and but to be asked at the at the end of the talk, as instructed, can you read it, or should I read it to you. Yes. Okay, so you can read it you can you can also answer. It says, in one of your first slides you showed us the time evolution of density or energy fluctuations featuring solid on light jumps I presume these data were from isothermal isobaric simulations which are designed to you correctly were properties, but not necessarily dynamical ones. Have you got any idea on how the details of these results depend on the specific thermostat embarrass that employed in the simulation. So we did very thermostat embarrassed at the outset of the of the project. The equilibrium results as long as you use physically meaningful parameters for the thermostat embarrassed that do not depend on the values. Of course the dynamics of the fluctuations do depend on that. But the slide, the calculation that we were doing is trying to obtain the equilibrium distribution two dimensional histogram of energy and density fluctuations. And so those are provided you use physical values for the parameters independent of the bare set and thermostat constants. So we say we answer this question. Yeah. Ali, you have a question. Yes, if I can take steal this opportunity. So, so thanks very much Pablo. So I had a curiosity about, so you know comparing the classical potentials versus the deep neural network model. Let's say from the deep neural network, of course, it's trained with all the full electronic polarization, etc, etc. Do you have a sense on, you know, when you talk about the high density low density fluctuations. Is this an interesting coupling going on with dielectric fluctuations as well. And is that something that could be teased out from. We did not look at that. It certainly is something that could be teased out. We were interested in equation of state calculations. It could. Let me, I do want to clarify something if you hope you don't mind I'll leave taking your question. I don't want to sound as though I'm overselling the deep neural network model when I said there's no adjustable parameters. Because of course, you know what points you use for the training said how many layers you use in your neural network. Those are in a sense parameters. You know, but there's no assumption as to the model you know you're collecting data, doing a neural network fit of the model and this is what you get so it is very nice to see that you're able to reproduce the water anomalies already. I would imagine and we're doing work in that direction that training neural network with more points and more ice phases will read will give you more accurate model and hopefully lead to the elimination or the narrowing of this 47 Kelvin gap between theory and experiment. Okay, thanks. I do have a question about that 47 Kelvin gap. So that that's, that's a few million electron volt in energy right so so you said you were expecting that to come from, you know, nuclear fact quantum effects, which kind of can you elaborate a little bit more on what these simulations you treat the nuclei I mean you're doing electronic structure calculations and the nuclear treated classically in this. I'm not an expert in in DFT calculation but in the method you're treating the nuclear classically and they're not. So, if you do path integral simulations and people have done that and there are people who have quantified very accurately how much of this comes from nuclear quantum effects. The answer is model specific so one would have to do calculations for the specific model that we train. And you're using a particular that functional called the scan functional that is a good functional it's not an exact functional so there are sources of error there. So what are these are the possible sources of error that we have. So but physically the idea is that part of the energy goes into degrees of freedom that you have not considered. Exactly. Exactly. Okay, so you are. And this would become particularly relevant at low temperatures which is the region that I'm interested in. You know if I were doing vapor liquid equilibrium. It would be different. Somebody has raised his hand. Can you ask to write because I cannot let the people talk but you can you can write your question in the q amp a thing please. I think he's in the panel now so you can talk. Yeah. Okay, okay. Do you hear me. Yes. Yes. Okay, great. But thanks a lot for the talk it was really really interesting. I have a very very naive question. So structurally this high and low density liquids. So I a certain point in the talk you mentioned a fifth coordinated structure with respect to the four coordinated coordinated structure. So, did you characterize them structurally and if that the case, if that's the case so how long do they live which is a lifetime of of a molecule in the surrounded by a high density. environment salvation shell and another one, so baby, low density salvation shell. Thank you that's an excellent question, because I didn't have time to go into the detail let me start the difference in structure. So the low density liquid. Every molecule is tetrahedrally coordinated, but you don't have long range orders so you don't have like hexagonal eyes so you think of tetrahedra that are orientationally disordered. Okay. So the high density liquid. If you look at the structure first of all, you have a local high dense higher density because there is like a fifth neighbor that typically intrudes into the first coordination shell. So there are many ways of distinguishing this. Some people use as an order parameter the distance to the fifth neighbor in the low density liquid that distance is higher than in the high density liquid. That's one order parameter, another order parameters to measure the height between the first and second peaks of the oxygen oxygen pair correlation function for the low density liquid that almost goes to zero so you have a very good separation between the first and second salvation shell in the high density liquid that is corrupted. Regarding the lifetime in a computer simulation. If you if you have a model that allows you to see liquid liquid coexistence and that's a non trivial aspect, because you're talking very low temperatures you need to let it equilibrate. But one such model is one that I didn't talk about today call sd2, you can see the phases coexist for a very long time when I say very long time, I mean simulation time. These phases will coexist for tens of microseconds at the right conditions. Now if you're asking for the individual molecule a given configuration in a thermalized fluid that's fluctuating all the time. It's a few picoseconds. So before the system has phase separated, you will see that a local configuration of a water molecule is either that right really coordinated or high density, and those in a property equilibrated liquid are fluctuating all the time. That's why it's important not to not to get carried away by calling this. I call it a quote unquote mixture model I don't want you to imagine that there are. I was doing a fit above the critical point. So what I'm fitting are the fraction of water molecules that have a given local environment that's in a thermalized liquid it's equilibrated that is fluctuating all the time. Okay. Yeah, thank you very much. So we have a question from area to something area. Yes, good, good morning Pablo. Hello, a question about the nucleation between the two phases when you are below the critical point. What was that nucleation look like do we know anything about it from simulations or from experiment. From simulations, we know that in a small system, which is what we've been able to simulate below the critical point. It is possible to have the system transition between low and high density phases. So it goes back and forth between low and high density phase. Of course, that's something that you can only see in a simulation it's a finite size effect. And what you see happens it happens very rapidly. All of a sudden you see a local low density local environment that forms in the high density phase, and that immediately nucleates the overall low density phase. And so the system goes from a low density to a high density and just fluctuates back and forth in experiment. It has not been seen that that that's what everyone is looking for. There is indirect evidence for example the most recent by the group of Anders Nielsen, who did a isochoric quench the glass phase and did femtosecond actually scattering and observed a discontinuity in the scattering spectrum, which he was able to assign to a transition from one phase to the other. But that's in the glassy phase or almost close to the glassy phase. So we know what it looks like in the liquid in simulations. It has not been seen in experiments unambiguously. I hope I answer your question. Thank you very much. Okay, so if there are no other questions, let me remind the public that we have a session of exclusive question answer with the students, which is a separate zoom room. If there are no other questions. Can I ask you a question? I will show that session starts at 530 for you. Yeah, it's in 20 minutes. Yes, okay. Very good. Okay, I can, you know, I can meet you there in 20 minutes. It's a different zoom like, yeah. Yeah, you have a different invitation. Okay, so if there are no other questions, then I would like to thank Pablo again for his, you know, for his, for his talk and kindly to discuss. Thank you. I'm the one who's grateful. Thank you very much. And we are really looking forward for you to visit. As soon as it will be possible. Okay, very good. Thanks Pablo. Thank you.


After participating in the GES in the 25th section of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change that took place in Madrid, Spain, I'm back in my home country Liberia trying to do what I've learned. So fortunately Liberia is for the first time hosting the Green Climate Foreign Board meeting. This meeting we expect over 100 international guests in Liberia and discuss issues relative to the implementation that has to call for action. So what's my role as a geo-negotiator in trying to implement what I've learned? I am serving as the Media and Communication Specialist. So for this meeting I am working in line with the GCF Communication Team to see how best that all issues relative to communication is in order for this meeting. So serving as the Media and Communication Specialist for the Environmental Protection Agency for this board meeting, this GCF board meeting that is happening in Liberia from the 6th of February to the 7th, I am trying to support all issues relative to media relations. So there I'm working along with the GCF Communication Team to ensure that we have an appropriate coordination when it comes to media communication and other issues relative to publication. I look forward to working and having a better fruitful result with these facts that have been given to me.


Fifteen thousand years ago, a yogi appeared in the upper regions of Himalayas. Nobody knew where he came from. His antecedents were completely unknown. So people gathered around him because he was such a phenomenal presence. A large group of people gathered like this. They expected him to say something, do something. He did nothing, he said nothing. Simply he sat. If I simply sat here for two hours, I can imagine. Within fifteen minutes, those people in the last few rows and they will slowly… still there is time for the cinema, let's go. If I said nothing for two hours, ninety percent of the people will be gone.  Same happened to him. He said nothing, did nothing, simply sat still. Not for a day, not for a week, for months on end, he simply sat still. Everybody was expecting a miracle, nothing happened, he just sat. But they were missing a most fundamental miracle because the nature of your body is such right now, you're well attended to. You'll have lunch in the afternoon and maybe you snacked in the evening so that you don't fall asleep, you had a coffee and maybe you have something in your bag. So many things. All these things are being attended to, so this is fine. Suppose we just make you sit here for four hours. Sadguru, at least some water. Okay, drink water. After drinking water, can we just sit here, Sadguru? That one. Okay, do that and come. Sadguru. Okay, if you give this, the next one, no permission. This will just go. Or in other words, what you call as a body is a series of processes. Only if you are attending to them, it's fine. If you don't attend to it, then you'll see what a trouble it is. When you do not attend to the body, if you're hungry or… why all that, people say, how long one minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you are. From inside, somebody says, just one minute. Outside, it's one eon. Okay? So because this is the nature of the body, if you do not attend to it, it'll become so compulsive and get you into such big trouble. But here, he just sat. He neither ate nor drank water nor went to attend to nature's calls. Simply he sat still. People could not even make out whether he's alive or dead. The only sign of life was, off and on, tears of ecstasy were dribbling down his cheeks. Otherwise, he simply sat unmoving. When only seven people hung on, they realized the miracle of him sitting here like this. Because if he has to sit here like this, he has transcended physical nature. Otherwise, you cannot sit like this. These seven people hung on, today we celebrate these seven people as the Saptarishis. These were his first disciples of the Adiyogi. So this Adiyogi just sat there, these seven people showed interest. He told them, this is not for you, this is not entertainment. But they said, no, we're willing to do anything. He gave them a few preparatory steps. They prepared for many years. Then one day when the solstice was shifting, just now we shifted from summer solstice to winter solstice on December 22, it'll again happen on June 21st. And this coming June 21st is significant, significant for the world because this is the day when Adiyogi first gave his turn south and gave his teaching because the sun turned south, he turned south and started explaining the mechanics of being human. On this day, fortunately the world, the United Nations has declared the World Yoga Day because yoga began on that day. This incredible process of exploring the human mechanics went into the process. This predates all religion. When there was no religion on the planet, fifteen thousand years ago, he went into the mechanics of what it means to be human and various aspects happened. He opened up one hundred and twelve different ways in which a human being can attain to his ultimate nature. And when people asked, especially his wife Parvati asked, why not more? Why only hundred and twelve? Then he said, if you're rooted in the body, there are only hundred and twelve possibilities. If you transcend the body, how many atoms there are in this universe, that many doorways are there if you're willing to explore it. But if you're rooted in this body, there are only one hundred and twelve ways. And the whole yogic system subscribes to this even today because nobody has found more ways. Any number of yogis have explored in a million different ways, but there is no other doorway in this body, there are hundred and twelve ways into which you get there. So for this, how to generate this, how to make this work the way you want it? So this whole mechanics, he started Adiyogi Explode for many years and he gave this elaborate knowledge to the world. And then asked these seven people to go in seven different directions in the world. One went to Central Asia, another went to North Africa, another went to South America, another went to Southeast Asia. One came down to what we call as the Indian part of Himalayas. One stayed with him and one more who is very important for us, Agastya Muni, came down south. He is known as the father of Sathran mysticism because he did not spare a single human habitation south of the Vindyas. In the Deccan Plateau, he made sure every single human being who lived in this place had some sense of spiritual process.