screen. Hello to everybody. So let's continue our morning session. And sorry, Natasha, sorry interrupt, but this display is, see, I don't even see my mouse. Then I minimize this. Then you should not minimize it.  Okay, great. Okay, with that, we continue. And the next talk is by Shira Wu from Stanford and he will tell us about pair density wave order from electron repulsion. You have 40 minutes and thank you. Great, thanks. All right, thank you for the invitation. It's always great to be back and see old friends. And this work is done in collaboration with three very bright young scientists, in particular, Yiming Wu, who's a postdoc who's about to start at Stanford. And we should have a paper out reasonably soon. So let me start by reviewing some familiar notions. What I'm going to be discussing in my talk is a rare and exotic type of superconductivity that's related to something that was studied long ago, known as FFLO superconductivity. And remember, in a metal with inversion symmetry or time reversal symmetry, pairing in the clean limit involves antipodal points on the Fermi surface between k and minus k. And that's the ordinary superconducting state. And we can solve the linearized gap equations that understand basically everything. By contrast, the FFLO state involves pairing knots between k and minus k, but there is some net momentum, which I call q. That's the momentum of the center of mass of the Cooper pairs. And you can see the difference in the linearized gap equation that it involves fermions at k and minus k plus q. Okay, so there's two types of such pairing. There's the FF state in which delta is a plane wave. And since all observables must be gauge invariant, this state remains translationally invariant. It's just a phase. By contrast, the state of Larkin and of Chinikov has a modulated density, where the order parameter goes like cosine. So I'm going to be focusing on the Larkin of Chinikov state in my talk. So this state breaks, of course, the U1, as superconductors always do, and it also breaks translational symmetry. But it can also break time reversal symmetry, as you see in this picture here, where you imagine Zeeman splitting Fermi surface, so that breaks time reversal symmetry. And then you have, on top of that, this modulated superconducting state. So a related state to the Larkin of Chinikov state, so often Larkin of Chinikov state is accompanied by a uniform superconducting component. If there were no uniform component, this Larkin of Chinikov state has been named the pair density wave order. Yes, Pierce, you're right. You can think of the Larkin of Chinikov state as two FF states, e to the iqr and e to the minus iqr, and then you get a cosine out of this. Andre? So the question was, yes, the Larkin of Chinikov state also has no q equals zero, but in terms of mechanism, it usually came from taking a uniform superconductor, polarizing it, and then having both uniform and non-uniform components. Anyway, these are nomenclature, so we now call these things pair density waves. Okay, the beautiful thing is that not only are these rare and exotic, they exist in nature, as shown here in this very important result that hasn't been published yet in the group of Abe Pashupati. This is a europium-based iron superconductor, and you can see below transition temperature, you can look with your own eyes directly. If you see the gap as a function of position, it's oscillating in space. And from that, if you pour a transform, you can associate a brag-like wave vector associated with the superconducting state. And finally, if you look at the coherence peaks as a function of position, they have the spatially modulated form, which is like the Larkin of Chinikov, or pair density wave state. Other promising candidates include these recently studied and actively studied Kagome metals, cesium, vanadium, and antimony, perhaps UTE2. And of course, it's been invoked as being relevant in the cuprates. I don't know if that's true, I think that still remains controversial. Okay, so we're interested in the pairing mechanism of such states. So let me remind you that if you look at the pair susceptibility, which is defined here, B is a pair of fermions. If I look at the, in a translationally invariant system, it only depends on I minus J. If I look at the static piece and Fourier transform as a function of Q, Q would be the center of mass momentum of the pairs. It has the following feature that it's, first of all, a positive definite function. That's important. That'll be invoked in my talk. It's peaked at Q equals zero. The peak at Q equals zero is the celebrated logarithmic divergence of BCS. And shown here in the limit as Q goes to zero, it's just the density of states times some constants involving the cutoff and the temperature. So because the susceptibility is biggest at Q equals zero, that's why uniform superconductivity always wins. And if you want to have a mechanism for Larkin of Chinico of like pairing, you want to really build on this already large susceptibility at Q equals zero and maybe try to perturb the metal by, say, a Zeeman field if we're talking about singlet pairing. And so you usually have schematic phase diagrams like this where, oops, okay, there we go. Still works. Where you have, for a large part of the phase diagram, a uniform superconductor and just a sliver, say, if you apply a magnetic field in the regime right near the upper critical field, you might see an FFLO state. But what I want to do is ask, so this I would call an extrinsic mechanism. It relies on some other order that's about to condense. And this was the strategy I think also of Larkin and of Chinico. But what I want to ask is, is there a more intrinsic mechanism where you get naturally of spatially modulated superconductivity without the need to invoke a uniform component? Okay, and for that, because the susceptibility is not logarithmically divergent at Q away from zero, we need to go away from this tyranny of weak coupling. We need to get away from weak coupling. So in my talk, I have good news. What we have done is that we found robust low energy effective theories hosting the pair density wave order for a variety of lattice continuum systems in D greater than one. But there's always bad news. The bad news is that the low energy theory requires some special circumstances in order to emerge from microscopic models, solid with the say the Hubbard model. But I'm an optimistic person. I convert bad news into good news. The fact that it's so rare, this requires special circumstances, I think explains in part why these states are not found everywhere. It's a rare phase of matter. Okay, so what we study is a Fermi liquid, Fermi liquid with some dispersion, and an interaction, which is a BCS like interaction. And when this is positive, that's a repulsive BCS interaction, I'm going to study repulsive interactions. In Andre's talk from the other day, Andre's also studied repulsive interactions at weak coupling. He showed quite clearly that you have unconventional superconducting states, which are uniform states. But what I'm going to do is go away from the weak coupling limit, where we're going to look for non uniform states. How to solve, we don't have a small parameter. So we're going to we're going to solve using McDowell-Eliashberg theory. Okay, so that does not require being pinned to weak coupling. Yes. Because the logarithmic, oh, sorry. Yes. The question is, why do we need strong coupling? You know, strong coupling, I just mean, you don't, you cannot find it at weak coupling because the logarithmic physics that gives rise to your usual superconductivity is coming from Q equals zero. Away from Q equals zero, the log divergence of the pair susceptibility is cut off. So then you need some finite strength. That's not strong coupling, but it's intermediate coupling. Not, you know, weak or strong is words, but it's not a marginal instability of a Fermi liquid. Nesting is not relevant in this talk. Okay, good. So we're going to solve by McDowell-Eliashberg theory. And what I mean is this, we have a set of solutions for exact fermion propagator, inverse propagators and exact Boson propagator. So where's the Boson? The Boson will come from the BCS interactions by Hubbard-Stratanovich identities. From this, we will introduce a Boson, which is actually a collective mode of the fermion itself. It's an intrinsic property of the fermions. So that defines a bare Boson propagator. And we find the exact propagator for the Boson. And we find the exact inverse propagator for the fermion. And this is how we solve everything. And from the knowledge of the propagators, we extract the physics. So if we want to do thermodynamics, we look at the static pieces of the propagator. If we want to do dynamics, we look at the full propagators, et cetera. Notice for the experts, this is McDowell-Eliashberg theory in the particle channel, as you can see by the arrows. So we're not doing McDowell-Eliashberg theory in the particle whole channel, the way he would do, say, for the electron phonon problem or other such cases. We're going to start with a BCS interaction and then solve it beyond weak coupling using McDowell-Eliashberg. Yes, Andre. We will find self-consistent solutions. Yeah. It doesn't have to be at one loop. Oh, the question Andre asks is, is this just self-consistent one loop? In principle, these are fully, pardon? Okay. So maybe this is going to answer your question. If you wish to study a model in which these equations are the saddle point, take the large n action, which is a form of a bosonic piece, a fermionic piece, a bosonic piece, and a coupling. And what I'm going to do is take a large number of flavors. You've heard lots of talks on this this week. We have a large number of fermion flavors, number of boson flavors, and a coupling, which is in this random Yukawa form. And notice that this is a coupling in the particle particle channel. So the saddle point is what we solve. And if you say that's one loop self-consistent, then yes, I agree. Okay. Yeah, vertex corrections. They are n suppressed. Yeah, in the large n. At n equals one, we don't compute vertex corrections. The thing that I will allow for is the possibility of having either attractive or repulsive BCS interactions.  There's a piece that involves Psy Psy, which out of laziness, I didn't write, but it has the same form. And the key is that if it's repulsive, there's this coupling is imaginary. If it's attractive, it's real. So we're going to study the repulsive cases. Okay. So the main point of my talk is that repulsive BCS couplings can lead to this pair density wave order. You get long range order when the repulsive forces are actually peaked at finite distance. This is kind of reminiscent of what Andrei was talking about in the frequency domain. But this is as a function of possession. We've solved models with long range order. And then I'm going to speculate on the relevance of this to reality. And we're going to see a phase diagram like this. There's a Fermi liquid, quantum critical point, a long range pair density wave order. There's three regimes in which we solve. In regime one, we just need to solve for the static. I told you the game is to solve for the exact propagators. Okay. For regime one, when we look at the finite temperature transitions, we only need the static propagators as a function of temperature and momentum, and the solution of the linearized gap equations. In region two, when we go into the ordered phase, we need again the static propagators. We can, of course, ignore the fermions. We can integrate out the fermions and look at only the bosonic degrees of freedom in sort of Ginsburg-Landau like theory. But in region two, we need to solve for nonlinearities as the order parameter develops below TC. And finally, in the quantum critical region, we cannot integrate out the fermions. We need to keep the fermions and the bosons and look for self consistent solutions of the dynamical propagators. It'd be a fair question to ask if you uncover your pair or your interaction purely in the pairing channel to tell us what would it presage for any of the normal state response functions as a function of the field. The only response function that enters is the pair susceptibility. So the particle hole. You have not asked the other thing. Correct. Correct. Good. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yes. In principle, I know all the physics, but I think what my interpretation of Chandrase question was, do I include interactions in the particle hole channel and look at the renormalization of those things? I'd just like to know what your model implies for normal state response function. Well, in principle, you can calculate anything. Yeah. As Andrei says, from the propagator. I can tell you the answer. We can, yes, we have thought about it. And I will show you some expressions, especially near the quantum critical point where this is important. But away from this, it's not so important. Okay. First, if an equal one is not large and what would instabilities could happen in strong coupling that will destabilize the pair density wave or that's hard to know? I don't know. I cannot speculate. I don't want to speculate. I will not speculate. Okay. So first let me tell you why the most reasonable thing you would do, short range BCS interactions fail, fail for the program. And so what I call that is, as again, an optimistic person. It's a fluctuating, but actually failed pair density is the correct approach. So as I said, a form of the bare interactions. Was there another question? The bare interactions that I wish to study determines, sorry, the interactions I wish to study determines that defines the bare Bosonic propagator. Okay. So for instance, if I were studying an exponential form of the VIJ, in Fourier space, the bare propagator has this Ornstein-Zernike form, which is just a constant plus Q squared. And then if I solve McDowell-Leashberg theory, I won't tell you the method.  I'll just tell you the answer. The fully dressed Bosonic propagator has this Ornstein form plus a self-energy coming from the pair field susceptibility at the static because I'm only looking at finite temperature response at this point. And what you need to know is that for small Q, the logarithmic divergence of the pair susceptibility is cut off by omega divide over B Fermi Q. So if you put this together, it's a positive number. This is a positive number. That's a positive number. Everything grows positively. But what you do find is that the solution of the inverse propagator has a minimum at finite Q. It's the minimum has gone away from Q equals zero because of this logarithmic piece of the pair susceptibility, because we're talking about repulsive interactions. Now the Q equals zero piece gets weaker and weaker it doesn't grow as it would with attractive interactions. But what you find is that it's peaked at finite Q. So that's encouraging. That means it would condense if we could just push this down. So for those of you who don't have intuition to think about inverse propagators, let me just say if I integrate out the fermions, the exact propagator, inverse propagator would be the coefficient of the quadratic term of Ginsburg-Landau theory. And we know that that has to vanish if we have a phase transition. And clearly it's positive. That means we're above the phase transition. Even if you go, if you recompute this even at t equals zero, it will always remain positive because, as I said, the pair susceptibility is a positive function. So we fail to capture the pair density wave order in this way. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Everything else is just, so Andre says, what if you go to a more accurate order in Q? Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh, the speed of the speed. Yes. I see. So do you get the, so the question is, do you get this Q squared term coming from the pair susceptibility or do you have to put it in by hand? I think you have to put it in by hand. Yes. I don't think it comes. Yes. Okay. So now we want to do something to this model to obtain long range order. And the strategy is to do this. Instead of choosing a, what physics would say, you should choose something that, a BCS repulsion that decreases with position of pairs of tunneling. If you had, however, for whatever strange reason, a non-monotonic BCS interaction, no problem. And intuitively, it's simple why this is the case, because if I Fourier transform this, I now get already from this model attraction at finite Q, right? If I Fourier transform this, there's also already attraction at finite Q. So, but it's still not an instability of the, of the Fermi liquid. We need to increase the interactions beyond some threshold. And then if we do, we will obtain a condensation at finite Q. It's very simple. And when it condenses, we will have long range order. So to make things even simpler, because I like models that I can solve exactly and analytically, consider a case where the pair hopping is a delta function. So it's zero. And then it's some number, it's a delta function at, at r equals r zero, and then zero everywhere else. So it's a spherical shell, spherical cow, spherical shell approximation. This Fourier transform, of course, is probably, as you all know, is a Bessel function. And it has this oscillating pieces. And then when you solve this in the large N, so this defines some bare propagator, and we find the exact propagator. What you find is that the exact propagator is this Bessel function, but plus a piece that depends on the pair susceptibility. But now the important thing is that the sign of the interaction matters. So in the, in the regions where it's repulsive in momentum space, the inverse propagator grows. That means the Landau-Ginsberg coefficient gets bigger. But in the regions where it's attractive, it weakens. And so the Landau-Ginsberg coefficient gets smaller, so we're approaching a critical point in the sense. So if you then solve this model, this is the inverse, this is the solutions for, as you vary the strength of the interaction. So what I'm plotting here is the inverse propagator as a function of q times r zero. You can see that at different temperatures near q equals zero, first of all, as you lower the temperature, the inverse propagator grows. That means the coefficient of the q equals zero piece is increasing. You're getting further away from condensing the q equals zero boson. But by contrast, at finite q, where the oscillations in momentum space leads to attraction, you get closer to condensation as you lower the temperature. But you need to increase the coupling. It's not an instability. Beyond some threshold effect, you will get pairing at finite momentum. And it's trivial in some sense. Inverse exact static bosonic greens function. Yes, exactly. So we can proceed in this way and find at different temperatures, where's the temperature dependence coming from? The temperature dependence comes from the pair susceptibility. It has some temperature dependence. And so we can obtain a phase diagram by looking at the solutions of the static propagators at different temperatures. And we have a phase boundary between the normal state and the pair density wave state. And the dashed line corresponds to regimes where we cannot compute because at low temperatures, this is a numerical solution of the self-consistent equations. And at low temperatures, you have to keep lots of lots of months of borrow frequency. There is a question. Yeah. From Yuri Gehrin. Recently, it was shown by Yusbashyan and Ben Shuler in PRB that McDowell-Iliashburg theory loses validity at finite value of lambda critical between 3 and 3.7 of the coupling, regardless of the underlying model of Newtonian. How it is consistent with your approach? This is particle channel. I don't think they analyze this. And anyway, what, if you wish, take the story that this is the solutions in some large N theory. And that's true for all coupling. Probably I didn't answer the question to that person's satisfaction, but let me move on. Okay. So then we can look at the temperature dependence below the phase transition in the pair density wave order regime. And we then have to solve the nonlinear equations and look at self-consistency with the inclusion of the expectation value at finite q of the boson. And what we see again is indication that the transition is continuous. The order parameter develops smoothly. Again, we have finite size effects. So I don't, I don't, I draw that with the dashed line. I want to show you what we actually compute. We can also determine the ordering wave vector of the pair density wave by looking at the location of in momentum space where the inverse propagator is minimum is a minimum. Actually, it has to be zero for the critical point. And also at the, at the zero, it has to have a, it has to have a minimum as you approach from the normal state because the propagators must be positive for stability of the theory for the Glendale-Ginsberg free energy. And so you can determine the ordering wave vector as a function of the coupling constant, the dimensionless coupling constant G squared. And what I want to say is that it changes with G squared. So you might have thought that, you know, in this, in this problem that I'm solving, the only scale is k Fermi. And so you might have thought that the pair density wave is going to be at 2kf. But I want to stress that this is not true. It's sensitive to the interactions. And so 2kf is not a characteristic scale in this problem. Also near this point of ordering, the exact propagator can be, can the static propagator has this parabolic form as a function of momentum q minus capital Q squared, where capital Q is the ordering wave vector. And this is just obtained by looking at the second derivative of the inverse propagator. So we can do all of these things.  So when you do that, you can study a potential like this, which is again, non-monotonic as a function of position. And you get the qualitatively same. I don't want to repeat the whole exercise, but you get similar results. Yes. Yeah, correct. Yeah, the question is, in the model in which there's only one length scale, r0, how is the q related to r0? So you can see that q from this, from this answer here, q r0 is characteristic, q, the characteristic value of q is one over r0, as you said, but it changes with g squared, changes in a modest way. Okay, so we find similar things for a non-monotonic BCS coupling, but also with armed with this intuition, we can go and study in this McDowell-Eliashberg theory, lattice models, say where you have a Hubbard model on a square lattice with nearest neighbor hopping, and with nearest neighbor repulsive pair hopping. Okay, now what we find is again, in this McDowell solution, where we obtain propagators, when u is less than four times the nearest neighbor pair hopping, and when it's bigger than twice the hopping, you get a pair density wave solutions again. And now the ordering wave vector of this pair density wave is close to pi pi, but it depends on the ratio of rule. And we have not looked at this in full detail, but we know that it's not exactly pi pi. Okay, how am I doing with time? I think I would be done fairly soon, actually. Okay, perfect. If there are more questions during the talk, feel free to raise them because I'm wrapping up soon. Okay, yeah, please. You mean at zero temperature? Yeah, so, okay, thank you. The question was, can I tell you a bit more about the phase transition between normal state and pair density wave state at zero temperature or finite temperature? I haven't gotten to the zero temperature part yet. I'm about to do that. But the finite temperature, it's completely conventional, continuous transition like a Ginsburg-Landau mean field like transition would predict. Okay, so you have some coefficient of a quadratic term, it's at finite momentum, and that coefficient vanishes. And then there's a quadratic term, which is required for stability. Yeah, yeah, Andre. So the question was, is it a generic statement that when you have this non-monotonic BCS repulsion that the system, can you explain? I mean, the logarithm is only at zero momentum. Yeah. I don't want to take time for me to talk about zero temperature, but you understand the question. Yes, yes. And so the question is, is it really a extremely generic statement of the same level as con-lattenger did with non-S wave? I think it's, I think it still requires that you need to lower the Q equals zero piece, sorry, the short distance piece relative to the finite distance piece. And I don't think that's always generically guaranteed. It requires special circumstances at the bare level. Yeah, other questions? All right, so now I'm going to go to the zero temperature problem where I go from Fermi liquid to finite Q superconductivity across a quantum critical point. And again, let me solve this delta function potential. The somewhat curious, maybe not important, but curious aspect of this model is that the critical phenomena of this problem occurs on a ring in momentum space, as opposed to bosons usually condensed at points in momentum space. But this case, if you look at the solutions, the contours of the exact inverse propagator, the static limit, it has this condensation, the zero occurs at a finite momentum radius. And it's because this is a rotationally invariant problem. There's no characteristic direction in momentum space. So it must be a ring. So if you study this, it turns out that the Fermi surface, you can take a point on the Fermi surface, scatter with any of these momentum, and go to another point in the Fermi surface. So the entire Fermi surface is a hot region. Think of the anti-ferromagnetic critical point where you have hot spots, but now we have hot regions. Okay? If we were on the lattice by contrast, you would not have this feature. The condensation would occur at discrete momentum, maybe related by some rotational symmetry, 90 degree rotations. And then you would see the problem of Fermi surface hot spots. Okay, now I know some of you must be seeing this ring of condensation or critical phenomena, and you must be thinking, what about fluctuation driven first order transitions a la Brasovsky? Well, the beauty of the large n limit, the McDowell-Aliashberg theory, is that it suppresses all of that, all of these important physical effects. And so the transition remains continuous. Yeah, yeah. Something else. So on this picture, where is the Fermi wave vector? Oh, it can be something completely different. It's here, as was asked, Q depends on R0, the range. So it can be different than KF, arbitrarily different. Physics does not depend on the ratio between capital Q and KF. Correct. Well, Q has to be small compared to KF, in the regime where we're computing. But beyond that, there's no dependence. Usually, the condensation of those photons happens into some even single quantum mechanical state. So can we associate the single wave function with this ring? Because it seems like there are many states characterizing this. But yeah, but remember if what happens is that, okay, so, okay, the question was, what was the question? I was going to interpret it in my own way. Unfortunately, it was a single, single, single particle wave function where all photons condense. Yeah. So now you have a ring which seems to consist of many single particle wave functions. Yes, yes. So that, can you associate to the condensate a single wave function out of this ring? Yes. Or how does it? So the question is, can you associate with the condensate a single wave function or a linear combination of infinite number? The answer is the critical phenomenon occurs on a ring. That doesn't mean the condensation occurs on the ring. So because we have, in Ginsburg-Landau theory, there will be an important terms. And that will choose among this degenerate manifold some discrete subset. And then you'll be safe. Five minutes. Perfect. Okay. So we can solve, again, in this MIGDAL approach, the propagators at the quantum critical point. Now we cannot get rid of the fermions as I've been doing before to look at just the bosonic problem. We have to keep the fermions at play. And then if, in the limit where the ordering vector q is small compared to k-fermie, we can obtain analytically the bosonic and fermionic propagators. And the bosonic propagator takes this form here. I've defined gamma for you. It's the second derivative of the inverse propagator at capital Q. And then there's the Landau-Damping form, which looks similar to, you can calculate this quite easily. It looks quite similar to the Landau-Damped form of the anti-ferromagnetic order parameter with the denominator capital Q. Then the inverse fermion green function has a self-energy which can also be computed. It has this omega, mod omega to the power one-half form. And the thing is this is a self-consistent result, because if you go back and compute, recompute the bosonic propagator, the Landau-Damping does not change once you include this self-energy. And then you can feed back and everything is self-consistent. Okay. In the lattice model, this form of self-energy would still apply, but only at the hot spots. So this is very similar to the anti-ferromagnetic quantum critical point. And so we can understand the quantum critical. So that's the second part of this transition. Now it turns out we're in two dimensions, and the dynamical exponent determined by the bosonic Landau-Damping is two. So what you have here is a problem where you're near at the upper critical dimension. And so the critical exponents up to logarithmic corrections to scaling laws will be mean field exponents. So we know that z is two, and we know that nu is a half for mean field theory. And so the line of thermal transitions terminating at the quantum critical point comes in with slope one, up to logarithmic corrections, because nu z is one. Okay, I'm done with the analysis. Now let me speculate. Okay, based on what I've done. Okay, so now everything I say, everything I've said thus far is not controversial, but now everything I will say is controversial. Well, the first thing is not controversial. It's that I've shown you that unique, if you have finite repulsive BCS couplings, which are non-monotonic, you get pair density rate. Great. Unfortunately, this is not common in solids. Okay. Usually, more over BCS interactions, hopping of pairs on a lattice are microscopically known to be small. Okay, but that's microscopic physics. At the level of a low energy effective theory, anything's possible. For instance, let me speculate where you can get this non-monotonic behavior. Suppose I have screen coulomb interaction and strong electron phonon coupling, local electron phonon coupling. As you know, in the strong coupling limit, you get an instantaneous non-retarded attraction mediated by the phonon. If that short distance attraction can be sizable, you can be in a regime where this effective interaction is non-monotonic. I think this might explain in part some recent DMRG simulations done by the group of Steve Kibelson and his students, where they found pair density wave order in some Hubbard-Holtstein models at strong coupling. Maybe this physics is somewhat reminiscent of what they found. The other thing I want to say is that I alluded to the fact that pair density wave order has been observed in these Kagome metals, the CC of vanadium antimony. Now, near the van Hoog filling is where they're seen. My friend, Ronnie Tomali, made an important observation a few years ago that when you look at fermions near the van Hoog singularity, you have a hexagonal Brie-Wan zone, and you can approximate the fermions dominantly coming from points, patches, near the van Hoog singularity. They have this property known as what he called sub-lattice interference that the wave functions all belong to one out of the three members of the real space sub-lattice of the Kagome lattice. What that means is that if you look at the states here, they all belong to the A sub-lattice, B sub-lattice, and C sub-lattice. Now, what we want to do is we want to look at, in this patch-like theory, the renormalization starting with sub-Hobbard interaction, the renormalization of the BCS repulsion. Maybe, as Andre mentioned in many examples in his talk, the inter-patch BCS coupling can be bigger than the intra-patch, and then you would be exactly in this regime where the pair density wave order can form. I think I should stop here. This is the summary in the form of a picture, and thank you for all the questions and your attention. Thank you very much for the talk. More questions? So for the pair density wave, do you need non-monotroponic interaction or just any interaction that gives a negative, when you Fourier transform to momentum space, a negative component? The latter. So a real-world question about Kagome's. If you're going to have the PDW physics that people are talking about in their Kagome's, does that come along with a fundamentally unconventional order parameter that should, for instance, be disorder-sensitive? Not necessarily. It can come along with a uniform S-wave component. So here, everything I was doing was a sort of, the pairs consisted of fermions on the same site. So it would be, well, I mean, the pair density wave, of course, is very sensitive to disorder, but if it were accompanied with a uniform S-wave component, there's no problem. Perhaps I could ask you to push your speculation even further, please. There are a number of experiments, particularly, for example, Shamis Davis, where you see pair density waves with their standing tunneling microscopy, but they also see superconductivity. Can you comment on whether the pair density wave is just a spectator or an active participant there? I told you I was going to push you. Probably a spectator, I would say. I mean, it's this notion that it's the mother of all facts I don't necessarily subscribe to. So it might be a small fraction of something that's on top of a uniform component. That's my speculation. Of course, I could be wrong, so that's what I think. And I guess, following up on my previous questions since I have the microphone, when I asked you about the transition between Fermi-Liquid to pair density wave, I guess my real question was, what would be the observable characteristic of that transition? Observable characteristic of the Fermi-Liquid to pair density wave transition. Finite temperature or zero? Yes, finite temperature. Well, so you would see, if you do X-ray scattering, you would see a bragg peak that would grow at below Tc, and the bragg peak, the bragg gets sharper as you lower the temperature. Just like a charge density wave order. But how would you distinguish it from the charge density? Because of the resistance. The resistance is zero. Okay, so you have to do transport as well as... The pairs have a translational, so the question Chandra said was pairs don't couple to X-rays, but with every pair at finite Q, there's a accompanying charge density wave component, which is always present, just by symmetry, twice the Q. Yes, so you would see the ordering, you would see the bragg peaks twice the Q. Particular as the last example, but it's one of the four points. In your case, and in the case that many citations leads to non-S-wave pairing from initially repulsive interaction, you start with initially repulsion and then dress up pairing interaction. In your case, you basically, you add corrections in a particle-particle channel. But you have Q-square, as you said, coming from somewhere. On the other hand, if you add randomization in a particle-hole channel, you get, you did it by yourself, you get effective attraction in non-S-wave channels. At Q equals zero. At Q equal to zero, yes. So question is, there are two competitors, right? Yes. So it's just one possibility or the other. Yes, yes.  You made it, you made it. I did it by hand, but of course, as N goes to one, what I envision is that what I call Fermi liquid in the left side of the phase diagram here will maybe be some unconventional superconducting state. And they might be a phase transition from one Q equals zero superconducting state to a Q finite superconducting state. And maybe that's first order, because that's what Landau would tell us. But that's the speculation. I don't see any other questions. Excuse me. The fourth floor would like to ask some questions. I've had my hand up for 10 minutes. Sorry. I didn't see that. Okay. A number of questions. First of all, what about triplet pair density waves? Did you think about that? Yeah. Yeah. I did think about that. And quite similar things can be arranged in the triplet case. And actually, there might be regimes where the pair hopping can be somewhat more natural than the ones I used, because they were onsite Cooper pairs. If you have bond Cooper pairs, as you must in the triplet channel, then similar mechanisms can play. And follow up. There's some overlap between these ideas and those of Amperian pairing. And did you look at any, did you examine that possibility, the possibility that that there might be models that stabilize pairing at 2KF? This would be interesting because it would somehow mix particles and holes with the same velocity rather than opposite velocities. Did you think about that? Yes. I thought a lot about this. Amperian pairing is an appealing scenario, but I don't think it was found in any calculational framework. So basically, I did think about this. And we never found Amperian pairing. This is, I mean, it's the right country. It's France, but it's Coulomb, not Ampere. That's what I would say. Second of all, if you do study more exotic metals like Fermi surface coupled to some U1 gauge field, then you can have a situation in which there's a repulsive BCS coupling, like the ones I'm discussing here. But then the system has an IR fixed point, which is a non-Fermi liquid. And then you can have Amperian pairing solutions. But again, we never could find them at least in the way we were doing these calculations. Thanks very much. Sure. It would be great if they did occur though. I agree with you. Yes. So you did all this without bringing in any effect of nesting, but if I understand correctly, then the Q, the capital Q that you have corresponds to a very large distance over which the interaction is modulated. Could you possibly be able to derive that from incommensurate charge density or some nesting phenomenon? I don't think so. I mean, I think this is not a weak coupling phenomena where I have to couple points exactly on the Fermi surface. Once you go away from weak coupling, you can have some window about the Fermi surface coupling to another window. So it's not tied to any nesting effects. And that's what we find in this model as well. Did I correctly understand that you have a Yukawa coupling between bosonic modes? Yes, between a boson and a fermion. So how much does it depend on all these results on this averaging? If you would compute just for a simple G tensor, I would try to look into that. What do you mean by simple G tensor? That it is coupling between fermions and bosonic modes. If you don't randomize on them, but you choose a simple form for... Well, then, okay, so you could do that, but then you're not solving exactly McDowell-Eliashberg equations. So I would say I only invoke this because I want to, for those who insist on having a model, this is the model whose saddle point is McDowell-Eliashberg. But let me just say, I'm thinking about McDowell-Eliashberg. Yeah, just I wonder, I mean, for real material in the end, it will be kind of something fixed. Yeah, so there are issues with this random Yukawa model. It's very multi-critical, and there's other subtleties that I didn't want to get across here. So let me just say that for the finite temperature transitions, this model is perfectly adequate. And so since the physics is robust, you could probably do other large n expansions and find similar behavior. But the quantum critical point is subtle. There's... I think Andrei has it. Are we done? Of course. I want to make a very small comment. You used to work McDowell-Eliashberg many times today. Yes, yes. You are at finite temperature. You deal with static poles. Yes. McDowell-Eliashberg is a... But a quantum critical point, you... No, no, no. McDowell-Eliashberg has the idea that you have fast electron and slow boson. Here you have a static boson. So it's definitely not McDowell-Eliashberg in this respect. So I would prefer... I suggest to call it self-consistent one loop or large n something, but not something that has a concept of one excitation slower than the other. Because you... at finite temperature, zero temperature is a different story. Yes. But at finite temperature, since you deal with static boson, then there is no such thing as comparing of those... Well, at finite temperature, there's also a... There can be smooth analytic dynamical pieces that don't matter. Right. They don't matter. This is what I mean. Yeah, they don't matter. In this respect, it's not McDowell-Eliashberg because it doesn't use this concept of frequency. Yes, of one excitation much faster than the other. Yeah, yeah. I agree. That's a good point. Thank you. Thank you. So let's thanks again. And lunchtime, so we recommend it to talk. Do I just turn it off?


So I was out and about today and just running some errands and this crow flies right up next to me. And I thought, wow, this is really cool.  And when I looked it up, the crow stands for change or transformation. But much more than that, it refers to a spiritual or emotional change. So the way I'm looking at this is that this is a message for humanity. Something big is about to happen. We're on that precipice of something major happening. So we've already won this game, right? Game's over. So something major is about to happen. Hang in there. Love you all.


Ranger Bill, warrior of the woodland, struggling against extreme odds, traveling dangerous trails, fighting the many enemies of nature. This is the job of the guardian of the forest, Ranger Bill, pouring rain, freezing cold, blistering heat, snow, floods, bears, rattlesnakes, mountain lions. Yes, all this in exchange for the satisfaction and pride of a job well done. Say, do you have a dog? If you do, you love him, don't you? Well, this is the story of a great dog who lived on a ranch near Naughty Pine. His name was Bim. Bim's masters were Otto Jorgensen and his two sons, Eric and Paul. Now, Bim was a very unusual dog, yet he wasn't any different from your dog in lots of ways. His love and devotion to his masters were boundless. Bim is gone now. That great dog heart is still. Those who love his memory are gathered in the lobby of the newly built Memorial Clinic for Animals. All of the Rangers are there, and Bill is the master of ceremonies for the dedication of this wonderful animal hospital. Let's join the crowd as they talk together. Quite a crowd of folks gathered here, almost filled the lobby to do. Ah, Bim, great dog, have many friends. I didn't realize so many people knew him. Yes, Bim was quite a dog, all right. This animal hospital is a fitting memorial to him. Bill, Otto's coming this way. Oh, I guess he wants me to start. Bill, would you begin the ceremony, please? Why, sure, Otto. Uh, folks, we're gathered here today to dedicate the Bim Memorial Clinic for Animals. A building that is more than brick and steel and concrete. This hospital is a memorial to a great dog that we all loved and whose memory we'll cherish for a long, long time. The idea for this building originated with Otto Jorgensen and his two sons. They wanted this clinic to be a living token of their love and esteem for their dawn. A good deal of the money came from folks like yourselves. This hospital and clinic was built for the study and treatment of animal diseases so that the animals may enjoy a fuller and longer life. To the memory of Bim, a great dog, and his heroic deeds, we dedicate this building with all its equipment and staff.  Thank you. Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson. May I talk to you a minute? Why, sure. What's on your mind? I'm Ed Sloan. I'm a writer for Bencroft Newspapers and Dog Lovers Magazine. I see. We've a combined circulation of half a million. I'd like to write the story of Bim's life, if I may. And I gather you're the one I ought to see. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Sloan, but that's not within my authority. You'll have to talk to Otto Jorgensen and his two sons. Perhaps they'll help you. I understand. But I don't know Mr. Jorgensen. I'd be glad to introduce you. They're over on the other side of the lobby talking to some friends. Mr. Sloan, I don't know how well I can tell this story, but maybe Bill can help me out in a few places. First thing, I ought to say, I wasn't too sold on Bim at first. Oh, why not, Mr. Jorgensen? Well, I'd always set my heart on only the pedigree dog. Bim was just a gangly puppy. Good blood, but a mixture. Bim actually was rather a badly put-together mass of fur, big paws, and powerful body. I never thought he'd amount to much to tell you the truth. How wrong I was. I'll never forget, one day when Bim was about six months old, Paul and Eric was playing with Bim on the front lawn. Come on, Ziggy Bim! Get Eric!  We, uh, dead. And that is weak. What's gotten into you boys? Look at that lawn. And look at my flower beds. You let that mud run around in my prized flowers. I'm sorry, Dad. It's our fault. Ever since you've had that pooch, things ain't been the same around here. Well, I'm gonna get rid of him. Oh, no, Dad, please. Don't make us get rid of Bim. Oh, all right. One more chance. But if this happens again, out he goes. Understand? I was very angry at the time, but I saw no reason to change my opinion about Bim. But as time went on, gradually he grew out of the awkward stage. At nine months he began to show signs of becoming a powerful dog who could run like the wind. I was pleased, but I still didn't think he'd be much more than a pet for the boys. And I really didn't intend to make good my threat of throwing him out. I knew it would break the boy's heart. He was their dog. Well, the first in the series of outstanding acts of bravery and heroism occurred when Bim was ten months old. Eric and Paul got the habit of taking Bim out on the range with them every spare moment they could find. Let's see if we can find any more of those swell-colored rocks, Paul. Okay. That's a good idea, Eric. What kind of rocks did Dad call them? I don't know. Something like qu-quar- Quarts! Yeah, that's it.  Okay. I'll race you. Come on, Rife! Come on, Skeeter! We've seen no rabbit. Hey, look at these rocks, Paul. Those are the nicest we've found yet. You know, Eric, the Lord sure made rocks beautiful, didn't he? And how? Hey, let's move this big rock over so we can get the smaller one out. Okay. Say when. Now. That's good enough. Now, let's cut those... Don't move, Paul. That rattle will strike just as quick as we move a muscle. Yeah. You said it. Look at the size of him. Where'd he come from? I don't know. Must have come out from behind the other big rock when we moved the smaller one. Eric, looks like we're going to have to stand here all day. That's better than getting bit. He hasn't coiled yet. Maybe he'll go away. Oh, yeah. He's crawling right at us. What do we do? Hey, Paul, look. The rattle is not after us. You see something? It's Bim. The rattle sees Bim. They're going to fight. Let's get back. That snake is a matter of rock. Come on, Bim. Get it. Cut him. Hey, Bim's killed the rattle. Good boy. We've got to get home and tell Dad about this. When we said it, now maybe Dad will believe that Bim's a real good dog. Eric and Paul came home with a big yarn about Bim killing a big rattle snake. I didn't believe it. I just couldn't believe that Bim had the courage and fired at him to tackle and kill a live rattle.  It's a truth, Dad.  Come on now, fellas. I wasn't born yesterday.  We can prove it, Dad. All right. How? We'll show him to you. We tied a rope to the rattle's tail and dragged him here. Oh, yes. I got to see him. Come on over to the horse barn, Dad. The rattle is outside on the ground. Okay, let's go. There, Dad. Take a look. Yeah. And Bim killed him all by himself. The boys had me where they wanted me. I examined the dead snake and could usually see where Bim's teeth had done their job right in back of the head. I was still pretty pigheaded about it all. I told the boys that Bim's killing the rattle was an isolated incident and he'd probably never do one thing else. It was worthwhile. You say that was the first big incident in Bim's life, Mr. Jorgensen? Yes, it was, Mr. Sloan. The second incident followed six months later. Winter was close by, and I had sent Paul out to round up some wild cattle. By wild cattle, I mean the cattle that leave the herd and shift for themselves during the grazing season. Let's go up this canyon, Bim.  Yeah, there's a couple of wild ones, Bim. Let's get behind them and cry them out of there. Hiya, hiya. This r-sketer had stepped onto a chuck hole and thrown Paul against the canyon wall. The boy had a broken collar bone, a fractured shin bone, and he was very badly bruised and shaken up. Bim started licking his face and hands, and Paul slowly came to. He was crying from pain. Bim, I'm hurt bad. Go find sketer. Bring him back. Bim left Paul and went after the horse. He picked up sketer's trail and soon caught up with him. Sketer was over his initial scare now and was just browsing in the grass. Fortunately, the bridal straps was hanging down, and Bim took them in his teeth and immediately led the horse back to Paul. Oh. Good boy, Bim. Lay down, sketer. Lay down, big fella. And a boy. Thanks, sketer. Now, hold still, boy. I tried to... crawl across the saddle. Just a little bit farther. I made it. Stop, sketer boy. Stop. In case you don't know, Mr. Sloan, it's rather a difficult job for a horse to get up with a rider on his back. And Paul wasn't such pain that he didn't realize he wasn't balanced properly across the saddle. So when he told sketer to get up, Paul fell off. Back home, Eric and I began to get worried when Paul and Bim didn't show up for supper. It got to be about nine o'clock. Then I decided to do something. Dad, what could have happened to him? I don't know, Eric, but I'm gonna find out. I'm glad Bim's with him anyway. What good will Bim do if Paul's in serious trouble? Don't talk that way, Dad. Bim's real special when you need him. Sure, sure, son. You saddle up the horses. I'm gonna call Bill Jefferson. You lead the way, Otto. We'll pick up the trail when we get into the area. Okay, Bill. If Grey Wolf and Stumpy can't find him, we can always get blood on. Yep. Is there enough light to see the trail, fellas? Plenty light, Bill. Trail very clear.  Come on! Sign's kind of messed up here, isn't it? Can you make it out? Is this where they had the trouble? What's it say, Grey Wolf? This sign says horse and dog go into small canyon ahead. This sign says cattle, maybe half a dozen head, come out of canyon. That's it. Paul and Bim was rounded up wild cattle. Over here it says that horse, come on again. Let the dog come out. Did they go back or were they chasing the cattle? Over here, Otto, Bill. What'd you find, Grey Wolf? See something different? Look here.  They go back in canyon. I say dog lead horse back into canyon. Well, I'll buy that, sonny. That means Paul and Bim are in that canyon. Unless I miss my guess. You agree, Grey Wolf? Stumpy right. Let's get into that canyon. Look forward, Grey Wolf. They should be close by now. That's Skeeter, fellas. Throw your light to the left. Look at that dog. He'd cover Paul with his own body to keep him warm. Afterward, Paul told us the whole story. Then I knew I'd been wrong and the boys were right. We had a great dog in him. So I asked the boys to forgive me. From that time on, Bim and the boys and I became an inseparable force. Then the day came when the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor plunged us into World War II. And the boys came to me with a request. Dad. Uh-huh. Dad, we've been reading in the papers how the Armed Services need dogs. That's right, Dad, and uh... Well, we'd like to send Bim. You... You want to send Bim to war? Sure. We were too young to enlist ourselves, so... And we want to do our part to help win the war? Are you absolutely sure you want to do this, boys? Yep. We thought about it a lot. You realize, of course, that Bim might be killed in action. We've thought about that, too, Dad, and... Yes? Well, a lot of soldiers might get killed, but then they might not, too. That's right. Bim's really tough, Dad. I'm not sure he'll take care of himself. So I thought, far be it for me to dampen the patriotism of my sons. I was proud of both of them the next morning when we walked into the recruiting station for the Marine Corps in Nazi Pine. In no time at all, Bim was in the service of our country. We said goodbye to Bim, and I'm not ashamed to say that, just like the boys, tears was rolling down my cheeks. Bill, you take over the story from here. Well, yeah, I think you can tell about Bim's war record better than I can. All right, Otto. I sure appreciate your helping me, Mr. Jefferson. I don't want to leave a thing out of Bim's life. Well, it so happened, Mr. Sloan, that I was with the Third Marines and Bougainville, same as Bim. I got the story firsthand from the fellas that had Bim with them. It was pretty rough going. A company of the First Battalion was trying to flank the enemy, but they weren't having much success because they were pinned down by a Japanese machine gun nest set up in a pillbox which the artillery just couldn't get. Captain, we won't move another inch until we knock out that pillbox. I'm well aware of that, Sergeant. Gotta be patient for a while. We're trying to rush. We'll lose a lot of men. But, sir, it's the only way we'll ever get past them.  Hey, Bim will get them out of there for anything. And believe me, they'll think I scream and me-me-hit them if Bim ever gets into that pillbox. Here comes a corporal now with Bim. Well, that's fine. Corporal would ask you reporting. Good corporal. Bim, how are you, boy? I hope this isn't too risky, sir. I wouldn't want Bim to get it. Corporal, please don't get the idea that these dogs are out here for us to use or we don't want to send in men. We'll use them only where they can be used to better advantage than men, see? They're not cannon fodder, understand? Yes, sir. Now, look, you see the fire lane from here? Oh, yeah, yeah, yes, sir, I do. Send Bim up the left side. We'll give him covering fire until he jumps for the window. Then we'll cease fire and rush the pillbox. Prisoners are on their way back to the stockade, sir. Very good, Sergeant. How's Bim? He's wounded, sir. What? Why didn't you tell me? Bim comes before the prisoners. Don't you know that? Take it easy, sir. Doc's looking at him now. The wound isn't bad, sir. He's got a knife in the leg. Not bad. Oh, okay. It's fine. In the leg, huh? Yes, sir. We'll see that he's carried to the rear in a stretcher. That's an order, Sergeant. Yes, sir. It'll be done, sir. Even if I have to carry him myself. That's the story of Bim's service with the Marines. Thanks, Mr. Jefferson. Is there more, Mr. Jorgensen? Yes, Mr. Sloan, there is. We received telegram from the war department saying that Bim had been wounded. Though not seriously. Uncle Sam was sending him home. They also said that Bim would receive the Purple Heart. Bim recovered the full use of his leg, and in about six months you'd never know he'd been wounded. I'll say you could, Mr. Sloan. He was as fast as he ever was. Buddy sure grew up, though, while he was away. Seemed quieter, more serious. That's right. One day, a year after Bim came back from the war, I was dragging our road. We have a private road that leads from the highway to the house and barns. I had the tractor hitched to a weighted drag, and I was trying to even out the rough spots. I was alone. That is, except for Bim. He was playing around nearby somewhere. I don't know exactly what happened to this day. All I knew was that something made the tractor overturn, and I was getting hungry. Bim, help me. Bim, Bim. Dig me out of here, will you? Good boy, Bim. That's right. Under my face first. So I really did. That's right under my body. Now, now see if I... That's it. Good boy. I'm almost clear. That's all right. You can scratch me if you want. That's it. I'm coming out. And you mean to tell me that your dog dug you right out from under that tractor? Yes, Mr. Sloan. Amazing as it sounds, he not only dug the ground out from under my face so I could breathe, but he dug the ground out from under my chest and body. Enough for me to crawl painfully out, broken back and all that. Sounds unbelievable. All of it was in the local newspapers.  Would you care to tell me how he died? Yes. About a year ago, we noticed that Bim was beginning to fail. Not too quickly at first, but noticeably. We took him to Dr. Crawford, a veterinarian here in Naughty Pine. Dr. Crawford examined him and said that Bim had a malignant tumor. There wasn't anything we could do to save him. Just a matter of time.  Slowly to waste away the skin and bones. I'm sure it was a heartbreaking experience, Mr. Jorgensen. We watched him this way for three months. Finally, the boy spoke to me about it. I'm glad they did because I wouldn't have spoken to them if they hadn't brought up the subject first. So, in the morning, three of us went to Bim's bed to take him to Dr. Crawford. It was like visiting a sick and dying friend. Eric kneeled down to awaken him. Bim. Bim. Come on, fellow. Wake up. He hasn't moved a muscle. Let me see, Eric. Yes, boys. Bim's dead. We were glad we didn't have to take him to Dr. Crawford, though all of us were broken-hearted that we'd lost him. The men at the Naughty Pine Legion Post were only too happy to give Bim a military funeral and we buried him in our front yard. I make no bones about saying that I cried like a baby. Here was a dog that had given us all he had. And when he needed our help, there wasn't a thing we could do except watch him die. Several months passed by and I talked to Dr. Crawford. I offered to contribute a sum of money for an animal clinic and hospital if he would head it up. He agreed. Dr. Crawford and the local newspapers left the story out and many, I should say, a host of Bim's friends and those who love dogs gave to the fund. The result you see before you. Well, that's the story, Mr. Sloan. I don't know if I'll be able to do justice to this story, Mr. Jorgensen, but I'm sure gonna try my best. Well, that's all we ask, Mr. Sloan. Before we leave, I'd like you to see the bronze tablet. Yes, I'd like to. Read it, will you, Bill? In loving memory of our dog Bim, he loved and asked no love in return. He knew no selfishness except to duty. He knew no fear except that he hadn't done enough. He gave all he had and asked no recompense. This tablet is inscribed for all to read, realizing that Bim lived as we should live. The Jorgensen's. Boys and girls, the story you've heard is fictional, of course, so far as there actually being a dog named Bim is concerned.  Well, we'll see you next week for more adventure with...


The former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and former 2016 GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina joins me live to discuss politics, business, and much more. Carly, it's great to have you here on set. Welcome. It's great to be with you. Thank you. So we have a lot to get to, including your leadership advice for millennials, but I do want to start off with some news-to-day topics, most notably the House of Representatives last week passing their own version of health care. What was your reaction? Well, I think it's the start of a process, and I think that process is important, obviously Obamacare has been a failure for the vast majority of Americans, and it needs to be repealed because of the incredibly complicated regulatory structure that it put in place. So I'm looking for changes to be made, obviously, to this bill. The Senate's declared, actually, they're starting over, but there are a couple principles that I think are important. Pre-existing conditions need to be covered. We need to have real competition for health insurance across state lines. We do not today. We need to get the federal government out of the business of health insurance, which it has put itself into that business, give states more control, and decentralize a lot of this power and decision-making money out of Washington. Now, you mentioned states. This bill actually allows states to allow insurance companies to apply for waivers so that insurance companies can actually charge people higher premiums, those people who have pre-existing conditions. So do you worry that this plan actually makes some of these premiums unaffordable for those who have pre-existing conditions? Well, I think your question is why real competition is so important. It's important to remember, and no one does, how we got into the mess that Obamacare claimed to be fixing. It didn't fix it. It made it worse. We got into the mess because state regulators colluded with insurance companies in limited competition. So we had, instead of a national federal government and insurance companies getting together, we had 50 state governments and insurance companies. They prevented competition. And that prevention of competition has led to a lot of the issues that we have now. So it's why I say we have to actually put real competition back into the health insurance marketplace. It hasn't been there for over 50 years. And what Obamacare did basically was nationalize the state's control over the health insurance business. But why give states even the option to allow an insurance company to charge someone a higher premium if they have a pre-existing condition? I mean, they did set aside $8 billion to deal with this situation, but still $8 billion. I mean, that doesn't seem like it's enough. Well, I think part of what competition means, and you certainly know this working here on the street, is that prices have to bear some relationship to the costs that are being covered.  So I'm a walking, talking, pre-existing condition. And there is no question that pre-existing conditions have to be covered. There is no doubt that we cannot allow individuals and families to be bankrupted because of a health condition. All of that's true, which is why ultimately high-risk pools need to be funded adequately to your question. However, it is also why there needs to actually be competition. And right now, we have a highly constrained market in every conceivable way, so that if you're in any state in the union, you don't have a lot of choices. And so far, the House bill does not address that central issue. All right. So we'll be watching that. Now, you were critical of then-Candidate Trump during the presidential campaign last year. You went to grade him over his progress in office so far. What would you give him? Well, again, starting out as a business person, I tend to judge people on their results. And so I'm not fond of all the behavior, and I'm not fond of all the tweets. But I will say, based on the results that I've seen so far, I think he is so far doing all right. I obviously am thrilled with his Supreme Court pick. I think the signals that he has sent to some of our foreign adversaries, whether it is Iran or Syria or North Korea, have been appropriate. I think he has shaken things up in a helpful way internationally. I like many of the principles of his tax reform bill. And we are starting to make progress on the right replacement for Obamacare. And meanwhile, he is, through executive orders, beginning to order the cutback of a lot of regulatory thicket that has grown up over many decades. You mentioned tax reform. What would tax reform mean for corporate America as a former CEO? Because we're seeing companies post some great profits since the recession. But their investment, their cat-backs, has been kind of light. Well, you know, companies want to have some certainty. Companies don't plan just every six months or every 12 months. And so they want to know what's the tax climate going to be three years, four years, five years from now? So certainty is obviously very important. It's important to have a permanent fix to the problem of profits overseas that never get repatriated. But it's also very important that we have a competitive rate, as you well know, we don't today, and that we vastly simplify the tax code. Because actually, I don't worry about the big companies having led a very big company. Big companies can hire the lawyers and the accountants and the lobbyists necessary to figure out how to make the tax code work as well as possible for them. But the little companies can't. The entrepreneurs can't. And so all this complexity that we've put into the tax code, the regulatory structure, legislation like Obamacare, it hurts the small more than it hurts the big. And it hurts the powerless and the middle class far more than it hurts the wealthy and the well-connected. All right. Now, you and President Trump ran for president on the notion that a businessperson should be in office. And now that we have a businessperson in office, do you think those skills are still more valuable than, say, the skills that an elected politician has? I don't think they're more valuable, but I think they're equally valuable. We were not intended to have a professional political class.  It's not that that's a bad experience. It's that it is an extremely limited experience. Mars was intended to be a citizen government. So yes, I think the experience of managing a large organization is incredibly useful. I think the experience of actually having to make ends meet is incredibly useful. I think executive decision-making is an incredibly useful experience.  So with that, there is a Senate race next year in Virginia. Are you going to run? I don't know. And it's not a timely decision. You know, one of the things you learn in business is you make decisions when they're timely. It's not timely because we have very important elections in 2017 in the Commonwealth of Virginia. So we have a governor's election. I'm endorsed in that election. We have a lieutenant governor's election, attorney general. So we need to pay attention to those races and get those done. And then when the time comes, I'll make a decision. All right. If you do decide to run, you're going to come back on the street and announce it right here. Oh, of course. All right. I want to switch now from politics and talk about your advice for millennials because students are graduating this month. What is your advice to them when they enter the workforce? Well, the first thing I would say is get a job. And don't worry about whether it's the perfect job. I started out as a secretary in a nine-person real estate firm. It was a dead-end job. But as with any job, I learned a lot. I learned a lot about myself. I learned a lot about the world around me. And I learned skills that helped me get the next job. So don't fixate on the perfect job. Get a job. Work hard at that job, whatever it is. A lot of young people spend their time thinking about the next job. And the truth is, most of the time you are noticed when you do the job you have really, really well. So get a job. Work hard at it. Do it well.  And when opportunity knocks, and it will, don't be afraid to walk through the door. Now as CEO of HP, I mean, Carly, you were in charge of, what, 160,000 people.  So of course there's a skill set that perhaps a young person has trained for. And that's important. But honestly, what I look for, whether I'm hiring an executive or an intern, are beyond the skills. I look for character. Is this someone who is going to be honest and straightforward and tell the truth to anybody? Is this someone who will collaborate well with others? There are a lot of people who want to be the star, but the truth is there's nothing worthwhile that happens by someone working alone. So I want someone who can collaborate. I want someone who has courage because to solve a problem means you have to challenge the status quo. And when you challenge the status quo, people are going to criticize you.  To solve a problem, you have to challenge the way things are. And that takes courage. But probably most importantly of all, I look for people who see possibilities in a situation. There are people who will look at a set of circumstances and see constraints, problems, barriers, hurdles, and all those things are real. But there are also people who will look at exactly the same set of circumstances and see possibilities and think, you know, I could do this. And maybe we ought to try that. Those are problem solvers. Those are leaders. Those are the kind of people I look for. And are schools doing a good enough job of teaching those problem solving skills? No, I don't think so. And it's one of the reasons that I focus a lot of my time and energy now on how do we teach problem solving skills. Because I believe after decades of experience that leaders are made not born, that leadership can be learned, that it can be taught, that it has nothing to do with title and position. So it's not necessarily an innate trait. No, it's not an innate trait. It is a God-given gift, but it's something that everyone has. And I also worry that I think schools, in some ways we are training people to feel like they're victims all the time.  Victims are people who are starving or sold into slavery. Those are victims. If somebody says something you don't agree with or that offends you, you're not a victim unless you choose to be. And Carly, I want to end on this note because I was like asking super successful people this one question.  Don't take that job. People would give me advice frequently in my career. Don't take that job why, because the job is too risky. The job is too challenging. You might fail at the job. Nobody's ever done that job before that looks like you or has your background. And all those reasons, the challenge, the fact that yes, there's an opportunity to fail, but boy, there's a tremendous opportunity to succeed as well. Those are the things that make a job worth doing. So don't take that job because it's maybe risky. That was bad advice, and I usually ignored it. All right. Well, all good advice from Carly Fiorina. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thanks. It's been fun. And you're watching The Street.


Welcome to the rugged rockhound today. I'm in Eureka, and I'm here with a good friend Owen right there And we are gonna check out some of the old mines here in your Eureka a lot of gold copper silver out here And we're gonna go ahead and check out this hill right over here I've been here before a while back and there were some nice minerals. I'm trying to remember exactly what they were there was bearite and Malachite and azureite and things like that. So we're gonna go see what we can find and just have some fun At the base of the mine tailings looked around a little bit took a little while to find some stuff, but I found this Nice little piece right here. I don't know if you can tell in there, but right on the top right here We've got some botched old malachite Pretty cool looking so wash that up Well after digging a little bit in here didn't find a whole lot Just a few pieces of malachite and some bearite here and there We're gonna go ahead and move on to the next location We went to two other mine tailings after this and found basically nothing By now we were both pretty desperate for something to pan out After a brief discussion about our options Owen suggested that we try a spot he knew of where we could find some limonite pseudomorphs after pyrite. I Said sure it can't be any worse than where we have been so far and so we went there I've only been looking a few minutes and here we got already. Look at that nice big cube I found this one and Right there Cube right there Another one I've got my pocket here So we're here up on the hill at a private location looking for these limonite cubes Pseudomorphs after pyrite. So in this area, we're supposed to find cubes further up There's supposed to be dodecahedrons or something like that Pyrite of hedrons Also have to see how many sides they have There's a piece here I'm not cubes on them. They've been damaged a bit. It's been sitting on the way I was up the hill a little way looking at some of the other interesting shaped Limonite cubes. So instead of cubes they form.  Oh, that's a crystal So there's a crystal usually covered in dirt, but you're looking for these brown spots where there's a lot of iron We go through these layers. They kind of have a yellow to white color As soon as you get to where it looks all rusted And you know you're in the spot Just kind of a recap of where we're at right now He's going very well Yeah, we've got some nice bigger ones Films were digging just to see if you can pop that Because I was just picking and this popped out. Look at that tiny bit about its hollow on the inside Beautiful Also Oh Oh Look at that pretty thing all that right there too. It's several right up there. I Broke that one dang it. You can see that one's still pyrite right there. Oh man Dang, that's beautiful. Oh There's a really big one right here. Nice. Yeah, look over there over here this side Yes, look at this thing. Oh Wow That's heavy. That's probably the find today. Let's see that one side, isn't it? Oh, there's another one right there Yeah, that's gonna work. Okay That is probably the find of the day right there I don't know Let's get another closer look at that Monster pretty clean. Oh, yeah, it's pretty.  That's not it. Nice Still there it's still right there again, so if you can get this off. Yeah, if you can get that thing off There's some big ones in the matrix right there There it comes. It's still in the matrix. Yeah There it is. It's like it broke a little at a time. Oh Nice The one in that matrix right there We need to go through all this matrix right here On the bigger than most of the stuff that one right there. I think that's one right there. Yeah. Oh, that's a nice one right there in the back. Oh Pull it right out I think so. There's one right below it too. Oh Look at that. It's clean. That's a beautiful one Those over here Yeah, just keep following this Found a few more Gonna film and see what else comes out. So we've got a nice little spot right there with Yeah, that's a cluster. There you go Keep that one. Keep this one over here. Oh, there's a little piece. Oh, that's cool. Oh, it's got two crystals together. Yeah You know these washed off They'll look a lot better that one right there So easy to miss them Add that Brown if you wonder. Oh, that's one Look at that one nice big one And That's an orange. Yeah, this has a few little ones. Oh, some more things coming out Oh, it's broken. Oh, that's another I think that's the other half to that thing Maybe oh, oh, oh, yeah, look at that one cool nice This one oh Oh nice, it's a bit of so fractured on the part I don't know what you do with that one. Oh, it's like a big one. Oh That is huge.  Oh, thanks You can take a turn digger. Oh Look, it's got a nice crystal there Okay, you found a nice cluster right here a nice big one So he's gonna extract that Document it on this side. It's like rustic. It's pretty good. Yeah Got a nice area poking out right here look at that.  We're still Going to extract this Oh, that's very nice That's my find of the day so far Well, I'm back at home now and let's take a look at what I found. Oh It was a good dig Look at that. I've never found limonite sumors this large. Oh Can you imagine if they were still pyrite? That was one of the highlights of the dig right there nice big cluster At that cube right there is what an inch to an inch an inch and a half across This huge thing Yeah, that crystals over two inches across Tibet it's got so much stuff on it. So I washed these off What but that's all I've done with them so far a lot of these have this residue on them that could be calcite or quartz and I'm gonna try and see if I can get that stuff off If I do manage to get some of these cleaned off I'll show it in a future video Oh Boy, some of these though these some of these smaller ones though Look how beautiful those are these ones that are really dark like this are still mostly pyrite on the inside I've got one broken open right here and as you can see right there on the edge You can see inside how it's still pyrite so looks like This stuff has been altering Some of it for a long time like that But some of it didn't alter too much some of it is still pretty darn close to the original pirate and right here We've got a bunch of little ones that are kind of like ten-sided Things they're just kind of weird weird shape. I've seen pirate this shape in a lot of Samples, but yeah, I don't know what to call it a ten-sided gone Ten gone whatever that's called decagon. I'd say okay, so yeah Wonderful dig lots of cool finds definitely gonna go back out to this place again


Micro-organisms and pertinent microbial technologies have the potential to provide or contribute to the provision of basic resources and services that are lacking in many parts of the world. This could help to reduce sources of conflict by eliminating unnecessary deprivation and enabling healthier lives of all. Funding agencies, politicians, and other relevant stakeholders should work together to weaponize these technologies to combat resource deficiencies and asymmetries, particularly among the most vulnerable populations. This article was offered by Shale Lee Annand, John E. Halsworth, James Timmiss, and others.


Hey, what a week for our sacred democracy. Wow. You know, it's so sacred that just a few thousand votes in a few states here and there could have turned it from sacred into Profane, couldn't it? Real easy. But no, as long as it goes a certain way it shows the wisdom of the crowd. We're generally told that there are three particular benefits to democracy and one of those benefits is a peaceful transfer of political power. So that's increasingly being questioned. But Mises wrote about this way back in the 1920s. He said this is why we need democracy. He wrote about it again in the 1940s in human action. He said, well, this allows us to change from one government to another without violence. That's largely been true in the 20th century and in the 70-odd years since he wrote that. That's largely been true. But two of the other reasons that were told to revere democracy I think are not true. And one of them is that it creates a compromise. Some sort of down-the-middle policies so that the far left doesn't get anything of everything it wants. The far right doesn't get everything it wants. But somewhere down the middle there's a happy compromise.  And of course, we've seen that's not true at all. The whole country is at each other's throats and what we really have is a sort of bureaucratic and oligarchic overclass and just a bunch of average regular people like us who are unhappy with the results of democracy. So I don't see any great compromises coming from it. And then, of course, probably the worst excuse for democracy is that it represents some sort of consent of the governed. So in a country of 330 million people, that becomes entirely meaningless. And I think we all get that. So I hope many of you, I don't know, have read Hans Hermann Hoppe's Democracy, the God that Failed, came out in 2001. If you haven't had a chance to read it, I wish you would. Unfortunately, we don't know the rights to that book and there'd be a $6 paperback of it. But nonetheless, well worth purchasing, well worth reading. There's a PDF online which may or may not be pirated. Not by us. That's the market, baby. So if you have a chance to look at that book, every chapter reads very well as a standalone chapter. I encourage it. There's a great chapter in there disabusing you of conservatism and all these other things. But the introduction of that book is all about what Hoppe sees as the turning point of World War One. When we went from what we might call the old right, which was a real liberalism rooted in property and self-determination into mass democracy. And so World War One, Hoppe says, is what changed everything. And it's where we decided that all the benefits of enlightenment, rationalism and the industrial revolution would start to fray because we would turn them over into democracy. And one thing he points out is that prior to Woodrow Wilson, you remember a year ago we were talking about Edward Bernays, who was Woodrow Wilson's propagandist who came up with the phrase, make the world safer democracy. Prior to Wilson's war and World War One, most wars were actually territorial. They were about turf. And so World War One, Hoppe tells us, was the first truly ideological war in human history. And that's the result of mass democracy and wanting to impose democracy on other countries, our way of life on other people. So not coincidentally, Hoppe points out, there were actually far more civilian casualties from starvation and disease than soldier casualties on battlefields in World War One. I wonder how many people know that. And he says, this is not a surprise. This is what happens when you have total wars as opposed to regional or territorial wars. So also because of ideology, the ideology of democracy, there couldn't be any compromise with the Germans. There could only be total surrender, humiliation, punishment, reparations. And so we all know what came a few decades later, that. So Hoppe's book is about the results of mass democracy. It's all about results. So we think of the marketplace produces goods, goods and services. Governments produce bads, Hoppe says. They produce bad things. They take from us and they make things worse. So what do we get from democracy in terms of results? Well, we get bad politicians. We get bad voters with high time preferences. We get bad policy. We get war, taxes, regulations, surveillance, cultural degradation, the whole nine yards. But the other thing we get in terms of bads, which the state produces in a democratic system, is we get this centralization of state power. You know, Hoppe describes we had thousands upon thousands of city-states and principalities and territories which used to make up Europe. And now today they've turned it into these managerial super-states like we think of the modern Germany, for instance. And in the United States they turned 50 states. We used to say these United States. Well, we didn't. But our grandparents used to say these United States. It turned 50 states into basically what are glorified federal counties. Shabby glorified federal counties, I might say. And it also put about 330 million people with wildly diverse interests under the boot of just a few thousand people in Washington, D.C. And sometimes it's even fewer than that. Sometimes it's just five or seven Supreme Court justices. So we think about democracy producing bad results. But what Hoppe's book doesn't talk about, and what is so fascinating to me, especially this week, is that what about process? We think about the results of democracy. But what about the process? It turns out the process is lousy, too. You know, it produces another kind of bads, which takes the form, as we see this week, and as we certainly saw in 2016, of a national psychosis. This sort of emotional breakdown of people who are emotionally invested in government and politics in the winner of these elections. And so this kind of division, which we're living under, is actually another bad result of democracy, but from the process side. So we have this election result still in limbo. I think that Biden is going to prevail in however you want to call that prevailing. But we have maybe a hundred or a million or more Americans whose entire psychological well-being over the next couple of weeks is bound up in this process over which they have no control. You know, a few tens of thousands of people in a few swing states will determine two completely different narratives for the next few years. It'll be like, well, you know, our sacred democracy, the Americans were too smart to be fooled again by this strange orange reality show con man.  Just a few tens of thousands of votes are going to make the difference in that narrative. That doesn't make any sense to me. So the process doesn't work. The process itself is dysfunctional. And millions of Americans like us, they just don't accept the process as legitimate anymore. Any part of it, from the vote counting to the recounts to the campaign spending and the PACs and the dark money groups to the voter registrations, the mail-in ballots, the deadlines, some of these dubious electronic systems, I always think you press the button and behind it it's like that game operation where the clouds just light up and it doesn't go anywhere. I don't know, you press the little button, who knows where it actually goes, right? It might just be a bare wire back there. And so, you know, people are also not going to accept the recounts and legal challenges, the whole process. And if you think about it, it would actually be hard to design, if some sadist wanted to design a process every four years that would produce more bads than our current system. I don't know how you do it. Division, hatred, distrust, waste, and yet all of it at the end of the day settles nothing. It doesn't produce some sort of lasting compromise or sense of finality to it.  So the process does do one thing though for the state, is it hides the bad results, right? The process becomes the thing. So we're so preoccupied with politics and these votes we forget about what we ought to be thinking about, overseas wars, the debt, the devaluation, the surveillance, all the results side of democratic voting. So the question becomes, what do we do? That's always the question. That's always the frustration. That's what people ask me over and over and over. What should we do? Where do we go? You know, first of all, you have to start with this. Everybody in this room has an advantage when it comes to this national psychosis. Everybody in this room has some natural antibodies, I think, to this whole thing. We've already recovered. We're already immune. We understand and recognize what millions of Americans are just starting to understand, namely that it's not just that mass democracy doesn't work, but that it can't work. So we don't have any illusions. That's our benefit. That's our bonus. We have a head start, so to speak, on this national psychosis. And I really think that's a form of power, which we all ought to employ in our personal lives and in our emotional well-being. So a couple of weeks ago, my wife happened upon an essay from 1978 by Vaklav Havel, the Czech dissident leader who is also the first president of the Czech Republic after the fall in 1989. And this essay is called The Power of the Powerless. So it was new to me.  So I thought I'd stumbled on something, but it's really a fascinating essay about 80 pages. And so he's writing this in the 70s when the former Czechoslovakia is still under Soviet domination, but not as much Soviet domination as the USSR itself, perhaps. So I'm reading this essay, and Vaklav Havel is also a literary guy and a poet, so he's a tremendous writer, and you guys should all find this, The Power of the Powerless. Easy to find. So I'm struck by the fact that the parallels between the Eastern Bloc situation he's describing, the former Soviet Bloc and the atmosphere in the U.S. today, are so striking. And I don't mean to imply that we face anything close to the hardships that they did, but it's striking. It's still striking, and it's ominous. It is happening here, and we can feel it. I think we can feel it. Not everything can be verbalized and intellectualized. Sometimes it's just a feeling. So the good news is that he's writing this as a dissident in 1978, and not too much later, there was actually a happy outcome in the creation of the first Czech Republic. So sometimes when things look particularly dark, maybe you've got to keep on moving forward, and something good is going to happen if you do so. So Havel talks about how the Czechs didn't live under what we think of as a form of actual physical dictatorship. It was sort of a soft totalitarianism. In other words, he says, well, you know, it took the form of this almost hypnotic secularized religion where the metaphysical and existential realities of the world, they succumbed to ideology. And that's what we think of when we think of the Soviet Union, right? We think of people who tried to just command human energy into something new, to actually create a new man and also to ignore, for example, the laws of economics, that this could be willed, that this could be done by fiat or by legislative action. And so when we think of communism, we think it ignores certain underlying metaphysical realities. And realities of human nature. That was one of the big criticisms of Soviet communism. So he says, well, you know, this is happening here, but he talks about how people would just sort of purposely lie to themselves and their friends and family to remain in good standing in both society and with the party in Czechoslovakia. And again, the analogy today, I'm sure you've seen this going around, is that 2 plus 2 equals 5, right? So does 2 plus 2 equal 4? Well, it depends. Because mathematics, like everything else, is not some hard science or something whereby, or some branch of logic where we just simply describe a reality which already exists and which is underlying, and we're trying to grapple and figure it out. No, no, no. 2 plus 2 might equal 5 depending on your outlook, depending on your identity and the circumstances and maybe the color of your skin or your religion or the country you come from. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster. This is a recipe for eliminating any basis of social cooperation amongst us for having markets, for having prosperity, and of course it results in just somebody having to have the power to enforce 2 plus 2 equals 5. So ideology enforced by the state becomes the only animating force in society. So Havel gives an interesting example. He demonstrates this 2 plus 2 equals 5 in Italian by talking about how in Czechoslovakia shopkeepers would dutifully put up the little sign that says, workers of the world unite. They would just sort of dutifully do this. Like back in the day, people used to put up pictures of the presidents in their living rooms. And if you travel to foreign countries, oftentimes people still do that in Latin America. In Turkey, you'll see pictures of Erdogan. And sometimes you'll see pictures of Ataturk on the wall so people revere these figures. So he said, nobody actually believed this, workers of the world unite. The grocer didn't do this because he means it. It was just an act of rote conformity on his part. It was a signal. It's a signal of his acquiescence. And since all the other shops do it, you do it too. This is what it meant to be a green grocer in Czechoslovakia in 1978. And we see this in America today. We see the same kind of signaling, the same kind of acquiescence of things like masks or some of these goofy signs, all lives matter or black lives matter or back to blue. These are signals and people put them up in their yard. There's that one that says this house believes X, Y, and Z. And it's this sort of hectoring thing which is supposed to prove what a great person you are in that house. So we have the same thing happening in America today. So again, you know, most people in this room though are prepared to be dissidents today. Most people in this room are not willing to just go along with this stuff. And most people in this room already consider themselves the real resistance, not the fake kind where you have all the support of the political parties and the mainstream media and academia and Hollywood and corporate America. That's not a resistance. So we're already past any of these illusions about democracy or politics or constitutionalism. I would argue that we've reached the point where loving our country requires us to identify and begin to separate the various nations which are within it. I think there's nothing more important today. And so if you get an opportunity to read Hoppe's book, I think you will find it enlightening. I think you will identify a lot of the problems which he identifies. And I think you will come away with a better understanding of what a radical experiment mass democracy really is. It's not what we imagine it to be. There's no sort of 51-49 electorate which gives anything legitimacy because oftentimes votes are won with fewer than 51%. Sometimes Bill Clinton became president because of Ross Perot with less than 51% of the electorate. Even the Reagan Revolution in 1984 where he won every state, 49 states, except for I guess Mondale's Minnesota, am I right? And the District of Columbia, 49 state route, something like 60-40 in the raw numbers. And yet what we think of is an absolute landslide, one of the biggest victories in electoral history in the United States for president. He had something like 24% of all Americans cast an affirmative ballot for him. So if you begin to look at the numbers a little differently, you begin to question all of this and you begin to wonder where it came from. And you begin to hope that people can start to think again a little bit more about having 50 states. In other words, what happened last Tuesday was there were 50 national, 50 state elections. There wasn't one national election. There were 50 state elections. Yes, people were voting on who's going to hold a national office known as the president, but it wasn't a national election. Those are two different things. So I want to leave you with this great quote from Havel. He says, and I'm quoting him, ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity. How many libertarians get their identity from goofy libertarianism? It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity and of morality while making it easier to part with them. I told you this guy's a poet. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. I think that's just an absolutely phenomenal way to put things because I really believe that liberty in the political sense is not an ideology which you impose on other people. It's the absence of ideology. It's what happens when you leave people alone, when civil society and marketplace are allowed to function and flourish. It doesn't need to be imposed on anyone. It's the state which is the imposer. And of course it's the natural condition of social cooperation. Mises almost called his book Human Action his magnum opus, Social Cooperation. He says it's the only way you can organize society peaceably. But we have no choice, all of us here today, but to recognize that millions of Americans, millions upon millions of Americans, maybe a majority of Americans, simply don't see the world the way we do. That's a fact. So the goal of this national psychosis which they produce and impose on us every four years is of course demoralization.  Don't let that happen. Thanks very much.