 of IUPAP, International Union for Peer and Applied Physics. Welcome all, in order to come from many different countries. So it's really a pleasure to see you all here in presence. We are going to have a lot of participants also following the event online through Zoom, but also through YouTube, okay? So this is going to really be live streamed worldwide. So let's begin with some welcome remarks. And I guess we'll start with the director, the host, the director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics, Professor Atish Tabalkar. Atish. Okay, thank you, Sandro. Good morning, everybody. It's a great pleasure for me on behalf of ICTP to welcome this distinguished audience in person, but also people who are joining online and together with our distinguished guests. So welcome to ICTP. ICTP is very happy and very proud of this collaboration with IUPAP. I think the missions of ICTP and IUPAP are complementary to each other. I mean, we work with individual scientists, whereas IUPAP does more at policy and coordination level. And it's a great honor to have this very important celebration of 100 year of IUPAP here in Trieste. I think it's also recognition of the Trieste Science System. Trieste has been recognized as the Chittadela Chians or Comerciansa. And because of this very vibrant scientific community that was created here, and ICTP was a founding member of that together with our sister organizations like CISA and Electra and Fundaxione. So ICTP played a really historical role in making this happen in Trieste. I should say that ICTP is governed by a tripartite agreement between the Italian government, International Atomic Energy Agency and UNESCO. And we are a category one center of UNESCO. And we are very proud to collaborate with UNESCO and IUPAP on the international layer of the basic sciences for sustainable development, which was inaugurated just last week in Paris and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations. And it is going to be an important year to really emphasize the importance of basic sciences, which is what we are all here for. Thank you very much. Thank you, Atish. And now we have the president of the Fundazione Internationale Trieste and Secretary General of IUPAP for Administrative Affairs, Professor Stefano Fantoni. Thank you, Sandro. And welcome on behalf of the Fundazione Internationale Trieste to everybody. It's a beautiful day. This is a beautiful time. And it's a privilege for the Fundazione to first of all to host the Secretary of IUPAP and in second time to be hosting the sentinary of IUPAP. The more I learn about IUPAP and the more I like, it's a big family. And I believe that we are going very much along with this and it's very interesting what is happening and is doing and discussing in this family. So just few words about the Fundazione. Fundazione, I tell you in Italian, is a Fundazione Internationale Trieste, is in Italian, Trieste International Foundation. It was born 42 years ago now. It's a private foundation. And it's been sort of since the beginning, a platform for coordinating the activity of the scientific, say, family. Let me put it toward the scientific complex of the territory, mostly of Trieste. So it has been doing many, it has been proposed several activity in this time. And the most recent one was the organization of ESOF that you might be known about. But now this adventure of IUPAP is even larger, important of ESOF according to me. And I believe that they say the strategic dreams that we have now, which is about interdisciplinarity and sustainability, will be something that can be shared with IUPAP and it is being shared with that. So thank you very much and have a nice conference. Thank you Stefano. And now it's the turn of Dr. Lestia Rosolene. She's the regional minister, assessor regionale, the region of Friuli, Venetia Giulia. This is the region that where Trieste is and she's going to speak in Italian. We'll just try to summarize at the end. Good morning and welcome to everybody to Trieste. I'll speak in Italian because I'll be able to express some concepts that Professor Scandolo will translate. I thank you all and I bring the greetings of the president of the region, Massimiliano Federiga. And I thank you for being here because Trieste is the region of Friuli, Venetia Giulia, which believe in a very vast and important scientific system in their connection with our productive system, our economic system and our social system invest a lot on the subject of research. Coming here this morning I thought of a data. I thought of the long-term impact that a few hundred years ago you imagined to build something that would go beyond the borders, that would overcome any kind of barrier, that would put together the people that at the time of the time of physics could give their contribution to society. Trieste did more or less the same thing at the end of the Second World War, when he was able to choose to be the smallest city in the East of free Europe or to choose to host international subjects that in this context would be a place where to look beyond the borders that were given to him at the end of the Second World War, he imagined a community that he knew how to imagine, in a strong way what the future would be. We are very proud. Yes, of course, of the event that takes place here today, both in the great Trieste community of physicists and the networks of scientific collaborations that have been developed in the years and that we, of course, are always developing in a more important way. We are proud of it too because, and obviously I thank the director of the CTP and President Fantoni of the FIT, we are proud of it too because we agreed with the past years that this was an important vision that allowed us to go beyond those that were the debates, the contingent and daily politics and also the Summer Institute of which Professor Fantoni has spoken about sustainability, will have and want to have this purpose. Friuli Venezia Giulia is a land of welcome, a land of cultural, religious and important training spaces and we hope to be able to keep this role, but also to implement it and to make this city and this region to the port of all and to the avant-garde compared to those that are national, international and over-national policies compared to which we move. There are great opportunities at the national level, at the European level at the moment and I am convinced that the role of the research system when it comes out of the schemes that are given as any social system can be a different social system at the avant-garde. I hope that exactly as it happened 100 years ago, I repeat, at the vigil of the golden age of Italian physics, we are able to be at the avant-garde. So thank you and good work and thank you for organizing this event. Thank you very much, Minister. So I'm just summarizing. She's Dr. Rosalind. She's thanking all of you for being here. She brings the wishes of the president of the region, Ms. Emiliano Federiga. She reminds everybody that this region has always been investing in science and has connected the economic and social system to that of science throughout the years. When she was coming here this morning, she thought that she was thinking of the people that San Diego decided to make of this city an international hub for science. And she says, I mean, she also reminded, she was also reminding the time when Trieste was at the end of World War II, had to decide whether to be a small city at the border, have a very complicated border at the time or whether to be, you know, exploit it and using the borders to become something much bigger, to become a hub for, to become a cross-source for people. And she's actually happy that this vision was the correct way to go. And we see the results now. She says also that region is a very welcoming area. There is a strong educational component. There are actually three universities in the region. And the intention of the region is to increment this role. And there are many opportunities at the moment that the region is exploring, both at the national and international level. So thank you very much, Azisore, for being with us today. And now we have Monica Pepe Altarelli, who is the main scientific organizer of the symposium. And I guess she's going to describe the contents and the program of the event. Just a few words. First of all, I'm very glad to see you all here. This is great. I was given the task of organizing the activities around the centenary of IUPAP over four years ago, maybe five years ago, something like that. And this is when I started a little bit to think about how we could organize things. But then after that two things happened. First of all, the offices of the IUPAP Central Administration moved from Singapore to Trieste. This was a lot of work. It really took a lot of time, a lot of energy and even if now we are very glad to be here. It still impacts us in some ways. And then the second thing was COVID. And during COVID, we didn't see each other for in person for two years. So organizing this event became very, very difficult. However, one year ago or a little over one year ago with Sandro Scantaro, we started a very fruitful collaboration. And we tried to put together a program which was not a conventional program of any conference, but something targeted specifically, really specific to the IUPAP mission and to the IUPAP qualities. And we really tried to address what are the core missions of the union with panels which are dedicated to that. And we tried to address the diversity of the union. And so we tried to encourage a certain number of panelists and people to reflect upon what good IUPAP did to them, what, how we can evolve, how we can better accomplish our mission. And then we also added subjects that we thought were extremely important and topical at the moment, such as climate change or nuclear arm controls. And so this is also being briefly covered by the program. So welcome here. Unfortunately, COVID is still impacting us and some people had to cancel at the last minute, but okay, this is life at the moment. And we have to cope with that. And I hope we're going to enjoy the program. Thank you. So very much, Monica. It's been a long journey, but I hope it will be successful. We'll see at the end. Let me just, it's my turn now. I'm just going to show a couple of quick, one slide actually about some practical details for these three days. Lunch and coffee breaks will be upstairs in the terrace. So we'll be outside, which is one floor above this one. There will be a WECO reception for everybody. You're all welcome to join at six. And that will be followed by live music. For those of you who want to enjoy a pleasant night party, music will be Latin American music. The group is led by an astrophysicist, former head of the astronomy department here in Trieste. So it is Venezuelan. Yes, it's not Argentina. Sorry, Silvina's complaining that this is not tango. No, sorry, Silvina, this is salsa. All right, so masks in principle are not compulsory in the building. However, we kindly ask you as much as possible to wear them, especially crowded places like this one. I guess we really enjoy the fact that you're here, but I guess you may not enjoy the fact that you're forced to stay and self-isolation if you get COVID, right? So please try to do your best to protect yourself and to protect the others, especially considering that we are an international community. So we're all going back to our own countries at the end. We would like to go back to our own countries at the end. For speakers and panelists, please keep the time. I take my responsibility. I'm already four minutes late. It's very crucial because the program is long. We have plenty of sessions and also would like to reserve some time for offline discussions during the break. So please try to do your best to keep your time. Now it's really a pleasure to have with us a group of representatives from the International Association of Physics Students. Can you actually stand up? There are I think six or seven of them. You can see them. Thank you so much. We are here to continue the event, but also they're here to provide some small logistic support. And so you recognize them by the t-shirt, especially the one which is close to the podium. You see the ADS CFT for a period of time. Tonight buses at eight and at 10, eight for those of you who don't want to stay for the party and 10 for those who want to stay for the party. Of course, there's public transportation at any time. The time table is at the info point. You can also find masks at the info point if you want. Finally, I'd like to, where is Annalisa out there? She's really being crucial in organizing this. Any questions, any practical questions? First Annalisa, then perhaps me or somebody else, but she's really done an excellent job and she's the reference. She will be the reference for all of us in the next three days. Have I forgotten anything Annalisa? No, okay. So I think, thank you very much. We can close the welcome session and move on. Yes. Yes, you can still collect your badges if you haven't registered yet at the info point just outside here. We'll follow Annalisa. Great, so with six minutes delay, can we, camera, sorry, folks, forgotten this. The students will be taking photos during the event, so don't be surprised. So if you don't want to be photographed, just let them know and they will not be posted. The idea is to post them on social media. Yes, and there will be people, so there will be a number of journalists here. Some of them are already here. And so if you don't intend to be filmed, please just let the journalist and whoever is taking the videos know. Okay, I'll stop here and now we move on to the second part, which is the opening, which is going to be given by Michelle and Sylvina. I guess, Sylvina, you will start, right? Great. I'll stop sharing now. Oh, okay, I think we'll answer this soon. So we are very happy to be here in Trieste for the Centenario of the Ayupat. My name is Sylvina Ponsedoso. I am a physicist from Argentina. I work at the University of Buenos Aires and the National Research Council in Argentina. I am the president designate of Ayupat. And so I will give you some presentation on what the Ayupat, what it is like, what it, who works for Ayupat and how it's structured and what it does. So Ayupat is a global international scientific union. The only one that is dedicated to all areas of physics and it's run by physicists from all countries. And its mission is to assist in the worldwide development of physics, to foster international cooperation in physics and to help in the application of physics so we're solving problems of concern to humanity. So the mission is a little hard, let me tell you. So a little bit of history that I won't tell much about because there's going to be plenty of sessions on this. In 1919, the International Research Council was created and so after that the International Union of Physics was created, so 100 years ago. And it was only with 13 countries at the time. You can see the list there. And the first Ayupat president was William Henry Bragg, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1915. And the first assembly was the following year with three more countries, including Italy who is hosting us here. So I won't talk much anymore about the history of Ayupat. Let me tell you a little bit about where we stand now. Basically, we have about 65, what we call now territorial members, representing the identified physics communities from different regions of the world. And at our last General Assembly, we also created a new type of member, which is a corporate associate member to be able to liaise with physicists that work outside academia and also companies that are interested in physics. And we are now discussing the possibility of creating yet a new type of membership for small physics communities in countries where physics is not so much developed. And we also have what we call official observers who are representatives from other unions, regional, physical societies that can participate in our assemblies and meetings of the executive council. And the General Assembly is the main governing body of the Ayupat. And so it used to me once every three years in person. And now this is the last one we had in person was in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 2017. And but now we are going to meet every year online sometimes and once every three years in person. So we had an experience of an online General Assembly last year. This is a picture taken from Zoom by Jens, who is over there. And we are going to have another one this week. And the General Assembly works with the people that attend the General Assembly are part of the General Assembly are the representatives of the liaison committees of the territorial members. And now we are going to have the associate corporate members of oil and the territorial members have a number of votes that depends on the number of shares they have in the union. So in between the GAs, we have the executive council who is in charge of dealing with the matters of the union and the executive council oversees over the functioning of many commissions, affiliated commissions and what we call working groups. And so this EC and CC group meets at least once per year and here is an image also a mixture of online and in-person photos from our last meeting last week. So these are the offices of the executive council that we meet every month by Zoom. Michel Spiro, he's going to speak after me. He's the president. Bruce McKellar is the past president. Michel is from France. Bruce is from Australia. Then this is me from Argentina. Jens Vicken is the secretary general for legal and financial affairs. He's based in Switzerland. Stefano van Coutony that you just met if you hadn't before. He's the secretary general for administrative affairs and Sandro is the deputy secretary general for administrative affairs. Rutani Nemutudi is the associate secretary general and looks into all what has to do with conference and Boris Sharkov is the treasurer. And then the rest of the executive council is formed by four vice presidents elected at large and five vice presidents who are elected from the chairs of commissions. Monica Pepe Beltarelli in charge of the centenary, Laura Green in charge of outreach and ethics, Laura from the U.S. Nithya Shetty from South Africa for membership and Jillian Butcha for she's the vice president at large with gender champion duties. She's from the UK. And then we have some members of the executive council which are chairs of the commissions. Ania Prahimian from the nuclear physics commission. Kuy Juan Jean from the physics for development commission. Takaaki Kajita from the astro-particle physics commission. Tao Wono from the structure and dynamics of condensed matter commission. And Tetiana Timirova from the physics education commission. So the secretariat for legal and financial affairs is based in Geneva. But the secretariat for administrative affairs is based in Trieste where we are here now. This is a photo we took last year with a, I don't remember how to use the point, oh here. I think here with Cecilia Cresci who is the person who does a lot of work for us here in Trieste. And we are very happy to be here, particularly in ICTP because it's a hub I think that connects physics to all the developing world. So we have these many commissions divided by subfields of physics. And we have affiliated commissions which are independent bodies that work with IUPUB. We have few of them, some of them have been associated to IUPUB very recently, particularly the commission of physics students and on the history and philosophy of physics that was last year. And we have working groups which are temporary structures that look into specific problems and try to develop solutions or to establish guidelines. And these are our current working groups. Two of them were established last year on ethics and one on quantum science and technology. And we hopefully will create some more. We don't know maybe this is coming assembly or the next one. So we are starting this new centenary with a renovated presence online and with a new communication scheme. We have a new website at iupab.org. We have a Facebook page that is having a stronger presence. We are going to set up some Twitter and Instagram accounts and we started the e-newsletter that was sent by email very recently. And please visit the website to learn about all these initiatives. So now that I gave you an overview of the structure and this communication scheme, let me tell you a little bit about the aims which is that's very important for us. So we started the new century with a renovated set of aims. So in blue there I painted the words that are part of the new aims and in black are the ones that are kind of older. But you can see that we try to promote physics for development and sustainability. We are very interested in physics education, in diversity and inclusion in physics, in open access to data, in supporting early career physicists, physicists working outside academia and also having clear guidelines on conduct for scientists. And of course we keep on having our old aims foster international cooperation, promote the free circulation of scientists and promote the international agreements on symbols, units, nomenclature and standards. So let me give you some, we started with these new, I mean, we put these new aims into our latest strategic plan that was approved last year, but we've been working on these aims before we had them written. And for inclusion and diversity, this started in 1999 with the creation of the women in physics working group that led to the establishment of a network of women in physics working group in many countries of the world, many more than territorial members of IUPAP. And that the working group has been organizing the International Conference on Women in Physics once every three years, all over the world. This is the latest that was in person in Birmingham. At the time we had the visit of Malala Shufasai, I don't know, it's very hard to see her, but she's there in the picture. And then we had one last year that was online and we are going to have another one online. And resolutions were produced from, I mean, created at these conferences and taken over to IUPAP to take or not those resolutions and really help reshape IUPAP. And so the working group also gives travel grants for early career physicists from developing countries and the Waterloo Charter for Gender Inclusion and Diversity was approved by the IUPAP General Assembly last year with a lot of a statement, but also it has some ideas on how to promote gender inclusion and diversity. The Vice President and Gender Champion was created in 2011 and we have new rules for conferences to increase inclusion and diversity. We have an anti-harassment policy for conferences and we have also new rules for the composition of IUPAP trying to have a more diverse group of people dealing with the business of the union. And then for the early career physicists we have a established program of prices that are given by our commissions. And we also now, as I told you, we released with International Association of Physics students that became Affiliated Commission Number Five of IUPAP. And for physics education, for a long time we've had the Commission on Physics Education that lately has been issuing this report that is good for a physics teachers, teachers' educations, education researchers, physicists and policymakers. This is an image of the latest one that has been posted. Then for physicists outside academia we created the working group on physics and industry. We also have this new membership I told you about and for honesty, integrity and scientific conduct we have the new working group on FX. And we also have a statement that nominators of people that want to be given an award have to sign regarding the integrity of the nominee. And for physics for development we have C-13, the Commission on Physics for Development, that has worked to improve the situation of physics in many places of the world. It gives a medal and also it looks into conferences that are targeted, that can only take place in developing countries. And so within this regard our traditional activities and lately we had to deal with something that we thought maybe we wouldn't have had to deal again which is a working hard to promote the free circulation of scientists. So we've worked for a long time trying to promote this interaction among physics communities all over the world even if the relations between the country governments were strained. But in view of what happened in the Ukraine the IUPAP produced a statement expressing the consternation about the use of the evasion and the deepest sympathy with the people that were suffering because of this invasion. But we expressed this consternation but at the same time we thought that we had to help keep on having these links of all physicists from all over the world. So that we also passed a, it's not a resolution but a to promote collaboration because we think that scientific collaboration across the world is the driver for peace. What we did was a allow people that feel that are being excluded from attending IUPAP related conference because of their affiliation to use the IUPAP as affiliation. But in order to do that they have to sign first a statement saying that they are not actively supporting war and they are committed to democratic principles for resolving disagreements and conflicts. So well, these are our main sponsor activities and please remember that the budget that we have is not that large. It comes from our members mostly. We have different types of conferences and commissions analyze them and then they are approved by the council and we have the awards not only the early career scientist awards but also awards for more established scientists. And then we also have other ways to impact on the physics community through statements as we show you also with these rules that we enforce for our own conferences serve as example for other physics societies we have the newsletter and this increased visibility on the web. And we have liaisons with other scientific unions because really the global challenges that we have now are need their collaboration of many disciplines. And so we had with the IUPAP we had with many, many unions and I'm going to talk to you about two that had great impact. What was the gender gap in science project that we started with 11 other with it was a total of 11 so with another 10 international partners it was led by IMU, the mathematical union and IUPAP which is chemistry initially funded by the International Science Council and then this led to the creation of the standing committee on gender equality in science that has many more partners than 11. And we have a very nice final report that is available if you go to this site you will find how to get the report in the form of a book. And then the other project that was also started with a large grant given by ISC is the Light Sources for Africa, the Americas, Asia and Middle East and Pacific which was started with a grant that was given to IUPAP and the International Union of Crystallography for a project entitled Utilization of Light, Source and Crystallographic Sciences to facilitate the enhancement of knowledge and improve the economy and social conditions in targeted regions of the world. So it's a program mainly to help training people from developing countries go visit these light source centers and spread the use of advanced light sources. And this is still even though there is no longer the funding from ISC it's being funded by IUPAP, IUCR and ICTP. So and then we have the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development which is a huge endeavor. It was approved by UNESCO in 2019 and because of the pandemic everything got delayed and it was approved last year by the United Nations General Assembly. And IUPAP led the declaration of this year and these are the sustainable goals that we try to work for. And a very important person for this was Michelle Spiro who gave a very nice talk last Friday at the inauguration of the International Year that took place at UNESCO headquarters. So and he had, he was a rock star there. And so I will leave the floor for Michelle to explain a little bit more about the International Year. And I thank you all and I wish you that helped me also challenge all these gender stereotypes that IUPAP has been working so hard to challenge. Thank you. Thank you very much, Silvina. Silvina of course was the president-elect, the president-designator of IUPAP. Now it's Michelle. Michelle, you have to tell us what happened in Paris. Thank you very much, Silvina, for this wonderful presentation of IUPAP. I would have been unable to do that. So thank you very, very, very much for this. I will use your slides when I will present IUPAP in other conferences. It did really, very well. So we are a bit late, if I understand. So I will probably shorten my presentation. So in fact, I wanted to connect this event to the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development. Indeed, this centenary symposium is one of the events of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development. It took a long time. It's like a monica for the symposium. It all started in 2017. In fact, when I was elected president-designator of IUPAP, in my motivation, I expressed the wish of trying with IUPAP to bring this International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development in 2022 at the time of the centenary of IUPAP. It was not easy. So Sylvina already mentioned the steps. The main steps was first to convince UNESCO in 2019 to have a resolution of recommending the proclamation by the UN of this International Year. And then in the UN, it was not easy. So let me show you a few slides. First, to introduce the rationale which is behind it, I will show you a short video made by CERN, starring my grand niece, Eloise Goldberg. It's a one-minute video. If you have seen it already on Friday, I hope you will enjoy to see it again. I hope it will be working. And this will shorten my speech on the rationale which is behind it. I think she said it much better than what I could do. So I hope it will work again. The idea about the world around us is what makes us human. This desire to make sense of the world is the driving force behind fundamental science. Stirred by this curiosity, each new generation of scientists adds to the pull of knowledge built up by previous generations. We are at a crucial time for the future of our planet. Now, more than ever, it is imperative to use this pull of knowledge to help solve the global problems we face and pave the way for a more sustainable development. And we must not stop being curious. Future generations will be inspired by the knowledge we contribute today, equipping them with the powerful tools they need to build a better world. Well, now you will have the statement of the year, three slides. So I think even if she's not here, we can applaud her. So as I said, she's Eloise Goldberg. She's 13 years old, and she wants to become a Formula One pilot. Okay, so if I have time, I can show a few slides. You stop me if you think I am too late. Okay, let's see. So again, I say few words on the rationale. As you know, especially in our basics sciences are not always considered as a good dessert. You know, these are long-term without any guarantee of success research. So decision makers, so they have short-term views and often they tend to forget about basic sciences. Curiosity-driven sciences re-enchant our world and make it worse to be sustainable. President-elect of the UN General Assembly said Friday that the basic sciences explores the soul of the universe. We find this sentence very nice. As I said, the second PPT plays a role like you look for something, you find something else. Long-term finding is necessary, unpredictable results. It is a source of disruptive innovations and viewed from the past basic sciences are the foundations of sciences and serve education. They facilitate open multicultural dialogue. There were many scientific disciplinary international years since the beginning of the 2021 century and we need now interdisciplinarity to face the global challenges. 2022 is midterm for the agenda of 2030 and 2022 is a year of celebration of several scientific unions and learned societies. So one big asset of the preparation of this international year is the support contributing financially of 49 international unions and organizations. The support of 110 science academies, scientific networks and learned societies constituting the International Advisory Committee. The 49 unions constituting the steering committee. We have the support of 21 Nobel laureates and film medalists. The support of UNESCO, just say, the World Science Forum, the Global Forum, the Inter-parliamentary Union, very active also. These unions, organizations, academies, the two elements one are the foundations of the success of the year and for further initiatives beyond this international year. It is a real asset. So here you see the logo of the steering committee unions and organizations. The IUPAP is the leading union. There are many. So I will not go through all the examples where basic sciences contributed to change our world. You know that vaccines, the web, Google research and gene coming from brilliant mathematical idea, artificial intelligence, cellular fault is full of quantum mechanics. The GPS relies on Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum atomic clocks. The genome projects comes from the DNA, PET scan, MRI, uncertainty for the future, generation and storage of renewable energy depends on advances in physics, chemistry and material sciences and reduction in pollution and drinking chemistry rely on basic advances in chemistry. So the story I told you, it is worth to note that it was mostly pushed by developing countries, which in fact I like. So the resolution at UNESCO was adopted under the leadership of Jordan, Russia, Vietnam, Nigeria. And the proclamation was brought by Honduras with the support of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominic Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Georgia, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, you see a lot of Latin American countries. Peru, Philippines, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Spain, South Africa, Thailand, Vietnam. This is quite instructive. There was a consensus at the end of all countries in the, all members. So the tentative list of topics that we want to cover to during this international year, basic sciences, multicultural, all dialogue and peace, education and human development, women and more generally equity, diversity and inclusion, open sciences, innovation, economy and sustainability sciences, health and life sciences, global challenges like climate, biodiversity, water, basic sciences as a global public good, hazards, big data. So the opening ceremony happened on Friday, last Friday at UNESCO in Paris. It was delayed due to the late proclamation of Mr. Cardonea in December of 2021. It was, I think, a wonderful high level representative, large attendants, large audience event. You have here a little bit of the program I will not go through, but we got seven ministers of science. We got the president elect of the UN General Assembly in person, we got four Nobel laureates, diversity of scientists from all over the world, young or senior scientists, with very nice round tables, moderated one by Rolf Hoeyer and the one by Dominique LeGlu, French traditionalist, and another one by Mam Pella Ramfoulet, the president of Global Forum. For possible resulting actions, certainly we will push for open access publishing in all basic sciences, open data and open software, promote equity, diversity and inclusion, promote the training and education to basic sciences in developing countries, and also to sustainable development goals, connect the scientists to the actors of sustainable development, developed by basic tools to support science-based decision-making, decrease the environmental footprint of basic sciences, and maybe if it is possible, promote a decade of basic sciences for sustainable development. Possible indicators of success, number of events, their geographical distribution, their participants and their impact, concrete commitments from governments, parliaments to appropriate funding basic sciences over the next decade, investments and programs on STEM education and on the promotion of educational programs and that bringing future scientists and engineers and policymakers closer together, initiatives to build the solid bridges between science policymakers and the rest of the society in order to use evidence-based decisions for the solution of global problems, mobilizing all forces for sustainable development for global equity and a healthy, lively planet. Thank you, we count on all of you for organizing many, many events. There's a question in the chat, which in the Zoom chat which I think is interesting and this is to qualify the difference between science and basic science. So science is covering both basic sciences and applied to science. Basic sciences are not under threat because these are directly connected to the next innovation, the short term, so politicians like that. Basic sciences, you don't know what you will find, it's a long-term investment which is driven by curiosity. And this is what is, that's what. Closest session, the welcome and the opening. So I kindly ask now, Stefan Rufo, where is Stefan? Oh, Stefan, I'm sorry, you're here. Come to the podium and start the second session. Okay, thank you for the invitation to open the session, first session of the morning with the speech of Roberto Lalli. Roberto got his master in physics in 2006 at the University of Milan, and in 2011 he received a PhD in the International History University of Milan, working on comparative approaches to national receptions of modern physical theories. He was then a postdoctoral fellow in the history of modern physical sciences in the MIT program on science, technology and society, where he studied the conceptual frameworks and methodologies of science. Roberto has been a research scholar at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin since 2013. And since 2018, he has been working within the Multis Institutional Berlin Center for Machine Learning, where he developed approaches for the application of machine learning techniques to the history of recent sciences. His research focuses on the social, political and epistemic aspects of knowledge production in the physical science, including its circulation and certification. Recently, Roberto got a position in a polytechnic cover to ring. So I'm happy that he's back to Italy from Germany. And I do not resist to say that he will also speak in a conference this the same week devoted to the evolution of knowledge that CISA is organizing in a whole nearby. So I leave the floor to Roberto for his speech. Do you hear me? Yeah. Oh, thank you very much. Dear presidents of the LPP, dear vice presidents, dear officers, it's a great honor for me to open the historical talks, given in this great occasion, the center of the foundation of the IUPAP. As some of you know, on occasion of its center in the IUPAP has launched a historical project which currently involves 21 external societies were investigating different facets in case studies of these long and rich history. The final output will be a volume edited by Jean-Méne Navarre in the room, which we will talk tomorrow and myself, which will be published open access thanks to IPP funds by Oxford University Press next year. The project was made possible by the generous support by UPAP officers who funded the digitization of almost the entire official caps of the LPP. Without this digitization effort, the research, historical research would not have been possible. Thanks to this, our proposals attracted many scholars at different stages of their career and whose geographical distribution is representative of the best pad membership achieved by the LPP recently. I hope you can read some of the names. So the slide, you can see in fact, the structure of the book, as well as the titles of the papers and the names of the authors of the book. In the first part of my talk, I will try to convey the sense of why so many historians found the history of the IUPAP so fascinating and timely and enthusiastically join the project. In the second part of my talk, I will highlight a few processes from the history of the IUPAP in a specific period during the Cold War, while Jaume Navarro will present tomorrow a talk on the foundation and interwar period. My talk will only give a few glimpses of preliminary results of a collective ongoing research which is still to be finalized and will be finalized next year with the publication of the book. So let me start with a historiographical introduction. As you can see from the book covers in the slide, this project follows a well-established tradition of books devoted to the history of international scientific unions as well as their umbrella organization. The International Council of Scientific Unions is now International Science Council. It is remarkable that in spite of the relevance of physics as a basic science and its special role in the course of 20th century, it's many social, cultural, economic and political repercussions so far no study of the history of IUPAP has been undertaken. What we have available is a nice booklet summarizing some main facts related to the IUPAP General Assemblies from 1922 to 92 and a few papers written by officers. Some appearing in the volume of physics 50 years later published on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the IUPAP in 1972. The group of science historians working on the project is committed to fill this lacuna with the first book on the history of the IUPAP. However, we are also more ambitious about how we can write the history of this sort of international organizations as far as I know, this collective effort to address some major features and case studies of the history of IUPAP by professional historians of science with the fully digitized archive is unprecedented in previous efforts to write the history of scientific unions. Let me now clarify what is at stake here and what makes the history of the IUPAP so interesting for historians. In 1969, an important figure in the history of the IUPAP then associate secretary general, later secretary general and future president, the Canadian physicist Lerkin Karwin wrote a piece of physics today in which he highlighted the main roles of the union at that time. So you can see the difference with Sylvina's though. He wrote at the time, the union's purpose is to foster international physics meetings, more rapid dissemination of information and the establishment of international standards, units and nomenclature. It's an official goal is to make contribution to the general international understanding. So it is exactly this combination of official scientific goals with the unofficial impact on political relations that makes the IUPAP so interesting for historians of science. We are historians are trying to understand how political and scientific matters have been interacting in the activities of international scientific organizations such as the IUPAP and how this interaction dependent on changing historical contexts. These questions connects with the long traditional recent trends within the history of science that reflect on the historical dynamics and the meaning of the implementation of concepts such as scientific internationalism as scientific universalism as well as to what has been recently called size diplomacy. So we look at these organizations in the perspective of science diplomacy organizations. And the IUPAP is a fantastic case study to address these topics. The union has the ambition to be the global representative of one of the hardest scientists was developing throughout the 20th century had the greatest impact on international affairs. It is non-governmental but it clearly relates to intergovernmental agencies such as UNESCO. It shares various domains of investigation with other unions and organization yet it maintains its own individual identity and autonomy. For all these reasons, the IUPAP is a perfect case to investigate how non-state actors which meaning the physicists who worked in the activities were officers also being part of the commission in this sort of organization tried to negotiate scientific goals and political agendas in the context of changing world over orders along the 20th century and the first 20 years of the 21st century. Physicists always refer to scientific universalism as a basic technique of their work which is the underlying ideal supporting the view that scientific internationalism is an important tool to foster international understanding as well as the view that scientific international cooperation is a useful way to improve relations among people and nations. As historians, we want to understand precisely how this idea was understood, negotiated and implemented in different historical contexts. The actual implementation of scientific internationalism to foster more peaceful relations between peoples is something that needs to be carefully scrutinized by historians so that we can actually identify the conditions under which physics could become a diplomatic tool to improve international relations. One of the ideas at the basis of science diplomacy. In short, we want to see whether, when and under what condition and to what extent physics had a value in international relations rather than the other way around. Tomorrow, Jaume Navarro will show how poorly the IUPAP enacted international ideas in interwar period. So in a way, it's very dangerous to invite historians to the birthday because they are going to show that maybe the birthday can be moved a little bit further in time. Today, in fact, I discuss the more active and certainly more successful period starting in 1947. We can state that the IUPAP was completely reconstituted after World War II, starting with the 5th General Assembly in Paris in January, 47. So maybe the MIPA proposed to make another center in 2047. Its activities have been disrupted, completely during World War II and its longstanding Secretary General, French physicist Harry Habram, had been deported in Auschwitz in 43 and murdered there. The German physicist Paul P. Ewald, IUPAP's Secretary General in the period 46-47 was a German who had fled from Germany in spite of the fact that he was not Jewish during the Nazi period in 37, who fled to England. He stated in a letter that the physicists involved in the assembly were trying to resurrect a body which, and I quote, has never shown much sign of a life. There was in fact, and he mentioned another letter, the serious risk that the IUPAP was going to be shut down completely at the assembly as proposed by one representative of the UK, Charles Carlo Darwin, the nephew of Charles Darwin. So Ewald was vocal in opposing the proposal to disrupt the union and also the sign in that time a new role for the IUPAP. And in this phase of a complete refoundation by like very different basis with respect to those that shape the activity of the IUPAP in the interwar period. Ewald proposed three principles that should regulate the relations between physics and politics in the IUPAP. First, the union sure remains strict scientific institution free from governmental influence in any form, which was not the case previously. Secondly, the union should be truly international. With this, Ewald meant to avoid the policies implemented after First World War to use the union to exclude previous enemies rather than cooperate with them. Ewald stressed, and I quote, that we must invite the former enemy countries to cooperate with us as soon as the conditions allow. Third, the union must ensure the dignity of the scientist. For this, he meant that the union should work to overcome the view that was going to become widespread in the social sector, the view that scientists and physicists in particular, and I quote, are cogs in the war machine. This was a view that was going to become widespread because of physicists' role, of course, in the production of nuclear weapons and their use into cities in Japan. Thanks to Ewald's forceful commitment, it was very important in this assembly. In 1947, the IUPAP started a path that would gradually lead it to fulfill its potential as a global organization of physics, which we see now. Let's now have a look at the conditions under which this happened, which also shaped future developments, including our current role and function of the IUPAP. The major structural change was the international agreement signed by International Council of Scientific Unions and UNESCO in December, 46, just one month, the Paris Assembly of IUPAP. This agreement had a deep impact on IUPAP, not only that it entailed more funds, which are also useful, but also because it shaped part of the activities and goals of the union. The agendas of the International Council and all its unions had to be aligned with those of UNESCO. And now we can see the next slide, what this meant for the IUPAP. Contrary to some other scientific unions, most notably the International Astronomical Union, the IUPAP had been rather inactive in the interwar period, with no creation at all or specialized scientific commission. Only general commission on finances, on symbol units and nomenclature, on publications had been established in the interwar period. In spite of the fact that in the statutes adopted in 1922, the creation of topical commissions was explicitly mentioned as one of the possible activities of the General Assembly. In the turbulent years after the 1947 meeting, one sees the immediate creation of specialized commissions devoted to specific sub-areas of physics, together with establishment of new kinds of commissions devoted to broader fields, at the time called ground commissions, and we'll shortly record what affiliated commission, which we have also now. I would like to spend a few words on this process of commission creation, because it was this process that most remarkably identifies the renewed activity of the IUPAP and the greatest piece of evidence of its brand new role after World War II. This process signals the development of IUPAP from a body aimed simply at establishing international agreed standards and norms to a body that works actively to promote international exchange and cooperation in sub-fields of physics. This is clearly shown by the first specialized commissions to be created. It was initially called the Commission on Thermodynamics Magnitudes and Notation in 1947. Its role rapidly transformed as shown by the change of name in commission on thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. And this occurred very quickly. Already in 1948, there was the change of name and this signals very clear that the activity of the first commission changed their role from establishing norms and standards to trying to actively support exchange and dialogue in specific sub-fields. And also shape what kind of activities specialized commissions could do, especially focusing on the organizational international conferences and meetings. This process was in part favored by the connection with UNESCO, but it was also partly due to the such a professional interest of physicists involved in national committees because were the national groups that promote the foundation of commission and specialized sub-fields in specific points in time. Apart from active involvement of national group of physicists, the first phase is characterized by bottom-up processes of scientific groups that tried to establish international groups of their own and tried to find their IPP in their institutional umbrella. And this is clearly the case of the first affiliated commission, the International Optical Commission, which was for a long time the only one that then was joined in 1974 by the International Society of Generative Gravitations which became the second affiliated commission. They were trying at the time to find solidified the structure of the national cooperation and the UPAP was the organization, the scientific organization that allowed them to do that. So this was the change, the major change occurred at the time. And this renovation, those parked some debates about the function of the UPAP in the future. The first phase was very tentative with the IPP providing, for example, grants for international research trips or also proposing to support specific research projects. So this kind of action raised criticism from a previous president, Robert Millican. He was president from 31 to 34. Since, according to Millican, since UNESCO was established to, and I quote, build the foundations for lasting peace through stimulating as much as possible acquaintance, friendliness and understanding between the nations. And the quote, Millican considered it not legitimate to use some UNESCO funds to support scientific projects. He also pointed out that choosing some fields or persons will summarize criticism of favoritism or unfairness concerning the choice. And I quote, destroy the usefulness of a body which exists primarily for promoting international peace and goodwill. The body, it means here, the UPAP. So the first primary goal is build international peace and goodwill. It was not scientific. It was true science to act as essentially in fostering better relations between peoples. So this is how important figures in the UPAP saw the relation with UNESCO in terms of the scientific and political agendas of the Union. So Millican's view had become quite soon the framework of activity in the UPAP. UPAP immediately abandoned the grant program for TRIPS for example, and the idea of supporting specific projects at the time and limited mostly to promoting and sponsoring international conferences following exactly this view. So let's see the broader context. The activities after the refundition of UPAP occurred within the conditions of possibilities offered by the New World Order established after World War II, dominated by the political, military, economical, and geological competition between the US and the USSR. Between 47 and the mid-1950s, this context led the UPAP to have a great majority of active members from the Western bloc. It was essentially a Western dominated Union. Only after the death of Stalin and the end of the Korean War did the Soviet Union change its foreign policy which led to the progressive involvement from 1954 onward in most international scientific organizations. The UPAP Executive Council accepted the request of the Soviet Union to become a member in 1956 and the decision was ratified in the Rome General Assembly in 57. The involvement of the Soviet Union was another important change in the UPAP because it led immediately to the participation of most countries of the Soviet bloc and also the request from other communist countries at the time. And we can fairly state that in 57, a new phase of the UPAP started, conditioned by the necessary negotiation and balance between what were at the time called first and second wars. The thesis involved were, of course, aware that the new membership and the political context would have an impact on UPAP activities. As expressed very clearly in the letter by past president Neville Mott to the president elected in 1957 in Rome, Eduardo Amaldi, and they quote, with the Russians and the Chinese, I think you will have an interesting time. And this word were quite prophetic but actually Amaldi refuted to run for a second term and from that time, presidents change every three years because before it was six years. The function of the UPAP and its relation with political issues changed within this new context, but radically. I would discuss now two strongly interconnected cases where political matters had to be discussed and negotiated within the UPAP in order to find a solution within the new mission and research in the foundation phase. And the global scope of the UPAP in relation to UNESCO agendas. Both of them concerned the issue of membership which at the time was called national membership. Even though the UPAP is, was and is a non-governmental organization. A non-governmental makes sense only after World War II before there was no intergovernmental non-governmental organization in term of legal organization. So from that time, it was clearly a non-governmental organization but the members were still supposed to be national representatives. And in fact, they were called, as I said, national members. This led to the traveling controversies about the acceptance of new members in relation to the, to Germany and to China issues. For reasons that Jaume Navarro will discuss tomorrow, Germany had never become a member of the UPAP before the end of World War II. While the new UPAP was in principle willing, as mentioned and discussed by Ewa, to accept Germany as a member as soon as the condition allowed, this clearly depended on the political development of the country, which was at the time occupied by foreign lies, including the Soviet Union. As we know, the Cold War led to the political and territorial division of Germany. How to deal with this division in international scientific organization was far from easy. And the process of membership involved political controversies depending on the changing political situation between West and East German. West Germany became part of UPAP already in 1952. Then it was ratified in the 54, but it was already a member, it had already a commission between 52. And the National Commission could in principle include physicists of both countries, both from West and East Germany. After the Federal Republic of Germany gained full sovereignty in 1955, East Germany also aspired to have its independent existence as a state recognized publicly and globally. But the GDR was not recognized by countries in the NATO alliance, while it was of course recognized by Soviet bloc countries. And in this context, the participation of the GDR in international organization, also scientific international organization, loosely based on the concept of national membership, was very important at the diplomatic level as the GDR could get this way a sort of official recognition as an independent territory. And therefore this strong symbolic diplomatic value. In 1959, after the Soviet Union had already joined the UPAP, the GDR put forward the same request. This was criticized immediately by the West German National Committee members on the ground that these German physicists could be part of unique German National Committee. And this position was allied with the position of the state at the time of West Germany, which considered itself West Germany as the unique official representative of the entire German people. At the same time, exactly at the same time during Amades presidents, another important political and territorial controversy entered the UPAP. China had been a member of the PPP between 34 and 58. After the change of the regime, Mainland China in 1949, no Chinese institution paid their dues. So it was still China, the name was still there, but it was not an active member. There was no one in the commission, no one responding to letters. So it actually was no China member between no China's member between 48 and 57, when the president of the Chinese Physical Society in Beijing sent a request from the People's Republic of China to become a national member of the UPAP. A few months later, the same request arrived from the Chinese Physical Society in Taipei of the Republic of China and Taiwan. The recognition of the two states, one of those states was of course also controversy in the Cold War context and beyond. The UPAP executive council decided to accept both People's Republic of China and the Republic of China in Taiwan on two different occasions. But the first acceptance was much less problematic and controversial than the second one. The decision to accept the Physical Society in Taiwan actually had to rely on an informal decisions about how to interpret the concept of national membership. They stated in the documents of the executive committee that the principle and the line, the concept of national membership was including territorial communities of scientists which didn't have any political implication on the recognition of the independent status of these territories. In turn, soon after the acceptance of the Chinese Physical Society in Taiwan, this acceptance provided the president for accepting on the same exact ground the request from the East German Physical Society. In spite of the protest from the West German National Committee members, the basic motivation as presented by Amaldi to the German committee was that the executive committee could not, a UPAP could not act in different way with respect to the two requests that had very similar political situation although of course seen from the opposite side of the other characters. This example, I think show how the UPAP was trying to shape its natural role during the Cold War by accepting all requests providing imbalance between the Western and Eastern bloc. So it was trying to do what is making time to do also now try to use scientific cooperation and put the scientists in dialogue in spite of the fact that the countries themselves didn't recognize each other in the first place but also cause what many political and territorial tensions. This strategy didn't work completely well in the sense that while it was German National Committee eventually accepted the presence of a national member representing East Germany the same didn't occur in the case of China. The people of Republic of China withdrew on the basis that they could not participate in any body that had an even if impressed recognition the Republic of China in Taiwan. And in spite of the fact that Amaldi tried to convey the sense which committees were not national but rather territorial and there was no judgment of the current political situation from the part of UPAP and also highlighted that the Executive Council had believed in a natural way accepting both East Germany and Taiwan members. It took many years for the People's Republic of China to join the IUPAP following the various attempts in the 1970s by the IUPAP Executive Council and also the various commission of the IUPAP. It happened only in 1984, more than 10 years after the relaxation of political tensions between the user and the mainland China. And only after the IUPAP had officially changed the definition of membership in its status from national to liaison members. And this happened during the 1981 General Assembly. While previously the status interpreted the word national members interpreting nation by including territories with an independent scientific communities, the new statutes read and I quote, a member should effectively represent independent scientific activity in physics in a definite territory and be listed under a name that evokes any misunderstanding about the territory represented. The work territory does not imply any political position in the part of the union, which six to assist physicists everywhere in the world to cooperate on an international level. This change was in fact the result of the negotiation between the People's Republic of China Physical Society and had been requested by the latter as a condition, Sinequanon, to join the IUPAP. This association of the People's Republic of China also implied the change in the name under which both societies were present. From 1984, they were listed both within China while before you can see quite clearly that the national members called Taiwan was present in the official reports of the IUPAP. I conclude my talk by briefly mentioning other aspects of the activities of the IUPAP that started in that period of the reconstruction actually more after the 1957 shift that were relevant to shape the IUPAP roads and thus also relevant to what is the IUPAP today. They became major concerns after the refoundation and they were shaped in many ways by Cold War concerns. The first one was the problem of physics education as mentioned also by Sivina that was combined with the reform of physics curriculum in the 1960s. So they, as it seems from previous results from preliminary results of our work, the commission of physics education had to work in a way that actively in the context of a new reform of physics education which through and together with UNESCO were trying to become a global physics education. The establishment of the commission on education in 1960 was not the beginning or the moment in these activities but they were actually already a center in relation to the aims of the UNESCO which is education of course. UNESCO had clearly a mandate to shape and provide education and the IUPAP fit entered this kind of agendas quite soon. Connected to the issue of education and to this the agendas related to UNESCO the second topic which became a prior concern of the IUPAP and after 57 in particular became the role of the IUPAP in promoting physics research but more especially the first in the beginning education in developing countries and this happened already in 1957. The third aspect also mentioned by Silvina's in her talk was the issue of the free circulation of scientists at the time these three can be fairly set to have been the major role apart from the topical commissions. There were a fourth one which in a certain point disappeared and I'm not talking about it but was the issue on the role of the IUPAP in publication that was the commission of publication which you had an important role in that period but didn't have any repercussion of future and current state of affairs. This became a major focus as you can see maybe you can read from this slide from the minutes of the General Assembly what became a major topic exactly because of the Cold War situation because and the issue of recognition of East Germany because East German physicists could not get visas to attend international conferences sponsored by the IUPAP because East Germany was not recognized. It was very complicated for East German physicist or scientist or in general person to attend international conferences. They did it was very complicated and long procedure and this led to what is to make the free circulation of scientists a major element that this is pretty clear if you look at the change of statute which I mentioned before which occurred in 1981 and both physics education and the free circulation of scientists became topic in the arms of the union in the official arms of the union which was not the case previously. So I tried to be a few green spaces of an ongoing historical research and also try to explain why as external science we are interested in the IUPAP transformation over the decades. As I try to show the condition of possibilities and the new order emerging after World War II were instrumental in sparking brand new rules for the IUPAP that the IUPAP officers tried hardly they tried with much efforts to fulfill in different political context. The agendas and goals set in that period have been framing and shaping the activities of the IUPAP and they are still doing so today again in a different historical junction and I conclude by showing the general assembly here in Trieste in 1984 which was the first one where Chinese and Taiwanese scholars were prefaces were present as official representatives of their own also territory. Thanks a lot for the attention. Roberto speaking with the organizers we decided not to have a discussion session now because we are a bit late and there is a meeting online that starts at 11. So we should go on with the next speaker and finish maybe in 15 minutes in order to have the coffee break. If Petrov did his PhD at the Conormal Superior before becoming a National Science Foundation Fellow at the Department of Physics of the University of California at Berkeley and then moved back to France and where he started the first beam line in Orsay. In his career he was also the director of the Orsay Synchrono Facility and later he became also the president of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics and more recently he was the director of the National Laboratory of Synchrono Lighting Campinas in Brazil and a couple of years ago he retired. I tried to check the information with him directly and he agrees on what I said. So I leave the floor to him for his speech. Thank you very much for the introduction. I would like to thank the organizer for inviting me. My name is Yves Petrov. I'm a Solicited Physicist who has been working also with three electron laser and synchrotourization. I was very impressed this morning by the presentation of Solzina from the Dowson because a lot of progress have been introduced since I was president-elect in 2019, no president-elect in 1999, 2002, president between 2002 and 2005 and past president. And so in the last 14 years there have been very positive changes. Now, in 1999 I was a member of the science advisory committee of the SLAC, which is Energy Physics Laboratory at Stanford. The director of the Orsay Synchrono Facility was president of the IUPAP and director of SLAC. He asked me if I would accept to be president-elect for IUPAP. At first I reshuted, but Bert called me the next day and said, why do you refute? I told him that I check it with my students and postdoc, none of them knew about IUPAP. And I told him that in my country, the IUPAP is related to the Academy of Science and there is a liaison committee. And the liaison committee made a few weeks before the general assembly, which does not happen very often. So the contact with young scientists was not existing. And there were some people staying in the general, in the commission for 15 or 20 years. And that was a disaster because young people could not go into commission. So I'll come back later on that. Now, after that, I just check it's the minutes of Preview General Assembly. I look at the one in 1996 where the president of Yoshiyama Gushi gave a very honest score just talk on the situation of IUPAP. He say, IUPAP face many problems. First, IUPAP is looting its popularity. During the time of Cold War, it was vital to have the IUPAP or Mojela Iksu and his family sponsored conference to which organizer were able to invite good scientists from the Eastern country. In those day, IUPAP and Iksu were very visible among physics and scientific community. After the collapse of USSR, I may say that in an oversimplified fashion, that physicists began to wonder, why do we need IUPAP? I think was slightly exaggerated, but while it was true that IUPAP was not very popular among young scientists. So, they're gonna say that the IUPAP relationship in various countries is very complicated. In some cases, you have the academy, in other cases, the physics society, in other case, it can be even a good environmental organization that does not simplify their life. And then the creative committee in general, at least in the few countries I know, are not very active, and that was really a problem. So, he also pointed out that there were new physical signs emerging, it was very important to take account of that. So, I look at also the next general assembly to find out if there have been any progress in that. And then President Niels was reported the way the council have been following the directive of President Adi Amagushi. And first, at the meeting of the Executive Council, that was held along with all the commission chair for the first time in February, 1997. And the format of this meeting proved to be productive and useful, so it was repeated in September, 1997, September, 1998. Now, progress was mainly working with the original physical society, and this is very important because obviously the APS, UPS, and the Association of Agents, Pacifician Figures Society and the Federation of Latin America Society of Physica started to have very good collaboration with IABAC. You can see here that Africa is missing. I'll come back later on that. Now, IABAP also was developing very good relations with the OCD Mega Science has been working to improve it connection with XO and UNESCO. I'll come back also on that. Now, it was clear that progress had been achieved, but I discussed it with Berth Richter, who was the president, and we agree that there was one important thing to change in IABAP, which was the statute and bylaw. People should not stay for 20 years in a commission or three or four times as chairman. So, a general assembly in 2002, where President Andreester gave a talk. He first reported on the activity of working women, especially on the working group on women in physics, which was voted at the assembly before that, that very strongly supported by the circuitry general Judy Frantz, and they had a major conference in Paris, attended by delegation 65 nation, and he resulted in Somerial Root, that presented the debate later on in the general assembly. This was an important moment. I remember that when a Swedish guy asked for this kind of committee, the reception would not be about. Finally, at the end of the talk, everybody agreed that that was a very important thing and has to move quickly. And I think it has been quite successful in that. Now, he also pointed out that the potential role of fitting IABAP in sustainable development that was very important of science in the aid of humanity. And noted that IABAP and physics in general have taken a kind of passive role in the task and it should be much more organized in the effort in that direction. And it separated sustainable and development. In fact, sustainability implies it and can be deployed without degrading the environment. Development implies facilitating the advancement of developing nation to a better standard of living. Well developing nation build their own scientific standard important to develop genuine collaboration to join project by working scientists with IABAP functionally it's kind of my work. I think something is very important. And next evaluated the state of physics and attributed the client of student Errolman for fading of memory. He said that the shift of public focus on biotechnology as cure of all the disease. That will also not only his idea of birth but it was the idea of Earl Wermer's another Nobel Prize in the field of medicine who say that physics was very important development of new medicine. So the, now, this is the people involved in the period I'm describing which is about nine years. 1999, 2002, Berchtischer was president. I was president in it. Nielsen was a path president. Secretary General was on today. Associate Secretary General was Judy France. Later on, Alain Asbury from Canada was president Daisy Knight. You had the same people. Elsa Molinari was associate general secretary but she resigned after a few months for professional reason. So we asked Barbara who has already been well previously to be interim Secretary General. And then Asbury president in 2005, right? And then Tsukatsu, you showed her from Japan, president and Daisy Knight and so on. Now, they were also a vice president. Those vice presidents are very useful because I had two countries not paying their fee since two years. I asked two vice presidents from this country and the problem was solved immediately. So it's a good idea. Now you can see here that not too many women. That was common at that time. There have been small changes. Now, it's clear that in councils of IUPAP, everyone is bringing his contribution but some play more than are all important role than others. And I think Bert Richter was somebody who made very important change for IUPAP and not only IUPAP and Nixon. He had a very strong personality. Some people didn't like it. I like him because he had a very strong personality. He was a precursor integrating his lab ionizer fittings in synchronization. Nobody has done it before. He was also a particle physicist but also an accelerator to build it, which is very renewable. Now, I'll come back now. Everyone's status and bylaw. He was absolute and necessary change. Why? Because I told you before, people were staying 20 years in a commission and chairman had helped many term. That's why there's no possibility for young physicists very active to enter in the game. And that's not very good. You must have very active people in IUPAP. Or it was decided all the election are for a term of three years. Chair and vice chair and not be reelected to the same position except in exceptional circumstances. And in that case, it should be approved by general assembly. Ordinary member might be reelected once. Normally the circle of vice chair and chair are to be chosen among those who have served at least one term in the commission. Continuous serving in all capacity shall not exceed three term. The council may grant exception for those commission that undertake long term product where continuity is important. The general assembly in Berlin in 2002, these change were adopted and most of the commission, even if some of them were not very happy, accepted that, accepted in one. And they came to see me and asked me to ask for a third time the same term. I said, look, we just voted the changes. So there is no way that you can get it. And I say, if tomorrow morning you come with the same name, we just dissolve the commission. So the problem was solved. Okay, I think something very important. Big two is covering all the union plus 733 national number. At that time there was 27 scientific union. Some of the union were large, having budget much larger than that of higher pub. However, many were small and did not contribute financially. He had a constitution under which each country had one vote, which is very surprising by the way. Now, Berth was elected at the executive board in 2002 and 2005. That's what the mistake of XO is. Priority item for XO was the environment. This is fine for the short term, but not for a long term. Basic science has been completely in your on the pressure of IUPAP and IUPAC. It was decided to have a working group on basic science. We were thinking that XO should not give all the impression that in developing countries, the only thing of interest was applied science. Now, in 2002, XO got a big financial problem. They have been playing with the stock and they lost a few million. And they started like any other union at that time to have little interest on the investment due to the economical crisis. Berth Gischt asked me to join the XO financial committee. I was absolutely amazed by what that is called. The budgets ran at a big deficit. The total contribution for the scientific union was about 150 kilowatt dollars. Knowing that the budget of IUPAP is 320 thousand dollars, which is two and a half times more than that, it's obvious that what they were getting from the union was absolutely ridiculous. People at the union had the freedom to pay what they like it. Now, in some of the biology or medicine union who had huge budget because of the industry were paying peanuts. So, they had the idea also to change the fee to you. So, that allowed an increase of 20% of the fee. So, we decided that IUPAP will not accept the increase of the fee asked by XO until the more elastic CNI was adopted for the contribution of the content union. Now, Roger Elliott, a physicist, was nominated as the XO treasurer. And it was possible to put XO in a position which was legitimate on the French law because the site of XO was in Paris. They had been breaking the law in various ways, but most not something was there, not the approval of the account every year by the general assembly. So, well, XO were awarded by Northrop and pointing to the executive board. But the change were implemented. And I think that's been an improvement for XO. Now, I will not discuss in detail because we are very late. So, I will escape, but we created four new working group which were really necessary and we're accepted and have created commission on medical fitting also. Now, there was a year while they were fitting 2005. The first meeting was organized on UNESCO and was quite successful. I also go faster, otherwise you will not have total coffee break. Now, visa problem, this is something which is very important for Yariopin. And we got a lot of trouble in 2012 with the Americans because the Bush administration started to create a very bad situation for people coming from some country, India, China, Russia and so on, where U.S. is already automatic. No, it was already Russia. And they are very complicated procedure. So, Vera Lut from chair of CL-11 presented a report because they were lept on photon interaction conference in United States and a lot of people could not attend. And I got also letter from Dorf and the chair of FIGFA pointing out the situation was very bad. So, after extensive discussion, we decided that IOPAP will not guarantee any approval, any conference in the U.S. until it's created changes. It should be true for all the country in similar situation. Also, we proposed to prepare an official motion and send it to X for requesting to take action, to include information on the situation on the IOPAP's website. To write to John Marburg, a science advisor, to the president with a copy to the National Academy of Science and to the other U.S. International body to inform that about the situation. It's true that the American Academy of Science that I contacted and the APS put a lot of pressure. And the letter was sent in December, 2003 and we received it probably three months later. But it's improved it seriously. So, now, I just say one thing, it's the role of IOPAP. I was in Brazil in 2017 and I realized that there was a disaster for the budget of research in Brazil. The president Temer and his minister Kassaba cut the budget by 44% in 2017. The projected budget for 2018 was a cut of 15%. It takes 50 years to recover from that. So, I contacted the president of French Academy of Science and former president of the American Physical Society asking them to send a letter to a Brazilian president Temer. But I relied very quickly that this body takes three or four months to move. So, instead to do that, I contacted for a Nobel Prize laureate in various fields, physical, chemistry, and medicine. And within one week, I got 25, 26 to then accept it to sign a letter which was done with Quentin Uly French Nobel Laureate and we sent to President Temer and Mr. Kassaba. I don't think that this changed the idea of the politician in Brazil. I will not make any comment on the politician in Brazil. But it was very positive in the sand that he was in the old newspaper in Brazil and also on the TV. So, at least the public knew it. Now, at the same time, knowing the general assembly of IRPAP was in Brazil, I asked Bruce Kelly if IRPAP will made a similar letter and Bruce accepted the major and that was voted a general assembly. And I think I was very happy to see his very quick reaction. Now, efforts in favor of developing country. When I was president and designate, I found out that general assembly are taking place in Europe, in US and Asia, but never in Africa. About 24 general assembly, 19 took place in Europe, four in US, Canada, and one in Asia. That's why we decided to have the next one in Africa. So, the next one took place in, I'm finishing. Then it was followed by the conference, World Conference of Physicians Sustainable Development, attended by about 300 city people. And then it was decided to make a special effort for developing country by allowing at least for some time to get smaller fee and so on. And I think these initiatives have been successful. Now, financial problem, there was no financial problem that I have. One important thing was we decided to create a YAPAP, YAPAP Young Scientist Prize. And that was implemented by my successor, Alan Asbury, in 2006. And I think this has been also something very good. Now, conclusion, I would say that during the nine year when I spent in the YAPAP, YAPAP, I learned it a lot. And the role of a scientist is to, so I was very happy. Now, we have a new situation in Europe, the war. YAPAP must try to help our Ukrainian colleagues and also thousands of Russian scientists who have taken position against the invasion and this sort of Ukraine. And I was very happy to see that in the presentation of Michelle Spiro that this is going on today. Thank you very much. Thank you for this very nice talk and also having been member of one of the commission in the following years. In fact, I realize how much YAPAP has done because some of the actions were took in place later after his direction. So we have decided with the organizers to cancel the coffee break because we have a meeting at 11 starting online. So I leave the floor, Monique. So you have time to go and grab a coffee, really, a minute. And because we have to start at 11 sharp because we have a connection with another major conference in Bologna with over a thousand people who will be there waiting for us to speak. So just go and come back. Hi, Roberto, can you hear me? Roberto, can you hear me? Ci sentite? Paolo, ci sentite? Ci sentite? Hey, hey, hey, test, test, test. Ci sentite, ci vedete? Test, test, test. No, ci sentite, no. Test, test. Cusci da sentirlo, mi ne sicuro. These two are Prager here. It's you. OK, perfect. Your colleagues, please have a seat. Please have a seat. Please have a seat. OK, so good morning, everybody, and good morning to the colleagues from the ICHEP community that are listening to us from Bologna, so where there is a main C11 conference taking place at the moment. So we are here for the colleagues that are listening to us from Bologna to celebrate the centenary of the formation of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics at IUPAP, the only global international scientific union dedicated to physics, and that connects physicists from all fields and continents, and it is run by physicists for the benefit of the physics community. So the mission of the union is not only to sponsor international conferences such as ICHEP, but also, for example, to engage in the strengthening of physics education, to promote physics for development, to enhance the vital role of early career physicists through the award of prestigious prices, to enhance the participation of women and other minorities, just to name some of the objectives. Our common session today will comprise two interventions. So the first one from the president of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Professor Anatoly Zagorodny, who happens to be a physicist as well, and then the second one on the development of neutrino physics in the last 100 years by Professor Takaki Kajita. And before leaving the floor to Professor Zagorodny, who should be connecting from Kiev if he manages, otherwise we will transmit a video that he has prepared. So before leaving the floor to him, let me remind you that first, we are welcoming Ukraine as a new member of IUPAP. Second, that the union took a very clear position in condemning the Russian war against Ukraine and in very explicit terms. And at the same time, in a second resolution, we expressed our belief that it is essential to keep open the channels for scientific cooperation to all scientists, as long as their work upholds the ethics and principles of science. And we believe that this is very important. So if Professor Zagorodny is connected, he should start his presentation, otherwise we will show the video. He's not connected. Okay, so we should start the video in that case. Dear President of IUPAP, Michel Spirron, dear participants of the centenary symposium of IUPAP, dear participants of the International Conference of High Energy Physics, dear colleagues. It is a great honor and pleasure for me to welcome and congratulate you on behalf of Ukrainian physicists and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine that represents Ukraine in the IUPAP. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the President Spirron and the IUPAP Executive Council for joining the Ukrainian physics community to the IUPAP family. For us, it is a very important and pleasant event since physics has always been at rather high level in Ukraine and our scientists have obtained and continue to obtain high class results in various fields of physical science. And so in the history of physics in Ukraine, I just recollect the theories, Bogolubov is also of the theory of frequently interacting by the guests and the founder of the Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics, Landau, Superfluidity of Helium, Landau Kinetic Equation, the discovery of Landau levels, and he has the theory of the beam plasma instability, Davidov, the discovery of the Davidov splitting and the foundation of the Davidov-Philippov series Non-Excel Nuclear and many others. Well-known Ukrainian experimentalists include Shubnikov, the discovery of Shubnikov-Dehaz effect and the second order superconductors, Lashkarov, the discovery of the PN Junction, Janssen method of micro-context spectroscopy, Soskin initiation of a new field in optics, singular optics, and many others. Ukrainian physicists were among the first in the study of such phenomena as supergravity, the cyclotron resonance in metals known also as Azbelkhaner effect, excitation of additional light waves, pecker waves in crystals, observation of the non-stationary Josephson effect, prediction and studies of spin-orbital interactions without center of immersion, experimental observation of quantum diffusion, theory of thermoelectronic energy conversion, and so on. Despite all the difficulties of our time, our researchers keep rather good position in certain scientific fields. This include high energy physics and astrophysics. Here we can know the participation of our scientists in the experiments on Lach-Hadron-Gleider exam, particularly related to the discovery of a new classical state in head of collisions, the order one. Among the important results in the field of astrophysics is the discovery of new galaxies responsible for the secondary initiation of the universe in the observations as a hub of telescope. In the field of condensed matter, this is the theory of electronic and optical properties of graphene, was a condensation of magnets in magnetic substances at room temperatures, analytical description of spin distribution in quantum states on the basis of new invariance of the direct equation with the glow potential, control of the properties of liquid crystals, new effects in singular optics. In the field of physics and radio astronomy, it's possible to mention the detection of highly excited giant atoms of some millimeter size in the interstellar space with the principle quantum number about 900, studies of the light instruction, set on, et cetera. By the way, this was done using the most unique and largest regraining radio telescope of the commuter wave, that is now in the combat zone in the Harkett. Yet all that is not even the tip of an iceberg. There could be much more such examples. The large-scale military aggression started by Russia on the 21st of February has radically changed the life of academic scientists. Peaceful Ukrainian cities and villages have suffered and continue to be suffered from barbaric massive air raids beside artillery attacks. Our scientific infrastructure has been considerably damaged. Due to war hostilities, there are billions of many scientific institutions and research infrastructure facilities in Kiev, Suma, Kalayev, Harkett can be ruined. Today, it is difficult even to approximately estimate the losses inflicted to academic property by this aggression. The scientific institutions and infrastructure have been most heavily damaged in Harkett. The whole world has seen the video of the building of the Karazin National University of Harkett. The well-known National Science Center Harkett Institute of Physics and Technology has been shelved. The unique nuclear facility, Neutron Source, based on the sub-critical assembly, is situated there. It has recently been built with the US support and as of today, its parameters have no counterparts in the world. That would be the reason for an international research center to be set there. That is what the assembly looked like before February 24. And this is what it looked like today. The building containing the nuclear assembly and the equipment have been partially damaged. Shelling of the institute is continuing. On June 25, the nuclear assembly was fired again and received even more serious damage. Fortunately, there has not been radiation leakage as yet. However, more intense shelling may destroy the reactor and cause an accident comparable to the Chernobyl disaster. According to the statement of Ukrainian nuclear regulator, the attacks on the Harkett Institute of Physics and Technology and the sub-critical assembly, Neutron Source should be qualified as nuclear terrorism. Moreover, Russians have destroyed the equipment of the laboratory of the institute for the problem of nuclear power plant safety in Chernobyl that provides the scientific support tool and monitoring of the state of the Ukrita shelter facility. The building of the science technology complex institute for the crystal in Harkett have been also ruined. Our science has already suffered heavy human losses. At least 10 Harkett scientists were killed by bombing and artillery attacks. A prominent physicist, the deputy director of the institute for semiconductor physics, Professor Vasily Platko, was gunned down in the street on Kutcha in cold blood. So we greatly appreciate the support and solidarity of the well-scientific community. The resolute condemnation of Russia's brutal attacks against our country. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I express the gratitude on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and all our scientists for the statement made by the IOPAP and many other international organizations. It is at most important for us to know that the war launched by Russia against Ukraine is adequately assessed by the well-scientific community. Also important is the fact that its outright denial by some Russian and Belarusian scientists and part even its justification had been condemned by the international scientific community and numerous scientific organizations have adopted the decision to stop collaboration with them. Our scientists, your colleagues, like million of Ukrainian citizens had to leave their homes and to get evacuated in search of a safe place for their existence. At least 10% of our Academy associates have temporarily moved to other countries. We are grateful to the countries that provide them with shelters, have issued short-term grants for Ukrainian researchers and facilitated their employment. 45 countries have joined their movement in support of Ukrainian scientists through the initiatives of National Councils for Scientific Research, Scientific Societies and Universities. We believe that with the international support being so powerful, we will overcome all the difficulties when the war and Ukrainian physicists will further provide considerable contribution to the progress in physics. Thank you very much for your attention. Okay, so thanks a lot for this intervention. And I think the next intervention will be by Professor Takaki Kajita from Tokyo. So please, you can start. Thank you very much. But thank you very much for the kind invitation to the Ayupat Sentinel Symposium. It's a great honor for me to give this talk. Let me share my slide. Okay, today, I want to discuss neutrino physics. This is the outline of this talk. First, well, I want to briefly discuss the situation about 100 years ago. Then I want to move on to the discovery of neutrinos. Neutrino problems, neutrinosilations, neutrinos as messengers of the universe. Well, certainly I want to try to discuss the neutrino physics in the last 100 years, but certainly I would like to emphasize the recent excitement in neutrino studies. By the way, this is going to be an experimental talk. Therefore, I'm very sorry, but I'm not going to discuss theory. Also, due to the limitation in time, I may not discuss some important topics. Okay, about 100 years ago. Well, in 1899, Gadaford showed that two types of radiation exist, which he called alpha and beta. In 1902, Kaufman showed that beta radiation was nothing more than electrons. Therefore, beta decay could be a nucleus changing to the other nucleus and emitting an electron. Then in this case, the electron energy should be fixed. However, the Kaufman's experiments also showed that beta rays have wide range of velocities and also a similar result was also found by Beckler. So these results were very interesting. However, during the first decade of the 20th century, the physicist community did not accept that the energy spectrum of electrons emitted in beta decays was continuous. Well, this situation continued for some time. And finally, in 1927, Eris and Wuster made a decisive experiment on radium E-bismuth 1210 using a calorimetric technique, giving the direct proof that the electron spectrum was continuous. Namely, the average heating energy was 244 KV, in good agreement with the average energy of the ionization measurement, which was 390 KV. And in much disagreement with the value of more than 1 MeV, expected for mono energetic hypothesis. Okay, so that was about 100 years ago. Then, well, as you may know, on December 4th, 1930, Pauli wrote a letter to real radioactive ladies and gentlemen, and well, this is the copy of the letter. And in this letter, he said the continuous beta spectrum would then become understandable by the assumption that in beta decay, a neutron is emitted in addition to the electron, such that the sum of the energies of the neutron and the electron is constant. Then, three years later, end of 1933, incorporating Pauli's Neutron hypothesis, Fermi built a theory of beta decay, which describes the decay of neutron, you know, neutron into proton emitting an electron and a neutrino. By the way, this is the copy of the paper. In fact, already in 1934, beta and pure, sorry, there's so short that cross-section between a neutrino and a proton should be extremely small. Therefore, we understood weak interaction exists. Now I'd like to move on to the discovery of neutrinos. Well, in fact, in the 1934 paper, the authors wrote, there's no practical way of observing the neutrino. However, in 1946, on the callboard, proposed to use the inverse beta process to detect the neutrinos. And finally, in 1956, Reiner's and Cohen observed interactions of anti-electron neutrinos that were generated by nuclear power plant of Savannah River. And here, I copy the detector they used in this experiment. And well, in this figure, there are two blue volumes marked by A and B. A and B show the plastic tanks with 200 liters of water. So these are the target for the neutrinos. And the light is the photo of this detector itself. Anyway, in 1956, the anti-electron neutrinos were discovered. Then I'd like to move on to the discovery of the second type of neutrinos, muonutrinos. In late 1959, Mervyn Schwartz attended a coffee hour discussion led by TBD about investigations of weak interactions at high energy. And in that evening, Schwartz had an idea to make a neutrino beam in order to directly make these investigations. In fact, later, people realized that Ponte Corvo had published an earlier paper with similar ideas for creating neutrino beams. Anyway, the first experiment was carried out at Brookhaven National Lab. In 1962, the result demonstrated two types of neutrinos. Well, in this experiment, 34 single muon events were detected and no certified electrons were observed. So clearly, neutrinos produced in this experiment can only produce muons. So there are two types of neutrinos. In the figure in the left shows the beam line. In the middle figure, well, middle photo shows the detector itself. And the right photo shows the event that was observed in this experiment. And you can see a single muon. Okay, now I want to move on to the number of neutrinos and the discovery of tau neutrinos. Certainly, an important question was the number of neutrino flavors. And the E plus E minus experiment left precisely measured the number of light active in neutrino flavors to be 2.9840 plus minus 0.082 according to this reference. But actually this reference is 2006, but the left experiment already demonstrated that neutrino flavors should be essentially three from the very early days of the observation. Anyway, number of active neutrinos are three. Therefore, we should observe the third one, tau neutrinos. And in year 2000, the donors experiment reported the observation of the charge-guide-neutral interactions. Here I showed the result on the number of neutrino count and please note that the error bars were increased by a factor of 10 in this figure. So the experimental results are very, very precise. And in the middle, I showed the donor detector and the key element is the immersion. And in the right, I showed the one of the event, new tau event observed in donors experiment. So this way, new tau was confirmed to exist. Certainly there are various important contribution of neutrinos to the establishment of the standard model of particle physics, such as the party violation, neutrino helicity and the discovery of neutral current interactions. But I'm sorry, but let me move on to the other neutrino topics. Now I'd like to move on to the neutrino problems. Well, the sun generates energy by nuclear fusion processes. Neutrinos are created by these processes. Therefore, the observation of solar neutrinos is very important to understand the energy generation mechanism in the sun. So motivated by this idea, a home-stake experiment was carried out and this home-stake experiment observed solar neutrinos for the first time already in the late 1960s. However, the observed event rate was only about one-third of the prediction. So this was the solar neutrino program. Then several other solar neutrino experiments followed and in fact, following the initial observation and several experiments tried to observe solar neutrinos with various different threshold energies. And in the last figure, I summarized the results before year 2000. And clearly, oh, by the way, the horizontal axis is the neutrino energy and clearly these experiments observed deficit of solar neutrinos. Then I'd like to move on to the atom-stake neutrinos. These neutrinos are created by cosmic ray interactions in the atom sphere. And in fact, in 1965, atom-stake neutrinos were observed for the first time by detectors located extremely deep underground. One was in India, which is shown in the left photo and one was in South Africa, which is shown in the right photo. Okay, so atom-stake neutrinos exist. And in the 1970s, Grand Unified Theories predicted that protons should decay with the lifetime of about 10 to 30 years. Well, certainly this prediction was extremely important. If we observe proton decays, that could be the direct proof of the idea of Grand Unification. So several proton decay experiments began in the early 1980s. Here I showed the experiments that started taking data in the early 80s. And these proton decay experiments observed many atom-stake neutrinos events. And because atom-stake neutrinos were the most serious background to the proton decay searches, it was necessary to understand atom-stake neutrinos interactions. And during these studies, a significant deficit of atom-stake new neutrinos events was observed. Here, I showed the data from cameo-candy and IMB experiments. Here, the deficit of new neutrinos is normalised by the number of observed electrons of the data. And then this ratio is normalised by the same ratio of the Monte Carlo prediction. Clearly, these experiments observed a significant deficit of new neutrinos. Okay, I'd like to move on to the new neutrinos relations. The first topic is new-mute-neutral oscillations. Well, in the standard model of particle physics, neutrinos are assumed to be massless. However, physicists have been asking new neutrinos really have no mass. Also, it was generally, generally believed that if neutrinos have very small mass, the small new genome mass may imply physics beyond the standard model. For example, the system mechanism. If neutrinos have very small mass, they change their flavour while propagating in the vacuum or even in matter, namely new-tino oscillations. So it's clear. New-tino oscillation experiments could be very important to really observe very small new-tino mass. Now, the first experiment I'm going to discuss is the super cameo-candy experiment. It is a 50,000-ton water-challenge of detector. The fiduciary volume for the physics analysis is 22.5 kilotons. And here I show the sketch and the photo of the super cameo-candy detector. Well, in fact, super cameo-candy discovered new-tino oscillations. The idea behind the discovery of new-tino oscillation is summarized here. I discussed that there was a deficit of atoms like new neutrinos and experiments in the 80s and 90s did not understood what going on. But people thought there could be evidence for new-tino oscillations, but certainly people wanted to have the experimental evidence, very strong evidence for new-tino oscillations and super cameo-candy thought this way. Well, new-tinos are created in the atmosphere. Therefore, some of these new-tinos are created about the super cameo-candy detector. And these new-tinos come to the detector after traveling rather short distance, such as say 10 kilometers, 20 kilometers. Then these new-tinos may have no time to oscillate. On the other hand, new-tinos also created in the other side of the earth. And these new-tinos have to propagate long distance, typically 10,000 kilometers. And therefore, these new-tinos may have enough time to oscillate. So if we think this way, we may observe a significant up versus down asymmetry of the muon new-tino events. Well, the idea was very clear. However, in order to observe this effect, clearly we need a very large detector and therefore we needed super cameo-candy. And super cameo-candy studied at some sec new-tinos from the beginning of the experiment. And already in 1998, super cameo-candy was able to report to their first important result. And here, I copied the presentation at the new-tino conference in 1998. And they showed the zinc-sangue distributions for electron new-tinos and muon new-tinos. And please look at the muon new-tino plot and the horizontal axis shows the zinc-sangue. Quotient set of one means down going new-tinos, minus one means upward going new-tinos coming from the other side of the earth. Then clearly you see for down going new-tinos, the observation and the expectation agreed. However, for upward going muon new-tinos, the data showed almost a factor of two deficit from this super cameo-candy. Well, actually from this and from other supporting data, super cameo-candy concluded the evidence for new-tino oscillations. Soon after the discovery of new-tino oscillations, people start seriously thinking about the long baseline experiments. And in fact, you can see a real progress in the long baseline experiments. The first experiment was the K to K experiment between K, K and super K. And here you see a deficit of new-tinos and also the indication of the spectrum distortion. The second one was the Minos experiment. Well, certainly the statistics was much improved compared with K to K. And you can see a energy dependent deficit of muon new-tinos. Then present day experiments are T to K and NOVA. And in these experiments, then new-tino beam energy is tuned so that you see the maximum oscillation effect. And indeed, you see a really significant deficit of muon new-tinos. Now, of course, we assume the oscillated muons go to town new-tinos. However, this must be confirmed. And the opera experiment confirmed town new-tino peers by the immersion technique. Here, one of the event is shown. Also statistically, super kamyokande and ice cube confirm the town new-tino peers. So, well, we understood that oscillation was between muon new-tinos and town new-tinos. Now, I'd like to move on to the second oscillation channel that is electron new-tino to other type of new-tinos. Well, I mentioned there was a solar new-tino problem. During the 20th century, we were really, and we were unable to confirm the deficit was due to new-tino oscillations. Then a very good idea came from Havchen in 1985. He proposed to use heavy water as the target of the solar new-tinos. Then by using the heavy water, the total new-tino flux and the electron new-tino flux would be separately demonstrated. So, well, according to him, one should be able to observe electron new-tinos by charged current and total new-tino flux by neutral current. So this was a very good idea. And this idea was realized by the snow experiment. And the snow experiment used 1,000 pounds of heavy water, D2O. Well, okay. You can observe charged current interactions by observing electrons produced by charged current interactions. However, you have to think about the detection of the neutral current interactions. The final state has new-tino protons, has a new-tino proton and a neutron. Therefore, you have to find out a way to observe neutrons produced by neutral current interactions. In fact, snow experiment had three methods to observe these neutrons. So in the first phase, they used pure D2O. In this phase, neutrons are absorbed by dutero. Then 6.25 MeV gamma-ray is emitted. Therefore, this gamma-ray signal should be observed. In the second phase, they put two tons of salt, NACL, in D2O. Then, chlorine 35 should observe, absorb neutron emitting gamma-rays. The total energy of the gamma-rays is 8.6 MeV. And the cross-section of the neutron absorption is large. And therefore, the observation of these gamma-rays should be easier. And finally, they have the Helium-3 counter to observe the neutrons. So they measure the total neutrino flux by neutral current and also by electron neutrino flux by charge current. In addition, they observe elastic scattering of neutrinos, solar neutrinos. And these constraints are shown in this figure. The horizontal axis is the constraint on the electron neutrino flux and the vertical axis is the constraint on the new mu plus new tau flux. And clearly, these four bands intersect at the point. And this point clearly indicates non-zero mu plus new tau flux. Therefore, this was the evidence for new mu plus new tau flux from the sun. And therefore, this was the evidence for solar neutrino oscillations. Well, certainly we understood that originally electron neutrinos produced in the sun and then at the earth, we observe a significant new mu plus new tau flux but people are still not completely convinced if these are really oscillations. And the experiment, and the Cameland experiment was the very, had a very important role to demonstrate that solar neutrino deficit was due to neutrino oscillations. In fact, Cameland observed anti-electron neutrinos produced by nuclear power stations in Japan. Fortunately, these neutrinos were created at the distance of approximately 180, not 180 kilometers. Then they observed the energy dependent deficit of these reactor neutrinos. Then if they plot the survival probability as a function of L over E, then they observed this kind of deficit recovery, deficit recovery, and so on. So with this, people were really convinced that electron neutrinos really oscillate. Finally, I just want to mention recent result on solar neutrinos. The main player in this recent observation is the Boraxeno experiment. They precisely measured the sub-MEV solar neutrinos. And here's the summary from Boraxeno. They plotted the survival probability of electron neutrinos as a function of the neutrino energy. Then the measured survival probability was just consistent with the MSW prediction that was the neutrino oscillations in matter. So this was really great measurement. The data are really consistent with the MSW prediction. Finally, I also want to mention that they also observed CNO neutrinos. So now we think we really understand the solar neutrino generation mechanism. Now, since there are three types of neutrinos, there must be third oscillation channel. Well, after the discovery of solar neutrino oscillations, people's interest must be a discovery of the third oscillation channel. And here I list the main players in the third oscillation channel studies. Well, there are accelerator-based long-basin experiments and also reactor-based neutrino oscillation experiments. And these experiments almost simultaneously reported the evidence for the third oscillation channel. Well, certainly accelerator-based oscillation experiments observed the appearance of electron neutrinos in the new mu beam and the reactor-based experiments observed the deficit of energy-dependent deficit of anti-electron neutrinos. So with these measurements, the basic structure for three-flavor neutrino oscillation has been understood. And in fact, now we really understood the parameters very precisely. There are three mixing angles and two delta-im-square parameters. And here I showed the accuracy in percent. Certainly, already at present, we are in 1% to a few percent range in the measurement of these parameters. However, we still do not understand everything. For example, we do not understand the neutrino mass pattern. But this is the normal mass pattern. New three is heaviest. However, experimentally, there is still a possibility that new three, the third neutrino mass is the lightest. And the present generation experiments slightly prefer the normal mass ordering that is new three heaviest. But statistical significance is not very high. Also, if there's three-flavor oscillations, there must be one CP phase. And the constraint on the CP phase is still weak. So we still have to continue the studies of neutrino oscillations. Now, I want to discuss the agenda for the future neutrino measurements. As I discussed in the previous slide, we have to understand the neutrino mass, sorry, mass ordering. We'd like to understand if the new three mass is the lightest or the heaviest. Also, we'd like to understand if the oscillation of neutrinos are identical to oscillation of anti-neutrinos. In fact, this is quite important because the CP violation in neutrino sector might be related to the volume asymmetry of the universe. So while neutrino physics could be related to one of the fundamental questions of the universe. Well, neutrino oscillation experiments only tell us the neutrino mass square difference. Therefore, neutrino experiments are unable to tell us about the absolute neutrino mass. Therefore, we need some other experiments to determine the absolute neutrino mass. Also, well, so far we assumed there are only three neutrino flavors. Well, certainly there are only three active neutrino flavors, but there could be sterile neutrinos. And therefore we have to check if there could be a structure beyond the three flavor framework. And finally, well, neutrinos are special particles and therefore neutrinos could be its own anti-particles. This should be checked experimentally. And neutrino less double beta decay experiments are extremely important. Therefore, we are, well, the neutrino committee are really working hard to observe neutrino less double beta decays. So we have many important measurements in the future neutrino experiments. Now, in the remaining five minutes or so, I want to discuss neutrinos as messengers of the universe. Well, certainly already in 1987, we confirmed that neutrinos are very important for the astronomy. In 1987, a supernova occurred at large Magellanic cloud. And at that time, three neutrino detectors, Kamiokan, the INE and Baxan, observed neutrino events, but the total number of events was about 24. But with these events, we understood the basic mechanism of the supernova explosion. So this was a very important event for the neutrino astronomy. Now, I want to move on to the high energy neutrino astronomy. Certainly, we'd like to know where and how the cosmically particles are accelerated. And we'd like to understand the high energy phenomena in the universe. And the measurement of the gamma rays give useful information for high energy universe. However, gamma rays can be produced by electrons as well as by electrons. Therefore, we think neutrinos are very important to understand the high energy phenomena in the universe. And one of the main players is the ice cube experiment. In fact, using the data between 2010 and 2012, ice cube observed two neutrino events which have an estimated deposit energy of 1.04 and 1.14 PED respectively. The expected number of atoms in the background was very small. So this was the first observation of high energy astrophysical neutrinos. Here I show these two events. And by the way, well, I have to tell that ice cube is a very large neutrino detector located in the south pole. It has about one cubic kilometers. Well, that was about 10 years ago. Since then, there have been many excitements from ice cube. Well, here I summarized where measurement of astrophysical neutrino flux with multiple analysis was going on. In fact, recently consistent results from Biker GVD was reported. Also a cascade event with an estimated energy of six PED was observed. This was consistent with the resonant formation of the W boson predicted by Grasso. Extremely, extreme high energy neutrino alert from ice cube followed by detection of very high energy gamma rays from a clearing blazer PXS 0406 plus 056. So that was a very important event for the coincidence of being neutrino and gamma rays. Then ice cube collaboration looked at the neutrino events from this source and found that there was an excess around 2014. So there have been many exciting results from ice cube. Therefore, so well, in the last 10 years, there have been many exciting results in high energy neutrino astronomy. And they have suggested that the future observations of high energy astrophysical neutrinos are very important for understanding of the high energy phenomena in the universe. And here I list some of the future possibilities ice cube gen two came to the net Biker GVD and many other possibilities exist. So, well, we really expect really exciting results from these experiments. Okay, let me summarize during the last 100 years, neutrinos have been playing very important roles in understanding the roles of nature, in particular the roles at the smallest scales. Recent discovery and studies of neutrino situations and the small neutrino mass will be very important to understand the physics beyond the standard model of particle physics. And neutrinos with small mass might also be the key to understand big question of the universe, universe, namely why only matter particles exist at the present universe. Neutrinos are unique messengers of the universe. Recently, neutrino telescopes have begun to observe very high energy neutrinos coming from somewhere in the universe. And finally, I want to say that neutrinos are likely to continue playing very important roles in understanding the smallest and the largest scales. Okay, that's all from me. Thank you very much. So many, many thanks for this nice intervention and summary of the evolution of the field in the last of 100 years in which you played a huge role. And in fact, Professor Kajita received the Nobel Prize in 2015 for his work on a super camiocanda Nobel Prize that he shared with Otto McDonald from Snow. So do we have any questions to Professor Kajita? Yes, there is a question here. Hello. So I'm working on neutrino follow-ups for the magic telescope with the text gamma ray. So I've always wondered, how does the direction reconstruction work for the neutrino events in the observatories? Since I'm not directly working with the neutrino observatories, I don't know. So. Okay, thank you. Well, the basic mechanism of the detection of identical between ice cube and magic, both observed chain co-readiation. Well, the difference is in ice cube, they observe chain co-readiation produced by muons. And well, since the muons travel for long distance, nearly one kilometers, and therefore they can rather easily reconstruct the direction of the muon momentum. So that way they know the source direction. Any other questions or comments from the chat? Yes, there is one here. Just a second from Professor Bill Phillips. Well, first, thank you for that lovely talk. That was really wonderful. As I understand it, one way of thinking about the neutrino oscillations is that the neutrinos are created in flavor eigenstates, but these are not eigenstates of mass. So what I'm wondering is, given that, can you give us some description of what happens as the neutrinos propagate? In other words, how does the mass work into energy conservation? And does this change the velocity of different components to the wave packets for the different components separate? Could you just give us an impression of what happens as the neutrinos propagate? I can stop. Properly in very long distances, you mean? Yes. Yeah, well, certainly, I think this is a very important question, but I'm sorry, I do not know the answer to this question. Yes, Sakaki, you may want to mention the tough times. Oh, Larry Schruack here. You may want to mention the tough early times, namely that the thesis for neutrino oscillations or in those days, we call that missing neutrinos, missing muon neutrinos, was at the level of 30 to 50%, as shown in the brilliant thesis of Bill Foster in 1983 and Bruce Cortez in 1984. And in your own thesis in 1986, you said that there was no difference between expectations and realizations in cameoca. But in then after Bruce Cortez's timing was installed in cameoca, you could confirm the results that IMB had had several years before. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Well, certainly, during my thesis time, there was a really a significant bias towards the identification to muons. A lot of the electrons were identified as muons. This way, there was a bias. Already in my thesis, we observed a significant deficit of electrons coming from the muon decay. Anyway. Yes, and yeah. Yeah, there's a long history. Okay, I think we have to conclude here. Many, many thanks again for this lovely presentation. And I think we also conclude our connection to ICHEP. So we would like to wish you a very good and productive meeting. And okay. All the best for the continuation of your meeting. Thank you. My name is Klaus Fowlender from Lund University in Sweden. And I will be the chair of this very short session. But it is a very important session. And it is a great honor for me to introduce to you, Professor Stuart Prager. The title of his talk is the increasing peril from nuclear arms and how physicists can help reduce that threat. That certainly is a timely title, considering the troubled times we live in at present with the war in Europe and the threat of the use of nuclear arms. It is a critical situation. And if physicists can help reduce that threat, I am very eager to listen to what we can do. Professor Prager is Professor of Physics at Princeton University. His main research area is plasma physics and fusion energy. He was the director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. But since 2016 he has focused his interest on nuclear arms control. He is co-founder of the Physicist Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction and he is affiliated with the program on science and global security at Princeton, a program that brings together researchers from all around the world to work on arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament problems. I'm looking forward very much to this talk, please. Great, okay, thank you. That's perfect, okay. Well, thanks very much to the organizers for giving me the opportunity to talk to you today. I appreciate that very much. I will be talking today about the increasing peril from nuclear arms and perhaps what we as physicists can do to help reduce that threat. This talk does not talk about the pleasure of doing physics. I apologize in advance. Previous talk was very uplifting. This talk will be going the opposite direction, I'm afraid. So I'm talking about it, not because it's fun, but because it's important. And the trigger for talking about it at the current moment is I guess two-fold, one big trigger is that the dangers are getting greater and greater. It's not getting better and better. And an immediate trigger is that as was mentioned, I appreciate the introduction very much. Two years ago, a group of us formed in the United States, an organization called the Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction. It was launched by the American Physical Society. And we're interested now in extending this discussion internationally. So the motivation for the talk is clear. The nuclear arms threat is as extreme as ever. It's a truism that at the current time, a few men can choose to end civilization within minutes of deciding to do so. This state of affairs exists 24 seven. In particular, presidents Putin and Biden control 90% of the nuclear arms and they could end civilization if they choose to do so. Previous to Biden, President Trump could have chosen to do so. But in addition to that, the leaders of Pakistan and India and China and other nations also can make decisions to kill hundreds and millions of more people. So this is a not a comfortable situation. It's a situation that's easy to understand. There's nothing difficult in terms of understanding this. It's really a lot easier than physics, but it's hard to grasp the enormity of this threat. And clearly it affects everybody in the world, not only those nations that own nuclear weapons, but this threat can be reduced. It's a human made threat and it can be unraveled by people if they wanted to, but it's presently off the radar of the public. And it's also been off the radar of the physics community in recent years. And the thesis of our effort is that physicists can play a special role because of our linkage to this problem and a linkage in the eyes of the public. We can be an influential voice in advocating steps to reduce this threat. And it's something that the international physics community should be doing. The one I'm going to do today is just review some of the problem. I'll remind you of some technical aspects. I'll describe the growing danger, some examples of what people have done that have been good, some effective policies, and then what the physics community can do. So this is the origin of the problem. This is the gadget that is the cause for alarm. And this is a cartoon. Current day nuclear weapons are two stage weapons that involve nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Typical warhead are two bombs in one. There's a primary and then a secondary that are exploded sequentially in this cartoon. The primary spherical assembly is chemically imploded imploded by chemical explosion around the perimeter. It compresses plutonium or uranium. The plutonium becomes super critical and it explodes. The explosion produces from some explosive yield but it also produces copious X-rays that fill this cavity. Those X-rays then cause the secondary implosion where a fusion fuel is imploded and one gets a hot two-terium tritium plasma that then undergoes nuclear fusion. So this is how a modern bomb works at a very, very cartoon level. It produces enormous explosive yields. The bomb that was exploded over Hiroshima was the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. It was like one bomb, the equivalent of 15,000 tons of a chemical explosion. So 15 kilotons of the Hiroshima bomb is also the equivalent of 1,500 of the largest conventional bombs. A typical warhead today is roughly a few hundred kilotons equivalent or about 20 Hiroshima bombs or about 30,000 one bomb today is equal to about 30,000 of the largest conventional bombs. So this is the source of the problem. What are the effects of a single bomb? Well, if you look at where the energy release is about a half of the energy release comes out in mechanical blast energy from the blast wave or shock wave that's generated from the high pressure in the fireball. About a third comes out in thermal energy from the intense heat and about 15% comes out in prompt and then delayed nuclear radiation. These forms of energy can kill you in many different ways, can produce fatalities from the blast wave that demolishes buildings. Winds that are produced by the blast wave burns from the thermal flash fire, fires that are caused and of course by nuclear radiation. What are the effects of the blast wave? That depends on the pressure of the blast wave above atmospheric pressure. If this overpressure is about 10 pounds per square inch it'll destroy all buildings and generate about 300 mile per hour winds. This has been tested experimentally, if you like, in 1953, for example, there was a small bomb, Hiroshima-sized bomb exploded in the Nevada desert and you end. What was observed was the effect on a building. So here's a house, it's lit up by the flash and then the thermal pulse arrives and begins to burn and then the blast wave arrives. I should say this house is about one kilometer from the blast, from the explosion and this all occurs in 2.3 seconds just destroys the building. If you look at a effect from a typical warhead today, let's say a 350 kiloton bomb that's exploded at the center here within a two mile radius of the bomb, the pressure is greater than 10 psi and everything's destroyed. Three miles out, about half of the people are killed in this widespread destruction. There are also third degree burns which can be fatal up to about four and a half miles from the bomb. If you detonate at such a bomb, let's say in any dense city, let's choose New York City, it will kill about a million people and injure about two million. So one bomb will destroy the entire city of New York or any major city. And so clearly a nuclear weapon is not a weapon of war, it's a weapon of genocide. And there's been, as you all know, a grim calibration of this effect when it was exploded in 1945 over Hiroshima, relatively small bomb killed pretty quickly over a hundred thousand people. It generated a firestorm of four square miles and as you know, it completely destroyed the city of Hiroshima. And this is the size, if you were to do this with a plutonium bomb, this is the size of the amount of plutonium that you would need to do that amount of damage. So it's potent as we all know. Well, since 1945, this has become a fairly big industry and nuclear weapons are mass produced. So what's the situation today? Well, today, nuclear warheads are spread over nine nations of the world. And what I've shown here is a plot in the vertical axis of the number of warheads, some of my cursors, but a number of warheads owns by each of these nine nations. And you can see in the world, there are over 9,000 warheads or bombs in military stockpiles. These colors indicates different levels of readiness that's not important for this talk. And you can see that 90% are in Russia and the US, but these other countries, and you can read what who they are, they're small, the number of warheads they have is small on this graph, but they're powerful. And these countries can also kill hundreds of millions of people with their weapons. These weapons are spread across the nuclear triad, that is they're underwater in submarines, they're on bombers and they're in underground silos. And each of these have different capabilities of survivability, submarines are presently undetectable and survivable, and they're prompt. If you sum this up over the world's arsenals, in the world today, I mean, these numbers don't, a little bit hard to visualize. The world today has somewhere in the order of several thousand megaton equivalent of explosive power. Well, the world arsenals today are equivalent to a couple of hundred thousand Hiroshima bombs. So we still have a problem. All the bombing in World War II totaled three megatons. So with all of these weapons we have, we can directly kill billions of people. But I say directly because there are indirect effects that extend beyond the immediate effects. And one indirect effect, which is a current research area, is the climate disruption that nuclear weapons can cause if they explode in areas where there's flammable material. The physics is simple. If nuclear weapons explode in cities where there's flammable materials that'll produce massive fires as occurred in Hiroshima, that produces carbon particles or carbon soot. The carbon particles are heated by the sun. They rise to the stratosphere up to 30 miles above the earth. They spread around the earth through convection and diffusion. And they surround the earth as shown in this artist schematic by a carbon shroud which blocks out some of the solar radiation resulting in a decrease in the earth's temperature and a decrease in the sunlight, sometimes called nuclear winter. Climate scientists have used modern climate models to simulate this. And one study that they have done is to study the effects of a regional nuclear war. For example, they've taken a case as an example of a war between India and Pakistan, two nuclear adversaries, where together they explode 100 bombs, small bombs on each other's cities. This explodes about 0.1% of the world arsenal. And they calculate, this is the effect on the globally average temperature here in Celsius versus year. And you can see the slow rise in temperature, the global warming of a water of a degree centigrade. And then the war between India and Pakistan and the global temperature drops by a degree. And the climate scientist remarks that this is climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. Rough calculation, and this is an area that the current study indicates, this could put about 2 billion people at risk of famine because of the reduction in crop production. And this indirect effect could kill more than those that are killed in the immediate war zone, which would be about 20 million people. So one fact about nuclear weapons, it kills innocent bystanders, not just those in the warring countries. These climate scientists have also looked at the effect of a full-scale war between the US and Russia. And here's the same plot of global temperature on a different scale versus year. Here you can see the global warming. And here's the India-Pakistan war in red. A full-scale war between US and Russia would drop the temperature about seven degrees instantaneously, it recovers in about 10 years. For this war, they've done some detailed calculations of the effect on crop reduction. And the scientists conclude that the caloric intake per capita in the world would decrease below the resting energy expenditure, the energy needed just to keep yourself at rest. So a war between US and Russia would lead to a global starvation, perhaps. I wanna say perhaps, because this is an area of current study. And so a nuclear attack is also a suicide attack. So this is all I wanna say about some of the physical facts. There are policies that exist today in addition to having the weapons that increased the danger. And I'll list just a couple of them. One is that many weapons are kept on hair trigger alert. About 1,900 warheads are kept at all time is ready to launch within minutes. And this amount of power ready to launch in minutes is civilization ending. And I will say in the United States where we know the policies very well, the US president has the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. The US president can just decide without having to consult with anybody or get to the approval of anybody else, he can decide to launch nuclear weapons. Likely this is the case in other countries as well. Many countries also have a launch on warning posture where they have a policy where they have the option of launching nuclear weapons just on warning of an attack on their country. So if the US or Russia has a warning that missiles are on their way, they have 25 minutes before the missiles land to decide whether to launch nuclear weapons or not. So very high pressure situation, totally unnecessary. And most countries also do not have a policy of never using nuclear weapons first in a conflict. So most nuclear states reserve the right not just to retaliate as a deterrent, but also the right to start a nuclear war. And this increases nuclear tension. So all these policies, in addition to having the weapons make us even less safe. So we've been very lucky that there had been no nuclear catastrophe for 75 years. It's quite remarkable. And I say lucky because there have been many, many close calls. And I'm not going to go through them. There are many that are documented. I'm just going to give two examples of a false alarms that could have led to a nuclear retaliation, but didn't. Just two examples in 1979, a Soviet attack on the US of 200 missiles which was detected by military computer. And the ICBM missile crews are put on high alert. Nuclear bombers were prepared for takeoff. It turns out it was a false alarm. It was just a computer simulation was mistaken as a real attack. Going the other direction in 1995, a Russian radar detected a submarine, a US submarine launch missile that was ready to strike in 15 minutes. The Russian nuclear forces went on full alert and President Yeltsin retrieved the nuclear launch codes. Well, it was just a false alarm. It was a US scientific rocket that was launched to detect Aurora. And there are many others. I'm just giving two examples. In most of these cases, the reason that there was no retaliation and in most cases, the leader of the country wasn't even informed is because somebody in the chain military chain of command judged or intuitive that the alarm was false. And in most of these cases, that person didn't report upwards and in some cases disobeyed orders and not doing so and didn't put the president on the spot and have to decide in 10 minutes whether to retaliate or not. So this is a failure of safety systems from an experimentalist point of view and expression of luck. At this instant in time, things are getting worse. In a sense, I hate to call it a nuclear world order. It indicates too much order, but the order we have is a collapsing for a variety of reasons. For one, there has been a gradual proliferation right now that we no longer have a bipolar world with two nuclear superpowers. The world is multipolar with nine nuclear powers and complex. So it's more accident prone, many more scenarios that can lead to a nuclear war. Of course, there's a whole new thread of cyber attacks. You can just imagine what a cyber attack can do. It can provide a false warning of an attack if someone wanted to instigate a nuclear war. It could hide a real attack. It can enable an unauthorized use of a warhead and more. This is not a solve problem. There's been a collapse of arms control treaties. I won't discuss these treaties in detail, but these all have helped keep the peace. The anti-ballistic missile treaty was the US withdrew in 2002. The Iran nuclear deal, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty that in the 80s removed 6,000 nuclear warheads from Europe and Russia. The open skies treaty, all these treaties have collapsed. They no longer exist. So we're hanging by a thread with arms control treaties. And the most vivid example is that we are now at the beginning of a new nuclear arms race. There is weapons are being modernized, replaced, upgraded in most of the nations and certainly in the largest nations. Russia tried it in the US, the United States, the United States is committed to spending about one and a half trillion dollars over 30 years to replace all of its nuclear weapons system, which will commit these nuclear countries to nuclear weapons toward the end of the century. There are new weapons being developed and new defenses, new low-yeal weapons, new hypersonic weapons, new underwater nuclear torpedoes and more weapons that can go in non-ballistic trajectories, transatlantic and so on. So we're at the threshold of a new nuclear arms race. And this has all has caused as one example to quote someone experienced in this, William Perry, who was a former United States Secretary of Defense said that today, the danger of some sort of nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War. And most people are blissfully unaware of this danger. He said this in 2015 and things have gotten steadily worse since then. We all know about the current Ukraine crisis, which brings this to the somewhat to the attention of the public at the moment. We all know that President Putin, at the beginning of the Ukraine war, said he put the Russia's nuclear forces on combat duty alert and he stated that whoever tries to interfere with us will lead you to such consequences as you've never experienced in your history. Russia is today one of the most powerful nuclear states. So I mean, this is a person who could do us in threatening use. And so one can make a few observations or it really confirms some conclusions just from the Ukraine crisis make just three short observations. The first is that this is a shocking that Putin would say this, but it's not surprising. And I say it's not surprising because it's all predictable that when you have nine countries having nuclear weapons such a situation is predictable just not the details. For example, it's analogous to climate change. We know that climate change will lead to more severe weather events. We don't know exactly where or when but we know it'll do it. We also know that when you have nine nations adversaries with nuclear weapons that sooner or later someone's gonna be threatening use. And this is not the first time at all that that's happened. And it just happens to happen now with Putin and with the Ukraine situation. Clearly the world has held hostage to the psychology of Putin. It's not a comfortable situation but we're also held hostage to the psychology of the leaders of this other eight nations as well. And the problem, this is not a problem of Vladimir Putin it's a problem intrinsic to the weapons. It doesn't matter who owns them because we all know and there's numerous examples of governments and world leaders going from good to bad to good to bad. So it doesn't matter who owns them at the moment the problem is intrinsic to the weapons. So the only solution is for governments to change their policies and that won't be done without public pressure. Governments can act to reduce the threat and there's been great action in the past. So there is precedent for rational action I'll give just a few examples of some past good steps. Well, one is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1970, which was a great bargain. The non-nuclear weapons states agreed never to develop nuclear weapons and the five nuclear weapons states at that time agreed to work toward cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. So there was a deal non-nuclear weapons states they'll never develop it nuclear weapons states will get rid of them. Well, this is the result. The non-nuclear weapons states have mostly kept the deal and this is rather remarkable in a way over the last 50 years there's been an expansion of nuclear weapons states only from five to nine and that's still disconcerting but it just went from five to nine and you can see the plot here which is slowly proliferating but the nuclear weapons states have not disarmed as we know. But another great thing is this plot to show what humans can do when they get together what's shown here is the dramatic reduction in the number of nuclear warheads over recent decades and on the vertical axis is the number of nuclear warheads in the world and just look at the gray plot this is the number of nuclear warheads by all the countries of the world and you can see this ramp this insane ramp up to a 70,000 nuclear warheads in the world but then proceeded by the ABM treaty then the intermediate nuclear forces treaty then a whole series of arm reduction treaties you can see that US and Russia mainly have just brought down their nuclear stockpiles by 85% is just remarkable. The problem is it's stalled out when we still have as I say a fierce number of nuclear warheads and we're going in the reverse direction. Another amazing thing is that there are treaties that establish nuclear weapon-free zones in the world there are six treaties that establish regions of the world as regions that prohibit nuclear weapons the manufacturer, the possession, the transport of those weapons and you can read the regions of the world that are nuclear weapon-free zones and if you sum up these nuclear weapon-free zones you see that all these countries shaded in blue have no nuclear weapons all the countries in red are the nine nuclear weapon states and you see that the entire Southern hemisphere has no nuclear weapons is a nuclear-free zone. So this is encouraging you just need to spread that to the Northern hemisphere and the problem would be solved and now I'm gonna come to us physicists and physicists not as experts just as citizen scientists since our origins have played a role in this problem. I mean our forebears the greatest physicists of the 20th century have played a role in this. I'll give a few examples in 1945 there was a Frank report this is James Frank of the Frank Hertz experiment. They issued a report of Frank and six others suggesting that the US not bomb Japan but just demonstrate the bomb and don't be the first to use it of course they weren't followed. In 1940 there was a Szilard position arguing against using the weapons and warning of a nuclear arms race that was signed by 70 scientists from the Manhattan Project. In 1946, Einstein and others established the emergency committee of atomic scientists the purpose was to warn the public about this danger. 1957 there was a manifesto in Germany signed by 18 German physicists including Heisenberg opposing nuclear weapons development. 1958, this is a chemist like his polling led 9,000 scientists in a petition worldwide to end nuclear testing. In 1995, Hans beta who in addition to being a fundamental physicist also was a Manhattan Project participant. He said in 1995, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from working, creating, from work creating, develop improving and manufacturing nuclear weapons. So we have a heritage and with this in mind as I say in the United States we decided maybe now's a good time to reengage and we formed the Physicist Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction. It's a national network right now in the United States although it is managed by through this Princeton program and we have two goals and we're launched by the American Physical Society but in October we won't be sponsored by them. They just contended to start us up. The two goals, the first is education to reengage and inform the physics community about the problem but this first goal is in service to the second one which is a primary goal of advocacy to build a coalition for organized advocacy and not by physicists who are experts and we do research in nuclear weapons just by physicists who are well enough informed that they wanna have a voice. It's open to all physical scientists, not just physicists but astronomers or scientists, engineers that work in the physical science and the thesis as I said before is that we can be an influential voice on this particular topic, more so than a coalition of accountants. The coalition in the last two years we have a team of a dozen of us that are trying to engage the community and we've presented in the United States over 100 colloquia at the university physics departments and national laboratories, eight webinars and in doing that, we've recruited 850 members to the coalition and we're not looking for a distribution list to send newsletters to. These are 850 physicists that are willing to advocate collectively and we have a lobby congress on specific goals. So right now, now that we're at least standing in the United States, we'd like to reach out internationally, clear that this is an international problem and engage our counterparts in other countries for dialogue possible joint activities and that's why I'm here at IU PAP. There are nine nuclear weapon states. There are about 30 nations that participate in nuclear weapons through being protected under the US nuclear umbrella. That is a lot of countries in Europe but also Japan, South Korea. And so it's not just the nine nuclear weapon states that are part of the nuclear world order but more like 40 nations. But clearly, if there's a nuclear war it's gonna affect everybody in the world. No one's safe from it. So, we can't uninvent nuclear weapons but we can make ourselves enormously safer. So the nuclear genie can substantially be put back in the bottle. So with that I'm going to conclude and I'd welcome any discussion at this meeting and if you're interested in learning about our coalition I post it here at the website. If you'd like to partake in discussions about what can be done by working together internationally, I'm at the meeting here but I've also listed my contact email address. So with that, thank you for listening. Thank you very much Professor Prager for this very interesting talk. It was not a very nice talk but you certainly presented a very scary scenario. I hope that the organizers will allow some discussion despite the fact that we are running short. So please, yes, go ahead. First, we have one of the students up there. Can you give her some microphone? Okay, maybe you can come down here and you can ask a question. Maybe that's the easiest thing. And let's see, we have two speakers there, two questions there. We have some questions from the Zoom as well. So yes, please go ahead. Hello, thank you for your talk. I'm Ruhi, the president of the International Association of Physics Students. I have a question and a comment. So question is about the TPNW. I was wondering, so that's the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. I was wondering what you think about the progress that's being made, how much potential there is with that. And then my comment is, so from the International Association of Physics Students, we've launched a physics for peace campaign this year in response to the Ukraine conflict, but we're now looking to expand that into things like nuclear weapon advocacy. And we have a lot of student drive for this. So we'll definitely be getting in touch. Yeah, thank you. Well, on the last comment, that's great. I'd love to talk to you about that. Thank you for that. The TPNW is a treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons or the ban treaty. And I think in 2017, it was voted in favor by 126 countries in the UN. All the nuclear weapon states boycotted that. It came into force when 15 nations ratified it a year ago. And it makes nuclear weapons possession illegal as cluster bombs, landmines, chemical and biological weapons are illegal. And nuclear weapons, the most powerful of all are not yet illegal. I think it's a wonderful thing. It's just getting going. I think it sets a guide for the world. And so far, of course, it hasn't eliminated one warhead. So it's not going to have an immediate practical effect, but this is stating a norm for the world and it'll take time to penetrate and clearly take time to engage in nuclear weapons states. So I think it's, I mean, I applaud it. I think it's the most exciting step currently in nuclear arms control in my view. Sandro, one of the organizers is telling me that we, I'm not allowed to, only one more question from the audience here and one question from the Zoom. And now I have three hands rising, but I think you were first, please. Yes, please come down. Thank you very much for your talk, very inspiring. And my question is, we talked for a while very much about the neutron bombs and the dirty bombs, which were not destroying so many things, but killing people. And the second one was about bombs in the atmosphere making huge electromagnetic waves blast, which would basically completely disorganize or disturb the communication. What is the status and what are the threats right now? I, the status, so for, I haven't heard anything new and I'm not an expert in those areas. I really can't give a very good answer to the question. I haven't heard anything technically new that I'm aware of regarding to neutron bombs or what you said bombs for electromagnetic pulse. So I'm not aware myself of new result, technical results on that. I mean, those standards threats, I think my impression is that their emphasis has decreased over time. My impression, I don't hear as much talk about that. I think any explosion nuclear weapon would be terrible, even though those are designed to have a more specific effect. They would also cause damage from the explosive yield would be terrible. So I don't have any updates on them. Sorry. Sandro says we can continue for a little bit more. So I'll allow one more question and then Michelle and then one question from the Zoom, please. I'll just show the answers. Good, thank you. Actually, this is not a question but a comment. So I'm Jimichi Okoyama, the president of AAPPS and I'm from Japan. And after nuclear weapon attack, so even if you might survive, but the survivor will suffer from the radioactiveness for many of tens of years. So in Japan now, actually, there is practically no nuclear shelter available for public because we know that the world after the nuclear war is not a place for us to live in. So that is our general feeling. So don't spend your money for nuclear shelter, but just to act against any anything to happen like that. So I sincerely hope that Japan is the last country to be bombed. Yeah. Thank you for that. In the United States, when I was a child, people my age, no, we had drills in elementary school to hide under the desk. There was a nuclear weapon. Michelle Spiro, please. Thank you for your talk. So Pugwash movement is very well known and what is the difference between your coalition and what they do? Well, so Pugwash, let me just speak for the United States and not go. Pugwash is not very active in the United States at the moment and it does not do the kind of grassroots advocacy that we're trying to do at all. So, you know, we're going out to the physics community and talking person to person and trying to build a network of people in a collective way to advocate. And in the United States, Pugwash doesn't do that. So I think what we're doing is quite different than Pugwash. And also we're very focused on the physical science community. So Pugwash is marvelous, but it's just not at all doing what we're trying to do. Okay, let's finish with one question from the Zoom audience. Please. Yes, we have a question from Soh Tant. She was asking for, is there a threat of countries who are manufacturing or who are in possession of nuclear weapons to share or supply nuclear weapons to countries which are near or share a border with these non-nuclear free zones that you talk about? And if there is this threat, how can it be prevented? Well, I think there's a threat. I don't know, I can't, I don't know specifically if countries that are a nuclear weapon, there's a threat of that happening. If it happens, it'll violate treaties, right? It'll violate the non-proliferation treaty. It'll violate these nuclear weapon free zone treaties. So it'll violate treaties. Of course, treaties have been violated before. So yes, I think there's a significant threat of that. Of course, there has been that sort of thing, maybe not at the official government level. But as we know, Pakistan has disseminated its nuclear information to various places. So yes, absolutely there's a threat. And I think as long as nuclear weapons exist, there is a pressure for proliferation. For example, clearly there are gonna be countries that are gonna draw a conclusion from the Ukraine war that Ukraine should not have given up its nuclear weapons in 1994. And if they hadn't, perhaps they wouldn't be bombed. But it's true or not, it doesn't matter. Countries will draw that conclusion and thus conclude that they need nuclear weapons. So if they exist, they encourage proliferation. And clearly the nuclear weapon world order is built on hypocrisy where the nuclear weapon states say that nuclear weapons are absolutely essential for our national security, but they're not essential for your national security. So I guess the answer to the question is a general yes, is a threat. This is a very important subject, but I'm afraid I still, yes, okay. Certainly. Among the nine countries, two countries, Pakistan and India, they are also behind it for nuclear power. So they almost spend 80% of their budget on the name of the defense purposes, but 20% for the 20% we have no education. The poverty is growing day by day and the people are already died because of no purification of water, no education, and no medical health. Why not the world convince these two countries to reduce their, yeah, for what they are just making the bomb. The important thing is the nation that they provide the basic fundamentals to the nation rather than to spend their budget on the nuclear race. But this is my advice that if the two countries, if they are going out from the nuclear game, then it might be possible that out of nine might be the only seven or eight countries. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I know that's a comment and probably you can tell us about it and not me. I'm not gonna comment on, that's a profound point, which I agree with. And so just to make it very parochial, it would be wonderful if we can engage physical scientists in those two countries and work together. There's big challenges to engage, each country has its different culture and physicists in different countries have different opportunities and freedoms to speak out. But even the difference of the religion, they're still living together. So when we divided the boundaries, then we put a lot of money on just for the sake of the defense purposes. What does it mean by this defense? Because our people are dying because of food, lack of food. So we need education, we need pure water, we need to educate the poverty to reduce the poverty. These things actually need attention. So because of nothing, we are wasting over 80% of budget on the name of defense. So if, in my opinion, if the two countries scientists are sitting together, there's a possibility that they will reduce it. Yes. Thank you very much for that comment. Now, this is the end of this session. Thank you very much again, Professor Brady. We reconvene at 2 PM sharp with a panel on women and underrepresented groups. So 2 PM here.