arXiv:2104.12899v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 26 Apr 2021 rdce n ofimdi ueia tde fa Ising an of [ studies the numerical antiferromagnet cases, been in recently confirmed such has and In heating predicted char- fast not anomalously . are of unique possibility and a bath by heat equilib- acterized surrounding thermal in the not with are rium equilibrium states intermediate towards for its evolve However, that may so system than temperature. a warm heat heating, a to rapid at longer initially a take system at then a initially should is temperature that in- system cold its the A of all . temperature through termediate the passing to a exponentially, relaxes that otherwise surroundings assume is object would heating that one slowly system Naively, warm identical? initially nominally an than faster h mltdso iemdso h ytmdnmc [ dynamics system by system of the defined of are geometry eigenmodes elements of the whose amplitudes space the to state effect a pic- in the theoretical dynamics a related introduced that Raz ture and Lu terms, generic [ BC 350 to been back has dating water of and observations in cooling noted for anomaly analogous an n akt h iclyo bann erdcbere- reproducible obtaining of difficulty [ the sults to back ing sys- of variety wide a [ in inelastic seen with fluids be including tems, may effects these that ffc speeti ytmcnitn faclodlparti- colloidal a of consisting system Mpemba a of in kind sys- present this cooling is that showed effect slowly we a work, is recent by In that out traced tem. equilibrium path to the space nonequi- than a state shorter follow to through system path a librium then can quench fast A [ bonds hydrogen and [ solutes and solved cold for [ water required on that than effect Mpemba shorter time [ begin a water could Mpemba in water by freeze hot 1969 that to in concluded who done Osborne, was and study systematic first Its [ spin and collisions vprto [ Introduction. na ffr oudrtn h pmaeeti more in effect Mpemba the understand to effort an In prediction, recent a is heating anomalous Although 17 9 , .Ti hnmnnhssnebe ubdthe dubbed been since has phenomenon This ]. 18 10 .Pooe ehnssfrteeetinclude effect the for mechanisms Proposed ]. – 2 odsse et pepnnilyfse hnssesprep systems v than “strong” faster a exponentially th observe up of also heats expansion we system cold eigenfunction parameters, heating an tuning the by carefully of predicted By as dependence pa non-monotonic system, colloidal the a an Brownian than find overdamped, faster we an up For potential, heats bath. system thermal cold same initially an where effect, 1 10 16 aoaor iuone M NS75 nvri´ eNic Universit´e de 7351 CNRS Dieudonn´e, UMR A J Laboratoire eateto hsc,SmnFae nvriy unb,B Burnaby, University, Fraser Simon Physics, of Department erpr nmlu etn naclodlsse,tefis o first the system, colloidal a in heating anomalous report We Cna ntal odsse etup heat system cold initially an —Can n a olwdu ute experiments further up followed was and , ,acmaidb oecnrvry trac- controversy, some by accompanied ], 19 1 .Frhrnmrclsuissuggest studies numerical Further ]. , 20 24 ,cneto urns[ currents convection ], , 11 25 vns Kumar, Avinash , 7 ]. 14 ]. , nmlu etn naclodlsystem colloidal a in heating Anomalous 21 ,sproln [ ], 2 – 4 n lsi [ elastic and ] 1 21 Rapha¨el Ch´etrite, – Dtd pi 8 2021) 28, April (Dated: 23 12 ,dis- ], , 5 13 , 1 8 6 ]. ], ]. ] oln n etn bysmlrpicpe,adanoma- an and represents principles, heating similar lous obey heating and cooling n a [ Lu of Raz framework and theoretical quantitatively the agree on based results predictions with Our effect. Mpemba inverse where iiy hc lydacuilrl ntefradcs an- case forward [ the Ref. in in role alyzed crucial metasta- a of played presence the which the bility, on depend for ob- not mechanism does to effect the inverse difficult Moreover, more experimentally. effect serve inverse sub- the limits see, low-temperature make shall and generically we high- between as differences Indeed, tle experimentally. seen been ept omlsmlrt ewe h ae fheating of cases [ the cooling between and similarity formal a despite re ya xenlptnil h oeta saone- a is [ based tweezers trap potential optical feedback on The a by created well, potential. double external dimensional an by erted erclyi h oan[ domain the in metrically temperatures. that different systems at than initially temperature, faster were exponentially initial up chosen heats carefully system a a for where, effect, designed carefully a to [ subject potential and water in immersed cle h emti smer nteptnili endby defined is potential parameter the the in asymmetry geometric The atce(iiaba,Ø1.5 bead, (silica particle ihavr o barrier low very a with otmn osatand constant Boltzmann position eew rsn h rteprmna vdnefrthe for evidence experimental first the present we Here xeietlsetup. Experimental 2 n onBechhoefer John and U U rdudrsihl ieetconditions. different slightly under ared ( 0 x x dnia amsse ope othe to coupled system warm identical rino nmlu etn,weea where heating, anomalous of ersion ( soitdFke-lnkequation. Fokker-Planck associated e 1 ) x 26 tcemvn natle double-well tilted a in moving rticle .W loosrea observe also We ]. smaue nuisof units in measured is ie nteiiiltmeaueof temperature initial the on times iihClmi 5 S,Canada 1S6, V5A Columbia ritish sgvnby given is ) ≡ sraino h nes Mpemba inverse the of bservation U .Fo hspito iw h yaisof dynamics the view, of point this From ]. 1 ohaAtpls ie France Nice, Antipolis, Sophia e 0            ,aoaoshaighsntpreviously not has heating anomalous ], α ( 27 x − = = ) ]. U F F max max 0 | 29 x ( E x max , I u xeiet Brownian a experiment, our —In ) x < x x x > x x b 30  E /x T .W lc h oeta asym- potential the place We ]. (1 x b µ 1, b inverse min min )i ujce ofre ex- forces to subjected is m) 0 = − ∗ h ahtmeaue The temperature. bath the | x , x . strong . 2 0002 max ) x 2 min x pmaeet Yet, effect. Mpemba − m as ] k 2 1 0n (Fig. nm 40 = ≤ eso [ version B x T  x b min max with , ≤ , x , max 28 fthe of ] k B the (1) (2) 1 ). 2

Our setup has steep walls at the domain boundaries Tb, the intermediate states p(x, t) are not in equilibrium. corresponding to the maximum force Fmax ≈ 20 pN The intermediate state typically does not have the form ≈ 5 kBTb/nm applied by the optical tweezers [31]. The of a Boltzmann distribution for any temperature T . For nearly vertical walls confine particle motion to a box with this reason, instead of trying to define an intermediate α ≈ 2, in which a particle relaxes. Although we have de- effective temperature, we measure the distance D be- fined α using the geometric size of the domains measured tween the intermediate state p(x, t) and the equilibrium with respect to the origin, the barrier position is shifted state π(x; Tb)[1, 26]. From equivalent alternatives [1], to the left of the origin by ≈ 5 nm due to the tilt in the we choose the L1 distance [32] for the analysis of particle potential. This offset results in a bias of ≈ 2% in α and trajectories in our experiments. This distance is defined ≈ 3% shift in the equilibrium probabilities for the left as the absolute difference between pi and πi, and the right states. Nb

D[p(x, t); π(x; Tb)] ≡ D(t)= |pi − πi| . (4) i=1 X Here pi ≡ p(xi,t) is the frequency estimate of the proba- bility for a measured position x at a time t in the in-

terval [xi, xi+1), where xi ≡ xmin + (i − 1)∆x, with ∆x = (xmax − xmin)/Nb and Nb the number of bins. Similarly, πi is the frequency estimate of the Boltzmann distribution at Tb. ! ! #$ % !" Inverse Mpemba effect in an asymmetric potential.— To determine how the inverse Mpemba effect depends on the initial temperature of the system, we release the par- Figure 1. Schematic of the energy landscape U(x) used to ticle in a bath of fixed temperature (Fig. 1). After a par- explore the inverse Mpemba effect, set asymmetrically (α = 2) ticle is released in the bath at t = 0 at a low temperature within a box [xmin,xmax] with potential walls with finite slope T0, it moves stochastically in response to thermal fluc- at the domain boundaries. Because of the tilt in the potential, tuations and potential-gradient forces and finally equili- the positions of the left and right minima, and also the energy brates with the bath, which is at temperature Tb > T0. barrier, shift and are approximately at −37.2 nm, +42.2 nm, Figure 2(a)–(c) shows example time traces of evolu- and −5.0 nm, respectively. tion in the potential U(x). Figure 3 shows the measured times to reach equilibrium for systems that start at dif- Quenching protocol.—An instantaneous “heating ferent initial temperatures. As the initial temperature of quench” in our experiments is a three-step process: (i) −3 the system decreases from T0/Tb = 1 to ≈ 10 , the prepare the initial state of the system corresponding to equilibration time increases monotonically and follows the Boltzmann distribution π(x; T ) ∝ exp[−U(x)/k T ] 0 B 0 normal heating (tc > tw). However, for the lower ini- at an initial temperature T ; (ii) release a particle −3 −5 0 tial temperature range 10 >T0/Tb > 10 , the equili- at a position sampled from the initial distribution bration time decreases as the initial state of the system π(x; T0); and (iii) record the trajectories of the particle gets colder. Such a behavior corresponds to anomalous as it relaxes in a bath at temperature Tb. The initial heating where a cold system takes less time to heat up positions are sampled assuming U(x) to have infinite than a warm system, i.e., tc < tw. For lower tempera- potential walls at the domain boundaries. Once the −5 tures (T0/Tb < 1×10 ), the equilibration time increases particle is released into the bath, it is always at the again, exhibiting normal heating. Thus, we observe a se- bath temperature. We repeat the quenching protocol quence of normal, anomalous, and normal regimes for N = 5000 times, with each cycle 60 ms long, to create relaxation to thermal equilibrium. a statistical ensemble of the state of the system at each Analysis in the high-temperature limit.—In Eq. 2, the time step ∆t = 10 µs. The dynamics of the particle after variations in U0(x) throughout the domain [xmin, xmax] the quench in the potential U(x) can be described by are ≪ kBTb, implying that dynamics at the bath temper- the overdamped Langevin equation ature approximate ordinary diffusion. To simplify the analysis of the relaxation trajectories in U(x) at a fi- 1 ′ 2kBTb nite temperature T , we model the bath as being at an x˙ = − U (x)+ η(t) , (3) b γ s γ effectively infinite temperature with no energy barrier. Further, we approximate the walls ±Fmaxx as being in- where γ is the Stokes friction coefficient and η Gaussian finitely steep. The particle then freely diffuses in a do- ′ ′ white noise, with hη(t)i = 0 and hη(t) η(t )i = δ(t − t ). main with walls at xmin and xmax. Although the initial and final states in our experiment Approximating the bath as being at a very high tem- obey Boltzmann distributions at temperatures T0 and perature and the walls as infinitely steep simplifies the 3

form distribution; (ii) the Fokker-Planck operator is self- adjoint, so that left and right eigenfunctions are identical; (iii) the eigenfunctions have simple analytic expressions.

.# .# ./ .0 .$ ! -" " / " " " " " 0 " !"

" "

!"

$# # %&'()*'+, !"

Figure 4. L1 distances D(t) for systems that heat up in a bath "

,-*%.%-/()/&+ at temperature Tb = 1, starting at the temperatures T0 indi- cated above each graph. The thin vertical lines indicate the times when systems first reach thermal equilibrium (within noise levels).

In this high-temperature approximation, the Fokker- !" Planck equation describing the probability density p(x, t) of particle positions reduces to the heat equation, " 2 ∂p 1 ∂ ′ k T ∂ = − U (x)+ B b p(x, t) ∂t γ ∂x γ ∂x2 "#" "# " ""   k T ∂2p ≈ B b ≡ L p , (5) γ ∂x2 free $%&'()&*+ subject to no-flux boundary conditions at Figure 2. Dynamic trajectories relaxing to equilibrium at a x = {xmin, xmax}. Note that this high-temperature hot temperature. Ten trajectories of a particle released from limit is complementary to but less familiar than the −4 the equilibrium distribution at temperatures T0 = 4×10 Tb low-temperature limit, which to metastability −3 (black), 4×10 Tb (blue) and Tb = 1 (red) into the hot bath, phenomena [33]. Indeed, the high-noise limit of the with the evolving probability density p(x,t) shown for three Langevin equation has recently stimulated wide interest times (estimated based on 5000 trajectories) on a logarithmic because of its relation to the strong-measurement limit time scale. The shaded gray region corresponds to a box size of quantum measurements [34, 35]. of xmax − xmin = 240 nm. In the heat-equation limit, the probability density p(x, t) can be written as an infinite sum of eigenfunctions vk of Lfree with associated eigenvalues analysis in three ways: (i) the equilibrium state is a uni- 2 2 kBTb π (k − 1) k −λ = 2 , (6) γ (xmax − xmin)

! ordered so that 0 = λ1 < λ2 < ··· . At large but finite times, we assume that the contribution of the eigenfunc- tions vk(x, Tb) decreases exponentially for k > 2. Thus,

%&'() "! #$ the probability density can be approximated by

−λ2t ! p(x, t) ≈ π(x; Tb)+ a2(T0)e v2(x; α, Tb) , (7) +, + +- +" +* ! *! *! *! *! *! *! a2(t)

!!%.%!/ where the coefficient a2 depends| {z on} the initial tempera- ture T0, as well as on the bath temperature Tb and a2(t) Figure 3. Equilibration times for systems at different initial represents the dynamics of the v2 mode amplitude during temperatures. Red markers denote initial temperature points thermalization. Generally, a2 is a measure of the over- whose D(t) dynamics are displayed in Fig. 4. lap between the second left eigenfunction and the initial 4

−1 state of the system [26], time scale set by the eigenvalue λ2 ≈ 16.66 ms disap- −1 pears, and the system decays instead at a rate λ3 ≈ 4.15 a2(T0)= hu2(x; Tb)|π(x; T0)i . (8) ms. In summary, for |a2(α, Tw)| > |a2(α, Tc)|, the ini- tially warm system lags the initially cold system, and In the high-temperature limit, the spatial eigenfunc- the inverse Mpemba effect is observed. tions of the diffusion equation are [36] Discussion.—Our results give clear experimental evi- dence for the inverse Mpemba effect in a simple setup. 1 x − xmin uk = vk = cos (k − 1)π , (9) The non-monotonic dependence of the equilibration time Z′ x − x   max min  on the initial temperature of the system can be under- ′ where Z is the normalization constant, defined such that stood through the non-monotonicity of a2 coefficients. huk|vki = 1 with k = 1, 2, ··· . Note that left and right We observed the inverse Mpemba effect for a quench for eigenfunctions are identical for the diffusion equation but the case of a heat bath whose average energy greatly ex- usually differ for the Fokker-Planck equation associated ceeded the range of potential variation. We used this with non-zero potentials [37]. feature to model system dynamics in a high-temperature Since anomalous heating (inverse Mpemba) is associ- limit where the relaxation dynamics are governed by a ated with a2 coefficients where |a2(Tw)| > |a2(Tc)|, a non- simple heat-diffusion equation. Using analytic expres- monotonic temperature dependence of the a2 coefficients sions for the eigenfunctions, we obtained the a2 coeffi- leads to anomalous heating effects. But these coefficients cients as a function of initial temperature. We found are not directly accessible in experiments. Instead [26], evidence for the strong inverse Mpemba effect, special we measure a quantity ∆D ∝ |a2| as a function of initial temperatures where the systems heat up exponentially temperature from D(t), defined in Eq. 4. faster than those at other initial temperatures. Figure 5 shows the non-monotonic temperature depen- Previous experiments on the forward Mpemba effect dence of ∆D. The ∆D values correlate with the measured showed a clear separation of the time scales determined equilibration times. To see the agreement of the mea- by the eigenvalues λ2 and λ3 [26]. We can offer some in- sured values of ∆D for the potential at finite temperature sight as to why it is easier to observe the forward Mpemba with theoretical predictions based on the potential at a effect than the inverse effect: When a system relaxes to high temperature, we explicitly calculate a2 coefficients a bath at temperature Tb, the time-scale separation be- using Eqs. 8 and 9. We fit the data to a single parame- tween the decay curves corresponding to λ3 and λ2 de- ter, an overall proportionality constant. The fit leads to pends on the ratio Λ = λ3/λ2. In particular, in order 1.48 ± 0.03, which agrees to ≈ 5% with the calculated to measure the ∆D values, one fits the part of the de- value, ≈ 1.56. cay curve that corresponds to λ2. Thus, the greater the value Λ, the easier the accurate measurement of the ∆D values. For the forward Mpemba effect studied in Ref. [26], the !" system cools from a hot temperature to a cold tempera-

ture in a double-well potential, and the ratio Λ of eigen- !# ∗ values λ3 to λ2 (i.e., Λfor ≡ λ3/λ2) is ≈ 16.1. However, ! for the inverse Mpemba effect studied here, the ratio of ∗ ∗ eigenvalues is Λinv ≈ 4.0. Thus, Λinv is about four times %& %" %' %# %$ ∗ $ $ $ $ $ $ smaller than Λfor in the case of heating, implying that the

! ()(!* forward effect will be easier to observe than the inverse effect. Indeed, our observations of the inverse effect re- quired an ensemble of 5000 trajectories to obtain results Figure 5. Measurements of decay amplitude ∆D for different that are statistically similar to results for the forward initial temperatures T0. Markers denote experimental mea- case obtained with only 1000 trajectories. surements, and the red line is based on the |∆D| values calculated from the FPE in the high-temperature limit. The Are these general features of Λfor and Λinv or are they arrow indicates the temperature at which the strong inverse special to our potential? Since the dynamics of a2(t) Mpemba effect occurs. Error bars represent one standard de- correspond to hops over the barrier, we expect that the viation and are calculated from the fits. ratio of eigenvalues λ3 to λ2 depends on the barrier height Eb as Λfor ∼ exp[Eb/kBTb] ≫ 1, an intuition confirmed −5 At initial temperature T0 =4×10 , where a2(T0) ≈ 0 by a rigorous analysis in general [39, 40] and by numerical (Fig. 5, blue arrow), the decay is dominated by λ3 solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for our potential and represents an exponential speed-up of the heat- in particular (Fig. 6, red curve). However, for the high- ing process compared to decays at temperatures where temperature limit, Eq. 6 shows that Λinv = 4 always a2(T0) 6= 0. Such a situation corresponds to the strong (Fig. 6, blue curve). Thus, the ratio of eigenvalues Λ can inverse Mpemba effect [38]. The transient decay at the be much higher in the forward case than in the reverse 5 case, and, as a result, the forward effect is generically the Markovian Mpemba effect and its inverse, Proc. Natl. easier to observe experimentally than the inverse effect. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5083 (2017). [2] A. Lasanta, F. V. Reyes, A. Prados, and A. Santos, When the hotter cools more quickly: Mpemba effect in granular 119 ! % % & fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. , 148001 (2017). '() '() % *+, [3] A. Biswas, V. V. Prasad, O. Raz, and R. Rajesh, % Mpemba effect in driven granular Maxwell gases, Phys. Rev. E 102, 012906 (2020).

"! % & *+, [4] A. Santos and A. Prados, Mpemba effect in molecu- - lar gases under nonlinear drag, Phys. Fluids 32, 072010 ! (2020). [5] S. Takada, H. Hayakawa, and A. Santos, Mpemba effect !#!!!" !#!!" !#!" !#" " "! in inertial suspensions, Phys. Rev. E 103, 032901 (2021).

$ [6] R. G´omez Gonz´alez, N. Khalil, and V. Garz´o, Mpemba- like effect in a molecular binary mixture in contact with Figure 6. Ratio Λ of eigenvalues λ3 to λ2 of the Fokker-Planck a thermal reservoir, arXiv e-prints , arXiv (2020). operator as a function of barrier height Eb at the bath temper- [7] M. Baity-Jesi, E. Calore, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernandez, J. M. ature Tb = 1. The red curve is for the double-well potential Gil-Narvi´on, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, D. I˜niguez, A. Las- used in Ref. [26] for the forward Mpemba experiments, and anta, A. Maiorano, E. Marinari, et al., The Mpemba ef- the blue curve is for the approximately flat potential used fect in spin glasses is a persistent memory effect, Proc. 116 in the inverse Mpemba experiments. The hollow red marker Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 15350 (2019). ∗ Meterologica denotes the ratio Λfor used in the forward Mpemba experi- [8] Aristotle, , E. W. Webster, Book 1, Part 12 ments, that corresponds to Eb ≈ 2. The hollow blue marker ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). ∗ denotes the ratio Λinv for the flat potential (Eb ≈ 0) used in [9] E. B. Mpemba and D. G. Osborne, Cool?, Phys. Educ. 4 the inverse Mpemba experiments. , 172 (1969). [10] G. S. Kell, The freezing of hot and cold water, Am. J. Phys. 37, 564 (1969). In this paper, we offer evidence for anomalous heat- [11] B. Wojciechowski, I. Owczarek, and G. Bednarz, Freezing ing in a colloidal system, complementing the more fa- of aqueous solutions containing gases, Cryst. Res. Tech- miliar scenario for anomalous cooling. Other memory- nol. 23, 843 (1988). dependent relaxation phenomena [41] are worth exploring [12] D. Auerbach, Supercooling and the Mpemba effect: When hot water freezes quicker than cold, Am. J. Phys. further. For example, Gal and Raz show that an initial 63, 882 (1995). cooling quench followed by a heating quench can speed up [13] S. Esposito, R. De Risi, and L. Somma, Mpemba effect heating times exponentially, even in systems that would and transitions in the adiabatic cooling of water be- not otherwise exhibit the inverse Mpemba effect [42]. In fore freezing, Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 387, 757 (2008). the Kovacs effect, protocols that drive the system out [14] J. I. Katz, When hot water freezes before cold, Am. J. of equilibrium can produce a non-monotonic relaxation, Phys. 77, 27 (2009). 6 even after the forcing has ceased [43–46]. Finally, in the [15] I. Firth, Cooler?, Phys. Educ. , 32 (1971). [16] H. C. Burridge and O. Hallstadius, Observing the Leidenfrost effect, a water droplet placed on a hot sur- Mpemba effect with minimal bias and the value of the face survives evaporation longer than one placed on a Mpemba effect to scientific outreach and engagement, th warm surface. First described in the 18 century [47], Proc. R. Soc. A 476, 20190829 (2020). it shares some features with the inverse Mpemba effect [17] H. C. Burridge and P. F. Linden, Questioning the (see Appendix, including Table S1). In particular, it also Mpemba effect: hot water does not cool more quickly involves a counterintuitive, non-monotonic temperature than cold, Sci. Rep. 6, 37665 (2016). dependence of the time to reach the final state, and the [18] J. I. Katz, Reply to Burridge and Linden: Hot water may freeze sooner than cold, arXiv:1701.03219 (2017). nonequilibrium forcing is via heating. It would be inter- [19] M. Vynnycky and S. Mitchell, Evaporative cooling and esting to re-examine this well-known phenomenon from the Mpemba effect, Heat Mass Transfer 46, 881 (2010). the perspectives developed here. [20] S. M. Mirabedin and F. Farhadi, Numerical investiga- JB and AK acknowledge funding from Discovery and tion of solidification of single droplets with and without RTI grants from the National Sciences and Engineer- evaporation mechanism, Int. J. Refrig. 73, 219 (2017). 14 ing Council of Canada (NSERC). RC acknowledges sup- [21] M. Freeman, Cooler still—an answer?, Phys. Educ. , port from the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences 417 (1979). [22] M. Vynnycky and N. Maeno, Axisymmetric natural (PIMS), the French Centre National de la Recherche Sci- convection-driven evaporation of hot water and the entifique (CNRS). Mpemba effect, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 55, 7297 (2012). [23] M. Vynnycky and S. Kimura, Can natural convection alone explain the Mpemba effect?, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 80, 243 (2015). ∗ [email protected] [24] X. Zhang, Y. Huang, Z. Ma, Y. Zhou, J. Zhou, W. Zheng, [1] Z. Lu and O. Raz, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of Q. Jiang, and C. Q. Sun, Hydrogen-bond memory and 6

water-skin supersolidity resolving the Mpemba paradox, Lett. 125, 058001 (2020). Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 22995 (2014). [46] A. Militaru, A. Lasanta, M. Frimmer, L. L. Bonilla, [25] Y. Tao, W. Zou, J. Jia, W. Li, and D. Cremer, Differ- L. Novotny, and R. A. Rica, Kovacs memory effect ent ways of hydrogen bonding in water—Why does warm with an optically levitated nanoparticle, arXiv preprint water freeze faster than cold water?, J. Chem. Theory arXiv:2103.14412 (2021). Comput. 13, 55 (2017). [47] J. G. Leidenfrost, De Aquae Communis Nonnullis Quali- [26] A. Kumar and J. Bechhoefer, Exponentially faster cool- tatibus Tractatus (Ovenius, 1756) English translation: C. ing in a colloidal system, Nature 584, 64 (2020). Wares, A Tract About Some Qualities of Common Wa- [27] R. Ch´etrite, A. Kumar, and J. Bechhoefer, The ter, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 9, 1153 (1966). metastable Mpemba effect corresponds to a non- [48] A. E. Cohen, Control of nanoparticles with arbitrary monotonic temperature dependence of extractable work, two-dimensional force fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 118102 Front. Phys. 9, 141 (2021). (2005). [28] I. Klich, O. Raz, O. Hirschberg, and M. Vucelja, Mpemba [49] M. Gavrilov, Y. Jun, and J. Bechhoefer, Real-time cali- index and anomalous relaxation, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021060 bration of a feedback trap, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 095102 (2019). (2014). [29] A. Kumar and J. Bechhoefer, Nanoscale virtual po- [50] A. Kumar and J. Bechhoefer, Optical feedback tweezers, tentials using optical tweezers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, Proc. SPIE 10723 (2018). 183702 (2018). [51] S. Nukiyama, The maximum and minimum values of the [30] J. A. Albay, G. Paneru, H. K. Pak, and Y. Jun, Opti- heat Q transmitted from metal to water under cal tweezers as a mathematically driven spatio-temporal atmospheric pressure, J. Soc. Mech. Eng. Japan 31, 361 potential generator, Opt. Express 26, 29906 (2018). (1934), translation in S.Nukiyama, Int. J. Heat Mass [31] See Appendix for further discussion of the experimental Transfer 9, 1419–1433 (1966). setup and the Leidenfrost effect. [52] J. G. Walker, Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect, in Fun- [32] T. Cover and J. Thomas, Elements of Information The- damentals of Physics by D. Halliday and R. Resnick (Wi- ory, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2006). ley, New York, 1988, 3rd edn.), E10–1-5. [33] M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell, Random Perturbations [53] J. Bernardin and I. Mudawar, The Leidenfrost point: ex- of Dynamical Systems, 3rd ed. (Springer-Verlag Berlin perimental study and assessment of existing models, J. Heidelberg, 2012). Heat Transfer 121, 894 (1999). [34] M. Bauer and D. Bernard, Stochastic spikes and strong noise limits of stochastic differential equations, Ann. Henri Poincar´e 19, 653 (2018). APPENDIX [35] C. Bernardin, R. Ch´etrite, R. Chhaibi, J. Najnudel, and C. Pellegrini, Spiking and collapsing in large noise limits of SDEs, arXiv:1810.05629 (2020). Feedback trap Setup.—Our optical tweezers setup is [36] G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris, Mathemati- built on a vibration isolation table supporting a home- cal Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide, 7th ed. (Elsevier Science and Technology, 2011). built microscope. We trap a colloidal particle (silica [37] H. Risken, The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of So- bead, Ø1.5 µm, Bangs Laboratories). A linearly po- lution and Applications, 2nd ed. (Springer, 1989). larized 532 nm laser (Nd:YAG, Coherent Genesis MX [38] I. Klich and M. Vucelja, Solution of the Metropolis dy- STM-series, 1 Watt) is used for trapping and detection namics on a complete graph with application to the (Figure S1). In our experiment, we use acousto-optic de- Markov chain Mpemba effect, arXiv:1812.11962 (2018). flectors (AODs) to steer the trap position in the trapping [39] N. Berglund, Kramers’ law: Validity, derivations, and plain, placed at a plane conjugate to the back focal plane generalisations, Markov Process. Relat. Fields 19, 459 (2013). of the trapping objective. The details of the experimen- [40] V. N. Kolokoltsov, Semiclassical Analysis for Diffusions tal setup are described in Ref. [29]. A feedback scheme and Stochastic Processes (Lecture Notes in Mathematics, is used to create the virtual potentials used in the in- vol. 1724) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000). verse Mpemba experiments [26, 29]. In a feedback trap, [41] N. C. Keim, J. D. Paulsen, Z. Zeravcic, S. Sas- one (1) observes the position of the particle, (2) calcu- try, and S. R. Nagel, Memory formation in , lates the force based on its position in the user-defined 91 Rev. Mod. Phys. , 035002 (2019). potential, and (3) applies that force in each loop at a [42] A. Gal and O. Raz, Precooling strategy allows exponen- µ tially faster heating, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 060602 (2020). deterministic time step of ∆t = 10 s [48, 49]. In our [43] A. J. Kovacs, Transition vitreuse dans les experiment, the force is applied by moving the trap cen- polym`eres amorphes. Etude ph´enom´enologique, ter relative to the bead position. The force generated Fortschr. Hochpolymeren-Forsch. (Adv. Polymer Sci.) 3, by the displacement of the trap center is approximated 394 (1964). as Fn = −βxn−1, where β = ∆t/tr is a proportional [44] A. J. Kovacs, J. J. Aklonis, J. M. Hutchinson, and A. R. feedback constant where tr is the relaxation time of the Ramos, Isobaric volume and enthalpy recovery of glasses. underlying physical potential, and where xn is the parti- II. A transparent multiparameter theory, J. Polym. Sci. B 17, 1097 (1979). cle position at time tn = n∆t. [45] I. L. Morgan, R. Avinery, G. Rahamim, R. Beck, and Compared to our previous results based on the newly O. A. Saleh, Glassy dynamics and memory effects in developed feedback traps [29, 50], we have improved the an intrinsically disordered protein construct, Phys. Rev. mechanical stability of the setup by installing the trap- 7 ping and detection objectives on a cage system (Fig- temperature (also known as the Nukiyama temperature, ure S1). Thus, mechanical drifts due to temperature TN) corresponding to the minimum survival time of the changes of the surroundings have reduced effects on the droplets [51]. Beyond TN, the survival time rapidly in- particle position. Nonetheless, we have drifts in the par- creases and reaches a maximum value at the Leidenfrost ticle position on the order of 1 nm s−1. We, thus, limit point (LP) temperature. Thus, the effect is characterized the heating cycle to 0.1 s and correct for the small drift by a significant reduction in heat transfer from a heated before the next cycle. body to when the temperature of the body be- Leidenfrost effect.—Although, to our knowledge, there longs to a range of temperatures between TN and LP. In has been no experimental evidence for the inverse this range, the survival times of the droplets in- Mpemba effect in any system, there does exist a well- crease with the temperature of the surface [52, 53]. Be- known heating phenomenon, known as the Leidenfrost yond the LP, the survival time again decreases, indicating effect, that dates back to the 18th century [47]. This a non-monotonic temperature dependence of the survival phenomenon occurs when liquid droplets are deposited time on the temperature of the surface. on hot solid surfaces, and a layer of is formed be- Although the effect is not the same as the inverse tween the droplet and substrate. The high-pressure va- Mpemba effect (Table S1), it shares the counterintuitive por layer prevents contact between the hot surface and non-monotonic temperature dependence of the time to the droplet. The layer thus reduces the heat transfer be- reach the final state—a high-temperature bath for the tween them, allowing the droplets to survive much longer Mpemba effect and a phase in equilibrium with a low- than normally expected. When the surface temperature temperature bath for the Leidenfrost effect. Both effects is lower than the of the liquid, the droplets also involve anomalous heating. Finally, the underlying spread over the substrate to form a thin layer and evap- mechanism for the Leidenfrost effect is well understood, orate slowly. Upon further increase in temperature, a whereas the experimental evidence for and explanations maximum rate of evaporation is achieved at a critical of the inverse Mpemba effect are new.

Leidenfrost Inverse Mpemba Initial state nonequilibrium state at a lower chemical potential equilibrium state at a lower temperature Reservoir temperature and chemical potential reservoirs temperature reservoir Initial temperature Tb (reservoir temperature) T0 (

Table S1. Comparison between the Leidenfrost and inverse Mpemba effects. 8

FPGA QPD

FI Host M 532 nm L L L M PBS Trapping L 90 % AOD L M Detecon BS M

10 % SF SC L HW

660nm

LED M M MO

M MO DM L

Detecon beam Trapping beam F L L Cam

M M

Figure S1. Schematic of the feedback-trap setup. FI = Faraday Isolator, M = Mirror, SF = Spatial Filter, BS = Beam Splitter (non-polarizing), AOD = Acousto-Optic Deflector, L = Lens, MO = Microscope Objective, SC = Sample Chamber, PBS = Polarizing Beam Splitter, HW = Half-Wave Plate, F = Short-Pass Filter, QPD = Quadrant Photodiode, DM = Dichroic Mirror, PD = Photodiode, CS = Cover-Slip, Cam = Camera. Planes conjugate to the back-focal plane of the trapping objective are shown in red-dashed lines. An image of the cage-system consisting of the trapping and detection objectives is shown on the bottom-right corner.