"This is your vacuum ..."

As you know, it is impossible to embrace the immense. It is also known that a specialist is like a flus. What is similar to a non -specialist, trying to embrace the immense without the help of specialists, is even scary to imagine. However, scary - does not mean impossible. Everyone who came on October 1 at the Moscow Cafe Mart could be convinced of this for the next meeting in Filmdoc.ru film club.

The project was organized by the director-documentary Dmitry Kovalgelsky. In the evenings, the club shows films and their discussion. In October, four meetings in the club will be devoted to work on scientists and science. This time the audience watched the “vacuum structure”, shot at the Lennauchefilm studio.

The film is available on YouTube and has already caused disputes in the blogosphere. The fact is that the author of the tape - Julian Baryshnikov - chose one of the famous Friciks - Anatoly Rykova, his hero. Accordingly, the story in the film is about his work.

It is hardly interesting to discuss the essence of the “hypotheses” of Rykov. Therefore, moderating the discussion in the club, I tried to find out how such films are shot on seemingly decent studios, and even for the money of the Ministry of Culture. The essence of the answer is that there are no real barriers on the path of such “works of scientific and playing art”. When accepting the application, no intelligible competent scientific examination is carried out (it is enough to bring a couple of reviews from someone “with titles”, although it can be infinitely far from the subject of work; in this case, the review of the academician of the insurance worked, I hope he is now ashamed). After the end of the main work, one can show the material as “experts” equally incompetent in the specific issues (the film formally has two scientific consultants, who, in fact, did not give any consultations in the course of work, and they could hardly give incompetence in the issues under consideration). This is very sad. The film goes only 20 minutes, and the discussion lasted more than two hours. Probably, one could say longer, especially since the hall was present in the hall of Rykov’s “colleagues” in the difficult matter of refuting well -established scientific facts. Fortunately, they still made a minority, and therefore it was possible to discuss really important interesting things related to the popularization of science. This became possible, since there were scientists in the hall (I will note the important comments of Pavel Ivanov from the Akt Fian and Dmitry Badin from the Gaish), and representatives of TV and documentaries, and scientific journalists. The impressions of the latter can be read in their reports on the sites gazeta.ru and strf.ru.

We publish short reviews of scientists for the film. They were also transmitted to the director, whose answers we are ready to publish in the TRV-hunger. We also want to call on the leadership of the Lennachyfilm studio (which is now a branch of the “Center of the National Film”) and the Ministry of Culture to respond to criticism that sounds in the media, and telling what steps they intend to take so that such a nightmare for folk money is no longer withdrawn.

Sergey Popov , doct . physical .​​ Sciences , Gaisch Moscow State University

At the request of Sergei Popov, he watched the film “Building of a vacuum”, released under the brand of “Lennachyfilm”. Well, what comments can be here?

I have no complaints about the author of a home -made theory regarding the “structure of vacuum”. Such authors and theories were, is and will be - this is a kind of natural phenomenon that can be done with and from which administrators of various scientific forums and scientists of academic institutes grab the head.

Do I need to make complaints about the author of this film? At first I wondered what drives them - ignorance or selfish interest? After he googled about the “vacuum structure” and read the author’s statements on the forums, he disappeared the question. Claims to the author of the film are withdrawn by Julian Baryshnikov - he refers to the very phenomenon of nature as the author of the theory of the “structure of the vacuum”, and there is no sense to discuss with it. These people perceive physics of the 19th century, and then they jam them, and they consider all the scientists of the twentieth century by deceivers, and modern physics - a scam. The question of how, in full agreement with the “vile theoria Einstein”, GPS works, particles in accelerators fly and are determined by the trajectories of spacecraft, these people do not disturb these people. It is useless to argue here, you just need to leave them alone. This means that claims are transferred to another level - to Lennachyfilm. It seems to be a solid brand in the past. Now, after the reorganization, this is a branch of Lennaucilm OJSC Center for the National Film. Where does this disgrace come from? Is there at all there at least some control over the scientific reliability of products?

How is this nonsense produced for our money?

I think it is useful to ask these questions publicly to the leadership of this film studio. Whose name should the question be sounded? Let's think, there are several options.

Boris Stern , doct . physical .​​ sciences , Iya RAS

P.​ S.​ By the way, a vacuum is a really complex environment (however, a completely subordinate Lorenz invariation, although its violations are looking for very high energy in cosmic rays-so far unsuccessfully), and a popular story about this would be extremely useful for the general public.

Review of the film "Building of the vacuum" ("Lennachyfilm"). The film forms a wrong idea of ​​the state of modern theoretical and experimental studies in the field of gravity. The content of the film is based on the improper interpretation of the classical experience of Michelson. After a schematic description of the experience, in the fifth minute of the film, the following is approved: “Scientists thought that the ether in which light moves could manifest themselves if the speeds of rays were different due to the movement of the Earth. But the rays had the same speed. Such an installation in fact could not detect a change in the speeds of light rays. But the reason is simple - the rays passed the same distance in the same environmental conditions. And the movement of the Earth here could not affect the speed of light. Michelson's experience will give the same result with sound waves and with other moving objects if the conditions of the environment are the same for them. But to deny the role of air in the spread of sound has never occurred to any scientist. ”

The infidelity of the statement is easy to see from the analogy considered by the authors with the sound. If the experimental platform moves relative to the air, the sound speed along the platform movement and in the perpendicular direction will vary and the experiment will not give the same result as an experiment with light. In the physics textbook for the 11th grade of the secondary school G.Ya. Tyakisheva, B.B. Bukhovtseva and V.M. Charugin says the following: “Similarly, the wind arises in the reference system moving relative to air, when moving towards the ether (unless, of course, the ether exists), the“ etheric wind ”should be discovered.

The experience of the discovery of the “etheric wind” was put in 1881 by American scientists A. Maykelson and E. Morley, according to the idea expressed 12 years before Maxwell. ... the movements of the Earth in relation to the ether could not be found. "

The explanation of the classical experience contrary to the school physics at the beginning of the film determines the ignorance by the authors of the film of subsequent promotions in physics and numerous experiments to verify the theory of relativity conducted in Russia and in the world. For example, checking the theory of relativity is carried out on the LIGO interferometer, in the work of which a group of scientists from Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov. In addition, when building satellite navigation systems (such as GPS and GLONASS), calculations based on the theory of relativity were used. These systems in the current configuration would not be operational if the "crystalline ether" is available.

I would not want to comment on the entire film in detail, but we will dwell on another moment. The authors bases criticism of the theory of relativity on the formula E = MC2, which is not among the provisions of the criticized theory (see, for example, the aforementioned textbook by G. Ya. Zamyakishev).

Grigory Rubsov , to and . physical .- Mat . Sciences , n . With . Iya RAS

I was asked to write a review about the Lennachyfilm shot by a 20-minute material, which is called the “vacuum structure”. When viewing quite quickly it becomes clear that we are talking about pseudo-dwarf, and there is nothing to write in the TRV-hobby about-with the same success you can criticize astrological forecasts. Nevertheless, taking up the guise ...

The material is dedicated to a certain modern modification of the theory of ether, proposed by A.V. Rykov from the Geophysical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His works can be found on the Internet, for example, www.scorcher.ru/art/theory/rykov/rrykov2.php . What are you talking about? Let me remind you that the air of the air hypothesis at one time was a respectable scientific concept, unfortunately for its supporters, refuted in the experiments of Michelson-Morli. In these experiments, assuming that light is the fluctuations in a certain environment (in fact, called the ether), tried to determine the speed of the Earth's movement relative to this environment. And they found out that there was no such movement (“etheric wind”). No regardless of the time of day and season (i.e., regardless of where exactly in the solar system the installation is moving at the moment). There is no reason to keep essence that does not show themselves in any way, and the concept of the ether was put into scraps. A.V. Rykov does not agree with a traditional interpretation. He claims (I quote a book from the Internet) that "the longitudinal component of the installation could not notice the movement on the air due to the addition of equal effects, but with the reverse signs when the light forward and backward in the interferometer." This, of course, is wrong: the installation was intended to detect KVA of a dratitive effect, the sign of which does not depend on the direction of movement. The film says that there will be no changes in the interference picture of sound waves in a similar experiment with sound waves in the air - of course, if the installation is put in the wind. But in fact, this is not even important. Even if something is wrong with the specific experiment of Michelson in terms of measurements or interpretation. But more than a hundred years have passed since then, and the conclusion about the absence of the etheric wind was confirmed in many experiments, with an accuracy no worse than 10 signs!

That is the fact that this whole array of subsequent data is ignored, and allows you to confidently say that we are talking about pseudonaut: constructions of people familiar with the modern picture of science-popular and historical publications, and even then outdated for fifty years.

Further, it’s scary to understand, and nothing to do. I note the most amazing conclusion. It turns out that the broadcast is a crystal (!) With a period of a lattice of about 10-15 m, and the author on a blue eye writes that this is the shortest possible wavelengths. That space gamma rays can have a quantum of over 10 TEV and, accordingly, the wavelength is thousands of times less than the indicated, apparently it is unknown. It is unnecessary to add that the scale of about 10-15 m is quite achievable in modern accelerators and of course there is no crystalline structure on them.

I would like to complete this note by contacting journalists. If you are offered to make a plot about a new revolutionary theory in the field of natural sciences, ask where the author is published and what he refers to. If it is published in scientific journals and refers to recent articles in them - feel free to make a plot. And if it prints only books (especially at his own expense), but refers to Einstein and Newton - take skeptical. Then there will be less shame.

Alexey Rubtsov , Dokt . physical .​​ Sciences , Physics Faces of Moscow State University