Exploring the universe

On April 24, 2014, Dmitry Gorbunov , physicist-theoretic, doctor of physical and mathematical sciences, senior researcher at theoretical physics of the Institute of Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, will perform as part of the Public Lectures of Polit.ru. On the eve of his lecture , which is held with the support of the Dynasty Foundation, Natalia Demina talked with him.

Is there a physicist whose scientific thinking style impresses you, and whom you would like to be like?

GIA Dwal is working in Germany. He is a native of the USSR. He is a wonderful generator of very non -trivial solutions and models. At first, it seems that each of his next idea is a non -working heresy, but usually during the day “close” such an idea is not possible.

And from the classics: Einstein or someone else?

You know, I do not really know classic works, and in general, how this or that theorist works, how his thoughts arise. This, in my opinion, is such a region closed to other people, as another person thinks ... Once Mikhail Vasiliev from Fiana asked Valery Rubakov how work was going on on an article who had 4 co-authors (Valery Anatolyevich himself, I, my friend and another employee). Vasiliev said that he writes articles either alone or together, with a student or with a graduate student. He could not understand how the four could work. And Rubakov answered him that we, they say, are discussing, and everyone brings ideas.

Was Rubakov your supervisor?

It turned out to be interesting with Rubakov. I graduated from Moscow State University in 1998, studied at the Department of Theorfizics with Andrei Slavov. There were such years that few of my classmates continued physics, people moved in a variety of directions. In the summer of 1998, after graduating from Moscow State University, I went to the physical faculty. Previously, there was a tradition, in addition to a diploma, to give a blue graduate icon, and I wanted to get it. I understood that he would soon become a rarity.

It turned out that from my stream, this is 400 people, more than a hundred graduates did not even come to pick up a diploma. They passed the exams, defended their diploma, but simply did not come for a diploma, they did not need it then.

While studying at Moscow State University, I could attend classes at different departments. In particular, I began to go to Rubakov’s course “Classic Calibrary Fields”. He was served by graduate students of Rubakov (Maxim Libanov and Sergey Troitsky), he himself was away, it was very interesting, we solved a lot of problems. And at the last lecture, shirts appeared, and this made a very strong impression on me, I have not met a person of this level before. Immediately there was a desire to get into this group.

And what was so surprised?

It was evident that a person loves and “knows how to do” physics, it was somehow immediately clear.

Did you write a dissertation with him?

There were three students in this group, whom he took to him. We wrote dissertations, worked in Iya. True, both of my friends are now in the USA.

Do you have a desire to wave your hand, quit, go somewhere?

You know, I still have a desire to make sure that you can work normally science. I'm still waiting for those who, so to speak, do it badly.

How did Rubakov choose students?

The course of lectures was accompanied by tasks. Every week there was a seminar at which these tasks were solved and told. In fact, the tasks were interesting, and there were many of them, so, by and large, the main time took to solve these problems, discussion, their surrender, etc. In the process of this, we met, and at the end there was a test, an exam, as it should be on a special course.

Then he gave us another set of students of a wide direction in particle physics. We decided, probably during the year, maybe even more. But the result was very useful, because after that during almost every scientific seminar, which was conducted at the Institute of Nuclear Research, I saw that I know the beginning of this topic. The tasks were very correctly selected.

So now we have all graduate students, students, one way or another, solve these tasks, and during this communication it becomes clear whether it should work in this direction. If not, then a person sees it himself, and usually conflictly goes into another area of ​​physics.

Did you have the desire to become a physicist in childhood, but a mathematician? Why did you take up science?

As a child, I had a lot of desires, I wanted to become a chemist, a biologist, a mathematician, and a historian. I really liked all this, and in general I liked to study, analyze the information received. Not that any subject, to languages, literature, I had no particular inclination. When I was a schoolboy, a lot of Olympiads took place especially in the spring at the same time, and I had to choose which one to go.

You were born in Moscow, lived?

Yes, I am a Muscovite. When I was already studying in high school, profile classes began to appear. And it was necessary to choose, either go to humanitarian or physical and mathematical. I was more inclined to humanitarian education. But the teacher, who was supposed to take our class, left for America. Then I decided to go to the physical education class. I had a friend to the physical education school, so I decided to go there and go to the “second school”, next to the Moscow University, not far from Fiana.

Easily acted?

Yes. I entered the class that has already been formed. That is, usually they begin to study there from the 7th grade, and I studied for the past two years. But somehow nothing, he entered the team, we all became friends.

There were completely amazing people, cool guys. I remember the first change. What do ordinary schoolchildren do? And these guys played chess! Another guy decided something in his notebook. I look, and he calculates a square root of a deuce in a column, so the person rested on a break. We still communicate, try to gather every five years.

What year is your release?

1992.

What did you study at the "second school"?

She allowed me to no longer rush about in choosing a direction, I already knew what I want to do next.

Was there any problems of choosing where to go: to physics or mathematics?

I think no. I have more or less confidence that you need to devote myself to physics. Then, in principle, I found out that perhaps in the 57th school they taught mathematics more correctly. But, in fact, the guys from two schools were quite actively friends, there were many acquaintances from that and another school. One of the classmates, which was at Rubakov, was just from the 57th school. But the atmosphere in the “second school” was correct, gave the desired mood.

Did your classmates also become scientists or all differently?

No. As far as I know, none of my classmates resisted science.

Is this a common problem of your generation?

I was born in the 75th. And at first it was quite difficult to engage in science. Again, if we talk about physics, physics is an experimental science. An experiment in Russia is generally impossible to do. The theory is still somehow, and it is quite difficult for the experimenters. If we talk about small laboratories, there is not even any way out. And if about large ones, then these are usually international collaborations, and there is a flow of people from here, but in the opposite direction of the flow, no, of course, is not. Many of my classmates first went to it. Some went on to business.

Tell us about your favorite books of childhood and youth, including popular science. Were there books that contributed to the fact that you came to science? What did you like to read from the scientific?

I did not read.

On the table was Perelman's book?

No, rather different tasks lay. Probably, the book closest to the popular science book is Jules’s book Verne in distant childhood, that's all.

Did your family write out popular science magazines?

No.

Do your parents have scientists?

Rather, technical: radio communications, electronics.

Did you write out something by radio?

There were some magazines, but they somehow did not attract me. The part that was connected with the soldering was not very far away. So my path to science was more likely to go through school, then the Fizhafac of Moscow State University and further thanks to communication with colleagues.

What are you doing now, what is your field of research?

Physics of elementary particles and all kinds of applications, cosmology is now actively developing. I am interested in astrophysics, physics of neutrino. But the main direction is the physics of elementary particles.

Has the long -awaited joy for you to find Bozon Higgs?

No, this did not become a “great joy”, because I would like to find something else. In general, the experiments are so complex in this direction that in anticipation of the next step with a large Adron Collider, theoretical thought was somehow trained. There were many theoretical research, which sometimes looked somehow too much. But since people have been waiting for a collider for so long, theorists could not stop generating ideas. But still, we all hoped that it would be possible to find something besides what was predicted at dawn, 50 years ago. What was found by the same boson, which was predicted, in a sense, the worst option.

In Russia, there was also a project of such a collider. They wanted to build it in Protvino by the beginning of the 90s, and it was an international project. In Protvino they built houses either the French or the Italians, there was a whole program that they would come there, work, study this physics, but it did not work out. And simultaneously, the US also closed the project of an even more powerful collider in the United States.

Physics of elementary particles is a really advanced edge of natural science, there are many ideas, but one or two are realized in nature. The experiments are unique, so researchers of 20-30 years have to wait to experimentally confirm or refute certain ideas.

Are you waiting for any interesting discoveries after the launch of an updated collider?

I would like to believe that they will be. Because after all there, energy is increased by almost 2 times. Many predictions, expectations are associated with this energy, and not the one on which the collider worked before. On the one hand, it’s somehow strange to say, you didn’t see anything before, and then looked at a distance of two times less, and then you saw ... Think, you changed twice! On the other hand, everything moves progressively, and if you understand that a new physics will appear on this scale of the distance, then at some point, at some step you must see it. Have not yet been seen. But the tank is a complex machine, many theoretical models were checked and did not find their confirmation, and many are still checked because they are very complex. During the clashes of proton beams, many particles are born, there are many all kinds of uncertainty, and hope has not yet died.

And you are invited for discussions, for some discussions? Do you go to Cern? Are you interested?

Yes, of course, this is interesting. Now physicists can communicate continuously, around the clock. There are such channels, groups that work continuously on different experiments. Another thing is that since I am a theoretician, I have no such 100% need to be there regularly, I don’t have it. And the discussions are now well organized on the Internet. But often issues, despite the Internet, are more convenient and faster to resolve in direct contact, especially if this is due to the organization of some new experimental studies, in particular, new experiments are proposed, in addition to the main ones that occur on the tank.

In addition, it is now being discussed what to do with a large adron collider in a few years. Here he will work now, gain a certain set of statistics. There is a concept of a systematic error associated with your detector. Suppose there is a ruler, on the range of 1 mm marking, you can carry out many measurements, but more precisely than one millimeter, you will not measure. To achieve higher accuracy, you need to improve this ruler, go to the caliper. And this already means building a new experiment, a new collider.

But for each detector there is a question, how much statistics you need to dial. For a large adron collader, the collection of the required amount of data takes several years. And by 2017-2018, when the tank is again closed for modernization, you need to offer something new. And it will not be possible to just say: “Okay, turn off the tank, let's think what to do next.” You need to plan something in advance. One detectors should be replaced by new ones so as not to waste time.

Experimenters and theorists are now discussing all these issues, which is better - to raise energy or raise the intensity of clashes, what changes should be made in these large multi -storey detectors. This must be done in advance, and at the same time we do not know what new physics will be there. Development strategies can be completely different, so there is such a “guessing” moment in many ways here. If we knew what physics we will find ... We, unfortunately, do not know. Or, fortunately, - a person’s desire to engage in science warms up this search for the unknown. Cardinal modernization of the tank requires discussions of the entire physical community.

We have groups at the institute that offer new experiments on the basis of Cern. There, in addition to the main ring of the ADRO Collider, there is the opportunity to launch other beams of particles that can be used to conduct certain studies. Scientists from both Cern himself and other European institutions can submit a project to the Scientific Committee of Cern, who will make a decision.

What experiment does you propose to conduct?

In Cern, the acceleration of protons is organized in stages. First, one installation accelerates them, suppose, on factor 10, the next installation is 10 times another. There is an accelerator SPS (Super Proton Synchrotron, a super-proton synchrotron with a ring length of 6.9 km), it accelerates protons to energy about 10 times less than what led to the discovery of the Higgs boson. This is the previous stage, such protons are prepared within its framework, then they are already thrown into the main ring (27 km), and in the ring the clots of such protons move in the opposite direction, and from time to time collide in the places where the detectors cost. And while the protons run around the main ring, SPS is worth it, nothing is done in it.

We think that it can be used for other experiments. In particular, I participate in a group that proposed to conduct an experiment using protons that such an accelerator can give. Our idea is being considered. The project is expensive, about 150 million Swiss francs, so just no one will approve it. It is necessary to discuss, it is necessary to solve many issues, technical, radiation, a mass of everything. There are groups of theorists who are interested.

In your lecture, we will talk about gravitational waves. What is your personal point of view, whether the BICEP group managed to detect these waves or should you still wait for the outline of the work of the Planck group?

I did not expect, frankly, that this experiment would have such results. Nevertheless, if so, then this experiment in particular showed the possibility of primary quantization of the gravitational field. The previous experiment “Planck” The existence of relict gravitational waves of the declared amplitude closed at some level of reliability.

Researchers have questions for this experiment related to the fact that the observations that he carried out were carried out at the same frequency. If we say that we have a relict radiation that came from the era of a large explosion, then we measured the spectrum of these photons. We measured what photons at what frequencies come to us in what quantities come to us, and became convinced that this is consistent with the idea that they all came from the equilibrium thermal system, which is characterized by only one concept - temperature. To do this, it was necessary to make a lot of measurements at different frequencies. In this case, polarization was not measured at many frequencies.

If it were measured at many frequencies, it would be confidence that yes, indeed, this polarization is precisely relict radiation. Measurement at one frequency leaves the possibility that something else is discovered. Therefore, of course, there are many questions here, but there are possibilities for raising some doubts with the help of other dimensions.

In particular, at the end of this year, the results of the work of the Planck collaboration are expected. They will open the final data that they have collected. The experiment took place for several years, anisotropy of relict radiation, polarization was measured. Some physical phenomena were analyzed, which, from the point of view of this experiment, might look like a signal of relict waves. Let's see.

In principle, the physics models of the early universe, which would give this kind of signal, are in sufficient quantities. Is there any stretches with other experiments, other observations, the question is open. It is clear that small discrepancies in the recruitment of additional data “statistically” may resolve.

Nevertheless, theorists, of course, do not sit, idle. During this time, several hundred articles appeared in the electronic scientific database (arxiv.org) where certain aspects of this discovery are discussed. An interesting point is that if these are gravitational waves, then this means that you can spread the quantization procedure on the gravitational field, but so far we have not learned to take into account the interaction (gravitational waves are virtually free). In fact, from here follows a rather important theoretical output that is useful for the development of fundamental science.

The results of this experiment lead to the fact that, on the one hand, one class of models that had previously been formulated, and, on the other hand, was thrown out of an even larger class of models that predicted something else. Therefore, here I have such a dual feeling.

We look at what is happening in the Great Universe, completely monstrous sizes, and, looking at this universe, we understand how physics works on a very, very small scale, much less than those on which this monstrous “microscope”-a large adron collader still cannot find new physics. And we still have no ideas on how to build a machine that will allow you to study physics on such a scale. Exploring the universe, you can get such knowledge, which, of course, is absolutely wonderful.

The last question. It seems to you that in the next 50 years, will scientists be able to penetrate the secret of dark matter, dark energy? You see any progress, feel? Are there any steps of any steps?

Complex question. The fact is that if we talk about dark matter, there are a large number of models that do not cause any rejection that do not contradict some kind of logic of building the theory that predict the existence of particles of dark matter, which can be directly detected in the experiment. And thus, you need to either find these particles, or close such models. And there are models that predict particles that exist only in gravitational interactions, and no more others. That is, we can conduct experiments in particle physics and look for these particles, but the model predicts that we will not find anything. And such models are no worse than the previous ones!

If particles of dark matter, these are particles that, be that as it may, participate in us well -known interactions (for example, weak interactions), then in the future for several decades, in principle, must be found. But there are other decisions of this issue. As for the physics of dark energy, this is such a mystery for which it is difficult to name the horizon of solution.