Sir Andrei Konstantinovich Geim is a Fellow of the Royal Society, fellow and British-Dutch physicist born in Russia. Together with Konstantin Novoselov, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2010 for his work on graphene. He is currently Regius Professor and Director of the Center for Mesoscience and Nanotechnology at the University of Manchester.
Andrey Game: biography
Born on October 21, 1958 in the family of Konstantin Alekseevich Geim and Nina Nikolaevna Bayer. His parents were Soviet engineers of German origin. According to Game, his mother's grandmother was Jewish, and he suffered from anti-Semitism because his last name sounded Jewish. Game has a brother, Vladislav. In 1965, his family moved to Nalchik, where he studied at a school specializing in English. Having graduated with honors, he twice tried to enter MEPhI, but was not accepted. Then he applied to MIPT, and this time he managed to get in. According to him, the students studied very hard - the pressure was so strong that people often broke down and left their studies, and some ended up with depression, schizophrenia and suicide.
Academic career
Andrey Geim received his diploma in 1982, and in 1987 he became a candidate of science in the field of metal physics at the Institute of Solid State Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Chernogolovka. According to the scientist, at that time he did not want to pursue this field, preferring particle physics or astrophysics, but today he is happy with his choice.
Geim worked as a research fellow at the Institute of Microelectronics Technologies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and since 1990 at the universities of Nottingham (twice), Bath and Copenhagen. According to him, he could do research abroad and not deal with politics, which is why he decided to leave the USSR.
Work in the Netherlands
Andrey Geim took his first full-time position in 1994, when he became an assistant professor at the University of Nijmegen, where he worked on mesoscopic superconductivity. He later received Dutch citizenship. One of his graduate students was Konstantin Novoselov, who became his main scientific partner. However, according to Geim, his academic career in the Netherlands was far from smooth sailing. He was offered professorships in Nijmegen and Eindhoven, but he refused because he found the Dutch academic system too hierarchical and full of petty politics, it was completely different from the British one, where every employee has equal rights. In his Nobel lecture, Geim later said that this situation was a little surreal, since outside the walls of the university he was warmly welcomed everywhere, including by his supervisor and other scientists.
Moving to the UK
In 2001, Game became Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester, and in 2002 he was appointed Director of the Manchester Center for Mesoscience and Nanotechnology and Langworthy Professor. His wife and long-time collaborator Irina Grigorieva also moved to Manchester as a teacher. Later Konstantin Novoselov joined them. Since 2007, Game has become a senior fellow at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. In 2010, the University of Nijmegen appointed him Professor of Innovative Materials and Nanoscience.
Research
Geim has found a simple way to isolate a single layer of graphite atoms, known as graphene, in collaboration with scientists from the University of Manchester and IMT. In October 2004, the group published their results in the journal Science.
Graphene consists of a layer of carbon, the atoms of which are arranged in two-dimensional hexagons. It is the thinnest material in the world, as well as one of the strongest and hardest. The substance has many potential uses and is an excellent alternative to silicon. According to Geim, one of the first applications of graphene could be the development of flexible touch screens. He did not patent the new material because it would have required a specific application and an industry partner.
The physicist was developing a biomimetic adhesive that became known as gecko tape due to the stickiness of gecko limbs. This research is still in its early stages, but it already gives hope that in the future people will be able to climb onto ceilings like Spider-Man.
In 1997, Geim studied the possibility of magnetism affecting water, which led to the famous discovery of direct diamagnetic levitation of water, which became widely known thanks to the demonstration of a levitating frog. He also worked on superconductivity and mesoscopic physics.
On the topic of selecting his research subjects, Game said he disdains the approach of many choosing a subject for their PhD and then continuing the same topic until retirement. He changed his subject five times before he got his first full-time position, and this helped him learn a lot.
History of the discovery of graphene
One autumn evening in 2002, Andre Geim was thinking about carbon. He specialized in microscopically thin materials and wondered how the thinnest layers of matter might behave under certain experimental conditions. Graphite, composed of monoatomic films, was an obvious candidate for research, but standard methods for isolating ultrathin samples would overheat and destroy it. So Geim assigned one of his new graduate students, Da Jiang, to try to get as thin a sample as possible, at least a few hundred layers of atoms, by polishing a one-inch crystal of graphite. A few weeks later, Jiang brought back a grain of carbon in a petri dish. After examining it under a microscope, Game asked him to try again. Jiang reported that this was all that was left of the crystal. While Game was jokingly reproaching him for having a graduate student rub down a mountain to get a grain of sand, one of his senior comrades saw lumps of used tape in the trash can, the sticky side of which was covered with a gray, slightly shiny film of graphite residue.
In laboratories around the world, researchers use the tape to test the adhesive properties of experimental samples. The layers of carbon that make up graphite are loosely bonded (the material has been used in pencils since 1564 because it leaves a visible mark on paper), so tape easily separates the flakes. Game put a piece of duct tape under a microscope and found that the thickness of the graphite was thinner than what he had seen so far. By folding, squeezing and peeling the tape, he was able to achieve even thinner layers.
Geim was the first to isolate a two-dimensional material: a monatomic layer of carbon, which under an atomic microscope appears as a flat lattice of hexagons, reminiscent of a honeycomb. Theoretical physicists called such a substance graphene, but they did not imagine that it could be obtained at room temperature. It seemed to them that the material would disintegrate into microscopic balls. Instead, Geim saw that the graphene remained in a single plane, which began to ripple as the substance stabilized.
Graphene: remarkable properties
Andrei Geim enlisted the help of graduate student Konstantin Novoselov, and they began studying the new substance for fourteen hours a day. Over the next two years, they conducted a series of experiments during which the material's amazing properties were discovered. Because of its unique structure, electrons, without being influenced by other layers, can move through the lattice unhindered and unusually quickly. Graphene's conductivity is thousands of times greater than copper. Geim's first revelation was the observation of a pronounced "field effect" that occurs in the presence of an electric field, which allows control of conductivity. This effect is one of the defining characteristics of silicon used in computer chips. This suggests that graphene could be the replacement that computer makers have been looking for for years.
The path to recognition
Geim and Konstantin Novoselov wrote a three-page paper describing their discoveries. It was rejected twice by Nature, with one reviewer saying that isolating stable two-dimensional material was impossible and another not seeing “sufficient scientific progress” in it. But in October 2004, an article entitled “Electric field effect in atomically thick carbon films” was published in the journal Science, making a great impression on scientists - before their eyes, science fiction became reality.
Avalanche of discoveries
Laboratories around the world began research using Geim's adhesive tape technique, and scientists discovered other properties of graphene. Although it was the thinnest material in the universe, it was 150 times stronger than steel. Graphene turned out to be pliable, like rubber, and could stretch up to 120% of its length. Thanks to research by Philip Kim and then scientists at Columbia University, it was discovered that this material is even more electrically conductive than previously established. Kim placed graphene in a vacuum, where no other material could slow down the movement of its subatomic particles, and showed that it had a "mobility" - the speed at which electrical charge passes through a semiconductor - 250 times faster than silicon.
Technology race
In 2010, six years after the discovery made by Andrei Geim and Konstantin Novoselov, they were finally awarded the Nobel Prize. Then the media called graphene a “miracle material,” a substance that “could change the world.” He has been approached by academic researchers in the fields of physics, electrical engineering, medicine, chemistry, etc. Patents have been issued for the use of graphene in batteries, water desalination systems, advanced solar panels, and ultra-fast microcomputers.
Scientists in China have created the lightest material in the world - graphene airgel. It is 7 times lighter than air - one cubic meter of the substance weighs only 160 g. Graphene aerogel is created by freeze-drying a gel containing graphene and nanotubes.
The British government has invested $60 million in the University of Manchester, where Game and Novoselov work, to create the National Graphene Institute, which would put the country on par with the world's top patent holders - Korea, China and the United States, which have begun the race to create the first in the world of revolutionary products based on new materials.
Honorary titles and awards
An experiment with magnetic levitation of a living frog did not bring quite the result that Michael Berry and Andrei Geim expected. The Ig Nobel Prize was awarded to them in 2000.
In 2006, Game received Scientific American's 50 award.
In 2007, the Institute of Physics awarded him the Mott Prize and Medal. At the same time, Game was elected a member of the Royal Society.
Geim and Novoselov shared the 2008 Europhysics Prize "for the discovery and isolation of a monatomic layer of carbon and the determination of its remarkable electronic properties." In 2009 he received the Kerber Award.
The next Andrey Geim John Carty Award, which he was awarded by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States in 2010, was given “for his experimental implementation and study of graphene, a two-dimensional form of carbon.”
Also in 2010, he received one of six honorary professorships from the Royal Society and the Hughes Medal "for his revolutionary discovery of graphene and the identification of its remarkable properties." Geim was awarded honorary doctorates from the TU Delft, ETH Zurich, and the universities of Antwerp and Manchester.
In 2010 he became a Knight Commander of the Order of the Netherlands Lion for his contributions to Dutch science. In 2012, Geim was made a Knight Bachelor for his services to science. He was elected a foreign corresponding member of the United States Academy of Sciences in May 2012.
Nobel laureate
Geim and Novoselov were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics for their pioneering work on graphene. Upon hearing of the award, Geim said he did not expect to receive it this year and did not intend to change his immediate plans for this. A modern physicist has expressed hope that graphene and other two-dimensional crystals will change the daily life of mankind in the same way that plastic has done. The award made him the first person to win both the Nobel Prize and the Ig Nobel Prize at the same time. The lecture took place on December 8, 2010 at Stockholm University.
MOSCOW, October 5 - RIA Novosti. The 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics became a holiday for two countries at once, for the homeland of the laureates - Russia, and for their current home - Britain. Swedish academics awarded the highest scientific award to Andrei Geim and Konstantin Novoselov for the discovery of a two-dimensional form of carbon - graphene, causing Russian scientists to lament a brain drain and British ones to hope for the preservation of science funding.
“It’s a pity that Geim and Novoselov made their discoveries abroad,” said RIA Novosti head of the Department of Polymer and Crystal Physics at Moscow State University, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Khokhlov.
“The government should learn from the decision of the Nobel Committee,” said Professor Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, commenting on the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics. He recalled that many scientists, including foreign ones, who work in Britain, may simply leave for other countries if funding is curtailed.
The British government will unveil plans for major cuts in government spending on October 20. Science and higher education are expected to be one of the areas most affected by cuts.
MIPT graduates Geim and Novoselov, working in Manchester, received the award “for innovative experiments in the study of the two-dimensional material graphene.” They will share 10 million Swedish kronor (about one million euros) between themselves. The award ceremony will take place in Stockholm on December 10, the day of the death of its founder, Alfred Nobel.
Graphene became the first two-dimensional material in history, consisting of a single layer of carbon atoms interconnected by a structure of chemical bonds, reminiscent in its geometry of the structure of a honeycomb. For a long time it was believed that such a structure was impossible.
“It was believed that such two-dimensional single-layer crystals could not exist. They must lose stability and turn into something else, because this is actually a plane without thickness,” the former boss of the laureates, director of the Institute for Problems of Microelectronics Technology and Highly Pure Materials of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPTM) told RIA Novosti ) Vyacheslav Tulin.
However, the “impossible” material, as it turns out, has unique physical and chemical properties that make it indispensable in a variety of fields. Graphene conducts electricity as well as copper; it can be used to create touch screens, solar cells, and flexible electronic devices.
“This is a future revolution in microelectronics. If computers are gigahertz now, then there will be terahertz computers, and so on. Transistors and all other elements of electronic circuits will be created on the basis of graphene,” Alexey Fomichev, a professor at the MIPT department of quantum electronics, told RIA Novosti.
Graphene has already found one area of application: solar photovoltaic cells. “Previously, in the production of solar cells, indium oxides doped with tin were used as a transparent electrode. But it turned out that several layers of graphene are much more effective,” said Alexander Vul, head of the laboratory of physics of cluster structures at the St. Petersburg Ioffe Institute of Physics and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
First from Physics and Technology
Andrei Geim and Konstantin Novoselov are the first graduates of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology to receive the Nobel Prize: before that, the founders and employees of MIPT - Pyotr Kapitsa, Nikolai Semenov, Lev Landau, Igor Tamm, Alexander Prokhorov, Nikolai Basov, Vitaly Ginzburg and Alexey Abrikosov. Geim graduated from the Faculty of General and Applied Physics (GPPF) in 1982, Novoselov from the Faculty of Physical and Quantum Electronics (FFQE) in 1997. Both graduates received honors diplomas.
“This is super news. We are very pleased with the decision of the Nobel Committee. MIPT has already sent congratulations to the new Nobel laureates,” MIPT Rector Nikolai Kudryavtsev told RIA Novosti on Tuesday.
According to the rector, the staff “raised their personal files from the archive and made sure that these were outstanding students.” At the same time, Andrei Geim did not enter the institute the first time, having worked at a factory for a year, but “showed persistence” and became a student at MIPT.
“During the entire period of his studies at FOPF, Geim received the highest reviews from teachers. And the diploma committee rated Geim’s final work extremely highly,” said the head of MIPT.
A student of the 152nd group of the Faculty of Physical and Quantum Electronics, Konstantin Novoselov, as Kudryavtsev noted, “attended classes irregularly, but passed all assignments successfully and on time.”
“And the teachers’ reviews of Novoselov are also the highest. This means that he was so talented that, in general, he did not have to attend all classes,” the rector of MIPT commented on the archival documents.
From Shnobel to Nobel
Game's colleague, Konstantin Novoselov, became the youngest Nobel laureate with Russian citizenship: the 36-year-old physicist is six years younger than his Soviet colleague Nikolai Basov, who, at 42, received the 1964 prize for his work in the field of quantum electronics, which led to the creation of emitters and amplifiers based on the laser-maser principle .
The youngest Nobel Prize winner in history was Lawrence Bragg, who at age 25 shared the physics prize with his father, William Henry Bragg. The next four positions on the list of the youngest laureates in history are also occupied by physicists: Werner Heisenberg, Zongdao Li, Carl Anderson and Paul Dirac received the prize at 31 years old.
Konstantin Novoselov, however, will go down in the history of the award as the first representative of the generation born in the 1970s. According to the prize's website, the previous decade's list of laureates includes physicist Eric Cornell, biologists Carol Greider and Craig Mello, as well as US President Barack Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize. There is no one younger than 1961, except Novoselov, on the list of laureates.
Greetings and salutations, everyone! Today we’ll talk about an important city in England. Why important? Basically because Manchester is home to many of the great things we all know and appreciate: it is the birthplace of vegetarianism, the first railway station, the first free library, rock band Oasis and electronic music veterans the Chemical Brothers, plus much more. Damn! Even the world's first modern computer was assembled here!
Let's face it - where would we be today without a computer? The city has a proud history behind it and a thriving culture ahead. He has something to offer you! And we have a selection of 15 impressive facts about this amazing city of development and inspiration. Let's trip to Manchester!
Top 15 facts about Manchester
Manchester, which is also called Madchester (due to the abundance of nightclubs and pubs), over the last hundred years has grown into one of the largest cities in Britain. It is considered not only the second largest city in the United Kingdom, but also the center of Northern England.
Although Manchester is a city with a very rich history, the main direction of its development has always been industry. The center is almost entirely lined with warehouses and manufacturing buildings, entangled in a network of canals and old railway bridges.
- Manchester can be considered the birthplace of programming. It was in this city that it was created world's first car with RAM memory, SSEM (Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine) aka “Baby”.
In 1948, Manchester professors Tom Kilburn and Sir Freddie Williams developed the first computer with program and memory. The commercial computer had a memory of as many as 32 words! Awww, isn't that cute?
“Baby” weighed about half a ton and took up most of a fairly spacious room. An exact replica of the computer can be seen at the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry.
- This is home Black Pudding. Black puddings (" blood", in common parlance) first came to Britain with European monks, who first visited Yorkshire and then crossed the Pennines to Lancashire. There, "bloodwurst" became known as "Black Pudding".
Bury, in Greater Manchester, is the undisputed home of 'black pudding', which was recently declared a 'superfood'. Because of its “nutritial benefits”. Super blood?
Like New York, Greater Manchester is made up of its own boroughs"(Rainov). 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester: Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan, and the cities of Manchester and Salford.
- With a population of 2.5 million, Manchester is the most linguistically diverse city in Western Europe with more than 200 languages. By the way, more students gathered here than in any city in Europe (about 100,000).
University of Manchester gave to the world 25 Nobel laureates. In addition, the university has well « Mummies", where they study ancient Egyptian... mummies (oddly enough). This is not the case in any other university in the world.
- Except first atomic splitting, Manchester is also a city where first law of thermodynamics was discovered by James Prescott Joule in 1850.
And in 2010, scientists from The National Graphene Institute (Andre Geim & Kostya Novoselov) created the world's thinnest material, graphene(layer of carbon atoms), thereby earning himself the Nobel Prize in Physics.
- Manchester - home vegetarianism. Inspired by the preaching of the Reverend William Cosheard, the vegetarian movement began in 1809 in the Salford area. Visitors can now book a membership for a cooking course at the Cordon Vert School, located at the headquarters of the Vegetarian Society.
- Manchester - the world's first industrial city with a rich heritage and industrial architecture. Back in the 19th century, it was nicknamed “Cottonopolis” - “Cottonpolis” or “Cotton Capital”, due to its status as the center of the cotton industry.
- First spinning machine. In 1769, the first waterframe spinning machine was invented by Richard Arkwright. A large spinning mill was opened in Cromford, using water wheel engines. From 1790 he converted his spinning machines to use steam engines.
In addition to the spinning machine, Arkwright invented several other revolutionary devices and machines that increased the efficiency of textile products. This innovation paved the way for mass production and greatly advanced the Industrial Revolution.
- Manchester - home of popular bands, for example, Joy Division, The Chemical Brothers, Buzzcocks, The Smiths, Oasis, The Stone Roses and others. And he is also known world famous Halle Orchestra(Halle Orchestra).
- Manchester Airport is the UK's largest regional airport, serving over 26 million passengers every year.
- On the ceiling of the main entrance of the majestic Manchester Town Hall shows a snake trying to eat its own tail. This one of the oldest symbols in the world is called “ Ouroboros"(ouroboros) and is an ancient pagan icon symbolizing the eternal cycle of life.
- took place in Manchester first international art exhibition, exhibition “The Art Treasures of Great Britain” in 1857. It was and remains the largest art exhibition taking place in the UK, if not the world.
Check out our Video Workshop! There you will find a new video from Expedia with tasks and interesting things to do in Manchester. Check out the beat!
- Filming in Manchester world's longest running television soap opera- Coronation Street. Since December 9, 1960, it has been shown on British television screens every week.
In Britain, the series is usually called "Corrie" for short. The series won four British soap awards for best soap. In 2013, she won Best Drama Television Series at the National Television Awards. Number of episodes: 9,573+.
- "Manchester-Liverpool Railway Station" - the world's first railway station.
In fact, this refers to the British railway, in the region of North West England, between the cities of Liverpool and Manchester. This is the first road in the world where steam engines were used exclusively, horse traction was never used, and where trains ran strictly according to schedule.
The world's first railway with two tracks throughout its entire length; the first railway to have signaling; the first in the world to be used to transport mail.
The opening of the road took place on September 15, 1830. At this event, English MP William Huskisson was hit by a train and died 4 hours later from his injuries; after that he became famous as the first person in the world to die under the wheels of a train.
The station was closed during the extension of the line in 1844 and Victoria station was used as a station. It is currently the oldest train station terminal in the world. The building now houses the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry.
By the way, in all of Manchester there are about 98 stations.
- World annual pie eating championship held at Harry's bar in Wigan, Greater Manchester. Participants compete in eating meat and potato pies against the clock. The competition has been around for over 20 years, and the current record is 23:53 seconds. Would you try to take the first place ?
2 things things to do in Manchester:
1) Taste Chinese cuisine from local Chinatown- a piece of East Asia right in the middle of Foggy Albion.
Manchester's Chinatown has been one of the largest in England since the 70s, but its population has been declining in recent years due to a massive relocation of businesses to the outskirts.
However, this is a real piece of Asia in the middle of Foggy Albion - in Manchester's Chinatown you can find buildings of unique architecture, the Chinese Imperial Arch and most of the city's East Asian restaurants. In addition, at night, the neon signs of Chinatown serve as a good guide.
2)Visit all the most popular nightclubs in one night Manchester— Lola Lo, Gorilla, Antwerp Mansion, Hidden, The Warehouse Project and Albert Hall.
- Right here Rolls met Royce. Rolls-Royce Limited was created during a famous dinner in Manchester in 1904, when car salesman Charles Rolls met engineer Henry Royce at The Midland Hotel.
Silver Ghost(The Silver Ghost), released in 1907, was a car of legendary consistency that was driven 14,371 miles virtually non-stop. For this, the “ghost” was awarded the title “ best car in the world».
Check out the modern Silver Ghost.
Conclusion
This city is too cool to be ignored. We hope that we have inspired you with another interesting and majestic corner of the world!
Big and friendly EnglishDom family
We bring to your attention a musical composition from the artist - iCall Phone, called - Melody that induces sleep Melody that induces deep sleep... Scientists from Manchester who created this melody say: “It slows down breathing and reduces.... On this page you can not only read the words or lyrics of the song iCall Phone - Melody that induces sleep Melody that induces deep sleep... Scientists from Manchester who created this melody say: “It slows down breathing and reduces..., but also take advantage of the opportunity to listen online. To download iCall Phone – Melody that induces sleep Melody that induces deep sleep... Scientists from Manchester who created this melody say: “It slows down breathing and reduces... on your personal computer, click on the appropriate button located to the right of this text.
iCall Phone - A melody that induces sleep A melody that induces deep sleep... Scientists from Manchester who created this melody say: “It slows down breathing and reduces...
188561158
Lyrics iCall Phone - Melody that induces sleep Melody that induces deep sleep... Scientists from Manchester who created this melody say: "It slows down breathing and reduces...
Melody that induces sleep
(“iCall Phone-News”)
The Manchester scientists who created the tune say: "It slows breathing and reduces brain activity to such an extent that there is a feeling of weightlessness and complete relaxation, and the person becomes very sleepy."
The eight-minute track is so effective at inducing sleep that the song's liner notes prohibit motorists from listening to it while driving. A team of scientists worked with doctors to understand what rhythm and melody have a positive effect on relaxation.
As a result, listeners' heart rate slows, blood pressure drops, and levels of the stress hormone cortisol plummet.
The interest in the research carried out by physicists from the University of Manchester is enormous. Recently, at one of the scientific sections of the international Nano and Giga Forum I had to wait quite a long time for my long-planned interview to take place with one of the members of this team, who has Russian roots, Sasha Grigorenko, who was squeezed in a tight ring by scientists from different countries. When my hero found time for me, we went to the student canteen to drink coffee with milk and talk about the future of world science. How does it look from Manchester through the eyes of a former Russian physicist, what useful things can the diaspora do for Russian science, how are graphene theories and experiments developing, why can’t you invest in accelerators, and what does it take to become a successful scientist?
Grigorenko Alexander Nikolaevich Born on February 14, 1963 in the city of Makeevka, Donetsk region, Ukrainian SSR. Graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Energy Problems, and graduate school at the same institute. He worked as a senior researcher at the Institute of General Physics of the USSR Academy of Sciences (then RAS) (1989-1998), a researcher at the Bath Institute (1998-2000) and the Plymouth Institute (2000-2002). Since 2002 - lecturer at the University of Manchester, head of the nano-optical laboratory in the condensed matter group. Hobbies: music, football. Supports Manchester City, plays amateur football with colleagues, is a midfielder on the team
So, my respondent is the head of the Laboratory of Optics of Nanostructured Materials at the University of Manchester, a former researcher at the Institute of General Physics. A. M. Prokhorova Sasha Grigorenko. By the way, about the name. Sasha is not familiarity. The scientist himself decided to formally introduce himself this way after the British recorded him as Alex at one of the international conferences. Then he had to explain to his foreign colleagues that they did not understand anything about Russian names, that in Russia Alex is Alexey, and Alexander is a completely different name. However, it turned out to be difficult for the British to call our compatriot by his full name, and the option “Sasha” was adopted as a compromise.
How the Russians came to the University of Manchester
Sasha, it’s very nice to see you among the speakers at the Nano and Giga Forum. By the way, why did you decide to participate in this event: was it the theme of the conference that attracted you, or perhaps the composition of the participants?
Sasha Grigorenko: To be honest, it was just a good person who invited me. In general, I don’t go to conferences often; I consider it a pointless pastime.
It always seemed to me that scientists, on the contrary, come to large conferences with pleasure and consider participation in such events as confirmation of their status...
SG: That's right, this is considered a confirmation of status, a useful thing for promotion. But I'm far from it. In my opinion, there is no need to specially invent something in order to create a name for yourself in science. If you really do something worthwhile, everything will happen naturally, with rare exceptions. Perhaps this is one of the big problems of modern science: many scientists are busy trying to somehow “brand” themselves. I think the very idea of a brand is wrong. You either did something good - and then people will do the same, or you didn’t. I don’t understand how a person can regularly, every six months or a year, produce results worthy of reports at plenary sessions.
At conferences, of course, contacts are still made. But it all depends on the character of the person. Some people get along with people easily. It costs them nothing to stay and ask the right scientist any question. Others enjoy traveling and changing locations. And there are simply more reserved people. I’m not quite like that: when necessary, I can enter into a discussion, but the road stresses me out. And then, at conferences there is not much time for communication; in this sense, I prefer seminars, where you have the opportunity to see laboratories, talk with people you are interested in as much as necessary. Therefore, I made almost all my contacts with the best scientists at seminars, not at conferences.
Tell us about the group you work in: how was it organized, what is its structure now, what role is assigned to you in the team?
SG: Now this is a large group, about 30 people, led by Andrei Geim, and Kostya Novoselov helps him. The group began when Geim moved to Manchester from Holland in 2000 and began researching solid state physics. At first, all the equipment (of which there was not much) fit in one rather empty large room, and a large grant was still being “written” for the construction of a clean room... Today, our group consists of several small laboratories. One of them, which deals with the magnetic properties of materials, is headed by Irina Grigorieva, wife Andrey Geim(she once worked in Chernogolovka). Another laboratory conducts research on liquid helium, its director is also our compatriot, Andrey Golov. And our small laboratory, which I run, studies the optics of all kinds of nanostructured materials. Everyone in the group actively collaborates—for example, we helped measure the optical properties of graphene. We have quite a lot of fun and it’s customary to do all sorts of funny experiments, which are often discussed together. It’s not like everyone sits in their room and does only their own thing, and doesn’t notice anyone around. If you need help from colleagues, it comes. Sometimes, however, you get a kick in the ass if you talk some nonsense...
SG: From all of us. Everyone takes part and likes to explain how it needs to be done. But they really know how to do it. This is a certain way of conducting a discussion (generated by Phystech): “I’ll now explain to you how it really is...” But this does not mean that we are all self-confident to the point of impossibility. Anyone can admit that they are wrong.
How many people in the group have Russian roots?
SG: Quite a lot - about ten. Although previously in the UK it was impossible to gather more than two Russians in one team. But in Manchester, after the arrival of Andrei Geim, three scientists from Russia appeared at once. Apparently, the British then gave up. And now they have begun to hire foreigners more often - in biology, for example, there are a lot of Chinese.
What Nature regrets
Graphene became popular even before it was awarded the Nobel Prize. Where did this wave come from: from the first article in Science or from the first sample?
SG: I think the last statement is true. Without the first sample, there would not have been the first article in Science... The development of physics, if you look carefully, is always associated with some things that provide some new field of activity. My favorite example is the carbon and iron mixing diagram. It is so complex, and so many discoveries were made so that new materials could appear - damask steel, alloy steel... Whoever succeeded best here ultimately, figuratively speaking, cut everyone to death with a sword. They pumped out the air - we got vacuum technology, liquefied oxygen and helium - cryogenics with superconductivity and superfluidity appeared. But at first, the attitude towards pioneers is almost always wary. The same thing happened when our colleagues, future Nobel laureates, made the first sample of graphene in 2005—there was no applause. Those who have graphene it worked out, they believed them. Those who didn’t succeed, therefore, no. The theory said that this material does not exist. Seriously, theorists have proven that graphene cannot exist in nature. By the way, for this reason the first article was very difficult to pass. Nature did not accept it and, as a result, it was published in Science. Probably, now Nature regrets this a little... And the “wave started” when it became clear that, according to a number of parameters, graphene has the prefix “super” and has extremely interesting physics. For those interested, the canonical history of the birth of graphene is outlined in the Nobel lecture “Random Walk to Graphene.” As is often the case in such cases, the canonical story is much funnier than the apocryphal story.
What did the popularity of graphene give to physicists at the University of Manchester?
SG: She gave a lot, but at the same time she took something away. If you knew how many journalists were there at first, mostly Russian! Then English, Chinese, Japanese... It was impossible to work.
Probably because the public had been waiting for a long time for some kind of scientific revolution, there were even opinions that physicists could no longer surprise the world.
SG: You know, at the end of the 19th century, some also said: “Physics is over!”, and the mathematician Hilbert even proposed - as an urgent problem - the problem of axiomatization of physics. But in the 20th century, the photoelectric effect, quantum mechanics, and strong and weak interactions were discovered. It turned out that we can relax on this score: there is a huge space for activity ahead. Especially now it has become clear that one cannot invest so much money in accelerators, but rather invest it somewhere in research that is driven by curiosity. I am sure that fairy tales about the end of physics will remain fairy tales. But in return I would talk about the end of mathematics. And not because it is no longer possible to say anything new in mathematics, but because the proofs have become so long and endless that a scientist must spend half his life to check them, and at least six months reading a scientific article, which takes at least 100 pages. Maybe that's why Grisha Perelman and didn’t write the article, but simply left his proof of the hypothesis in the archive, and that’s it. Although predictions of the “end” of something should, of course, be treated with humor - we assume, but nature has it.
Where do the holes in the budget of European physics come from?
You made a very interesting point about not investing in accelerators. Why?
SG: Yes, because it’s just a money-eating machine. You know how and what is happening in Russia, don’t you? A program appears and the question immediately arises: what costs the most? Next, we will buy this title for the most money, because this will leave the most money in our pockets. The same thing works for accelerators. Plus, it is unclear whether it will give any result. After particular physicists promise a big explosion in a large accelerator, then maybe the lack of results is for the best?
Why don't you trust them so much?
SG: These guys, sorry, cannot make a normal superconducting magnet. Their helium leaked, the launch of the collider failed, and they spent a whole year repairing this machine. And people are afraid that they will make a black hole! As evil tongues say, they have already created a black hole - in the budget of European physics. In my opinion, these scientists are a little distant from the people. There is a lot to explore without falling into gigantomania. Even with the fundamental concepts of physics, everything is not entirely clear. There is no clear understanding of why thermodynamics and quantum mechanics work. Recipes are often known for how to calculate what, but no one knows why it works one way or another. And how many interesting experiments can be done! Everyone is asking us to discuss the big bang, inflation of the universe, dark energy and cosmic microwave background radiation...
What will a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws of physics provide?
SG: At the moment, the problems in high-energy physics, it seems to me, are as follows. Everything developed by an extensive method, roughly speaking, you simply discovered new particles. But at some stage, the old method, when you took a “sledgehammer”, hit the atoms and watched them fly apart, had exhausted itself - the “sledgehammer” was no longer enough. And then, when you began to hit hard, not the particles of the atom began to fly, but the particles generated by this blow of the “sledgehammer”. It is difficult to understand what is behind this matter. It is quite possible that we will need a different way of understanding nature. It hasn't been opened yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So far, what we know is infinitesimal compared to what actually exists. To the question “what is an electron?” no one will answer intelligently! The same situation is with the quantum description of gravity, which has been struggled with for quite a long time. The simplest example: high-temperature superconductors, which have made a lot of noise in science. I remember well 1986, the packed hall of Ginzburg’s seminar... More than twenty years have passed since that moment, and things are still the same: no one, having all the skills of modern physics, can yet explain why electrons pair at such high temperatures. And if this had become clear, we would have long ago used conductors in power lines that would not lose energy at all during its transmission.
Why is graphene needed?
Tell me, how far has the work on graphene progressed since the Nobel Prize was awarded for its discovery?
SG: We've made a lot of progress. I would say that a kind of renaissance has begun. Graphene has already been “hydrogenated”, fluorinated - after all, graphene is a large and flat organic macromolecule. After graphene, they made boronitrite, an analogue of graphene, only a dielectric. And now our Nobel laureates are exploring its physics. It's quite interesting. Plus, all sorts of man-made layered structures based on graphene and hybrid structures are being created.
Graphene has gained incredible popularity, including thanks to journalists. But isn't such a hype around it premature? Is this material really capable of radically changing our lives?
SG: Time will show. You need to relax about this. Each person can and should have their own opinion. I worked in Institute of General Physics named after. A. M. Prokhorova, whose scientists are known to have received the Nobel Prize in 1964 for their work on lasers. Then, too, at first many said: who needs this generator or amplifier - a completely pointless exercise! But when several options for laser and spectroscopy were presented, the attitude changed to the opposite. Let's face it, laser is one of the most used devices nowadays. CD-writer, DVD-writer, navigation, cutting materials... Any reading of digital information relies on lasers. I hope the same will happen with graphene. One thing is certain: at the moment, graphene has given a lot of interesting things to physics and, I’m almost sure, it will give even more over time. This is a revolutionary discovery, a new material and a new way to make two-dimensional materials. Some will say that this is obvious. But then why couldn’t it be done for so many years?
Until when will graphene research continue? What result must be obtained in order for it to be considered satisfactory and final?
SG: It's impossible to say. Every time something new is discovered. So far we have only scraped the tip of the iceberg.
How to raise the H-index
What do you consider to be your main scientific achievement?
SG: I hope it’s still ahead of me.
And more specifically, what is your “calling card” in science? How do you present yourself?
SG: I don’t present myself in any way. I just like to learn new things and do physical research. It's great when your profession is your hobby.
What about others? You are probably wondering how you are seen from the outside, for example, by colleagues, reviewers of your articles?
SG: Not very interesting, to be honest. If they accept the article, it’s good; if they don’t, it’s bad, that’s all. By and large, I am on good terms with everyone. Although, as practice shows, if you do something good and new, then most likely it will be difficult to get through. The example with graphene is proof of this. But, I hope, not everything is done yet. In principle, if a person knows his purpose, then everything in life is simple for him: he hammers at one point - it will work out or not. He doesn’t have to think about fame or bonuses. He knows that he needs to dig from here until the end of his life, and that's what he does.
What are you digging for?
SG: We'll find out over time. If I dig up anything, I'll be sure to tell you. There are different people. Someone picks apples, sets up stepladders - sometimes the fruits are better, sometimes worse. Newton collected pebbles, as you remember. He said: “I didn’t discover anything, I just collected pebbles on the seashore. Once upon a time the pebble turned out better, more transparent, but at other times it turned out worse.”. To each his own. Digging is a little harder because it is not clear whether you are digging a gold mine or waste rock. But no one interferes.
During the digging process, do you report on how much and what you dug up?
SG: My main responsibility is to lecture to students, then laboratory and science. Science is a happy opportunity when there are no students. In my opinion, a scientist should not be accountable to anyone for the results of research, except perhaps to himself. If you can do something for others, that’s great.
How do you win grants: what do you usually write in applications?
SG: In your application you need to present your idea well, explain why this grant should be given to you and not to someone else. For this, it would be nice to have a decent article and work done that shows that this is a new direction worthy of funding. It's usually easier then.
Do your track record and impact factor play any role in this?
SG: They play, of course. In addition, in England it is very important where you are from. If you are from Oxford or Cambridge, then it is, of course, easier to get a grant.
What is your H-index?
SG: Small, 20. I don’t believe in this index, to be honest, despite the fact that the madness with its calculations has affected all progressive humanity. As soon as it came out, it made sense. But after 10 years, its relevance has faded. If you look at the number of journals, it increased exponentially once people were told that they had to have a high H-index. All professors and other citizens holding important positions began to publish not 5, but 15 articles a year. Accordingly, if in each article you cite at least five or ten of your works, in a matter of years you will have an H-index of 40. Most people who publish dozens of articles a year often repeat the same thing in their publications, citing the same and the same works. It costs nothing to raise the H-index in five years.
In this case, is it possible to create a more advanced model for calculating the effectiveness of scientists?
SG: In my opinion, no. It's all pointless. One number cannot reflect the diversity of a scientist’s work. Of course, it would be more or less fair to take into account in these rankings a small number of journals that publish something good. If you published there, then you have undoubtedly achieved something in life. In principle, this is enough to be able to apply for grants. With all this, you need to understand that there are people who have just graduated from college, and they cannot publish in large journals, but they can also do good science, and they also need to be given a chance, given grants. It shouldn’t be like it is now in England, where they fell in love with mega-grants. It seems to me that some part of the money needs to be divided into reasonably small grants in order to give them to people who will say: “I want to explore it because it’s interesting.”. For example, under the current system it would be impossible to win a grant for graphene. First, no one would believe that it was possible to obtain a stable two-dimensional material, since theorists had shown that this was impossible. Secondly, there is a problem with abstracting - the people who abstract your articles or review applications do approximately the same thing in science... They can use your idea.
What is Russian science missing?
What, in your opinion, are the main disadvantages of the British scientific environment?
SG: Of course, in England everything is funny too. There is a lot of competition among universities there; many large grants are taken away by Oxford, Cambridge and London. However, there is a non-zero percentage of grants (~25 percent) that others can honestly win. This, in my opinion, is the main difference between Western science and Russian science, where grants are often received through acquaintances.
How do you know this?
SG: Hearsay, as the English say, that is, a rumor. In Russia there is no transparency and there is the possibility of cashing out, whereas in the West, whatever you asked for money for is what you have to spend it on. Again, unlike Russia, in England there is no such thing as being told: “The idea is good, but we will give you 40 percent of what you ask.”. We cut it by a maximum of 10 percent, because everyone understands that if you cut more, the work simply won’t be done. Whether the result will work out or not is another question. But you definitely can’t take grant money and tell everyone to go to hell.
Do you maintain scientific contacts with Russian colleagues?
SG: Once supported, recently not. At some point in Russia it became very difficult to do science, research was practically not funded, and it was not clear how we could help each other. It's easier now. Maybe we can do something together.
How much, if not a secret, does a British scientist earn?
SG: A little. In principle, Russia could easily pay the same money. Why she doesn't want to do this is a good question.
Would you return to work in Russia for a salary comparable to your current one?
SG: I would think about it ten times. In general, I left quite late, in 1998, and without much desire. It’s just that then there were problems with my health, I still had to support my family, and I received very little. With all my love for my homeland, it was impossible to live on a meager amount, which was not always given out. And it’s very difficult to constantly earn money from grants, which is what we mainly did then. As a result, instead of working, you become a grant writing machine. In fact I would think very carefully before returning. I have been living in England for more than ten years, I know more or less everything there...
But still, you don’t rule out the possibility of returning?
SG: I would probably move somewhere for a temporary position, for 7-10 years. In the West, people rarely work in one place all the time. They often choose a new challenge, a new business. I think this is reasonable. You don’t have to sit still all the time and say: “I am a patriot of this place, I love it very much”. Sometimes moving in space leads to the emergence of new thoughts. You find yourself in a different environment, you are asked different questions, and they may have more interesting answers. As for Russian science, I have the complete feeling that no one gives a damn about it. If there is oil, then why do we need science? Maybe this is right - who knows... It seems to me that those at the top decided: since the intelligentsia does not like us, then instead of them we will be friends with bikers...
Are you aware of how Russian science is being reformed today: new support funds, corporations, and Skolkovo are appearing?
SG: Certainly. I have friends here with whom I constantly communicate. As for reforms, I think there are still many things that make sense to do, for example, the Academy of Sciences should be sharply cut.
SG: I have been to academic institutions where there is nothing at all except firms. It is obvious that scientists do not appear there at all and there is no science. I won’t argue: there are institutions that work. But they should be left, and the rest should be trimmed and part of the science should be moved outside of Moscow, to the countryside, to build a normal academic campus. Science cannot live in such an expensive city where it takes an hour and a half to get to work! This is pointless, just like building Skolkovo in the best area, in which it is clear who will live in a while.
Who will go to this village?
SG: Euler went to dirty, wet Petersburg, where there is no summer...
That was in the 18th century...
SG: Scientists don’t need much: a normal salary, food, housing and a place to do science. This is already enough for something reasonable to happen. Now, in principle, if you create good living conditions, do science using modern instruments, invite a number of guys who will build all this...
And would you go to the Russian outback?
SG: I don’t know yet, it depends on the offer. Most likely, as long as Putin is in power, no. And not because I don’t like Putin. He just had carte blanche to do well. He was president for quite a long time, the country received a lot of money, oil cost $150 per barrel, the stabilization fund was huge. It was possible to make 3-4 normal scientific programs. Why he didn't do this is an unanswered question. I'm not a big fan of managers like Chubais. How he survived throughout the entire perestroika or privatization, I cannot understand. It is very strange to me that he is now running Rusnano.
Do you think that all the problems of Russian science are due to the imperfection of the political system?
SG: Definitely. You can say whatever you want about the West, but there are elections there. There, one party can actually defeat another. There are no elections in Russia. As the guys at the top agree, so it will be. I repeat once again: maybe this is reasonable for Russia. As you know, it cannot be understood with the mind and cannot be measured with a common yardstick.
What is your citizenship?
SG: Russian.
SG: I have voted twice in my life. Once against Tikhonov, who was Chairman of the Council of Ministers in the 1980s and who, at the age of 80 (!), ran for the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (if my memory serves me correctly). We were interested in checking whether the percentage of those voting “yes” would be different from 100 percent? By the way, we were the only people in our district who asked: “Where is the voting booth?” After that, the party organizer of the institute came to us and convinced: “Guys, you still have time to live in this country”. But formally the voting was secret... The second time I voted against Yeltsin, or rather, “against everyone” during the second presidential elections in the Russian Federation in 1996. The idea was that if you vote against everyone, then new candidates will come. The President was ill, and it was clear that he would not govern the country, that someone else would take his place. But in both cases, the election results turned out to be such that it became clear that the actual votes of the voters meant little in them. After that I didn't vote again. No, I have not become apolitical. But until it is clear that there is an opportunity to change at least something, what is the point of expressing your will? They still don’t take her into account... The only reason you could go is so that your voice is not used.
Politics aside, what do you think determines success in the scientific process? Maybe there are some other priority things that are not properly taken into account in the organization of Russian science?
SG: You know, I was terribly lucky with the team that Andrei Game assembled in Manchester. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be great if Russia also understood that personnel decides everything. In principle, there is everything to restore the Russian scientific school, undermined by perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would be great if this happened in the next decade.
Natalia Bykova
