Mikhail Iosifovich Katsnelson(born August 10, 1957, Magnitogorsk, USSR) - Soviet and Russian theoretical physicist, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (1985), professor at Radboud University (Netherlands, 2004).

Laureate of the Lenin Komsomol Prize (1988), honorary doctor of Uppsala University (Sweden, 2012), knight of the Order of the Netherlands Lion (2011), laureate of the Spinoza Prize (2013).

Biography

Born on August 10, 1957 in Magnitogorsk into a Jewish family. In 1972 he graduated from physics and mathematics school No. 53 in Magnitogorsk. In 1977 he graduated from the Ural State University.

He worked as the head of the laboratory of quantum theory of metals at the Institute of Metal Physics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (1985), Professor (1992-2001).

In 2002-2004 he was a visiting professor at Uppsala University, and since 2004 he has lived and worked in the Netherlands.

In 2013 he was awarded the Spinoza Prize (named after Benedict Spinoza) for developing the basic concept and concepts that operate in graphene science. In 2014 he was elected a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences.

Main results in the field of theory of strongly correlated systems, physics of magnetism, graphene. Participated in the discovery of chiral quasiparticles in single- and double-layer graphene, ripples on graphene, hydrogenated graphene (graphane), and the creation of the first graphene transistor. He predicted “Klein tunneling,” which determines the features of electron transport in graphene and was confirmed experimentally.

Married, has two children. Orthodox religion.

Awards

Lenin Komsomol Prize (1988)
Knight of the Order of the Netherlands Lion (2011)
Spinoza Prize (2013)
Hamburger Preis fr Theoretische Physik (2016)

Bibliography

Quantum solid state physics (co-authored with S. V. Vonsovsky). M.: Nauka, 1983
S. V. Vonsovsky, M. I. Katsnelson. Quantum Solid State Physics. Berlin: Springer, 1989
S. P. Shubin (1908-1938). Selected works on theoretical physics: life sketches, memoirs, articles. Compiled by S. V. Vonsovsky and M. I. Katsnelson. Sverdlovsk: USSR Academy of Sciences, Ural Branch, 1991
Magnetism of itinerant electrons (co-authored with Yu. A. Izyumov, Yu. N. Scriabin). M.: Nauka, 1994
Introduction to the theory of relativity (co-authored with B. Kh. Ishmukhametov). Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 1996
Mechanics (co-authored with B. Kh. Ishmukhametov). Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 1999
Charters of heaven: 16 chapters about science and faith (together with V. Yu. Irkhin). Ekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2000.
Phoenix wings. Introduction to quantum mythophysics (together with V. Yu. Irkhin). Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 2004.
Dynamics and thermodynamics of a crystal lattice (co-authored with A. V. Trefilov). M.: Energoatomizdat, 2002
Introduction to the theory of elementary particles and atomic nuclei (co-authored with B. Kh. Ishmukhametov). Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 2011
Katsnelson M. I. Graphene: Carbon in Two Dimensions. - New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. - 366 p. - ISBN 978-0-521-19540-9.

“If science fails, we will all die”

Outstanding physicist Mikhail Katsnelson became a laureate of the Chelyabinsk Oleg Mityaev Prize

Mikhail Katsnelson

On Sunday at the Chelyabinsk Drama Theater. Naum Orlov hosted the XIV ceremony of awarding the winners of the “Bright Past” award - a unique event, which has no analogues in other regions of Russia. The prize is also unique - each nominee (and they are natives of the Southern Urals who have achieved outstanding success) receives a statuette of a centaur by Ernst Neizvestny. Only two works by the sculptor served as a prototype for awards: the domestic television “Oscar” - TEFI and ... the Chelyabinsk “Bright Past”. The founder and main inspirer of the award is People's Artist of Russia Oleg Mityaev, whose “Bending of the Yellow Guitar” became the unspoken anthem of all bard songs.

This year, in addition to well-known and beloved cultural figures, the nominees also included people who are practically unknown outside their professional circle.

— Oleg Grigorievich, tell me honestly: will the next, 15th prize take place?

- I have no doubts. It will take place in any weather and under any circumstances. Forgive us, Lord, if anything happens, but it seems to me that the prize will always continue, its fate no longer depends on us. It would be stupid to stop presenting the award, having fourteen years of experience in holding this holiday and bringing benefits to fellow countrymen. This experience should only expand.

— As far as I understand, this is not only 14 years of celebration, but also 14 years of struggle. How much do the current authorities in the region help you compared to previous administrations?

— It must be said that the situation in the region is changing along with the situation in the country. It was a different time, there were sponsors, we flew in and brought all the guests on a charter plane. Then the situation changed. The authorities did not get involved right away, but now their help is quite noticeable. However, we cannot do without sponsors, and, unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer of them.

— Have you thought about crowdfunding? This is a fancy word for public fundraising. This is how we organize jazz concerts.

— (with interest) I haven’t thought about it yet, but this is a topic. You know, now Puskepalis (Sergei, star of the film “How I Spent This Summer”, one of the nominees for the “Bright Past” award - author’s note) said that when he was the chief director of the Magnitogorsk Drama Theater, turning to the mayor of the city, he said : “Give us one hockey team player’s salary for the theater...” What team is there?

- "Metallurgist".

- "Metallurg"! One hockey player’s salary for the entire theater would be enough for him! I think that one hockey player’s salary would also be enough for us (laughs). Because work goes on not only on these two days [when the prize is awarded]. Work continues throughout the year. People are looking for friends, relatives, preparing materials, looking for money, among other things. This is quite serious work for our entire foundation.

The “Bright Past” Award Ceremony was sold out in Chelyabinsk

— Tell me, does the composition of the secret conclave, which decides who gets the prize and who doesn’t, change from year to year? Or is it some kind of stable backbone?

“Unfortunately, we are losing people. The wonderful woman Tatyana Leonidovna Ishukova (the legendary Chelyabinsk weather forecaster - author's note) is no longer with us; she was the adornment of the competition commission and a famous person who could be trusted. And so, yes... Several times there were some proposals to lobby someone, but they did not go through.

You see, we cannot make decisions based on the popularity of this or that person. If we were guided by this parameter, we would never have made a theoretical physicist a laureate.

— By the way, yes, this question is on the tip of my tongue. It’s clear why the same Puskepalis or Pal (star of the film “Bitter!” - author’s note) were nominated, but how did the physicist Katsnelson get into this company?

“Unfortunately, this decision had to be explained to the commission. Because without physics we... Go nowhere. You know, if we don’t understand something, then we should at least know that we don’t understand. Last week’s phrase was: “You must remember one thing: you have sclerosis.”

— The award ceremony takes place against the backdrop of a rather bleak information noise. Chelyabinsk residents have been leaving the city in all directions for the last couple of years. Mainly due to environmental issues...

- Firstly, they are doing the right thing. This is the voice of reason. After all the emissions and even the information we have, it is impossible to stay in the city. Another thing is that many do not have the opportunity to leave. And what remains for them? They can only fight for the ecology of the city. I completely understand these people and am ready to assist them in every possible way.

— You come to Chelyabinsk year after year, have you seen any changes this time?

- Well... (after thinking) I haven’t seen anything yet except the air temperature, let’s put it that way. It's real winter now. The day before we performed in Sochi, it’s such a dull city in winter (laughs)! And our snow crunches. Dumplings. Chelyabinsk men are so tough that they lace their shoes with rebar.

the site spoke with one of the most serious and unexpected (against the background of theater and film stars) nominees - theoretical physicist Mikhail Katsnelson. He was born in Magnitogorsk, lived briefly in Chelyabinsk, graduated from the Ural State University in Sverdlovsk and today is one of the luminaries of European theoretical physics, living and working in the Netherlands since 2004. In 2013 he was awarded the Spinoza Prize (named after Benedict Spinoza) for developing the basic concept and concepts that operate in graphene science. In 2014 he was elected a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences.

— Mikhail Iosifovich, tell me straight: how can you explain to an ordinary Chelyabinsk resident what you do?

- That's a good question. Let me tell you a story instead of an answer. When I lived in Sweden, beyond the Arctic Circle, in Lapland, in one place on the border with Norway there were schools twice. This is a ski resort. Sasha Lichtenstein and I, with whom we not only work, but have also been friends since our first year, he is now a professor in Hamburg, went to the sauna there. At that time, the World Championships in some special types of this alpine skiing were just taking place there, and these athletes were there. They asked us exactly the same question “what do you do?”, and I could not answer this question, but Sasha Lichtenstein could.

He said, “Do you have those black electric stoves?” - Eat. - “Is there such a glass thing there?” - Yes. - “When you turn on the stove, it’s hot here and cold here, right?” - Yes. - “But it doesn’t crack.” - Yes. - “Why doesn’t it crack? Because it has a zero coefficient of thermal expansion.” The athletes said: “Ahh” (laughs). Here I am, the person who explained why this material has a zero coefficient of thermal expansion. Sometimes we physicists do something that actually goes into everyday life.

I work a lot with graphene, I work a lot with magnetic materials, but still not to such an extent that what I have done will go into everyday life, so that it directly concerns every person. Our goal, after all, is to achieve a deeper understanding of the properties of materials. I study the deep physical mechanisms that determine: why this material conducts electricity well, and this one poorly, why this one is transparent, and this one is black, and this one is yellow, why this one is fragile, and this one is plastic, and so on. . This is the purpose of our profession. I don’t know if this will be clear to all Chelyabinsk residents, but this is what we do.

— You grew up and formed here in the Urals. At the same time, you have seen the world and are now working abroad. Tell me, is the Ural character a myth, or does it really exist?

- I don't know. The Urals are also very big, and the people here are different. I grew up in Magnitogorsk and partly in Chelyabinsk, we had relatives living here, and I visited them often. When my mother was ill and it was impossible to leave me in Magnitogorsk, I even studied at school here for several months. Then he studied in Sverdlovsk. This, of course, is a certain situation... I don’t know if this is connected with nature, but these are harsh proletarian cities next to large factories, cities with an active and not always safe street life. Then, from the age of fifteen I lived outside the home, I lived in a hostel, where I also had to... (shows fist) survive and also get pleasure from it. It certainly shaped me. For good or bad, I don't know. I'm afraid I'm probably a little more aggressive as a result than I'd like. I would like to be a little softer, more relaxed, and able to enjoy life. But this life, in general, has led to the fact that you must constantly be collected, constantly be in some tension, be ready to stand up for yourself and for your loved ones. I don’t know if this is specific to the Urals? I think this is specific to these types of cities around the world. But people who went through this school of life in childhood and adolescence, you can immediately notice them. And to some extent, I am like that myself.

— In the interview, you quite clearly distinguish between the concepts of “my country” and “the country in which I work.”

— Do you feel like you’re on a business trip in the Netherlands? Or is this still a second home for you?

— You see, I like living in the Netherlands. Firstly, it is much more comfortable. My wife Marina and I just walk in the evenings, and it’s very pleasant, we enjoy it. We come to Yekaterinburg - we go there very often - we go out into the street, and there are cars, and noise, and dirt, and it’s hard to breathe... Of course, in the Netherlands, in terms of everyday life, it’s comfortable. But if we exclude this, then I still work in the Netherlands. Physics plays a huge role in my life, without it I would be a completely different person, and it is very good to work in this country. In this sense, my professional life is connected with my university, with the Dutch scientific community, where I feel like a fish in water.

But I can’t bring myself to be interested in Dutch politics, Dutch life, their culture; all this is still not very close to me. I read news from Russia all the time and worry, although it’s stupid, because I can’t influence anything. Then I write poetry and something else - all in Russian. I discuss various issues, mainly related to Russian literature. The Russian language, Russian culture, Russian literature - all this is infinitely important to me, and, of course, in this sense I cannot say that the Netherlands is my country. This is after all the place where I work. But I must say that this is still an ideal place to work (laughs). I received ideal working conditions and I am of course very grateful for that.

— I am a Soviet person who graduated from a Soviet school, and for me it is paradoxical and absurd that creationism (a theological concept that explains the world as something created by God - author’s note) can in the modern world be seriously considered as a theory with equal rights scientific theories of the origin of the Universe, life on Earth, and so on. Do you think the scientific picture of the world will stand or fall under the blows of obscurantists?

— From my point of view, creationism is stupidity, I don’t agree with it, that’s obvious. But this is a special case of a much more general problem - the problem of interaction between the scientific community and society as a whole. People don't understand what we do. It's really not easy to explain. To my great regret, many of my colleagues - since science requires money and some kind of popularity - take the easy path, exaggerate achievements, downplay difficulties, sometimes intimidate: “a meteorite is flying towards us, immediately give us money for research, and we will We’ll explain to you what to do when it falls.” I don't like this at all.

There is a huge gap between the scientific picture of the world formed in the scientific community and the picture of the world that the general public perceives as “scientific”.

And here the matter does not come down to obscurantism in the sense that you put into your question. There are extremely anti-religious people who sincerely revere science, sincerely believe in it, but if you talk to them about what they understand by the term “science”, it becomes clear that they have such a terrible mess in their heads that it has nothing to do with it at all to real science.

This is a huge problem. I don't know how to solve it. I personally try to popularize it in various forms, write some articles and books, give lectures, and so on. But if society completely ceases to understand what real science is, how it works and what is necessary for it, it will feed on some kind of illusions, not only obscurantist, but also anti-obscurantist... Some fighters fight obscurantists so much that one remembers the Soviet joke: “Wars there won’t be, but there will be such a struggle for peace that no stone will be left unturned.” If these illusions become stronger, they will completely distort society’s ideas about science, the wrong people will go into science, science will not receive the necessary resources and, in the end, science will collapse.

And if science fails, we will all die. Because few people understand that with the traditional way of farming, the Earth will not feed seven billion inhabitants. There are billions of people living on Earth because we use medicine. Maybe it was stupid to start this race with bacteria and antibiotics, but we will not jump off this needle. If we don't develop new drugs, we will die. If we abandon all the achievements of the “green revolution”, we will die of hunger, and so on. You see, this is a very sore point.

I feel the gap between what science is and how society perceives it is widening. Moreover, this is not a purely Russian problem, it is a global problem. It’s just that in Russia, as usual, some problems are taken to the extreme and to the point of absurdity.

Received by a native of Russia, Mikhail Katsnelson. The report said that Katznelson received the award for “using ideas from particle physics to study graphene.” Mikhail Katsnelson himself told Lenta.ru what exactly these ideas were and how they were used.

Lenta.ru: This year you received the Spinoza Prize. As follows from the official statement, for work on graphene. Tell us more about them.

First of all, I will say that before the start of all this activity in 2004, I was very far from graphene. More precisely, I studied magnetism, the physics of strongly correlated systems (all sorts of superconductivity). No nanotubes, quantum Hall effect and other sections typical for a graphene specialist. However, in 2004 I am here in Nijmegen ( At that time, Mikhail Katsnelson already lived in the Netherlands - approx. "Tapes.ru"), met with Andrei Geim and Kostya Novoselov. Kostya was a graduate student here, just defending his dissertation, and Andrey was present as a co-supervisor of the work. I wanted to talk to him about Kostya’s dissertation - it was on magnetism, a topic close to me at that time. Andrey almost immediately told me that they were no longer working on this topic, and began asking some questions that were related to graphene - about Dirac electrons in a magnetic field. Somehow, word by word, I found myself involved in this activity.

At first, I must admit, I didn’t take it all very seriously. And then it turned out that I have been doing this for eight years - now graphene activity makes up 70 percent of all my work. Perhaps the fact that I came from a different area played into my hands and gave me the opportunity to look at many issues from a slightly different angle than people with the right, so to speak, background looked at. At that time, it was known that current carriers in graphene are (terminology) massless Dirac fermions. Simply put, they resemble particles that have been accelerated to speeds on the order of the speed of light. That is, these very fermions are described by equations similar to the equations of such relativistic particles in accelerators, with the only difference that the role of the speed of light there is played by a value 300 times less than this speed. This is, if you like, a model of the Universe in which the world constants are different, but the laws of physics are, in general, the same.

The Spinoza Prize, named after the Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza, was founded by the Netherlands Organization for Basic Scientific Research (NWO) in 1995. This is the highest scientific award in the Netherlands. It is awarded to Dutch scientists who occupy leading positions in science. There is no clear list of scientific fields considered by the commission - the decision on the award is made for each nominated scientist separately. The winners receive a bronze statue of Spinoza and also share 2.5 million euros, which they can spend on further scientific research.

It turned out that such a view from the side of relativistic quantum mechanics (the theory of quantum objects that also obey the theory of relativity) turned out to be very fruitful. Apparently our most famous work on graphene theory is what we called Klein tunneling (), and it is my understanding that it received special mention in the prize.

This is what it's about. There is such a phenomenon in quantum mechanics - tunneling. It is very important because it determines many useful phenomena: some types of nuclear decay, radioactivity, effects in semiconductor electronics. The essence of the phenomenon is as follows: quantum particles, unlike classical ones, can pass through potential barriers with some probability. That is, if you put a wall, then a particle can leak through it. There is a subtlety here: it is believed that quantum mechanics works for everything small, and classical mechanics for everything big, therefore, when the barrier becomes high and wide, then quantum mechanics must coincide with classical mechanics. This means that there will be no tunneling. But for ultrarelativistic particles, for all sorts of very deep and interesting reasons, the situation is different: they pass through the barrier no matter how high and wide it is. This is a very general and very interesting property, which we called Klein tunneling, because it is somehow remotely related to the so-called Klein paradox in quantum mechanics (I certainly won’t explain this now). Over time, it turned out that this is a very important thing. Three years later, this effect was experimentally confirmed. I was, of course, head over heels happy: this is the highest joy for a theorist - to correctly predict something. It is not very often that this succeeds at all.

Who confirmed it?

The first was Philip Kim's group at Columbia University in New York (they, by the way, were the main competitors of Andrey and Kostya in graphene matters). Now this has probably already been confirmed in dozens of works. But the main beauty of this work is that it explained why graphene is interesting in principle.

The fact is that in graphene, as in semiconductors, there are holes and there are electrons. In this case, the material can be easily switched from one conductivity to another - for example, from hole conductivity (when the main charge carriers are positively charged holes) to electron conductivity and vice versa. To do this, it is enough, say, to apply an external electrical voltage, in English called gate voltage, to a graphene sheet. Moreover, under normal conditions, graphene always contains internal inhomogeneities, that is, there are areas with electronic conductivity and there are areas with hole conductivity - such electron and hole puddles (). Why does this happen? This is due, for example, to the fact that graphene is two-dimensional, and any two-dimensional systems at any finite temperature experience strong fluctuations. So, if there were no Klein tunneling, which allows electrons to pass through hole regions and vice versa, then all the electrons in graphene would sit in these puddles and graphene itself would not be a conducting material.

Another important fact: in almost any other semiconductor material you cannot go from electronic conduction to hole conductivity continuously, you necessarily pass through an insulator region when the material stops conducting at all. There is no such region in graphene - this is also a consequence of various kinds of relativistic effects described in my work on the quantum minimum conductivity of graphene.

Be that as it may, all this suggests that graphene electronics cannot be built as an analogue of silicon or germanium electronics. In the simplest transistors, by applying voltage to the central region (for example, electronic), you can lock or unlock it. Because of Klein tunneling, you will never be able to lock a regular transistor in graphene. That is, the graphene transistor must be designed completely differently.

Together with my Manchester friends, I participated in some fundamental work in this area - how to properly make a graphene transistor. The best we could offer was the so-called vertical geometry. With this scheme, the current does not flow through the graphene sheet, but from one sheet to another ( and ).

I must say that all the other words that I said - the existence of minimal quantum conductivity, hole and electron puddles - are also related to some of my work. That is, from my point of view, I was able to significantly participate in the formation of the language for this new area, which, in general, everyone is now using. And I'm glad that the scientific community found these works important.

What is the current state of all this science? You say that you have been actively involved in this in recent years.

The condition is excellent. Graphene is just some kind of fairy tale for several reasons. Well, first of all, people are good ( laughs).

And secondly, a wonderful balance between theory and experiment, a real full-fledged collaboration. That is, as soon as some effect is predicted, it is immediately tested. Or, let's say, an experiment is conducted - and then theorists begin to explain the information received. We can say that all this activity around graphene is simply exemplary physics. If, for example, we compare it with another current fashionable area, where, in general, many people are already gradually moving from graphene - with the so-called topological insulators - then such a balance, in my opinion, has not yet been achieved. There, roughly speaking, there are a hundred (or a thousand) theorists per experimenter. Everyone’s imagination works, but there are not enough experiments to bring theorists to Earth.

And yet, graphene is a fairly simple system, not like the same high-temperature superconductors. There are so many fancy things there: their chemical formulas are quite complex, and their crystal structure is complex - a million different factors. Therefore, in general, there are no special breakthroughs. Now - how long? - People have been poking around for 25 years, but we can’t say that we understood something important there, that we solved the problem. And in graphene, since the people are good, since theorists and experimenters interact remarkably well, and since the system is still relatively simple, the progress is colossal. At the moment, at the level of the single-particle theory of graphene (the simplest model in which the interaction of charge carriers with each other is not considered), almost everything has already been done: a language has been developed, the main effects have been discovered. I even became a little bored, I admit, and I was thinking about moving to another area. But again, thanks to the fact that colossal progress in experimental technology, the quality of the samples has become so high that it has become possible to suppress all these puddles that I spoke about and which interfere with the observation of all sorts of subtle effects, to come very close to the so-called Dirac point, to the most interesting case, and many-particle effects began to be observed experimentally - effects that are significantly related precisely to the interaction of electrons with each other. And it’s like a new world has opened up again. That is, the future of graphene theory lies precisely in such many-particle effects - there are now a lot of interesting problems here.

You mentioned the Dirac point. Tell us more about her.

I hope your readers remember from school that one of the starting points of quantum mechanics was Niels Bohr's theory of the atom. One of the main provisions of this theory stated that electrons in an atom cannot have any energy, but only certain discrete energy levels. Now this has already been tested many times in practice - for example, in isolated systems (they can even be called “artificial atoms”), known as quantum dots, the energy spectrum is discrete (that is, it consists of individual values).

If we move on to solids, then the spectrum is more complex. In conventional semiconductors we are faced with this situation: some energy bands are completely filled, and some are completely empty. If we have a partially filled band of these allowed energies, it is a metal, a conductor. If some stripes are completely filled and others are empty, it is a semiconductor or an insulator. Graphene is completely unique because in its ground state it also has a completely filled band and a completely empty band, but there is no gap between them. And if you look at how it all looks, draw a picture of how this energy center is structured, then this filled strip can be represented as a kind of cone, on which the same cone stands on top. The most interesting place in the electron spectrum is this very top of the cone. Well, if, as we know how to do in semiconductor physics and metal physics, we try to build some kind of model—we, physicists, say Hamiltonian—that describes such a situation, then it will be very similar to the Dirac Hamiltonian of relativistic quantum mechanics.

This point is called the Dirac point. If graphene is not doped (that is, we do not additionally push either electrons or holes into the graphene), then at this point there is the most interesting physics.

At this point very interesting electronic effects appear. One of the foundations of our understanding of solids and condensed matter in general (solids and liquids) is the theory of Fermi liquid, developed by the great Soviet physicist Lev Landau. Roughly speaking, this theory says that adding electrons to the equations of the one-electron theory of interaction does not lead to any new qualitative effects, that is, it is not very important - some parameters of the model simply change. Let's say, instead of one value of mass, magnetic moment, you need to consider others, and that's it. This is why the model with non-interacting electrons usually gives such a good approximation.

So, apparently, graphene near the Dirac point is an exception, that is, Landau’s Fermi liquid theory does not work there. And this, in general, has been known for quite a long time as a theoretical construction proposed long before the discovery of graphene by my friend and co-author Paco Guinea and other theorists in Spain. And recently all this was experimentally confirmed. And now, it seems to me, the main efforts of theorists working in the field of graphene should be focused on understanding this non-Fermi-liquid state, on understanding what kind of electron-electron interaction effects can be expected. This is such a very new, fresh area, extremely attractive to work in.

What kind of mathematics is there? Is there something interesting not only for physicists?

The one-electron theory is the Dirac equation, from a formal point of view, linear partial differential equations. There's beautiful mathematics there. Even mathematicians admit this - recently our guys (from our group) returned from St. Petersburg from a large conference on mathematical physics Days on Diffraction - 2013. For example, in order to build a serious, and not just a purely qualitative, mathematical theory of Klein tunneling, you need to use very beautiful, elegant mathematics - the so-called semiclassical approximation, but much more subtle than in the case of ordinary quantum mechanics. Just to take into account this Klein tunneling.

And if we are talking about many-particle effects in graphene, then we move to a completely different level, where we already need to use with all our might the complex methods of quantum particles and field theory, for example, the same methods that people from the theory of elementary particles use to understand, say , why there are no quarks in a free state. And, again, I am involved in some of this work, I am collaborating with a theoretical group at ITEP in Moscow, where we are trying to apply these methods of elementary particle theory to the study of many-particle effects in graphene. That is, in general, there is mathematics for every taste, starting from classical mathematical physics of the 19th century, the study of partial differential equations, and ending with modern sophisticated mathematics and numerical methods that are used in the so-called fundamental physics. In general, already in our first works with Andrei and Kostya there was a connection with modern mathematics, the same geometry and topology. Well, of course, not exactly today’s, but the one that was about 50 years ago. The Atiyah-Singer theorem, for example. And this is not bad - in solid state physics, for example, mathematics from 150 years ago is usually enough.

A few questions aside. It is well known that you are a believer - an Orthodox Christian. Does this not bother you when communicating with foreign colleagues? They say that there are many atheists among modern physicists.

I can say that this does not create any problems for me in communicating with colleagues, at least in the West. I think everyone knows, and I don’t really hide it. I would even say that the typical attitude is one of kindness and disinterest. Most people, I think, simply don’t care, because a scientist should be assessed by his scientific work. If you can talk to me about some interesting science, then they will talk to me about interesting science. These are topics of a kind that are generally not particularly customary to discuss publicly. You discuss them with close friends and so on. I have close friends who are physicists, and they themselves may hold some other views, but in any case, they treat my religious views with complete respect and understanding. While I was still in Russia, together with my co-author, colleague Valya Irkhin, I published two books about science and religion - “Charters of Heaven: 16 Chapters about Science and Faith” and “Wings of the Phoenix. Introduction to Quantum Mythophysics" ( both books are on lib.ru - and - approx. "Tapes.ru").

It’s just that people generally don’t think much in this direction, but at the same time, for example, I can say with great pride that Kostya Novoselov, when he was not yet a Nobel laureate, but was still a very young man, told me that he had read "Wings of the Phoenix" and she made a strong impression on him. Of course, I don’t want to beat my chest and say that it was me, me, I who helped him become a Nobel laureate, but in any case, reading my pseudoscientific books clearly did not harm him. So the attitude here is calm.

As for how I personally combine this, it seems to me that the most important thing here is that you still need to understand: you shouldn’t mix levels. We are not only physicists, we are, after all, human beings, we have different problems, we have different types of experience - both the experience of everyday life, and some kind of internal, spiritual experience, what is sometimes called mystical experience, and experience of our scientific work, we communicate with women, we communicate with friends, we communicate with children, that is, we live multifaceted, and I don’t think that, say, my religious views somehow directly influence my scientific work or vice versa, or what - these are my literary studies. It’s just that a man is multifaceted, as Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky said, “a broad man,” well, and it all fits in calmly. To be honest, I don’t have any particular problems about this.

How do you feel about the opening of the Department of Theology at MEPhI?

Basically, if you remember the joke about Vovochka: I would like your problems, Maria Ivanovna, - so, my attitude is about the same. As far as I read about this story, it really wasn’t done very well - not because it’s about faith or anything else, but simply, as they say, I didn’t understand it myself, I only read on the Internet that the authorities there twisted that it was done against the wishes of people, that opinions were not taken into account, and so on. That is, tyranny is bad. If in this case there was tyranny, then this is bad. And if, as they say, this was done by consent (maybe this is not the case at MEPhI), then why, well, there is a department, let whoever wants to study there, whoever doesn’t want to, don’t study there. I don't see any problem with this at all. We have a faculty of theology; by the way, we are actually a Catholic university. So what? Well, Catholic.

Is it named after a saint?

Holy Radbod, yes. In front of our main administrative building there is a monument to St. Thomas Aquinas. This doesn't bother me at all. I understand that I am a believer, what can you take from me, but I think that most of my colleagues are atheists and this does not particularly bother them either. Everything is fine. Everything's just fine. I understand perfectly well that in Russia this is a terribly painful issue, simply because it is extremely politicized, firstly. Secondly, apparently some of the older generation still have memories of the forced brainwashing by Marxism-Leninism in Soviet times, I can tell a lot about this - I was, after all, forced to graduate from the university of Marxism - Leninism, philosophical department. I have a diploma, all this wasted time, it still hiccups.

But, on the other hand, the result in my case was exactly the opposite of the desired one, not only did I not become a Marxist-Leninist, I became an idealist, a believer, a sharp anti-Marxist, that is, in the place of those who are trying to instill some kind of religious, Orthodox, Yes, even atheistic propaganda of any kind - I would think about it. If this is done in order to curry favor with the authorities and to put a tick somewhere, then why discuss this - well, bestiality and bestiality.

If someone sincerely thinks that in this way people can be moved in some desired direction, I will give a wonderful counterexample. I was brainwashed by this Marxism-Leninism, washed into obscurantism, into idealism, into clericalism, as Vladimir Ilyich put it. I think that such zeal in planting Orthodoxy will lead to exactly the same results, they will simply produce not just atheists, but militant atheists - as an Orthodox person, it saddens me to think about this prospect. From these two points of view, that in general any propaganda always achieves goals that are directly opposite to those stated, and that tyranny is not good and people’s opinions should be asked, I have a negative attitude towards this story. If we simply talk about the coexistence of the department of theology and the department of nuclear physics and any other within the same educational institution, then I have been working in such an institution for nine years, I am head over heels happy and I see absolutely no problem in this.