"The Theoretical Minimum" by Leonard Susskind was published in Russian. Doesn’t it bother you that we don’t study it according to Landavshits? But no one checks what he himself decided

The theoretical minimum is a set of exams for the entire course. theoretical physics Landau and Lifshitz, which have been carried out for more than 80 years, first by Lev Davidovich himself, and then by his students. For some OPPF students, these exams are mandatory, while others often know little about them. Maxim Kuznetsov talked to a sixth-year student of the Faculty of Public Education Fedor Popov , who passed eight out of eleven theoretical minimum exams, and is not going to stop there. We will talk about the format, content and relevance of the theoretical minimum, as well as the motivation of those who take it.

- So, the theoretical minimum: what is it, how did it start, what is its status now?

Well, I haven’t studied the history of the theoretical minimum... As I understand it: there was Lev Davidovich Landau, he wrote a textbook... that is, he didn’t write it, but Lifshitz wrote it...

- Why Lifshits?

Landau more science I was studying, and he said that you need to write this, and write that... By the way, there are two volumes in which Landau is not among the authors at all, but it is still considered that they belong to the “ten-volume Landau book.”

Well, as I understand it, Landau had students - Semyon Solomonovich Gershtein, for example - who had to pass the tasks of this exam.

That is, the exam generally corresponds to the course [of theoretical physics of Landau and Lifshitz], which is set out in textbooks?

Basically yes, although now some tasks may go beyond its limits. For example, the volume “Quantum Electrodynamics” is now outdated: this area has developed rapidly, and is now called “Quantum Field Theory” (by the way, I’m working on it right now). Therefore, now in this exam they give problems specifically on quantum field theory.

-Where is it for rent?

IN . They recently opened a laboratory of theoretical nanophysics; To get in you have to pass some of these exams.

Let's talk about the format then. Is it true that during the exam they give you some big task, which you can sit on for almost several months?

Yes, that's about it. For example, my scientific supervisor, Emil [Tofikovich] Akhmedov, when he passed the theoretical minimum (not the classical one, but at ITEP, on quantum field theory (note: this exam is similar to the theoretical minimum in format, but is not related to Landau)), spent the entire summer holiday calculating the beta function of the Standard Model. Or, for example, Landau gave [Yakov Borisovich] Zeldovich, a famous astrophysicist, a problem to calculate how in hydrodynamics it flows around... an ellispoid, I don’t remember exactly. He also counted for a long time, for a whole month, there was such a notebook... he counted and counted, and in the end he got the correct answer.

- That is, they give problems that have a known correct answer?

Yes, if the answer were not known, it would be scientific problem. Theoretical minimum checks that you know the course and can solve any problem from there. It is not called the theoretical maximum, but the theoretical minimum.

These problems, however, are not necessarily described and solved in textbooks. For example, in quantum field theory, problems are given from articles from the 80s and 90s. Calculate some correction for the scattering problem. It may not be in any textbook, only in certain articles.

I’ll even say this: there is a problem, scientists, in principle, know how it is solved, but it is so non-standard, so there are usually no solvers for it. Well, the point is that you need to decide for yourself, and not find a solution in the article. That is, it’s not like it usually happens for physics and technology students to find a solution book somewhere, but you have to decide for yourself.

- But no one checks what he himself decided?

Nobody. It's all on your conscience. Because you decide for yourself. Personally, I partly decide to... well, sometimes I just wake up in a cold sweat thinking that I don't know quantum mechanics. I open [the list of passed exams], look at what I passed, and calm down.

- How do examiners feel about decision deadlines? They don’t ask questions, why is it taking too long?

No, they don’t ask, they are quite tolerant. You never know what a person has there... Although it all depends on who you rent to, from different people different methods. For example, in quantum mechanics and second statistical physics, it was necessary precisely under [Mikhail Viktorovich] Feigelman (note: Deputy Director of the ITF, one of the examiners) solve 3 problems or more. My friend there had to submit either 15 or 18 problems in the end.

- Okay, the physics is clear. But there are also exams in mathematics, what do they give for them?

The first part is simply the ability to differentiate, take integrals, and all sorts of related tasks. All this does not exceed the second year of Physics and Technology. During the exam they give some kind of standard integral, like in our department of higher mathematics. And in the second part they teach all sorts of special functions, Bessel functions, the ability to evaluate integrals, the saddle point method, for example.

All this more or less applies to physicists: knowing standard techniques, such as calculating integrals, you can then calmly solve problems in theoretical physics. On the other hand, any math problem in advance, the same taking of the integral, it may not be taken exactly. Take, for example, \(\int \frac(dx)(\ln(x)) \), this is a special function, and now you need to estimate its asymptotics. The solution to any physical problem lies in the fact that we know the exact solution, add some disturbance, factor in this disturbance, and try to estimate... this is what physicists usually do.

It turns out that the first mathematics, and maybe even field theory, can be passed by a person who has completed the second year, but then...

And any person who has completed the second year can also take the mechanics test, because we take it in the second year.

- Doesn’t it bother you that we don’t study it according to Landavshits?

Well, that’s how it goes: from Newton’s equations to the principle of least action, and Landau also says that the principle of least action is more fundamental, and we will continue to dance from it. But the tasks, nevertheless, theoretical mechanics, and we teach it very well, so they can also be solved.

On field theory, Akhmedov's course covers quite well the first part of the textbook on field theory - radiation. There is also a second part - gravity, if a person takes care of it, then he can easily take field theory.

In general, I can give advice on each of the exams passed. The textbook contains theory, but you need to practice your skills by solving problems...

It may also seem difficult to sign up...

- Isn’t it written anywhere how to sign up for the exam?

Well, yes. But it turned out to be very simple: you take email the one you want to take, and you write to him - “student such and such, would like to pass such an exam.” This stopped me very much in the 1st-2nd courses, which is why I didn’t pass. I thought that there was a whole examination committee, like at the Physics and Technology Institute: you come, and there you need to put something together, some kind of record book... But it turned out that everything is so simple!

I was also interested in the content of the exam. As far as I understand, the Landafshitz course is considered quite outdated

Some fundamental things remain the same... The mechanics haven't changed, classical theory fields too... Well there you go quantum electrodynamics, there big leap was done, of course, for example, they came up with non-Abelian gauge fields, no one is aware of this. Now there are other methods, other models. For example, in Landavshitsa nothing is written at all about the Feyman integral.

- Is this not covered by the exam?

The exam covers it, but not the textbook. For example, I calculated some sections in the Standard Model, but the Standard Model was not described in the Landau-Lifshitz course.

- And, say, mathematics exams are not updated in accordance with this?

No. The mathematics hasn't changed. You need to take the same integrals. The models have changed... Although, of course, they could have added all sorts of Lie algebras and group theory. But this is something advanced, not theoretical minimum. Because, in principle, one can live in modern physics without group theory, if one does not study special fields. For example, in my articles nothing is written about group theory.

For some reason it seemed to me that this was precisely the tool of modern theorist. For example, Gennady Sardanashvili is even writing a new textbook, claiming that...

I don’t know him, but I understand what you’re getting at, that mathematics is developing in our country, but we stand still.

- Well, it’s not me who says this, physicists do, and they even write textbooks.

I agree with this, in principle. No matter how good our department of higher mathematics is... I have nothing against it, it is, in principle, correct that we need to learn to take integrals, because, you can just look, there are different professions, from programmers who need theories coding, to those who work in string theory, who need advanced TFKP, which is not only on the Riemann sphere, but, for example, on the torus, on other surfaces... This, of course, is not covered by the department.

As for the exam... well, again, this is theoretical minimum, something that any person who wants to do science must know. Let's say, if you don't know how to take integrals, then at least study string theory, even solid bodies, nothing will work out. But if you know, you will be able to advance into other areas. Therefore, in the exam there are no vector bundles, connections... Well, you need to know connections, in field theory you need to, in gravitation. But you don’t need to know anything too advanced. You need to know these basic things on which you can build anything.

Many tales have been written about the exam, supposedly some janitor came, passed the entire theoretical minimum and went back to work as a janitor.

Anything can happen... For example, many scientists had previously worked as security guards in zoos, maybe he also turned out to be a janitor. There are also a lot of jokes... In The Big Bang Theory there was a story about how Sheldon took a Soviet janitor, and he answered some question about nuclear physics (note: referring to S01E13, “The Bat Jar Conjecture”, scene about The Physics Bowl Quiz). So I won't be too surprised. Well, maybe he swept there, looked, and learned everything.

Just one day a guy came to the ITF and started pushing all sorts of topics (note: he was V.L. Berezinsky, more details about this story are written in the preface to his dissertation). He didn’t know anyone there at all, not the hierarchy [of employees], nothing at all. At first no one understood him, but then they realized that he was saying smart things about lattice models. Then he was accepted into the ITF and defended his Ph.D.

For some reason, at first I thought that you were from the Department of Problems of Theoretical Physics. As far as I understand, students there are required to take these exams

It is necessary, yes. I do this for the soul. My mother just bought it for me in the sixth grade... she loved physics very much... she graduated from the Faculty of Chemistry in Perm, it so happened, but she loved and knew physics, and knew that the 10-volume book by Landau and Lafshitz was a very useful thing, so she bought it for me and said...

- Directly from early years, since the sixth grade?

Well, yes, from the sixth. It’s even signed there that they were given to me in 2006 (note: from which it follows that we are actually talking about the seventh grade). Because she knew that it was a useful thing and would always come in handy. Well, I decided that since they gave me a gift, it means I need to pass all the theoretical minimums. And somehow it settled there...

Yes, Gukov was still there [he took exams in 1994-95]. By the way... I'm not sure, but he also works in quantum field theory and was also at ITEP. He is currently working with Edward Witten at Princeton on supersymmetric models. Well, it’s okay, I still have a year and a half, I’ll overtake him. Although it, of course, gives nothing...

- There is no piece of paper given there?

No. There, for example, in the laboratory you only need to pass three exams, so I have more for myself. This has been my goal since childhood, just to calm myself down or something...

- Well, the professors will probably be more sympathetic

Well, yes, since I passed, I’m probably not a fool...

Mechanics

• Kotkin G.L., Serbo V.G., Collection of problems in classical mechanics

Field theory

• Laitman A., Press V., Price R., Tyukolski S., Collection of problems on the theory of relativity and gravity
• Batygin V.V., Toptygin I.N., Modern electrodynamics

Mathematics-1

Enough knowledge from the department of higher mathematics

Mathematics-2

• Course "Equations" mathematical physics» for OPPF students at the ITF named after. Landau

Quantum mechanics

• Galitsky V.M., Problems in quantum mechanics, part 1, 2
• Migdal A.B., Qualitative methods in quantum theory

Quantum electrodynamics

• Peskin M., Schroeder D., Introduction to quantum theory fields

Statistical Physics-1

The assignment for the 2nd semester in general physics will be enough.

Statistical Physics-2

• Levitov L.S., Shitov A.V., Green's functions. Problems and solutions

The speed of development of science in our time is amazing. Literally in the continuation of one or two human lives There have been gigantic changes in physics, astronomy, biology, and in many other areas. Readers can trace what has been said even through the example of their own family. Thus, my father, born in 1863, was a younger contemporary of Maxwell (1831-1879). I myself was already 16 years old when the neutron and positron were discovered in 1932. But before this, only the electron, proton and photon were known. It’s somehow not easy to realize that an electron x-rays and radioactivity were discovered only about a hundred years ago, and quantum theory was born only in 1900. At the same time, a hundred years is so short not only compared to the approximately 3 billion years since life began on Earth, but also with age modern look people ( Homo sapiens), amounting to about 50-100 thousand years! It is also useful to remember that the first great physicists Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Archimedes (c. 287-212 BC) are separated from us by more than two millennia. But in further science progressed relatively slowly, and not last role Religious dogmatism played a role here. It was only since the times of Galileo (1564-1642) and Kepler (1571-1630) that physics began to develop at an ever-accelerating pace. But, by the way, even Kepler believed that there was a sphere of fixed stars, which “consists of ice or crystal.” Galileo's struggle to establish heliocentric ideas is well known, for which he was condemned by the Inquisition in 1633. What a path has been traveled since then in just 300-400 years! Its result is modern science as we know it.

We can count on the fact that in the 21st century science will develop no less quickly than in the past 20th century. At the same time, physics has grown and differentiated so much that it is difficult to see the forest for the trees, it is difficult to grasp in one’s mind’s eye the picture of modern physics as a whole. Meanwhile, such a picture exists and, despite all the branches, physics has a core. Such a core is fundamental concepts and laws formulated in theoretical physics.

I promote the “project” (as it has now become fashionable to say) of the so-called “physical minimum”. We are talking about compiling a list of problems that appear in given time the most important and interesting. These are topics that every physicist should have some idea of, know about. we're talking about. Perhaps less trivial is the view that to achieve similar purpose It’s not that difficult at all, it doesn’t require a lot of time and effort. But this requires certain efforts not only on the part of the “students,” but also on the part of the “senior comrades.”

“Particularly important” problems are distinguished not because others are not important, but because for the period of time under discussion they are in the focus of attention, to some extent they are in the main directions. Tomorrow these problems may be in the rear, and others will come to replace them. Such “lists,” of course, are to a certain extent subjective. Now, in 2004, I can offer one.

Perhaps we should add “points” here about quantum computers and some optical problems. However, I draw the reader’s attention to the subjectivity and anti-dogmatism of such “lists”.

Show comments (41)

Collapse comments (41)

The article is certainly interesting. However, there is a clear reluctance of the author to question and discuss the most tricky questions that inquisitive minds pose to justify the theory of relativity, which has so greatly distorted (distorted?) the face of modern physics. There is no hint of a solution to one of the most fundamental problems - gravity. Why are they trying, with enviable tenacity, to prove the unprovable - that, supposedly, gravity can only be explained on the basis of general relativity, which is fundamentally false and simply ridiculous (see my article and Forum in
www.membrana.ru - Mikhail Gontsa: Einstein’s theory of gravity is untenable).
Why did Academician Ginzburg not deign to openly participate in the discussion of this article and the defense of the foundations of technical theory, despite the author’s repeated open calls since 2002 to him and other leading physicists?
If this is arrogance and neglect, then it is still not in favor of the academician, who is called upon to “defend science from the attacks of the “alternatives”,” because there was no more severe and justified criticism of GTR in the press and on the Internet. In addition, this article suggests new approach to an explanation of gravity that fits more smoothly into the sought-after “quantum theory of gravity.”

Answer

Afternoon burns for sure!
However, despite the fact that the development of science in lately is increasing, over the last 80 years we have not observed any serious " phase transitions"like the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. Thus, old topics are being procrastinated and refined, mainly thanks to technical, and not scientific progress. The people want a miracle, and news like “he-knows-what has been discovered with a hitherto-unprecedented god-knows-what” or “a mass of some kind of who-knows-what has been identified” is already starting to get pretty boring...

Answer

• The cards are in your hands. Take collect the most important facts from some region(s). Meditate for a month, a year, etc. above them, and perhaps, like Heisenberg, some fundamentally new patterns will be revealed to you that will revolutionize science.
  If you don’t like the idea, then why rush to science if you yourself can’t do anything brilliant. Science is not something abstract, it’s people, and there aren’t that many geniuses among them!

  Answer

  You are wrong. Over the past 80 years, this means since 1926, two theories have been created that can be considered as separate theories, although they are connected by the concept of gauge fields; by the way, the principle of gauge fields itself claims to be a fundamental theoretical achievement. So these two theories have been proven experimentally, for their creation they received Nobel Prizes, this is the theory of electroweak interactions and quantum chromodynamics, both of these theories are as significant and great as general theory relativity, because each of them, like the general theory of relativity, describes separate species interactions, and the electroweak theory even describes two types of interactions: electromagnetic and weak. Quantum chromodynamics describes the strong interaction, this is precisely the truly strong interaction that exists between quarks inside protons and neutrons, known to the general public, but nuclear forces acting between protons and neutrons are already residual forces derived from the strong interaction. And the principle of spontaneous symmetry breaking, it also leads to a fundamental discovery, because with its help and with the help of Higgs scalar fields it is possible to explain what mass is and how it appears in elementary particles, and therefore where it appears in ordinary matter. True, they only expect that this theoretical mechanism of mass formation should be experimentally confirmed in 2007 at the new accelerator at CERN. And the latest experimental discovery of the ACCELERATING expansion of our universe and, in connection with this, the appearance of such a type of energy as “dark energy,” not to mention dark matter, the existence of which has been suspected for the last 40 years but still cannot be explained. All these last experimental discoveries in astronomy this is a fundamental shock to modern physics.

  Answer

  • Dear GenMich!
    Is it possible to call quantum chromodynamics a theory that operates on such hitherto undiscovered phenomena as quarks? The same question can be asked about Higgs scalar fields. All this can only claim the status of a hypothesis. (I think it is unnecessary to remind you that a theory is an experimentally tested hypothesis.) Can the observed phenomenon of “reddening” of the spectrum of distant objects be considered an experiment? space objects, which underlies the “theory” of the expanding Universe? Moreover, this phenomenon can be explained in another way, for example, by a change in the frequency of light, but not by the “tiring” of the quantum, but by the scattering of the pulse in wave process propagation of light in outer space.
    Talking about “dark energy” in isolation from material carriers is generally nonsense. It is unlikely that anyone will be able to build a model of such energy.
    Unfortunately, all these innovations did not really clarify anything, but they added new questions. Of course, the emergence of questions in science is quite natural, and the ability to ask them is also not easy. However, one must answer them, and not fantasize, calling these fantasies a theory!

    Answer

    • That's right, dear Critic! You need to answer questions. See below for an answer to one of them.

      WHY MATTER PREVAILS IN OUR UNIVERSE

      (or what is beyond our Universe)

      This article makes an attempt to explain the fact that within our (visible, observable) Universe, all planets, stars, galaxies and their clusters consist of matter, and antimatter makes up an insignificant share percent. The explanation is based on a new understanding of the Universe as a whole, that is, not only about our Universe, but also about what is beyond its borders.

      The origin of our Universe is also revised. According to the new idea, our Universe did not originate from a singular state. Namely: matter (first neutrons), strong, weak and gravitational interactions arose simultaneously within a radius of approximately 1.2 by 10 to 26 meters due to the weak curvature of space-time in the specified region in which our Universe subsequently evolved. With the decay of neutrons (after about 15.3 minutes) into protons, electrons and neutrinos, electromagnetic interaction. Hydrogen atoms were formed. From this moment the evolution of our Universe began.

      The energy that was required for the creation of matter (first neutrons) was contained in the curvature of space-time.

      Before the moment of neutron formation there were no time and length scales (there were no spectra and sizes of neutrons). Therefore, before the appearance of neutrons, there is no physical sense in talking about time and space, since space-time itself is physically unobservable, which means that time and space, one might say, arose in our Universe along with the appearance of neutrons.

      Modern articles about the origin of our Universe (there are now hundreds and hundreds of them) spark the imagination, but do not provide new reliable knowledge. These scenarios are hard to believe. But we can agree that the number of universes and antiuniverses located outside our Universe is infinite, and that our Universe is one of them. In this representation, at a minimum, the problem of baryon asymmetry is immediately solved; it is enough to introduce normalization: the difference in the masses of universes and antiuniverses throughout infinite universe in time and space is strictly equal to zero.

      There is something in string (superstring) theories, but they are more contradictory than useful. And they look like mathematical tricks into which they are trying to breathe physics, but physicists have so far achieved practically nothing good. In the future, these theories may be useful - from the point of view of their sufficiently developed mathematical apparatus.

      This article proposes physical model the origin of the Universe, in which an attempt was made to combine the continuity of the space-time continuum with quantum uncertainty.

      The model is based on three postulates:

      1. All natural phenomena can be fully explained by physical laws expressed in mathematical form.

      2. These physical laws universal and independent of time and place.

      3. All basic laws of nature are simple.

      It is impossible to prove these postulates; it is better not to try.

      Basic principles of the theory of the Universe
      (matter, antimatter, quanta)

      The theory of the Universe can be built on the following ideas.

      1. Initial idea of ​​the entire Universe: The Universe is not limited to its observable region. It is infinite in space and time. Our (observable, visible) part of the Universe is only an ultra-small space-time region with a total baryon charge of the same sign. Outside the observable space-time region of the Universe there are universes similar to ours, but with a total baryon charge of opposite signs. The number of such universes is infinite. The total baryon charge of the entire Universe is strictly equal to zero.

      2. Everything that actually exists in the observable part of the Universe and beyond, including everything known and not yet discovered elementary particles, antiparticles, quanta, physical fields, is an infinite, dynamic eight-dimensional continuous differential geometric manifold.

      3. The four dimensions of this eight-dimensional manifold are represented in the Universe by a physically unobservable four-dimensional space-time continuum.

      4. Another four dimensions of the eight-dimensional manifold are represented in the Universe by a physically observable four-dimensional wave continuum, which manifests itself in the form of elementary particles, antiparticles, and quanta existing in the Universe.

      5. Each point of the four-dimensional space-time continuum can be associated with a certain value of the (relativistic) density of the Lagrange function.
      6. Each point of the four-dimensional wave continuum can be associated with a certain value of the density spectrum of the Lagrange function.

      7. The density of the Lagrange function and the density spectrum of the Lagrange function are related to each other by two multiple Fourier integrals: 1) a fourfold integral transformation of the density of the Lagrange function into the density spectrum of the Lagrange function with the limits of integration from “minus infinity” to “plus infinity” over four space-time coordinates and 2) a fourfold integral transformation of the Lagrange function density spectrum into the Lagrange function density with integration limits from “minus infinity” to “plus infinity” over the four components of the wave 4-vector.

      Answer

If you “roll back” to the end of the 19th century and clarify your relationship with the speed of light (which, strictly speaking, is just the speed of information transmission using light), some of the thirty identified problems may disappear by themselves. In fact: light is a handful of sand not thrown into space by the hand of a savage, all grains of which have the same speed. If the property of the light receiver is such that it reacts only to the component of light whose speed is equal to 300,000, becoming, in turn, a source of secondary radiation also in an unlimited speed spectrum, this is not the basis for Einstein’s second postulate. A convincing example of this is the double Doppler effect. Sincerely, Mikh.Mikh. Samsonov.

Answer

Dear Vitaly Lazarevich, excuse me, I’m just catching up: what if we assume for a second that in Einstein’s freely falling elevator only the pressure force of the floor on our soles disappears, and gravity disappears only in a fairy tale (i.e. the strong equivalence principle will create problems only for our shoes ), may it happen that some more problems will go “to the trash”? Mich.Mich. Samsonov.

Answer

And lastly, Vitaly Lazarevich: these three problems are not problems at all. First: if we know how to explode a piece of uranium in emptiness, then purely theoretically we can explode a piece of emptiness in infinite uranium space. The direction of the impulse, the arrow of time, and entropy will change. Second: hanging on the usual electric charge invariance, depriving it of its nature, we put a lock on the door leading to the microworld. And now we interpret the rustling noises outside the door as uncertainties, dualism, divergences. Instead of walking for two hundred years between entrained and non-entrained ether, it is high time to construct a workable model of a homogeneous and isotropic flow of hidden matter with a speed range of interaction, the effect of shadowing and its partial accretion into material bodies. In this case, Maxwell's electrodynamics will have to be disturbed: electromagnetic waves will turn into induction, amplified by resonance in the receiving circuit, the Lorentz force will turn into the moment of the Lorentz forces, the second arm of which will rest against this ether, but the “displacement current” will acquire visible reality and impulse (let's say, to the left, and a pair of opposite stationary charges, as you understand, is to the right, towards the negative). But the Great Laws of Conservation, trampled by electrodynamics, will rise up! Will the rusty lock fall off the door, and we'll see how the monopoles fly inside? Are Poynting vectors spinning? Third: biologists will figure it out themselves and will not allow “metastases of uncertainty” to occur. Even in memory of Van Mendel, not in a chair, but on his knees crawling towards the Truth. Best regards, Mikh.Mikh. Samsonov.

Answer

The world (nature) lives and develops not according to far-fetched postulates and hypotheses, which are later translated (as modern “scientists” put it after testing by the scientific community) into the rank of theories, but in accordance with the laws discovered by outstanding scientists of the past. Instead of focusing on the pseudoscientific trends of the last century, it would be interesting to hear truly scientific trends that explain the observed natural phenomena, from the position of solving physical problems using open natural (divine) laws! " Academic school"false direction in science (physics and astrophysics) - postulates and hypotheses for specified period gave great roots (a clear indication of this is the majority of publications on the Internet proposing their postulates and hypotheses, i.e. personal theories that contradict open natural laws).
Scientific progress is possible only after returning from the pseudoscientific (satanic) direction to the truly scientific (divine) direction!

Answer

Submissions modern science about our world are incorrect. Scientists misrepresent Pythagoras, Democritus, Descartes, and Leibniz. Lomonosov is not represented at all. They don’t know what great things this man did. But they said about themselves, who they are and what their views are. The 17th century is coming in science. We will witness this in the near future. Author of the books “Atomology”, “Acceptance of the teachings of Democritus in Rus'”, “Intellectology”, “Materiology”. What is written in V. Ginzburg’s article is not interesting to me, because it is all wrong, because it is not even yesterday’s century.

Answer

Answer

To my great regret, the proposed list of problems is very far from the problems of humanity today, with the possible exception of thermonuclear fusion. In my amateurish opinion, as for the “immortals” (academics), then from the point of view of the decision pressing problems the real presidents of the USSR Academy of Sciences were two people: L.P. Beria and M.I. Keldysh. Both were most effective at choosing tasks whose solution would bring benefits to the country. (Lysenkoism can be omitted; this is a purely political, quasi-Marxist attempt to “smuggle” an ideological basis into science.) With all due respect to the late Ginzburg, he had practically no connection with reality. I thought for a long time why Grisha Perelman doesn’t go anywhere and doesn’t tear his shirt, that I’m like that, etc. A person has a conscience. It’s a sin to waste people’s money for something that, by and large, no one needs in the foreseeable future. He makes money by consulting “realists”. The “immortal” gentlemen rest on their “laurels” and soar in “lofty” matters, “not giving a damn” about the needs of the foreseeable future. Apparently it would not hurt to remind them of the second fire in the Library of Alexandria (fourth century AD), its causes and consequences. Dirty history, also “hovering in the clouds,” but no one stood up for the “immortals” then, the authorities rather contributed, and the library, its volumes, became in fact the first bonfire of the Inquisition for the “hovering.” Science, like humanity as a whole, is subject to cycles.

Answer

The solution to the problems of physics indicated in the report is most likely due to the very structure of Science as a whole and its main tools in the form of a mathematical apparatus. Firstly, Science, as a structure of Knowledge, is increasingly immersed in dogmatism. Which, secondly, is cultivated, in addition to natural causes, by the mathematical apparatus itself. The image of Reality represented by this apparatus has long acquired such an untouchable status in science that it often replaces Reality itself, i.e. real objects and processes. This is especially true for fundamental knowledge. Initially, being a purely computational apparatus, attracted to use the achievements of science by the needs of everyday practice, over time it acquired the status of an independent research tool. And already in this capacity it began to dominate the process of Cognition. Although everyone, starting with high school students, knows that the variety of conditions of natural processes cannot be fully described by any mathematics. Since any mathematics is a frozen scheme of relationships and its conclusions will always have an error relative to Reality. Its seemingly minimal error is supported by the practice of creating by the Intellect its own surrogates -systems that are completely subordinate to it and have no analogues in Nature. And even in such systems, made from natural substances, the imperfection of mathematics results in accidents and failures of technology. With further correction of the imperfections of this toolkit.
A typical example of this kind of discrepancy is the system of constants obtained by mathematics when describing real processes. These constants are designed to cover the resulting discrepancy error. There are no constants in Nature at all! She does not need them. Moreover, any constancy in Nature is pursued by it, up to the destruction of an object with such a tendency. This is one of the Principles of Nature, ensuring its continuous transformation. Everything moves! Mathematics is a cast from the “corpse” of an event. Is there a difference?
Therefore, the constancy of the “speed of light”, derived from the influence of Nature and applied to natural objects, is unauthorized - due to the incompatibility of the natural and the supernatural. Therefore, all conclusions obtained on the basis of the “constancy” of the speed of light require careful analysis for reliability. It is quite obvious that some inconsistencies, due to the capabilities of mathematics, are compensated by it within limits sufficient for modern Intellect. But it is also obvious that in the future the inconsistencies will no longer satisfy his needs. By the way, Light received such a “special” status exclusively from the everyday practice of the Intellect, as a Living object of Nature. In the World of the Inanimate, i.e. in the world of prevailing objects of Nature, it does not have such status. Since it is not an independent phenomenon, but only a consequence of other, larger-scale processes.
From here, from the consideration of these larger and more comprehensive processes, the problems of “irreversibility” and “time” indicated by Ginzburg are resolved, excluding all kinds of manipulations with “arrows”. This also gives rise to the possibility of “interpretation and understanding of quantum mechanics.” Moreover, it is from these positions that the inextricable connection between physics and biology is revealed. By establishing some aspects of which, it becomes possible to solve the problem of the conditions for the emergence of Living things on Earth, the nature of its modernization and the emergence of Intelligence. His own modernization, including the emergence and development of the mechanism of his Memory, and the principles of functioning of his Society.
Unfortunately, the scope of the comment does not allow more to be said. Best regards, Edward.

Answer

Monstrous! At the beginning of the 21st century, we are offered a theory of the structure of matter that does not have a single correct position!
Three fundamental mistakes of Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein's first fundamental mistake was that he formulated both of his original postulates of 1905 for emptiness. But space and time are attributes, i.e. inherent properties of matter and only matter. That's why everything infinite space one single and the only universe, endless in time, not filled, but formed by a single world material environment− structureless “physical vacuum”. In the entire Universe there is not even a small bubble of true emptiness, because it would be immaterial and could not have any extension or size.
When they tell me that outside the small “bubble” of the Universe that arises as a result of the inflationary process, there is nothing, not even space and time - this is inflation of stupidity. But fortunately, other types of all fictitious inflations do not exist. It should only be added that any object that has an interface with the material environment must be structured and vice versa. Before studying physics, Dear Sirs, or together with it, it is necessary to master the basic principles of philosophy. At Leningrad State University in the 50s and 60s of the 20th century, this is exactly what smart people taught us.
The second very serious fundamental mistake of Einstein and all physicists and astrophysicists is that the well-known formula E = mC2 is, in principle, completely incorrect. First, in his first work in 1905, he gave the formula E0 = m0C2, taken from Pontecorvo, a completely precise and clear physical meaning - the internal energy of an electron at rest, necessary during its formation or released during its annihilation with a positron, is equal to the mass of the electron multiplied by the square of the speed of light . However, in the very next article, he removed zero indices from his now equation, which may be why he removed it, making it fundamentally incorrect. This equation in this form in no way corresponds to the internal properties of electrons and positrons, even with a stationary center of symmetry, inertia and mass. All physical meaning is gone. And this is what it leads to. In the article “Dark Energy of the Universe,” Vladimir Lukash and Elena Mikheeva write: “With some stretch we can say that space itself has mass and participates in gravitational interaction. (Recall that according to the well-known formula E = mC2, energy is equivalent to mass.)” Do you understand? Why do they need to know what mass is, what gravity is, where and how all this arises. If only it was dissertational, i.e. like everyone else and it doesn’t matter how. However, both inertial and gravitational mass arise only during rotation, and the latter only during two or three-axis autotorsional rotation.
This is where the most serious, most fundamental third mistake of the normal C student of the “great” Albert Einstein manifests itself. In 1924, Pauli discovered another quantum characteristic of electrons, which he called “non-classical duality,” later called the “spin” of the electron and positron. But Pauli did not associate any physical process with it. Then, already in 1925, two American physicists D. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit suggested that the electron in the hydrogen atom rotates not only around the proton, but like the Earth, it also has internal rotation. That's when Einstein tried to integrate the volume of the electron and determine the energy of its internal rotation. But he substituted the relativistic root in the Lorentz transformation into mass, and not into the linear instantaneous rotation speed of each volumetric point of the electron, although the relativistic root itself contains only speeds. As a result, to obtain internal energy equal to m0C2, linear instantaneous speed equatorial points of the electron should have exceeded the speed of light. Therefore, once and for all, all physicists and astrophysicists were forbidden to even think about the internal rotation of electrons and positrons. Verily, do not make for yourself an idol! And even a C student. Since then, physics and astrophysics have been 95 percent “dark” for everyone except me. And this must be explained to all physicists. They just need to read my book “Rotation along one, two or three own internal axes - necessary condition and the form of existence of particles physical world"2001 or at least its second chapter. Only physicists, and not politicians, can give people fuel-free sources of all types of energy and fuel-free inertial and jet engines, “flying saucers” and vacuum hypersynthesis. Without this, humanity, apparently, will not survive the 21st century. Igor Dmitriev. Samara. 02/19/2011.

Answer

Dear Mister Academician, you need to read not only your books.
Dark matter and dark energy
All modern theoretical physics and astrophysics are erroneous due to the fundamental mistake of A. Einstein in 1925 - when integrating over the volume of the electron, he introduced his relativistic root in the wrong place when determining the value and physical meaning of its internal energy. As a result, modern standard model particle physics does not contain a single correct statement. Quarks, gluons, chromodynamics, fractional electric charges, Higgs bosons, antigravity, ultrafast expansion, i.e. inflation does not exist. Moreover, and most importantly, no one knows what a physical force field is in general, and what gravity is, in particular, why and how it arises. Nobody understands that the “Big Bang” has actually been happening for about 14 billion years in “our” observable part of one single infinite in space and time material universe, never could and cannot happen to the entire Universe. Space and time are attributes, inherent properties of matter only. There is not even a small bubble of true emptiness in the entire Universe! The entire infinite space of the Universe is not filled with a single structureless world material environment - the “physical vacuum”, but is formed by it. Therefore, every physical and astrophysical object structured in any way has an interface with vacuum. But respected physicists must first of all understand that any force physical field is in a certain way a natural or artificially organized flow of matter of a “physical vacuum”. In particular, the simplest of physical force fields, the gravitational field, is a spherically symmetrical flow of “physical vacuum” matter towards the center of the sphere, where the vacuum matter seems to disappear, like water in a pool, quickly pumped out from the center of the pool through a thin hose, i.e. without distorting the gravitational spherical flow outside the sphere. That is why antigravity does not exist, electrons and positrons do not have hoses through which vacuum matter could be supplied to the center of electrons and positrons so that it scatters spherically.
Electrons and positrons are the only truly elementary particles that form a rest mass inside themselves, a gravitational field around themselves, a magnetic field inside and around themselves, as well as a two-dimensional flat electric field, i.e. the flow of photons in the plane passing through the center of symmetry of the particle, but only outside its radius, acquire all their properties exclusively due to the most common process in the entire Universe - autotorsion, i.e. self-accelerating biaxial or triaxial internal rotation! In this case, a total rotation axis also appears in electrons and positrons, perpendicular to which the flat electric field of the photon flow is emitted. It becomes spherically symmetrical only for orbital electrons and positrons, however, at times greater than ten to minus 12 seconds. It was here that Einstein’s mistake manifested itself, forbidding all physicists and astrophysicists not only to write and speak, but even to think about the internal rotation of electrons and positrons. By the way, from 273 positrons and electrons simultaneously rotating along only two internal axes, all the plus and minus pi-mesons were built, forming the “meson coats” of nucleons, three plus and three minus pi-mesons in each nucleon, and from 207 triaxial positrons and electrons consist of plus and minus muons - the only central particles each proton, neutron, antiproton and antineutron. It’s just that in each neutron and antineutron in the “pi-meson coat” there is one extra biaxial electron or positron with its own integer spin, compensating for the electric charge of the central muon, but not changing the fermionic character of the half-integer spin of any nucleon! In addition, they are triaxial, i.e. fermionic, all atomic orbital electrons material matter, atomic orbital positrons of material antimatter and all knocked out of atoms free electrons and positrons.
But greatest damage and delay in the development of science human civilization Einstein's mistake took a toll on astrophysics. The fact is that black holes with a Schwarzschild sphere in principle do not exist in the Universe, just like antigravity, but all " dark matter" and the "dark energy" of the Universe are directly related to biaxial and triaxial rotation. In the center of every "living" planet and the core of the Earth, every star and Sun, every galaxy and " milky way", of each cluster of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies or metagalaxies, first of all, an autotorsion copy of an electron or positron of the appropriate size is formed and self-spins, which then forms, both within itself and outside its boundaries, the material contents of an astrophysical object. This immaterial autotorsion central part of any astrophysical object I, on the advice of B .I. Polyakov, I propose to call him a mason. The fact is that when a mason is untwisted, its mass increases to the fifth power of the radius and to the second power of the rotation frequency, and kinetic energy proportional to the seventh power of radius and the fourth power of frequency. Naturally, the “material” density also increases sharply, i.e. the amount of “physical vacuum” matter per unit volume of a mason. At the same time, in the volume of an electron or positron copy, the probability and rate of formation of micro electron-positron pairs themselves increase sharply. Therefore, in accordance with the principle of maximum configuration entropy of Dmitriev-Boltzmann, the synthesis of protons and neutrons begins, which have the absolute maximum entropy value of all complex particles, and then the synthesis of atoms and molecules, i.e. material synthesis that is stable under emerging conditions chemicals. Since the central autotorsion part of any astrophysical object itself consists only of the matter of the “physical vacuum,” it manifests itself only gravitationally. Masons cannot emit macrophotons, but macroneutrinos, rotating only along one internal axis and necessarily “sliding” along it, emit. It is they, possessing only the mass of motion, the inertial mass, that, having met and intersected in outer space, form the autotorsion centers of new astronomical objects. People must learn to detect them - our helicopters and planes often die from them! It remains only to note that everything internal properties there are few electrons and positrons, but they change from changes in the “material” density of the “physical vacuum”.
The situation with “dark energy” is somewhat more complicated, although everything is also very simple. There is one more and only one material gradation in the Universe - the submicroworld! In it, the radius of electrons and positrons is 16 orders of magnitude smaller than our “native” microscopic ones, the mass density is 18 orders of magnitude greater, and the speed of light is 9 orders of magnitude greater! There are two chemistries here. One is like our microscopic one, but the specific bonds per unit length are 8 orders of magnitude smaller. It is she who determines amazing properties water and our “feelings”. The second also has an electrical attraction of electrons to the protons of atoms, but the repulsion for stationary orbits is magnetic instead of centrifugal. Therefore, strength, specific energy chemical bonds per unit length here is so great that from the microcosm, macrocosm and any “astrophysics” they not only cannot be destroyed, they cannot even be simply influenced. They are “immortal” for us, even with Big Bangs! This is the same world" fine structures", although the gravitational capabilities of the submicroworld are quite large. But the most important thing is that the submicroworld depends only on itself and is therefore much more homogeneous and this homogeneity, apparently, nothing can change.
Any part of the astrophysical Universe after its Big Bang, which occurs due to too much accumulation of its material part, being almost spherically symmetrical, first scatters, and accelerated, since the gravitational flow of matter from the vacuum of the submicroworld to the center of the exploding astrophysical part is always less than the external gravitational flow of matter submicrocosm outside the expanding astrophysical object. Then there are two different scenarios.
If during the Big Bang the immaterial central masson was preserved, the exploded object, for example a galaxy, will arise and explode again, since the newly accumulating material part of the galaxy will once receive greater gravitational attraction to its center than the gravitational “scattering” due to the submicroworld. If, during the Big Bang, the rotation of the central masson of the galaxy stops, i.e. its mass will disappear and a corresponding amount of energy will be released, most often this is how it should be, this astrophysical object will not be preserved in this place, and it will not be possible to arise by chance only very soon.
Finally, it should be noted that only the material content of astrophysical objects can be matter or antimatter. In most cases this is determined by the direction of rotation of their central mason. In a common one endless three-dimensional system coordinates it will be a copy of an electron or positron. If you look at the Earth from its north pole, then the rotation of the Earth and its autotorsion mason from vacuum matter, with a radius of 3470 kilometers and a mass density of 4.6 tons per cubic meter, which makes one extra revolution every 19.44 Earth days and thereby constantly twists the Earth, not allowing it to stop for 4.5 billion years, occurs counterclockwise. I take this as a positive spin. Therefore, I consider the Earth's mason to be a positron. It was our wonderful Mason who formed everything material on Earth - water, oxygen and nitrogen of the atmosphere, all organic matter, including oil and...

We are pleased to announce that the Peter publishing house has published a translation of a new book by Leonard Susskind and George Grabowski - "Theoretical minimum" (orig: The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics).

In America, this book, despite its format of lectures on physics and classical mechanics, unexpectedly became a real bestseller, and The Wall Street Journal generally recognized it as “Book of 2013.” In Russia, the book was published by the Peter Publishing House with the support of the Dynasty Humanitarian Foundation, whose goal is to promote the publication of the best modern popular science books in the field of natural sciences and humanities.

We have already published one book by Susskind in Russian - “The Battle of the Black Hole” (there was a post about it on Habré) - but “ Theoretical minimum"in format and content is radically different from it.

Book abstract

Foreword by Leonard Susskind

About ten years ago, someone asked if I would like to give a course of public lectures. It turned out that there were quite a lot of people in the Stanford area who once wanted to study physics, but life decided otherwise. They pursued one career or another, but never forgot about their long-standing love for the laws of the Universe. Now, having completed a career, or even two, they would like to return to them again, even in a simplified form.

Unfortunately, these people do not have many opportunities to listen to lectures. Stanford and other universities do not generally allow outsiders into classes, and for most adults, returning to school as a full-time student is not an option. This bothered me. There should be a way for people to develop their interests by interacting with working scientists, but nothing like that seemed to exist.

That's when I learned about the Stanford program continuing education. This program offers training courses people who are not involved in science. I thought it might serve my purposes by finding people who would like to have physics explained to them. It would be fun to give them a course in modern physics in half a semester.

It really turned out to be exciting. And it brought enormous satisfaction, which sometimes teaching undergraduate and graduate students does not provide. People came to study for only one reason: not to score points, not to get a degree, not to prepare for exams, but only to learn and satisfy their curiosity. And also, being seasoned people, they were not at all afraid to ask questions, so the classes turned out to be very lively, which is often lacking in ordinary lectures. I decided to repeat this course. And then again.

However, after a couple of such repetitions, it became clear that the students were not entirely satisfied with the non-major courses that I taught them. They wanted something more serious than what you could read in Scientific American. Many of them had some training, some familiarity with physics, half-forgotten, but not dead knowledge mathematical analysis and some experience in solving technical problems. They were willing to put in the effort to study real science- with equations. The result is a series of courses aimed at bringing these students to the cutting edge of modern physics and cosmology.

Luckily, someone (not me) had the bright idea to videotape the classes. They were posted online, and seem to have become surprisingly popular: Stanford isn't the only place where people are eager to study physics. I began to receive thousands of emails from all over the world. One of the main questions was: when will I turn these lectures into books? “Theoretical minimum” is the answer to this question.

I did not invent the term “theoretical minimum”. He rises to greatness Russian physicist Lev Landau. In Russia, TM meant everything a student needed to know to work under the guidance of Landau himself. He was a very demanding person, and his theoretical minimum included almost everything that he himself knew, which, of course, no one else could know.

I use this term differently. To me, the theoretical minimum just means what you need to know to get to the next level. These are not thick encyclopedic textbooks that explain everything in the world, but thin books that explain everything important. They follow the lecture courses that can be found online quite closely.

Welcome to Theoretical Minimum in Classical Mechanics and good luck!

Landau theoretical minimum

I will start with how I became Landau's student. In my third year at the physics department of Moscow State University, I realized that I wanted to be a theoretician, but I doubted whether I had enough abilities. It seemed to me that David Kirzhnits, who studied with me in the same group, is more capable than me, and he can, but whether I can is unknown. After some thought, I finally signed up and was enrolled in theoretical group. But the department of theoretical physics was weak (I understood this even then, in 1947): all the high-class theorists - Landau, Tamm, Leontovich - survived from there. But there remained great specialists in Marxist-Leninist philosophy who rejected quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. As my fellow student Herzen Kopylov said in his poem “Evgeny Stromynkin”:

I was there when Lednev

Gathering the kagal professors,

The decrepit Leo - Einstein -

He kicked his foot fearlessly.

And so, in the summer of 1947, having gathered all my courage, I took a decisive step - I called Landau and asked if I could start passing him the theoretical minimum. He told me to come one of the next days. I passed pretty easily entrance examination in mathematics, and Landau gave me a typewritten program for the seven remaining exams (in fact, there was another eighth: mathematics II - complex variables, special functions, integral transformations, etc.). At that time, the only books published in Landau’s course were: Landau, Pyatigorsky “Mechanics”; Landau, Lifshitz “Field Theory”, “Mechanics” continuum"and the first (classical) part of "Statistical Physics". All other courses had to be studied according to different books and a significant part of original articles. The articles were in English and German; for example, in the course of quantum mechanics there were two large - 100 pages each - articles by Bethe in Annalen der Physik. That is, it goes without saying that the test taker speaks both languages. On the following pages I present the original programs on quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum mechanics.

The exam took place as follows. The student called Landau and said that he would like to take such and such a course (the order of passing the courses was more or less arbitrary). “Okay, come then.” The newcomer had to leave all books, notes, etc. in the hallway. Then Landau invited him to a small room on the second floor, where there was a round table with several sheets of blank paper, a chair and nothing more. Landau formulated the problem and left, but every 15-20 minutes he came in and looked over the shoulder of the dealer to see what had been done. If he was silent, it was a good sign, but sometimes he said “hmm” - and that was a bad sign. I have no own experience, how and what happened in those cases when a student failed an exam. (I only know that retaking was allowed.) I came close to the dangerous line only once when I took statistical physics. I began to solve the problem in a way that was not what Landau expected. Landau came, looked over my shoulder, said “hmm” and left. 20 minutes later he came again, looked and said “hmm” in an even more dissatisfied tone. Lifshits came in here on some business. He also looked at my notes and shouted: “Dow, don’t waste time, drive him away!” But Dau objected: “We’ll give him another 20 minutes.” During this time I received an answer, and the answer was correct! Dau saw the answer, looked at my calculations again and admitted that I was right. He and Lifshits asked me several simple questions, and the exam was passed.

The problems that Landau gave were quite complex; the student had to solve each of them in about an hour. (As a rule, there were one or two complex tasks and one simpler.)

Therefore, it was necessary to practice a lot in solving problems in preparation for the exam. To acquire such practice, I tried to find problems wherever possible. (After all, there were no problem books, and the problems that are now in Landau’s “Course” in the form of problems were not collected anywhere.) I asked Abrikosov, who passed the Landau minimum before me, what problems he had (but not their solutions! ) and solved them. After several exams, I discovered that Landau had a rather limited supply of problems - sometimes he gave me the same problems as Abrikosov. I think Landau understood that those taking his exams told each other what tasks he was giving, but this did not bother him: in order to assess the student’s abilities and his knowledge, it was enough for him to see How the problem is being solved. Here is an example - a problem in macroscopic electrodynamics. A dielectric ball with electric and magnetic susceptibility? 1, ? 1 rotates with angular frequency? in an environment characterized by? 2, ? 2, in a constant electric field E. Angle between rotation axis and vector E equal?. Find the electric and magnetic fields inside the ball and in the medium.

And here is an episode typical for comparing the level of training at the University with the Landau minimum. In the spring of 1948, it was time to take the exam in quantum mechanics at the physics department. The course was taught by Blokhintsev, but I did not attend his lectures. I studied quantum mechanics according to the minimum program and believed that my level of knowledge was still insufficient to pass it to Landau: I still needed to work a lot. Once in the courtyard of the University I met D. Shirkov, who was a student at the theoretical department.

I'm going to take quantum mechanics ahead of schedule to Blokhintsev. Would you like to join?

“Come on,” I said after a moment of reflection.

We passed the exam, I got five, Shirkov got four. And I was able to pass the Landau exam only in September, after another three months of preparation.

It took me almost two years to pass the minimum. (During the same two years I made two scientific works under the leadership of Pomeranchuk.) In June 1949 after the surrender last exam Landau added me to the list of his students.

Shortly - about 2-3 weeks - before the tragic car accident on January 7, 1962, which cut short his creative life, Landau compiled a list of all those who passed the theoretical minimum. It is shown on the next page. For the first twenty years, Landau took all the exams himself. However, since the number of people wishing to take the minimum began to grow sharply in the 50s, somewhere in 1954-1955 Landau decided that he would only take the first entrance exam in mathematics, and all the rest would be taken by his employees from the Institute of Physical Problems - Lifshits, Khalatnikov, Abrikosov, Gorkov and others. Now, after many years, looking at this list, we can say with confidence which of those who passed the theoretical minimum actually became significant theoretical physicists, and who remained at an average level. And a rather sharp boundary is visible right around 1954-1955: the number of famous theorists in the left half of the sheet is noticeably greater than in the right. The idea arises that it was not only the content of the theoretical minimum and the set of tasks in the exam that was important - the role of the examiner was important. Probably, during the exam, Landau could see who is really talented and who is not. His students apparently did it worse. A great man is unique.

But Landau also had punctures. The list of those who passed the theoretical minimum does not include the name of V. Khozyainov, who passed it in 1950 (or 1951). And this is not Landau’s forgetfulness. Khozyainov studied at the physics department, in the same year as me, but was older in age. When assigned to departments in the third year, he did not go to theoreticians, but applied to some other department and was enrolled there. But when several students (including me) were transferred from the theoretical department to the “Structure of Matter” department (more on this below), the leadership of the physics department decided that theoretical department needs to be strengthened. “Strengthen” always also meant “strengthen politically.” Khozyainov and another student were ordered transferred to the theoretical department. Khozyainov was a party member, perhaps even a member of the physics department party committee. So he became a theorist. The fact that he later passed the Landau minimum really surprised me. I learned about this from Landau himself. Landau added that he plans to take Khozyainov to graduate school. I tried to dissuade him, told him how he got into theoreticians, that, in my opinion, Khozyainov was a weak physicist, and as a person he was rather dubious. But this had no effect on Landau; to all my arguments he had one answer: “But he passed the minimum!”

After some time (probably after a year and a half or two), Landau gave me Khozyainov’s dissertation and asked me to express my opinion. The dissertation was on particle physics, but it was formal (I don’t remember its content), and my assessment was rather sour. Landau asked: “Isn’t there nonsense in it? Doesn’t it contradict anything?” “No,” I answered, “but there’s not much content.” “Nothing,” said Landau, “then you can defend.” The owners defended themselves and then began vigorous activity. Within a short time he became secretary of the party committee of the Institute of Physical Problems. Let me remind you that the year was 1952 - the height of the fight against cosmopolitanism, that is, simply the height of the anti-Semitic campaign. And in the theoretical department of the IFP, headed by Landau, the percentage of Jews exceeded all acceptable standards. In fact, in the department (besides Khozyainov) there was only one Russian (according to his passport) - A. Abrikosov, and even he was actually half Jewish. To correct the situation, the IPP directorate created a second theoretical department headed by V. A. Fok. Fok did not like this role at all, but apparently he could not refuse. Khozyainov, as secretary of the party committee, began to act energetically in order to replace Landau with Fock at the head of the entire theoretical department. (It is possible, however, that the initiative did not belong to him, and he was only an executor.) But he did not have time to achieve success - Stalin died. Later short time Khozyainov was fired from the IFP, Landau never mentioned him again.