| (The article was
published in the collection devoted to Baldin’s 70th birthday.JINR,
Dubna,1996 )
My colleagues and friends
at the Laboratory of High Energies of the Joint Institute for Nuclear
Research suggested me that I should write a composition on the topic
proposed as to how the interest in science occurred to me, how my
adherence to a definite field of physics was accounted for and why I had
been working so long at the two institutes, namely the P.N.Lebedev
Physics Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (FIAN) and at the
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna.
Having looked through
my scientific papers, public talks, interviews and popular
articles I found that my point of view on the significance of the value
aspects in science has been changing little during almost half a
century. My article published in the journal Voprosy Filosofii
N.10, 1974 is just devoted to the discussion of the value aspects of
natural science. This subject was also considered in my other articles,
e.g. Literaturnaja Gazeta this problem was discussed for
many years.
Having been appointed
director of the Laboratory of High Energies I much reflected
on the strategy of a modern scientific center, on the «purpose
function» of big scientific institutions. In the articles mentioned , as
well as in my scientific papers, I emphasized that the goal and
the value system of fundamental investigations had been
formulated by the classics of natural sciences. They are the
formation of the theoretical basis, the minimum set of notions and
assertions which could be used to obtain, in a logical way, the
notions and assertions in experimental sciences (the world picture
). Hence there follows an hierarchy of the significance of the
results obtained, namely to which level of knowledge they are attributed
: either to the general principles ( symmetry, invariance ), the
laws of Nature ( relationships between the measurable , invariant and
dimensionless quantities ), or to the accumulation of facts in the
domain of the physical quantities in which the laws have not yet
been formulated or there are disagreements in experimental data. Of
course, such a purposeful orientation occurred to me not at once.
I took an active interest
in physics late, at the age of 20, when I transferred from the
third course of the building faculty of the Moscow Institute
of Engineers of Railway Transport to the Moscow Engineering
Physics Institute (MEPhI), the Moscow Mechanics Institute at that
time. That was the year 1946, when the best students from
technical institutes were selected to become specialists in
atomic science and engineering. The competition that took place among
smart and self-confident young people much encouraged intensive
engagements in science. In addition, there were many prominent and
actively working physicists among MEPhI’s professors who deeply
understood the methodology and aesthetic aspects of science. Later
on I got to know that the geniuses of theoretical physics such as
Poincre and Dirac were raising the aesthetic attitude to the equations
and to the scientific results to the level of the methodology of
science.
When I was going to the seventh form
of the Moscow secondary school number 114, I had the wonderful
teacher of mathematics, Anna Sergeevna Almazova. She succeeded in
revealing to us, mischievous boys, the beauty of the Euclidean
geometry, and made us to feel ( naturally we were yet unable to
understand it) that the harmony and a strict order underlie the world
structure. She awoke our ambitions by provoking us to find the
finest and laconic solutions and hence our aspiration to
knowledge. To my mind, that was more important than the knowledge
itself. Unfortunately the school courses of physics and chemistry
stimulated no interest in them. These courses, as well as the university
ones, are of fragmentary character and they are presented as
a collection of concrete facts and laws without the explanation of their
hierarchy, significance, and methodology. For instance, the
Poisson brackets are introduced at the end of the university
lectures on mechanics as a crown of creation . Usually one does not
explain the power of this method which makes it possible to
formulate ( as Dirac had done it ) the theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics. Likewise, electromagnetism is presented as separate laws and
phenomena without demonstrating the fact that they are only the
consequences of the Maxwell equations , one of the greatest
generalizations of the laws of Nature.
I.E.Tamm often liked to
develop the idea:« the student is not a vessel that should be filled,
but he is a torch that should be inflamed ». Tamm’s seminars in FIAN
were a wonderful school for physicists of my generation. To be precise,
there were two weekly Tamm’s seminars . One of them was a formal
one held on Tuesdays ,and the other named semiofficially «triop» (free
talks) took place every Friday. A wide range of problems was discussed
in the democratic atmosphere. The wonderful ability of Igor
Evgenjevitch to grasp the essence of any problem was
very important for the beginners, and not only for
them, in choosing their own ways in science.
During the last
years of studies at the Institute and later on I had the good luck
of contacting outstanding scientists who gave me the idea
about the methodology in physics, about the major values. After
graduating from MEPhI, I was especially lucky to be invited
to work at FIAN. At this great research institution it was
possible to meet, and not only to meet, but also to talk with such
eminent scientists as V.A.Fock, M.A.Markov, N.N.Bogoliubov,
M.A.Leontovich, I.M.Frank, P.A.Cherenkov, L.D.Landau, D.I.Blokhintsev,
I.Ya.Pomeranchuk, E.L.Feinberg, S.N.Vernov, Yu.M.Shirokov and many
others.
In high energy physics, the
leading position was occupied by D.V.Skobeltsyn’s school,
who lead down, in the twenties, the experimental foundations of
quantum electrodynamics , discovered the nature of cosmic rays by having
detected for the first time particles of energies much higher than
those of particles from radioactive sources, as well as
discovered the multiple production of particles. It was
D.V.Skobeltsyn who directed the attention of home physicists
to research into processes occurring at the extreme energies. The
synchrophasotron project contains his legible signature «Approved.
D.Skobeltsyn» 5 January 1951. Being a brilliant representative of the
pre-revolutionary Russian intelligentsia, a highly cultured man,
Dmitrij Vasiljevich Skobeltsyn had played a crucial role in
forming the traditions and working out directions of the
research.
The true creator of FIAN
in its present-day state was Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov, who had assembled
together the outstanding physicists of our country and
developed the research program of the Institute. In
spite of the fact that in the hard postwar years he occupied the
high position of the president of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR,
his firm director’s hand and constant support were
felt in all Institute activities and especially in the
construction of the FIAN acceleration center.
Skobeltsyn’s disciple,
Vladimir Iosifovich Veksler was an indubitable leader of
world’s science in this area .As early as in 1944 , being a worker
of Skobeltsyn’s laboratory, Veksler made his epoch-making discovery of
the phase stability principle. Already in 1947, the first
accelerator, the 30 MeV electron synchrotron, was started up
at FIAN under the guidance of Veksler. In 1949 one succeeded in putting
into operation a 250 MeV electron synchrotron at which
photoproduction of mesons was discovered which gave rise to the
physics of electromagnetic interactions of hadrons.
Veksler’s plans supported
by Vavilov , Markov and other physicists from FIAN
were the construction of electron accelerators for still higher energies. However
this idea met with a sharp resistance of some other specialists in
nuclear physics who said that electromagnetism had been studied and had been of no interest. The
second viewpoint gained victory and the decision was made to build a proton accelerator.
The designing of the synchrophasotron
required much experimental work and the creation of an operating model
accelerator. The latter was rebuilt into an electron synchrotron that is
in operation up to the
present time at the Lebedev Institute. Until 1954, this work was
classified as a highly secret one which had resulted in losses of home physicists and
engineers’ priorities. The synchrophasotron was given a code name
«Object KM « (Ring Magnet). In spite of a serious damage caused by the secrecy system ,
there was also a positive(
as far as the subject in question is concerned) effect . The aim pursued
by the majority of people who were working in secret areas of science
was the results achieved rather
than international recognition and the protection of their intellectual property
.Those results were appropriated along with the removal of secrecy. This process is
going on up to now when
books, historical and popular articles are being written. It is very
hard to establish priorities and the scientific significance of the investigations
performed earlier basing on
those late-coming publications. The exception is the developments of
concrete designs for which
appropriate official documents have been preserved. Among these are the project and the physical
substantiation of the Dubna synchrophasotron («Object KM»).
My
first supervisor of studies Matvej Samsonovich Rabinovich published
a monograph «The foundations of the theory of the
synchrophasotron». Thanks to his high honesty, my results
were justly evaluated and cited in his monograph and in his other
papers. That was a good lesson of scientific ethics, the ability
of giving an unbiassed estimate of the significance of the results
of his colleagues, especially of young people. My first contacts
with Rabinovich date back to 1947 when hebsp; proposed to us, the two students
of MIFI, V.V.Mikhailov and me, to examine the possibility of creating
ring accelerators with race track magnets. He told us that in the
distant future such accelerators might play the main role in high energy physics. We
were actively engaged in calculations, frankly speaking, not always understanding what was the purpose of
these complicated calculations. We began missing lectures and used to
spend all free time at the
old FIAN on the 3d Miuss street. Veksler’s laboratory was situated there, in a small two-storey
building. One late evening Veksler came to the room where Mikhailov and Iwere working .He talked with us
a long time and after all he said to our supervisor: « All what these
students have calculated should be verified carefully and presented in the form of reports» . He had succeeded in
appointing us FIAN
employees and we
continued our studies.
Later on, he came to MEPhI to speak as a reviewer at the defence of our
diploma theses. Of course, we did not expect such honor. Though there was a rather
simple explanation for this. The government decision had been made to build
the world’s biggest proton accelerator. Veksler was appointed the
leader. It was necessary to
give the physical substantiation for this project. We found ourselves
in the epicenter of Veksler’s tireless activities. Being inspired by his
enthusiasm we fulfilled all
the tasks set forth before us. Those might be the qualitative analysis
of differential equations, modeling measurements or the business trips.
These activities made it possible to determine the primary goal and to
throw away the problems and tasks of minor importance. In the severe forties,
specialists engaged in the physics of accelerators had high responsibility for
their quantitative results. At the same time, the creative atmosphere at
FIAN and my teachers
constantly made me to understand that the images and
pictures of the processes created on the basis of the quantitative
results and formulas were the final products rather than these results
and formulas themselves. At that time one used to say that those
formulas needed to be
still «rolled» ( to be
turned over and over).
Soon Mikhailov and I had
come to understand that the accelerators were tools for scientific work
and could in no way be the
highest goal of fundamental investigations . At that time, we had the
great fortune to meet M.A.Markov who was not only an outstanding
physicist, but also a true philosopher.
In 1947, his famous article entitled «On the nature of physical
knowledge» appeared in the journal «Voprosy Filosofii». It was just for this article that he had
been declared a «leader of physical idealism in our country» and was
criticized cruelly. Strictly speaking, this paper devoted to the
interpretation of the physical and philosophical matter of quantum field
theory had just marked the beginning of political persecution of
scientists. However we were little interested in these discussions and our attitude to philosophers
was sceptical. M.A.Markov was, for us, the first theorist who clearly realized
that progress in quantum field
theory would be stipulated by experiments
on accelerators. By that
time, he passed from FIAN
Theoretical Department to Veksler’s Laboratory and began to develop the program of the
first experiments. It was just that we were always discussing. I use to say «we» implying
Vadim Mikhailov and me. I
met Vadim in 1943 when I passed my school-leaving examinations . Since that time we became inseparable friends. We entered MIIT,
moved to MEPhI and were
appointed to FIAN where we
carried out all the scientific work together. We wrote the two diplomas and cast
lots which of them would be defended by Vadim and which by me. We acted
in the same manner concerning our candidate theses. Unfortunately Vadim
had no time to defend his
thesis. He died tragically in the Pamir mountains at the age of 25.
For the first time, we went to the mountains in 1945 more or less by chance. An
unbelievable beauty of mountains we saw after difficult and scanty boys’
life during the war impressed us very much and greatly changed our attitude to
the world around us. We decided at once that the mountains were our
destiny. I can say with certainty that the most vivid impressions of our youth are connected with
mountaineering. Besides, work as a climber trainer was an essential help in
student’s` poor life. For the twenty years, there has been stored a lot of recollections and
impressions .These are especially the first ascents and the peaks that have never been subjugated before. I recall
our winter climbings, when
everything was seen in a different way, several meetings of strong and courageous people ,
bright colors of new and new mountain regions. However there are many
sad and painful recollections about the true friends who are no
more among the living. The
loss of Vadim Mikhailov with whom we were inseparable in science and
mountains about ten years
was the first tragedy in my
life. I participated in the
rescue operation. But we had not succeeded in saving Mikhailov’ s group. Because of very hard
weather conditions two other members of our party were lost. About a year I was depressed and could not work at all. Somewhat later , I
nevertheless returned to mountains, but the former elation no longer occurred to me.
M.A.Markov considered
Mikhailov as one of his
best disciples and felt his death keenly.
The physics of
the interactions of photons with nucleons and nuclei, the physics of
electromagnetic interactions of hadrons constantly attracted my attention .Being one of the organizers of the
Council on the physics of electromagnetic interactions in the USSR Academy of Sciences, I am
president of this Council up to now. I had an opportunity to
contact with prominent
specialists in this area,
to take part in
large-scale international
conferences. In this connection, telling about the goals and ideals
which occurred to me in the
process of my work, it
should be noted that I was most impressed by Markov’s ideas about extensivity and the
inner structure of elementary particles, about the fact that the
particle form factors could
not be rigid, while a deformed form factor implied locality, point-likeness
of interactions. The point-like property of the electromagnetic
interaction and the possibility of using the smallness of the electromagnetic coupling
constant enabled us to apply quantum field theory to predict the behavior of the cross
sections for photoproduction of positive, negative and neutral mesons on hydrogen and deuterium.
The researches carried out by Mikhailov and me which were
initiated by Markov were
the first to determine the lines of development of experiments in the
domain of meson photoproduction. From the very beginning of our studies of field
theory we were imbued with the physical meaning of our formulas and appreciated
experimenters’ possibilities of «putting questions to Nature». We
were thus enabled to feel
the goal when performing calculations and learning the complicated notions of quantum
field theory. On the other hand, we found out some gaps in our education
and felt the need in the monographic literature in the domain of field
theory. At the same time, there appeared thorough articles and books by
N.N.Bogoliubov and his school. First of all, it is necessary to mention
here the papers of
A.A.Logunov, L.D.Soloviev and A.N.Tavkhelidze on the dispersion
relations using which it became possible to consider our results on
nearthreshold photoproduction as quite rigorous relations. Easy contacts
with experimenters in the
field of elementary particle physics and nuclear physics, as well as
with outstanding specialists in the area of quantum field theory led me
in 1958 to the Laboratory of Theoretical Physics at Dubna. I
returned to particle
acceleration problems in 1968 when I became, unexpectedly for me and others, director of the Laboratory of High Energies
and responsible for the fate of « my first love » the synchrophasotron. Thus it
is impossible to say that all the time I was
purposefully choosing objects of my studies. Most likely, it
should be spoken of a fate, circumstances and luck.
As far back as 1963, M.A.Markov suggested the idea that the sum of the cross sections for
elastic and inelastic lepton scattering had to behave like the cross
section of scattering on a
point-like charge. This idea forestalled by five years the classic experiments on deep
inelastic electron-nucleon scattering. It is generally agreed that it
was just these experiments and their subsequent interpretation that were
the first to show that the scattering on a proton behaves like that on a
point-like charge. They initiated the interpretation of the quarks as real point-like constituents of the hadrons. Markov’s
idea , that was published in due
course, is justly cited as a starting one in the well-known papers
on automodelity
(self-similarity) of Matveev, Muradian, and Tavkhelidze. These papers had greatly
stimulated the beginning of the research in the field of relativistic
nuclear physics and the
development of the plans of modernization of the synchrophasotron. It
became clear to me that the self-similarity laws are consequences of the
fundamental symmetries and the self- similarity parameters are the
invariants of the appropriate groups. It has become obvious that the self-similarity is not only a distinctive
feature of the lepton-nucleon interaction cross section, but it is a
common property of nuclear matter that should be revealed in relativistic
nuclear collisions. This idea was formulated in my papers in 1971. There it was emphasized that the nearest tasks of
experiments were, first, the discovery of the self-similarity laws of relativistic nuclear
collisions and ,second, the study of the boundary energy starting from
which the asymptotic regime of the nuclear
interaction self-similarity
was setting in. In the asymptotic region, nuclear matter is expected to
behave like a continuous medium. These ideas were shared by an experienced
group of experimenters headed by V.S.Stavinsky. In less than a year (by the end of 1971) I had an opportunity to report the results of the discovery of the scale
invariance of nuclear
collisions and the cumulative effect at a session of the American
Physical Society ( that is, one year before relativistic nuclear beams
were obtained at the Bevatron ). Somewhat later Stavinsky’s group
established the
relativistic nuclear energy for which the limiting regimes mentioned
began to be accomplished. This nuclear energy of 3.5 - 4 A.GeV was found
to be achieved on the
synchrophasotron alone which had enabled Dubna to occupy the dominating
position in the area of relativistic nuclear physics during almost fifteen years. The
establishment of this boundary made it possible to reject the original version of the
nuclotron design rated at
an energy of 12-15 A GeV and to use efficient iron-shaped
superconducting field magnets invented at
the Laboratory of High Energies. This made it possible to reduce
essentially the cost of the
project and to accomplish it under the conditions of a serious economic crisis. My earlier
work done in the domains of
acceleration technique, nuclear physics and particle physics as well as
the investigations in the field of symmetry approaches intertwined
mystically in the nuclotron
and the research program on it.
I will try to draw away from mysticism and formulate my answer to the questions about the
purpose and the values of scientific work ( «What is to be done ?»). If we return
to the beginning of my
considerations we find there the general answer of the classics of
natural sciences -
reductionists: the goal of science is the creation of the world ‘s
picture starting from a
minimum set of notions and assertions. Ideally one implies the
construction of a mathematical model. The physical processes are described in terms of
observables, operations linking physical objects. Complicated real
situations require simplified descriptions on the basis of the criteria of validity of the models embracing a class of
(abstract, symbolic) mathematical objects such as the numbers or the vectors and the relationships between these objects.
The Standard Model in elementary particle physics claims to be
capable of describing
electroweak and strong interactions and is a great achievement of experimental and theoretical
physics of the second half of the 20th century. However the Standard
Model contains only those defining axioms which concern the lagrangian symmetries, but this is not enough for the
description of physical processes. Some additional conditions
(hypotheses) are needed :
initial and boundary conditions, assumptions about the constants
entering the
lagrangians (masses,
charges and so on ). For
example, the assumption about the existence of a renormalizaton group (this
is the symmetry of the solutions rather than that of the lagrangian!) made it possible to introduce a running coupling
constant and the concept
of asymptotic freedom which
made chromodynamics a
quantitative theory in a
definite domain of parameters ( hard processes).It is impossible to
deduce nuclear physics, including relativistic nuclear physics, from quantum chromodynamics without using auxiliary hypotheses needed to be checked
experimentally. The verification of such hypotheses of a rather general
nature is not less
important than the verification of quantum chromodynamics. For instance,
a detailed probe of the correlation depletion principles and the
self-similarirty is a task of paramount importance.
However both the
lagrangian properties and the self-similarity are consequences of symmetry.
Symmetry was considered by
ancient Greek philosophers as a particular case of harmony i.e. the concordance of
the parts within the whole. The modern methods of systematic -
structural studies based on the
construction of models and on the group theory are now applied
also to the analysis of works performed in literature, art, architecture
and music. « The ability to feel symmetry where others do not feel it is, in our
opinion, the whole of aesthetics of scientific and artistic works» . (
A.V.Shubnikov )
|
|