PoS
Can we move back to your early collaborations with Gor'kov, and to some
extent with Alexei A. Abrikosov as well? You all became quite enthusiastic about
the prospects for field theoretic methods within statistical physics in
the late 1950s and early 1960s.
IED
Yes. It was not only us, because basically there was also Arkadii Beinusovich
Migdal, he studied it, and he did everything at zero temperature. And
then we read the paper by Takeo Matsubara, and then we came with this idea to
use
PoS
temperature Green's functions.
IED
No, Matsubara did it, he defined everything. Our contribution, besides
practical use  we used it extensively in different phenomena, like in
our book you may see that we applied it  but we found this way to use,
instead of imaginary times, to use imaginary energies. So in fact in the
Matsubara approach you get diagrams, the diagrams were somewhat unworkable.
When you integrate stuff in the finite imaginary time region, it's hard
to work, you never work automatically, you get exponentials, and God knows
what, and they proliferate. Then separately I improved the stuff, how
to move from Matsubara imaginary frequencies to real frequencies, and
I published a paper. They don't use it now, they switched to the Keldysh
formulation. I did it almost all in short order, because there was a problem:
When you calculate thermodynamics, you cannot easily move to real time,
if you sit just on this finite stretch of imaginary time from 0 to 1 over
temperature. At zero temperature you go easily: it is nothing but the Wick rotation from Minkowski to Euclidean space in QFT. At finite temperatures you see that conventional diagrams are not enough to build the field theory in real time. You
need more, either more functions like Keldysh, or you need more diagrams.
The easiest way was with more diagrams. Starting with image  Feynman diagrams  you have to rearrange them according to the order of times at different vertices and each time sequence gives different contributions
analytically. It's equivalent in fact that you use more propagators. {I.
E. Dzyaloshinskii, "A diagram technique for evaluating transport coefficients
in statistical physics at finite temperatures," Sov. Phys. JETP 15 (1962):
778783.}
PoS
So the article you wrote with Gor'kov and Abrikosov on the applications
of quantum field theoretic methods in statistical physics [Sov. Phys.
JETP 36 (1959): 636641], that became chapter 3 of your textbook?
IED
Yes, in 1958, and then we wrote a book and published it in four years'
time, three years' time. {The preface to the Russian edition is dated
1961. An English translation appeared in 1963.}
PoS
And there was nothing unusual about that...?
IED
We wrote it extremely fast. I wrote my part, I believe, in two weeks.
We sort of lived with the stuff. Actually I don't remember that I consulted
anything when I wrote this. It was our life and work at that time. It
was really easy to write.
PoS
Were there other people in Moscow besides, say, Efim Fradkin, who were
also interested in this kind of crossfertilization?
IED
Yes, he did the same thing, in fact, but Efim, our difference with him
was fundamentally, I would say, technical. Efim always worked in [Julian] Schwinger's
framework. He likes functional derivatives, and OK, so he did not go farther.
You know, it's hard, I know cases where Schwinger's way is perfect 
in the case when you may solve something exactly, and like Schwinger himself.
But if you want to calculate a small correction (he did it, too), it's
much more tedious work.
PoS
Do you have any recollection of what the Landau group at the Institute
of Physical Problems thought of the paper by Schwinger and Paul Martin from
1959?
IED
I never read it. I did not pay attention. I came to know the paper afterward.
PoS
But for much the same reason, it probably didn't offer a calculational
tool...
IED
Yes, sure, that's why we never mentioned it. I eventually became aware
of it. It was sort of just a statement of relations. But that's why
I did not use it. Now you may say in the same way that the
Keldysh work was originated by Schwinger, but you look at an actual Schwinger
paper (not just the references), and then you would not see anything
like
this. Schwinger was already not interested in that.
PoS
The original SchwingerMartin paper was supposed to be the first of two
papers. Schwinger couldn't be bothered with the second part, so it was
Martin and Leo P. Kadanoff who wrote the second paper.
IED
Well, but that's different. But again, it's usually if you... [The paper
by] Martin and Kadanoff, it's basically, you should use higher correlations
to [Low?], and then it works. But that's uncontrollable. We were trained
never to use uncontrollable approximations. Landau would kill anyone who
was using them. In fact, Schwinger himself never did anything like this
in his lifetime, if you look at his work. He gave formulations, he solved
rather normal cases in strong magnetic field, and that sort of stuff,
where you may really use those functionals of his in an effective way.
So in fact he tremendously improved what [Werner] Heisenberg and [Hans] Euler did. They
did everything in a rather simple nonrelativistic way. They used the
spectrum of a charge in a magnetic field, or an electric field. Schwinger
did this perfectly. I enjoyed his work. But I never use functional integrals
in my work, because... Besides this stuff, either you may solve the problem's
exact integral, or you work with the singleloop approximation, whatever
you're doing. The last thing I did in this respect I told you about. It's
firstorder, and all fixed points are unstable. Then you draw the phase
portrait of the flow, and then you go  there are instability lines when
your initial Hamiltonian is unstable. You may calculate a lot in this
way  discontinuity, entropy, and stuff: everything is possible. And
finally, I was fascinated by writing down in conventional RGs  in the
sense that they are not simple oneparameter RGs or whatever. Unfortunately
it was in the context of high T_{c} superconductivity, and of course it does not have relevance. In fact I attended all the conferences
in 1987, but then I stopped doing anything. Now I realize that there is
nothing which is unusual in that.
PoS
Can we discuss again how you got started with work on ferromagnetic materials?
You have a piece from 1959 with Abrikosov on spin waves in a ferromagnetic
metal [Sov. Phys. JETP 35 (1959): 535537].
IED
Ah, 1959, that paper's wrong. It's my only mistaken paper.
PoS
Where do you think you went wrong with that?
IED
PoS
I get the impression that everyone read Landau's theory of Fermi liquids
and found that an immensely productive idea, and tried to find
IED
The idea was good, but the result is wrong. The point was that we missed
a term in the functional. It was shown by Conyers Herring that we were
wrong. We wrote down the spin dependency FsubLandau. When you calculate
spin wave spectra, the answer is that the energy is proportional to the
square of the wave vector. Then you see that you missed your initial functional,
the term of the same order. Landau was always right in doing this for
zero sound, because zero sound [writes on board]... and then it's enough.
But here you may write it down, here you may add the term which is, say,
H, and here you have (dn/dx)^2, and this H is a new phenomenological parameter.
So in fact our answer for the mass of the spin wave was wrong. It is not
defined solely by FsubLandau. And then I (with my student at the time),
I analyzed it with all the machinery of field theory, for then it can
be solved in actuality, when the spontaneous moment is small.
PoS
You returned to the subject later. {Reference is to "The theory of
weak ferromagnetism of a Fermi liquid," Sov. Phy. JETP 43 (1976): 1036.
[confirm]}
IED
And so this is the correct answer.
PoS
With the additional term.
IED
Yes. We did not do it this way. It's not enough, anyway. Here we were
able to pass through the transition point and to find socalled paramagnons.
It's excitations with energies which are much larger than saturation magnetization,
which is small here, so we used the fact that it is small. They are not
excitations, because they are imaginary. The spectrum of paramagnons is
diffuse, with energy proportional to ik^3. It's a known fact. Unfortunately
we did not find in this way anything new. This ik^3 was found by Seth
Doniach at Stanford, but they consider simply classical oscillations of
magnetization in a paramagnet, and then you have this stuff. But we were
able to write the whole spectrum. In 1995, 1996, I finally came to consider
all this to be crazy. They are generalization of RGs, so I came up with
one problem which I thought was relevant to high Tc. Now I understand
that it could be a model of nonFermi liquid behavior, because this type
of stuff destroys the Fermi surface in the sense that technically the
residue of the propagator goes to zero when you renormalize. I am not
too happy with this. And another thing, it was written in our ancient
style. Nowadays people...
PoS
How do you mean, "ancient style"?
IED
It's a propagator with [word?] diagrams, and that sort of thing. People
now, they prefer to write down the RG. From what I have seen, they are
usually wrong, and then they solve numerically, which is absolutely unnecessary,
because I was able to solve analytically. I do not know, but anyway, it
had something to do with decreasing mathematical culture, at least in
condensed matter physics.
PoS
Do you think the training of condensed matter theorists has become more
pragmatic in mathematical terms, or what do you mean?
IED
No, I mean, when you just write down a model, and then you try to solve
it numerically, obviously the model is relevant  it cannot be solved.
PoS
That's sort of an axiom of condensed matter theory?
IED
PoS
If the model is relevant, it cannot be solved analytically.
IED
No, and numerically, too. The only relevant model, you cannot solve. You have to wait for a new generation
of machines. So to me, as I understand high T_{c}, there is nothing new,
no ideas, it has the same [b] status. The fact that it is dwave,
the fact that it is a mixture of s and d states, and in fact liquid
helium 3 was known to be pwave decades before, so it's not
a great big deal. But the main thing in this stuff, because they are
poor metals, and besides they are almost twodimensional  in two dimensions
there is no Coulomb screening.
Do you
know, by the way, that we still are not able to calculate the transition
temperature of lead? You do it using the whole machinery of G. M. Eliashberg.
It's a nice theory, but it does not take into account Coulomb repulsion.
You may see, even in good metals, you expect the Coulomb repulsion to
be effectively small. Either you calculate oscillations in density of
dispersion functions, either from first principles, or better still,
take them from experiment. You use another set of data like conductivity
and normal state, you know almost everything. But then the results are
usually off by a factor of five. And then comes the famous [mu]* constant
which you need to account for Coulomb repulsion. And then you adjust
it, directly by hand, because without it, your T_{c} is wrong, three to
five times wrong. Well, now, in highT_{c} materials, Coulomb repulsion
is not known. In good metals it is known. So I think we just should
wait. And anyway I do not know a single case when theory could give
a guiding light about what materials they should be studying. I lost
interest in all this stuff.
PoS
Well, can we talk about phase transitions at an earlier stage of the game?
I'm thinking in particular of Fairbank's work in 1957. Fairbank and his colleagues
in 19571958 published a work that... {W. M. Fairbank, M. J. Buckingham,
and C. F. Kellers, "Specific heat of liquid He4 near the lambda point"
(August 1957), published in J. R. Dillinger, ed., Low Temperature Physics
& Chemistry: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1958), 5052. }
IED
I do not know about it, tell me about it.
PoS
Well, apparently that seemed to indicate that the helium transition was
sharper than expected, it wasn't simply
IED
Ah, you mean the experimental work, Fairbank's, yes, I know. At that time
they claimed there was a logarithm (which is not a logarithm), but anyway.
Landau was always excited with the work of Onsager.
PoS
Yes, tell me a little bit about Lars Onsager, when did you first learn about
the Onsager solution?
IED
From Landau. He was always  that was his trouble. And then I will
tell you: after all this Matsubara stuff, he came up with a suggestion.
Actually, he used what is now called the LandauWilson functional  it
was before Wilson. You use this functional, you calculate propagators,
and obviously in 3D everything gets out of hand. The next term is obviously
larger, if you start with k^2, but then Landau observed that you may simply
assume that the exact propagator in 3D behaves like k^3/2  then you
have logarithms and bubbles  that was his idea. So we did a lot of work.
He came and told us, "look," and everybody got excited. So actually
then [IED writes on board] we sum up this and that and that and that:
it's easier. We were clever enough, so everything was solved. But it does
not work, the solution is not logarithmic, it's not a good
fixed point. Actually, it does not satisfy...
PoS
This is very interesting, because in the 1958 English edition of Statistical
Physics, Landau and Lifshitz are quite cautious. They say, "Onsager's
result is extremely impressive, but it is for only two dimensions, and
we have no expectation that it have an immediate"
IED
No, I'm not so sure. Landau was absolutely aware, and he was worried about
it. So it was his idea, but it does not work, it's not a fixed point,
it's not conformable. It is not scale invariant. In fact unfortunately
the corrections are not so good.
PoS
So were there other people in the 1950s who were interested in studying
nonclassical examples, exceptions from meanfield theory?
IED
But all of them are. You define, say, the parquet summation, the new mean
field theory  they are now more and more exotic. Now I teach my students
 they are so badly prepared, so the only way for me to explain to them
superconductivity and stuff, I simply teach them that there are new exotic
mean fields, like superfluidity. It's for teaching poorlyprepared people.
Of course you may write it down as a mean field theory, and functional
integrals, or whatever. But my students, they usually do not know second
quantization, so that is hard. So I cannot follow with Bogoliubov's method.
It takes a long time to explain what a {End disc 1}
{Begin disc 2} The idea is somehow purely numerical. And of course
it's OK when you are going to do engineering, or if you are going to just
service, it's OK. But if you really want to do something crucial in condensed
matter theory...
PoS
In your current situation here do you find yourself teaching condensed
matter theorists, materials scientists
IED
No, I enjoy it. As I told you, I started work as an engineer, and in fact
my education was immensely higher than was needed, so I know how to go
"down." It's easy to go "down," it's hard to go "up."
PoS
But you know how to pick your level.
IED
Yes, and since then I know what an "engineer" means.
PoS
So in this department you're teaching materials scientists, materials
researchers?
IED
No. It's practically impossible for them, I could not even tell you the
probability for any of our students to somehow succeed in academia. so
that means they are bound either to go to good industry labs, which is
now exceptional, you understand, because many operations are closing their
labs. Lucent destroyed Bell Labs, it's a national shame, I would say.
IBM did not do this, they still... But Lucent, in general... I could never
understand the idea that the big operations should make only lasers.
PoS
I have noted here that, just to circle back to Fairbank again,...
IED
No, no, Landau was aware that the theory is wrong.
PoS
But Alexander Voronel recalls that Landau denied the analogy between the lambda
point and the critical point, the lambda point of helium and the notion
of a general critical point in phase transitions.
IED
Ah, you mean the critical point in liquidgas transitions.
PoS
IED
Well, but it is not identical.
PoS
But is there an analogy, is it worth pursuing, or no?
IED
Landau understood too that the result is wrong. In fact we know that exponents
are different and basically it's not the same phenomenon. The singularities
are not the same in the critical case. I do not know what Voronel... Well,
Voronel was one of the first to measure this kind of stuff, but his measurements
were wrong.
PoS
The measurements on argon?
IED
I do not know about the measurements, but he always claimed that he saw
logarithms. I tried to convince him that it's the wrong way to look at
it. You have to look for an exponent, if you claim that it is zero, then
you have to measure plus and minus around the zero, and that's the correct
presentation of the results. But he never wanted to do it.
PoS
His first expectation was that it should be a logarithm.
IED
Yes, he wanted to have a logarithm simply on the grounds that in Onsager's
work, it was a logarithm. Landau did not believe in this logarithm. His
idea was this, that you understand that it's not logarithms here in thermodynamics
with k^3/2. No. So in fact we were well prepared in anticipation. Wilson's
work came to us not unexpected. Internally we expected something like
this. But somehow we did not appreciate four dimensions as mean field.
And Landau obviously, too. Because his idea, judging by the Onsager result,
was that the result is so far from mean field, and should be far. To me,
what Wilson did, he has shown that mean field is still relevant in 4D,
that it defines the behavior, and in fact it opens up the way to calculate.
PoS
In your work on van der Waals forces, you're clearly aware of issues in
the quantum theory of fluctuations, and then, of course, Alexander Z. Patashinskii
and Valery L. Pokrovsky, their paper says, look, fluctuations are the heart of the
matter in some sense.
IED
I must confess that I was not particularly impressed by the simple assertion
of scaling invariance, OK? Because it could be this way, and you immediately
realize that it means that there is an RG, there is a fixed point, and
that sort of thing. Actually in field theory it's a single cutoff, and
logarithms. And then when I read the first article by Wilson, when he
used some crazy RG  if you have read it...
PoS
IED
Yes, his first paper. He just wrote down an RG which gives you scaling
invariance, and that sort of stuff. But then he switched to what's now
called LandauWilson, and treated it around D4 and expanded it and
stuff, and then I was convinced.
PoS
If I understand correctly, Wilson visited the Soviet Union in 1971 for
one of the international symposia?
IED
Yes, he was there. I met him before. But you know, that [pointing to photograph]
was the best gathering I ever attended. It was a Nobel Symposium in 1973,
I believe. {See B. Lundqvist, S. Lundqvist, and V. RunnstroemReio,
eds., Collective properties of physical systems: Proceedings of the TwentyFourth
Nobel Symposium, 1216 June 1973 (Stockholm, 1973).} Here's Wilson,
[Walter] Kohn, Martin, [Robert] Schrieffer. Do you know who this is? Guess. It's Hubbard.
Look, it's [David] Mermin, it's Doniach, [Philip J.] Anderson, that's me. [Leon] Cooper, Gor'kov.
That's Ambegaokar, Toulouse, [Pierre] de Gennes, that's Hopfield, Heeger, [Brian] Josephson,
Nozieres, [Michael E.] Fisher, and here, I guess that's [Bertrand L.] Halperin. I left the volume
[the published proceedings] in Moscow. So that was the best gathering
I ever attended. By the way, some people were talking about Wilson's work
on phase transitions, but Wilson himself gave a talk
on his solution of the Kondo problem. It was the only case when I really
saw how his RG really worked. But he directly renormalized the Hamiltonian.
In fact it is the only case which I know. Now you understand why it worked
 well, it's not exactly integrable, but when you do some tricks, and
throw out this and that  then it's exactly integrable. It [the meeting]
was really exceptional. Otherwise I never met all those people in one
place.
PoS
Is Kadanoff in that group, or no?
IED
No. I think there were some... Well, you know, even in science there can
be delicate personal relations.
PoS
And of course it's a delicate matter in retrospect. I mean, people like
Cyril Domb, for instance, will say outright that, look, Wilson should
not have been awarded the prize by himself, it should have been Wilson,
Fisher, and Kadanoff.
IED
Oh, no, that's wrong. I don't agree at all. You see, after time lapsed
and everybody got accustomed to this sort of stuff... First of all, it
seems a little bit arbitrary. Of course you may assume there is a single
scale, but...
PoS
To return to some of your own work, could you say a little more about
how you got interested in the problem of van der Waals forces? Because
you have these very meaty papers that you write with Lev Petrovich Pitaevskii and Lifshitz,
culminating in the survey piece in Soviet Physics Uspekhi. I mean,
there's a lot of work that went into those... {See I. E. Dzyaloshinskii
and L. P. Pitaevskii, "Van der Waals forces in an inhomogeneous dielectric,"
Sov. Phys. JETP 36 (1959): 12821287; I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, E. M. Lifshitz,
and L. P. Pitaevskii, "Van der Waals forces in liquid films," Sov. Phys.
JETP 37 (1960): 161170; Dzyaloshinskii, Lifshitz, and Pitaevskii, "General
theory of van der Waals' forces," Sov. Phys. Uspekhi (Sept/Oct 1961):
153176.}
IED
Oh, you mean... But that's not RG. Well, the problem was that Lifshitz
did it using a sort of standard thermodynamic theory of fluctuations.
It was formulated for real frequencies and that sort of...
PoS
Was it you and Pitaevskii who pushed Lifshitz to reformulate it with a
problem quantum
IED
No, we did it absolutely independently of him. Then we wrote an essential
paper, we wrote the first paper without him, and proved how all the calculations
should be done. The main thing was  in Lifshitz' work, he was able to
calculate only the force between two bodies divided by vacuum. I'll tell
you why, it's not that simple. If you put a liquid here [in between the
bodies], then he calculated the force by simply taking Maxwell's stress
tensor in vacuum. It exists, but there is no Maxwell stress tensor in
absorbing liquid, or in any absorbing medium. There is no such concept.
Basically the force in the medium, if you try to write it down for real
frequencies and even in nonequilibrium state, you cannot express the
force in terms of dielectric functions. Actually, you may do it, and Pitaevskii
did it for some special cases in plasma, but you immediately see that
the equivalent tensor is expressed not only through the dielectric function
of the same plasma, but separately there were some mean free paths or
something, so it's not the same stuff. We worked in the Matsubara case,
and so we derived everything from thermodynamics, and we defined the force,
and we did everything. Then we showed that you may write down the force
as given by Maxwell's tensor, but written for an imaginary frequency.
But it's wrong for real frequencies. If you move back, then you will not
obtain this. Then we were able to calculate the chemical potential on
the field and the wall. It is impossible to do it Lifshitz' way. But that's
a simpleminded fluctuation theory. In a sense it means that if your fluctuations
are far from equilibrium, there is no way to write down  nothing is
expressed through dielectrics and that sort of thing. So you cannot reduce
it. You may calculate it, but nothing results. So that was what we did.
The film [liquid films] was our main issue. Now I simply cannot adjust
myself to what people are doing now, what they call Casimir forces. It's
against my grain. I mean in astrophysics. The
point is obviously cutoffs. But you need cutoffs only in Casimir's initial
theory, when you assume that your walls are ideal metals. Then you need
cutoffs. But if your walls are not  and indeed in our condensed matter,
they are not  all my epsilons here, at high enough frequencies they
go to 1. So to me the physical phenomena  the results are so ambiguous,
because of these cutoff problems. But to get rid of them, they need a
theory. You build your own problems.
PoS
I'm interested in hearing a little bit more about  you have really a
sort of intimate cohort there at the Institute of Physical Problems. For
a time, there's just the six of you working with Landau: Lifshitz, you,
Abrikosov, Gor'kov, Khalatnikov, Pitaevskii (and some graduate students).
IED
That was basically the four of us. We were all basically the same
age, with Pitaevskii [b. 1933] as the youngest, Abrikosov [b. 1928] as
the oldest. There was a difference of five years in this case, but we
were all the same generation. Fundamentally we did not always work together,
but we discussed everything.
PoS
So when each of you was finishing a paper...
IED
Absolutely. Well, no, before  and sometimes we discussed subjects even
before we started to work on them. We were not afraid of one another.
At the top we had a good policeman. Landau would not tolerate any cheating
in this way. This law was severely enforced when we were young.
PoS
You explain that very nicely in your essay when you talk about how "demokratizm"
was very strictly enforced in Landau's seminar.
IED
Yes, democracy was on the surface. Otherwise, I don't know...
PoS
Can you say a little bit more about the relationship between the Theory
Department and the other departments of the Institute of Physical Problems?
IED
It was good. I mean I interacted a lot with people in the Kapitza institute
who worked on magnetism and that sort of thing. I would never try to solve
an experimental problem, but I was aware of what was going on around me,
of their problems, and sometimes it happened that  I do not know why
 I found the solution. The majority of the experimentalists, they worked
on superconductivity. I never did [this]; they had contact with Abrikosov
and Gor'kov. Pitaevskii returned to the institute. There was somehow not
a position for him after he completed the PhD, and then he [officially]
moved to the institute, which was concerned with plasma in the atmosphere, so he got work in this way. But then Kapitza himself was researching
what he considered a way to control fusion. He was absolutely wrong, but
for the last thirty years of his life he was doing this stuff, and he
simply did not listen. He was absolutely convinced that the temperature...
He heated his plasma by pumping highfrequency radiation into it, with
no magnetic confinement, and then he was convinced somehow that the pumped
energy had some relation to the ion's temperature. He was stubborn until
he died. After his death his lab simply "blew up" and disappeared. But
he employed Pitaevskii
PoS
IED
By that time Lev [Pitaevskii] became expert in plasma...
PoS
Petr Leonidovich Kapitza's successor is Andrei Stanlislavovich BorovikRomanov? At an earlier stage you had discussed
ferromagnetism with him. Tell me a bit about that collaboration.
IED
Yes, I collaborated with him, on weak ferromagnetism and piezomagnetism.
{See Dzyaloshinskii, "Thermodynamic theory of 'weak' ferromagnetism
in antiferromagnetic substances," Sov. Phys. JETP 5 (1957): 12591272;
"The problem of piezomagnetism," Sov. Phys. JETP 6 (1958): 621622.}
PoS
What kinds of things did you ask of each other?
IED
Well, I was strange, I never interacted in this way. He found weak ferromagnetism,
and he could not explain it, and nobody at that time could, and I was
available. I tried the method to work with this problem, the general problem
of magnetic spin arrangement and that sort of stuff: how to analyze the
possible symmetries. So then I applied them to different compounds, and
accidentally I applied it  well, not completely accidentally  but
I applied it to hematite, which was the first known weak ferromagnet,
and then the only important one. It's my first long paper.
PoS
Was this what you had submitted as your 'kandidatskaia' work [PhD]?
IED
Yes, that's my thesis. Then I used a symmetry concept to analyze the possible
magnetic
PoS
May I ask, who were your opponents for your kandidatskaia defense?
IED
PoS
You would have had outside opponents, right?
IED
Yes, two, there should be two. I don't remember, and I'll tell you why:
because I did not give a talk [an oral defense].
PoS
It was more a question of whether they signed a piece of paper saying,
"Yes, this is good work."
IED
Yes, they signed it. I'm sure that one of them was [Sergei] Vonsovskii, I'm not
sure who the second was. It might have been BorovikRomanov himself, I
have forgotten. It was forty three years ago. In a sense the defense was
not important to me. I was already engaged in other work, and we were
occupied.
PoS
And it was already clear at the time that you submitted this work for
publication that you were going to stay on as a researcher at the institute,
is that right?
IED
Here,
look [points to photo hanging on wall], that's the funny Landau picture.
It's related to this work. The picture is from Life magazine, 1957.
The situation: it was a small room, with a small blackboard. It was the
first time I really told Landau about this work, and I covered the board
with my writing. Then this guy with cameras appeared, so in fact he staged
the picture. He put Landau in front [at the blackboard], and I'm here
[in back]. The caption here is "Landau teaches at the Institute for Physical
Problems." {See Robert Wallace, "First hard facts on all Russian
sciences," Life Magazine 43 (16 December 1957): 118.}
PoS
Even though he hadn't written the equations...
IED
Yes, that's my writing. I'm about 26 at the time. {End of 14/12/01
session}
Continue reading part III of this interview,
or go back to part I.
