Jump to content

Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Untitled

Brothers' Background

This section is almost unreadable due to the amount of information in parentheses. Can someone with more knowledge of this case clean it up? I am unsure if the family background included here is even necessary for the understanding of the Bogdanov Affair. Chris902 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Their mother was the bastard daughter of Roland Wiltse Hayes" = Please change "bastard" to "illegitimate". Bastard carries negative connotations and is a heavy, crude term.

This paragraph contains unnecessarily condensed phrases which are consequentially opaque. Please unpack the sentences into coherent understandable phrases. The complexity of the information that the author is attempting to transmit in the paragraph requires shorter, more intelligible phrases. It isn't necessary to included the places and birth and death of such distant relatives. There are too many dates and placenames included in a non narrative context.

Suggested alternative : Their mother was the illegitimate daughter of Roland Wiltse Hayes, a noted African American lyric tenor born in Curryville, Gordon County, Georgia, (June 3, 1887). He was the son of William Hayes (Georgia - ca. 1898) and wife Fanny. William Hayes had an affair with a married Czech-Austrian noblewoman, Bertha Henriette Katharina Nadine Gräfin von Kolowrat-Krakowský (June 21, 1890 - January 29, 1982), whose marriage to Hieronymus Graf von Colloredo-Mannsfeld ended in divorce.

1. Question: How can Roland Wiltse Hayes be the son of William Hayes and his wife, while at the same time being the illegitimate child of Willaim Hayes and Bertha Henriette? 2. We don't need to know the names of the parents of Bertha Henriette. Nor do we need to know the name of her grandparents. So I have omitted that information. 3. Please change date format to the month-day-year format used by English speakers. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.22.22 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Grichka Bogdanoff's PhD

The article states that Grichka Bogdanoff was granted a PhD by the École Polytechnique. As far as I know, this is incorrect. If I remember the events correctly, Mr Bogdanoff was granted a degree by the University of Burgundy (located in Dijon), but for some reason defended it in a room at the École Polytechnique.

This is actually fairly easy to check: the centralized catalogue of the French university libraries, the SUDOC, lists Grichka Bogdanoff's 1999 thesis as from the University of Dijon. David.Monniaux (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection

This article was semiprotected 31 March 2007 by Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The protecting sysop emphasized the attempts by external entities to manipulate the content of the article and also referenced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, an arbitration case dating to November 2005.

I'd like to review that semiprotection now. In the opinion of the current editors, are there still ongoing attempts to manipulate article content? I'll also contact the protecting admin to see what he thinks. --TS 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been completely clear of any such attempts for quite a few months, as far as I can make out. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Motl/Oeckl

I'd just like to point out that that quotes from Luboš Motl and Robert Oeckl at the end of Bogdanov Affair#Scientific content, which the surrounding text characterizes as contrasting, are really saying the same thing. The only difference is that Motl is reaching to find something of value in, if nothing else, the questions raised, while Oeckl doesn't feel the need to so trouble himself. 192.35.35.35 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Regarding the section "Brothers' background

Please remove the "brackground" section or heavily edit it for readability and appropriateness.

A genealogy of Bogdanov brothers, even if correct, does not belong in this article.

It is mis-titled, since "background" in an article about science or pseudoscience naturally invokes "academic background."

It is garbled beyond recognition and seems to contain omissions.

Also, uses the term "bastard" for their mother which according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is "archaic or derogatory" when used to denote offspring of an unregistered couple, i.e. illegitimate children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.202.235 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi! I am not interested in the affair, neither am I a specialist in the field of cosmology. But happening to have gone through this page, I would like to make a comment. First, I agree with the remarks made above. Second, the article has not a neutral tone enough for it to be taken as seriously as it pretends to prove the brothers' incompetence and spiteful hoax. It is too close, in a neutral opinion point of vue, to the vendicative litigant of the dispute. Especially, no article in wikipedia should give the impression of casting opprobrium on anyone! It is not admissible for an encyclopedia. Guillaume A. Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.226.178.249 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All of peer review?

This affair spread out from the initial question ("What the PhD and physics work of either or both of the Bogdanov brothers substandard?") to a much wider dialog about professional peer review in the highly speculative area of theoretical physics. As the article currently stands, the latter part is a bit fluffy and overrepresented in this article. Except for those facts that are reported as "this or that university/journal/etc. made such and such changes in response to the affair", the rest is fluff and we should treat it briefly and avoid quoting the kibitzers with their generalities. There are a few other articles that are in this spectrum:

I think that the pseudophyics was intended for people like McTaggart, not for serious efforts that are simply in the realm of "science by press release". In a related vein: I think that stuff on arXchiv, especially hep-th should be referred to as "released" rather than "published". In terms of "knowledge" that might be "fact", it is more like software than like science.--Afteread (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of pseudonym claims

Afteread has recently removed almost all of the information on "pseudonymous acdtivity". In particular, the primary example of an alleged pseudonym (Prof. Yang) no longer appears in the article. I can certainly agree that too much space was spent on this section previously, but surely this is a noteworthy part of the affair.

To Afteread: your removal of the information claimed it was "obsolete". What on earth does that mean in this context? Phiwum (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the sense that all such theories have their "15 minutes of fame" because anybody allowed them to be published, but then there were rarely or never cited again in the literature. It happens a lot in theoretical physics. IMO, the category of "pseudophyics" should be reserved for charlatans like Lynne McTaggart. I think that even the Bogdanovs would agree that their work was sloppy, but I tend to agree with others that they displayed a near-acceptable level of accomplishment and creativity. I could not come up with another category will "irrelevant, failed theories" by otherwise qualified people, so I picked "obsolete". As far as the lead paragraph I added: I tend to rely on Paragraph#Body paragraph for what our paragraphs should look like. In particular, I think that the lead sentence of each paragraph should avoid citations and instead introduce the reader to rest of the paragraph. That lead sentence I added was an attempt to implement a proper lead sentence, but you reverted (maybe because you thought it was POV or something) and I will just let it alone for now.--Afteread (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the problem all along has been that this article requires some BLP-ish information. The whole Prof. Yang thing, even if it is true, is a side-show to the issue of whether the work of the Bogdanovs is authentic nonsense at the level of Sokal. This is never demonstrated. If the brothers stooped to creating Yang, then it is about as notable as "they edited their Wikipedia biography." I put it into their BLP-ish section. That way, the separation is clean: the quality of their papers is the main focus of this article and anything stupid they did after that is just a part of their pseudo-BLP.--Afteread (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what "BLP-ish" is supposed to mean. Seems to me that the information previously included was verifiable (right?) and interesting and part of the "Bogdanov affair". The article is not just about the articles themselves, but also about the discussions thereafter. I don't see that BLP requires that we remain silent on something like the fact that "Professor Yang" was a vocal but non-existent supporter of the brothers. Phiwum (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the article should remained focused on its starting point, which is Baez's Usenet posting about their papers. The two things that splay out wildly after that is what the brothers did before and after. They have also responded to "the affair" directly (which should be briefly included in the main body of the article). But beyond that, they have written books. They are celebrating the 30th anniversary of their TV show this year. They have sued people. I think that gathering all that stuff into *one* *section* will help to keep the rest of the article properly focused.--Afteread (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
With due respect, the result appears to be a less interesting (and less entertaining) article. It's a bit odd to put off all discussion of the Bogdanovs themselves until the very end of the article. Better to present an overview, followed by a discussion of the timeline: the Bogdanovs before the publication, the publication and later controversy, and activities thereafter. All of that is, to my mind, part of the so-called affair. Postponing a brief biographical description of the brothers until its own section following the affair makes the article less readable, in mine own humble opinion. Phiwum (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment of the resulting article. It would have been better if the editor Afteread had discussed proposed changes here first, rather than unilaterally changing the organization of a mature article. — Myasuda (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In looking around for info about Andrew Wray, I came across this quote: "There are several ethical issues at hand. First, though I have not yet mentioned it as one, is the behavior of those who spread the initial rumors of a hoax if, as it turns out, there was no intended hoax at all. Such rumors can have the effect of destroying the reputation of its subjects. If reputations are to be destroyed here, let it be by the brothers themselves through the very quality, or lack thereof, of their work. And even if such work slips through the cracks during the refereeing process, the question of its merit will play itself out with time. Those who find these papers of merit will cite them; the others won't. History will have its own way of dealing with the matter." --Afteread (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that John Baez, Peter Woit, Jacques Distler and Luboš Motl and Perimeter Institute show up in this and other physics controversies.--Afteread (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what other controversies you have in mind, but perhaps these folk get their hackles up when they see published examples of bad science. Calling attention to bad situations in one's field is a boon to the field, isn't it? I am more sympathetic to Baez's position than Wray's — whose comments in the matter are not disinterested, since he's editor of a journal that published Bogdanov papers. Phiwum (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize that I did not make my last post clear. That quote is by this physics librarian. I assume he is a neutral enough party who is concerned about sorting out the jewels of knowledge from the slagheap of hype in these "science by press release" episodes. I am thinking of Cold Fusion, An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything and even Jan Hendrik Schön. Each was a problem and you can compare/contrast how each of these were handled. The hype does not help and it tends to lead to things like that 2005 ArbCom thing. I think that the current format is just better-organized in that you have the body of the article focusing on the Affair and then the last section being BLP-like. It makes much more sense and it makes it easier to find this-or-that factoid in the article.--Afteread (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice at the top of this talk page

I would suggest that this notice appear in comments at the top of the main article, as new editors are unlikely to check an article's talk page before editing. -128.194.229.104 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When I reverted its recent addition (in plaintext form) to the page itself I hadn't realised that the Arbcom ruling actually mandated its presence. A better-formatted version of it was present until removed by Jac16888 (talk · contribs) just over two years ago on the grounds of its age. It seems to me personally that we could leave it off since the people in question seem to be leaving the article alone now, but it's not my decision to make. I'll reinstate it for now, and maybe hunt down an Arb to rail at angrily make a suggestion in favour of its removal. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP section?

It seems to me that all of the incidental info about the brothers should be collected into its own section. It seems natural to split the material into the "Affair" (what the dissertations were about, why they sucked, the internet flare-up and the internet hunt for internet shenanigans) and the BLP. If we can craft such a split, I would think that how they wrote their dissertations and how they were awarded their PhD's should primarily be handled in such a BLP section. The Affair does not invalidate or disown them of their PhD's, and the "affair" sections can deal with why they sucked. Because of the structure of how BLP's are managed, I would expect that such a BLP section might eventually become a separate article.--Monkeytext (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it coincidental that your suggestion and approach are remarkably similar to edits by evidently banned user User:Afteread? (By remarkably similar, I guess I mean identical, according to this diff.) Phiwum (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that Afteread's approach is valid: what is needed is a distinct "BLP" section so that the rest of the article is not bogged down in all of the BLP details. It is simply matter of organization and clarity.--Monkeytext (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Well spotted Phiwum; Monkeytext is Afteread. Thanks for the note on my user talk, and sorry for taking so long to act on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re potential material for BLP section, the twins made news earlier this year (2010) in relation to appearance changing plastic surgery (particularly at a Chopard party). There are numerous references available from a google search, though mostly lightweight standard. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation rate of articles

"Similarly, Richard Monastersky, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, observed, "There is one way...for physicists to measure the importance of the Bogdanovs' work. If researchers find merit in the twins' ideas, those thoughts will echo in the references of scientific papers for years to come."[4] As of July 2009, the Bogdanovs' six published papers had been cited four times in SPIRES, a database of particle physics articles.[14] For comparison, a somewhat controversial cosmological model known as the "ekpyrotic universe" was published in 2001 and had been cited 569 times by July 2009.[56]"

On average, 22% of hard science articles do not receive any citations as mentioned in the Usenet discussion, so the citation rate of their articles is by no means unusual. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/pendlebury.html — 67.170.106.201 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

True. It's an evidence of absence / absence of evidence thing. A paper can be published in too obscure a journal, a journal with the "wrong" specialized readership, be too hard to comprehend except by very specialized ppl (of which there are only a handful for any such topic), be overlooked due to some clerical error in a journal database entry (spelling error, missing/erroneous keywords), etc. doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 is a case in point - for almost 10 years the single most important paper on that topic, but barely one citation per year (as per GScholar). Clearly not in any proportion to its significance. Had it been published in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and/or not been missed by the dinosaur people (it discusses a probable caenagnathid dino fossil misidentified as a "Mesozoic parrot"), its citations would likely be almost an order of magnitude higher.
It is true that large numbers of citations generally signify an important paper, while lack of citations does not automatically signify an unimportant one. But even so, Meyer's little ID piece was and still is extensively cited - so a high number of citations for a dubious/pseudoscience paper is entirely possible.
BUT: where the metric does hold true, and in both ways, is as a value-less estimate of the extent to which the paper is received by the community. A paper with 100s of cites has been read (and discussed) by very many of researchers, whereas one with only a few has almost certainly not received a lot of professional attention ("professional" meaning here: in the context of further research).
Thus: while many citations usually (but not always) signify the paper contains important and robust results, few or no citations signify very little if anything at all. But many citations almost always signify the community is actively aware of the paper's results, while few or none signify widespread ignorance (for any conceivable reason, intentional or not). 85.197.4.46 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is this article at Bogdanov Affair, i.e. with the second word capitalized? As far as I know, this isn't a proper noun. Shouldn't the article be moved to Bogdanov affair as per WP:NCCAPS? Bensci54 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph weasel word

There is a weasel word mark in the first paragraph of the article over "notable" for which i think is obsolete, since in further reading of text becomes very clear to whom it is reffered to as notable. It should be removed because reader could be led into thinkig that whole article is written without solid sources right from the begining, while in fact it is the other way arround. Clearly this can not be characterised as weasel word.Olovka (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Usenet

In the lede there is a link to the Usenet wiki page. The strange thing is that there is a space between the 'U' and the 's'. I would fix it but I don't know how to! Can someone else fix this please? FillsHerTease (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bogdanov affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of physicist Max Niederm****

The article boasts a total of four different ways to write the name of the physicist from Université François Rabelais Tours (University of Tours):

  1. Niedermeier
  2. Niedermier
  3. Niedermaier
  4. Niedermayer

Number 2 is most probably wrong, but as I am not able to ascertain that or the correct spelling, I would like to ask a different, knowledgeable editor to correct this error. Themediaman (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bogdanov affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bogdanov affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bogdanov affair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

[TOC]


John Baez

John Baez

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

baez@math.ucr.edu

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/bog1.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/bog2.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/bog3.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/bog4.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/bog5.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/bog6.html

" I assure you that the Bogdanoff's theses are gibberish to me - even though I work on topological quantum field theory, and know the meaning of almost all the buzzwords they use. Their journal articles make the problem even clearer. ... Some parts almost seem to make sense, but the more carefully I read them, the less sense they make... and eventually I either start laughing or get a headache. "

Eli Hawkins

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/referee.html 

From: Eli Hawkins 
Date: May 13, 2003 1:54:12 PM EDT
To: John Baez
Subject: Old Controversy

John,
Journal of Physics A finally sent me a copy of the referee report I 
wrote for "THE KMS STATE OF SPACE-TIME AT THE PLANCK SCALE". It is 
definitely in contrast to the other referee reports you show on your 
web page. Feel free to distribute this if you want to.
    - Eli


This paper is built around the idea that "at the Planck scale, the 
"space-time system" is in a themodynamical equilibrium state". It is 
not quite clear what the author means by this, but on page 4 he seems 
to be referring to a Friedman model of a homogeneous universe with 
thermal matter. He may mean that when the matter is at the Planck 
temperature, it is in thermodymanic equilibrium with the geometry. He 
does not explain why there should not be thermal equilibrium at all 
temperatures. It may be simply that the author does not know what he 
is talking about.

The main result of this paper is that this thermodynamic equilibrium 
should be a KMS state. This almost goes without saying; for a quantum 
system, the KMS condition is just the concrete definition of 
thermodynamic equilibrium. The hard part is identifying the quantum 
system to which the condition should be applied, which is not done in 
this paper.

It is difficult to describe what is wrong in Section 4, since almost 
nothing is right. The author seems to believe that just because an 
analytic continuation of a function exists, the argument "must" be 
considered a complex number. He also makes the rather obvious claims 
in eq's 6 and 7 that complex numbers should be the sums of real and 
imaginary parts. The remainder of the paper is a jumble of misquoted 
results from math and physics. It would take up too much space to 
enumerate all the mistakes: indeed it is difficult to say where one 
error ends and the next begins.

In conclusion, I would not recommend that this paper be published in 
this, or any, journal.


George Johnson NYT

In the November 17th (2002) issue of the New York Times, George Johnson wrote: 

"I do think it is possible to tell good work from bad," said Dr. 
Steve Giddings, a string theorist at the University of California, 
Santa Barbara. "Even when researchers are confused, and only have a 
partial understanding of a puzzle, it is important that their 
explanations have some element of logic and consistency."

This is where experts say that sincere or otherwise, the Bogdanovs' 
papers fall flat. Reading through an Internet debate between 
them and the physicist John Baez of the University of California at 
Riverside is like watching someone trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.

Steve Carlip

Steve Carlip <sjcarlip@ucdavis.edu>

Carlip engages Igor with several questions that Igor, for the most part, evades. rather than repeat the enire exchange (with quoting, etc.), it might be best just to look at the thread itself where Carlip begins:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/28e04d38aabd16f2/cf80f63b16f2ad5a#cf80f63b16f2ad5a


Aaron Bergman

Aaron Bergman <abergman@princeton.edu>

Given that a number of terms are used incorrectly on the first few pages, this seems to be quite an indictment of the refereeing process.

I can't say I'm completely surprised that something like this could happen. I'm surprised that they got CQG, though.


Ralph Hartley

Ralph Hartley <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil>

I have mostly tuned this thread out. My BS O'meter has been pretty much pegged for quite a while. It's principle of operation is simple: if the parts you have seen and understood are wrong, or worse obfuscated (as in this case), assume the rest is too. It very rarely fails.


Robert Oeckl

Robert Oeckl <oeckl@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>

Now, G. Bogdanov "shows" in his thesis that the two Hopf algebras are related by a Drinfeld twist (Proposition 3.2.1), claiming this to be his result. While the result is true it is not his but belongs to S. Majid, see: S.Majid "Braided momentum in the q-Poincare group", 

J.Math.Phys. 34 (1993) 2045-2058, hep-th/9210141

S.Majid "q-Euclidean space and quantum Wick rotation by twisting", 

J.Math.Phys. 35 (1994) 5025-5034, hep-th/9401112

In particular, look at the last few lines of the latter paper. Ironically, G. Bogdanov cites these papers at other places. So one must assume that he knowingly misattributed the result to himself.


Lubos Motl

Lubos Motl

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000208.html

I personally don’t find the [Bogdanoff] paper terribly valuable, but I insist that its vagueness and strangeness is comparable to the vagueness and strangeness of other works about equally difficult and unknown subjects.


Peter Woit

Peter Woit

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/


http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000036.html

...the Bogdanov theses, especially Igor’s, were so full of egregious nonsense, in particular with respect to topological quantum field theory, that they should have been beyond the pale.

"The Bogdanoffs' work is significantly more incoherent than just about anything else being published. But the increasingly low standard of coherence in the whole field is what allowed them to think they were doing something sensible and to get it published."

The Bogdanovs wrote me last year,... I made the mistake of thinking "maybe these guys aren’t so bad, just overly-enthusiastic sorts who could use a little helpful advice", and wrote this back to them. In their book they use part of my e-mail, mis-translating:

"It’s certainly possible that you have some new worthwhile results on quantum groups.." (I was being too polite here; while possible, it is unlikely)

as

"Il est tout a fait certain que vous avez obtenu des resultats nouveaux et utiles dans les groupe quantiques" (It is completely certain that you have obtained new worthwhile results on quantum groups).


Jacques Distler

Jacques Distler

distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/


http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000375.html

The Bogdanov's papers consist of buzzwords from various fields of mathematical physics, string theory and quantum gravity, strung together into syntactically correct, but semantically meaningless prose.

Nothing I have seen or read since then (including their pathetic attempt to explain their work on sci.physics.research) gives me the slightest reason to change my opinion.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000017.html

What this says about the French PhD system or refereeing in the journals (and some journals they chose! Nuovo Cimento? The Chinese Journal of Physics? Gimme a break!) is anyone’s guess. But the most curious aspect of the affair was that they never even bothered to submit their masterpieces to the eprint archives. Which is to say that no one (and I do mean not a single person) actually read this stuff before the story broke…

For those unfamiliar with the field, let me explain what that means. The abstracts of new papers submitted to hep-th are read daily by thousands of physicists. If the abstract sounds interesting, hundreds will download and read it. Feedback (positive or negative) comes swiftly and copiously. If (like 99.9% of all scientists), you want to get your work noticed and read, you send it to the archives.

If, on the other hand, you want your work to "fly under the radar" ; and make it into a journal, having been read only by one other person (the overworked referee, and, in this case, perhaps not even by him), then you studiously avoid sending your work to the archives. Since no one in our field reads the journals anymore (why bother, when the archives are so much more convenient?), no one will be the wiser.


Urs Schreiber

Urs.Schreiber@uni-essen.de

http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sb0264/bog.html

I think this is their line of reasoning:

They look at the general form of any partition function Z(beta) = Tr(exp(-beta H)). They set beta equal to zero and find, lo and behold, Z(0) = Tr(1). They notice that the Hamiltonian has disappeared in this expression! They conclude that Tr(1) must be the partition function of a topological field theory, because they think you obtain the partition function of a topological field theory by setting the Hamiltonian in exp(-beta H) equal to zero. Let me call this "result" A.

Next they want to apply this insight to something and search for a setup that justifies setting beta -> 0, thereby arriving at the FRW cosmology, where beta->0 as the scale factor R->0. (At this point they mention the word, just the word, "Hagedorn temperature", not noticing that, considering the role the Hagedorn temperature plays in string cosmology, this is bordering on self-parody.) They reason as follows: "At the initial singularity we have beta=0, therefore physics 'at the initial singularity', by result A, is described by topological field theory." This is "result" B.

(By the generality of "result" A it does not matter _which_ field theory they are considering. But they are thinking of their H's as the Hamiltonians of field theories on fixed FRW backgrounds, not of the Hamiltonian constraint of some theory of gravity.)

The next step is to assert, C, that a topological field theory is a field theory defined on a Riemannian manifold. Since, by result B, "every field theory is a topological field theory 'at the initial singularity'" it thereby follows that the metric of spacetime "at the initial singularity" must be Riemannian, which is "result" D.

Next, they realize that D is in contradiction to the original assumption of an FRW cosmology with pseudo-Riemannian metric! Being confronted with a paradox they invoke quantum mechanics and postulate that the signature of the metric must be subject to quantum fluctuations "at the initial singularity". That's "result" E.

It remains to be understood how the Foucault pendulum comes into play now. Even more so, since this doesn't fit the pattern of using modern termionology.

Just to make sure: I do not think that any of the above is valid reasoning. I am writing this just to point out what I think are the central "ideas" the authors had when writing their articles and how this led them to their conclusions.


Dear Fabien Besnard -

you wrote:

>I'm very sorry to disturb you with such a futile matter, but I'm engaged in a kind of
>polemics with the Bogdanov brothers about their "work".

It is amazing that this is still an issue. One cannot deny that the Bogdanov's do have some rather uncommon abilities - but unfortunatley not in the field of theoretical physics.

>They pretend that you have appologized to them by mail. Is it true ?

No, that is not true. I don't know what I should apologize for. I didn't attack them personally, all I did in this discussion was to point out what I think their (erroneous) line of reasoning is. They even thanked me for doing so.

>They also say that you and several other people, acknowledged that their
>work is genuine and well founded. Is it correct ?

No, this is not correct. My opinion on their ideas hasn't changed since then.

>but it would help me if you could tell me precisely what you think nowadays about it.
>Then I could put it on my web site as a proof that they don't honestly speak about the
>opinions of other people.

I think that if my summary of the train of thoughts concerning the physics described in the papers by I. Bogdanov and G. Bogdanov from 2001 as archived on http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sb0264/bog.html is correct (and they personally told me that this summary is "very accurate", indeed that only I "came up with a valid understanding of what [I. and G. Boddanov] are aiming at") then this train of thoughts is invalid reasoning because it is based on several elementary misconceptions and wrong deductions.

That's why, among other reactions, the editorial board of the journal "Classical and Quantum Gravity" issued an apology for having published a paper by I. and G. Bogdanov (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html). As far as I know something like this has never happened before. Hence I. Bogdanov and G. Bogdanov deserve maybe some credit for having highlighted a weak spot in the system of peer-reviewed theoretical physics.

Please feel free to quote me if you want.

Sincerely,

Urs Schreiber

John D. Giorgis

(cf. http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1441745 )

These papers claimed—well, it is not clear exactly what they did claim. And therein lies the problem, for all were published in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. That means publication was conditional on the say-so of independent and anonymous expert referees. Nonsense is not supposed to get through this process—certainly not five times. [...] Nonetheless, l’affaire Bogdanov might give post-modernists justifiable cause to snicker. And it leads you to wonder what else is getting through the supposedly foolproof net of peer review.

N.B. in the Book "Avant le Big Bang", Giorgis opinion is quoted as :

"Tous les articles des Bogdanov ont été publiés dans des revues à “referees” extrêmement respectées. Cela veut donc dire que dans chaque cas, la publication a été rigoureusement soumise à l’approbation d’experts indépendants et anonymes. Des articles incompréhensibles ne peuvent pas passer au travers d’une telle procédure, et certainement pas à cinq reprises !"
(complete paragraph, note that the Bogdanov began to translate in the middle of a sentence and the words they added up and changed, the result is a complete reversal of meaning)
"All Bogdanov's papers has been published in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. That means therefore that publication was rigorously submitted on the say-so of independent and anonymous expert referees. Nonsense cannot get through this process—certainly not five times."
--YBM 22:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Editorial Board of Classical and Quantum Gravity

Classical and Quantum Gravity and the paper "Topological theory of the
initial singularity of spacetime" by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Class.
Quant. Grav. 18 4341-4372 (2001)

A number of our readers have contacted us regarding the above paper
and in response we have decided to issue the following statement.

Classical and Quantum Gravity endeavours to publish original research
of the highest calibre on gravitational physics. It is not possible for the
Editorial Board to consider every article submitted and so, in common
with many journals, we consult among a worldwide pool of over 1000
referees asking two independent experts to review each paper. Regrettably,
despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective.
Thus the paper "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime"
by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18
4341-4372 (2001) made it through the review process even though, in
retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this
journal.

The journal´s Editorial Board became aware of this situation already in
April 2002. The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial
Board meeting in September 2002, and there was general agreement that
it should not have been published. Since then several steps have been
taken to further improve the peer review process in order to improve the
quality assessment on articles submitted to the journal and reduce the
likelihood that this could happen again. However, there are at this time
no plans to withdraw the article. Rather, the journal publishes refereed
Comments and Replies by readers and authors as a means to comment
on and correct mistakes in published material.

We are also grateful to our readers, contributors and reviewers for their
vigilance and assistance both before and after publication.

Dr Andrew Wray
Senior Publisher
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Institute of Physics Publishing

Professor Hermann Nicolai
Honorary Editor
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Albert Einstein Institute

evidence of sock puppets

evidence of sock puppets representing the Bogdanoffs' interests:

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000375.html

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000034.html

http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sb0264/bog.html


first NYT article

since this is certainly copyrighted, we can only use little snippets for "fair use". i am posting this here for the purpose of discussion. maybe later we can draw something out of it. r b-j 00:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)



New York Times - November 9, 2002

French Physicists' Cosmic Theory Creates a Big Bang of Its Own By DENNIS OVERBYE

Everyone who ever wondered whether physicists were just making it all up when they talked about extra dimensions, dark matter and even multiple universes might take comfort in hearing that scientists themselves don't always seem to know.

Consider Drs. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, French mathematical physicists and twins, who have recently been burning up the physics world with a novel and highly speculative theory about what happened before the Big Bang. Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense.

The uproar began late last month when rumors, denied by the brothers, began ricocheting around the Internet that they had constructed an elaborate hoax à la that of Dr. Alan Sokal, the New York University physicist who published a nonsense article about quantum gravity in the cultural journal Social Text in 1994. The story was that the pair, who are 53 and better known as the writers and producers of a popular television show in the 1970's and 80's in which they appeared as what might be called science clowns, had posed as string theorists to obtain fraudulent doctorates.

Until then, few physicists had noticed the brothers' theses or their journal articles, which purport to exploit something called the Kubo-Schwinger-Martin condition. It implies a mathematical connection between infinite temperature and imaginary time (don't ask) to probe the state of the universe at its very beginning. Suddenly physicists were trying to figure out what sentences like this meant, if anything: "Then we suggest that the (pre-)spacetime is in thermodynamic equilibrium at the Planck-scale and is therefore subject to the KMS condition."

Dr. Roman W. Jackiw, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who read and approved Igor Bogdanov's Ph.D. thesis, said he found it speculative but "intriguing."

But Dr. John Baez, a physicist and quantum gravity theorist at the University of California at Riverside, who has conducted a dialogue with the Bogdanov brothers on the Web site math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov, said, "One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics."

Dr. Peter Woit, a mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, said of the brothers' work, "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense, but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature."

Indeed, the problem of distinguishing sense from nonsense goes beyond the Bogdanovs, say some physicists, who worry that far too much junk goes past the referees who vet articles for the scientific journals and the examiners who approve Ph.D's.

"The bigger issue is about scientific integrity, and how theoretical physics gets judged," said Dr. Frank Wilczek, another M.I.T. physicist and editor of Annals of Physics, where one of the Bogdanov papers appeared. "Do people really have a mastery of the field as a whole?"

How the Bogdanovs came to this pass is perhaps a cautionary tale about the way physics is done today. Born in 1949 in a castle in Gascogne, they described themselves as descendants of Russian and Austrian nobility. After studying applied mathematics at the Institute of Political Science and the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris, the brothers carved out careers for themselves as writers and producers of their science television show, "Temps X" ("Time X").

A particularly murky episode in their careers began in 1991, when they published "God and Science," a book based on conversations with the French philosopher Dr. Jean Guitton. The book was a best seller in France, but the authors were sued for plagiarism by Dr. Trinh Xuan Thuan, an astronomer at the University of Virginia, who claimed they had copied passages from his 1988 book, "The Secret Melody, and Man Created the Universe." The brothers countersued, arguing that Dr. Thuan had borrowed from their earlier writings and Dr. Guitton's.

The case was eventually settled out of court in 1995, according to a settlement document provided by the brothers, with both sides renouncing any damages and paying their own court costs. Dr. Thuan, whose book is being reissued in the United States this winter, failed to respond to requests for an interview.

It was during the writing of the book, the brothers say, that they had a brainstorm for a theory of the so-called initial singularity, the infinitely dense, infinitely hot point into which all space and time were squeezed when the universe began, where normal physics breaks down. They returned to college to pursue Ph.D.'s, something they say they had always intended to do, but had been delayed by the unexpected success of their television show.

After two years at the University of Bordeaux, they moved to the University of Bourgogne and apprenticed themselves to Dr. Moshe Flato, founder of the journal Letters in Mathematical Physics and a prominent theorist known for his unconventional ways. When Dr. Flato died in 1998, a longtime associate, Dr. Daniel Sternheimer, a mathematician at C.N.R.S., the French center for scientific research, took over as the twins' adviser.

For the most part, however, the brothers were left to work on their own without much supervision, "pursuing ideas that are quite a bit out of the mainstream," said Dr. Jacobus Verbaarschot, a physicist now at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and one of the examiners for Grichka Bogdanov's doctoral thesis in 1999.

Dr. Sternheimer described the twins as stubborn "wunderkids" with very high I.Q.'s, who have a hard time understanding that they are not "the Einstein brothers" and prone to shooting themselves in the foot with vague statements and an "impressionistic" style. He called teaching them "like teaching My Fair Lady to speak with an Oxford accent."

Certainly they did not come off as the Einstein brothers in their dissertations. In June 1999, Grichka was granted a Ph.D. in mathematics by the École Polytechnique in Paris but with an "honorable," the lowest passing grade.

Igor, however, failed. The examining committee agreed that he could try again if he had three papers published in peer-reviewed journals, a common litmus test of legitimacy, Dr. Jackiw said.

"One has to have trust in the community," he explained. Igor's thesis had many things Dr. Jackiw didn't understand, but he found it intriguing. "All these were ideas that could possibly make sense," he said. "It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask."

Igor got his degree in theoretical physics from the University of Bourgogne in July, also with the lowest possible grade, one that is seldom given, Dr. Sternheimer said.

"These guys worked for 10 years without pay," he said. "They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days."

The brothers have since returned to television, producing two-minute spots for a French series called "Rayons-X" ("X-Rays"). That would have been the end of it, except for the hoax rumors.

Dr. Sternheimer called the dispute "a storm in a teacup."

"They don't deserve so much interest, they don't deserve so much hatred," he said.

The aftermath has been bruising for both the Bogdanovs and for physics. Dr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk, a Polish theoretical physicist who has been conducting a dialogue with the brothers and other physicists on his Web site, cassiopaea.org/cass/bog-sternheimer .htm, said it was now his "working hypothesis" that the Bogdanovs had done something interesting.

But the editors of Classical and Quantum Gravity repudiated their publication of a Bogdanov paper, saying it "does not meet the standards expected of articles in this journal," although they declined to retract it, inviting readers to send comments to the journal instead.

Dr. Wilczek stressed that the publication of a paper by the Bogdanovs in Annals of Physics had occurred before his tenure and that he had been raising standards. Describing it as a deeply theoretical work, he said that while it was "not a stellar addition to the physics literature," it was not at first glance clearly nonsensical.

"It's a difficult subject," he said. "The paper has a lot of the right buzz words. Referees rely on the good will of the authors." The paper is essentially impossible to read, like "Finnegans Wake," he added.

His colleague Dr. Jackiw compared modern physics to modern art: "One person looks at a piece of art and says it is gibberish; another person looks and says it's wonderful."

When physics talks about the universe before the Big Bang, it is completely speculative, he said, adding, "I would be very careful before calling something nonsense, especially if I didn't understand it."

Physicists were no more unanimous on the greater lesson of the whole affair. "This says something profound about what happens to theoretical physics in the absence of the discipline of experiment," Dr. Wilczek said.

Dr. Baez and others have suggested that the system administering the brothers' degrees and publishing their papers was lax. "I do think that the examiners, referees and editors do have something to answer for in this case," said Dr. Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Waterloo, Ontario, citing what he said were obvious errors in the referees' reports for the brothers' papers.

But others, especially in France, disagree. "What they did or what they have written seems to show that they are not better (but not worse) than several theoretical physicists friends of ours who often use some mathematical terminology that they do not master well enough," said Dr. Robert Coquereaux, director of research at C.N.R.S., in a statement posted on Dr. Jackiw's Web site.

But Dr. David Gross, director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif., took issue with this view. "It is easy to judge, even from the abstract alone, that these papers are nutty," he said, noting that the physics community had ignored them until the hoax brouhaha.

Dr. Coquereaux and others said that the "publish or perish" ethos of academic research in the United States had contributed to the spread of unintelligible papers.

"There is a tradition of formally obscure but extremely serious and competent theoretical work in Europe," said Dr. Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist and gravitational theorist at the University of Marseille and the University of Pittsburgh. But there was a tradition of letting every wild idea go in the United States, he added. He described the brothers' papers as "really empty."

The Bogdanovs said they were still hopeful that their ideas would be recognized and useful in physics. As they said in an e-mail message: "Nonsense in the morning may make sense in the evening or the following day."

Sternheimer

Letter from Daniel Sternheimer to Arkadius Jadczyk, 5 November 2002 :

Source : Quantum Future Physics

Dear Ark,

I congratulated [Robert Coquereaux] for being one of the few who have healthy views about this "storm in a teacup". I agree with his statement and conclusion...

In my opinion, [the Bogdanov brothers] genuinely believe in what they are doing. They were "wunderkinds", with an extremely high IQ, but they have a hard time understanding that they are not the "Einstein Bros." and that, in our diversified society, no talent is universal.

Their real talent is in popularization of science: they understand a lot, can even contribute to the scientific advances in interaction with others, but it is very hard for them to write papers in one of the styles accepted by the [scientific] communities. That is their curse, because they have (for unrelated reasons) enemies who want to bar them from popularization using any means, including finding people who (often naively, sometimes because they feel that the twins' style exposes too much the weaknesses of too many works in physics, or a combination of this and more, including following rumors spead) use the imperfections in formulation to disqualify the twins' original ideas instead of looking seriously at these ideas.

On the mathematical side, when they have a vague idea, it is possible with a lot of effort to make them (especially Grichka) write a small precise paper (and even then, in the last moment they may add what they think is a brilliant remark, but which is not so related to the remainder and can be badly formulated). That is what Majid has done, and that is an achievement. You seem to be trying to do the same with your discussion on the web: it is possible, because they have a point, but it is very difficult.

On the physical side, they have read a lot, understand in broad lines a lot, do get from it a somewhat original point of view, can even bring in new ideas, and can (especially Grichka) talk about it in a fascinating manner, at almost any level. That is their talent. Writing is an other thing. Their style is impressionistic.

In mathematics, a precise painting, or a photograph, are required. Sometimes the picture is slightly blurred, but then someone else can come to the same place and correct it -- once the place is discovered. I know of two Fields medallists, among the best, in that category.

In physics, the picture is often, for a mathematician, surrealistic. Some very good mathematical physicists can make it precise, but it requires a lot of effort and a long time. If there is a solid physical intuition behind it, the result can eventually make sense. The Dirac "delta function" is a very good (albeit elementary) example.

Their natural tendency is an impressionistic style, which is the best for popularization of science. You do not look at a picture by Sisley from a distance of 20cm, but from 2m it makes sense and conveys the impression. Then someone else can come and translate that impression in a more conventional style.

The [Bogdanov's] contribution to science can be looked at in the same manner. That is why they impress so many good physicists with their ideas and points of view. But one should not pick on the impreciseness of some details, even if the devil is there. Rather, one should try to understand what they mean and write it in a more conventional way. Many good scientists (even mathematicians) proceed in this way, like a sculptor: first a rough "ébauche", then a more precise rendering, and usually (but not always, especially in modern art) a fantastic masterpiece.

Unless someone else takes a lot of time with them, they stop at the first stage, what for others is an ébauche. Why not consider that as a new form of modern division of research work? Others should be inspired from what can be understood from the twins' writings and (especially) orally expressed ideas, and bring that into a more conventional form. Picking on what for a humanities thesis is a misplaced comma or rather abundant misspellings, does not contribute to the progress of science. Getting new ideas out of that does.

As to the formal (Ph.D.) issue, my role was more that of a Journal Editor. I understand the general ideas underlying their works. I find them a valid attempt towards a progress in science, even if I am not convinced that it is THE solution, assuming there is one.

The mathematical part of Grichka's thesis in itself is worth the rarely given passing mark ("mention honorable") he got, even more so if one takes into account the physical motivations. As to Igor, I relied on the community of physicists. He has a point. If referees in reputable journals consider his developments worth publication and if two external distinguished scientists sign reports that there is enough for a Ph.D., why should I be "more papist than the pope" and bar him from getting a degree he could get for the same work in a number of universities? (Not in France, because of the axiom that some of their enemies have spread, that the twins are charlatans, and because they never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.)

In view of the imprecisenesses, I insisted on the same mark (passing) as Grichka. So did Simonoff, the Jury chair, who knows them for many years and was their first supervisor -- and already in 1991/92 got pressures, which also went to Bordeaux I university to deny them renewal of registration. Simonoff can confirm that point, and I remember the facts because that is how Moshe and Dijon came in. Moshe felt that this was unacceptable a priori censorship, almost a witch hunt. What follows is a natural corollary, for honest independent people.

Good luck in your endeavour! I appreciate the effort, but maybe you should wait until you come to France to finish the work with the twins. It requires many face to face discussions, and they are as stubborn as a Cadet de Gascogne can be. ---

Some Reports After Defense

Université de Paris VI Pierre et Marie Curie Mathématiques, Boite courrier 172. 4, place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05 Tour 45-46 5 e étage. Fax 014427 5345 Envoi de Charles Marle


Le 14 Novembre 1999


J’ai lu les chapitres 1 et 2 de la thèse de Grichka Bogdanov, intitulés « Domaine (3,1) < --- > (4.0) des fluctuations de la signature » et « Algèbre de superposition SO(3,1) et SO(4) ». A ma demande, Chrichka Bogdanoff a apporté à sa rédaction initiale des rectifications et des éclaircissements et je n’ai plus maintenant de critique à formuler.

Dans la première partie, Grichka Bogdanov étudie l’espace homogène SO(3,1) x SO(4)/ SO(3) qui peut être considéré comme espace fibré de deux manières différentes : sur la base SO(3,1) / SO(3) avec pour fibre-type SO(4) , et sur la base SO(3,1) / SO(3) avec pour fibre-type SO(3,1). Il en détermine le groupe fondamental.

Dans la seconde partie, Grichka Bogdanoff étudie la topologie de l’espace des orbites de SO(3) (considéré comme le sous-groupe commun SO(3,1) et SO(4) sur R 3,1 x R 4 . Il montre que cet espace est un cône plein. Le travail fait par Grichka Bogdanoff dans ces deux parties présente un certain intérêt sur le plan mathématique. Les conséquences physiques qu’il évoque sont quelque peu en dehors de mes compétences.

Charles-Michel Marle


INTERIM REPORT by Shahn Majid, November 19, 1999

Concerning Chapter 3 relating to quantum groups, some more work is still needed. The basic theme is to mix algebraic structures associated to the Euclidean and the Lorentzian signatures into single algebraic constructions. Bogdanov identifies this as constructing certain cocycle Hopf algebras ot a type not seen before. Although not relating directly to physical predictions at the Planck scale, this is of some mathematical interest and a worthwhile part of the thesis.

In the new version, the premiminary defintions have now been given clearly (modulo some typos to be corrected) at the start. Some of the results have also been clarified. So, definitly there have been positive improvements so far. I would say, however, that this is not yet the final version of the chapter. In particular there are still a number of interesting and in my opinion viable conjectures and outlined propositions which can and should be made more precise. These include Conjecture 3.3.2 and Proposition 3.4.14 among others. Meanwhile, the style of the more speculative Section 3.5.6 for example has to be relaxed somewhat further in accordance with the level of connection with the physics. When these further improvements have been achieved, which I expect without too much more effort by Bogdanov (compared to the work he has already done) then the value of the chapter and the thesis as a whole would be greatly improved.

I can therefore confirm in this interim report that this is not yet the final version but that the final version should be coming soon. I strongly recommend that G Bogdanov be allowed to proceed to make this final version during the next two or three months.


Dr Shahn Majid Reader in Mathematics Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, E1 4NS 

-----

REPORT ON THE THESIS OF G.BOGDANOV Report by Shahn Majid, January 26, 2000

Dear Professor Sternheimer,

I have had a chance to look at the final version of the thesis, particularly Chapter 3 relating to quantum groups. This is the chapter on which I am more expert and can report here. On the other hand, the thesis as a whole does seem to be very much improved from the earlier versions and if this has been confirmed by reports from your other specialists for the other chapters then I think it is now suitable for acceptance as an «Honorable » Doctorate. Concerning Chapter 3 relating to quantum groups, the organisation has been improved significantly from the earlier versions. The chapter contains useful algebraic constructions of cocycle Hopf algebras of various kinds motivated from physics.The basic theme is to mix algebraic structures associated to the Euclidean and the Lorentzian signatures into single algebraic constructions. Bogdanov identifies this as constructing certain cocycle Hopf algebras ot a type not seen before. These cocycle bicrossproduct results, in section 3.3, from a body of original work which could certainly be the basis of a published research paper.

In addition one finds here and in other sections of the chapter some definite and interesting observations concerning these algebraic results and signature change at the Planck scale. While the physics at this scale remains speculative, there is explained in particular a clear relation between the signature change and Hopf algebra duality, thereby connecting it with other dualities in physics. These and other speculations are a worthwhile contribution to the thesis.

Overall, one finds some sound understanding of the extensive litterature on quantum groups and some modest but new algebraic constructions. Provided the reports by specialists on the other chapters of the thesis are equally positive, I would recommend that the thesis should be accepted.

Dr Shahn Majid Reader in Mathematics Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, E1 4NS

Date / Wed 26 Janvier 2000 16 :04 :48 GMT To Daniel.Sternheimer@u-bourgogne.fr

Professeur D. Gourevitch Université de Valenciennes

Cher Professeur D.Sternheimer, Ce message représente mon opinion sur la nouvelle rédaction de la thèse de G. Bogdanoff. Comme auparavant, je me suis concentré sur la partie liée au groupes quantiques (chapitre 3). Ici l’auteur a apporté quatre modifications essentielles :

1. G.Bogdanoff a ajouté une section introductive 3.1 comprenant une série de définitions et de mises au point. Ceci constitue une bonne introduction au chapitre et permet au non spécialiste de se familliariser avec des notions souvent complexes. Il présente des résultats souvent peu connus (par exemple les *-algèbres tressées) de sorte que cette partie permet sans aucun doute une meilleure compréhension du texte principal.

2. L’auteur a accompli sur les sections suivantes un travail très approfondi de remaniement concernant à la fois le fond et la forme de la recherche. Il en résulte des sections entièrement nouvelles (notamment les sections 3.3, 3.4 et 3.5) dans lesquelles G.Bogdanoff fournit une série de démonstrations nouvelles présentées sous des formes complètes et convaincantes.


3. En particulier, à partir des travaux de S. Majid, l’auteur a construit, dans un important théorème de la section 3.3, la forme générale d’un produit bicroisé cocyclique d’un genre nouveau. Cette construction générale lui a permis de réaliser un produit bicroisé « twist » (au sens de Drinfeld) entre les structures d’algèbres de Hopf Lorentziennes et Euclidiennes au sein d’une structure de groupe quantique unique. Incontestablement, l’auteur apporte ici une intéressante contribution théorique.

4. Un autre résultat important est que G.Bogdanoff a mis en évidence que la « semi-dualisation » permet de décrire la transition du groupe q-euclidien vers le groupe q-lorentzien. L’auteur est parvenu à étendre ces résultats aux q-espaces sous-jacents, ce qui permet d’établir une relation entre l’approche algébrique et certaines théories de dualité en physique (notamment la T-dualité de la théorie des cordes).

Le texte comprend nombre d’autres résultats nouveaux. Ceci justifie pleinement que le titre de Docteur ès Mathématiques soit attribué à G.Bogdanoff.


Prof. D.Gourevitch (Université de Valenciennes)

Eric Leichtnam Ecole Normale Supérieure 26 Janvier 2000

A la demande de Daniel Sternheimer, j’ai lu les chapitres 4 et 8 de la thèse de Grichka Bogdanov. Ce dernier a travaillé de nombreuses semaines pour éliminer un certain nombre d’erreurs ou d’incohérences qui apparaissaient dans la première version. Mon opinion personnelle est qu’il faut considérer ces chapitres 4 et 8 comme un texte de physique. Ces chapitres 4 et 8 ne sont pas des chapitres de mathématiques à mon avis, il ne faut pas les considérer comme tels.

Le propos de l’auteur est d’utiliser certaines notions de la théorie des algèbres d’opérateurs (types I, II et III, flot modulaire, états KMS, flot des poids) pour illustrer et commenter de manière personnelle son modèle :

- A l’échelle zéro : métrique euclidienne - Entre l’échelle zéro et l’échelle de Planck : coexistent métriques euclidiennes et de Lorentz. - Au-delà de l’échelle de Planck : métrique de Lorentz.

Ce modèle est, d’après ce qu’on m’a dit, solidement fondé sur la partie « groupes quantiques » de sa thèse.

On passe, dans son modèle, de la métrique euclidienne à celle de Lorentz en complexifiant le temps. L’auteur essaie d’examiner quelle est la traduction de ce phénomène dans le cadre de la théorie des algèbres d’opérateurs. Son idée est qu’à l’échelle zéro on a un facteur II infini, entre l’échelle zéro et Planck on a un facteur III lambda, et au delà de Planck, un facteur I infini.

Ses observations et commentaires sont souvent formulés de manière heuristique et intuitive. La version finale a éliminé un certain nombre d’incohérences qui apparaissaient dans les versions antérieures. Ce texte n’est pas parfait (l’auteur n’a pas l’habitude d’écrire des articles) et certaines de ses notations ou identifications me paraissent bizarres. Mais je pense que maintenant, ce texte est compréhensible dans les grandes lignes à défaut d’être rigoureux.

Il semble que ses commentaires (heuristiques) présentent un intérêt sur le plan physique théorique. En outre il est concevable que certains mathématiciens puissent éventuellement en extraire un jour des résultats rigoureux et intéressants. Sur ce dernier point il peut être intéressant de contacter François Combe, avec lequel l’ auteur s’est entretenu.


Eric Leichtnam 


-----

26 Janvier 2000 Costas Kounnas Ecole Normale Supérieure CERN

Monsieur le Professeur,

Je vous adresse ci-joint mon rapport complémentaire sur la nouvelle version de la thèse en mathématiques de Monsieur Bogdanov Grichka, intitulée maintenant « Fluctuations Quantiques de la Signature de la Métrique » en vue de la remise de son diplôme de Doctorat de l’Université de Bourgogne.

Selon la décision du jury après la soutenance du 26 Juin 1999, cette thèse doit correspondre à une thèse en mathématiques, comportant des applications possibles en physique sous la forme de conjectures.

Sur la demande du Jury, mon rôle a consisté à examiner l’intérêt physique des conjectures de Mr Bogdanov ainsi que de garantir la nature correcte des raisonnements impliqués.

Dans la nouvelle version de sa thèse, Mr Bogdanov propose deux conjectures probables concernant la physique à l’échelle de Planck, lorsque l’échelle des températures T est de l’ordre de la masse de Planck. Dans ce cadre, les idées conventionnelles sur le début de l’Univers sont considérablement modifiées, particulièrement la notion de singularité initiale.

Partant de la métrique du trou noir linéarisée de la théorie d’Einstein,

ds2 = (1 + f ) dx2 – (1 - If I dt2

qui est valide pour un potentiel gravitationnel petit f << 1, Mr Bogdanov propose une modification adéquate de la gravitation quantique telle que la solution linéarisée devienne une solution locale exacte de la théorie modifiée aux confins des métriques Euclidienne (1 - If I)< 0 et Lorentzienne (1 - If I)> 0.

La deuxième conjecture concerne un modèle cosmologique fondé sur la transition d’une phase instantonique à quatre dimensions de topologie Euclidienne à une phase monopolaire de dimension cinq, à l’échelle de Planck. Pour une « variété » gravitationnelle à forte courbure R ( b)>> M 2(Planck) la signature de l’espace-temps est Euclidienne. Lorsque b = 0, cette théorie décrit une phase qui correspond à une phase topologique dominée par des « instantons de dimension zéro ». L’évolution Euclidienne de la théorie est ici valide jusqu’à R ( b) = M 2(Planck). Enfin, lorsque R ( b) << M 2(Planck) et en supposant la compactification de l’une des coordonnées, à l’échelle de Planck, nous entrons dans la phase Lorentzienne conventionnelle d’un univers cosmologique en expansion. Il résulte également de cette compactification une approche proposée par l’auteur de la possible transition effective de la signature sous la forme d’une dualité isodimensionnelle monople-instanton de dimension quatre.

A mon avis, les deux conjectures formulées par Mr G Bogdanov sont bien fondées, exposant des idées nouvelles qui ont des implications plausibles en cosmologie et dans d’autres phénomènes gravitationnels tels que les trous noirs, les « whorm holes », etc. Au terme de ma lecture de la partie conjecturale en physique, j’ai pu constater que l’exposé ne contient pas de remarques incorrectes.

Je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieure le Professeur, l’expression de mes sentiments distingués.

Costas Kounnas Ecole Normale Supérieure CERN


--------


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bogdanov affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there only one PhD thesis for the two of them?

WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Grichka's; Igor's. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

To do

Various small-ish tasks that would probably be good to do:

  • Verify the links that were last accessed in 2006
  • Illustrations for another section or two? It's very text-heavy, but then again, the topic does not lend itself to ready visualization.
  • Access the Chronicle of Higher Education piece from 2002 and see if there's anything else in it that we ought to include
  • Anything left unresolved from the Good Article evaluation ten years ago (!)

XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and there's an IP (whose conduct here and elsewhere reminded @Ritchie333 of the "Best Known For" guy) who is really insistent that the lead not contain links to later in the article. The claim is that they are not "intuitive and useful", but really? The link with the text "spread from Usenet" points to a section about the debate spreading beyond Usenet, and the link with the text "reflection among physicists" points to a section about physicists, well, reflecting. No doubt there's room for improvement, but it's pretty clear already. The article is long and text-heavy, so navigation aids are helpful. As @Xxanthippe said, "Seems reasonable". (I presume that whoever added such a link in the first place had these concerns in mind; one was there when I first came across the page.) The Manual of Style explicitly mentions intra-article links in the lead as a useful application of section links. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The MOS clearly supports using internal article links in the lead. On a case by case basis this is a matter of individual editors' tastes and open to discussion. If an editor thinks such links should never be allowed, that needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
They've tried again from two different IP's since I made the comment above, instead of coming here to discuss it [1][2]. During that time, I happened to check the article on a mobile browser and found that the "mobile view" doesn't show the table of contents. (It's collapsed in the "mobile view" when that is loaded on my desktop, but apparently mobile browsers have discretion to show the button to decollapse it or not. And even if the TOC is just shrunken rather than completely invisible, having links in the text as well bypasses a bit of screen-mashing.) So, section links in the lead really are added value. Also, they echo the genre convention of physics articles, where the introduction ends with a spiel that is hyperlinked whenever the authors know that the LaTeX package hyperref exists: "In section II, we define the key concepts. We prove the main theorem in section III. Section IV discusses a possible experimental implementation of our proposal, and we conclude in section V with a request for continued funding." XOR'easter (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Another question about the lead: do people think it has too much detail? In particular, the beginning of the second paragraph jumps right in with Niedermaier e-mailing Newman, then wedges in the Bogdanovs' TV career. We could probably simplify that to The controversy began in 2002, with an allegation that the twins, celebrities in France for hosting science-themed TV shows, had obtained PhDs by fraudulent work. Or something like that. I'm a little concerned that the critics mentioned in the lead, Niedermaier and Newman, barely figure in the body text, whereas the ones that the main text quotes at considerable length — Baez, Woit, Distler, Schreiber, etc. — don't have a presence in the intro at all. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The lead needs rewriting into a brief summary of the entire article (it just covers the first part now), with the references and some of the current material moved down into the article itself. According to the French article the affair expanded to concerns about the Bogdanovs' approach to science popularization, which our article has in the "Aftermath" section. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and edits! How's this for a revised lead?
The Bogdanov affair is an academic dispute regarding the legitimacy of a series of theoretical physics papers written by French twins Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (alternately spelt Bogdanoff). These papers were published in reputable scientific journals, and were alleged by their authors to culminate in a proposed theory for describing what occurred at the Big Bang.
The controversy began in 2002, with an allegation that the twins, celebrities in France for hosting science-themed TV shows, had obtained PhDs by fraudulent work. Rumors spread on Usenet newsgroups that their work was a deliberate hoax intended to target weaknesses in the peer review system that physics journals use to select papers for publication. While the Bogdanov brothers continued to defend the veracity of their work, the debate over whether or not it represented a contribution to physics spread from Usenet to many other Internet forums, eventually receiving coverage in the mainstream media. A Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) internal report later concluded that their theses had no scientific value.
The incident prompted criticism of the Bogdanovs' approach to science popularization, led to multiple lawsuits, and provoked reflection among physicists as to how and why the peer review system can fail.
I removed the footnotes. One of the sources (Les Bogdanov réclamaient un million, ils sont condamnés à payer 2000 euros) is actually defined in the lead as written, so its definition would have to be moved below, but I think all the others can be omitted without ill effect. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think your new lead is a very nice summary. The word "fraudulant" should be replaced with something softer since no one has been convicted of fraud. Perhaps had obtained PhDs through inadequate oversight of their work. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point. I have changed the adjective to "nonsensical", which is less legalistic and more specific (since the allegations were not that they had, for example, fabricated data in papers that otherwise made sense). XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The French version of the article (fr:Affaire Bogdanoff) has features of interest. It does have a rather high density of réf. nécessaire and pas clair tags, but it also contains a comment by science journalist fr:Sylvestre Huet about the Alain Riazuelo legal case (ici). It also says a bit more about Motl and points to a Science et Vie book review from 2008 which might not be online (compare the archive page for the August issue, where the footnote says it is, with those for July and September). There is also potentially useful content at fr:Avant le Big Bang. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've also found links to things that aren't there anymore or have been withdrawn from archives. I think after the Bogdanovs started winning court judgements people found it wise to have things taken down. I'm also going to be looking for more references.
This article (and the French one) have very interesting histories. It spawned a mediation request and an arbitration case. One result was a statement placed at the head of the article apologizing that Wikipedia had lost control of the article. The resulting list of banned editors involved in the external controversy numbers 209, with many sockpuppets of editors with a conflict of interest. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have the same suspicion about why some documents aren't available anymore. I will see what I can find via my local libraries. And that banner is pretty darn impressive; I don't recall seeing one quite like it on any other article. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This gave me a chuckle:
Dimanche, dans leur interview au JDD, les deux frères se préoccupent des dangers d'Internet :
« Il faut faire attention à ce qu'on lit sur Internet, où beaucoup de frustrés et de semi-décérébrés se déversent. »
Igor et Grishka Bogdanov disent vouloir modifier leur page Wikipédia, car, selon les deux frères « elle dit n'importe quoi ».
N'importe quoi, indeed! XOR'easter (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The Marianne piece from 2010 is offline, but it is still available through LexisNexis. It quotes the Science et Vie review of L'Equation Bogdanov as saying that the book is so light on detail, it never actually says what the "Bogdanov equation" is. "Arrivé à la conclusion du bouquin, on n'est même plus très certain qu'elle existe réellement" ("By the end of the book, one is no longer even very certain that it really exists"). I will keep looking for the Science et Vie review itself; I may be able to get it through interlibrary loan. There just isn't a lot online about that book (one small exception). XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The New Zealand IP editor is insistent that the Bogdanovs' TV series not be described as "popular". I'd say that this description adequately summarizes the fact that they are celebrities in France, deservedly or not, and it is more than adequately backed up by the sources we already have. Moreover, it sets the context within which l'affaire unfolded. I do not think that no doubt some liked them and some didn't is a valid rationale for not calling them "popular"; some people didn't like the Beatles, but plenty of others did. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And what do the Beatles have to do with anything? "Popular" does not summarise or impart any verifiable information. You want to note that they are celebrities in France? Then do that, with reference to verifiable facts - such as is already done when a book is described as a French bestseller. 121.90.132.235 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I was making an analogy to illustrate that "disliked by some" and "liked by many" can coexist. Would you prefer I invoked Twilight? And all the verifying we need is taken care of by the multiple reliable sources indicating that their TV shows were, indeed, popular. XOR'easter (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You claimed that No articles do what [I] want this one to do, which is easily verified to be false: links from the introduction to later sections may be uncommon but definitely do exist (example, another, a third, a fourth). There are also links from infoboxes to body sections (example, another, a third, a fourth, a double-header). XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bogdanov_affair/Archive_10&oldid=907514650"