Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:08, 21 October 2005

Ban on editors involved in Bogdanov Affair All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affair) are banned from Misplaced Pages pending resolution of this matter. Please see the notice at the top of this article's talk page for further details.

The Bogdanov Affair is a controversy regarding the merit of a series of theoretical physics papers written by French twin brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (or Bogdanoff). These papers were published in reputable scientific journals, and culminate in a proposed theory for describing what occurred before the Big Bang. The controversy started in 2002 when accusations were made on Usenet newsgroups that the work was a deliberate hoax targeting the physics community. The Bogdanovs defend the veracity of their work; however, it has been alleged by some physicists that the papers are nonsense, and questions have been raised about the strength of the peer-review system that selected the research for publication.

The Bogdanovs' credentials to write on cosmology are based on Ph.D. degrees they obtained from the University of Bourgogne; Igor Bogdanov received his degree in mathematics, and Grichka Bogdanov received his in physics. Although there were issues related to the comprehensibility of their theses, they graduated conditionally upon publishing in journals that were respected in their fields. When later challenges to the legitimacy of the work arose, the debate spread to the question of whether the substitution of a "publication requirement" by university professors when they do not understand students' work is a valid means of determining the veracity of a paper. However, the intrinsic complexity of topics like quantum groups and topological field theory (as well as the the growth of excessive jargon used by those who study these areas) makes it difficult to avoid such delegation, since often specific expertise is necessary in order to fully understand and evaluate the claims made in papers in these fields.

Igor and Grichka have been widely known in France as television presenters for a few decades. Their shows like "Temps X" (and more recently "Rayons X") deal with topics in popular science and science fiction, and have attracted a large number of viewers. The celebrity status of the Bogdanovs in their country may have helped spread this controversy from specialized scientists to mainstream media and online forums.

Origin of the affair

In 1999 and 2002 Grichka and Igor Bogdanov obtained Ph.D. degrees on the basis of two theses (Grichka in mathematics and Igor in theoretical physics) from the University of Bourgogne. In 1999 Grichka Bogdanov received the passing grade of "honorable" for his thesis Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck scale, with the condition that his thesis be profoundly rewritten. On the same day, Igor Bogdanov failed the defense of his thesis Topological Origin of Inertia. His advisor subsequently agreed to allow him to obtain a doctorate if Igor could publish three peer-reviewed journal articles. After publishing the requisite articles, Igor successfully defended his thesis three years later on a different topic under the responsability of two co-advisors Topological State of Spacetime at the Planck Scale, also receiving the same passing grade of "honorable." The two brothers published a total of six papers in physics and mathematics journals, including Annals of Physics and Classical and Quantum Gravity, which are both peer-reviewed by referees.

After reading the abstracts of both theses, German physicist Max Niedermaier formed the opinion that the papers were pseudoscientific, consisting of dense technical jargon written in a manner similar to the Sokal Affair, written to prove shortcomings in the peer-review system of theoretical physics. On 22 October 2002, Niedermaier sent an email to this effect to physicist Ted Newman, and the email was then widely distributed. An eventual recipient of the email, the American mathematical physicist John Baez, created a discussion thread on the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research titled "Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?" which quickly grew to hundreds of posts in length.

This controversy immediately attracted worldwide attention, both in the physics community and in the international popular press. Following Niedermaier, the majority of the participants in the Usenet discussion thread created by Baez also made the assumption that the work was a deliberate hoax, which the Bogdanov brothers have continued to deny. After hearing that the Bogdanovs disputed that their work was a hoax, Niedermaier issued a private and public apology to the Bogdanov brothers on 24 October 2002 for having so assumed from the outset. However, he has endorsed neither the validity nor merit of the work in question.

Reports and comments from scientists

Thesis reports

The following are excerpts from the 15 Thesis Reports of Igor and Grichka Bogdanov:

Roman Jackiw, from MIT: "The author proposes a novel, speculative solution to the problem of the pre-Big-Bang initial singularity ... the thesis and the published papers provide an excellent introduction to these ideas, and can serve as a useful springboard for further research in this area".

Costas Kounnas, from ENS Paris: "I found this work very interesting, with many new ideas about quantum gravity ... the author proposes an original and interesting cosmological scenario.".

Jack Morava, from the Johns Hopkins University: "the thesis work of Igor Bogdanov is of great interest, dominated by new ideas with fundamental physical implications in cosmology and in many other fields connected with gravitation."

Published papers

In May 2001, the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) reviewed an article authored by Igor & Grickha Bogdanov, entitled "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime". One of the referee reports stated that the article was "Sound, original, and of interest. With revisions I expect the paper to be suitable for publication." The paper was accepted seven months later.

However, after the publication of the article and the publicity surrounding the controversy, the editorial board of the journal issued a statement, saying, in part:

Regrettably, despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective. Thus the paper made it through the review process even though, in retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this journal. The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial Board meeting and there was general agreement that it should not have been published.

The paper in question has, however, not been withdrawn from the publication.

In 2001, the Czechoslovak Journal of Physics accepted an article written by Igor Bogdanov, entitled "Topological Origin of Inertia". The referee's report concluded: "In my opinion the results of the paper can be considered as original ones. I recommend the paper for publication but in a revised form."

In 2002, the Chinese Journal of Physics published "The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale", from Igor Bogdanov. The report stated that "the viewpoint presented in this paper can be interesting as a possible approach of the Planck scale physics." Some corrections were requested.

Not all review evaluations were positive. Eli Hawkins, acting as a referee for the Journal of Physics A, suggested rejecting one of the Bogdanovs' papers: "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."

Several of the published papers are nearly identical, differing only in minor respects and in their publication title.

Criticism of the papers

After the start of the controversy on Usenet, most comments were critical of the Bogdanovs' work. The following are examples:

John Baez commented that their work "is a mishmash of superficially plausible sentences containing the right buzzwords in approximately the right order. There is no logic or cohesion in what they write."

Peter Woit: "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."

Jacques Distler: "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."

Some comments were more positive:

Lubos Motl: "he Bogdanoff brothers are proposing something that has, speculatively, the potential to be an alternative story about quantum gravity ... What they are proposing is a potential new calculational framework for gravity. I find it unlikely that these things will work but it is probably more likely than loop quantum gravity and other discrete approaches whose lethal problems have already been identified in detail"

Implications for the peer-review system

Prior to the controversy, the reports on the Bogdanov theses and most of the journal referees' reports spoke favorably of their work, describing it as original and containing interesting ideas. This has been the basis of concerns raised about the efficacy of the peer-review system that the scientific community and academia use to determine the merit of submitted manuscripts for publication; one concern is that over-worked and unpaid refeeres may not be able to thoroughly judge the value of a paper in the little time they can afford to spend on it. Questions were also raised in the sci.physics.research newsgroup about the fact that some aspects of theoretical physics have become so abstract, extensively relying on unproven conjectures, that verifying many statements written in published papers has become somewhat impossible.

Regarding the Bogdanov publications, physicist Steve Carlip remarked:

The referees made a mistake. Well, accidents happen. Referees are volunteers, and get very little reward for their service to the community. Sometimes they get overwhelmed (...) and get careless. Sometimes they don't want to admit that they don't understand a paper. Sometimes they read their own ideas into a paper. Two referees are better than one, but once in a while they'll both make mistakes.

Whereas theoretical physicist Lubos Motl commented:

...it does not surprise me much that Roman Jackiw said that the paper satisfied everything he expects from an acceptable paper - the knowledge of the jargon and some degree of original ideas. (And be sure that Jackiw, Kounnas, and Majid were not the only ones with this kind of a conclusion.)

Motl also proposes that the structure of the paper is probably unintelligible, that isolated parts of the paper are true as a consequence of having been plagiarised from other papers, and that the financial interests that the Bogdanov brothers have in promoting themselves have lead them to continue to affirm the veracity of their papers.

Internet Discussions

In addition to a few articles in print, the Bogdanov affair has been discussed extensively in various webpages and blogs on the Internet; these discussions have taken place on various newsgroups and web fora, and the Bogdanov brothers have often participated in the discussions, both under their real names, and under several pseudonyms; they later acknowledged doing so. Most pseudonyms purported physicists or mathematicians, defending the Bogdanovs' work and sometimes insulting their critics (among them the Nobel prize recipient Georges Charpak). A few participants in these discussions responded in a similar manner, specifically accusing the Bogdanovs of evading scientific criticism, or lying about what they actually wrote or said.

At the start of the controversy in the moderated group sci.physics.research, Igor Bogdanov denied that their published papers were a hoax, but when asked precise questions from physicists Steve Carlip and John Baez regarding mathematical details in the papers, failed to convince any other participants that these papers had any real scientific value.

Participants in the discussions were particularly unconvinced by the affirmation in one of the Bogdanov papers that "whatever the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucault's pendulum is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the origin of physical space." The Bogdanovs explained that this sentence would only be clear in the context of topological field theory. Physicists found this statement, and subsequent attempts at its explanation, extremely odd since Foucault's pendulum is a museum display piece.

At the beginning of 2004, Igor Bogdanov began to post on French Usenet physics groups and web fora, continuing the same pattern of behavior.

The HKU confusion

For months, the domain name of the International Institute of Mathematical Physics created by the Bogdanovs, th-phys.edu.hk, created erroneous suggestions amongst forum participants as to a possible link with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Despite the similarity of name, this is unaffiliated with the reputable Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna, Austria.

The participation of an unidentified "Professor Yang" created additional problems in determining the truth of the matter; an individual publishing as Professor Yang wrote to a number of individuals and on the Internet to defend the Bogdanovs' work. This individual wrote to physicists John Baez, Jacques Diestler and Peter Woit; journalist Dennis Overbye from the New York Times; and on numerous physics blogs and fora, signing his name "Professor L. Yang - Theoretical Physics Laboratory, International Institute of Mathematical Physics - HKU/Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong." using an e-mail address at the domain th-phys.edu.hk.

The Bogdanovs have alleged several times that the "domain name "th-phys.edu.hk" was officially owned by Hong Kong University." This was not confirmed officially by HKU and no Prof. Yang existed on the roster of the HKU Physics department. The DNS record of th-phys.edu.hk did list the HKUST street address, but the domain had been registered by Igor Bogdanov, and e-mail messages from Professor L. Yang originated from a dial-up IP address in Paris, France. The registration of th-phys.edu.hk has not been renewed.

Suspicions were consequently raised that Professor L. Yang was in fact a pseudonym of the Bogdanovs . However, Igor Bogdanov has maintained that Professor Yang is a real mathematical physicist with expertise in KMS theory, a friend of his, and that he was posting anonymously from Igor's apartment. Yet no person, distinct from the Bogdanovs, has come forward publically to unambiguously identify himself as this "Professor Yang" and to identify his credentials and institutional affiliation. No published record of this "Professor Yang" has been offered for examination.

Following this pattern, another academic domain name was also registered in Latvia (http://phys-maths.edu.lv/), hosting the Mathematical Center of Riemannian Cosmosology. Again, this apparent educational institution was registered by Igor Bogdanoff. However, in this case, no claim was implied of an affiliation with an official educational institution.

Media Involvement

At the start of the controversy in 2002, numerous articles were published in worldwide media, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, the Economist, but also Pravda, and Die Zeit.

In 2002, the Bogdanovs launched a new weekly TV show Rayons X on French public channel France 2. In August 2004, they presented a 90-minute special cosmology program in which they introduced their theory among other cosmological scenarios. They were also frequently invited to numerous TV talk shows to promote their book. The French mainstream media, in both the press and on the Internet, covered the renewed controversy to some extent; media outlets that have reported upon it include Europe 1 , Acrimed, Ciel et Espace, and Le Monde .

A thesis reporter, Shahn Majid, claimed on Usenet post that Grichka Bogdanov was intentionally misquoting his opinion on the way the interview he gave to a journalist from Ciel et Espace was eventually transcribed. In addition physicist Peter Woit has said that a polite comment of his: “It’s certainly possible that you have some new worthwhile results on quantum groups.. " was mistranslated 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) and published by the Bogdanovs in support of their book.

In early 2005, the Bogdanovs sued Ciel et Espace over the publication of an critical article entitled "The Mystification of the Bogdanovs." The trial should take place at the end of 2005 or the beginning of 2006.

Followups to the Bogdanovs' work

An indication of the impact that these theories may have on theoretical physics can be inferred by the references made to them in subsequent papers by other theoretical physicists. The Bogdanov papers are cited a total of 3 times on the SPIRES database, for 6 published papers and one unpublished preprint. This figure is extremely low when evaluated against the number of citations made to papers written by other physicists who have given critical evaluations of the Bogdanovs work. As a matter of comparison, a recent detailed analysis of citation statistics reveals that between 1000 and 2000 citations are expected from somenone who advances to a full professor position or for a fellowship of the American Physical Society, and around 8000 citations are expected for members of the US National Academy of Sciences. To focus on cosmological scenarios, a recent and somewhat controversial cosmological model, the ekpyrotic universe was published in 2001 and has already been cited more than 350 times, not to mention the numerous subsequent papers published after this one. The Bogdanoffs' low citation number is a clear indication that the general theoretical physics community does not consider the papers as useful or valid.

The Bogdanovs have not, at the time of writing, published any scientific paper since 2003; however, in collaboration with theoretical physicist Arkadiusz Jadczyk, they have founded the International Institute of Mathematical Physics in order to study and develop their theories. In 2004, two papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals by A. Jadczyk within the framework of this Institute. These two papers are not closely related to the issues addressed in the previous Bogdanovs' papers.

In 2004, the Bogdanovs published a successful popular science book, Avant Le Big-Bang (Before the Big Bang), based on a simplified version of their theses, where they also presented their point of view about the affair. Both the book and the Bogdanovs' television shows have been criticized for elementary scientific inaccuracies. Examples cited from Avant Le Big-Bang by critics include a statement that the "golden number" φ (Phi) is transcendental, which the Bogdanovs allege to be an editorial misprint, and an assumption that the limit of a decreasing sequence is always zero. Despite these criticisms, some point out that the Bogdanovs deserve credit for bringing the subjects of cosmology and relativity to a wider audience.

The Bogdanov Affair also had some unexpected consequences in the world of theoretical physics. Some media articles have cast a negative light on this field, stating that it has become impossible to distinguish a valid paper from a hoax. Some people used the affair to criticize the present status of string theory. Many comments have been made on the possible shortcomings of the referal system for published articles, and also on the criteria for acceptance of a thesis and subsequent delivery of a Ph.D degree. More recently, some opinions defended the idea that Bogdanovs work could be a catalyst that may refresh points of view and elicit new solutions to currently unsolved questions.

See also

• Scientific consensus
• Consensus science
• Pseudoscience
• Protoscience
• Junk science
• Fringe science
• Hoaxes

External links

• A discussion of the controversy.
• Additional discussion with various people related to the brothers.
• «Pot-Pourri» from Igor & Grichka Bogdanov's Before the Big Bang.
• Theses and scientific publicationsby Igor and Grichka Bogdanov.
• J. Giorgis article in The Economist.
• Physics hoaxers discover Quantum Bogosity in The Register.
• Slashdot thread
• Urs Schreiber blog.
• Jacques Distler (1, 2) blog entries
• Peter Woit (1, 2, 3) blog entries
• A small journey in the Bogdanoff universe by the cosmologist Alain Riazuelo
• The Bogdanovs' personal web sites:
  • Mathematical Center of Riemannian Cosmology
  • International Institute of Mathematical Physics

• Theoretical physics
• Pseudoscience
• Hoaxes
• Sociology of scientific knowledge