The Bogdanov Singularity
(update -> June 1, 2004 here-ici
)
Update as of June 1, 2004 - here- ici
Update as of February 8, 2004. The pages quoted below the "Table
of Content" are kind of old. What has happened in the meantime? What
is the actual status? Where are we with the "affair?" What has
changed? What did not change? I would say not much has changed. On February
5, 2004, the
following post appeared on the newsgroup sci.physics.research
(...)
Now, the problem is that by a superficial surfing of the Web you find
a lot of advertisements, including self-..., and also some harsh words,
but
without any thorough analysis. One of my friends have just said:
"All this is
just French Science, and if you don't know what it is, read Sokal..."
(Boldface mine. A.J.)
Would anybody say something serious on all this?
(But, if I may, please avoid the statement I have heard already 10 times:
"I don't know much about it, so it is not normal, sane physics,
otherwise
everybody would know it. So, by default it is worthless" )
XX
YY, France
Now, notice this: "One of my friends have just said: 'All this
is just French Science, and if you don't know what it is, read Sokal...'"
To which I replied:
XX <XX@info.unixx.fr> wrote:
>For those who have never heard...:
>
>It is about a "generalized special relativity" to systems
related not only
>by inertial movement, but also by rescaling. The author, quite prolific
for
>last 10 years, concludes that all his stuff implies a fractal structure
of
>space-time, and derives ("derives"???) plenty of things,
such as cough,
>cough, quantum physics... Concretely, from the non-differentiability
of
>trajectories within such a nervous substrate as is the fractal space,
he
>derives a kind of stochastic process, and by some manipulations
I could not
>follow, he rederives something equivalent (?) to Nelson's stochastic
approach
>to quanta. Hence, the Schrodinger equation, etc.
I tried to understand, but I failed. I wrote to Nottale asking for
more papers and preprints, but studying these other papers did not help.
Personally: these are ideas that are not sufficiently developed.
>Then he claims to get everything. Electron and other masses derived
from
>charges. Unification of all couplings at the Planck scale. Some
astrophysical
>consequences at mid-cosmological/astronomical scales [Nottale worked
in
>an astronomical observatory at Meudon], etc. etc.
>
>To make it short, a theory of almost everything...
>
>Now, the problem is that by a superficial surfing of the Web you
find
>a lot of advertisements, including self-..., and also some harsh
words, but
>without any thorough analysis. One of my friends have just said:
"All this is
>just French Science, and if you don't know what it is, read Sokal..."
>
>
>Would anybody say something serious on all this?
French science? Alain Connes, Andre Lichnerowicz, Laurent Schwarz,
Daniel Kastler - that is also French science. On the othere hand Thomas
Bearden, Myron Evans, William A. Tiller, PhD is just American science?
So, perhaps it is better to avoid national comparisons, as they can
ricochet in an way that you may not expect.
Back to Nottale: here is a piece from my questions, and his answer
- perhaps it will help someone (it did not help me, but I was not really
insistent)
>2) As it is seen from the solar system different w are possible.
Do you
>>have some tentative explanation of the dynamics of changing
w (or D)?
>Why it changes? Does it change abrubptly? Can this change be caused
by
>>external factors?
I have partly answered to this question hereabove. This is a consequence
of the hierarchisation process, which is a general property of the
gravitational Schrodinger equation (see L.N., A&A 315, L9, 1996).
This
Schrodinger equation relates objects (i.e. structures) to the
superstructure they form. In other word, take some objects as "particles".
Apply to them the Schrodinger equation. One finds that the objects cluster
into a super-object of size given by the width of the probability density
distribution. Then make a zoom and take the new structure as basic object.
A new Schrodinger equation can be written, with a new constant w in
agreement with the new scale (the relation between w and the size in
space
depends on the potential). And so on. The sequence of w's translate
the
sequence of hierarchical levels.
ark
Till now (February 8) my post did not appear on the newsgroup. Moderators
did not reject it. My previous post on the similar subject was never rejected
(there should be an explicit reason for rejection). It was simply deleted,
so as to not cause problems to the "moderators'. It is to be seen
what will hapen with the above post. Usually it takes up to seven days
for a post to be accepted (though most are accepted within two days).
In few days I will add more actual comments ....
Update: February 13. My post did not appear. That means it will not appear
(unless one of the key "moderators" read this message, and decides
that it will be more "politically safe" to let my post go, even
if late....) My other posts, where I was note mentioning problems with
"American science" represented, for instance, by Bearden, Evans
or Tiller, appeared fast and without problems. What is the natural conclusion?
The natural conclusion is that there is a political control exerted on
"managers" of sci.physics.research, that this political control
is hidden, and that it serves political interests of groups that we are
often discussing on our Sign of the Times pages.
Also: when John Baez suggests that I am too much into conspiracy theories,
the truth may be just the opposite - that the whole conspiracy goes much
deeper that even a somewhat suspicious physicist may dream of....
Table
of Contents
-
1)
The Basic Story: initial email exchanges that started the snowball
down the mountain. - The Bogdanov Affaire started with a rumor
that two brothers published at least 4 bogus papers in physics journals
as a hoax. On or around October 22nd, a physicist named Max Niedermaier
- previously affiliated with the Max Planck Institute For Gravitational
Physics, Potsdam, Germany - sent an email around to a number of people
- including another physicist: Ted Newman. - Ezra "Ted"
Newman apparently fowarded the email to many individuals including
- it seems - John Baez.
-
2)
Statement from Robert Coquereaux - I agree that it is a pity if
people in academics can no longer even make the difference between
a genuine article and a hoax, and I agree with you that this is a
symptom of the decadence of our system. If they were not TV personalities,
nobody would even care (probably this is the real problem!)
-
-
4)
Statement by Arkadiusz Jadczyk - The only way I can see out of
the trap is to always "work with your own brain." Never
believe a word of what has been published - unless you are able to
check it yourself. Never follow a fashion. Never expect to be praised
or even understood - for what you have produced as a scientist. Never
expect that your own papers will be accepted for publication in peer
reviewed jornals. In fact, the more original your paper is, the less
likely it is that it will be accepted!
-
-
-
7)
COINTELPRO
and The Speed of Light Are there political motivations in this event?
(If you are a scientist, or a journalist, you better skip this part,
as it can affect your career and your family life in a VERY negative
way.) - Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities.
Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their
reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition,
or the cuckolded husband who is the "last to know," or the
wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.
-
8)
The Dialogue: Ark discusses physics and math with Bogdanovs -
This page contains a discussion of technical details of the papers
by Igor and Grichka Bogdanov. It contains technical terms and it involves
certain jargon that physicists (in this case: mathematical physicists)
use in their discussions - usually with chalk and blackboards.
-
9)
Ark's post to sci.physics.research Nov. 4, 2002 -
which never appeared on the list
moderated by John Baez - Recently I was prompted to study the
book Conscious Acts of Creation: The emergence
of new physics by William A. Tiller, PhD, Walter E.
Dibble, Jr., PhD, and Michael J. Kochane, Ph. D. The Preface to the
book is signed by Rustum Roy, Penn State, Wayne B. Jonas, USUHS and
.... E.C. George Sudarshan, University of Texas, Austin. ...
Are we
ready to be bitten by monopoles?
-
10) The Dialogue continues..The "Werk" - - or The High
Noon of Physics (again, if you are a scientist or journalist, you
better skip this part because it can affect your career and your family
life in a VERY negative way). - [W]e again find ourselves approaching
the much discussed, ever a hot-topic, ZERO POINT ENERGY. -
That
explains jealousy. That explains competition. And that explains hoaxed
hoaxes.
- 11)
Daniel Sternheimer: Mise au point - At a time when so many scientific
papers consist in just applying some machinery in a context which is,
or seems, slightly different of previous applications, it is refreshing
that a few intelligent persons having a different perspective try and
bring in new ideas. It is then to others, who are more experts, to be
inspired by these ideas. That is what happened when I+G were discussing
with established scientists who had no idea that I+G should be deemed
pariahs, apparently because someone decided so.
-
12)
Robert Coquereaux answers an inquiry from a journalist of a leading
newspaper - My opinion is that for the last twenty years or so,
there has been a deterioration in the style of expository or research
papers. There are several reasons for that (see below). This does
not mean that many recent papers are wrong, it means that either such
papers are "not even wrong", or that they require a lot of time and
efforts from behalf of the potential readers to become meaningful.
...the United States carries a heavy responsability in the deterioration
of the style quality of scientific papers.
-
13)
Ark answers an inquiry from a journalist of a leading newspaper
- [T]here WERE papers very badly written, which later proved to be
very important for the progress of science. - And as Robert writes
"you cannot make the difference at first glance." Now, add
to this jealousy, which Robert has also mentioned as being a factor
in the attacks on the Bogdanovs... and then we enter the shaky ground
of politics and science, in my opinion more shaky in USA than elsewhere
in the world.
-
14)
Ark's second post to sci.physics.research Nov. 8, 2002 -
another post that was delayed for five days
on the list moderated by John Baez - As for me, I decided to
take the risk with the Bogdanovs in a similar way as I took a risk
in 1982, when with Robert Coquereaux, while in CERN, we decided to
give Ed Witten a chance and look into his "Search of a
realistic Kaluza-Klein theory" paper, that nobody could
understand in math terms. - It took us three months of hard work to
figure the right math out. It took three more years to derive consequencies
and to write a monograph.
-
- 16)
Pale Rider at High Noon - (another
page that ought to be skipped by those who wish to maintain the status
quo in their lives) - Just about every great Western features a confrontation
between the white hats and the black hats on a deserted, dusty street,
but none did it better than High Noon. This is curiously
a propos since High Noon was conceived as a political
parable by writer Carl Foreman who faced political persecution from
the HUAC during the McCarthy era due to actual or imagined connections
to the Communist Party. His film was a statement about individuals who
made life-altering decisions according to their consciences. "A gun
is a tool like any other, as good or as bad as the man who uses it."
Mathematics is a tool, as good or as bad as the man who uses it. - There
are hundreds of other physicists who write papers equally "impressionistic"
who have never been accused of a hoax.
- 17)
More posts defending the Bogdanovs rejected from sci.physics.research
- John Baez wrote to Ark today expressing his puzzlement as to why we
have taken a hard stand against his actions. I was reminded of Plutarch's
remark: "It was the saying of Bion, that though the boys throw
stones at frogs in sport, yet the frogs do not die in sport but in earnest."
- The following posts are three rejected by sci.physics. research because
the author dared to suggest that John Baez and his friends had engaged
in character assassination. I will leave it to the reader to make their
own assessment.
- 18)
An Exclusive Interview with the Bogdanov Twins - A great many derogatory
comments have been made in the press about the so-called "Honorable
mention," known in the US as a "passing grade," that
you both received in your Theses defenses. We have discussed the matter
with one of your thesis supervisors who has indicated that there were,
indeed, special circumstances surrounding the event. In fact, he has
stated that Moshe Flato felt that you two had been subjected to unacceptable
a priori censorship, almost a witch hunt. Can you describe for
us what, exactly, took place?
- 19)
In Theory,
George Johnson is a Conspirator... - And what hypothesis does Mr.
George Johnson propose to explain "conspiracy theories?" He
declares that conspiracy theories are spread because "Ideas become
E-mail to be duplicated and duplicated again, fanning out along the
proliferating branches and twigs of circuitry both electronic and neural."
- Now, why is it that Mr. George Johnson suddenly experienced a "senior
moment" and forgot that his description of how Conspiracy Theories
are created and propagate is EXACTLY HOW JOHN BAEZ SPREAD THE HOAX about
the Bogdanovs?
- 20)
The Barber of Le Figaro Sings Back-up to John Baez and Clips his own
Countrymen - As it happens, in the past few days, as I have been
doing more research on John Baez - trying to understand his motivations
for viciously attacking a colleague with no justification - I discovered
something rather troubling: John Baez wrote a paper in 1997 in which
he is replicating the ideas and the results of my 1982 "Vanishing
Vierbein " paper without quoting the source.
- 21)
The Bogdanoff Brothers in the Eye of a Cyclone - A translation of
an article on the Bogdanovs that appeared in the French newspaper Le
Figaro this week. You can see Ark's email interview with
the journalist at: The
Barber of Le Figaro Sings Back-up to John Baez and Clips his own Countrymen
Read what Ark actually said and then read the following to see how the
journalist completely ignores it all. Then read In
Theory, George Johnson is a Conspirator... a comparable article
by journalist George Johnson published in The New York Times'
"Week in Review." It begins
to look like both of them attended the same School
of Debunkery. Some journalists are heroes to the masses - but most
of them are bottom feeders..
|
