Bogdanov affair

Igor and Grichka Bogdanov.

The Bogdanov Affair is an academic controversy regarding the merit of a series of papers on physics written by Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (or Bogdanoff), some of which were published in reputable scholarly journals, and the academic credentials awarded based on the content of those publications. The affair broke on October 22, 2002 and received widespread media attention outside of academic physics, where commentators questioned the strength of the peer-review system that the scientific community and academia use to determine the merit of work.

Another notable aspect of the affair is that the subjects, Igor and Grichka Bogdanov have been widely known in France for decades as TV-show hosts, with programs about popular science and science fiction, including "Temps X" and, more recently "Rayons X." These shows have been highly successful in France and have attracted a large audience. When the affair broke, the status of the Bogdanovs as television personalities helped to fan the flames in France and spread news of the affair from specialized scientists to the popular press and to online forums.

Origin of the affair

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot state (bottom). Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, creating and carrying the galaxies with it. Science tells us nothing about what happened from the time of the Big Bang until 10^-43 seconds, a concept known as Planck time. After this, the time is grouped into epochs. At first, these are very short periods; of the seven epochs described below, the first five together last for three minutes. The Bogdanov publications purport to have discovered what had happened before this earliest moment and even before the moment of the Big Bang itself.

During 1999–2002, popular French TV presenters Grichka and Igor Bogdanov obtained Ph.D. degrees on the basis of two theses (one in mathematics, one in theoretical physics) from the University of Burgundy. In 1999 Grichka Bogdanov received the very rare, lowest-possible passing grade of "honorable," while Igor Bogdanov failed to successfully defend his thesis at the same time. After Igor's failed thesis defense, his advisor agreed to allow him to obtain his doctorate if Igor could publish three peer-reviewed journal articles. After publishing the requisite articles, Igor successfully defended his thesis three years later, also receiving the same rare lowest-possible passing grade of "honorable" as his brother. Consequently, they published six papers in refereed physics and mathematics journals, including Annals of Physics and Classical and Quantum Gravity.

After reading the abstracts of both theses, a resident French physicist Max Niedermaier considered them to be pseudoscience, consisting entirely of dense technical jargon in a manner similar to the Sokal Affair. On 22 October 2002, Niedermaier subsequently distributed an email to this effect to various physicists. An eventual recipient of this email, the American mathematical physicist John Baez, created a discussion on the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research entitled, "Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax? "

This question immediately attracted worldwide attention, both in the physics community and in the international popular press. Following Niedermaier, most of the participants in the Usenet discussion thread created by Baez made the assumption that the work was a deliberate hoax in the style of Sokal, which the Bogdanov brothers have continued to vehemently deny. Consequently, Niedermaier issued a private and public apology to the Bogdanovs on 24 October 2002 for having assumed that their work was a deliberate hoax (he has not endorsed the validity or merit of the work in question).

Criticism of the papers

Refereed journals

In order to deal with enquiries from a number of readers and journalists, the members of the Editorial Board of the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) received a working document reading in part:

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 Bogdanov and I Bogdanov, 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 of 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.

The Bogdanovs point to the support of referees appointed by Classical & Quantum Gravity who concluded in May 2001 (before Niedermaier sent his mail):

Sound, original and of interest. With revisions I expect the paper to be suitable for publication.The author's make the interesting observation that, in the limit of infinite temperature, a field theory is reduced to a topological field theory which may be a suitable description of the initial phase of the universe. (...) I can accept that in the limit of infinite temperature, contact can be made with a topological phase of some field theory (the type of field theory needs to be elaborated on however). The crucial question, however, is how does the initial topological phase break down to a universe we see today.

Referees do not necessarily express the same opinion on the same paper. For instance, the report to The Journal of Physics A (June 2000) [1] about the paper "KMS State of Spacetime at the Planck Scale" was highly critical:

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 and 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.

File:ChineseJournalOfPhysics.jpg

Nevertheless, after profound revision, the same paper was a year later published in the Chinese Journal of Physics, n°40, 2002: pp.149-158. Here is an extract of one of the referee's reports:

'Motivated by string theory results, in this paper the author discussed the space-time below Planck scale as a thermodynamic system subject to KMS condition. Since the physics at the Planck scale has been largely unexplored, the viewpoint presented in this paper can be interesting as a possible approach of the Planck scale physics. Thus it will be reasonable to consider the publication of this paper in Chinese Journal of Physics. Before publication, however, the author should correct the followings. If these corrections are made, it can be published in the journal without further reviewing.

Miscellaneous criticism

Mathematical physicist John Baez notes:

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.

I'm quite sure there is nothing of merit in the papers. The papers are extremely eclectic in the math and physics terminology they use. Some people who read these and may not be knowledgeable on the terminology may give them the benefit of the doubt. I can tell that they're not really doing anything with the terms. They're sort of stringing together plausible-sounding sentences that add up to nothing.

One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics.

But John Baez comment was contradicted by Massimo Porrati, professor of Physics in New York University who commented on October 30, 2002 :

The comment of that John Baez (about the Bogdanoff Lagrangian) is also pretty lousy. He seems to find particularly funny the statement (of the Bogdanoffs) that a topological theory does not depend on L. Well, unfortunately, that is what happens in Witten's theory of Donaldson Polynomials (topological N=2 or N=4 SYM). That theory can be though of as the gauge-fixed version of L=0. All its nontrivial features come from the Gribov ambiguity of the gauge fixing.

Physicist Peter Woit notes:

...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.

Here too Peter Woit's comment appears to be in full contradiction with, for instance, this report written by Roman Jackiw, professor at MIT, whose conclusion dated Apr 11,2002 was sent to the University of Bourgogne :

The author proposes a novel, speculative solution to the problem of the pre-Big-Bang initial singularity, which cannot be analyzed within conventional field theory. His suggestion is that this (inaccessible) epoch is governed by a topological, thermal field theory, satisfying a KMS-periodicity condition. In order to make his ideas concrete, the author makes various startling, but technical proposals, which reflect vividly the originality of his thinking : the field theoretical context is N=2 super gravity. At a pre-Planckian level space-time has a Lorentzian and a Minkowskian component in a quantum entangled state, the Riemannian component is dominant in early times, a singular Euclidean instanton governs the initial singularity. This (Bogdanoff) paper entails the following fascinating phenomenon. In conventional approaches, many people believe that at high temperatures a dynamical theory (e.g. field theory) loses one time-like dimension. Thus physical Yang-Mills theory becomes three-dimensional gauge theory and the Chern-Simons term (introduced by Deser, Templeton and me for that purpose) becomes relevant. On the other hand, the author's unconventional idea is that at high temperatures the Yang Mills system fluctuates into the suppressed forth dimension taking on time like and/or space like values.

Cosmologist Alain Riazuelo notes that :

Stating that the Bogdanoff work has to do with (scientific) cosmology is a bit like stating that the Bible also has. The Bogdanovs do talk about the early universe, but lack more or less all the basis that should be required for their "work" to be considered in the field of science.

Here again, some experts in the field are of another opinion. Here is the report before defense written by theoretical physicist Jac Verbaarchot, professor at Stony Brook University :

The main results of the thesis are in CJP paper where the author establishes the concept of topological inertia. An important role is played by the first Donaldson invariant which, according to a theorem by the author, is equal to the high temperature limit of a topological partition function. Still another interpretation of this index given by the author is as the difference of the number of gravitational instantons and gravitational monopoles.

This year I had two graduate students who successfully completed their thesis. In addition to that I have been on numerous Ph.D. exams. The present thesis ranks among the best I have seen during the past few years. I am particularly impressed by the scientific maturity of the author and by his courage to pursue a single great idea to great depth.

At the University of Stony Brook, he would pass the Ph.D. exam without the slightest difficulty.

From 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.

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.

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.

Nevertheless, the Bogdanoffs observe that their articles have been available on the CERN server since January 2000. In particular their article "Topological Origin of Inertia" whose referee made the following comment:

In this paper the author attempts to describe the inertial interaction within the Witten model of topological field theory. The main result of the paper is based on the construction of a high temperature topological limit of supergravity and the possibility to find the corresponding gravitational instanton moduli space. It is proposed to explain the inertial interaction using the topological amplitude connected with the topological charge of the singular gravitational instanton. As a consequence, the topological Mach’s principle is formulated. There are several supporting examples presented in the following part of the paper. 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.

From Urs Schreiber:

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 terminology.

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.

However, the same "central ideas" of the Bogdanoffs were commented in a very different way by C.Kounnas, professor at Ecole Normale Supérieure, in his thesis report :

I found this work very interesting, with many new ideas about quantum gravity, such as the topology-changing and signature oscillations at the early stages of the universe, when the temperature scale T=M Planck . In his framework the conventional ideas of the early universe are drastically modified, especially the notion of the initial singularity.

In the introduction of his thesis, Mr Bogdanov gives a short pedagogical review about the previous ideas concerning topology and signature-changing,emphasizing the contradictions of freezing the signature of the metric in quantum gravity.

His work is divided in three sections :

1. Formal mathematical conditions for signature oscillations.

In this section the author established a mathematical formulation in order to well describe the topological phase based on (3+, 1+) form and the conventional physical phase based on (3+, 1-). Furthermore, considering fundamental groups constraints, he shows the non-existence of a possible transition to the ultra-hyperbolic phase based on (2+, 2-) form. A very interesting observation of the author is that both (3+, 1+) and (3+, 1-) phases appear in the quantum extension of the Lorentz group SO (3,1) → SOq (3,1). This fact leads the author to conclude that the q-extension of gravity demands both Lorentzian and Euclidean signatures. A consistent extension of the conventional space SO (3,1) / SO (3) is achieved by q-deformed homogeneous space proposed by the author.

2. Physical consequences and constraints of a superposition of Lorentzian/Euclidean gravitational theory.

Starting from the linearized black-hole metric of the Einstein theory valid for small gravitational potential Mr Bogdanov proposes a suitable modification of quantum gravity such that the linearized solution is an exact local solution of the modified theory at the boundaries of the Euclidean and Lorentzian metric.

Around the signature-changing points, the author demonstrates the important result that the superposed space-time is submitted to the KMS condition with a complex extension of the g 44 component of the metric.

3. A proposal of a cosmological model based on a transition of a Topological Euclidean Instantonic Phase at the « zero scale » --> Monopole Phase at the Planck scale

In this part of his thesis the author proposes an original and interesting cosmological scenario. For a strongly curved gravitational manifold, the signature of the space-time is Euclidean. This theory describes a phase that corresponds to a topological phase dominated by singular « zero size instanton » . In this theory the β _ Euclidean evolution is valid up to the Planckian phase with is a signature oscillating phase (3+, 1+) (3+, 1-). Finally, when β> Planck, we are entering the conventional Lorentzian phase of a cosmological expanding universe. As a consequence of this construction, G. Bogdanov is considering the existence of an interesting duality (called i-duality ) between topological and conventional Lorentzian theories. An important and unexpected result of such a duality is that the 0-scale phase (β = 0 ), corresponds in this framework to the first of the Donaldson Invariants.

In my opinion the thesis work of Mr. Bogdanov is of great interest, dominated by new ideas with fundamental physical implications in cosmology and in many other gravitational phenomena such as black-holes, worm-holes, etc.

Here is an exchange between Fabien Besnard, journalist for La Recherche, and Urs Shreiber

...

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 unfortunately not in the field of theoretical physics.

>They pretend that you have apologized 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. Bogdanov] 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.

Beyond these discussions and at the opposite of these conclusions, here is the report of Jack Morava, Professor at John Hopkins University : `

Considering the present thesis of I. Bogdanoff : I am quite sympathetic to the idea that the beta ---> 0 limit of a physical theory should be taken seriously as a candidate for a topological field theory, and I think trying to understand Floer-Donaldson theory in this context is a very good idea.

I also think the question of relations between Euclidean and Lorentzian geometry at the Planck scale is a subject which requires new ideas, and that the contributions of I. Bogdanoff seems quite interesting. In this perspective, Section Four of the author's paper `Topological theory of the initial singularity...', esp. display 42 (p. 21), seems very important.

From the mathematical point of view, it seems to me that in the context of the present research the central issue is the complexification of the metric : this is connected with the role of the complex axion-dilaton field, the role of the B-field in mirror symmetry, and the whole question of a choice of time-direction for Wick rotation, in some generally invariant context. The natural configuration space for classical relativity is the space of Lorentzian metrics on a fixed smooth background manifold, modulo the action of the group of diffeomorphisms. I suggest that in his future researches the author might direct some thought toward a generalization of that moduli space appropriate to the kind of pre-Planck-scale symmetry breaking (and its links to noncommutative geometry) the author has in mind.

My opinion is that a good toy model solution for these questions would also shed some light on the compactification problem [ie, why four `noncompact' dimensions vs. six `compact' ones?] as well as various classical questions about the cosmological constant. There is a very fertile literature, in Riemannian geometry, concerned with the Yamabe problem : a Riemannian metric on a compact manifold always admits a conformal deformation to a metric with constant scalar curvature. In some ways this is a natural `ground state' in Riemannian geometry. There is considerable interest in the analogous question when the manifold is not compact but complete.

In my opinion 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.

The Bogdanovs' work purports to encompass quantum groups, KMS theory, and topological field theory, culminating in a proposition of a theory for describing what occurred before the Big Bang. Whilst the general public cannot be expected to have the expertise to evaluate the specialised technical claims of either side in this dispute, virtually all physicists who have published on web forums and sci.physics.research newsgroups are of the opinion that the Bogdanovs' papers constitute a hoax, "gibberish," or, at best, sloppy work plagued by errors, while relatively few theoretical physicists continue to defend the Bogdanovs' theory.

Implications for the peer-review system

Before the widespread hoax discussion, the reports on Bogdanovs' theses and most of the journal referees' reports spoke favorably of their work, describing it as original and containing interesting ideas. This is at the root of the questions raised regarding the efficacy of the peer-review system that the scientific community and academia use to determine the merit of submitted manuscripts for publication. Regarding the Bogdanov publications, physicist Steve Carlip remarks:

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 comments:

...it does not surprise me much that [one of the referees of the thesis and for "Annals of Physics"] 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 notes that:

All physicists seem to agree that:

• The detailed structure of the paper (and very similar papers published elsewhere) probably makes no sense - at least no one has been able to understand the content of the paper in detail; I am not a new Planck who has been able to identify new Einsteins either.
• Isolated pieces of the paper are more or less true - and they were probably copied from other papers.
• The brothers have had a financial interest to promote themselves as geniuses because it helps their books (and other things) to be sold well in France and elsewhere - which is at least one of the reasons why they would continue to say that the papers were serious even if they were not.

Internet Discussions

The Bogdanov affair has first been discussed extensively in the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research, then on fr.sci.[astro]physique, various English and French-speaking blogs and web forums, and Wikipedia. The Bogdanov brothers have frequently taken part in these discussions, originally as sock puppets under faked identities of great scientists. As a matter of fact the first post on fr.sci.physique about this subject was such a fake. Igor and/or Grichka used a bunch of pseudonyms, all pretending to be great scientists, trying to intimidate people using authority arguments without any scientific grounds, or insulting scientists who criticized them, such as Georges Charpak.

One of their thesis reporters, Shahn Majid, even had to protest publicly on this post because Igor Bogdanov was lying about his opinion on an interview he gave to a journalist from the magazine Ciel & Espace.

During months, the Bogdanovs pretended to have academic support through the Hong Kong University or Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. For instance, a so-called Chinese scientist wrote to the physicist Jacques Diestler, to Dennis Overbye from the New York Times, and on numerous physics blogs and forums, to defend the Bogdanovs' work, with this signature :

Prof L. Yang

Theoretical Physics Laboratory

International Institute of Mathematical Physics

HKU/Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Igor and Grichka wrote on september 2004, in a post on fr.sci.astrophysique :

I maintain what we have said tens of times. The domain name "th-phys.edu.hk" is actually owned by Hong Kong University.

The street address is actually the real HKUST one (not HKU), and the originating IP of the messages from Yang tracks down to Igor Bogdanov's home in Paris. The Internet domain th-phys.edu.hk was registered by Igor Bogdanov, where he hosted numerous e-mail addresses and a personnal Web site, in the name of HKUST without any right to do so.

People involved in the discussions on various Usenet groups and Web fora have sometimes been quite ironic or harsh regarding the Bogdanovs interventions, especially when they have evaded systematically scientific questions, lied about what they actually wrote or said, and used sock puppet to push fallacious authority arguments. When Igor and Grichka used their own TV show to promote their own work as well as went on almost any talk show on the french TV channels to present themselve as great scientists who discovered what frightened the greatest names of physics before them, France 2 has been alerted of the problem, and several media-centric information channels in the press and on the Internet covered the scandal (Europe 1, Acrimed, Ciel & Espace, Télérama, Le Monde). After having threaten numerous scientists and questioners, the Bogdanovs actually sued, at the beginning of 2005, the scientific magazine Ciel & Espace. The trial should happen at the end of 2005 or the beginning of 2006.

Followups to the Bogdanovs' work

File:France2.jpg

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).

For comparison, the publications of cosmologist Jean-Pierre Luminet were cited on SPIRES over 500 times, an average of 28 citations per paper. The publications of mathematical physicist John Baez were cited on SPIRES over 1200 times. The publications of cosmologist Alain Riazuelo were cited on SPIRES over 700 times. The publications of physicist Peter Woit were cited on SPIRES over 200 times. The publications of physicist Jacques Distler were cited on SPIRES over 2200 times, an average or more than 50 citations per publication.

Meanwhile, the Bogdanovs continue to vigorously defend their work as genuine and to stand behind their original claims. The general topic of "before the Big Bang" is a complicated and technical field, and their work purports to present forward-looking theories.

File:AvantLeBgBang.jpeg

In 2004, the Bogdanovs published a highly successful popular-science French-language book, Avant Le Big-Bang ("Before the Big Bang"), based on a simplified version of their theses, where they presented their own approach amongst other cosmological models. In the framework of a short weekly television program, created by the Bogdanovs in 2002, a 90-minute special cosmology broadcast went on the air on the French channel France 2 in August 2004. Both the book and television show have been criticized for scientific inaccuracies, while others admire the Bogdanovs' ability to bring the subjects of cosmology and relativity to a wider audience.

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.
• 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