Talk:Bogdanov affair

The subject of this article, Bogdanov affair, has edited Wikipedia as User:Igor B.. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

---

• Archive 1 From 04 August 2005 to 28 August 2005 (128 kb)
• Archive 2 From 01 September 2005 to 25 September 2005 (205 kb)
• Archive 3 From 24 September 2005 to 01 October 2005 (206 kb)
• Archive 4 From 01 October 2005 to 07 October 2005 (159 kb)
• Archive 5 From 07 October 2005 to 12 October 2005 (141 kb)
• Archive 6 From 12 October 2005 to 17 November 2005 (122 kb)

---

On some difficulties with "A small Journey in the Bogdanoff universe "II.

Follow up to

On some difficulties with "A small Journey in the Bogdanoff universe

Dear Alain

Again, thank you for your fair comments. I mentioned Sciama and Brans Dicke because I knew very well than relying on Vigier was problematic. Despite the fact that he was the collaborator of Louis De Broglie I think that we have the same bad opinion about his theory of the tired light, for example.

I hoped that it would be very easy for you at the IAP to find every books or electronically archived papers about those theories. I guess your works didn’t leave you enough time for that so I take on mine.

In addition to what I just gave you here are the references for the complete article of Wheeler.

Gravitation and relativity H.Y CHIU/ W.F Hoffmann W.A.Benjamin,Inc Chapter 15

And some complementary extracts of the paperWheeler Mach

The main conclusion of Wheeler seems to be this : in the framework of general relativity Mach principal can be realized if the Univers is closed , this is a way of selecting cosmological solutions.

If you have a look at the Houches lectures of Wheeler in 1964 and his monographic with Misner (Geometrodynamics) where they discuss path integral application to quantum cosmology you will see that we can strongly suspect that it was one of the main inspirations of Hartle and Hawking for their ‘No bondary proposal’.

All this is perfectly coherent with what Igor and Grichka have done.

Now I also scanned quite all chapter 7 written by Dicke.

If you read it with the Brans Dicke paperI think that things are now very clear.

The objections you raised were well known at least from Dicke .

Nevertheless the rough arguments of Sciama were at the source of his works with Brans . Even if you can say that Igor’s proposition is very speculative and problematic, which I am sure he will agree, this is not the question. The point is that you claimed that the equations he wrote (and that you considered) were stupid and showed that he didn’t know some very basic stuff in mechanic and gravitation theory. I think that it is now clear that you cannot maintain that any more.

I continue to discuss some other difficulties that I have with your texte , again I will leave some of them for the near future.

“The first point I would like to raise is that the Bogdanoff brothers do not know anything about cosmology. The begining of the CQG article is very clear about that. It says, in its first sentence One of the limits of the standard space-time model remains its inability to provide a description of the singular origin of space-time. So they take for granted that the universe emerged from a space-time singularity".

I think this is not so simple, as we will see. First of all they use the term ‘standard space-time model’ which is normally understood as CLASSICAL general relativity and standard cosmology. There, the singularities are unavoidable.

We also know that all physical quantities of the standard model/standard cosmology begin to explode when you try to apply them to the initial phase of the universe, btw in the Landau Lifshitz we can see the following final statement (I translate from my French book).

“Landau: It must not be forgotten that the enormous densities realized with the process of gravitational collapse, which doesn’t invalidate the classical theory of gravitation, are sufficiently important to speak of a ‘singular’ physical phenomena“

I can agree that they use bad expressions too frequently but if you look a little bit more at what they want to say, it can make more sense that at the first reading. In any case, here, I don’t see any error and I also have another good argument.

“At present, this question is unanswered, and it is not even clear that it will be possible to address it one day”

I agree completely and this is precisely what they want, elucidating what is really going on when the equations of the standard model and general relativity break down.

“One of the reason is that in order to explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe on the largest observable scales, one has to call upon some process involving some yet undetermined new physical processes, the presently most popular of which being cosmic inflation, which predicts that the "initial state" of the universe (understand here the state of the universe at the beginning of inflation) has been washed away by the inflationary process. So, if these ideas are true, there is just no hope to explore the pre inflationary era of the universe.”

I am not sure of that but I know that you are one of the best experts in inflationary cosmology and that you can give very good arguments.

I think that there is at least the idea that in the Planckian regime the geometry of space-time becomes non commutative .Of course this is not a new idea but there are some possibilities to test it in the next years , if it is not the case the use of the quantum groups theory will be unjustifiable .

“ Morevover, there is nothing that guarantees that the preinflationary era started from a singularity.For example, in the spirit of what is called chaotic inflation, the universe might well be an eternal "self-reproducing" thing with inflationary eras starting every time in various distant regions.”

Yes but I feel this is fair to mention the Borde /Vilenkin /Guth papers

“The pre Big Bang model by G. Veneziano or the ekpyrotic universe are other (less popular) models where there is not initial singularity of space-time".

It seems to me that it is a little bit more complicated in the case of pre big bang theory because in the strong coupling phase before our Universe nothing guarantees that there wasn’t a singularity (improperly called initial I agree), we should use a non perturbative formulation of string theory to answer to this question. There are some interesting works with orbifolds .

Isn’t it true that pre big bang theory can probably be tested?

“All these models are more or less compatible with observations but start from very, very, very different states: chaotic inflation starts from an ever expanding eternal universe, pre Big Bang starts from an empty contracting universe followed by a bounce and the ekpyrotic model is based from cosmology. So, not only making the assumption that the universe started from an initial singularity is very strange (the authors should at least have stated that it was an as yet untestable hypothesis),”

We don’t know if chaotic inflation starts with an ever expanding eternal universe. As you pointed out it depends whether some of the assumptions of the HP theorems were violated or not.

“ but also there is no discussion about the observability of their "model".

Correct, but when Hartle and Hawking made their famous ‘No boundary proposal’ their wasn’t either. Therefore I don’t understand how you can seriously make this reproach to them.

“Actually, it is very hard to imagine that anything from Planck era could be observable today (see below), so that from very general grounds, it is very difficult to consider their work as being part of science”.

You can say that about string theory and quantum cosmology as well, shall we burn Hawking and Witten and other respected scientists working in the same domains?

“Now, if one wants to enter into the details, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that in fact the Bogdanoff know almost nothing in physics except some of the jargon. But mastering the jargon does not mean having an understanding of the underlying concepts.

1. For example, the motivation for considering an initial singularity of space-time comes from a serious misunderstanding of the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems which they obviously think (this is explicitely stated on Sec. 5.2 p. 69 of Grichka's thesis) proves that the universe emerged from a singularity.”

Interesting, to say the least, what you say is wrong! It is absolutely not written in Grickha thesis,on the contrary. At the place you indicate we can read.

"5. 2 TRANSITION DE LA SIGNATURE DE L'ECHELLE 0 (ECHELLE TOPOLOGIQUE (4, 0)) A L'ECHELLE DE PLANCK (ECHELLE PHYSIQUE (3, 1)). Nous proposons dans la suite une application de la théorie gravitationnelle quadratique à la cosmologie primordiale, à une époque où l'âge de l'univers est de l'ordre du temps de Planck : t ~ 10 - 43 seconde Dans le modèle standard du type Big Bang, le calcul des données physiques du modèle (en particulier les densités d'énergie, de température et de courbure) conduit à l'existence de divergences non renormalisables pour toute échelle inférieures à l'échelle de Planck tandisque les dimensions spatiales et temporelles convergent vers 0. Dans un tel cadre, il existe donc une singularité initiale insoluble. A cet égard, comme l'ont établi S. Hawking, et G. Ellis dans le cadre des théorèmes relativistes de singularité [270], la relativité générale prédit l'existence d'une incomplétude géodésique située dans le passé de la variété espace-temps, celle-ci manifestant la présence d'une singularité initiale au voisinage d'un instant 0 bornant l'origine. Par ailleurs, la théorie des champs ordinaire ne permet pas de décrire une possible dynamique caractérisant l'espace-temps à l'échelle de Planck. Or, nous proposons, avec la théorie de superposition (1) d'apporter, au niveau semi-classique, une résolution de la singularité initiale et (2) de fournir une description du comportement dynamique de l'espace-temps dans le cadre de théories gravitationnelle et métrique étendues. Dans ce cadre nouveau, le pré-espace-temps, à l'échelle 0, ne comporte pas de singularité initiale."

Grichka begin by recalling that this is in the standard model of the big bang that general relativity predict the existence of a singularity. At the end, he says ‘Or, nous proposons ….Dans ce cadre nouveau, le pré-espace-temps, à l’échelle 0, ne comporte pasde singularité initiale.’

‘Then we propose …In this new framwork, the pre spacetime, at the zero scale, does not have an initial singularity’

As I announced at the beginning, things are not so simple. Reading all what they said it seems to show that they only roughly expect the Universe to have a absolute beginning in a conifold/orbifold form but well behaved and described by a TQFT.

2.“Actually, these theorems state under which conditions the universe might have emerged form a singularity, and there is absolutely nothing which guarantees that all these hypotheses are valid in the early universe. All the above mentioned models violate at least one of the hypothesis of these theorems (namely, the strong energy condition), so that it is completely irrelevant to mention the Hawking Penrose theorems when studying the early universe".

Every body mentions the problem of the possible existence of a singularity, that non standard physics is hopefully supposed to cure when studying the early universe. It is because of the theorems of Hawking and Penrose, don’t you think ?

Laurent s 14:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[...] The main conclusion of Wheeler seems to be this : in the framework of general relativity Mach principal can be realized if the Univers is closed , this is a way of selecting cosmological solutions.

The literature about Mach's principle is much bigger than what you seem to imagine. I will not comment Wheeler's paper since its conclusions are quite far away from those reached in his famous book, which was published later. I you ask several people who work in general relativity their opinion on how Machian GR is, you will quickly notice that their answers seldom match. A large number of people today think that it is quite irrelevant to discuss about Mach's principle since it does not have any obvious unambiguous mathematical formulation. The others might either say that equivalence principle is the incarnation of Mach's principle, in which case any metric theory of gravity does the job, while some other say that the problem of inertia is solved as soon as you are able to predict which are the locally inertial frames, which can be done if and only if you have a theory whose Cauchy problem is well-posed. As far as I know GR is the only theory where this was demonstrated, it is was actually fully demonstrated only very recently. One well-known point against the Machian nature of GR is the claim that Mach's principle may mean that there is no inertia in empty sapce, but many dismiss this reasoning by pointing out that you can have gravitational waves in empty space. In other words, picking this or that reference to support this or that point about Mach's principle is just either naive or dishonest. There is much more to say about it, and as a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Bogdanoff's work that suggest they are aware of it.

[...] The point is that you claimed that the equations he wrote (and that you considered) were stupid and showed that he didn’t know some very basic stuff in mechanic and gravitation theory. I think that it is now clear that you cannot maintain that any more.

They say that $\sum _{universe}{\frac {GM}{c^{2}r}}\sim 1$, and this is wrong because they add that $M$ is the mass of the universe (whatever that menas). Even if you think very hard about what the $r$ might stand for and one what exactly the sum runs, it does not work. It is at best incorrect because of some typo, at worst (and more likely) incoherent, even if borrowed from some published formulae. I have already explained why. I hope that your misunderstanding comes from the fact that you did not read what I wrote.

[...] I think this is not so simple, as we will see. First of all they use the term ‘standard space-time model’ which is normally understood as CLASSICAL general relativity and standard cosmology. There, the singularities are unavoidable.

This is an extraordinarily naive sentence. Maybe with your favourite reference from the sixties, standard cosmology is this or that (I don't even care what exactly), but today what is called the standard model of cosmology goes with an inflationary phase and dark energy, all of which violate the strong energy condition. This does not allow to say anything about a hypothetical initial singularity of space-time. Let me add that today cosmology works can be separated into two parts: those which deal with observable phenomena, and those which study the consequences of some well-motivated models. The Bogdanoff thing does not fit at all in any of these categories.

[...] “Landau: It must not be forgotten that the enormous densities realized with the process of gravitational collapse, which doesn’t invalidate the classical theory of gravitation, are sufficiently important to speak of a ‘singular’ physical phenomena“

Again, this is irrelevant. We have now clear definition of what a singularity is. Again, you refer to outdated portions of overall good authors.

[...] I agree completely and this is precisely what they want, elucidating what is really going on when the equations of the standard model and general relativity break down.

When classical GR breaks down, it has to be replaced by a quantum theory of gravity. This is not what they do. They just use a classical Lagrangian density without discussing why it has any chance to have any relevance. Actually, the present understanding of string theory very strongly disfavors such an approach. The Bogdanoff do not even mention this, and it is very hard not to conclude that they are just completely ignorant about these matters.

[...] Isn’t it true that pre big bang theory can probably be tested?

Well, if you want to exist in today's cosmological community, you have to say that, even if it is not accurate. It is true that there are some possible imprints of pre big bang physics. Now it does not necessarily make the whole thing testable. It is much more likely to allow you to exclude some regions of the parameter space. Even though unsatisfactory, this is still far better than the Bogdanoff's work which does not mention (nor care about) any observable prediction.

[...] We don’t know if chaotic inflation starts with an ever expanding eternal universe. As you pointed out it depends whether some of the assumptions of the HP theorems were violated or not.

No, you don't understand. What matters here is the actual matter content of the universe and more specifically the way the dominant energy density species behaves.

[...] Correct, but when Hartle and Hawking made their famous ‘No boundary proposal’ their wasn’t either. Therefore I don’t understand how you can seriously make this reproach to them.

Again, you have a very outdated idea of what cosmology is today. We now have a lot of observational data. So unless one considers a model which has a very good theoretical motivation, you have to propose some observational test today.

[...] You can say that about string theory and quantum cosmology as well, shall we burn Hawking and Witten and other respected scientists working in the same domains?

These are examples of models which have some justification, even though there is some debate about it. At least they correspond to some logical consequences of things which are widely studied.

[...] Grichka begin by recalling that this is in the standard model of the big bang that general relativity predict the existence of a singularity. At the end, he says ‘Or, nous proposons …. Dans ce cadre nouveau, le pré-espace-temps, à l’échelle 0, ne comporte pasde singularité initiale.’ y. At the place you indicate we can read. [...]

Again, what is now called the standard cosmological model, and which was implicitely called that way since the late 90's is something with an unknown possibly inflationary-like era at some early epoch. You really have to be very ignorant of cosmology has become since fifteen years to say things as they (and you) do.

[...] Every body mentions the problem of the possible existence of a singularity, that non standard physics is hopefully supposed to cure when studying the early universe. It is because of the theorems of Hawking and Penrose, don’t you think ?

So what ? If you want to propose a model that has some predictive power, you either need to avoid a singularity, or to propose a mechanism that washes away the post singular era. Inflation follows the second route, it does not mean that the other models do the same.

Now, I somehow reluctantly feel obliged to add a more personal comment. The brother's ignorance is very easy to check in many occurences. I have explained at length why they cannot be given the benefit of doubt about the Boltzmann constant, the topology of the Poincaré space, the analysis of the WMAP data, or even some basics of group theory. Even a single point of the above is by far sufficient to conclude that they cannot do anything of value. You know that, and you know that I know it. So I find it particularily dishonest to try to fool people who do not have the same educational background as you about these issues. I can (barely) give the brothers the benefit of doubt and imagine that they really believe they understand a lot of things in physics, but I cannot even say that for you. So, if you really think the Bogdanoff work if of some value, then you would be better advised to write a paper about it. I don't doubt you will be able to publish it in the Czechoslowak journal of physics or in the Chinese annals of mathematics. It shall be more difficult to publish it in Classical and Quantum Gravity, but you might succeed as well. In any case it is very likely to be a waste of time because you just cannot convince people that some meaningless work is of any value. Alain Riazuelo 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Vomitive article

I have just come back home, and I see... that : the arbitrators' final decision, which upholds the ban of all of us, except for... Ze Miguel and rbj ! So great, so fair, etc. ! Even in French I wouldn't know how to describe what I feel about such a decision. Seriously : now there are only detractors left to write a "NPOV" article for the Bogdanovs, and not the least ones ! Rbj, who insulted them so many times, who is the author of a histerical "It stinks ! It stinks !" which will go down in history : what an editor for this wonderful encyclopedia !

And why can these ones stay ? Officialy, just because they already wrote something else on the pages of Wikipedia ! Apparently it is enough to "forget" that they appeared since the very beginning as particularly virulent enemies of the Bogdanovs, which could prove, in a real encyclopedia, that these people are not the best ones for writing an article with a "Neutral Point of View" ! And of course, they are all the more zealous since this decision that they know that nobody can prevent them now from writing as much harm as they wish... and with the blessing of the administrators and the arbitrators ! The article was already full of lies and so unfair that one thought it could not become worse than that, but it can, Ze Miguel has already a lot of ideas to make it !

Just a consolation : this article will be also a great reference for the detractors... of Wikipedia, who are more and more numerous these last times. It will be an excellent evidence that the famous "NPOV" and "consensus" which Wikipedia is so proud of do not mean anything ; that having a good or a bad article in Wikipedia depends on the chance (if you have determined enemies, you're unlucky : it will be very bad) ; that the "free encyclopedia" has as a reference a kind of sectarianism, with this result : one can be as unfair as he wants by editing an article, provided that he is a Wikipedian, a real one, who has edited at least one another article before the controversial article ; his unfairness will be considered to be more valuable for the pertinence of the article than any (good or bad) contribution of a "newbie"... What an encouragement for the beginners !

And what a reputation for Wikipedia ! Continue in such a way, and we will be soon rid of it !

Laurence

Content?

This article gives a good record of the Affair itself, but something I don't see is the content of the Bogdanov theory. Maybe I'd be able to find it somewhere in the archives of this page or so, but why isn't it simply in the article? Ucucha (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The article states that it is a "proposed theory for describing what occurred before the Big Bang". Two links are provided in the article - [1] and [2] (see sections Résumé en anglais) - which offer brief summaries in English of the theory. If you, or anyone else, could provide an understandable one-line summary for each, I think it would be a useful addition to the article. Ze miguel 15:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm.. I fear I can't :-(. The summary should be understandable for non-physicists too; that summary is not. Thanks for your answer anyway. Ucucha (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You might look at this post by a physicist, which is quite clear, and not with too many buzzwords. Ze miguel 16:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand it a bit now, but I fear I can't write a new section for the article, and not only because I'm not an admin ;-). Anyone willing to try? Ucucha (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

i personally do not think that the nitty-gritty details of cosmology (as well as a lot of other technical details of arcane physical theories such as GR or strings) can be protrayed in such a way for mortal non-physicists to really understand. the basis of this article was based on what other physicists have been saying about the Bogdanov theory and some of the antics of the Bogdanovs in response to criticism. i also think that this article should settle down a lot with very little mods until someday that it might be less contentious. r b-j 19:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but isn't the content of their theory the most important thing whatsoever? I'd really like to have some explanation about it in the article. Ucucha (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I'm protecting this page again because of vandalism. We hate to keep doing this, but we had 4 users banned just yesterday. We need to somehow stop this insanity. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The "insanity" is having banned everybody (including the Bogdanovs) except 2 editors who are clearly their enemies, especially rbj who insulted them a lot of times on the talk pages and who wrote exclusively negative things about them on the article. Ze Miguel is also completely against them, and was kept as an editor just because he had already written something in Wikipedia. You give them the right to write anything bad they want about the Bogdanovs, and Ze Miguel has understood very fast : he has immediately suggested a lot of negative additions. And you pretend to be a "real" encyclopedia ? With a NPOV, etc. ? Are you kidding ?

You cannot expect a fair behavior from the editors if you are unfair. Wikipedia is not above the law, even if you do not accept the lawsuit threats, you cannot impose a diffamatory article on two public persons just because you do not like them. If you do all the same, don't be surprised if there are strong reactions, and if your rules are not respected any more. It's often the result when there is an obvious abuse of power.

Laurence

PS : of course "you" means "Wikipedia" and the ones who have a power on the other editors (particularly the arbitrators), not Woohookitty...

Laurence: I have requested previously that you enumerate your concerns in a concise manner to me so I can address the perceived imbalance, and you have yet to do so other than to point me to the talk page. I have no desire, as I remarked, to wade through the cesspit that is the archived debate of this article. I cannot see how power has been "abused" if no cooperation is attempted by those parties perceiving the abuse in the first place - for how can it be abuse when no opportunity for address nor compromise is presented by the other party? To put it frankly, I couldn't care less about the views of either the Bogdanov brothers or the critics; there is no vendetta whatsoever, I merely assist where I am asked to assist and so far a number of other editors have requested that I do so politely, and as you can see for yourself I have made the requested changes. May I suggest that you do likewise, rather than complaining about "insanity", as you put it? The only insane behaviour I see here is the thoughtless and insensitive persistence, coupled with total ignorance and disregard for how we work here on Wikipedia, demonstrated by yourself and some other pro-Bogdanov editors. You can either accept my offer to work with you to address the imbalance, or stop complaining; you cannot possibly have it both ways, since as I see it I have offered ample opportunity for collaboration. Since other editors have been reasonable enough to engage in consensus-building, discussion and collaboration, I see no reason why yourself and Messieux Bogdanoff cannot do likewise. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Some precisions, perhaps I was not very clear :

I don't point you personaly, Nicholas, but Wikipedia, which was a reference for me some months ago, and which won't ever be any more, since I see how it works, and how the quality and the objectivity of the articles are unpredictable.

I haven't yet written to you just because I wasn't at home these last days, and because I have a lot less time now than I had some weeks ago. But I must say that when I came back home and read the arbitrators' final decision, it seemed to me so obvious that they had decided on the orientation of the article that I had almost abandoned the idea to do it, as something futile. OK, I will do it.

You wrote :

The only insane behaviour I see here is the thoughtless and insensitive persistence, coupled with total ignorance and disregard for how we work here on Wikipedia, demonstrated by yourself and some other pro-Bogdanov editors.

You must see bad : there have been a lot of insane behaviours on this article, like very strong insults against the Bogdanovs by rbj (among others), you know, the one who has been allowed to keep editing the article, whereas Catherine is still banned, despite she always kept polite with everybody, and gave a lot of evidences, exactly as it is expected by Wikipedia ? Like all the reverts, each time Igor or me or anyone "with" him tried to edit this article, even by explaining why and by giving evidences, and that was before we were banned. Like all the texts written by Igor in the talk page to explain what had occured, which have never been taken into account... except for giving an opportunity to some administrators to answer him rudely and with agressivity. Like everything we wrote for the arbitration commitee which was not taken into account at all, as the only thing which interested them was : who had already edited Wikipedia for something else than this article ! In this case they could have decided immediately, they did not need our evidences !

I complain about that, among others, and I maintain it's an insanity (which was Woohookitty's word, originally). But you're not responsible of that.

I try to send you this mail on sunday.

Regards,

Laurence

Unprotection

Unprotecting the page and hoping for the best. It's been 2-3 days since it was protected. Just a warning...the arbcom decision is still in full effect. I plan on monitoring this page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Contrasting Bogdanov to Sokal

Snow, since the Bogdanov's have denied from the beginning that they had published a hoax, there is not much mileage left in that comparison. whether or not it's a fraud depends on how much one wants to infer the intent of the Bogdanovs. they might really believe what they have published which might move it from fraud to simple pseudoscience. anyway, i do not want the Bogdanovs to claim that all of these WP editors are "enemies" and piling on might give them such an excuse to claim such. r b-j 18:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - but the comparison has been made and it's been made publicly. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems to be one of the cases where the WP falls prey to the Big Lie: say something, anything, loudly enough and it becomes "notable", a POV we must in good conscience include within our articles. I added a link to Sokal's own take on his prank, which may (or may not) help clarify things. Anville 23:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Deconstruction fodder

I was just re-reading Sokal's follow-up essay on his parody, and it got me thinking in the postmodern vein. Wouldn't this article be an ideal subject for some Lacanian-Foucaultian-Derridian wordplay? It reminds me of the old line, "the map is not the territory" — here, the map has been changed around by the people who want to reshape the territory.

I could probably pick up another degree if I put a little effort into a thesis on the postmodernity and hypertextuality of Wikipedia. Anyone feel like joining forces on this task? If Sokal's evidence is worth anything, no previous experience in the field is required. How about we take it over to Wikicities and do some, ahem, Original Research?

Anville 23:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Limits of Wikipedia

After having read the article devoted to Bogdanoff, I have somehow the feeling that the way their history is reported in Wikipedia is absolutely not right. The presentation of the facts is obviously skewed by a small group of editors which does not hold any account of what repeated Bogdanoff themselves or some of those which support them. For example, I find completely abnormal that the article presents against 2 reports for Igor 1 only for Grichka. For which reason? The only explanation is that the editors wish to avoid publishing texts which could shed a favorable opinion on Bogdanoffs work. This article is not only a caricature of what should be written, but it represents even a symbol of what is, actually, the limit of Wikipedia system.

"Allan", being that you have no other Wikipedia history other than this addition to the Bogdanov talk page and that you just happened to appear here rather than at some other article talk page, is there some reason for us to believe that you're not just another sock puppet of Igor Bogdanov? being that your argument that it is "completely abnormal that the article presents against 2 reports for Igor 1 only for Grichka" seems at the very least peripheral to the main issue (that Bogdanov brothers have managed to get PhDs for and to publish a couple of times a speculative theory of the Big Bang that the physics community utterly rejects as pseudoscience, but they still insist that they know what they are writing about, and, like other pseudoscientists, have published this in the popular lit). this is a rhetorical technique that Igor has used repeatedly. why should we believe you are not Igor? would you care to identify yourself more fully? r b-j 00:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Igor, there has been some "anti-Bogdanov" vandalism that was reverted just as quickly as your vandalism, so you cannot blame WP for showing any favoritism to your "enemies". r b-j 00:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been very discret to keep these terrible versions : Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia with a NPOV, even if this article shows that it is not. Then the favoritism must be a little more subtle than that...

The first vandalism was done by the arbitrators, by keeping you as an editor, knowing that you are one of their worst detractors on this article, and despite you insulted them so many times, and so strongly. With this decision they proved their "favoritism" against the Bogdanovs.

I know that the same arbitrators don't allow me even to take part to this page... no matter, block me again if you want, nobody will prevent me from writing what I have to write !

Laurence

it's interesting that Woohoo decided to retract his response to you. i would just add that other than Alain_r (talk · contribs)and Lumidek (talk · contribs), i don't know of any other bona fide academics that are involved in this article. both are physicists that have solid credentials. Alain is clearly dismissive of the Bogdanov's publication and has gone to some length to explain exactly why. Lumidek is Lubos_Motl and has said some things that were positive regarding the Bogdanov's stuff and those comments were included in the article as well as his comment that "Some of the papers of the Bogdanoff brothers are really painful and clearly silly...". no other bona fide academics that i know of have participated directly in editing this article. (there is, in hindsight, no reason to identify Igor as a real academic since he is not affiliated with any academic department and the main issue of this whole affair is that his academic credentials are suspect.) the nasty edit warrioring that Woohoo mentioned (before retracting) is only the result of Igor's (and sock puppets) repeated deleting of authentic and accurate information that was not flattering to him and the rest of us not tolerating such vandalism. that is what it was, nothing other than vandalism. Igor (and evidently you) thinks he can turn this into a vanity article and to soften the consequences of some clearly dishonest behavior he has done to try to persuade skeptics that he actually understands what he is writing/talking about when the actual content of his writings had failed to.

"Laurence", you have never clearly identified yourself or any record that might demonstrate that you have objective expertise in any of this. yet you have claimed many times that critical physicists like Alain are just not qualified to evaluate the Bogdanov publications. with what qualification do you have to make such a statement and expect it to be taken seriously? there is no evidence anywhere that you are not just another groupie (or possibly a sock puppet) of the Bogdanovs.

i came into this completely open minded and, only after much web research of what the Bogdanovs were saying and doing (in a dishonest and futile effort to convince other physicists of the veracity of their publication), came to the conclusion that there is no evidence or reason to believe that they are either particularly competent physicists nor that they are forensically honest. imposters are not honest. sock puppets are not honest. i came to such a negative opinion of the Bogdanovs only after discovering all of this subterfuge. you don't like my "insults" (i simply said that it is clear that we are not dealing with honest people and that the whole affair stinks and that this stink is of the Bogdanov's own making), but the problem is not that i have made such "insults", i have only identified the qualities of a situation that someone else (the bogdanovs) has created and identified qualities of that someone else. it's the reality that is the problem, not that someone has identified it.

the Bogdanovs have to accept that the veracity of their published "research" must stand or fall on the basis of its own content. and the merit of that content is lacking in the opinion of the mainstream physics community. because it is rejected by the physics communinity, there is no justification to represent the pro-bogdanov POV with equal weight (see Wp:npov#Undue_weight).

"Laurence", assuming you are not a sock puppet of the Bogdanovs, you might do well to reconsider the qualities and integrity of the people you are idolizing. i know that is hard, because we make such an emotional investment into someone we idolize, but in your case, it's a wasted investment. you need to justify to yourself why it is that these imposters deserve such loyalty from you. r b-j 19:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't idolize anybody, I just loathe people like you, or YBM, or Riazuelo, it means : people who harass other people, who try to destroy their reputation, who waste their time to fight their victims instead of spending this time to make something interesting by themselves. I hate also abuse of power, and it is what the arbitrators and some administrators (Rama, Snowspinner, etc.) did by choosing people who would have the right to edit this article, by knowing each one's opinion about the subjects. I hate also this hypocrisy to pretend to have chosen you and Ze Miguel just because you had already edited at least one other article : if I had known that it was so easy, I would have modified some things in other articles just to be considered as a "real" editor of Wikipedia, as Ze Miguel did.

And concerning the "veracity" : stop that, I'm going to vomit.

Laurence

well, please face the other direction when you do, because conformance to truth is what this article (and Wikipedia) is all about. since "truth" is often a subjective and debatable thing, then maybe i would say it's about conformance to fact. facts that are documentable are actually a pretty objective thing. "truth" is more about the meaning of the facts and there is often debate about what that meaning is because of subjectivity. it is simply a matter of fact that the mainstream physics community rejects the Bogdanov theory as pseudoscience. there is simply no other way to read vast majority of reaction to this affair than to conclude that. stating the issue as such is only objective.

now, it is a matter of subjective interpretation of meaning to take that result and conclude that the Bogdanov theory is actually pseudoscience. there are other interpretations of the facts (basically requiring that the mainstream is wrong about the physical reality or the scientific method regarding this, in which case the Bogdanov theory, if it is correct, is protoscience) and that is why i wanted to include refereces to consensus science, scientific consensus, protoscience, fringe science, as well as to pseudoscience and junk science. Igor and Grichka would have a little "out" with that, because at dinner parties with their important friends, they could claim to be protoscientists like Einstein was a century ago and, someday, their theories would be the mainstream and in every advanced physics textbook (maybe even a Nobel is waiting for them). even though several times i re-included that == See also == section, it was rejected by your camp repeatedly, and eventually the admins took it out enough times that i gave up on returning it to the article. so the article does not reflect the conceptual possibility that what Igor and Grichka had been writing about is protoscience or fringe science. if you would like that angle re-included in the article, say so, and i will try to find some way to include it that might be acceptable to the admins and other editors.

even though there was a request to include a physical analysis of the Bogdanov theory, i am afraid that no other editor than Alain (who would not be very sympathetic to the Bogdanov POV) or possibly Lubos Motl (who is more sympathetic) is even remotely qualified to include such an analysis. so the article about this affair can only go by the mainstream physics POV, because we have no other to go by. we are not gonna let Igor and Grichka (or you, unless you're some Ph.D. in physics, and then you have to prove that by fully identifying yourself and credentials) or any of their groupies or sock puppets write such a technical analysis, because we simply do not trust the veracity of such. that's the way it is.

but, as far as i'm concerned, we could include some references to to consensus science, scientific consensus, protoscience, and fringe science if there are also references to pseudoscience and junk science, reflecting that, if you consider the Bogdanovs' stated POV (assuming they're not souless hucksters and really believe what they wrote), that there is some debate about the quality of veracity of their published work. but they simply cannot claim that it's mainstream science nor even that there is any significant controversy about their published theory. it's pretty uncontroversial and it's simply the case that an NPOV article must reflect that. r b-j 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I will suggest my modifications to Nicholas Turnbull, by mail, as he asked me to do (when I have time, I hope this evening), because I think he is honest, even if he is a little prejudiced against us. So I hope I can be confident in him. Of course I don't have any confidence in you, as you don't care about objectivity concerning this article, but just about your wish to give an image as bad as possible of the Bogdanovs.

Laurence

The symptomatic non response of Alain R

I agree fully with Laurence. In my opinion, the participants in this article do not integrate the whole of the elements concerning this affair which is too complex to be treated by nonqualified editors in the field of theoretical physics. It is clear that an editor as the astrophysicist Alain R is partial in his conclusions. In particular, I was very surprised that after having promised a response to criticisms emitted by a student in theoretical physics as for his analysis on Bogdanoffs work, Alain R did not finally publish any answer. That means that the very precise arguments suggested by this student in physics are founded and that criticisms of Alain R against Bogdanoffs are disqualified. The "Small voyage in Bogdanoff Universe" (Alain R critics against Bogdanoffs) is the perfect example of the very suspect character of the negative opinions emitted against Bogdanoffs work. Initially, whereas criticisms do not have the qualifications necessary for a good comprehension of this work (in this precise case, Alain R is a nonqualified astrophysicist in the fields treated by Bogdanoffs) this does not prevent them from publishing negative conclusions. In the second time, when precise arguments are opposed to them, these editors are then unable to justify their conclusions and, like Alain R, do not answer criticisms. Do you find normal that one builds an article on the basis of editors (as Alain R and others) who are unable to justify their criticisms? As far as I am concerned, I repeat it, these methods do nothing but highlight the partiality of this article and the limits of the Wikipedia system.

Igor, it appears that Alain has responded to you at Talk:Bogdanov_Affair#On_some_difficulties_with_.22A_small_Journey_in_the_Bogdanoff_universe_.22II. r b-j 06:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

you have GOT to be kidding me

People arguing over something as stupid as this? That has got to be the the biggest bullshit I have seen so far while here. Why not lock the page, remove the notice, and tell everyone to shut up or be banned. Act at least a little mature while on this site.--72.49.62.205

unfortunately, Igor Bogdanov, his meat puppets like "Laurence", and obvious sock puppets (like "Allan" above) hope that you take them seriously. they continue to repeat the same unpersuasive argument (essentially the same as the weavers of fine cloth in The Emperor's New Clothes, if you can't see the clothes, you're simply unworthy to venture an opinion that the Emperor is naked), they continue to expect the benefit of doubt even after they squandered such benefit offered multiple times with sheer dishonesty and subterfuge that is documentable in the article history and their statements on this talk page and in the ArbCom workshop page on this dispute. the ArbCom has already banned them, but, until very recently, at every opportunity they have ignored the authority of the ArbCom (i think Igor thinks he owns Wikipedia and can use it to define how other physicists evaluate his publication) and have vandalized the article viciously multiple times. Wikipedia rules say that the article cannot be "locked" ("protected" is the term used here) for more than a week at a time and it has never been protected for more than 3 or 4 days, as i recall.

i have suggested several times, that if the Bogdanovs want to convince us that their theory has any merit, they have to convince the mainstream physics community that it does. but they continue to use the forensic technique of the "weavers of fine cloth" saying that every critic, even cosmologists with a helluva more impressive record than they, simply are not qualified to understand or evaluate the merit of the content of their writing. i have suggested that they present at conferences where cosmologists, string or brane theorists, mathematical physicists, whoever, meet. it's scary, they might really expose their phonyness, but those are the very people they have to convince before they convince us.

they do not get it. r b-j 18:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a "side" in this issue. I'm a non partial admin. I've done some blockings in regards to this, but that's it. Anyway, I just wanted to pipe in here. I think that what people have to realize is that we're here to make a neutral encyclopedia. Like I said, I have no say in this article, but having read it "cold", I can say it's pretty neutral. It mentions the controversy and it spends considerable time documenting the fraud allegations but it also reports on the book and the work that was done. 2 things bother me about the discourse on this article. #1 is that alot of the people who are violating Wikipedia's rules over and over again are academics or experts on theoretical physics. They don't exactly act like it. They should know better. #2 is that I dislike this idea that somehow the ArbCom had ulterior motives here, i.e. they decided that they wanted to blast the Bogdanovs and that was it. No. They ruled like they did because of the constant edit warring of this article caused by outside forces. It was disrupting the very foundations of Wikipedia. The ArbCom is very consistent about stopping stuff like that at all costs.

Anyway, I'll close. Like I said, I'm not involved here nor do I want to be. It's just that after reading some of the discussion here, I felt like I had to say something to defend the conduct of the ArbCom. They didn't make this decision out of spite. They did it because the outsiders who keep invading this article do not give a damn about the encyclopedia. Their accounts exist just to edit war and that's against the very nature of this site. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, i tried to mention this to you before, but cannot find it so maybe i didn't (but i thought i had). the only academic or expert on theoretical physics that has touched the article is Alain_r (talk · contribs) and the only other known academic and expert on theoretical physics who have anything to say here on the talk page is Lumidek (talk · contribs) who is Lubos Motl. it is not academics (i restrict that to scholars actually in the employ of a university or some bona fide research institution - e.g. I am not an academic, at least presently) that are violating Wikipedia's rules over and over again. Alain has edited the article only 2 or 3 times and has been very cooperative with the Wikipedia rules. please don't blame the academics, at least for violating Wikipedia's rules over and over again in the context of the Bogdanov Affair. (there's some other good things to blame many academics for, but not that.). r b-j 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

No, I am not kidding. And I do not hide behind an anonymous proxy. It appears strange that each text, each intervention which could be slightly in favour of Bogdanoffs is immediately catalogued like a "sock puppet" of them. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not one of the Bogdanoffs and I do not belong to their Praetorian guard. I would like simply to understand the reasons for which Alain R could not answer (whereas he had committed to do it) the arguments emitted by the student in physics. If he did not answer, it is that he did not have anything to answer. No need to beat about the bush (like courageous " User:72.49.62.205" or RBJ) so that this truth appears in full face.

Alain_r might have other things to do. This article is not about picky technical questions of astrophysics formalism anyway. Rama 20:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I really think you should lock this page. Just so you know im not an alternate account (or "Sock"). If you cant, go ask somebody who can. If the editors of this article "Don't give a damn" about Wikipedia then this page shouldn't be editable.--72.49.62.205

"72", i have proposed several times protecting the article. they have policies against protecting it longer than a week. if Igor attacks it again repeatedly, it will probably get protected again for a couple of days. i have to admit that, perhaps, the Wiki admins are right about not just locking up the article because it appears that, finally, Igor and sock puppets have decided to let it stand rather than attack it. r b-j 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A proposed concession to the Bogdanovs

Igor, via a sock puppet, has complained many times that there were 3 review statemens of his thesis (all positive) yet none of Grichka's and has used that as a excuse to vandalize the whole page (which he continues to do in the most immature manner for a middle-aged man). i would like to remove that pretext for vandalism from him, but i need a little help (from a Francophone that has access to the review somewhere and not Igor or one of his groupies). the review statement that Igor tried to insert is:

Dmitri Gourevich on Gricha"s thesis "In an important theorem of the section 3.3, the author has build the general form of a cocycle bicrossproduct of a new kind. This general construction allowed him to realise a « twisted » bicross product (in Drinfled sense) between the Lorentzian and Euclidean Hopf algebras structures within a unique quantum group structure. Incontestably, the author brings an interesting theoretical contribution."

now, i see English usage mistakes that makes me think that this was translated into English. being that it was likely translated and also supplied by Igor, i am skeptical about its accuracy. it may have been slanted to his POV (with words like "Incontestably", etc.) he has done this deliberate mistranslation before.

so i propose that we include this statement, in lieu of one of the 3 statements regarding Igor's thesis, after a French speaking editor has checked it, and we make sure the English usage is correct. we should differentiate the two remaining statement about Igor's thesis as regarding Igor's, just as this is regarding Grichka's.

none of the other edits (mostly deleting of accurate information that is unflattering to the Bogdanovs) that Igor has repeatedly attempted to slip in should go in. r b-j 17:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

This proposal is quite interesting. Nevertheless, it does not take into account the reality of the facts. Quite simply because if you attentively read one of the numerous versions defended by the "pro bogdanoff" (for example that of Dolmer of November 8, 2005) you will note that this proposal presents two reports for Igor and two reports for Gritchka. They are clearly identified for each one. Here is a copy of the version of November 8 :

Dmitri Gourevich on Gricha"s thesis "In an important theorem of the section 3.3, the author has build the general form of a cocycle bicrossproduct of a new kind. This general construction allowed him to realise a « twisted » bicross product (in Drinfled sense) between the Lorentzian and Euclidean Hopf algebras structures within a unique quantum group structure. Incontestably, the author brings an interesting theoretical contribution."

Roman Jackiw on Igor"s thesis, 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 on Gricha"s thesis, 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 on Igor"s thesis, 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."

Thus when you claim that the 3 reports relate to only the thesis of Igor, it is that you badly read. The proposal which is made by the "pro Bogdanoff" is quite simply to balance the things: 2 reports for Igor and 2 for Gritchka.

then, in that case, we'll leave it as it is or, if you want, i'll take out one of the report statements regarding Igor's thesis. i did misread the complaint, reading that we had no representative statement for Grichka's thesis. the fact that one of the brothers is represented slightly more than the other is a peripheral issue and confirms my belief that Igor is using peripheral issues as an excuse to make wholesale changes to make the article more flattering to him. r b-j 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also that this sentence for Mr Gurevich does not come from his thesis report. In principle, one chooses two or three referees who read the thesis before the defense. These people then decide whether the thesis can be defended or not. They state this in the so-called thesis report. Then there is the defense, after which the whole commitee writes the defense report. In Grichka's case the commitee decided not to award the thesis and requested that the manuscript should be deeply modified. I do not know the details of such procedure, but basically such a decision is equivalent to sentencing to death the scientific career of the student. It seems that Grichka's advisor then asked him to modify his manuscript in collaboration with various people. He apparently asked these people to send him a comment about Grichka's modifications. At some epoch the brothers had made all these documents available online, but it does not seem to be the case. It is very clear that the five people who helped Grichka after his defense did not write any official report about it, but merely had some short email exchange with Grichka's advisor. The above sentence from Mr Gourevich come from such email. It is not an official thesis report (in the sense that is given to this term), and actually it does not bear any mention that could authenticate it. There is no handwritten signature, so it could very well have been modified or invented by the brothers (just compare some reports written in English with the French translation the brothers published in their book). Still, there is a true official thesis report written in Feb 1999 by Mr Gurevich, which is positive although not as enthusiastic as the extract proposed here. So if something has to be included from Mr Gurevich, it has to come from his only official thesis report, not a private email communication of unknown origin. Btw, if some modifications are planned in the corresponding section of the article, one should also remove the sentence claiming that there were 15 thesis reports. This is wrong. There were three thesis reports for Grichka, followed by six emails from the people that helped Grichka (one of them wrote two emails), but these emails are not official reports (I checked this with some of these people). Igor got two thesis reports for his first thesis that he failed to defend. Then he got two reports for his second thesis. So if one considers the two thesis that were awarded, there was a total of five thesis reports, as well as the two defense reports that the brothers never published. So the correct figure is five, possibly seven if one includes the defense reports (but I doubt they are very positive), not fifteen. Alain Riazuelo 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

then, Alain, i certainly encourage you to fix anything in the article that you know is factually incorrect. those quotes were supplied by Igor and were left by the big rewrite the admins did in an attempt to quiet down the controversy. i assumed that there was some confirmation of the veracity of the quotes. anyway, i know you're busy, but if there is anything in the article that you know is factually wrong, please, by all means, correct it. thanks. r b-j 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

is it truly POV to identify this as a bona fide "scandal"?

to categorize this as a scandal or, at least, an academic scandal is not POV. is it, really? that is what this "controversy" is all about. calling it a scandal does not say definitively who the bad guys are. maybe the bad guys are Baez and others who are "sullying" the reputation of the Bogdanovs. i don't want us to "pile on" the dirt (thus giving Igor an excuse for complaining about POV) but placing this in the scandal category simply says what it is. saying so is practically a tautology. it is what it is. r b-j 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Igor, i like the touch of calling your latest vandalism the "rbj version". thank you for reinforcing my scandalous opinion of this. r b-j

Hmm.... my "gut feeling" was that categorising it as a scandal was POV, because if you think about it from an entirely neutral perspective it would seem to carry with it the implication that the Bogdanov papers were the scandal, not the affair surrounding it - as in, saying that the Bogdanovs were being scandalous in publishing their works. It is the critical side which considers the papers themselves the scandal - like the way commentators considered the Sokal Hoax a scandal - most emphatically not the pro-Bogdanov side. Yes, I know, for all intensive purposes the affair surrounding the papers is a scandal, but the term carries with it more baggage than would be desirable in an NPOV article on this subject. And, moreover, I'd rather not give Igor and co. any substance to claim POV issues, since this would be an occasion where a laudable claim of POV would be possible. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)