Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh. Science

Theoretical Physics Breakthrough or Hoax? 330

Brooklyn Bob writes "Ever get the feeling that some theoretical physics papers just don't make sense? According to this New York Times article, you may be right. Genius or gibberish? Who knows?" This belongs on your virtual refrigerator with nice big virtual magnet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Theoretical Physics Breakthrough or Hoax?

Comments Filter:
  • That's enough (Score:4, Flamebait)

    by EggplantMan ( 549708 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @04:43PM (#4633782) Homepage
    I am tired of Slashdot's ceaseless battering of the physics community in the name of sensationalism. This is a blatant attempt to sully the good name of physics just because of the writer's inability to understand it.
    • hahah. the physics people are the one's that don't understand - they obviously don't even understand each other anymore (except in their own sub-sub-subfield...)
    • Re:That's enough (Score:4, Interesting)

      by paploo ( 238300 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @04:58PM (#4633859)
      I'll second that motion.

      Physics papers aren't just published all willy nilly. They must be reviewed by other physicists. Also, most theorists don't work alone, but instead work in a group, so there are checks and balances going on there.

      I do admit, however, that theoretical physics seems harder and harder to understand. Newton's laws are far more simple to do calculations with than Relativistic Dynamics. And Newtonian Gravity seems far more simple than General Relativity. And then you have Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and now String Theory (which is full of unsolvable differential equations).

      However, just because the mathematics and principles involved are harder to understand, doesn't mean that they are hoaxes. Indeed, despite the computational and conceptual difficulties involved in General Relativity (to which I find the conceptual difficulties fairly easy to overcome, but to which the math to solve a problem seems to take forever), the theory works far better for extreme conditions than its predecessor.

      Before I conclude, I would like to point out that there is a difference between computational difficulties and conceptual. Many modern theories take very difficult mathematics to solve even seemingly simple problems. However, to build a loose conceptual notion of of, say, General Relativity, is fairly easy, given some experience with problems. I usually find it a lot easier to understand the concepts of a newe theory, and then trust that the theorists are honestly doing the math in in effort to show that the theory pans out as compared to the real world.

      I've babbled on long enough; it's just my two cents as a Physicist.

      -Jeff

    • Re:That's enough (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Subcarrier ( 262294 )
      I am tired of Slashdot's ceaseless battering of the physics community in the name of sensationalism. This is a blatant attempt to sully the good name of physics just because of the writer's inability to understand it.

      All professions have their quacks and con artists. Surely physics is no exception? To a layman one mad professor looks much like another.
      • Yup, we have a crank at my university.

        He pushes his incorrect Gravity theory that inserts a gravitational potential term into the field equations.

        Upon talking to him it becomes absolutely clear that he hasn't the slightest clue as to the fundamentals of Riemannian Geometry. I.E. he makes claims about the fallacy of GR that would prove Riemannian Geometry to be false as well. And we all know that you can prove physics to be wrong but math is axiomatic and perfect by design.

        I don't take Gravity until next year and even I can tell that he is full of shit.

        But he was once an experimentalist and now he has tenor. So what the hell can you do.
    • I agree. Next you'll see the headline 'Science: Earth round?' along with the "it's funny" foot icon.
    • Re:That's enough (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 3.2.3 ( 541843 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:26PM (#4633996)
      this is about a controversy -within- the physics community. since members of the physics community (sokal, as mentioned in the article) have taken upon themselves to sully other academic communities concerning determinism, it only makes sense they are held to the same yardstick they would hold others. for instance, ironically in light of the sokal hoax, quantum theory has been in revolt against determinism for most of a century, with significant criticisms against that trend from einstein at solvay in 1927 and 1930 and at princeton in 1935, from bell in 1965, from clauser in 1978, and from aspect in 1982. individuals among quantum theorists may have very definite opinions about the relevance of causality vs correlation. but as a community the only thing they appear to agree upon is that some among their number are speaking gibberish. just who among their number are speaking the gibberish depends on who among their number you talk to. some, like wheeler, will insist there is not even a controversy, and this is taken up as an orthodox academic position by many physicists.

      i haven't noticed any "ceaseless battering of the physics community in the name of sensationalism" by slashdot. there is, however, a lot of disagreement among physicists as to who is making any sense, whatever the writer of the article understands.

      • Re:That's enough (Score:3, Insightful)

        by henben ( 578800 )
        this is about a controversy -within- the physics community. since members of the physics community (sokal, as mentioned in the article) have taken upon themselves to sully other academic communities concerning determinism,

        The Sokal hoax was nothing to do with "determinism". It was aimed at the postmodern (ab)use of scientific terminology with no regard to meaning.

        Sokal is a robust defender of the idea that the experimental method is a useful way to study reality, rather than one narrative amongst many which are equally valid. He is an "objectivist" rather than a "relativist". Determinism doesn't really come into it - I'm sure he is familiar with quantum theory.

    • by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:35PM (#4634029)
      This is a blatant attempt to sully the good name of physics just because of the writer's inability to understand it.

      The field of physics is obviously doing a good enough job of sullying itself. You see, despite whether or not the writer understands what's happening, the article talks about scientists and mathemeticians sullying physics:

      Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense

      Not to mention these quotes from people in and around the field:

      1. "Dr. Roman W. Jackiw, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who read and approved Igor Bogdanov's Ph.D. thesis, said he found it speculative but "intriguing.""
      2. "Dr. John Baez, a physicist and quantum gravity theorist at the University of California at Riverside, who has conducted a dialogue with the Bogdanov brothers on the Web site math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov, said, "One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics.""
      3. "Dr. Peter Woit, a mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, said of the brothers' work, "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense, but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature.""

      Notice that those credentials don't appear to belong to journalists. Then who is defaming the field of physics? Maybe a physics professor, a physicist, and a mathematician! ;) Interesting.

      The reporting does appear to make some physicists uncomfortable, and on slashdot it appears some are trying to push negative focus away from the physics community and onto the journalists -- a good scapegoat because of the "writer's inability to understand it" :-O
      However this reaction is not surprising because any of us would do the same to protect our own field. Don't be surprised, but do see it for what it is.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09, 2002 @04:44PM (#4633783)
    • REGISTER already (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @06:45PM (#4634397) Homepage
      The NYT has the fairest registration deal I've ever seen, less intrusive than even Slashdot that nearly everyone here finds acceptable. I've never seen a spam from them, and I do subscribe to a daily news bulletin they provide. For a free service, I think it's fair to provide them the minimal amount of information reg. provides, information they need to justify the service internally and to advertisers -- and it's less trouble than bending over backwards to tunnel around it.

      NYT has arguably the best free (for how much longer?) general news source online -- very frequent cited on /. -- and a show of support is something I'd encourage. We subscribe to the weekend editions despite online access; there's still something to be said for newsprint.

      BTW, they do not track what you read; I looked into this, and was paranoid enough to send a specific inquiry. Besides, they don't really know who "you" are.
      • Yeah, whatever. I don't HAVE to register to read slashdot.
        I registered with /. because I get messages when someone replies to my comments. The only way to do this is to have a user id.
        There's no reason you make me register just to read a news story unless they're selling the information. Free depends on how you look at things. Marketing data is worth money, you must give it to them to read their stories, therefore they aren't exactly free.
        I refuse to register with the NYT because I don't want to encourage what I consider annoying behavior. If I had to register with every site I look at, I would have to spend half my web browsing time registering for sites, many of which I would never visit again.
        There are plenty of other places to get news that don't make you jump through silly hoops just to access a story. The BBC being the best example. They have a much better registration policy than the NYT, none. You only have to register with them if you're actually getting an individualized service, like email.
        A news site can have adds without making me login. And how can you be sure they don't know who you are? I would bet they keep track of IPs. It's not an insurmountable tast to find out who has a given IP address. I'm not trying to be overly paranoid here. I'm just trying to be realistic about how much data they have about you.
        Keeping track of registration info is a pain in the ass. Yeah, they can put it in a cookie, but I'm a college student. I don't use one computer. I'll stop by a computer lab around lunchtime, and I don't want to deal registering every time. I already have a crapload of passwords to remember for things that actually need them to function. I'm not about to start remebering logins for 50 different sites just becuase they all want my marketing data.
        Hey, Google doesn't make me login to do a search. They seem to be doing just fine. And there's no way I would use Google is they did. Even if they tell me that they don't sell records of what I search for, it doesn't matter. Most privacy policies are total b.s. Often they have a clause which allows them to be changed at any time, sometimes without any notification. That's why I keep track of what info I acutally give out on the web. Then, I don't have to trust them. I know my info is safe because I never gave it to them in the first place. I know that I'm not going to get spam from them because I never gave them my email address.
    • You'll probably understand things a little better if you read this article [theregister.co.uk] first. It explains the supposed "hoax" that is referred to in the NYT story.
  • Just because you dont understand something, does not mean that it is gibberish. Theoritical physics is not a soap-opera, which any Tom-Dick-harry can analyse.
    • True. However, there are some things that even a lay-person can understand.

      For example, on "multiple universes."

      Now, the work "Universe" means "everything that is."

      Now, consider if multiple universe exist, then one of two things is possibly true about them.

      1) they are measureable and studiable from our universe, and hence, are definitionally PART of our universe, and hence any talk of "multiple universes" is gibberish.

      OR

      2) They are not measurable and studiable from our universe, and hence, are definitionally NOT proper subject matter of physics but are properly subject matter of philosophy, and anything that is said about them isn't "science" in any meaningfull sense of that word.

      But, crap like this isn't new. However, it does seem to be getting to the point where even respectable peer reviewed journals are having a harder and harder time finding people who will actually stand up and SAY something like that.
      • Your definition of "universe" is probably faulty, or at least different from the one that these physicists are using.

        Tim
      • Now, consider if multiple universe exist, then one of two things is possibly true about them.

        1) they are measureable and studiable from our universe, and hence, are definitionally PART of our universe, and hence any talk of "multiple universes" is gibberish.

        OR

        2) They are not measurable and studiable from our universe, and hence, are definitionally NOT proper subject matter of physics but are properly subject matter of philosophy, and anything that is said about them isn't "science" in any meaningfull sense of that word.

        But, crap like this isn't new. However, it does seem to be getting to the point where even respectable peer reviewed journals are having a harder and harder time finding people who will actually stand up and SAY something like that.


        Presumably you feel the same way about the creation of advanced light waves, and would have felt the same way about anti-matter back when it was first hypothesized?

        Multiple universes is one way of looking at it. It explains stuff. It lets you get reasonable answers out of the theory. It's just as likely as the other potential explanations of said theory.

        (Personally, I don't believe in multiple universes; I do, however, believe in a mechanism where particles are able to move backwards or forwards through time simultaneously, taking slightly different paths each time, and then their effects are averaged out. I have a pretty good argument for it being the case too).

        Simon
      • The multiple universe theory is a way to explain the seemingly random choice of different quantum events. The theory is that if A, B, and C might happen, then all 3 of them happen and the wave functions affected by this are seperated in a way that they cannot interact.
        The term "multiple univereses" is really a misnomer, since it does not involve more than universe, just wavefunctions that cannot comunicate. This means that I see A, B, & C happen, but the me that can talk to you has to be the one that saw the same thing you did.
        I hope this clear up multiple universe theory somewhat.
        Disclamer: IANAQuantam Physicist
      • > Now, the work [sic] "Universe" means "everything that is."

        This is your mistake. Finish the sentence:

        "The word 'Universe' means 'everything (i.e. all
        particle pairs) that is (are) mutally accessible (i.e. occupy continuously deformable positions)
        by travel through space-time (i.e. the Minkowski
        manifold)'".

        Now, it's not gibberish any more, is it?
    • by kkenn ( 83190 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:00PM (#4633873)
      No, but to people who do understand the field in which the Bogdanov brothers claim to be researching (I am a PhD student in string theory and include myself in this set), their paper is complete gibberish.

      Their paper is full of unfounded assertions strung together, combined with definitions and other assertions that are patently false. The paper does not follow a logical chain of reasoning that allows the reader to repeat or verify their conclusions (which are also not clearly stated).

      Furthermore, when confronted by other theoretical physicists (on the sci.physics.research Usenet group) with specific, detailed questions about their work, the authors have systematically refused to answer, or selectively answered with further vague or absurd statements. To me, this is the real clincher: they have completely failed to demonstrate a technical understanding of the field in which they claim to be working.

      It is clear to everyone in the field that these papers are nonsense and should never have been published. The only actual supporters of the authors seem to be from non-scientists or physicists who are unqualified to judge the work itself.
      • by manobes ( 541867 ) <manobes@sfu.ca> on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:23PM (#4633984) Homepage

        For a collection of stuff on this subject, search google groups on ``reverse sokal hoax''. Then read the (long) thread in sci.physics.research.

        I'm not a string theorist so I can't be 100% sure, but this stuff sure sounds like nonsense. The part about the Foucault pendulum aligning with the initial singularity sounds really silly. To quote John Baez, a mathmatical physicist (see below for a link)

        It [one of the papers in question] goes on to discuss the supposed connection between N = 2 supergravity, Donaldson theory, KMS states and the Foucault pendulum experiment, which he claims "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or relativistic mechanics". If you know some physics you'll find this statement slightly odd.

        As I said, I'm not a string theorist, so I don't know for sure, but some very sharp people seem to support the contention that this is nonsense. John Baez [ucr.edu] has compiled some of the relvent stuff on his webapge, here [ucr.edu]. Jacques Distler's blog [utexas.edu] also contains some good analysis.

      • You, sir, disregard what the great social critic Alan Sokal described as "counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities." I couldn't have said it better myself.


        ...the authors have systematically refused to answer, or selectively answered with further vague or absurd statements.

        Could it be that the authors are simply not interested in employing the hierarchical male-dominated "conflict" paradigm of scientific discourse, but insist rather on a more culturally inclusive paradigm of multiple and divergent truths, realities, modes of existence? Could it be that their truth simply differs from that of their critics, and cannot therefore be profitably discussed on sci.physics.research?

        To suggest that Western male physics applies equally in the more authentic nations of the world is a self-evident absurdity. To suggest that it has any relevance to pre-spacetime thermodynamic equilibrium is a characteristically arrogant assumption of the hegemonic mind. Get real, folks!

        The fundamental evaluative condition of any paper in the field of theoretical physics is not whether it satisfies some arbitrary, imposed standard of so-called "objective" so-called "truth", but rather whether it is true for the author. High-energy physics, by its very definition, is a purely personal and subjective undertaking. No physical law can possibly be applicable to all observers.

        I find it rather pathetic and sad that referees of publications in the physical sciences so often insist on printing only those constructions of "truth" which agree with so-called "experimental evidence", as if such "evidence" (mere columns of numbers) were in some way relevant to the aspirations of marginalized peoples (e.g. the "three meters per second per second" dogma, which has been passed down unchanged, unquestioned, by generations of white male physicists -- don't you think the time has come to abandon that hoary old shibboleth and replace it with something of more vibrant cultural relevance to the developing world?).

  • by philibob ( 132105 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @04:48PM (#4633809) Journal
    Theoretical physics is simply that. Always take these things with a grain of salt. Our scientific process is based on questioning assumptions and breaking the rules.
  • Reminds me... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Of an Ars Technica article posted on the 26th of October, that you can still read here [arstechnica.com]
  • Sorry, but if that "scoop" section was supposed to make me understand what the story is about you failed. Especially in the case of these need registration stories (why do you still keep publishing tme) it might be a good idea to clearly tell WTF you want to say.
    • they obviously have a reason for doing it. It would be nice of them to PUBLICALLY explain it, but they obviously can't afford to, or have the desire to get the "partner" so they must continue using the standard link.
    • Agreed. The summary of this article does a horrible job of describing the story. For those who don't wish to read the whole article, here's an excerpt:


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


      That said, the article basically gives the history of these two french physicists and why their recent work is controversial. Apparently these two did research trying to describe the momement of (or before?) the Big Bang which really hard and there's quite a bit of arguement within the physics community that the ideas are simply nonsense. So this opens up more arguements about the general quality of current research, of papers being published, of PhD's being given, etc.

      Personally, I think the article itself is more gibberish than the research. There's lot of quotes but not much explaination of what the actual problems are and why this is causing such a fuss. Conseqently the article is hard to follow and not well written.
  • by theRhinoceros ( 201323 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @04:52PM (#4633831)
    His colleague Dr. Jackiw compared modern physics to modern art: "One person looks at a piece of art and says it is gibberish; another person looks and says it's wonderful."

    Unfortunately, modern art isn't ultimately graded on if it's falsifiable or not, whereas physics is. Thus, the debate of good/bad art can rage forever without settlement, and that's fine; however, sooner or later, many scientific theories are demonstrated to be false (excepting those which aren't, of course. :-))
    • by blonde rser ( 253047 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @06:19PM (#4634266) Homepage
      I hope you aren't saying that being falsifiable is the same as being demonstrated to be false; because that isn't true. Falsifiable is a concept coined by Karl Popper and it doesn't mean that a statement is false. It means that a statement has to "expose itself to disproof." Only if a hypothesis or theory is falsifiable can it be considered truly scientific.

      In other words when a knowledgeable reader sees a hypothesis or theory he must be able to envision evidence that would disprove said theory - otherwise the theory is not scientific. For example if my theory is "all foo's are bar" a knowledgeable reader can realized all she needs to find is a single foo that isn't bar. So that statement is falsifiable. But if my theory states "all people are controlled by little green men (LGMs) that live inside their heads and the LGMs disappear the moment they could be observed" then it is not falsifiable. No matter what evidence a reader envisions (ie. I cut open a head and find no LGM) I can always show that this evidence doesn't out right contradict my theory (ie Well the LGM disappeared moments before you cut open the head).

      Maybe I'm being naive and everybody is already clear on what falsifiable actually means. It should be understood that falsifiable statements can be true. And non-falsifiable statements can be false.
      • Maybe I'm being naive and everybody is already clear on what falsifiable actually means. It should be understood that falsifiable statements can be true. And non-falsifiable statements can be false.

        I doubt that everyone is clear on it, but it seemed obvious enough to me that the poster you're responding to does. He's saying that genuine research and scientific theory is falsifiable, as demonstrated by the fact that findings and theories are frequently shown to be false.

    • by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @08:05PM (#4634769)
      Heh, I equate these guys as being the trolls of the physics world. Some are better than others, as witnessed on slashdot here. These guys just happen to be very good trolls.

      Heck, they even have the same goals. Slashdot trolls aim to show how the mod system sucks, these guys are trying to show how worthless the peer review system is. Ultimately, however, they'll probably be given just as much credit as trolls, i.e. none at all. It's just because they've found a new medium to troll in that they're getting this much attention.
      • Slashdot trolls aim to show how the mod system sucks, ...

        Oh? Is that what the slashdot trolls are doing? Trying to use "civil disobedience" to demonstate what they perceive as inequity by the moderators?

        So that's why they still think goatsecx is funny. And why there's still a stupid race for First Post. And why they think it's hilarious to write "you're a mother fucking cocknobber wankfuck" as Anonymous Coward. And why they'll insult somebody until the person is obviously offended, and then say "I WAS JUST JOKING AND YOU'RE STUPID AND SLASHDOT SUCKS". You think this is all some kind of peaceful protest?

        No. I disagree with you. These people aren't trying to change the moderation system. They're just losers. They're no better than the vandals who spraypaint obscenities on church walls or break the windows at primary schools. Fuck them all.

  • by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @04:57PM (#4633857)
    For those of you trying to support the physics community here, note that this article is not just useless physics bashing. It is about a real problem in all scientific disciplines.

    This article is not about criticism of the system, but rather specific criticism of specific people in the system. It is responsibility of the schools and journals, and especially thesis advisors to make sure people are doing adaquate work.

    There was an excuse given by these guys' advisor in the article about these guys working for 10 years and they should get a degree for that, even if they didn't exactly display a command of the mathmatics behind their theory.

    This is absolute bullshit!

    I don't care how long or hard you are working on something. If you want a degree in theoretical physics, you'd damn well better be able to understand your own thesis. If you can't AT LEAST explain it to your advisor, there is no way I can see to give you a PhD.
  • Who says the universe works in numbers? Why do we think that we can bring everything down to math. Maybe it cant be done and we are not exactly wasting time but we wont ever find the end if we simply exploit math.
    • Wolfram, in A New Kind of Science, suggests exactly that ... that calculus has gotten us this far but may not get us much further, that many of the problems and discouragements in modern physics stems from the fact that the universe doesn't operate according to calculus, that calculus merely describes some aspects of it and there are other aspects, perhaps even those most fundamental aspects, of the universe that are simply inimical to calculus as a tool to accurately describe them.

      Of course, he extends Fredkin's notion of using cellular automata rules (and variations on cellular automata) as a different tool with which aspects of the universe not amenable to calculus could be more accurately described, modelled, and predicted.

      Since math is a human invention, it would not be terribly surprising to discover the natural world not necessarilly conducive to a complete and full description using only that tool, but somehow, if we ever do hack through to whatever lies beneath, we'll find even a combination of Newton's calculus, Fredkin's cellular automata, and who knows what other analytical tools we come up with, when taken together, will probably still be inadequate to describe and unify the whole thing.

      Which of course is why so many people cop out with the whole God mythos ... because figuring out the universe and how it works is hard, and humans seem to always crave easy answers.
  • I've been following the original thread [sf.net] for a little while. The authors seem to have some trouble being precise enough, in particular when speaking English (not their native language.) Reports on their French works are better. But the reactions of some people [google.com] are simply inexcusable.

    The future of programming [sf.net]

  • by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:03PM (#4633884)
    Just as it is with a post to slashdot, being right isnt enough. If a physics paper cannot be understood by physicists, and does not provide insight into anything meaningful or testable then the paper is rightly called gibberish.

  • The scientists in any branch are always considered the ones that think too much about whichever field they specialize. Physicists think too much about physics, biologists think too much about biology, and computer scientists think too much about computers. As a matter of fact, Albert Einstein had several of the same suit just so he could devote the time thinking about he wanted to wear to something more useful -- like physics. I'm sure most of us have has professors that we considered at least a little eccentric. I had one astronomy prof that never washed in coffee cup in 20 years just to help his body build up his immune system -- the result of thinking on a level that most people don't.

    If any one of us were to devote 99% of our time to any one dream, project, or theory like these scientists most of the things we would write on the subject would make little sense to those who didn't think about the subject as much as we did, and consequently, we would be ridiculed as quacks and our writings would be considered gibberish. That is, until our life's work turned into something applicable to the general public (possibly even outside out lifetime), at which point we would be considered geniuses.
    • Basically I think you are right, but this case is a bit different. It's not just about scientists being a bit strange and eccentric.

      Science, in order to work, is like a network of theories and facts, "nodes" that depend on each other. Older, proven nodes provide the basis for new nodes, some of which are later validated (and provide the basis for nodes after them) and some are not (in which case they disappear from the network).

      So let's call a new theory D, which rests on the theories A and B, maybe extending and proving theory C in the process. The thing is, that A => B => C => D all relate to each other in a meaningful way. They may all be theories but they are part of a relatively solid reference framework that allows for validation at different levels.

      Now the problem, the infamous hoax theories: some theories don't stand on any framework at all. And they don't even bother to establish a new framework. They might start with a few equations (7=2 for example) and a few out-of-context references and they leave it there. Typically they don't offer any coherent explanation that even remotely shows how the author arrived at a certain conclusion.

      The problem is that those theories are not only useless in our present time, they also hold a very small probability to make any sense in the future.
    • by kkenn ( 83190 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:40PM (#4634052)

      The other highly suspcious aspect of this whole affair is that the work was never published online prior to being submitted to a journal.

      Some background for non-physicists: thesedays the primary venue for publishing new works is the arXiv [arxiv.org]. Several hundred papers per day are uploaded here in various categories, and it is the de facto standard library of modern research in physics.

      After publishing your work on the arXiv, physicists around the work can and will read your paper and submit feedback. Typically, after publication on the arXiv you might submit your work to a paper-based journal, but this is only a secondary procedure, and the only real point is to give you bonus points for your resume.

      Here is the main point:

      No-one reads paper journals any more!

      The fact that the Bogdanov papers were never uploaded to the arxiv meant that apart from the 2 referees (who basically seem to have abdicated responsibility), no-one had, or ever would have read their work!.

      If the authors were serious researchers, they would have submitted their work to the arxiv so it could be read and critiqued by their peers.

  • Oops! (Score:2, Funny)

    by AJWM ( 19027 )
    This belongs on your virtual refrigerator with nice big virtual magnet.

    Dang! That big virtual magnet just erased my virtual disk...
  • by ahaile ( 147873 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:18PM (#4633957)
    The NYT article mentions "e-mails bouncing around the web." Here's one with a bit more info. I received it as below, so I don't know who the original sender was:

    Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:56:42 -0400 (EDT)

    Subject: Hoax: Alan Sokol phenomenon reversed

    Sometime ago Alan Sokol et al wrote a completely meaningless article on quantum gravity which was accepted by a leading, refereed "deconstructionist journal". Physicists laughed because the hoax was at the deconstructionists' expense.

    But now there is is an inverse Sokol hoax in which, apparently, two reporters interviewd a lot of string theorists, wrote meaningless but "right sounding" papers and even got a Ph.D. Details below. What is particularly sad is that a key paper appeared in CQG:

    Class. Quantum Grav. 18 (7 November 2001) 4341-4372

    Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime*

    Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov
    Mathematical Physics Laboratory, CNRS UPRES A 5029, Bourgogne
    University,
    France

    The trouble is that the abstract seems indistinguishable from standard stringy papers. I understand that the CQG Editorial Board already discussed this hoax but found that the paper had been refereed by two reputable string theorists.

    More details:
    ----
    From Max Niedemayer to Ted Newman

    # 1.
    I always thought Sokal's hoax would also work in theoretical high energy physics. Now there is experimental proof.

    Two brothers, Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff, journalists and science fiction writers, both in their late 40's, decided it is high time to earn a PhD, and that this should be just as easy in `stringy' high energy physics as it alledgedly is in sociology.

    First they interviewed a number of prominent French string theorists in order to accquire the lingo, then (apparently without help from a trained physicist) spoofed two theses. To prepare the ground for their defense they spread rumors of them being geniuses and their theses being a milestone in theoretical physics. Although the official PhD awarding institution is only the (so far not too renowned) Universite de Bourgogne the members of the thesis committee certainly make up for it: R. Jackiw (MIT), J. Morava (John Hopkins), S. Majid (Cambridge), C. Kounnas (ENS), I. Antoniadis (CERN and Ecole Polytechnique), and others. For the actual defense they rented a hall in the prestigeous Ecole Polytechnique, arranged a big dinner with the president, invited the TV, ... and passed gloriously. The thesis can be found on the offical CNRS server (http://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/). Already the abstract is a delightfully meaningless combination of buzzwords, that almost beats Sokal's, but which apparently has been taken seriously by the committee!

    The bad side of the joke is, that it might hurt theoretical physics in general. The CNRS apparently even contemplates to split the present theoretical physics division into a pure mathematics and an experimental physics branch. Theoretical physics, being now more fiction than science, is meant to be entertained by professionals in that area. Hopefully the Bogdanoff ``singularity invariant'' for the ``topological expansion phase'' of the universe will provide a way out ...

    I'll keep you informed. Best regards,

    -- Max

    2.
    Dear Ted,
    sure you can show the letter to others. Let me stress however (and maybe you should too) that this is not first hand information. A person who has first hand information is J. Magnen, from the Ecole Polytechnique. He works on constructive QFT and was not personally involved. The issue was apparently discussed in the French National Research Council, where Peter Forgacs is a member, and he is my source.

    A small correction. In the last minute it seems the theses were not accepted at the Ecole Polytechnique, but only later by the University
    of Bourgogne. The TV was also not permitted to the actual defense, but several people here saw reports on the Bogdanoff brothers decribing them as outstanding geniuses.

    The theses and the committee members can be looked up on the web at http://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/

    All the best,

    -- Max

    ----
    HOAX THESIS:
    Abstract in english:

    We propose in this research a new solution regarding the existence and the content of the initial spacetime singularity. In the context of topological field theory we consider that the initial singularity of space-time corresponds to a zero size singular gravitational instanton characterized by a Riemannian metric configuration (++++) in dimension D = 4. Connected with some unexpected topological data corresponding to the zero scale of space-time, the initial singularity is thus not considered in terms of divergences of physical fields but can be resolved in the frame of topological field theory. We get this result from the physical observation that the pre-spacetime is in a thermal equilibrium at the Planck scale. Therefore it should be subject to the KMS condition. We consequently consider that this KMS state might correspond to a unification between "physical state" (Planck scale) and "topological state" (zero scale). Then it is suggested that the "zero scale singularity" can be understood in terms of topological invariants, in particular the first Donaldson invariant. Therefore, we here introduce a new topological index, connected with 0 scale, of the form Z = Tr (-1)s, which we call "singularity invariant". Interestingly, this invariant corresponds also to the invariant topological current yield by the hyperfinite II* von Neumann algebra describing the zero scale of space-time. In such a context we conjecture that the problem of inertial interaction might be explained in terms of topological amplitude connected with the singular zero size gravitational instanton corresponding to the initial singularity of spacetime.

    Keywords : KMS State, topological field theory, singularity invariant, initial singularity, zero size instanton
    PACS : 0420D, 04.65.+e,02.40.Xx, 04.60.-m, 5.45.-a

    Keywords: Mots-cles : Etat KMS, theorie topologique des champs, invariant de singularite, singularite initiale, instanton gravitationnel singulier, amplitude topologique
    PACS : 0420D, 04.65.+e, 02.40.Xx, 04.60.-m, 05.45.-a

    Advisor: STERNHEIMER, DANIEL
    Comments: President : Gabriel Simonoff (Prof.Emerite Univ.Bordeaux I) Premier rapporteur : Roman Jackiw (M.I.T.) Second rapporteur Jack Morava : (John Hopkins Univ.), Examinateur Hans Jauslin (Bourgogne Univ.), Co-directeur de these (pour la partie physique theorique), Jac Verbaarschot (Stony Brook Univ.) Le document de these est compose des textes suivants : 1. Le texte de presentation de la these (60 pages) 2. Les 4 tires a part des publications annexees (102
    pages): - Topological Field Theory of the Initial Singularity of Spacetime, Class. and Quantum Gravity vol 18 no 21 (2001) - Spacetime
    Metric and the KMS Condition at the
    Planck Scale Annals of Physics, vol 295 no 2 (2002) - KMS State of the Spacetime at the Planck Scale, Ch. Jour. of Phys. vol 40, No2, (2002) -
    Topological Origin of Inertia, Czech . Jour. of Phys. Vol. 51, No 11 (2001)

    Subjects: Thesis: Physics: Theoretical Physics
    ID code: tel-00001503
    Deposited by: BOGDANOFF Igor on 24 July 2002 (01:49)
  • physics is science (Score:5, Informative)

    by agurkan ( 523320 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:33PM (#4634015) Homepage
    I am a theoretical physicist myself. Physics is a science, and as in every branch of science the easy or obvious and interesting is already solved. It takes a lot of expertise and hard work just to understand what is going on at the frontier of science. No good physicist would be illusioned by phrases like "imaginary time" and "infinite temperature". As a matter of fact imaginary time does correspond to a concept in field theory but any physicist who uses it knows it is only a mathematical tool.

    There is a reason why there are referees for scientific journals, and why physicist dismiss lots of ideas communicated to them via letters, emails or other informal channels. There is a lot of bullshit there, and the general public doesn't have a way to know what is bullshit and what is real science. But this doesn't mean that the theoretical physics done in universities is bullshit, it is science and this is acknowledged everyday.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @05:49PM (#4634090) Homepage
    The trouble with modern physics is that theory is way out in advance of the experimental data. We don't have rock-solid experimental evidence of accepted ideas like black holes and quarks, let alone quantum gravity or superstrings. All the needed experiments either involve something too small or too far away.

    Physicists are now generating and publishing theories that aren't experimentally testable. This is a bad thing. Fred Hoyle used to say "Science is prediction, not explaination". To get a new physical theory published, you used to have to propose an experimental test of it at the end of the paper. That's less true today.

    Physics without experiments is theology, not science.

  • More info (Score:4, Informative)

    by Larne ( 9283 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @06:29PM (#4634321)
    sci.physics.research [sci.physics.research] has been discussing this for a while now, including reponses from the Bogdanovs attempting to defend their work. Google searches on that group for "reverse Sokal" will bring up lots of stuff. Dr. John Baez [ucr.edu] also has a page [ucr.edu] tracking the whole affair.
  • I recommend reading Lounesto's "misconceptions of research mathematicians" [helsinki.fi]. Lounesto is an expert on Clifford algebras, and he tried to use his expertise to get some idea of how accurate the mathematical literature is--it turns out, it's rife with mistakes.
  • by ahaile ( 147873 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @06:45PM (#4634399)
    With the Sokal hoax, many physics people jumped up and shouted that Sokal had "proven" that cultural studies was a "bogus" discipline. Now, with this hoax, the same people are backpedalling, saying that this time the issue is "complicated" and that "physics isn't for amateurs." If anything, this hoax seems more damning to me than Sokal.

    Why? In his paper, Sokal didn't pretend to be a literature professor; he claimed at the start he was a physicist. The review board of Social Text weren't physicists and so they couldn't really evaluate the physics part of his paper. Instead, they trusted Sokal that he was following the usual academic honesty and integrity in his assertions. As it turned out, and as we all now know, he wasn't -- he was intentionally distorting his beliefs about physics in order to perpetrate a hoax. What Sokal did was a lot like a researcher falsifying data: review boards usually have no way of knowing whether a submitter has falsified data and so they have to rely on the person's academic integrity, just like the board of Social Text had no way of knowing whether Sokal was sincere in his representation of physics, so they had to trust him.

    The Bogdanov brothers, however, published as physicists, about physics, and in journals reviewed by physicists. Not only that, but the people who reviewed them are now spouting inanities like "he worked for ten years, so he deserved a doctorate." (Um, no, he can work for 30 years, but if he doesn't understand the stuff, he doesn't get the doctorate.)

    If Sokal had tried to write as a literature professor, I highly doubt his paper would have gotten through. I've read his paper, and quite frankly, it was *not* accepted for what it had to say about cultural studies. The knowledge the paper represents of cultural studies reads like an enthusiastic but over-bold sophomore who just took his/her first class in critical theory (disclosure: I teach critical theory to sophomores, and I've seen those papers ;)). The paper was published because an established physicist was making bold statements about the philosophical basis of his field. That's not news? Of course, as it turned out, that physicist was a snake in the grass.
    • You teach critical theory and your analysis is "Bogdanov hoax more damning than Sokal's"?

      First of all, the Bogdanov hoax is not a hoax. It's a goof, a public display of carelessness, by a bunch of physicists who now look very silly.

      But let's test your theory--the experiment is in progress. The Sokal hoax trashed the entire Pomo field of cultural studies, cut the number and quality of grad students in half, reduced grant allocations, and so on, and so on.... Let's watch and see if the same thing now happens to physics, shall we?

    • I believe that the fact that the scientific community catches its own frauds like cold fusion, or the Schon controversy at Bell Labs mentioned a couple of times on Slashdot within the past few months, or this controversy, reaffirms the validity of the scientific method. If they aren't familiar with a particular subject, scientists seek the opinion of someone who is familiar with the subject and use that person's judgement to determine whether or not the results or theories in question are valid. Contrast this to critical theory, which did not seek a physicist's opinion of Sokal's article and had to have Sokal to tell them the article was nonsense.
    • ahaile has already pointed largely the same point, but it is worth reiterating. Back when Sokal published his paper, the whole right-wing "Cultural Literacy" schtick was a current "debate." For the most part, the "debate" consisted of a bunch of right-wingers like E.D.Hirsch and the truly deplorable William Bennet bemoaning the teaching of non-white authors in college and/or teachers who are leftists (they never admitted that's quite what they are about, but it is).

      Sokal is not nearly such a bad guy as those right-wingers. He's actually a decent liberal, but one raised in a particular scientistic, positivist intellectual tradition. Alan Sokal is a physicist, after all (although that is not sufficient, many in the occupation understand humanities better). But caught in that anti-Postmodernism ferver of the early 1990s, Sokal decided to make fun of the journal _Social Text_ (and the general field, by implication)

      _Social Text_ is not really the most prestigious journal in that general area, but it's not bad. It is refereed, but that doesn't mean as much in any journal as what outside people tend to think. You don't have to be RIGHT, or even original, to right for "good" academic journals... just write well enough, and pick a topic the editor are interested in. For a lot of them, you also have to wait years for publication to roll around... they are behind schedule by huge amounts.

      But even for what moderation means at _Social Text_, Sokal did not go through it. He knew some editors, and approached them saying "I'm a well known physicist, and I'd like you to fast track something I want to write." The _Social Text_ editors liked the idea of reaching out to that other academic community, so they agreed. But the refereeing in this case consisted of making sure the sentences were grammatical, the words spelled right, and the subject matter generally what Sokal had suggested informally. The same paper WOULD NOT have been published if submitted for blind review.

      So the hoax basically amounts to this: people tend to grant some leeway to their friends. True enough, but hardly an indictment of cultural studies, the humanities, postmodernism, multiculturalism, or whatever it is that is supposed to have been shown to be foolish.
  • Since this discussion goes back to Sokal's hoax [nyu.edu], I recommend looking at Sokal's own work [arxiv.org]. His own papers are largely about obscure properties of lattice models in statistical mechanics. For much of this kind of work, it is far from clear whether it is relevant to any real physical system, or whether some of the assumptions under which they are proven are even mathematically meaningful or consistent. In mathematics, if you start with inconsistent assumptions, you can prove anything. Sokal's own field would have been another good target for a physics hoax, although string theory clearly beats lattice methods to the punch.
  • Theoretical physics theorys are the current alchemy or like the early "real science" theorys of the orbits of the planets. In both of thouse cases, some of the smartest humans alive at the time felt they were going down the right path. In once case Keppler came up with something simple and wiped out a huge mess of compex things (that fit the math) and most of the early dye industry was based on alchemy and some of the early compaines basing their dye science on alchemey are still the largest chemical supply compaines. Many of modern chemstry terms still come from that "science".

    Modern gravity research shows the current stuff is wrong. This is why gravity probe B is going to be launched but its set up to do some very specific expierments and doesn't do a few key ones. Answer why the GPS sats are slowing down and why voyager is slowing down and why pendulums swing funny during an eclipse and theres a Nobel prize waiting for you.

    Richard Feynman said that physics is simple and if its not, the theory headed in the wrong direction.
  • This was on http://www.incunabula.org/blog a while back

    Links of interest are:
    usenet post, along with abstracts from the theses:
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?R35126F52
    Also here:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27894.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/27963.html
    Very detailed info here and in linked pages:
    http://cass.eahosting.com/cass/bogdanov2.htm
    And here:
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html

    In particular the link
    http://cass.eahosting.com/cass/bogdanov2.htm
    is invaluable as it has an email dialogue with the brothers about their
    research, and is a work in progress

    you can read about sokal here:
    http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/no retta.h tml


  • Does that make this a quantum quantum theory? The theory itself is inside a black box (of both existence before big bang singularity, and of the undecipherable explanation of it's creators), and is both simultaniously correct and incorrect at the same time. Sure, we could call it mal-defined or unprovable in this state, but that wouldn't be any fun. :^)

    Ryan Fenton
  • by jorlando ( 145683 ) on Saturday November 09, 2002 @07:40PM (#4634669)
    When Geordi, Data and Wesley start talking about how to solve problems people say they talk gibberish, like a mechanics trying to deceipt a customer... it's only high physics that we don't understand today, but in the future will make sense, so they can save the Enterprise again!

    I know that because I read (in The Sun, I think) that the Star Trek episodes come from the future in capsule times to Gene Roddenberry (he is a refugee from future). In fact, Star Trek is a soap opera from the future. Gene's relatives send the episodes to him so he doesn't feel so far away from home...

    That's enough, if I talk more Ashtar Sheran will send that Xemnu boy to get me... and I have to make a call to these Bogdanov brothers, I have some theories that I wish to share with them.
  • Why not. If economics can become math (A Beautiful Mind) and psychology can become economics (See this year's Nobel in Economics - it's basically graduate level experimental psychology applied to group economic behavior) then why can't physics become science fiction.
  • anyone else think those guys pictured in the article look sorta like robots?
  • Someone wrote a bullshit paper. Editors at some journals were asleep. These editors need to be hauled over hot coals. The journals will lose some respect. But the whole problem was detected by physicists who are perfectly competent to judge what is and isn't bullshit in the field of physics. There's nothing bigger going on. There's no sign of any kind of crisis going on. People just put whatever spin they want on what is really fairly straightforward.
  • Physics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Baudrillard ( 624476 )
    As a scientist, reading this article in the New York Times is rather troubling. The "text" produced by the science is an incredibly accurate rendition of the truth of the universe we live in. As further experiments and exploration continues, our understanding becomes ever richer and more detailed. This is the basis for a fascinating intellectual persuit. But also, the understanding produced by the social enterprise of science, as influenced by experiments, has led directly to important technological advances that shape our society. Ignore the arcane musings of physicists as you will, but it is difficult to ignore their impact! Finally, the philosopher Jean Baudrillard has written extensively about the fact that humans communicate through symbols and images that are essentially simulacra removed from objective truth. This leaves in his words, the "desert of the real". As far as I am concerned, say what you will about other academic subjects, but you can consider science to be an oasis, firmly rooted in the desert of the real. You post-modernist punks can take that to the bank! :-)
  • by jacobcaz ( 91509 )
    French Physicists' Cosmic Theory Creates a Big Bang of Its Own

    By DENNIS OVERBYE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • by wilgamesh ( 308197 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @12:18AM (#4635620) Homepage

    I bet most nonphysics /. readers will find the original Bogdanov papers quite difficult to read, and perhaps the theses even more so since they are in French. But I can show here some very simple things that will make nonphysics reader very suspicious about the Bogdanov twin's work.

    As some /. readers have pointed out already, John Baez, the UCI physics prof, criticizes a very specific passage from one thesis, involving the Foucault pendulum part. You don't have to read everything, just see that Bogdanov mentions the pendulum and topology in one breath! here I quote from Baez's webpage: [ucr.edu]

    "It goes on to discuss the supposed connection between N = 2 supergravity, Donaldson theory, KMS states and the Foucault pendulum experiment, which he claims "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or relativistic mechanics". If you know some physics you'll find this statement slightly odd.

    After several pages he concludes: We draw from the above that whatever the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucault's pendulum is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the origin of physical space S3, that of Euclidean space E4 (described by the family of instantons Ibeta of whatever radius beta), and, finally, that of Lorentzian space-time M4.

    Zounds! He took that pendulum and rode it right off into hyperspace..."

    And this Foucault pendulum quote you can obtain directly from one Bogdanov thesis. [ccsd.cnrs.fr]

    The Foucault pendulum bit is on page 49/162 of the thesis, in French. It's easy to read and probably will parse in babelfish.

    So what's the big hoopla about Foucault's pendulum and the supergravity stuff? Well, Foucault's pendulum, contrary to the Bogdanov thesis that it's not understood in classical mechanics, is really well understood, at least the regular ole' Foucault pendulum. It's basically a free-swinging pendulum, that over time, rotates its plane of swinging because of the Coriolis force. You can check it out in any decent undergrad mechanics text, such as my dusty copy of Marion/Thornton classical dynamics, page 399, where the solution is quietly sitting. Or you can read this little web tidbit. [unsw.edu.au]

    That a PHD physics candidate would be trying to tell us there is some connection between the very earthly, understood Foucault pendulum, and the big bang (initial singularity) really stretches the imagination! But again, this just makes one suspicious, and doesn't prove anything.

  • Science "community" is getting larger, hence
    fraud is getting out of hand. I am a physics
    grad student and between this, the Schon saga
    and the Ninov debacle, this has been a bad year
    for physics. But I wager it will only get worse
    because physics is growing. My fear is that
    beyond a certain size, we will not be able to
    maintain knowledge in a coherent state between
    all practitioners.
  • Interesting quote. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mshiltonj ( 220311 ) <mshiltonj&gmail,com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:13AM (#4636113) Homepage Journal

    One of the earliest models of the universe was erected by Ptolemy.

    It worked fairly well, except for the fact that it assumed that our planet was the center of the universe and that everything rotated around the Earth. As astronomy got more sophisticated, we had to invent ever more elaborate mathematical models to make Ptolemy's picture of reality work. The astral cycles of heavenly movement became cycles within cycles within cycles. Until finally Copernicus suggested we imagine the Sun was the center of the system. The way we conceived the workings of the universe literally shifted and it was simple again both in perception and in mathematics.

    The present moment in physics has the whiff of Ptolemaic epicycles about it. Perhaps the universe is actually incredibly complex and incomprehensible. Or, just maybe, it is our models that have become complex and incomprehensible. Perhaps new theories will yield ways of seeing things that are not as simple minded as the clockwork universe of the 19th century or as illusive as the unimaginable world of the 20th century. In our new understanding of the relationships of the very large to the very small, we may literally revisualize the universe around us.


    Rethinking Everything [business2.com]. The above quote is on page 4.

Brain off-line, please wait.

Working...