The Bogdanoff Affair

John Baez
October 22, 2010
A Hoax?
We all laughed when the physicist Alan Sokal wrote a deliberately silly paper entitled Transgressing the
boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, and managed to get it accepted by a
journal of social and cultural studies, Social Text.
But in 2002, on the 22nd of October many of us began hearing rumors that two brothers managed to publish
at least five meaningless papers in physics journals as a hoax - and even got Ph.D. degrees in physics from
Bourgogne University on the basis of this work!
The rumor appears to have begun with an email from the physicist Max Niedermaier to the physicist Ted
Newman, and it spread like wildfire. I received copies from many people, and soon there was a heated
discussion of what this meant for the state of theoretical physics. Had the subject become so divorced from
reality that not even the experts could recognize the difference between real work and a hoax?
On October 23rd I decided to post an article about this to sci.physics.research, a physics discussion group I
help moderate. Entitled Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?, it brought widespread attention to the
Bogdanoff affair. It also started a a fascinating discussion on sci.physics.research, to which Sokal and the
Bogdanoffs themselves eventually contributed.
By October 24th, Dennis Overbye, a science journalist from the New York Times, began looking into this
story. He asked the Bogdanoffs if their work was a hoax, and they indignantly denied it. Igor Bogdanoff soon
began circulating emails to this effect. Again, these spread like wildfire, and most people interested in this
case have already read one or another version.
Max Niedermaier then emailed the Bogdanoffs an apology, which he urged them to distribute.
Indeed, many aspects of the original rumor are known to be in error. According to Niedermaier, both
Bogdanoffs conducted their thesis defense on the same day, in a rented hall with TV crews present. In fact, it
seems clear that the Bogdanoffs got their Ph.D.s at different times. Grichka got a Ph.D. in Mathematics from
the Universite de Bourgogne on June 26 1999, passing at the lowest level. On the same day, Igors thesis
committee failed him. He later got a Ph.D. in Physics from the Universite de Bourgogne on July 8, 2002.
However, I assure you that the Bogdanoffs theses are gibberish to me - even though I work on topological
quantum field theory, and know the meaning of almost all the buzzwords they use. Their journal articles make
the problem even clearer. You can easily get ahold of these, because they are appended to the PDF files
containing their theses. Some parts almost seem to make sense, but the more carefully I read them, the less
sense they make... and eventually I either start laughing or get a headache.
For example, heres the beginning of Igor Bogdanoffs paper "Topological Origin of Inertia":
The phenomenon of inertia - or "pseudo-force" according to E. Mach [1] - has recently been
presented by J. P. Vigier as one of the "unsolved mysteries of modern physics". Indeed our point
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
1 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
of view is that this important question, which is well formulated in the context of Machs
principle, cannot be resolved or even understood in the framework of conventional field theory.
Here we suggest a novel approach, a direct outcome of the topological field theory proposed by
Edward Witten in 1988 [3]. According to this approach, beyond the interpretation proposed by
Mach, we consider inertia as a topological field, linked to the topological charge Q = 1 of the
"singular zero size gravitational instanton" [4] which, according to [5], can be identified with the
initial singularity of space-time in the standard model.
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 youll find this statement odd. The Foucault pendulum
behaves exactly the way classical mechanics predicts: it is a standard textbook exercise!
After several pages he concludes:
We draw from the above that whatever the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucaults
pendulum is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the origin of physical space
S
3
, that of Euclidean space E
4
(described by the family of instantons I
beta
of whatever radius
beta), and, finally, that of Lorentzian space-time M
4
.
Zounds! He took that pendulum and rode it right off into hyperspace! I appreciate the fact that to someone
not expert in physics, this stuff may seem no weirder than any other paper in a physics journal. He is indeed
using actual physics jargon - but I assure you, it makes no sense. How in the world could the plane of
oscillation of a pendulum be "aligned with the initial singularity", i.e. the big bang? The big bang did not occur
anywhere in particular; it happened everywhere.
Indeed, nothing in any of the Bogdanoffs papers suggests that they really understand N = 2 supergravity,
Donaldson theory, or KMS states. Im reasonably familiar with all these topics, and as far I can tell, all they
write about them is a mishmash of superficially plausible sentences containing the right buzzwords in
approximately the right order. There is no logic or cohesion in what they write.
The Bogdanoffs posted an article on sci.physics.research arguing against my characterization of their work.
You can read some of the subsequent dialog on my website, and more on sci.physics.research. George
Johnson described this discussion quite well in the New York Times: he said that reading it is "like watching
someone trying to "nail Jell-O to a wall". The discussion eventually fizzled out amid the Bogdanoffs attempts
to justify their misuse of basic mathematical terminology.
Since their papers make no sense, what was their intention in writing them? By now it seems clear that they
were not staging a Sokal-type hoax to show up defects in the refereeing and Ph.D.-granting process. They
have lost too much face for this to be a plausible course of action! The main remaining options are 1) that
they are engaged in some sort of trick, or 2) that they honestly believe in what theyre doing.
Since they say they believe in what theyre doing, this seems like a plausible explanation. However...
The Plot Thickens
On October 30th, I heard a strange story about the Bogdanoffs that suggested some complicated trickery was
afoot. On November 5th, an article by Rich Monastersky appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education,
recounting this story:
Trinh X. Thuan, a professor of astronomy at the University of Virginia, sued the Bogdanoffs in
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
2 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
France a decade ago, charging that, in God and Science, they had plagiarized his book The Secret
Melody: And Man Created the Universe (published in English by Oxford University Press in
1995). In the end, he says, the judge found in his favor, and the brothers, along with their
publisher, had to pay 80,000 francs to Mr. Thuan. The brothers say that they did not commit
plagiarism and that Mr. Thuan had copied their own earlier work, so they never paid him any
money.
The plagiarism lawsuit may explain why the twins were so eager to get doctorates, says Mr.
Thuan. The back cover of their book claimed that they held doctorates when they did not, and
they hurriedly tried to get degrees as the court case played out in the early 1990s, he says.
John D. Barrow, a professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge, says the
brothers contacted him at that time with an odd request. "They were very anxious to obtain
Ph.D.s very quickly, and they tried to con me into becoming an examiner," he says. "There were
two theses that they had submitted. They were laughable compendiums." As for the brothers, he
says, "I regard them as mysterious people, not as hoaxers."
The Bogdanoffs say that the statement on the back cover of the book was the fault of a "clumsy"
editor who wrote that they had degrees when they were actually in the process of earning them.
They also deny trying to get doctorates quickly and say that they had contacted Mr. Barrow
about long-term plans.
Such arguments between the Bogdanoffs and others do not surprise Jean Staune, general
secretary of the Interdisciplinary University of Paris, who helped Mr. Thuan with the plagiarism
case against the brothers. "They are like water," he says. "You can never catch them."
(In the original version of this article, John Barrow had said " I regard them as sinister people". But then the
Bogdanoffs threatened to sue, so this was changed to "I regard them as mysterious people".)
The Bogdanoffs come across rather badly in this article. However, their thesis advisor, Daniel Sternheimer,
tells the story quite differently in his response to Monasterskys article:
Dear Monastersky,
I have been forwarded the text of your November 5 Chronicle article, entitled "French TV Stars
Rock the World of Theoretical Physics". I shall make only a few comments on facts.
1. You write:
"According to Mr. Sternheimer, Grichka Bogdanoff applied for his Ph.D.in physics in
1999 but was granted one in mathematics instead"
There must be a misunderstanding. Our group (UMR 5029) is in mathematical physics, and its
members are affiliated with the Department of Mathematics of Universite de Bourgogne or with
the Section of Mathematics in CNRS (or visitors and students). I was sole (administrative)
supervisor for Grichka in Dijon. In 1999, given his Thesis, though we have a common "Ecole
Doctorale" at our UFR ("faculty") Sciences et Techniques, it was clear that Grichkas thesis was
in mathematics and that appears on the cover of the final Ms. In both cases there was only one
other professor from Dijon to complete the Jury: for Grichka, it was a mathematics professor; for
Igor, it was a theoretical physics professor: that is not coincidental.
2. You write:
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
3 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
"Trinh X. Thuan, a professor of astronomy at the University of Virginia, sued the
Bogdanoffs in France a decade ago, charging that, in God and Science, they had
plagiarized his book The Secret Melody:And Man Created the Universe (published in
English by Oxford UniversityPress in 1995). In the end, he says, the judge found in
his favor, and the brothers, along with their publisher, had to pay 80,000 francs to
Mr. Thuan. The brothers say that they did not commit plagiarism and that Mr. Thuan
had copied earlier work of their own, so they never paid him any money."
"TXT" is certainly a well established astrophysicist and he is also a quite successful writer of
essays, even if none of his essays had the success of "Dieu et la Science". But his memory is very
partial.
It is true that a first court decision (in "refere" in 1991, confirmed in 1992) gave Fayard and him
a modest provision of 50000 FFR (50kF) from Grasset and 15kF from the twins. But in January
1994, four members of the French Academie des Sciences (Yves Coppens, Jean Dorst, Andre
Lichnerowicz, Etienne Wolf) issued an affidavit, confirmed by Jacques Friedel, then President of
the Academy, giving among others a non exhaustive list of 9 quotations, 5 of them appearing in
"La melodie secrete", which come from texts by Guitton or the twins prior to the latter (from
1963, 1986 and early 1987).
Prior to that, the magazine Paris Match had given, in its September 12, 1991, and confirmed in
affidavits from October 1993 and January 1994, examples proving that TXT had reproduced
parts of a "Grand Document" of 50 typewritten pages by Guitton and the twins (December 1986)
on the place of God in modern science, and some of another (January 1987) based on the
transcript of an interview of Carl Sagan by the twins.
After that a first court decision in March 1994 awarded only 60kF+20KFto TXT for some
technicalities. The whole matter of respective accusations of plagiarism went on, but was
eventually stopped short by Hachette and an out-of-court agreement was reached, according to
which the provisions were returned, TXT renounced to the 80kF, each side paid for the court and
lawyer expenses it had made, and the following press release was issued by Hachette (the
translation is mine, and I cut some civilities and full names):
"Regretting the echos in the media of the dispute between them, Fayard and their
author TXT, Grasset and their authors Guitton and Messrs Bogdanoff, have decided
to put a final stop to it, leaving to the whole scientific community the expressions
and metaphors to which both of them referred, preserving in this way the respective
integrity of the authors."
I have copies of original documents proving the above facts.
The discrepancies between what TXT told you and the last agreement, which he signed along
with all parties involved on May 13, 1995, are (mildly speaking) strange. They are far more
serious than many menial errors or misrepresentations that the twins let pass (like some about
their age, which I have seen in a magazine quoted as 38 when theywere 50; that was 2 years ago;
like many women, TV stars feel often flattered to be thought younger than they are).
Another fact is that the "Secret Melody" is now being re-edited and should be out in December (I
found that with "Google"). Still another is that "Dieu et la Science" was never published in
English (though it has been translated in many languages), and that lawyers fees in the US can
exceed by far any profit from translations. Any connection between these facts is surely
coincidental.
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
4 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
From a distance such as mine, its quite hard to tell whats really going on. Perhaps some long-standing
enmities are the ultimate cause of some aspects of this fuss - in which case it may be almost impossible to
unravel all the details.
The Media Uproar
When the Bogdanoff affair hit in the popular press, it caused quite a stir. Has theoretical physics has become
so abstruse that nobody is able to tell a hoax from serious work? - this theme proved almost irresistable to
the journalists.
On November 1st, Andrew Orlowski wrote an amusing but essentially frivolous account of the whole affair in
the British paper The Register, entitled Physics hoaxers discover a quantum bogosity.
On November 7th, Christoph Droesser and Ulrich Schnabel wrote a story about it in the German paper Die
Zeit, entitled Fairy tales of the brothers Bogdanov. This has some interesting quotes in it, which I will come
back to later.
Also on November 7th, a story about the Bogdanoff affair appeared in Nature, written by Declan Butler. This
really plays up the supposed uncertainty on the part of the physics community as to whether the Bogdanoffs
work makes sense or not. For example, Butler writes:
So are the papers good science or not? Enquiries by Nature show that few theoretical physicists,
including some who reviewed the brothersPh.D. theses, are completely certain. Jac
Verbaarschot, of Stony Brook University in New York, reviewed Igors Ph.D. He says it contained
original ideas, but claims that it was awarded in part because of Igors contributions to the public
understanding of science. Others have come to harsher conclusions. "They were at best wrong,
and most likely just throwing around words with no calculations or proofs to back them up," says
Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, who has
studied some of the papers.
But Roman Jackiw, a physicist at MIT who reviewed Igors thesis, insists that it is of the requisite
quality. Robert Coquereaux, from the International Centre for Mathematical Meetings in
Marseille, has said that the brotherswork is certainly no better or worse than that of some
established theoretical physicists.
The brothers, who are currently presenting a short television programme in France, insist that
their work is genuine. They say that many critics havent actually read their entire theses, which
are available only in French, and that none of the criticisms made discredits their work. They also
point to referees reports on their theses. Verbaarschot, for example, declared that Igors Ph.D.
"ranks as one of the best I have seen in recent years".
With no clear consensus emerging, the credibility of the peer-review system and journals in string
theory and related areas is taking a battering. Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia
University in New York, says that the incident illustrates the speculative nature of much
theoretical physics. "The Bogdanoffs work is significantly more incoherent than just about
anything else being published," he says. "But the increasingly low standard of coherence in the
whole field is what allowed them to think they were doing something sensible and to get it
published."
On November 9th, Charles Arthur wrote a story for the Independent entitled Did twins doctor up doctorates
with physics buzzwords? Theres nothing much new in this one.
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
5 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
Also on November 9th, Dennis Overbye came out with a story in the New York Times, entitled Are they a)
geniuses or b) jokers? Like the story in Nature, this plays up the idea that physicists cant tell good work from
bad. It contains quotes from various physicists criticizing the Bogdanoffs work, but also quotes defending it -
especially from Daniel Sternheimer and Roman Jackiw. Sternheimer, you will recall, was the thesis advisor for
both the Bogdanoff brothers. Jackiw, a professor of physics at MIT, was one of two rapporteurswho
approved Igor Bogdanoffs thesis. Overbye writes:
Igors thesis had many things Dr. Jackiw didnt 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. Thats 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".
On November 17th, George Johnson wrote an article about the Bogdanoff affair in the New York Times,
concluding that:
As the reverberations from the affair begin to die down, physicists seem to have accepted that
the papers are probably just the result of fuzzy thinking, bad writing and journal referees more
comfortable with correcting typos than challenging thoughts.
Dr. Sokal seemed almost disappointed. "If someone wanted to test a physics journal with an
intentional hoax, Id say, more power to them," he said. "Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander."
The Journals Respond
In the above quote, Johnson put his finger on an important issue: why did at least five journals accept the
Bogdanoffs papers? I have obtained the referees reports on three of the Bogdanoffs papers, which confirms
that indeed, some referees were more interested in correcting minor typos than checking the logic of the
papers. I also have a damningly negative report by another referee who is now willing to come forth publicly:
Eli Hawkins. However, not enough people wrote reports like this to prevent the Bogdanoffs from publishing.
What did the journals say about it all? The Chronicle writes:
Mr. Wilczek is editor in chief of Annals of Physics, which published one of the Bogdanoff
brothers papers in February. But he and all of the current members of the journals editorial
board had recently joined and did not handle papers in that issue. He says that standards at the
journal had slipped in recent years because of the illness and death of a previous editor in chief.
Although he will not comment on the Bogdanoff paper, Mr. Wilczek says he intends to raise the
journals standards. As part of that drive, members of the editorial board now do most of the
reviewing. "Im trying to get much tighter control, just because of things like this," he says,
referring to the Bogdanoff case.
Hermann Nicolai, editor of Classical and Quantum Gravity, told Die Zeit that if the Bogdanoffs paper had
reached his desk, he would have immediately sent it back: "The article is a potpourri of the buzzwords of
modern physics, that is completely incoherent."
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
6 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
Sometime around November 1st, the editorial board of Classical and Quantum Gravity issued the following
statement, which I obtained through Greg Kuperberg:
Classical and Quantum Gravity and the paper "Topological theory of the
initial singularity of spacetime" by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Class.
Quant. Grav. 18 4341-4372 (2001)
A number of our readers have contacted us regarding the above paper
and in response we have decided to issue the following statement.
Classical and Quantum Gravity endeavours to publish original research
of the highest calibre on gravitational physics. It is not possible for the
Editorial Board to consider every article submitted and so, in common
with many journals, we consult among a worldwide pool of over 1000
referees asking two independent experts to review each paper. Regrettably,
despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective.
Thus the paper "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime"
by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18
4341-4372 (2001) made it through the review process even though, in
retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this
journal.
The journal's Editorial Board became aware of this situation already in
April 2002. The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial
Board meeting in September 2002, and there was general agreement that
it should not have been published. Since then several steps have been
taken to further improve the peer review process in order to improve the
quality assessment on articles submitted to the journal and reduce the
likelihood that this could happen again. However, there are at this time
no plans to withdraw the article. Rather, the journal publishes refereed
Comments and Replies by readers and authors as a means to comment
on and correct mistakes in published material.
We are also grateful to our readers, contributors and reviewers for their
vigilance and assistance both before and after publication.
Dr Andrew Wray
Senior Publisher
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Institute of Physics Publishing
Professor Hermann Nicolai
Honorary Editor
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Albert Einstein Institute
What Next?
The Bogdanoff affair seemed to run out of juice at the end of 2002. The scandal it caused in French academia
was dealt with by a committee of professors who wrote a long report... which was then quietly filed away. (I
know this from talking to one of the people who wrote it.) The media lost interest, and that seemed to be the
end.
But more recently, it has reemerged!
In 2003 I received an email from a mysterious "Professor Yang" arguing that the Bogdanoffs work made
sense. This fellow claimed to be from the "International Institute of Mathematical Physics" at Hong Kong
University in Kowloon. I had never heard of him before, so I disregarded his email.
In the summer of 2003 I got an query from Dennis Overbye of the New York Times, saying that hed gotten a
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
7 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
similar email from Professor Yang, and asking me what was up. By sheer chance, I was spending this summer
in Kowloon, Hong Kong! So, I was able to contact Hong Kong University and check that there was no
International Institute of Mathematical Physics at this university, and no "Professor Yang" in their physics
department!
Later, on December 29, 2003, a string theorist named Jacques Distler received a similar email from "Professor
Yang", and was able to trace it back to France! He replied to the mysterious Yang; Yang emailed back, again
from France... and the email was studded with grammatical errors typical of a native French speaker. At this
point, it became fairly clear that Yang was none other than the Bogdanoffs in disguise! You can read all the
details on Distlers web log.
The mathematician Peter Woit also got an email from the mysterious Yang on December 29, 2003. He later
discussed it on his web log, pointing out the rather obvious evidence that it came from France. He got another
email from one "Roland Schwartz", defending the Bogdanoffs, which he traced back to the same source.
Even better, on June 27, 2004 Woit noticed that the Bogdanoffs had set up a website purporting to belong to a
Mathematical Center of Riemannian Cosmology, with a Latvian URL! This presumably nonexistent "center"
claims to be devoted to research on the Bogdanoff work. You can read more about it on Woits web log.
Why are the Bogdanoffs struggling to redeem their reputation by such underhanded yet comically inept
methods? Are they just jokers?
No, not just jokers. They are still doing some TV shows in France, and they have come out with a book, Avant
le Big Bang - or "Before the Big Bang" in French. Its full of silly errors, some which have been listed by Y.
B. Messager. But, it seems to be selling quite well!
So, the brothers Bogdanoff may be managing to make money from their minor reputation as experts in
France. That would explain a lot.
Still More
In February of 2005, Jean-Pierre Messager sent me the following news:
I noticed you updated your "Bogdanoff page" here is some news about this affair in France:
At the beginning of January, Igor & Grichka Bodanov sued the popular science magazine
"Ciel et Espace" who published in October 04 a very documented paper about La
mystification des Bogdanov.
In several French speaking forums, two mathematicians specialized in quantum groups and
a physicist specialized in cosmology began to talk with Igor on the actual content of their
thesis. You can guess the result: all of them, even if quite open-minded at the beginning of
the discussion, arrived at the conclusion that the Bogdanovs work is of no value.
Regards, JP. Messager
The cosmologist is Alain Riazuelo; he wrote a lot of comments about the Bogdanoffs stuff, most of which can
be seen on a French mathematics forum hosted by the University of Strasbourg. The mathematicians include
Damien Calaque, and their comments can be found on another forum.
In October 2010, the CNRS report on the Bogdanov brotherstheses the one that had been "quietly filed
away" came to light. The weekly called Marianne found it somehow:
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
8 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
first 8 pages
appendices
last page
For more details see Peter Woits Bogdanov Update dated October 18th, 2010.
The Wikipedia Article
There is an excellent Wikipedia article on the Bogdanoff Affair.
For quite some time, and as recently as June 2006, the Bogdanoff brothers and a large crowd of sock puppets
have been attempting to edit this article to make it less embarrassing to them. For details, see the talk page.
Nobody seems to be fooled....
Decide For Yourself
If you wish to judge the Bogdanoffs work for yourself, there is nothing to do but master the necessary physics
and read what they have written. Their theses are available in PDF format online - at least for now:
Igor Bogdanoff, Etat topologique de lespace temps a echelle 0. (Topological state of spacetime at scale
0.)
Grichka Bogdanoff, Fluctuations quantiques de la signature de la metrique a lechelle de Planck.
(Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck scale.)
The Bogdanoffs theses are in French, but there are English versions of the abstracts. Heres the abstract of
Igor Bogdanoffs thesis:
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
beta = 0
= Tr (-1)
s
, which we call the "singularity invariant".
Interestingly, this invariant corresponds also to the invariant topological current yielded 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.
Heres the abstract of Grichka Bogdanoffs thesis:
We propose hereafter that the signature of the Space-Time metric (+++-) is not anymore frozen
at the Planck scale and presents quantum fluctuations (++++/-) until 0 scale where it becomes
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
9 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49
Euclidean (++++). (i) At the albraic level we suggest an oscillation path (3,1) (4,0) excluding
(2,2). We built the quotient topological space describing the superposition of the Lorentzian and
the Riemanian metrics. In terms of quantum groups we evidence a relation between
q-deformation and deformation of the signature. We have obtained a new algebraic construction
(a new cocycle bicrossproducts by twisting) which allowed us to unify the Lorentzian and the
Euclidean signatures within a unique quantum group structure. Moreover the q-deformation of
space-time shows that the natural structures of q-Minkowski and q-Riemanian spaces are linked
by semiduality. (ii) Regarding the physical motivations we suggest that at the Planck Scale the
Space-Time is in KMS state. Within the limits of the KMS holomorph strip, the beta timelike
parameter is complex. We propose an extension of relativistic gravity which begins at the Planck
Scale with the Lagrangian R + R
2
+ RR*. Then, the infrared limit of the theory is given at the
Planck Scale by the Einstein term in R and corresponds to the Lorentzian metric while the
ultraviolet limit is given at beta=0 scale by the topological term RR* and corresponds to the
Euclidean metric ( topological sector). We propose a duality between instantons and monopoles
in 4 dimensions giving a representation of the superposition of the metrics. (iii) On the
cosmological plan we suggest to describe the Initial Singularity of Space Time by a topological
invariant I(S) = Tr(-1)
S
which is analog to the first Donaldson invariant. The initial singularity
must be considered as a singular 0-size gravitational instanton. The physical observables are
therefore replaced by cycles of homology in the moduli space of gravitational Instantons. We
propose a conjecture regarding the existence of a topological amplitude associated to a
"topological expansion phase" which preceeds the classical cosmological expansion. This
topological phase is also able to be described by the flow of weights of the II* hyperfinite factor
type corresponding to the beta=0 initial singularity.
The papers by Grichka and Igor Bogdanoff include:
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime,
Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale,
Annals of Physics, 296 (2002), 90-97.
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, KMS space-time at the Planck scale, Nuovo Cimento, 117B
(2002) 417-424.
Igor Bogdanoff, Topological origin of inertia, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.
Igor Bogdanoff, The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale, Chinese Journal of Physics, 40
(2002).
I have looked at all these papers. It is interesting to note that the Annals of Physics paper is almost identical to
the Nuovo Cimento paper, and the Chinese Journal of Physics paper is also very similar to these two.
2010 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
home
The Bogdanoff Affair http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
10 de 10 03/05/2014 6:49