Igor and Grichka, the Bogdanov brothers and their amazing math and physic thesis

Since years I know about 2 guys from France originaly from estearn Europe, called the Bogdanov (Bogdanoff) brothers who are know among other things they have done to have made 2 scientifics thesis. One brother wrote one thesis about a research subject in maths while the other did something about physics (using the maths from his brother thesis it seems).
In France since they used to be TV presentator many people joked about them and their "so called scientific work" and criticize/tried to ridiculize them but in the meantime some people of the scientific community defended them.

Some people including the Bogdanov brothers themselves started to talked about a "cabala"/conspiracy against their scientific work /doctorate thesis and it seems that in the (not so) quiet scientific community of maths and physics researchers the 2 brothers have been a subject of agitated discussion and many controverses.

In the meantime this is understandable since their both thesis were very ambitious and proposed to explain and somehow "calculate" the world BEFORE the big bang , and before it went beyond what is called the "Planck wall".
Implications of those theories seems to be HUGE, among them: unification theory between macro and micro cosmos, big bang origins, etc

Among the scientists concerned it seems there is a lot of controversy and divergent opinion about those 2 guys, Im just supprised no one ever talked about them on ATS so far.


For those interested here is the story about this :

en.wikipedia.org... (english)
fr.wikipedia.org... (french)


And the 2 thesis of the brothers from french university website (in french) :

tel.archives-ouvertes.fr...
tel.archives-ouvertes.fr...

What you guys on ATS think ? Any (serious) scientific dude on ATS having a opinion ?

(I would suggest to put this thread in "Science & Technology" but i'm only able to post it in "Introduction", sorry about that)

I remember reading about them a few years ago. You know them personally? And yes, there is a serious problem in academia generally. You must not threaten to upset the status quo with your work.

About a decade ago, I helped a friend write the dissertation for his Ph.D. We had to rewrite so many parts so many times just to get it to defense that it was completely absurd! I know that's fairly normal, but this was essentially sociology. Nothing particularly earth-shattering. The point is that you cannot upset the establishment. You can't knock a brick out of the wall of "knowledge".

It's not knowledge anymore. It's simply toeing the party line.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
I remember reading about them a few years ago. You know them personally? And yes, there is a serious problem in academia generally. You must not threaten to upset the status quo with your work.

About a decade ago, I helped a friend write the dissertation for his Ph.D. We had to rewrite so many parts so many times just to get it to defense that it was completely absurd! I know that's fairly normal, but this was essentially sociology. Nothing particularly earth-shattering. The point is that you cannot upset the establishment. You can't knock a brick out of the wall of "knowledge".

It's not knowledge anymore. It's simply toeing the party line.

It is not knowledge. It is information. Information does not always have to be true.

The difference is information can be "downloaded" and shared. Knowledge must be discovered. That is why the way people are taught is all wrong. You cannot stand there and tell people what they need to know. You have to let them discover it.

Otherwise it ends up forgotten....which makes it information. Information is the stuff of the universe, and prone to entropy (being forgotten). Knowledge is of the mind, and not of the universe. it resists entropy.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
I remember reading about them a few years ago. You know them personally? And yes, there is a serious problem in academia generally. You must not threaten to upset the status quo with your work.

About a decade ago, I helped a friend write the dissertation for his Ph.D. We had to rewrite so many parts so many times just to get it to defense that it was completely absurd! I know that's fairly normal, but this was essentially sociology. Nothing particularly earth-shattering. The point is that you cannot upset the establishment. You can't knock a brick out of the wall of "knowledge".

It's not knowledge anymore. It's simply toeing the party line.

What? If academia was about "not threatening to upset the status quo" or "simply toeing the party line" we'd still be banging rocks together. Do you have any proof of these claims, other than the wounded musings of people who have had their work rejected?

reply to post by john_bmth


Their work was not rejected.

Umm...did you miss my point? You cannot *challenge* the status quo of *acedemia* or they get their knickers in a twist. You have to add a brick to the pile, you cannot threaten the stability of what is "known".

When did you do your defence then? And why so hostile?