Dear
Ark,
I
congratulated [Robert Coquereaux] for being one of the few who have
healthy views about this "storm in a teacup". I agree with his statement
and conclusion...
In
my opinion, [the Bogdanov brothers] genuinely believe in what they
are doing. They were "wunderkinds", with an extremely high IQ, but
they have a hard time understanding that they are not the "Einstein
Bros." and that, in our diversified society, no talent is universal.
Their
real talent is in popularization of science: they understand a lot,
can even contribute to the scientific advances in interaction with
others, but it is very hard for them to write papers in one of the
styles accepted by the [scientific] communities. That is their curse,
because they have (for unrelated reasons) enemies who want to bar
them from popularization using any means, including finding people
who (often naively, sometimes because they feel that the twins'
style exposes too much the weaknesses of too many works in physics,
or a combination of this and more, including following rumors spead)
use the imperfections in formulation to disqualify the twins' original
ideas instead of looking seriously at these ideas.
On
the mathematical side, when they have a vague idea, it is possible
with a lot of effort to make them (especially Grichka) write a small
precise paper (and even then, in the last moment they may add what
they think is a brilliant remark, but which is not so related to
the remainder and can be badly formulated). That is what Majid has
done, and that is an achievement. You seem to be trying to do the
same with your discussion on the web: it is possible, because they
have a point, but it is very difficult.
On
the physical side, they have read a lot, understand in broad lines
a lot, do get from it a somewhat original point of view, can even
bring in new ideas, and can (especially Grichka) talk about it in
a fascinating manner, at almost any level. That is their talent.
Writing is an other thing. Their style is impressionistic.
In
mathematics, a precise painting, or a photograph, are required.
Sometimes the picture is slightly blurred, but then someone else
can come to the same place and correct it -- once the place is discovered.
I know of two Fields medallists, among the best, in that category.
In
physics, the picture is often, for a mathematician, surrealistic.
Some very good mathematical physicists can make it precise, but
it requires a lot of effort and a long time. If there is a solid
physical intuition behind it, the result can eventually make sense.
The Dirac "delta function" is a very good (albeit elementary) example.
Their
natural tendency is an impressionistic style, which is the best
for popularization of science. You do not look at a picture by Sisley
from a distance of 20cm, but from 2m it makes sense and conveys
the impression. Then someone else can come and translate that impression
in a more conventional style.
The
[Bogdanov's] contribution to science can be looked at in the same
manner. That is why they impress so many good physicists with their
ideas and points of view. But one should not pick on the impreciseness
of some details, even if the devil is there. Rather, one should
try to understand what they mean and write it in a more conventional
way. Many good scientists (even mathematicians) proceed in this
way, like a sculptor: first a rough "ébauche", then a more
precise rendering, and usually (but not always, especially in modern
art) a fantastic masterpiece.
Unless
someone else takes a lot of time with them, they stop at the first
stage, what for others is an ébauche. Why not consider that
as a new form of modern division of research work? Others should
be inspired from what can be understood from the twins' writings
and (especially) orally expressed ideas, and bring that into a more
conventional form. Picking on what for a humanities thesis is a
misplaced comma or rather abundant misspellings, does not contribute
to the progress of science. Getting new ideas out of that does.
As
to the formal (Ph.D.) issue, my role was more that of a Journal
Editor. I understand the general ideas underlying their works. I
find them a valid attempt towards a progress in science, even if
I am not convinced that it is THE solution, assuming there is one.
The
mathematical part of Grichka's thesis in itself is worth the rarely
given passing mark ("mention honorable") he got, even more so if
one takes into account the physical motivations. As to Igor, I relied
on the community of physicists. He has a point. If referees in reputable
journals consider his developments worth publication and if two
external distinguished scientists sign reports that there is enough
for a Ph.D., why should I be "more papist than the pope" and bar
him from getting a degree he could get for the same work in a number
of universities? (Not in France, because of the axiom that some
of their enemies have spread, that the twins are charlatans, and
because they never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the
foot.)
In view of the imprecisenesses, I insisted on the same mark (passing)
as Grichka. So did Simonoff, the Jury chair, who knows them for
many years and was their first supervisor -- and already in 1991/92
got pressures, which also went to Bordeaux I university to deny
them renewal of registration. Simonoff can confirm that point, and
I remember the facts because that is how Moshe and Dijon came in.
Moshe felt that this was unacceptable a priori censorship,
almost a witch hunt. What follows is a natural corollary, for honest
independent people.
Good
luck in your endeavour! I appreciate the effort, but maybe you should
wait until you come to France to finish the work with the twins.
It requires many face to face discussions, and they are as stubborn
as a Cadet de Gascogne can be.
Best,
Daniel
