rainbow
A once in a lifetime event

rainbow


Imagine that you have just published a paper with a damning criticism of the work of a number of fellow scientists. You have shown that a technique "believed" [sic!] since 2002 to always yield correct and unique abundance maps of Ap stars is quite unreliable. You have given 10 test examples with output maps that do not resemble the input maps, you have demonstrated that published results are in contradiction with basic astrophysics, you have clearly stated that the primitive regularisation functions in the inversions employed up to the present day do not reflect the physical reality of the atmosphere of magnetic stars.

Would you not expect the people concerned to try to defend their work over the last 14 years and their profitable business model by exposing the fallacy of your arguments? Would these people not take one or more of your test examples and with the help of their allegedly vastly superior codes derive convincing maps that faithfully recover the input data? Would they not attempt everything to ridicule every single point of your criticism?

Well, for the first time in my scientific life (I finished my thesis in 1971 and retired in 2013) this did not happen. Oleg Kochukhov who stands behind all Zeeman Doppler mapping of Ap stars with his INVERS family of codes (extensively used, among others, by Th. Lueftinger) is actually unreservedly validating my results by not attacking even a single claim I make in my papers published by the MNRAS and by the ApJ.

       https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05473

In my papers, I discuss the difficulties arising from single-line inversions, O.K. "counters" with 7 lines. I show that asymmetric spots with complex internal structure cannot be recovered, O.K. again "counters" with perfectly symmetric spots. I show that it is not easy to discover warped rings arising from diffusion in non-axisymmetric magnetic fields, O.K. "counters" with a ring following strictly a meridian of the star. I point out that the insanely high abundances derived for HD3980 by Nesvacil, Lueftinger et al. (2012) are incompatible with physics, O.K. "counters" by not entering this argument. To put it succinctly, not with a single word does he deal with my results.

In other words, not only does O.K. not refer to my paper put on ArXiv.org in April 2017,

       https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06960

nor does he cite the papers published by MNRAS and by ApJ (I had provided preprints for the entire ZDM community), but he leaves all of my 10 examples where ZDM fails untouched and undisputed.

Could there ever be a more complete vindication of my results when it is the critisised person himself who accepts my findings in their entirety? My heartfelt thanks go to Oleg Kochukhov for his admission that my assessment of ZDM is realistic, that a lot of his claims in the past were premature and that his "belief" in the powers of his INVERS codes professed in 2002 was misplaced.


return Back to the Ada in Astrophysics Homepage