Food for Thought: A Few Recent arXiv Papers

arXiv

Before I wrote and published my preliminary QM papers in 2005 [^], I had done an extensive literature search, just to make sure that the sort of things that I was proposing had not already been published. arXiv.org came in especially handy because in physical sciences, it’s almost become a norm by now to dump one preprint over there even as the journal publication process continues.

In the past, I have written about how I used to be “followed up” in media, and also otherwise.  (…It still continues, but to a far lesser extent. It began lessening after the change of power at the Center (in India) in 2004, and esp. noticeably so, once the India-USA civilian nuclear deal went through.) But back in 2005 times and thereabouts, the “follow up” was still very much in force.

… Also, I had noticed a funny thing. The titles and contents of the submissions at arXiv would often seem to “talk” to each other. … I mean, if someone put a paper touching on an aether-based model, someone else just had to come and put his paper denying aether, and so on and so forth…

So, from around 2004 (roughly, my PhD registration) to about Oct 2009, I had made a habit of going over all the paper submissions in the “quant-ph” and “physics” categories at the arXiv.org.

I would go over each title, and if anything sounded related to my work by any stretch of imagination, I would make sure to go through the abstract and then, if necessary, also through the full paper. … As a rought estimate, I would go through the abstracts for about 25-30% of all the papers in the above two categories. Typically, I would end up downloading at least 25 papers each week, though most would be discarded. … I would do all of this just to be reasonably sure that my claims of novelty were meaningful, and of course, also to glean what other people were thinking on the same or related issues.

With my Ph.D. defense, I could sigh in relief… I mean I didn’t have that anxiety any more…

All in all, during this time—2004 through most of 2009—I spotted quite a few papers that were really interesting (to me). I would certainly like to share what these papers are, at some point in time. But it just so happens that all those downloads are now scattered in various directories and sub-directories on three separate HDDs of my home machines, and so, it’s going to be a big task by itself to collect all those interesting papers together… I definitely plan to do so one of these days but other things keep taking precedence.

Anyway, so… even if the defense is now over, I still have this habit of visiting arXiv every now and then (though I don’t go over each and every submission these days).

A Couple of Recent Articles

Last week or so, I found two interesting articles that provide good food for thought, and would like to share these with you.

One of these is: Dragoljub A. Cucic,  “Types of paradox in physics,” arXiv:0912.1864v1 [^]. It’s a very comprehensive kind of article. Impressed, I did an author search on Cucic, and found a few more papers on this topic by him [^].

The other article I have in mind is: Franco Bagnoli, “From Newton to cellular automata,” arXiv:0912.2056v1 [^]. Again, the scope of this article is just wonderfully wide, even though the writing tends to be a bit too terse at places. But Bagnoli compensates for this by including a neat “concept map.”

Both the papers are easily accessible even to undergraduates. Both provide enormous food for thought.

Indeed, I already find myself wondering if I should write an article or two addressing one or two of the many paradoxes that Cucic lists.

And, I cannot thank Bagnoli enough for providing a kind of “white paper” material that was so badly needed in explaining to other researchers (not just to laymen) just what kind of research ideas and methods I seem to be pursuing and how these differ from those in the typical PhD researches, esp. those from the engineering sciences. It helps explain why there is this  general (and pretty vague) impression to the effect that there is not enough “maths” or “rigour” in my research or in my papers… Bagnoli helps point out the why of it…

I might even write an informal article showing what kind of maths it will look like if an artificial attempt is made to mathematicize these ideas at any cost, using only the classical or traditional way of putting maths… [I would write such an article anyway but especially so if some renowned scientist/mathematician has problems accepting my research otherwise and so asks me to do so [as I had indicated in my last post (just below).]

Anyway, do go over these articles, and if you wish to share a comment or two, feel free to write.  [I also plan to start a thread at iMechanica for discussing these papers.]

- – - – -

Two Songs I Like [more or less at random]

1. (Hindi) “hawaon pe likh do, hawaon ke naam…”
Singer: Kishore Kumar
Lyrics: Gulzar
Music: Hemant Kumar

2. (Marathi) “maanasichaa chitrakaar to…”
Singer: Hridaynath Mangeshkar
Music: Vasant Prabhu (?)
Lyrics: P. Savalaram (?)

[Somewhat] Scientific, [Somewhat] Latest

Infosys Science Foundation Awards:

ISF announced the “Laureates” for their first year recently[^].

Kapil Sibbal himself was roped in to make the announcement for the prizes. He did this via video conferencing while sitting in Delhi. However, a section of the press took care to make it look as if he was physically present in Infosys’ Bangalore campus to make this announcement. (The same section of the press also did not highlight the way in which Sibbal welcomed the idea: he touched upon the existence of the prizes in S&T that government doles out, then touched upon the need for the private sector to come forward, and then welcomed the idea of the ISF awards. )

Notably, no prize was awarded in the “Engineering and Computer Science” category right in the first year. Since the composition of the Jury for this category seemed impeccable [it has Prof. Subra Suresh as Chairman and Prof. C. F. Shih and Dr. R. Mashelkar among other members], the initial reaction that the absence of the prize generated was tilted towards something like: “They [or We] really don’t do absolutely frontline and world-class  research in the field of engineering in India.”

Now, it’s a no brainer as to precisely whom the absence of the prizes might rub the wrong way: professors at IITs and the IISc.

However, with Sibbal making the announcement, it also was a no-brainer as to who would not be found talking openly about it: professors at IITs. Naturally, the only people who could have expressed surprise at the decision could have been: (i) PhD students abroad (they still have some sense of some connection with Indian S & T), and, (ii) possibly, someone from the IISc, if at all.

Abi (i.e. Prof. T. A. Abinandanan of IISc Materials dept. [^]) posted an entry at his blog “nanopolitan”, pointing out the sort of contradictions that are inherent a decision of this kind. He did it in a humorous way: he himself awarded a Grand Prize and a citation to the Jury, for their “moronic” decision[^]. … This post of his came to my attention and, very naturally, I loved it! The most surprising part was to find some academic/intellectual from Bangalore talk against anything to do with Infosys as such. My comment appears at # 26 at Abi’s blog [^]; the same is also reproduced below.

Quote:

Abi,

I am happy that there is at least one academic and/or intellectual from Bangalore who is critical of something—anything—to do with Infosys. … My impression was that people from Bangalore, esp. those from the IISc, are always appreciative of anything that Infosys chooses to throw at them in particular and at Indians in general. (Until very recent times, exactly the same could be said for the English-speaking people from Bombay, the IIT Bombay, and the Tatas, respectively.) So, congratulations are due to you!

I am not sure I know what either the Jury or the ISF were looking for, in the engineering category. But looking at the prize-winners from the other categories, one *can* make a blanket statement that ISF could easily have found people of similar track record—a similar quality of research and having a similar record of the received past adorations—in the engineering category too. Quite easily.

I intend to post something more on these prizes at my own blog pretty soon, but here, let me jump ahead and say that if anyone finds Paddy (Prof. Padmanabhan) worthy of a prize like this, there really is no rhyme or reason why they cannot find a Manindra Agarwal (IIT Kanpur) or a Vivek Ranade (NCL) worthy of a similar prize in the engineering category. … I mean don’t miss my point…

My point is (and more on this at my blog): neither Agarwal nor Ranade has produced truly outstanding work. (Ditto for many other Indian engineers.) But then, my point is: neither has our sweet *Paddy*! And, otherwise, they *all* have been very much adored to a more or less equal extent in the past…

I mean, if this is going to be a *ramp walk* of sorts—and that’s what they seem to be doing, going by some of their choices for the other categories—then why leave poor engineers out of it?

That’s my point.

Anyway, good to find someone take a position against either N. Murthy, grossly over-rated himself IMHO or Infosys. And I don’t have to say that Infosys, as an organization, are grossly over-rated: they themselves tell you loudly that they are proud of their own HR policies whereby brilliant engineers (defined as 75%+ and/or rankers and/or IIT engineers and/or similar) are asked to sit at home earning nothing (because even if they join, Infy anticipates them to leave early) whereas the somewhat above-average lot gets not only jobs in Infy but also handsome salary and perks. [And the lawmakers and governments *abroad* praise N.M. & Infy for having achieved *this* for them!]

Enough! Bye!

–Ajit

Unquote.

This comment itself further spawned a few Internet-quality comments at Abi’s blog; read them in original there.

Of course, I recognize that the content of my comment is controversial. And, I did not provide any justification for it there. … Therefore, here, I would like to point out a few things that go towards explaining my position or justifying why I said the way I did.

The first question to raise in order to justify my take on the matter is not:

“What is so bad/poor/unworthy of this prize in the work of, say, Prof. Padmanabhan, or Dr. Banerjee, or so.”

The first question which I actually had asked myself before coming to my position was this:

“What is it that the Infosys “Laureates” (or others) should have accomplished already before I could have looked up to their work as being truly outstanding and worthy of a science foundation prize like this?”

Given below is a list by way of an answer:

Prof. Manindra Agarwal:

If he were to be able to think of a solution—or at least a scheme or a definite argument for a solution—to the P vs NP problem, and if he were to also dare to publish it (even if only at a conference or at an invited talk), then I would consider it truly outstanding.

Remember, proving that computing the “pi” value is in P itself is a good work, very good, indeed. But what use is an algorithm or a result that does not actually reduce the computatioal cost? I mean, even if something is in P, it can still be a long computational effort!

Dr. Vivek Ranade:

He graduated from the UDCT (now UICT). He joined the NCL. He was nominated for, and received, fellowship in Europe. He remained with NCL. Dr. Mashelkar was DG of CSIR. He was nominated for, and received, the Bhatnagar award. Ok. [These days, he is on the board of a CFD services company even while continuing with NCL. Take it as an appreciation or a criticism, but this is a fact the last time I checked his profile out.]

Is his work comparable to, say, Patankar’s SIMPLE algorithm—a path-breaker of sorts? If not, am I not justifying that Ranade’s work is not truly outstanding (even if he could have been awarded the prize if even Paddy could get one)?

[BTW, this is not personal. Suhas Patankar did not bother to reply my email when I had written him one as a PhD student at COEP---to him and to Dr. Sparrow. Neither reciprocated. So, the inclusion of Patankar does not mean I have some good relations with him. I actually don't! Also not with Thomas Kailath---who hasn't bothered replying my email.]

Prof. Banerjee, Laureate (Economics):

Can he solve the problem I posed Swami in my last post (see immediatley below). I think not. Can he at all think of it as a valid economic query? I think not even that much—it just doesn’t fit the informal agendas of people like him (or of the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen). The question I raised—is it a basic and simple issue pertaining to his field of specialty? Yes. Does this laureate have anything illuminating by way of an answer, or anything comparable by way of  clarity in whatever research work that he does publish? Answer: No! … Now answer me, why should he get a “purse” containing roughly $100,000/- (not much, if you ask me, for Infosys’ budget.)

Prof. Upinder Singh, Laureate (History)

Ask her to take up and answer this simple question: How old is the Indian civilization, according to the best of her  knowledge and expertise, and also the methods and the tools used in acquiring them—including, possibly, Reason.

Is this not a basic and a simple question pertaining to her speciality? Can she answer it without also being ridiculous/humorous in her reply? … Note, many Hindutva/BJP+ people will tell you a figure that runs into lakhs and crores of years… But such people will themselves tell you that the matter is to be accepted on Faith—not understood and settled via a process of Reason. Does she have an answer to the above question—an answer that she thinks is rational and which also is not outright humorous (or insulting to the intelligence of) a school-going kid? If not, why consider her a truly outstanding achiever of her stated field?

(I could come up with some other questions for her field too… But why should I exercise and tax my brain for her—i.e. if it’s she who is going to take home all that prize money?)

Prof. Thanu Padmanabhan, Laureate (Physical Sciences):

His case is simple, very simple, just like Ranade’s (who did not get the award).

Paddy did his PhD from TIFR; followed Jayant [Narlikar]’s lead to Cambridge; followed Jayant to IUCAA; was nominated for, and received, a Padma Shri, as against the earlier generation’s Jayant’s Padma’s (Bhushan in young age, followed by a Vibhushan later on); was nominated for, and received, the ISF award (with Jayant on the Jury).

A question for Paddy? … Hmmm… It’s physical science we are talking about, right? Physics! Like, QM!!

My experience with Paddy re. QM (and I myself do have publications on this subject—the basics of quantum physics—even though no one reads or comments on them despite the controversial nature of the topic dealt with)  is that just like Jayant, Paddy, too, declined my request to informally discuss my research with him. The difference is this: Jayant cited a lack of time. It was in 2002/3 (way before I published my findings), but he did forward my request to use their library, to the Librarian of IUCAA as the then Director. Thanu (i.e. Paddy’s actual first name), being junior, has yet to pick up all the tricks; he is not so suave as Jayant is. Also, perhaps not so lucky. (Jayant is now retired, but Paddy still has decades ahead… and with me as a contemporary.)  I requested audience with Paddy after the publication of my QM papers. Thanu actually met me, but then proceeded to tell a lie to me right while sitting across his official table in IUCAA (funded by my tax-payer’s money). Thanu (i.e. Paddy) said: he did not know QM. … Not even the basic QM. Not even the single-particle double-slit interference experiment. And so, he could not discuss the matter with me.

Thanu said that lie directly to my face, keeping an absolutely straight, nay, even a sincere-looking face; he could put even seasoned politicians to shame in this particular skill. (Let him publicly deny this. And, his lie—the last time I checked, Thanu had finished authoring yet another book, this time directly touching QM.)

So, my question to this “world-acclaimed” researcher, a friend of Jayant’s (and you know the cohort: Ashtekar, Srinivas Kulkarni,…), as well as to all of them (appearing in this line) is: Pick up any basic topic of QM. (I will not insist which one it is to be.) And explain it without contradicting the evidence and without being humorous, i.e. without offending the common-sense. Or, simpler: Point out a mistake in my reasoning, my argument, my method, my approach concerning QM.

Can you do it, Paddy? (And, how about you, Jayant?) If not, why run after all that “maNi,” Paddy? (How about you, Jayant? And if you want, I can always pose the specifically mathematical aspects of my research, for you to ponder over and answer. Just let me know—drop me an email. (The offer is, as of today, open only to Padma- and/or Bhatnagar-winners and similar—not to anonymous entities found on the Internet.)

Another point. Paddy lied about QM the way he did, right? God knows whether what I am going to write next is true or not. But the fact is, my published QM papers do not talk specifically about angular momentum—they only give an outline and so talk only about momentum. An essay that Paddy/Thanu wrote just a while after our meeting [and I forgot whether it was for Current Science or Resonance or so] highlighted precisely the quantum angular momentum in particular. … Nice going, eh, Paddy? Getting adulated for “popularization of science,” “spreading the awareness about science,” all in India, for Indians (even in Marathi, as far as Jayant’s case goes.) And then, refusing meetings. And, despite that, getting all the “maNi” that kind Infoscions bestow… Must be a very nice going, Paddy (and Jayant), right?

More on such people—esp. the physicists from India—later!

- – - – -

Not Hired at the International Institute of Information Technology, Pune

I applied for the 3-rd time in the past five years for a job with Dr. Vijay Bhatkar’s I2IT [^].  However, this time round, I could actually meet with Dr. Bhatkar. He asked me to send him a document detailing the courses that I could take for them. Then, he went to the USA alongwith Kapil Sibbal. It was precisely during that time that a 30 minute presentation and the interview was arranged for me at I2IT. Curiously, students were kept out of the presentation and it occurred inside a stuffy, small conference room. The reaction to my research ideas ranged from mild antipathy [from a CFD researcher] to outright hostility [from a QM-nano-specialist who doesn't publish on QM, doesn't have a PhD, doesn't have manners, but is dear to I2IT and, apparently, also to Dr. Bhatkar], to indifference [but this being honest, I have no issues with those particular people]. Naturally, I was rejected. I then wrote an SMS and an email to Dr. Bhatkar requesting a second audience to discuss the manner in which I was rejected…. I am still looking forward to receiving a reply from him. Mr. Prataprao Pawar, a question for you: Should I, or should I not, get angry at this incidence and this manner of dealing with a job application? [It was Prataprao Pawar who had arranged my meeting with Dr. Bhatkar in the first place. I had gone to Pawar to say thanks for his past help in dealing with the bureaucracy at COEP at the time of my PhD registration.... Oh, BTW, keep in mind that Prataprao Pawar's phone call did not translate into a job at I2IT for me---apparently, "media moghul" and "politicians" are, after all, not as efficacious as what many scribes (and Internet personalities) seem to assume---I mean, I still actually remain out  of that job at I^2IT, don't I?... Probably, after this post, Prataprao is not going to make even that one call for me in future the way he did now! [LOL!]]

- – - – -

A Song I Like: (more or less at random)

(Marathi) “veL jhaali bhar maadhyaanha…”
Singer: Usha Mangeshkar

- – - – -

PS: I might streamline this write-up a bit later on, within a few days. … The points will remain the same, but I tend to be iterative in my expression, esp. in English. (Even in s/w dev., I tend to be more iterative in crystallizing my design decisions than others.) … So, I might improve the write-up a bit, later on.

[Mostly] Political, [Mostly] Latest

Here are a few (almost) random points…

1. Economics:
Can Swami (of Swaminomics) explain to me in simple enough terms the following phenomena:
1.1 If, at the most basic level, stock investments are done by keeping in view the earnings through dividends, how come Bajaj Auto shares used to be traded at more than 100 times or so during Indira Gandhi’s rule?
1.2 Similarly, for the other cases, in today’s context.
1.3 Clarification: I am not for greater control to rectify the situation.
1.4 There is a dominant streak of pragmatism in every “pro-business” “defence” which I would rather someone exposed—without proposing more government interventions.
1.5 Indeed, I think the extent that the market is overpriced precisely serves to reveal the extent of the government intervention in economy.
More on economics, later… I have an idea for modeling of certain kind of basic economic issues.

2. Sathya Sai Baba:

So much has been written about him that his case has thrust itself into being a curiosity for me for quite some time. … I wouldn’t mind visiting his Puttaparthi ashram (or some place similar) provided he can talk to me on a 1:1 basis. And it would be OK even if this occurs in front of thousands or lakhs; I hardly care for that aspect. But should his weighty followers and he himself at all come to thinking of allowing this to happen, here are the opinions (or the “baggage”) with which I would go to him:
2.1 First and foremost, I don’t believe that he is a reincarnation of the Sai Baba of Shirdi, full-stop. From what I have read of the original Sai Baba, this claim is a complete impossibility—regardless of whether Hirabai Badodekar (and the then Rashtrapati Bhavan) agree with my assessment or not, and whether APJ Abdul Kalam, Shankarro Chavan, Ashok Chavan, Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar, Jayant Patil, Sonu Nigam, Sachin Tendulkar, Suchitra Krishnamurthy agree with me or not.
2.2 I don’t agree with his critics that all he is can be reduced to a few magicians’ tricks. (And, I don’t concern myself with everything that has ever been written, said, or suspected about him on the Internet or on the BBC.)
2.3 He might have some spiritual powers and he could possibly be using it in a way that his followers feel blessed, or at least, relaxed. … Not enough of a reason to take his claim of being Shirdi’s Sai Baba very seriously.
2.4 I am not a materialist in the tradition of the so-called “rationalists” of India (the leftists and left-leaning intellectuals included).
2.5 He shouldn’t expect me to even bow down to him as a precondition of my meeting with him. If he can meet me, as I said, one-to-one, I am eager to talk to him. It won’t take even five minutes for me to place him better (than what I have above) in a personal meeting.
2.6 And, oh yes, I wouldn’t at all mind bowing to him in a manner befitting his place should he want to see me. The point is: He should not mistake my physical bowing with anything else—esp., my acceptance of all his ideas and all his claims—that’s all. Indeed, I would be very neat, just like all his followers, should I go and see him.

3. Indira Gandhi
It’s remarkable that post-Vajpayee years, remembering her is, on the whole, a subdued affair. … I mean I didn’t see full-page photos in the newspapers, and there weren’t huge cut-outs towering over buildings either… All this was welcome, in a way. After all, there still is a huge gap left between remembering her and remembering Lal Bahadur Shastri.

And, BTW, I really can’t remember her without also remembering Durgabai Bhagwat—the real iron lady between the two, if you ask me. … Again, it’s not that I agree with every position that Bhagwatbai ever took in her life…  [And, is issuing such clarifications really necessary?] But, as far as I am concerned, Bhagwat’s principled defence of Freedom during those difficult years of Emergecy was enough for me to conclude that this, in fact, was actually the case….

And, indeed, what quote could they at all find to bring out the supposed “greatness” of Indira in those recent newspaper ads? If you read through it, it’s plain and obvious that such quotes could fit in the mouth of any third-class dictator in any of the third-world countries—all that the speech-writer would need to have is some education in one of those Christian missionary schools, and he would be well on his way to utter what Indira Gandhi, we were especially seriously reminded, did!

Which brings me to another sub-point: Has Barkha Dutt lost her original fire these days? … First, there was this change of the mix of topics as soon as they had that deal with MSNBC or NBC or so. That, by itself was bad already…  I mean, Barkha would get the heat up on some topic, and suddenly that entire topic of discussion would get mixed quite incongruously (and in following with all the worst trends of the Tame Americans) with some other topic that was decidedly luke-warm. (Luke-warm, mind you. Not cold.) … And then, in such a process, the whole tempo of that hot topic would be entirely lost. Plus, they also  reduced the time spent actually debating—not just the content but also the format… All this was bad by itself… But then, esp. since her becoming a Padmashree or so, this lady seems to have lost that fire to confront the government uncomfortably that she used to have. … Or is it the case that she was a Congresswoman in disguise all the time, and that we saw that side of hers only because BJP+ was in power? Any thoughts, Barkha?…

Not that she should be the hanging point for all our worries… That’s not the idea here. If she is tired or bored out of fighting it out, she is entitled to a rest… But then, the decent way to do this is to retire from all that debating—not to dilute it to the extent that one doesn’t even feel like turning the TV on Sunday evening at 8 PM…

- – - – -

Some of the songs that I like:

(Hindi) “yehi woh jagah hai, yehi woh fizayen..”
Singer: Asha Bhosle
Music: O. P. Nayyar

[... More, later!]

My Site: JadhavResearch.info Updated Today

I have updated my Web site: http://www.JadhavResearch.info

The version 2.0 of the Web site is still under construction. However, I have added a ballpen sketch and a couple of portraits (all, from my undergraduate COEP days—more than 25 years ago). See here: http://www.JadhavResearch.info/personal.htm

Since I am already posting something in the art category, this post won’t have the usual end-section of a few songs that I like…

And, from next post onwards, I have decided to make it a bit flexible. It will be anything from 1 to 5 songs, and further, I am also going to begin using a random number generator so that the selection will be random—unless I state otherwise. … You see, no matter how hard you try, the selections do naturally tend to have a pattern to them. The only solution is to make a fairly comprehensive list of songs and have a program pick a few up”at random” (I mean pseudo random number generators, with time of picking the songs up serving as the user-selected seed)…

It’s Dr. Ajit R. Jadhav now!

I successfully defended my Ph.D. thesis yesterday.

The presentation got somewhat lengthy; it went on for about 1 hour 15 minutes. (I explained a bit more in detail on the fly, following the audience reactions.) This was followed by a formal Q & A session of about 45 minutes.

My family and friends were among those present for the event. Many of them expressed it to me later on that the Q & A session seemed to them to be a bit more rigorous than what they had expected. However, this had never crossed my own mind during the event. Throughout, I thought that it was alright—this was a Ph.D. defence. (It was the first PhD in our family, including our extended family. Also, the first PhD from our class of B.E. Metallurgy; most of my class-mates have gone into business, management, or software development, rather than into research.)… In any case, not even for one moment during the event did I doubt that the outcome would be anything other than the positive.

But yes, the Q & A session did not slip into a mere formality, and I am happy about that (and grateful to the examiners for that).

All in all, a wonderful event—a unique event of my life!

- – - – -

Three [Four] Songs I Like

1. (Hindi) “arre tune abhi dekhaa nahin, dekhaa hai to jaanaa nahin…”
Singer: Kishore Kumar
Music: Rajesh Roshan

2. (Hindi) “ae zindagi gale lagaa le…”
Lyrics: Gulzaar
Singer: Suresh Wadkar
Music: Ilayraja

3. (Marathi): “maajhe jeevan gaane…”
Lyrics: “mangesh paaDgaokar”
Music: “pu. la. deshpaanDe”
Both of the following two renditions of this song:
3.1 Original, in the Indian musical style
Singer: “panDit jitendra abhiSheki”
3.2 Re orchestrated in the Western musical style, in a recent show on TV
Singer: “devaki panDit”

My Ph.D. Defence

My Ph.D. Defence

I am pleased to inform you that I will be defending my Ph.D. thesis, formally in mechanical engineering, at COEP, University of Pune, India, on the next Sunday (i.e. 20th September, 2009).

The title of my thesis is: “A New Approach to Computer Modeling and Analysis of Certain Fundamental Field Problems from Engineering Sciences.”

I am attaching the 10 (actually 13) pages long abstract of my thesis for your information [Ajit R Jadhav - Ten Pages Abstract of the PhD Thesis]. The thesis is based on my published articles which may be downloaded from my Web site [here].

If you would like to formally raise some questions on any part of my thesis, to be included during the official defence proceedings, then please leave a message and I will then let you know the email address of the Defence Committee Chairman. You could then submit your questions in complete confidence directly to the Chairman. This being the Internet, I would request you to kindly include your verification information such as your name and affiliation in your message. If this information is not completely available, I may not be able to approve or respond to your messages. I will check messages until Saturday morning (India time).

Thanks in advance

- – - – -

Three Songs I Like

1. (Marathi) “peek_ karapal_ pakshee door deshi gel_…”
Lyrics: “naa. dho. mahanor”
Singer: “ravindra saaThe”
Music: “hrudaynaath mangeshkar”

2. (Hindi) “khushi do ghaDi ki, mile, naa mile…”
Lyrics: A. Irshaad (?)
Singer: Kishore Kumar
Music: Kishore Kumar

3. (Hindi): “kaahe ko roye…”
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi
Singer: S. D. Burman
Music: S. D. Burman

What I Mean by Reduction…

A couple of days ago, the HBL Web site provided an excerpt on concretization and reduction. It was from Jean Moroney Binswanger. [Update on Sept. 16, 2009: I am taking the liberty to copy-paste the excerpt in toto here.]

I have thought about the issues Damon Cole raises, and have a somewhat different perspective. Some ideas:

1) Concretization and reduction have two different purposes.

The purpose of concretization is to clarify the meaning of an idea (a concept, phrase, or proposition) by using perceptual concretes. Although examples are the archetypical form of concretization, there are many other forms. These include descriptions, diagrams, models, and analogies. Note that it is possible to concretize a false or invalid idea.

The purpose of reduction is to validate the idea by tracing it back through the chain of reasoning to its basis in perceptual reality. It is not enough that it connect to perceptual reality “somehow” or even that it be concretizable. Every step in the process has to be validated.
—  Jean Moroney Binswanger

Since I seem to differ from her view of reduction, I would like to write a bit about it.

(BTW, the reason I have not joined HBL, even if there is a free trial subscription on offer currently, is that many topics on the list wouldn’t be of direct relevance to me, and yet, since the quality of the discussions appears to be fairly good, subscribing might have a distracting effect on me. As it is, I fall so woefully short of time… Several books and articles to be finished, immediately…)

- – - – -

On the issue of concretization, I think I agree with JMB. Concretization is the process of identifying what kind of concretes are subsumed under a given abstraction. This may involve examples, diagrams, etc.

However, reduction is where I seem to differ from JMB’s view/description (as judged by the excerpt that was given).

Given below are my thoughts (without being able to find any time to make any references).

Reduction is a process of simplifying a given abstraction. Consider the following examples of reduction. (In other words, let us concretize the process of reduction.)

• (A) Simplification of Form (the easiest form of reduction)
  • e.g. 42/8 reduces to 21/4.
  • e.g.
• (B) Componentization (my word!), i.e. simplification via an identification of a “has-a” relationship (i.e. a Whole-to-Part relationship)
  • e.g. Upon dissociation, reduces to and
• (C) Specialization, i.e. simplification via an identification of an “is-a” relationship
  • e.g. Effecting the separation of variables, the partial differential wave equation reduces to the Helmholtz equation

A Few Notes:
(i) The “is-a” and “has-a” relations are often nicely explained in the OO programming books.
(ii) There is no suggestion that the above (A) through (C) categorization gives an exhaustive scheme.
(iii) Science provides conceptually easy examples, but examples from humanities are not as neat to classify. For example, consider this usage: “During those summer vacations, her life had been reduced to eating, reading and sleeping.” (Technically, this would be an example of componentization. But it is not as clear a case as reducing all water exclusively to hydrogen and oxygen. The list of the parts which comprise “life” is incomplete here, as often is the case.)

Notice, we did not have to go down to the level of perceptual concretes in all our examples. When it comes to reduction, the relation to perceptual concretes is important only in the ultimate sense. It is directly relevant only if the concept being reduced itself is a fairly low-level one so that the components or specialized cases that it refers to must turn out to be perceptual concretes. So, it is to be emphasized that, as a process, reduction is not primarily about identifying meaning of a concept; it is about establishing conceptual relationships from the more complex to the more simple.

Speaking metaphorically, the focus in concretization is on the final destination itself; in reduction, it is on the journey—the particular path-way. In either case, the final destination need not be perceptual concretes. (Given Ayn Rand’s works, one assumes that the “ultimate destination” is going to consist of some or the other perceptually evident concretes.)

Of the two, reduction does tend to appear more formal and rigorous because (i) the easy examples of reduction do seem to involve deduction, and (ii) of the two, it is reduction which is amenable to being summarized. Concretization, by its nature, involves elaboration or expansion of a sort. People often associate rigour with terse formulations, deduction, symbols. Therefore, reduction seems to involve rigour whereas concretization doesn’t seem to. However, do notice, deduction is not the only process involved in reduction. And, concretization does take real work

In the fallacy of “reductio ad absurdum” the real error occurs not in reduction but in the major premise. This much is true. But this does not make reduction any more error-proof than is concretization. Errors are possible in either case.

Observe that as a general rule, in the process of reduction, there occurs a concomitant reduction of scope. Forgetting this can easily lead to errors, and so can making it out as if there is no such a reduction. For example, asserting that Indian culture equals Hindu culture involves an error of reduction. (The error involved in reducing India to Indira/Sonia was/is another blatant error.)

An aside about “Western reductionism.” I do not at all like that term; it’s an anti-concept. (Has anyone ever offered a rigorously valid definition of it?) At the same time, also remember that the mind-body dichotomy (MBD) has always been, unfortunately, a very prominent part of the Western culture throughout its history. The MBD involves nothing but an erroneous reduction of Man to either the mind without the body or the body without the mind.

Exercises (if you care for one or two):
(i) Find examples of improper reduction in the context of today’s American cultural context
(ii) Identify what kind of error is involved in the fallacy of frozen abstraction (see Ayn Rand, “Philosophy: Who Needs It.”) Is it an error of concretization? of reduction? Something else?

- – - – -

The reason I decided to write this post is because I wanted to clarify what I mean when I say something like: “…[under certain circumstances] FAQ reduces to the Monte Carlo method.” In all such cases, I certainly don’t mean to say that FAQ is based on the Monte Carlo (—a position seemingly implied by JMB’s piece). What I mean to say that the Monte Carlo may be considered a special case of the FAQ. … In mechanics and physics (not to mention engineering), this seems to be an acceptable usage… But if there is a correction to be made, I would like to know about it.

- – - – -

Three Songs I Like…

1. (Hindi) “khoyaa khoyaa chaand, khulaa aasmaan…”
Singer: Mohammad Rafi
Music: S. D. Burman

2. (Hindi) “chandaa o chandaa (2), kisine churaayee…”
Singers: Kishore Kumar, Lata Mangeshkar
Music: R. D. Burman

3. (Marathi) “punavechaa chandram aalaa ghari, chaandaachi kirran_ daryyaavari…”
Lyrics: shanta sheLke
Singer: krishna kalle
Music: baL parTe

Carol White’s Book. Patrick Suppes’ Papers on QM

Carol White’s Book Involving Electromagnetism and Potential Theory

This is about the following book:
Carol White , “Energy Potential: Toward a New Electromagnetic Field Theory,” (with essays by Bernhard Riemann trans. from German by J. J. Cleary, Jr.), Campaigner Publications, New York, 1977.

I ran into it in mid-August 2009. It can be downloaded for free from here: http://www.archive.org. (Search for it at this site.)

Unfortunately, I could not go through all of it. (One reason is that in order to do so, I will have to take a paper printout of it (my reading habits are old-fashioned), and somehow that has not happened so far.) Yet, I find that the book has been written very interestingly.

In our times, there is this widespread tendency to write in a self-censoring way so as not to offend anybody, to try to be as sensitive to as many desires (even whims) of as many other people as possible, to try to be “politically correct” even while writing for/on issues of hard science. Against this background, Carol White’s book comes across as a breath of fresh air. (And to think that it was published barely 32 years—one generation—ago!)

Of course, I don’t think I am going to concurr with every idea or opinion which she expresses in this book. But that hardly matters.

I still strongly recommend this book because of its directness, its freshness, its willingness to pick up philosophical issues for examination right while working through the things scientific…. All of this is so unlike our present times. Also, the engaging style in which the text has been written… You might pick up virtually any page at random and see what I mean. For that one reason alone—call it the “style” of the book if you wish—it makes for a very interesting reading.

It’s precisely because the author writes with such a passion, candor and directness, in such an opinionated manner, that her content becomes so very interesting to read.

And that was the biggest point I wanted to make here.

[And yes, Riemann's essays might form an additional/major attraction for some of you.]

- – - – -

Professor Patrick Suppes’ Papers on Quantum Mechanics

I have a confession to make about an omission that simply happened while writing my PhD thesis. … Let me begin at the beginning.

I had developed the essentials of the FAQ approach years before 2002 when I began the effort to get myself registered for a PhD (starting with IIT Bombay). My ideas had been developed independent of Professor Patrick Suppes’ publications [see here].

Later on, sometime during the course of my PhD work, I did notice Suppes and de Barros’ papers. However, for some odd reason, I completely forgot about these when I actually came to writing of my thesis.

I intend to correct this when I write my journal articles. (Some of the preliminary thoughts for these are given on iMechanica here.)

Of course, it’s not a very major issue because, once again, just like QMC, Suppes & de Barros’ work is not at the base of my method. Indeed, there are some very important differences between my approach and method on the one hand and theirs on the other. … For the time being, let me leave it as a simple exercise for the reader to find out what these differences are, starting with their 1994 papers [here and here ]. Indeed, I might have a critical comment or two to make w.r.t. their work, speaking from the physics viewpoint…

Here, a clarification is in order. Though I have been very much interested in philosophy, it is not my field. It’s sort of a hobby or a special interest for me. Indeed, most of what I know about philosophy has come out of the works by Ayn Rand, Peikoff and other Objectivist philosophers (esp. Peikoff’s course on Western Philosophy), and of course, many other readings on general philosophy, notably including two/three different translations of Aristotle and Plato (select but fairly represenative passages of each), several texts on Greek philosophy, and also some university texts and some popular books like the one by Will Durant. On the Indian philosophy side, my reading includes translations and commentaries on the Upanishads, Geeta, and numerous other books. Also, the general Enc. Brit. articles for all philosophic traditions/schools. All in all, not much.

So, I don’t think that I can place Professor Suppes’ specifically philosophic positions in context all that well… In any case, I cannot comment anything meaningful about this aspect of his work in a serious research work.

But, frankly speaking, the most relevant of his papers (circa 1994,  discovered by me sometime after 2002) can be easily read by anyone. They deal with the physics of QM rather than philosophy as such.

So, there’s an exercise for you, if you want one.

- – - – -

Three Songs I Like (as decided last time; see below)

1. (Marathi) “varyaavarati ghet lakeri, gaat chaalalyaa jal lahari…”
Singer: Suman Kalyanpur.

2. (Hindi) “kuchh dil ne kahaa, kuchh bhi nahin…”
Lyrics: Kaifi Aazmi
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Music: Hemant Kumar

3. (Hindi) “kai baar yun bhi dekhaa hai…”
Lyrics: Yogesh (?)
Singer: Mukesh
Music: Salil Chowdhary

Does QMC Have Priority over FAQ? + Miscellanea

One of my recent muses is the title question of this post. … Allow me to explain.

As I have pointed out a few times in the past in this blog and also elsewhere, I have discovered a way to resolve the quantum wave-particle paradox. See my slides and papers here. Soon later on, I began calling the new approach by the name “FAQ,” which is short for: fields as quanta. That is what the “FAQ” in the title of this post refers to.

Before making my claim, of course, I had done an extensive literature search, almost none of which was cited in the abovementioned papers, simply out of the space limitations of a conference paper. But the search was there. One of the things I had quickly browsed through, during this search, was the literature on QMC—short for Quantum Monte Carlo.

In recent weeks, I decided to search once again. It must have been the n-th occasion that I was searching thus. This time round, I was reading more closely the papers, and so ran into some interesting passages in a few early papers (circa 1975) by Professor James B. Anderson of Penn State (USA). In some of these papers, Professor Anderson indicates that Metropolis, Ulam and John von Neumann had stated in one of their early papers (in late 1940s) that the idea for something like QMC had already occurred to the great physicist and Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi.

Curious, I immediately wrote him an email, and promptly received the directions to look up his new book: “Quantum Monte Carlo: Origins, Developments and Applications”. The relevant pages of this book can be browsed at Google books [here]. This book is a researcher’s dream come true. Original papers tracing the development are hand selected, and brief introductions to each provided. (These introductions written with expertise and yet remain accessible to a “lay reader” like me.)

It’s enough to browse the first few pages of Anderson’s book to realize that Schrodinger himself was right up there, thinking about these ideas (and also publishing them in journal papers) right in 1935.

Thus, QMC has… what’s the word here? precedents? antecedents? … Whatever. I will use the term “precedents” here. So, QMC  has two independent lines of precedents, both traceable to famous people (Nobel laureates), one going as far back as to 1935, to Schrodinger himself. The other line goes back to late 1930s and early 1940s to Fermi. (I forgot my tracks on the Internet or in the books/papers here, but will add links to them later on.)

Very deeply interesting, this all is. Also, even satisfying in a way!

However, all my reading of all such material tells me that all the precedents to the modeling of Schrodinger’s Equation (SE) using ideas such as random walks or Monte Carlo involve the imaginary time—not the real time. (Refer to Anderson’s excellent book and papers to know what this means.)

My approach, in contrast, involves the real time (and the real space—not a configuration space).

It might seem amazing that Einstein worked on both the photoelectric effect and the Brownian motion in the same year 1905, and yet didn’t think of extending the second to explain the first. Even more amazing is the fact that both Schrodinger and Fermi thought of using the second to model quanta, but never thought of doing so in the real time.

It is for these reasons that I conclude that QMC cannot be said to have the priority over FAQ. In other words, my claims are valid.

This post is to bring the matter to your careful and serious attention. If you have any [proper] evidence contrary to my conclusion/claim, then kindly do drop me a line or provide the links.

[BTW, note, links like this may be good otherwise, but are not detailed enough to be of help in this matter.]

- – - – -

A few clarifications/asides:

I am not at all interested in any sort of a priority battle. But one likes to be as direct as is possible in communications. The purposes this policy serves are things such as: precision and economy in thought; propriety in the allocation of intellectual credit where one is due.

Interestingly, after submitting an abstract to an upcoming international conferences in India, the reviewing committee noted to the effect that “direct claims” such as what I was making could not be entertained.

To say that I was surprised would be an understatement. It was nothing less than shocking. … Of course one is supposed to be as direct as possible in all communications of this kind. Indirectness might have its allure in poetry, esp. of the romantic sort. Consider here the beauty of: <Hindi>”Kyaa Kehnaa Hai, Kyaa Sunanaa Hai…”</Hindi> … You know what I mean—literally…. But trying to use it in science/research? (LOL!)

So, one tries to be direct. And, one remains open and available (i.e. active-minded) to correct oneself—if a correction is necessary. It is in this spirit that I make all my claims. After a conscientious and as wide a literature search as possible. But directly, as directly as possible, thereafter. … Sigh… Not all folks in India know or understand or support this way of approaching science!

Anyway, to return to more interesting matters than them (and their science/engineering), let me know if I am understanding QMC in a wrong way and/or making a wrong claim somewhere in my research. I would appreciate being kept corrected—if one is necessary.

- – - – -

And, while quoting Javed Saheb’s poetry (which also is a song), it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to start jotting down a few songs that I like after every post I make. (This idea traces its origins to Jean Moroney Binswanger’s advice [here] to everyday jot down three good things—major or minor—that happened to you on that day…. Well, three per day is too much, but three per post isn’t a bad idea to implement).

Accordingly, here I begin, right away. Three poems/songs/tunes/musical compositions I like (of whatever type/genre, for whatever reasons, from whatever language I know, etc., more or less at random, out of hundreds of such):

1. <Hindi>ye raate ye mausam nadi kaa kinaaraa…</Hindi> (Kishore Kumar)
2. <Marathi>jan paL bhar mhaNatil haay haay…</Marathi> (Lata, Bhaa. Raa. Taambe.)
3. (Words not necessarily exact)<Hindi>chhaayee barakhaa bahaar, kare jiyaraa pukaar</Hindi> (Lata)

An important note about the third song: As far as I can make out, (and I am confident about it), this song is in the “raag” “bhairavee.” The reason I am so confident is because I once heard an unforgettable “jugalbandi” of Pandit Bismilla Khan on “shehnai” and Mrs. Rajam on violin in “bharavee”. It was an especially memorable performance because it was the first time ever that I had really appreciated a piece of the Indian classical music. (As a rule, I find it boring—but always with notable exceptions. (Also Western classical—most of it, too, is boring.)) They had announced the “raag” at that time, it was “bhairavee.” I had observed, right then, that this song of Lata (which I quote above) was exactly like that “raag” and vice versa.  (The venue was the Open Air Theatre of IIT Madras, when I was a master’s student there at that time.)… The reason to share this all side information is to emphasize doubly and triply that the song I have in mind here is not the “aayi barkhaa bahaar…” by Lata and Madan Mohan. Neither is it any of the other “aayi barkhaa bahaars…” that are listed on Google within the first 30 pages. And of course, it is not that Salil Choudhary’s unforgettable “o sajanaa, barakhaa bahaar aayee” (which is not in “bhairavee” anyway.)

… Yes, the song I have in mind is for real. It exists. But I don’t recall any of its other credits (like the film, the lyricist, the music director, etc.) except for the fact that it’s been sung by Lata and that it is in “bhairavee.” (And yes, at least one member of our family could distinctly remember that there is such a song (despite the fact that I am not a good singer), though they too can’t recall its film etc. … Please do let me know if you find it.

A Little about “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

I have begun reading J. S. Bell’s “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics.” … I began by following his advice to the lay reader that one should begin with paper nos. 18 and 20. (The book is a collection of his published papers.) I was delighted to find the following quote right on the second page of paper no. 18:

“…So I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that ‘information’ is the real stuff of physical theory. …”

Unusual.

I never take anyone’s comment about QM very seriously. … I might have heard/read a lot about Bell; still, I am going to read his book as if I were the first guy to do so. … Works for me. (The words to describe this attitude are: “first-handedness” or “independence”. (And yes, they are very easy…) )

I will keep you posted if I find something extraordinary… But, frankly, I don’t expect to go through some of his more technical papers at all. I guess I already know what it all would boil down to.

He further states:

“… de Broglie in 1926… answered the conundrum
wave or particle?
by
wave _and_ particle.

But by the time this was fully clarified by Bohm in 1952, few theoretical physicists wanted to hear about it …

The de Broglie-Bohm picture…, and indeed, I think any sharp formulation of quantum mechanics, has a very surprising feature: the consequences of events at one place propagate to other places faster than light. This happens in a way that we cannot use for signalling. … For me this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity…”

Well, I don’t get this passage. If this issue had been fully clarified in the de Broglie-Bohm formulation, then why does a real problem still linger on in it? Apparently, Bell, like all Brits of post-Bohm times, was too enamored by the Bohm formulation to think this way about what he was saying…

“It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.”

How true!

=======

Bell continues…

“In my opinion the following point cannot be emphasised too strongly. When we work out a problem in wave mechanics, for example that of the precise performance of the electron gun, our mathematics is entirely concerned with waves. There is no hint in the mathematics of particles or particle trajectories. With the electron gun the calculated wave extends smoothly over an extended portion of the screen. There is no hint in the mathematics that the actual phenomenon is a minute flash at some particular point in that extended region. And it only in applying the rule, relating the probable location of the flash to the intensity of the wave, that indeterminism enters the theory. The mathematics itself is smooth, deterministic, ‘classical’ mathematics… of classical waves.”

My comments:

First of all, what did Bell think stood for—the classical wave-field variable? … That’s just one example of how even good physicists unwittingly bring unexamined or traditional views to bear on a topic under discussion.

But more than that, I think the issue here is deeper.

If you take care to develop and/or understand a physical view for the mathematics (such as what I have developed), then there is no confusion as to what is it that the mathematics is concerned about.

And thus, I want to note that among the many things that must be understood clearly by physicists, one is that mathematics calculates and physics describes, and the two endeavors are and must be kept separate (even though both the things may be done by one and the same person—as often is the case in mathematical physics).

More, later. But yes, by and large, and comparatively speaking, Bell does seem to have been far more reasonable than so many researchers/commentrators of physics of his time (and those of earlier times as well!).