My QM-Related Research, and Physicists…

Over past many years, I have contacted many physicists concerning my QM research—whether to sound out my nascent ideas, or to invite informal criticism from them, or to seek their help with theory, literature, library access, or concerning how their (physicists’) community thinks/approaches research such as what I was doing. Given below is a list of the people together with a brief indication of my experience of them.

My QM Research and Physicists: Part I

(Note: I have tried to keep entries in this part (only) in the chronological order.)

— Dr. Naresh Dadhich, formerly, Professor and Director, IUCAA, Pune, India. He listened, for about 30-45 minutes, my proposed PhD research in general, back in 2003. He also allowed library access to IUCAA. Indeed, though I never have told him so, it was in these discussions that I had sensed that there seemed to be something wrong about the very idea of obliquity factor—it seemed so much at odds the way I was thinking, and presenting my ideas to him.

Dr. Raghunath Mashelkar, formerly, Director General, CSIR, New Delhi, India. It was 2004. I had already taken the fledgling step by publishing my very first paper in 2003. If I mistake the sequence not, even IIT Madras had already offered me an admission. But COEP and University of Pune were having issues out of the Metallurgy to Mechanical branch “jump,” just the way most of the deadwood here still does. Anyway, back to July 2004.  Dr. Mashelkar was going to visit Pune and inaugurate the new IPR Chair at UoP. I had read about Mashelkar—how he had come up in life through hard work and merit—and so, carried a positive impression. So, I decided to seize this chance. I kept a very short hand-written note ready with me which had my name, email ID, phone number on it, and just two more lines by way of information: “Problem: Difficulty in getting registered for PhD in engg faculty at UoP. Research status: Ahead of MIT and Stanford.” (I of course “knew” by then that I had cracked the wave-particle duality but I was not sure if I would be publishing on it during my PhD. If he were to ask, I had kept the answer ready.) Soon after the inauguration function got over, I approached the dais, summarily ignored the Vice Chancellor Prof. Kolaskar’s disapproving glances telling me to leave Mashelkar alone, and managed to utter a well-rehearsed line to Mashelkar: “Sir, I wanted to get in touch with you for a problem of my own—research related but something different. Could I write you an email?” He smiled and said yes! I handed over the small paper note saying “Here’s the gist. Please read it afterwards.” He looked at me, thoughtfully folded the note without reading it, kept it in his shirt pocket, and said, again smilingly, “I will!” Immediately, I moved aside, saying a thank you … I don’t know what exactly happened later (I really don’t—would have shared it with you if I knew it) but the fact is, I never had to write Mashelkar that email because within a week’s time all objections (arising from people other than my eventual guide) had evaporated, and I was given the initial (temporary) admission at COEP’s Mech. Dept. (I had informed IIT Madras my regret decision before that, well in time so that some other student on the waiting list could be considered at IITM for that semester.)

— Dr. Ajoy Ghatak, formerly Professor, Dept of Physics, IIT Delhi, India. I contacted him in 2005, seeking to sound out whether my thoughts on obliquity factor and QM had any obvious flaws. I had sent him an informal document noting down my thoughts/reasoning. In his first email reply, he indicated that I could meet him when he visits Mumbai for a Workshop on QM, for physics teachers, in which he was going to teach. Given my other experiences, this was a very big surprise for me. However, right in the second email, he told me that it was not necessary for me to see him. Yet, it must be noted that he continues to reply my emails—without discussing QM.

— Dr. Akira Tonomura, Hitachi, Japan. In 2005, he immediately replied my email permitting me to use his video for my conference presentation. However, understandably, as an experimentalist himself, he declined to comment on its theoretical content when I sent the paper itself after its publication.

— Dr. D. G. Kanhere, formerly, Professor, Dept of Physics, University of Pune, India. I attended the very first batch of the Diploma in Modeling and Simulation which he had started (2005). I did not complete the program because I got busy soon later on with my PhD research. But even after I had left the program, upon my subsequent request in late 2006, he had indicated the willingness to let me browse e-Journals, and recently allowed me to attend an international workshop. However, he thought that he was not suitable to discuss my research with him, Dr. Panat was. (Unfortunately, Dr. Panat passed away before I could get manage to meet him.)

— Dr. James B. Anderson, Professor, Dept of Chemistry, Penn State, USA. I contacted him once by email in 2009, with query as to whether there was any precedence to modeling the Schrodinger equation using MC techniques in real space and real time. He immediately replied back. He did not provide a direct answer to the question, but instead referred me to his compilation of research papers. (I have touched on this in a previous post, here.)

My QM Research and Physicists: Part II

— Dr. Frank Wilczek, Professor, Physics, MIT, USA. The University of Pune officially approached him (on my suggestion to my guide which he forwarded through the further official channels) requesting him to examine my thesis. He declined, citing a lack of time. Apparently, he did not have even the time to go through a one page abstract which had explicitly noted the resolution of the wave-particle duality as well as conceptual mathematical results first in 200 years.

— Dr. Harvey Gould, Professor, Physics, Clark University, USA. UoP approached him officially (as noted above). He declined it, officially citing a lack of competence to judge the thesis—a mere PhD thesis. (Apparently, he read through the one-page and the ten-pages abstracts of my thesis.)

— Dr. Eric Heller, Professor, Dept. of Physics, Harvard University, USA. UoP approached also him officially (as noted above). He, too, declined the request, citing a lack of competence to judge the thesis—a mere PhD thesis. (Thus, apparently, he, too, read through the one-page and the ten-pages abstracts of the thesis.)

— Dr. Brian Josephson, Professor, Physics, Cambridge University, UK. I had written him an email indicating my admiration for his willingness to back up controversial ideas in general. Then, I had indicated my QM research to him (after the publication of the papers) and sought to have a correspondence with him. Perhaps naturally, he did not reply at all. Not even that usual one line thank you note people write back when someone indicates admiration. I am sure he is duly impressed by India’s deep, rich etc. cultural heritage etc. (LOL!)

— Dr. Jayant Narlikar, formerly, Professor and Director, IUCAA, Pune, India. In 2003, he declined my request (paper-based, left with his assistant) to discuss my nascent research ideas with him. (I decided to see him following a public Workshop in astronomy that he and his colleagues had conducted in the Fergusson College, Pune. They were all high on the spirit of science, of free enquiry, of the vital importance of curiosity etc., as usual.) However, he did allow a limited time library access to IUCAA. Later on, he exchanged one email after the publication of my QM paper, but did not at all touch upon my research or the dramatic nature of the claimed findings—i.e., no curiosity shown.

— Dr. Virendra Singh, formerly, Professor of Physics and Director, TIFR, Mumbai, India. After coming across an article by him on QM in Current Science or Resonance or so, I wrote him an email, indicating my eagerness to discuss my research with him. I don’t quite remember when precisely this was, but I believe it was after the submission of my thesis. (Certainly, after the publication of my papers.) Of course, as is so typical of TIFR (and every other Indian personality and institute adored abroad), I never received any reply from him.

— Dr. Narendra Karmarkar, formerly, Professor, TIFR (?—in UoP campus), Pune, India. I was not keen on meeting him, anticipating him to be a typical TIFR/Indian-researcher-adored-by-American/foreign-researchers sort of a personality. But I ran into one of his class-mates from their secondary-school days, and it was this gentleman (himself a PhD) who convinced me that I must see him at least once. For once I decided to give in to this well-wisher, and so, took appointment from his secretary. However, Karmarkar was not available on the appointed time. So, I left with his secretary the paper copies of my published papers on QM, and my resume, including my interest in seeking to develop the algorithmic aspects of my research. My judgment of the human nature proved superior to my well-wisher’s, and Karmarkar never called/emailed me. This was, I guess, in 2006. In 2009, I was to discover that some of these ideas had been covered by another IIT Bombay alumnus, the US-settled Sachin Saptnekar and his PhD student. (The e-Journal access was not available at COEP during the entire period when I did my PhD. So, all my literature search was done visiting my friends in IITs, or requesting other people with as much sweetness as was necessary. Some people (like Thanu Padmanabhan) never fell to the game; see his entry below. Anyway, the point here is that I could have gotten Saptnekar’s research earlier if my searches were not squeezed in between those of the other PhD students of my friends at IITs, at most 3–4 hours/day, at most 2 days per three-four months or so.) … Anyway, talking about Saptnekar et al’s research is now more or less completely pointless out of two reasons: Dr. Tarun Kant and his colleagues at  IIT Bombay have shot down (rejected) my proposed paper at his ICCMS conference in 2009 out of the flimsy pretext that I used the first person in the abstract. Doing cutting-edge research is a moving target these days. The remaining viability for my ideas, to be pursued in early 2010, were killed down by D. W. Pande, QIP PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay while on deputation from the Government College of Engineering Aurangabad (of the famous Vilasrao Deshmukh and Ashok Chavan) and currently, The Head of the Department, The Department of Mechanical (not Metallurgy) Engineering, College of Engineering, Pune, together with GB Pant (Member, BoG, COEP) and Dr. Anil D. Sahasrabuddhe (Director, COEP, on deputation from, ahem, IIT Guwahati). So, all in all, the story which began with someone who had attended secondary school in Pune with Karmarkar thus comes to an end with the “Rushitulya”s at COEP shooting down my research.

– Dr. Dipankar Home, Professor, Physics, The Bose Institute, Kolkata, India. He has been mentioned in Gibbin’s popular science books [Schrodinger’s Cat; …Kitten]. Exhausted with the University of Pune delays in appointing examiners, to cut the process short, I directly wrote him an email (with a cc to my guide) requesting him to examine my thesis. No communication at all (then and now).

— Dr. S. H. Patil, Professor, Physics, IIT Bombay, India. I approached him through a friend, requesting him to either accept examining my Ph.D. thesis or suggest someone else suitable. He read through only the one-page abstract, and turned down both the requests, apparently assigning no reason/explanation at all.

— Dr. Rohini Godbole, Professor and Head, Center for High Energy Physics, IISc, Bangalore, India. I included her name in the suggested list of examiners after reading her article in a Marathi “Diwali ank” i.e. special annual issues touching on cultural and literary matters, published at the time of the Diwali festival, in Maharashtra (but not yet in Delhi, UP, etc.) (I gathered that she had attended the Huzurpaagaa school or so in Pune.) Since the UoP was going at the snail’s pace in contacting potential examiners—and wouldn’t contact anyone by email—my guide contacted her by email, attaching the one and ten pages abstracts. No reply at all was received even by the guide from her, I gathered later on.

— Dr. R. Vijaya, Professor, Physics, IIT Bombay, India. The UoP approached her officially, as written above for others, asking her if she could examine my thesis. She declined, citing a lack of competence for judging the thesis—a mere PhD thesis. (Apparently, she read through the one-page and the ten-pages abstracts of my thesis.)

— Dr. Anu Venugopalan, Reader, Physics, Indraprastha University, India. She has enjoyed a fellowship at a Delhi-based organization focusing on foundational issues in QM. I pointed out my research papers to her via an email (after their publication), and indicated an eagerness to discuss any aspects of the same, including the willingness to correct any of the results if found wrong. No reply whatsoever received till date.

— Dr. Sunil Mukhi, Professor, Dept. of Physics, TIFR, Mumbai, India. A few months ago, I wrote him an email touching on my reserach in such a way that it couldn’t have escaped by anyone like him. Of course, no reply has been received thus far.

— Dr. Shobhana Narasimhan, Professor, Physics/Computational Materials Science, JNCASR, India. UoP approached similarly. She officially declined it, citing a lack of competence to judge the PhD thesis. Addendum: Recently I met her at a conference and found her easily approachable; however, I did not bring the unpleasant topic up.

— Dr. Umesh Waghmare, Professor, Physics/Computational Materials Science, JNCASR, Bangalore, India. Exhausted with the university delays, to cut the process short, I directly wrote him an email (with a cc to my guide), requesting him to examine my thesis. No communication at all (back then). (Recently, I ran into him in a conference and he remembered that email, but still, we could talk—more on this, in a later post.)

— Dr. Lewis Little, Independent researcher and originator of the Elementary Waves theory of QM. I have sent him an email, informing him of my development, but received no reply at all.

My QM Research and Physicists: Part III

— Dr. Thanu Padmanabhan, Professor and Dean (Core Academic Programs), IUCAA, Pune, India. I approached him after the publication of my papers, wishing to discuss them, to get to know what he thought of the ideas, and to seek permission to use libraries. He lied to me saying that he did not at all know QM, not even the elementary/basic wave-particle duality part of it. Unlike Dadhich and Narlikar, he did not immediately permit me to use the library but instead suggested a bureaucratic turn-about way to do so. When I fulfilled the requirements, he still did not act on it.

— Dr. A. D. Angal, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Pune, India. Exhausted with the university delays, to cut the process short, I directly met him to ask if he could be my PhD examiner, and if not, if he could please suggest someone else suitable. In the personal meeting in his cabin, he questioned whether any PhD could at all be granted for a thesis like mine—he meant that it was too broad of scope and not focussed enough (to be of proper research). When I pointed out that the obliquity factor observation or the wave-particle duality resolution couldn’t have been developed without being focused, he entirely dropped both the results out of the further discussion. When I still prodded him, he declared that the wave-particle duality was not a paradox at all so that there was nothing in it for one to resolve. When I asked why the University which employs him continues to teach the duality as a paradox to BSc and MSc students (right in his department), and why he doesn’t protest them, he (actually) did not take any offence (!) but, with a bit of hand-waving, indicated that he doesn’t run the entire University.

— ACAT 2010 Organizers (i.e. Researchers from/associated with CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, and those from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India)

Last year (2009), I submitted an abstract for a proposed paper on a conference called ACAT 2010 (currently in progress). The paper was rejected.

The details of my papers are given below:

Title: Computer Simulation of Afshar’s “Welcher-Weg” Experiment, using a New Approach Called “FAQ”

Abstract: I have developed a completely new theoretical approach called “FAQ” (short for fields as quanta). It  has allowed a resolution of the paradox of the quantum-mechanical wave-particle duality in the particular case of light[1]. This new approach[2] is conceptually very simple; it does not offend either the common-sense or certain basic physical considerations such as symmetry.

The FAQ approach was used earlier for computational modeling of the single-photon double-slit interference experiment[1]. It is now being used here for computer simulations of certain ideas central to Afshar’s “welcher weg” experiment[4,5]. The physical referents corresponding to certain controversial quantum-mechanical ideas[5–10] are briefly pointed out. On this basis, both Bohr’s idea of the Complementarity principle as well as Afshar’s position concerning it might be refuted. However, the main emphasis of this paper remains on using computational simulations as a vehicle to conveniently express our novel physical ideas.


[1] Jadhav, A. R., & Kajale, S. R. (2005) “Resolution of the wave-particle duality of light using a new approach, parts I and II.” In e-Proc. of the 50th Congress of the Indian Society of Theoetical and Applied Mechanics (an International Meet), held during December 14–17, 2005 at IIT Kharagpur, India
[2] Jadhav, A. R. (2007) “A New Approach to Computer Modeling and Analysis of Certain Fundamental Field Problems from Engineering Sciences.” Ph.D. thesis, COEP, University of Pune, India. (Defended in 2009.)
[3] Afshar, S. S. (2005) “Violation of the principle of Complementarity, and its implications.” Proc. SPIE, vol. 5866, pp. 229–244. doi: 10.1117/12.638774 arXiv:quant-ph/0701027
[4] Afshar, S. S., Flores, E., McDonald, K. F., & Knoesel, E. (2007) “Paradox in wave-particle duality.” Found. Phys., vol. 37, pp. 295. arXiv:quant-ph/0702188v1
[5] Drezet, A. (2005) “Complementarity and Afshar’s experiment.” arXiv:quant-ph/0508091v3
[6] Steuernagel, O. (2005) “Afshar’s experiment does not show a violation of complementarity.” arXiv:quant-ph/0512123v2
[7] Quershi, T. (2007) “Complementarity and the Afshar experiment.” arXiv:quant-ph/0701109v2
[8] Reitzner, D. (2007) “Comment on Afshar’s experiment.” arXiv:quant-ph/0701152v1
[9] Srikanth, R. (2001) “Physical reality and the complementarity principle.” arXiv:quant-ph/0102009v2
[10] Rand, A. (1990) “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, second expanded edition ed. by Binswanger, H., & Peikoff, L.” Meridian, pp. 301–304

You are welcome to have a look at the other papers that were accepted and are in the process of being presented in this CERN conference. The organizers did not bother even to so much as send an email informing of the rejection. The reason for rejection could very well be that a book by Ayn Rand was being referenced.

There are likely to be many more people that I have forgotten to write about, especially in Parts II and III above (e.g., people from IISc, TIFR and IITs).

In contrast, I would be very hard-pressed to find any additional people who I might have forgotten to include in the Part I. I mean forgetting is always a possibility with me, but chances are definitely slimmer when it comes to the Part I. BTW, also note: I have tried to keep entries in the Part I (only) in the chronological order in which I met these people. For the other two parts, I couldn’t care less. However, still, for the Part II, I have tried to keep the officially contacted or the more senior/reputed/adored names higher up, within that part.

– – – – –

A Music Track I Like

Theme Music of the Movie: “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”
Music: Ennio Morricone

– – – – –
PS: [As usual] Minor editing and streamlining still remains TBD despite an update  on Feb 24, 2010.