The RSI is still very much present.
Two days ago, it had subsided from the fingers in general, though the base of the thumb was still sore. But just a bit of more browsing and reading at the laptop, for a total of about 3 hours on that day (not in one session but spread over the day), and the whole thing got worse immediately.
BTW, I’ve changed the way I sit: I have put a wooden board on the arms of a chair having a lower height (actually, it’s one of the chairs of our old, wooden, sofa-set), and I use this board as my “table” these days. This way, the laptop now is at a lower height—it allows for resting the entirety of arms from elbows onwards, which is the recommended practice. I also place a book in front of the laptop for a better support at the wrists—now, there is no rubbing of the wrist against the sharp edge of my laptop. I also minimize mouse-clicks. Still, all this hasn’t helped a lot—there hasn’t been a recovery as such (even after about a week or so).
As of today, some points in the fingers, from the base of the thumb, and from the wrist, hurt. Also, a bit more seriously, the following hurt too: a couple of points (tendon-points, actually) in the elbow, as also, sometimes, some regions near the shoulder blade.
In short, the “battery” of my RHS arm remains at the borderline of the recharge zone, and it very quickly gets discharged to get into the “painful” zone.
So, it’s high time to bring the total computer time per day to about one hour or so.
My judgment is that it might easily take another week, perhaps 10 days, before the “battery” gets sufficiently re-charged.
2. QM—Almost quitting it for now:
The news on the QM side isn’t at very encouraging either, to put it mildly.
Unable to do any simulations, all that I’ve been able to do over the past 10 days or so, is to work out things purely in the head, visualizing the function in and all that, and making some very brief handwritten notes at times. (Writing by hand stresses the wrist less, though I suspect that the thumb and the little finger might be getting relatively more stressed in the process. But yes, writing in the hand is much, much less stressful than clicking with the mouse. In fact, using the mouse is the worst; pure typing at the keyboard is almost fine by comparison; writing by hand is the least stressful.
So, I am unable to pursue simulations.
If I were to be able to do that, I could have perhaps tried a few other ideas here and there. However, I am unable to even think of doing anything like that.
Now, based on thinking out everything in the head alone, and as of today, it more or less certainly looks like whatever detailed ideas I had generated, they aren’t going to work out. Getting the same results as the mainstream QM (i.e. with spin and in ) is definitely going to take more than whatever ideas I have generated so far. So…
2.1. Based on my research experience, I think that it’s reasonable to conclude that it’s time for me to quit pursuing QM—at least for a good while (though of course not permanently).
Let me hasten to add, however, that:
2.2. I also believe that the most crucial elements mentioned in the “Outline” document [^] remain valid.
To mention just a few: (1) the nonlinearity in of the kind I have proposed; (2) the idea that is a physical field (and with a better clarity, now I can state: the system defined over the configuration space is necessarily to be seen as composed from the physically existing -particle fields); (3) the restriction of the potential energy field to only that which is associated with the fundamental charged particles (once again: the system -field is composed from all the -particle pairs of PE fields for all possible pairs of charges) ; (4) the idea that measurement primarily involves catastrophic changes in the dynamical regime of the Instrument (with the new proviso now being added that irreversible changes do occur in the control volume of the System too); and many other ideas… This list I gave here on the fly is not at all exhaustive. Go through the document itself, and if in doubt, feel free to discuss any matter with me for any revisions in my view(s).
2.3. Almost all of the further changes to the ontology and kinematics of QM, (not all of which I have noted here on the blog), also remain valid.
Since the Outline document, I have made many changes to the ontology of the QM particles. It is important to note that I believe that the kinematical description which I then derived on the basis of the new QM ontology, continues to remain valid—at least as far as I can make out (absent verification/validation via simulations).
I have not written anything systematically about this kinematical view, though I have maintained unpublished notebooks/journals about it. As to blogging, I’ve mentioned some of these things, but in a very casual, off-the-cuff manner—both here on this blog as well as on my Twitter feed. (For instance, probability as the ideal time fraction—remember that one?)
2.4. However, the kinetical description is where I have run into a block
A kinetical description which I developed seemed to have worked in , spinless particles, and for a finite domain (PIB). However, for , spin and infinite domains, the picture I am getting—purely via working out everything in the head—does not at all seem satisfactory to me. I did revise the kinetical ideas in generalizing from etc. to etc., but turns out that this was not enough.
Realize, the description cannot be just “conceptual;” its maths too must come out right.
The demand on the correctness of the maths has to be even greater in my new approach than it is in the mainstream QM, because in my approach the nonlinearity too has to work right—all the details of its dynamics must be right.
It’s here that, based on my thinking alone (i.e. in the absence of simulations), I am afraid that whatever ideas I generated so far are going to fall short.
That’s what the current status is like.
It’s possible that the ideas I have generated for the kinetics might still actually work out (may be with minor tweaks or some further simple generalizations), who knows…. But the fact as of today also is that I have not been able to put any of them into simulations.
However, honestly, when I weigh and judge, I do get this feel that rethinking through the whole kinetics is more likely to be fruitful.
2.5. My decision for the immediate future:
So, my final decision, for now, is this:
Since I have the RSI, and since it’s not going to go away all that soon, I can’t pursue anything on the computer anyway—not even Data Science. (I certainly cannot code a lot. Writing this entry itself is going to turn me useless for typing for another couple of days, I guess.)
So, I might as well continue thinking about QM in the meanwhile (while the RSI heals), and see if there are any other ideas concerning the kinetics part that I can generate.
But once the RSI heals, and if my judgment regarding the lack of progress with the new approach still remains more or less the same, then I think it would be time to quit pursuing QM for several weeks or even for several months.
Sometimes, the only thing that helps, in actual original research, is getting away from it all for a while. (No comparison of scale intended, but just as an example, recall the seemingly sombre / unhappy mood with which Pauli was reportedly roaming around the streets of Copenhagen, for some period which I offhand recollect was for months. Of course, Pauli being Pauli, he did finally hit upon his Exclusion Principle.)
3. About the work done thus far—its publiction, and any credits / priority issues:
3.1. Yes, even if the ideas don’t work out, I will still write document(s)—after the RSI heals:
I have been pursuing QM mainly because I wanted to understand it.
It’s been a personal hobby, not a professional interest. It certainly has never been a paid effort. Even my PhD at Pune was done without scholarship / fellowship of any kind.
When you take something as a hobby, you are not terribly concerned with credits and all that…
However, at the same time, I also believe in keeping the record straight.
I therefore plan to write down all the main ideas I happened to have developed (or thought of) thus far, and upload a few documents about them at some place like iMechanica or arXiv. Practically speaking, this activity can be undertaken some time after the RSI heals.
If I have quit QM in the meanwhile, I would still write these documents to keep the record straight, but I will do it only on a part-time basis—say on a week-end day or so.
3.2. Would a late publication be “dangerous” from the priority angle?
What if someone else reaches the same conclusions in the meanwhile—i.e., before I write my documents and also upload them?
Well, I have enough supporting material already.
I have, speaking off-hand, more than 100 LaTeX pages of notes (including those on very basic topics like rotations, oscillations and waves too), almost 100 LaTeX pages of journal entries, and roughly, may be 100+ pages of handwritten journal pages, ready with me. All of these were written over the past few months alone. Then, there is a couple of notebooks from the 2017/18 times too. (BTW, these last notebooks have already begun looking somewhat funny to me!)
Speaking overall, my essential attitude is this: I thought what I thought, and there is this material to show that I did actually think what I thought. As far as I am concerned, the matter ends there.
Further, in case you didn’t notice, a major burden was already lifted when I uploaded the Outline document back in February 2019. In the 1.75 years since its writing (and uploading the same day to iMechanica), I haven’t come across any one else proposing even a remotely similar set of ideas.
So, all in all, I am in the least bothered about the priority claims and all that stuff. Which is quite to my liking, because I’ve really cared far more for understanding QM than for any priority battles.
Let me now give the much needed rest to my arm for at least a week or so.
Take care, and bye for now…
Two songs I like:
Since it’s known that I am going to be away for quite some time (RSI healing + some more time), I will mention not one but two songs this time round.
(Hindi) सुन, मुन्ने मेरे, आ मै तुझे, परियों की बातें सुनाऊं (“sun, munne mere, aa mai tujhe, pariyon kee baaten suaaoon”)
Music: S. D. Burman
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi
A good quality audio is here [^]. A rather unusual kind of a tune for a लोरी (“lori”, lit.: lullaby)…
The tune of this song is pretty complicated if you think about it. But still, if you casually listen to it, it also appears quite simple! That’s the genius of SD at work here!
… I am not sure how much of a contribution RD had for this song. The movie came in 1969, a time when RD was officially assisting SD anyway. …But here is an interesting bit.
Listen to how this tune goes in the stanza… Does it sound slightly more familiar than it should?
Well, check out how RD used very similar musical phrases in one of his later songs, viz., काली पलक तेरी गोरी (“kaalee palak teree goree”)—the song from the 1972 movie दो चोर (“do chor”). In particular, check out the stanzas of the RD song again! …Clearly, RD was inspired by SD’s original tune. Or may be not. After all, RD could have been the actual original composer of the original tune credited to SD too… Or, for all you know, someone else from their inner circle might have provided that initial spark…
All the same, I distinctly remember a certain time when this RD song (“kaali palak”) came on the radio, and almost all of us in my family had immediately made the connection to the earlier tune by SD. (To be honest, I am not fully sure whether it was the RD song that had come on the radio or SD’s. But I do remember that one of these two songs had come, that we were familiar with the other song too, and that almost all of us had immediately made the connection, and had talked about it.)
… I will “officially” run this RD song (“kaali palak”) some time later, and that’s why I won’t bother to give links and credits for it, right here. …Anyway, let’s go to the second song I have in mind.
(Marathi) निजल्या तान्ह्यावरी माउली (“nijalyaa tanhyaavaree maaulee”)
Lyrics: B. R. Tambe
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Music: Vasant Prabhu
This is an all time Marathi classic, and obviously, one of Lata’s finest. However, if you are wondering why I still put the poet’s name first, well, the reason is the utterly simple words put together in such a fine manner by the poet. … Also, notice the twist that comes in the third (last) stanza of the lyrics. (And yes, ”have I truly made you proud?” is the correct translation. It conveys the correct sense for the Marathi phrase कौतुकशी का खरी given the context. A literal translation would have gone like “do you truly appreciate [whatever I have done]?”… Think about it…)
OK. So…. Though I was going to mention two songs, now there are three songs actually. Give a listen and see if you enjoy any/all of them…
Let me now take a (much needed) break…
— 2020.10.17 11:38 IST: Original publication
— 2020.10.17 18:45 IST: Minor editing. Best to leave this post as is, in view of the RSI.