The problem is presentation

Development of a new theory is a completely weird business.

I posted the last entry here on this blog on 21 February 2021. In that post, I talked about yet another error that I had found in my approach, and said (I quote)

This “development” implies having to draw up a new schedule. Indeed, I will have to work through everything completely afresh, find some suitable solutions to the issue that came to the notice, and satisfy myself that the solutions I now think of indeed are satisfactory. Then (or simultaneously), I will also have to write code and undertake calculations via completely fresh sets of trials. Only then will I be able to get back to writing the planned document on my new approach.

But Lady Luck had something else in Her Mind.

Right the next day, i.e., on 22 February 21, I realized that:

  • The solutions I now think of indeed ought to be satisfactory.
  • Working through everything completely afresh is going to be super-fast.
  • I can use more or less the same code, with changes to just a few lines.
  • Conducting fresh trials should not take too long; indeed the issue is similar to the error I had made on around 11th January 2021, and had corrected by 13th January 2021 [^].

So, right the same day, I went to the Twitter and posted an update. The as-posted update said:

Let me note down the text here, just in case the link between WordPress and Twitter doesn’t work at times or whatever:

Re. My blog post of yesterdays’.

The situation is actually not at all as bad as the post might indicate. I now realize that the new approach *has* to work out! (Even for the spin.)

If a PhD physicist with a good understanding of
* the QM postulates, &
* measurement expts

wishes to have a rapid (but logically complete) *preview* of my upcoming document, then, given that I can lean on *his* understanding, I could easily write a 2-page document (an extended abstract) and send it to him, say within a couple of days at the most.

Just let me know!

2:46 PM · Feb 22, 2021

My original update was a little different. I had written it in a text file, and so, it’s available. Let me quote it too!:

Monday 2021 February 22 13:58:34 IST

The situation is not at all as bleak as my yesterday’s post might indicate.

If a PhD physicist with a very good understanding of the QM postulates wishes to have a preview of my upcoming document stating the essentials of my new approach to understanding and using QM, then, given that I can lean on his understanding, I could easily write a two page document (an extended abstract of sorts) and send it to him within a couple of days at the most.

Monday 2021 February 22 14:03:19 IST

The situation has steadily progressed for the better even after then, and as of today, the situation is this.

  • I do think that I’ve got it right.
  • Even if the theory that I now have is erroneous, it’s worth writing a document and publishing it informally (say at iMechanica for externally verifiable time-stamp, and simultaneously here).

As to the nature of my theory:

  • My theory makes introduces a few completely new postulates, and views the existing postulates of the mainstream QM in a completely new conceptual light.
    • Therefore, the best way would be to present my theory as a completely new system of postulates, and not as extensions and restrictions on the postulates of the mainstream QM.
    • However, I am quite clear that my set of postulates, when taken and applied correctly, do uniquely lead to the postulates of the mainstream QM.
      • In this sense, there is no contradiction between my theory and the mainstream QM.
      • In particular, in my theory, I introduce a distinction between the dynamical state as it actually is vs. the dynamical state as it is abstractly represented in the mainstream QM.
        • I connect the two via a description of the measurement processes as they actually occur in actual experiments.
        • I also show how the implications of the measurement processes are encapsulated / represented in my theory, as in contrast to their encapsulation / representation in the mainstream QM.
    • There also are a lot of ontological issues to be clarified.
      • I am quite clear on them.
      • But the issues are quite complicated.
      • I am still working on what is more primary and what is secondary.

But there is a problem. (Isn’t there one, always?):

  • Because my new postulates “sound” very similar to those of the mainstream QM, chances are significant that people, on casual reading, might mistake them for what they don’t actually say.

All in all,

  • I am clear as to what all needs to be said, eventually
    • But this is a material that is too huge, too scattered, and requires too new a way of looking at things.
  • So, I am not at all clear in what order I need to say it, and in what way I should put it (to provide a path of least resistance to the reader).
  • And yes, I am also too close to my theory to spot any errors if they are still left
  • Another thing. I am also too ignorant of the special relativity to tell if my kind of theorization provides a nice and neat path for building a new (my kind of) theory for the special relativistic QM
    • I’ve begun suspecting that something like this should be possible
  • One final point. I haven’t studied the spin yet. However,
    • I have the right theory for the Schrodinger wavefunction operators.
    • In the non-relativistic theory, I know that the spin has to be introduced only on an ad-hoc basis, as an additional postulate.

Considering all the aforementioned points (and other, similar, issues), the bottom-line I guess is:

  • I know I have got something.
  • But I don’t know how to present it.
    • I have written 15 pages, and still not gotten through half (or 1/3rd) of my points.
      • And, what I’ve written is not very good; I don’t like it
      • I can’t go on like that—writing 10+ pages of just trial material. I need to finish this fast.

What should I do now?

I am thinking about that one too.

Yes, theory-building is a weird business. Had I known that it’s going to get this weird, I wouldn’t have ventured into it in the first place. But then, by now, it’s too late…

A song I like:

(Marathi) नवल वर्तले गे माये, उजळला प्रकाशु (“naval vartale ge maaye, ujaLalaa prakaashu”)
Lyrics: G. D. Madgulkar
Music: C. Ramachandra
Singer: Asha Bhosale

[ Not a song that’s from my top favourites; certainly not in the usual sense of the word.

But yesterday around noon time, I was lazily lying on the bed, thinking of the momentum operator and my ideas surrounding it, and I thought of a neat way to view, capture, and condense what I was looking for. So, I got up from the bed and generally began walking towards the sunlit balcony, all in delight. At that very moment, somehow, I found myself humming this song. Just like that, automatically, without any traceable reason. (Didn’t hear it on radio or so either; haven’t listened to it for years on.) Yes, even though my natural neural network classifier doesn’t put this song in the top favourites category as such, it is a good song IMO. The lyrics, in particular, are absolutely outstanding and wonderful (and note, the lyrics come from Madgulkar, not Sant Dnyaneshwar). And yes, I do like it too. …So, that’s how I decided to run it.

I good quality audio is here [^]. ]