# Now I am become Bohmianism

1. About the title of this post:

Just before this Diwali, I had tweeted that I had made a resolution. The tweets went like this:

Let me note the text portions of these tweets (just in case I delete these some time later or so).

3:29 PM 13 Nov. 2020:

This year, Pune directly went from the monsoon air to the Diwali air. We seem to have tunnelled through the October heat!

3:55 PM, 13 Nov. 2020:

#Deepavali #Diwali #deepavali2020 #Diwali2020

[Diya lamp emoji, 3 times]

This is the *third* straight Diwali that I go jobless.

3:56 PM, 13 Nov. 2020:

My Diwali Resolution:

“Be a Bohmian (https://www.google.com/search?q=Bohmian+mechanics)

[Yes, there are going to be the usual New Year’s Resolutions according to the Western calender too!]

Alright.

We will come to the “tunnelling” part later. Also, the tweet related to my jobless-ness. [If the Indian IT industry has any sense of shame left at all, they would have prevented this circumstance. But more on this, too, later.]

For the time being, I want to focus on the last tweet, and say that, accordingly:

Now I am become Bohmianism.

As to the quaint grammar used in the expression, first consult this Wired article [^], also the Q&A at the Quora [^].

As to why I use “Bohmianism” instead of “a Bohmian”: Well, to know that, you have to understand Sanskrit. If you do, then refer to the Gita, Chapter 11, verse 32, the compound phrase “कालोऽस्मि” (“kaalo smi”). I just tried to keep a similar grammatical form. … But let me hasten to add that I am not a Sanskrit expert, and so, going wrong is always a possibility. However, I also think that here I have not.

Hence the title of this post.

Now, going over to the Bohmianism i.e. the Bohmian mechanics proper…

2. Material on the Bohmian mechanics (BM):

The following is a partial list of papers and other material on BM that I have downloaded. I am giving you the list in a roughly chronological order. However, my reading isn’t going to be in any particular order. I have not read them all yet. In fact, I’ve just got going with some them, as of now.

Also note, I expect that

• Some of this material might have become outdated by now
• I may run into some other related topics as my studies progress

Alright. On to the list…

2.1 Student theses:

Antony Valentini (1992) “On the pilot-wave theory of classical, quantum and subquantum physics,” Ph.D. Thesis, International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste

Caroline Colijn (2003) “The de Broglie-Bohm causal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its application to some simple systems,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Waterloo.

Paulo Machado (2007) “Computational approach to Bohm’s quantum mechanics,” Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University

Jeff Timko (2007) “Bohmian trajectories of the two-electron helium atom,” Master’s Thesis, University of Waterloo

Leopold Kellers (2017) “Making use of quantum trajectories for numerical purposes,” Master’s Thesis, Technische Universität München

2.2. Code:

Dane Odekirk (2012) “Python calculations of Bohmian trajectories,” GitHub, 12 December 2012. https://github.com/daneodekirk/bohm

2.3. Papers:

C. Philippidis, C. Dewdney and B. J. Hiley (1978) “Quantum interference and the quantum potential,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225228072

Berthold-Georg Englert, Marlan O. Scully, Georg Sussmann and Herbert Walther (1992) “Surrealistic Bohm trajectories,” Z. Naturforsch. 47 a, 1175–1186.

Robert E. Wyatt and Eric R. Bittner (2003) “Quantum mechanics with trajectories: quantum trajectories and adaptive grids,” arXiv:quant-phy/0302088v1 11 Feb 2003

Roderich Tumulka (2004) “Understanding Bohmian mechanics: A dialogue,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 72, no. 9, September 2004, pp. 1220–1226.

D.-A. Deckert, D. Dürr, P. Pickl (2007) “Quantum dynamics with Bohmian trajectories,” arXiv:quant-phy/0701190v2 13 May 2007

Guido Bacciiagaluppi and Antony Valentini (2009) “Quantum theory at the crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay conference,” Cambridge UP, ISBN: 9780521814218 arXiv:quant-ph/0609184v2 24 Oct 2009 [Note: This is actually a book.]

M. D. Towler and N. J. Russell (2011) “Timescales for dynamical relaxation to the Born rule,” arXiv:1103.1589v2 [quant-ph] 27 Sep 2011

Michael Esfeld, Dustin Lazarovici, Mario Hubert, Detlef Dürr (2012) “The ontology of Bohmian mechanics,” preprint, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Travis Norsen (2013) “The pilot-wave perspective on quantum scattering and tunneling,” m. J. Phys., vol. 81, no. 4, April 2013, pp. 258–266. arXiv:1210.7265v2 [quant-ph] 9 Jan 2013

Travis Norsen (2013) “The pilot-wave perspective on spin,” arXiv:1305.1280v2 [quant-ph] 10 Sep 2013

Kurt Jung (2013) “Is the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics really plausible?,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 442 (2013) 012060 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/442/1/012060

Samuel Colin and Antony Valentini (2014) “Instability of quantum equilibrium in Bohm’s dynamics,” Proc. R. Soc. A 470: 20140288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2014.0288

W. B. Hodge, S. V. Migirditch and W. C. Kerr (2014) “Electron spin and probability current density in quantum mechanics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 82, no. 7, July 2014, pp. 681–690

B. Zwiebach (2016) “Lecture 6,” Course Notes for MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics, Spring 2016.

Basil J. Hiley and Peter Van Reeth (2018) “Quantum trajectories: real or surreal?,” Entropy vol. 20, pp. 353 doi:10.3390/e20050353

Oliver Passon (2018) “On a common misconception regarding the de Broglie-Bohm theory,” Entropy vol. 20, no. 440. doi:10.3390/e20060440

Asher Yahalom (2018) “The fluid dynamics of spin,” Molecular Physics, April 2018, doi: 10.1080/00268976.2018.1457808. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324512014, arXiv:1802:09331v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 3 Feb 2018

Siddhant Das and Detlef Dürr (2019) “Arrival time distributions of spin-1/2 particles,” Scientific Reports, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38261-4

Siddhant Das, Markus Nöth, and Detlef Dür (2019) “Exotic Bohmian arrival times of spin-1/2 particles I—An analytical treatment,” arXiv:1901.08672v1 [quant-ph] 24 Jan 2019

2.5. Nonlinearity in the Bohmian mechanics:

To my surprise, I found that a form of non-linearity has been found to come up in the Bohmian mechanics too. I am sure it must have come as a surprise to many others too. [I will comment on this aspect quite some time later. For the time being, let me list some of the papers/presentations I’ve found so far.]

Sheldon Goldstein (1999) “Absence of chaos in Bohmian dynamics,” arXiv:quant-ph/9901005v1 6 Jan 1999

S. Sengupta, A. Poddar and P. K. Chattaraj (2000) “Quantum manifestations of the classical chaos in an undamped Duffing oscillator in presence of an external field: A quantum theory of motion study,” Indian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 39A, Jan–March 2000, pp. 316–322

A. Benseny, G. Albareda, A. S. Sanz, J. Mompart, and X. Oriols (2014) “Applied Bohmian mechanics,” arXiv:1406.3151v1 [quant-ph] 12 Jun 2014

Athanasios C. Tzemos (2016) “The mechanism of chaos in 3-D Bohmian trajectories,” Poster Presentation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305317081

Athanasios C. Tzemos (2018) “3-d Bohmian chaos: a short review,” Presentation Slides, RCAAM, Academy Of Athens

Athanasios C. Tzemos (2019) “Quantum entanglement and Bohmian Mechanics,” Presentation Slides 17 July 2019, RCAAM of the Academy of Athens

Klaus von Bloh (2020) “Bohm trajectories for the noncentral Hartmann potential,” Wolfram demonstration projects, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344171771 (August 2020)

G. Contopoulos and A. C. Tzemos (2020) “Chaos in Bohmian quantum mechanics: a short review,” arXiv:2009.05867v1 [quant-ph] 12 Sep 2020

3. What happens to my new approach?

It was only yesterday that a neat thing struck me. Pending verification via simulations, it has the potential to finally bring together almost all of my research on the spinless particles. I’ve noted this insight in the hand-written journal (i.e. research notebook) that I maintain. I will be developing this idea further too. After all, Bohmians do study mainstream quantum mechanics and other interpretations, don’t they?

Due to the RSI, the simulations, however, will have to wait further. (The status is more or less the same. If I type for 2–3 hours, it’s easily possible that I can’t do much anything for the next 2–3 days.)

OK. Take care and bye for now.

A song I like:

(Hindi) देखा ना हाय रे सोचा ना (“dekhaa naa haay re sochaa naa”)
Singer: Kishore Kumar
Music: R. D. Burman
Lyrics: Rajinder Krishan

[Another song I used to love in my high-school days—who wouldn’t? … And, of course, I still do! A good quality audio I found is here [^]. I had not watched this movie until about a decade ago, on a CD (or may be on the TV). I’ve forgotten the movie by now. I don’t mind giving you the link for the video of this song; see here [^]. (In any case, it’s at least 3 orders of magnitude better than any so-called Lyrical Video Saregama has released for any song. The very idea of the Lyrical is, IMO, moronic.)]

# Updates: RSI. QM tunnelling time.

Yes, the correct spelling of the word in the title is “tunnelling” (with a double “l”): [^].

1. Update on my RSI:

1.1. RSI :

The RSI has been waning for a few days by now. However, I am not sure if I should therefore begin my QM simulations or not. Going by how the RSI had immediately reverted its course about 8–10 days ago or so, I’ve decided to take it easy for now. This blog post itself is a “test-case” of sorts—to see how the RSI reacts.

1.2. Not quitting QM, but…:

I still have not begun simulations. It’s only after simulations that I would be able to judge whether to quit QM for a long while, or to write a paper on my new approach.

Writing documentation/paper only after conducting some simulations, might look like a lack of confidence on my part on the theoretical side. … Yes, as of now, this much is true. … Yes, by now, I’ve gathered together enough ideas about the $3D$ + spin with the new approach, but some elements are still to be worked through, especially those concerning the spin.

QM is complex. There is a pun here, but it was not intended. QM is complicated. And, very unintuitive. That’s why, building a completely new approach is difficult. It takes time, and thinking, and re-thinking.

2. Tunnelling time for quantum mechanical particle(s):

See the Quanta Magazine article “Quantum tunnels show how particles can break the speed of light” [^].

On 2020.10.26, I had noted on Twitter [^] that:

“This is actually a scenario that’s tough to get right. Wolchover’s coverage is v. good, but the intricacies themselves are such that I, for one, don’t have that feeling of being on top of it. Need to re-read.

A topic that rarely makes it to pop-sci level QM. Good they covered it”

Since then, I’ve re-read this Quanta Mag article some “two and a half” times.

I’ve also browsed through Prof. Aephraim Steinberg’s Web site in general (after a gap of may be 2–3 years), and his group’s page on quantum tunnelling in particular [^]. [I ignored his spelling mistake concerning “tunnelling”.]

I then rapidly looked through the arXiv version [^] of their July 2020 Nature paper [^]—the one which was covered in the above mentioned Quanta Mag article.

For the time being, let me note these comments (without explaining them):

2.1. Details of the experiment are quite complicated:

Understanding the details (even the more important ones) of this experiment is going to take a while.

2.2. But there is a video which explains the essential ideas behind this experiment:

A highly simplified version of this experiment is relatively straight-forward to understand. See this excellent German-language video with English subtitles [^] (which I found mentioned in Steinberg’s Twitter feed).

As to the video: I guess I had understood the points that have been covered in the video, and then a slight bit more too, right on the first reading of the Quanta Mag article (i.e., when I made the above mentioned tweet). However, I still had a lot of doubts / questions related to the specifics of the experimental setup. I still do.

My study of this work continues. Oh, BTW, I’ve downloaded quite a bunch of papers, including about the Hartman effect [^], e.g. this one [ (PDF) ^]. (Hartman, the first to publish the calculations even if they sounded very implausible to others due to their poor understanding of the relationship of QM and relativity principles, was an engineer!)

2.3. A SciAm article by Anil Ananthswamy:

Right as I was writing this post, I ran into Anil Ananthaswamy’s SciAm post: “Quantum tunneling is not instantaneous, physicists show” [^]. … Looks like it came in July 2020, but I had, somehow, missed it!

The Quanta Mag article covers a more comprehensive territory. It goes over the experiments done before Steinberg’s to a greater depth. In contrast, Ananthswamy’s article focuses more on Steinberg’s work, and is easier to understand. So, on the second thoughts, go through this article first.

2.4. Steinberg’s experiment is truly outstanding:

I think that Steinberg’s idea of using the Larmor precession for experimentally determining the tunnelling times is neat, exceptionally neat. Just how exceptionally neat?

Well, I still don’t understand the QM spin the way I would really like to (and that’s because I don’t know the relativity theory). It is for this reason that I request you to take my judgment with a pinch of salt.

Yet, within this explicitly stated limitation of my understanding, I still think that it would be reasonable enough to say that:

This experiment could easily get nominated for a physics Nobel.

Reason:

In my opinion, this experiment is more outstanding than the famous series of experiments on testing QM entanglements, as by Aspect, Freedman and Clauser, and by others [^].

If the grapevine (i.e. opinions publicly expressed around the time of announcement of physics Nobels, over so many years by now) is anything to go by, then it’s reasonable to say that the Bell experiments must have been nominated for the physics Nobel.

If you want to know why I think the quantum tunnelling time experiment is more outstanding than the Bell test experiments, then I will try to give my reasons, but at some other time. I have to look after my wrist! Plus, I think the matter is very straight-forward. There is no room in the Copenhagen interpretation to even define something like a tunnelling time. There. Right there you have something to begin with. Also try to understand the idea behind the so called “weak measurement” experiments, and the particular advantages they bring.

2.5. The relevance of the tunnelling time experiments to my research:

Faster than light (FTL) speeds for the tunnelled particle should not surprise anyone. I don’t know why some physicists make an issue out of it.

In any case, assuming a simplified and abstract description of this experiment (as in the video mentioned above), I can say that:

My new approach

• is perfectly comfortable with FTL tunnelling,
• predicts finite speeds, i.e., denies instantaneous action at a distance (IAD) for propagation of massive particles even in its present (non-relativistic) formulation.

That’s why I like this experiment. I was, in fact, looking for something on the “time taken” side, though I had somehow missed this particular experiment until the Quanta Mag ran the story.

It would be fun to develop my new approach to the point that it becomes possible to do a simulation of this experiment—at least a schematic version of it.

2.6. Should they pursue Bohmian mechanics for their simulations?

Steinberg’s group seems to have used the Bohmian mechanics for their simulations in the past. I think it’s not a good idea. See the next section.

3. Bohmian mechanics is flawed at a very basic level:

In general, by now, I have come to a definite conclusion that the Bohmian mechanics (BM) has a deep flaw in it—right at its most basic level.

So as to not stress my wrist a lot, let’s pursue this discussion in the next post (after a few days or a week).

In the meanwhile, go through this paper [^] by Prof. Travis Norsen. It’s a very well written paper; very easy to understand. It explains BM very clearly. In fact, it explains BM so clearly, in such a simplifying way, that it ends up defeating its very purpose! The author’s unstated goal here, I think, was to show that BM is reasonable. That must be the reason why he wrote this paper. But precisely because it’s so well written, you do get to understand BM very quickly. Which, in turn, makes spotting the flaws of BM so much the easier!

If you know the mainstream QM formalism well enough (especially its postulates), and if you have already thought a bit about the QM measurement problem (i.e., the “Process 1” according to von Neumann’s description of it [^]), then, it is possible to spot the essential weakness of the Bohmian mechanics just by reading only the first section (titled “Introduction”) of Norsen’s paper!

In a way, that’s why I appreciated this paper so much. In the past, I had tried to understand BM on 4–5 different occasions. But each time, I had to give up my attempt pretty soon, because I couldn’t understand the ideas like: the maths of the BM potential (after starting from geometrical optics), the physical source (if any) of that potential, etc.. … Somehow, I had not looked into this paper by Norsen all this while—the one which makes it all so easy to  understand!

So, go through this paper. We will discuss the weakness of the BM the next time. (If you know QM and are too short of patience to wait until the next post, then send me an email or leave a comment below, and I will give you an exactly one-line answer to you.)

BTW, Norsen has another paper that seeks to explain the QM spin in terms of BM; see it here [^]. I haven’t gone through it as yet, but if possible, I will try to cover it in the next post too. Or, if not in the next post, then at some other time when I discuss the QM spin.

4. My plans for the immediate future:

It was only yesterday that I began typing something in LaTeX (as in contrast to merely surfing the ‘net or tweeting). The typing was mostly a copy-paste job, plus some typing of equations in LaTeX. I pursued this activity for a couple of hours yesterday. Guess there wasn’t any noticeable worsening of the RSI today.

So, let me now try taking some notes on QM, or writing something further on my new approach to QM, or writing some Python code, from today onwards. I will be proceeding cautiously; I will not be exceeding 2–3 hours of typing per day, at least initially (over the coming few days). Let’s see how things progress.

OK, take care and bye for now.

A song I like:

(Marathi) तुझ्याच साठी कितीदा (“tujhyaach saaThee kiteedaa”)
Lyrics: N. G. Deshpande
Music: Shrinivas Khale
Singer: Krishna Kalle

[ Credits happily listed in a random order.

There are certain songs for which it doesn’t quite feel apt to say “I like this song” [so much, etc.]. A better way instead is to say this: There are some song such that, by showing how creativity and beauty can be combined with simplicity, they become some kind of a reference point for you—not just in the development of your tastes in music, but also in allowing you to grasp certain concepts like “culture” itself. And thus, it can be said that these songs have had a formative influence on you.

As far as I am concerned, this is one of such songs. I consider myself lucky to have been born at such a time that songs like these not only were being made but also were popular—at least, popular enough.

(And no, unlike many Indians/Maharashtrians who are high on culture and all, my reference points aren’t restricted to the Indian classical or semi-classical music alone. And, the set of my reference points doesn’t over-emphasize the devotional songs either. Et cetera. In fact, my referents haven’t been restricted to just the Indian songs either (as many of you might have gathered by now). …But then, matters like these is another story. Remind me some other day, when my wrist is in a better condition.)

A good quality audio for this song, appearing as a part of a collection, is here [^]. A link for a stand-alone version is here [^].

]

History:
— 2020.11.08 15:39 IST: Published
— 2020.11.09 00:53 IST: Very minor revisions/additions. Am done with this post now.
— 2020.11.10 12:08 IST: Added a couple of links for the Hartman effect.

# Update: Almost quitting QM…

1. RSI:

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 $\Psi(x,t)$ function in $3D$ 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 $3D$) 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 $\Psi(x,t)$ of the kind I have proposed; (2) the idea that $\Psi(x,t)$ is a physical field (and with a better clarity, now I can state: the system $\Psi(X,t)$ defined over the configuration space is necessarily to be seen as composed from the physically existing $1$-particle $3D$ fields); (3) the restriction of the potential energy field to only that which is associated with the fundamental charged particles (once again: the system $V$-field is composed from all the $1$-particle pairs of $3D$ 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 $1D$, spinless particles, and for a finite domain (PIB). However, for $3D$, 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 $1D$ etc. to $3D$ etc., but turns out that this was not enough.

Realize, the description cannot be just “conceptual;” its maths too must come out right.

Indeed, realize,

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.

So, there.

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

The best audio I found is here [^]. A very good quality audio, together with the original Marathi lyrics as well as a very good English translation, can be found here [^].

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…

History:
— 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.